On @TimesRadio with @MattChorley just now - who for some reason invited me on as an expert, didn't like it when I challenged his flawed narratives on SAGE modelling, and then never gave me a chance to respond - and hung up on me when challenged!
This is MSM- and they are very much responsible - as I said in my interview for putting out false narratives. I mean saying that modelling is flawed because we didn't have 200K predicted deaths in yr 1 of the pandemic is just lazy. We acted- we locked down in response to crises.
What do you think would've happened had we not? There has been a lot of uncertainty in SAGE modelling, which the modellers acknowledge clearly- and media often picks on one scenario to critique them. Not even acknowledging that action was taken in response.
The SAGE *best case* scenario now says double or triple the no. of hosp will happen despite plan B. The worst case scenario is much worse. SAGE has been honest about the uncertainty, but the truth is there is no good scenario.
I know some in media want to cast doubt on the modelling to normalise the crisis we're going into. But it will be a crisis. Don't be complicit. The public needs accurate information not hopium and copium. Do your job.
And if you invite experts the least you can do is let them respond, and not hang up on them. if you do know better, than why bother having experts on at all. And yes, don't bother contacting me again.
And has SAGE modelling always lined up with predictions- more often than not at least in the shorter term. Always? no. But that's the nature of modelling- things change, and you can't predict exact behaviour- which they always acknowledge.
But does that mean that the caution they advised at those points was wrong? No. Regardless of how summer ended up, keeping mask mandates would've prevented many deaths, and a lot of long COVID. Uncertainty in modelling doesn't mean uncertainty in policy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
