Covid modelling that prompted first UK lockdown based on ‘inaccurate’ case numbers

Title from Daily Telegraph article.

Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall and I refuse to pay these propaganda rags a single penny.

However, the headline speaks for itself.

Report published in March 2020 suggested more than 500,000 people could die from the virus if Britain took no action

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The MSM are now using this Ukraine scenario as a good time to bury bad news.

Of course they are reporting it but they count on people being too distracted to give a damn about what happened two years ago.

Never forget, hold them accountable.

The comments section on this article is free to read and the response is golden. Check it out.


Daily Telegraph finally admitting that we were lied to.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes


the videos from china were allowed on google 2 years ago
guess why
your post explains it well

as DJT says Its all fake news

a reply to: musicismagic

Yes.

The people dying in the streets propaganda.

I remember it well.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I believe it was pointed out that the man who made this estimate was the same one who made two other, similar estimates about how bad a disease would be and both of those were spectacular fails as well. It begged the question then, and certainly ought to now, why this man is still called an expert and anyone pays any attention to him.

I remember posting that information in the early COVID mass threads and being ignored because clearly this man was an expert, but the UK carried out a mass cow slaughter on his advice too and that turned out to be a gross exaggeration of the size of the actual problem. I forget what the other instance of his grossly inept estimating skills was, but it was just as bad.

This sort of thing is probably the opening salvos in the attempts to retcon the narrative. Democrats are going to try to convince us that they really saved us instead of wrecking us. Don't believe it. They're lying.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Bypass paywall
third time fix

In process of fixing ETA when done

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Thank you!

a reply to: Ksihkehe

A snippet:

Bob Seely, the MP for the Isle of Wight, who has been critical of modelling throughout the pandemic, said: “The arguments for and against lockdown are complex, but what is becoming clear is that the evidence that the Government saw was incomplete and potentially inaccurate. 

“This is a national scandal. No question about it. The data that petrified politicians was inaccurate.”

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I though fauci was the one that told everybody in the US that by March of 2020 1 m people were going to be dead in the US, darn I still remember that one.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I though fauci was the one that told everybody in the US that by March of 2020 1 m people were going to be dead in the US, darn I still remember that one.

Different country, same Bullsh!t narrative.

This is Builderberg nonsense trickling down.

I wonder what game they have planned for us this year...

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I though fauci was the one that told everybody in the US that by March of 2020 1 m people were going to be dead in the US, darn I still remember that one.

Here it is!

Neil Ferguson, Imperial College London

It's this guy and his team who get it wrong again and again, and yet people still listen to them and take them seriously!

When it came to dealing with an unexpected surge in infections and deaths from SARS‐​CoV‑2 (the virus causing COVID-19 symptoms), federal and state policymakers understandably sought guidance from competing epidemiological computer models. On March 16, a 20‐​page report from Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London quickly gathered enormous attention by producing enormous death estimates. Dr. Ferguson had previously publicized almost equally sensational death estimates from mad cow disease, bird flu and swine flu.

This was the guy whose model predicted slightly more than 500,000 deaths in the UK, and from there is was extrapolated out to 2.2 million dead in the US. Birx and Fauci, and through them, Trump, grabbed on to those numbers and ran with them.

What the simulation was doing was simply assuming that 81% of the population would get infected and .9% of that 81% would die with no other factors taken into account. Just flat numbers.

It did not assume health systems would have to be overwhelmed to result in so many deaths, though it did make that prediction.

They didn't even say the health systems would be overwhelmed for that. In the estimate that was going to happen regardless of the status of the health system.

The Ferguson team basically assumed no one would do anything to avoid any danger, that every infection would go on to infect a perfect 2.4 people more as a result. No one would wash their hands. No one would try to avoid getting ill in any way; no one would try to avoid making others ill in any way too. We know from reality this never happens, but the Ferguson estimate depends on it for the numbers to come true.

One of the big red flags of the Ferguson estimate should have been the assumption that it would infect 81% of the population. Spanish Flu never got more than 28%.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Ksihkehe

A snippet:

Bob Seely, the MP for the Isle of Wight, who has been critical of modelling throughout the pandemic, said: “The arguments for and against lockdown are complex, but what is becoming clear is that the evidence that the Government saw was incomplete and potentially inaccurate. 

“This is a national scandal. No question about it. The data that petrified politicians was inaccurate.”

I don't know if I should shake his hand for discovering this or slap his face because it took two years and a deep analysis. This is a global disgrace.

This is a known issue, fast data isn't good data under our current system. Good data also cannot survive incentivized reporting, as with COVID emergency funding. It is breathtakingly arrogant that Fauci and his associates thought that their data would be accurate, for the first time in history, during a poorly executed pandemic response when they're paying for positives. How much was arrogance and how much was willful blindness for his own financial benefit we will probably never know.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

when they're paying for positives.

The fact that such a thing was allowed is a testament to how the entire Covid response was a breeding ground for corruption and false data to flourish.