[LINK] The government's coronavirus modelling

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

With a PhD and 50 years experience in computer modelling, I am in no way
critical of modelling.

What I am critical of is the spin this government is putting on their
modelling.

The modelling that has been done by many others, including researchers
in Australia, is far more comprehensive and up front in its findings
than our politicians have been.

They have all been consistent with the known biology of the virus and
its behaviour in the wild.

Of Roger's "guesses" I don't think any of them apply, even (3). My gut
feeling is that the modelling they have done is predominately economic,
not pandemic, something they are embarrassed to admit to.

Which makes it a political/ideological strategy they are following. They
have been forced to implement a strategy that goes against the beliefs
of many hard right politicians who are not in favour of big government.

Ironically, taken as a whole and apart from some real stuff-ups like the
Ruby Princess, our governments and medics have done a good job so far,
helped in part by our geography.

The UK, with 2.5 times our population have had over 100 times the case
load and yesterday alone had 10 times our total death count and their PM
is in a serious way.

What matters is what happens next and the modelling did not cover that
at all. What is the plan for easing up on "stay at home", taking the
screws off businesses and opening the boarders? Scotty claims that our
government is the only one thinking 6 months ahead. That may well be the
case, but where's the thinking/modelling behind it?

We need informed debate not content free mickey mouse modelling
presentations.


On 7/04/2020 8:39 pm, Roger Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 18:10 +1000, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> >> I can't believe they have been making decisions on the modelling they
> >> released today. They may be cunning but they are not stupid.
> >> IMHO, the big questions are "What is ScoMo hiding and why?"
>
> On 7/4/20 6:59 pm, Karl Auer wrote:
> > ... I think they are genuinely concerned that if they told people
> how big this thing is and how bad it could get, they would have a
> panic on their hands.
>
> Other people's guesses might be that:
>
> (1) there are multiple models, and they paint quite different pictures
>
> (2) the model(s) deliver very different pictures, depending on the
>     nature of the data they're fed with.  That can reflect inadequate
>     models (e.g. missing variables), or inadequate data (e.g. things
>     not measured that - with 20-20 hindsight - needed to be measured,
>     data defined one way but data collected in another, data definitions
>     that changed over time resulting in incompatibilities, data that
>     no-one ever thought to define that means whatever the collecter
>     decided on an ad hoc basis it presumably was intended to mean,
>     data that was of low quality when it was collected, ...)
>
> (3) the model(s) deliver pictures that aren't consistent with what's
>     been portrayed to the public
>
> If the problem is (1) multiple models, that's normal science,
> especially in a complex, even wicked problem-space.  Try telling the
> punters that.
>
> If the problem is (2) dubious-quality and/or inconsistent data, it's a
> question of sensitivity of dependent variables to differences in the
> independent variables.  London to a brick, this one's in play.
>
> If the problem is (3) inconsistencies, it could indeed be that
> 'humanity was facing extinction'.  Or 'it wasn't so bad as to justify
> the measures that were taken'.  Given that it's been portrayed as
> 'pretty grim', the second of those alternatives is entirely tenable.
>
> I don't want to sound unduly critical of the modellers, the data
> collectors, the data analysts, the public health tsars, or even the
> politicians.
>
> This is all really, really challenging.
>
> People confuse people-made models with real-world systems, and are
> encouraged to do so.  (Run a critical eye over weather forecasts).
>
> A model is a simplified representation of some part of the real world.
>
> When we find models that are pretty reliable, we justifiably celebrate.
>
> But it's far, far rarer than the marketers (of all descriptions) want
> people to believe.
>
> </sermon>
>
>
> On 7/4/20 6:59 pm, Karl Auer wrote:
>>
>> Two things. First off, they ARE stupid. They have demonstrated the
>> depths of their stupidity over and over and over again (CensusFail,
>> water rights, climate change denial, electricity privatisation, phone
>> privatisation, NBN, RoboDebt - the list is practically endless.
>>
>> In this case, I don't think malice is behind it. I think they are
>> genuinely concerned that if they told people how big this thing is and
>> how bad it could get, they would have a panic on their hands. They
>> don't know how to release it and are terrified that if they do it will
>> show they should have done more, better, faster.
>>
>> It's paternalistic and, of course, stupid. It's stupid because the
>> modelling WILL be leaked.
>>
>> Regards, K.
>
>

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
email: brd at iimetro.com.au