Time to stop paying good money for junk models

14 views
Skip to first unread message

JohnO

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 2:07:40 PMFeb 3
to
Even the minister doesn't believe them now:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-joy-as-border-to-reopen-but-with-a-warning-of-high-case-numbers/YHVOHODHUI4FHUDO6MAWLLTO7U/#

Over and over and over again, modelers' predictions have been laughably inaccurate. These worthless models have however, underpinned government decision making that has cost us billions of dollars. More lives will have been lost due to lockdowns than COVID itself, which has sadly cost the lives of a few people who were near their end anyway.

Serious research is now showing that lockdowns have a miniscule effect on COVID mortality.

Stop paying these idiots money for their useless models and stop giving them airtime. Hendy, Wiles and Plank are *not* epidemiologists.

Rich80105

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 3:34:14 PMFeb 3
to
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:07:38 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Even the minister doesn't believe them now:
>
>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-joy-as-border-to-reopen-but-with-a-warning-of-high-case-numbers/YHVOHODHUI4FHUDO6MAWLLTO7U/#
>
>Over and over and over again, modelers' predictions have been laughably inaccurate.
Prove it. They have not - but in some cases they have shown the
effects of particular policies, and the need for changes - some early
models demonstrated the need for lockdown, or vaccinations, and
predicted the effects - and we saw the beneficial effect in having one
of the best responses in the world - and continue to see that.

>These worthless models have however, underpinned government decision making that has cost us billions of dollars. More lives will have been lost due to lockdowns than COVID itself, which has sadly cost the lives of a few people who were near their end anyway.
Rubbish - excess mortality calculations (measuring actual deaths
against those expected though previous levels of mortality) have shown
that through the widespread infuenza vaccines in 2000, and the effect
of lockdowns in minimising Covid deaths, we actually had _lower_
deaths than normal in 2020 . . .

>Serious research is now showing that lockdowns have a miniscule effect on COVID mortality.
Crap - if you want to make such a statement, then you should give
proof. You cannot do that, so you are just an loud voice mouthing
words you do not understand

>
>Stop paying these idiots money for their useless models and stop giving them airtime. Hendy, Wiles and Plank are *not* epidemiologists.
Most modellers are not epidemiologists, but they can model what they
are asked to model, and expert commentators can interpre and give
informed comment on those models.

John Bowes

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 3:56:47 PMFeb 3
to
On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 9:34:14 AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:07:38 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Even the minister doesn't believe them now:
> >
> >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-joy-as-border-to-reopen-but-with-a-warning-of-high-case-numbers/YHVOHODHUI4FHUDO6MAWLLTO7U/#
> >
> >Over and over and over again, modelers' predictions have been laughably inaccurate.
> Prove it. They have not - but in some cases they have shown the
> effects of particular policies, and the need for changes - some early
> models demonstrated the need for lockdown, or vaccinations, and
> predicted the effects - and we saw the beneficial effect in having one
> of the best responses in the world - and continue to see that.

If you disagree Rich, it's up to you to prove the claim is wrong!

> >These worthless models have however, underpinned government decision making that has cost us billions of dollars. More lives will have been lost due to lockdowns than COVID itself, which has sadly cost the lives of a few people who were near their end anyway.
> Rubbish - excess mortality calculations (measuring actual deaths
> against those expected though previous levels of mortality) have shown
> that through the widespread infuenza vaccines in 2000, and the effect
> of lockdowns in minimising Covid deaths, we actually had _lower_
> deaths than normal in 2020 . . .
> >Serious research is now showing that lockdowns have a miniscule effect on COVID mortality.
> Crap - if you want to make such a statement, then you should give
> proof. You cannot do that, so you are just an loud voice mouthing
> words you do not understand

Again it's up to you to prove JohnO is wrong if you can. Which I'd bet your incapable of going by your past trolling Rich!

> >
> >Stop paying these idiots money for their useless models and stop giving them airtime. Hendy, Wiles and Plank are *not* epidemiologists.
> Most modellers are not epidemiologists, but they can model what they
> are asked to model, and expert commentators can interpre and give
> informed comment on those models.

Who are these supposed commentators Rich?

Now be a good little spin doctor and provide some evidence for your as usual unsupported opinion or just admit your lying to defend an utterly useless government as usual!

John Bowes

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 4:57:52 PMFeb 3
to
On Newstalk this morning Hipkins admitted modelling leaves something to be desired:)

Unknown

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 5:13:27 PMFeb 3
to
Oh wow. You really hate your heroes being knocked off their imagined pedastals.

Gordon

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 9:40:14 PMFeb 3
to
Yes, and that is for it to be taken in context. What are the assumptions?
It is a tool, one needs to know its limitations and to throw it away as
things change.

The other thing is that the "up to" phrase is used. The earthquake scienitics
say that there will be another after shock up to magnitude X with a Y%
chance in the next year. Or that Apline Fault will be a magnitude 8 within
the next ten years. At least putting some sort of range would be good.

Gordon

unread,
Feb 3, 2022, 10:08:45 PMFeb 3
to
On 2022-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:07:38 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Even the minister doesn't believe them now:
>>
>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-joy-as-border-to-reopen-but-with-a-warning-of-high-case-numbers/YHVOHODHUI4FHUDO6MAWLLTO7U/#
>>
>>Over and over and over again, modelers' predictions have been laughably inaccurate.
> Prove it. They have not -

That justs begs the question, Are you able to prove that they have not?

> but in some cases they have shown the
> effects of particular policies, and the need for changes - some early
> models demonstrated the need for lockdown, or vaccinations, and
> predicted the effects - and we saw the beneficial effect in having one
> of the best responses in the world - and continue to see that.
>
>>These worthless models have however, underpinned government decision making that has cost us billions of dollars. More lives will have been lost due to lockdowns than COVID itself, which has sadly cost the lives of a few people who were near their end anyway.
> Rubbish - excess mortality calculations (measuring actual deaths
> against those expected though previous levels of mortality) have shown
> that through the widespread infuenza vaccines in 2000, and the effect
> of lockdowns in minimising Covid deaths, we actually had _lower_
> deaths than normal in 2020 . . .

Oh how people do this. The deaths in 2020 may well have been lower than
*expected*, but you are on a hiding to nothing to prove that this was caused
by the lockdowns. Reason, the deaths might have been lower anyway. You have
no control group.

So we are left with, it looks like that x was caused by y.

>
>>Serious research is now showing that lockdowns have a miniscule effect on COVID mortality.
> Crap - if you want to make such a statement, then you should give
> proof. You cannot do that, so you are just an loud voice mouthing
> words you do not understand

Okay, start here Rich

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

which leads us to the actual report which is in the news.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Now it has not been peer reviewed and the cases they studied was reduced to
24 from some tens of thousands which has earned the phrase cherry picking to
be used by some reviewers.

Some humility would have been helpful in the response to this pandemic as
well as keeping politics out of it.

>
>>
>>Stop paying these idiots money for their useless models and stop giving them airtime. Hendy, Wiles and Plank are *not* epidemiologists.
> Most modellers are not epidemiologists, but they can model what they
> are asked to model, and expert commentators can interpre and give
> informed comment on those models.

True. However th epoint is all we got is a figure with many zeros after it,
and given as if it was the only figure as in good as gold. Without context
any figure is not of a great deal use.

Rich80105

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 3:01:21 AMFeb 4
to
On 4 Feb 2022 03:08:42 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>On 2022-02-03, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:07:38 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Even the minister doesn't believe them now:
>>>
>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-joy-as-border-to-reopen-but-with-a-warning-of-high-case-numbers/YHVOHODHUI4FHUDO6MAWLLTO7U/#
>>>
>>>Over and over and over again, modelers' predictions have been laughably inaccurate.
>> Prove it. They have not -
>
>That justs begs the question, Are you able to prove that they have not?
>
>> but in some cases they have shown the
>> effects of particular policies, and the need for changes - some early
>> models demonstrated the need for lockdown, or vaccinations, and
>> predicted the effects - and we saw the beneficial effect in having one
>> of the best responses in the world - and continue to see that.
>>
>>>These worthless models have however, underpinned government decision making that has cost us billions of dollars. More lives will have been lost due to lockdowns than COVID itself, which has sadly cost the lives of a few people who were near their end anyway.
>> Rubbish - excess mortality calculations (measuring actual deaths
>> against those expected though previous levels of mortality) have shown
>> that through the widespread infuenza vaccines in 2000, and the effect
>> of lockdowns in minimising Covid deaths, we actually had _lower_
>> deaths than normal in 2020 . . .
>
>Oh how people do this. The deaths in 2020 may well have been lower than
>*expected*, but you are on a hiding to nothing to prove that this was caused
>by the lockdowns. Reason, the deaths might have been lower anyway. You have
>no control group.
Thre was a clear drop in deaths by road accidents and from infuenza /
winter colds


>
>So we are left with, it looks like that x was caused by y.
>
>>
>>>Serious research is now showing that lockdowns have a miniscule effect on COVID mortality.
>> Crap - if you want to make such a statement, then you should give
>> proof. You cannot do that, so you are just an loud voice mouthing
>> words you do not understand
>
>Okay, start here Rich
>
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html
>
>which leads us to the actual report which is in the news.
That is in the UK, not New Zealand. The UK did not do lock-downs very
well at all . . .

Unknown

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 2:14:53 PMFeb 4
to
Why be so obtuse and rude when there is scientific support for JohnOs opinions.

https://summit.news/2022/02/02/new-johns-hopkins-study-lockdowns-have-had-little-to-no-public-health-effects-and-imposed-enormous-economic-and-social-costs/

So over to you to find contrasting evidence.

Rich80105

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 2:50:33 PMFeb 4
to
He did not give any evidence, let alone proof - You Tony have at least
attempted to below.
No need - that study looked at the UK and USA, who have had among the
worst experience. They both handled lockdowns, and indeed all
responses to Covid badly.

>
>>>
>>>Okay, start here Rich
>>>
>>>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html
>>>
>>>which leads us to the actual report which is in the news.
>>That is in the UK, not New Zealand. The UK did not do lock-downs very
>>well at all . . .
>>
>>
>>>
>>>https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
>>>
>>>Now it has not been peer reviewed and the cases they studied was reduced to
>>>24 from some tens of thousands which has earned the phrase cherry picking to
>>>be used by some reviewers.
>>>
>>>Some humility would have been helpful in the response to this pandemic as
>>>well as keeping politics out of it.

Politics do have some effect, however. For New Zealand, our response
was a combination of lockdown both internally and at the border. Yes
NZ was lucky to be able to close our border as easily as we did. Look
at results for Australia, where different states took different views.
Western Australia and Queensland had the most effective lockdowns,
also accompanied by border closure, albeit not as quickly as in New
Zealand for either policy

Our combined policy of early and hard lockdown (followed by less
severe lockdowns based on regions with infection), plus MIQ, have
resulted in a significant difference in the number of deaths in New
Zealand and the countries in the recent report. If not the government
policies, what do you think caused the much lower mortality for New
Zealand?

Have a look at the graphs of deaths per million for different
countries over time - there is no doubt that New Zealand had a vastly
different experience than most of the rest of the world.

>>>>>
>>>>>Stop paying these idiots money for their useless models and stop giving
>>>>>them airtime. Hendy, Wiles and Plank are *not* epidemiologists.
>>>> Most modellers are not epidemiologists, but they can model what they
>>>> are asked to model, and expert commentators can interpre and give
>>>> informed comment on those models.
>>>
>>>True. However th epoint is all we got is a figure with many zeros after it,
>>>and given as if it was the only figure as in good as gold. Without context
>>>any figure is not of a great deal use.

It is not clear what figure you are talking about - the models give
more than that; perhaps you were listening to the wrong media outlet -
or perhaps none of the media gave enough time for extensive
explanations.

As Covid has changed, so have our government responses (and scientific
modelling) changed. The change from Delta to Omicron is highlighting
that current data is not as reliable as it was - because of
vaccination, and possibly because of changes to the virus, numbers
will not be refelecting true numbers of people with infection; more
will be asymptomatic; more will take 2 to 5 days longer to identify
themselves as having Covid, and some may not realise they had it until
they have a test.

Unknown

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 3:22:46 PMFeb 4
to
That does not justify your abuse. Nothing does.
>
>
>>https://summit.news/2022/02/02/new-johns-hopkins-study-lockdowns-have-had-little-to-no-public-health-effects-and-imposed-enormous-economic-and-social-costs/
>>
>>So over to you to find contrasting evidence.
>No need - that study looked at the UK and USA, who have had among the
>worst experience. They both handled lockdowns, and indeed all
>responses to Covid badly.
OK so the eminent people that came up with this report can be dismissed by you,
who has zero credibility.
What a crock - you are incapable of balance and fairness.
Of course it can be extrapolated to New Zealand.
I donm't knopw who you are talking to, and cannot be bothered to find out.
But what you have written takes everything out of context and is worthless.
A fairminded person would understand that they don't know as much as the
authors of the report and should be more contrite, but not you, ever eh?

Rich80105

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 4:10:59 PMFeb 4
to
On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 14:22:39 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Context for the report was experience in the USA nd UK. The link was
however posted to nz.general, and I merely pointed out that the report
did not cover New Zealand reuslts. Your snide insults demean you,
Tony. That you are persistent in your insults reflects badly on you.

Unknown

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 4:39:31 PMFeb 4
to
You rude and arrogant creature. You were the one that was abusive to the OP,
you are the one that denied that the very learned report I posted could apply
to New Zealand.
I did not insult you, in saying that I did you are lying once more.
Go away until you grow up.
Until then you have nothing of value to write, it is your reputation that you
have destroyed.

John Bowes

unread,
Feb 4, 2022, 6:39:51 PMFeb 4
to
Please stop feeding the lying troll mate. It gets you nowhere as it's incapable of learning any facts that go against Labours erroneous mouthings!

jaouad zarrabi

unread,
Oct 4, 2022, 6:45:18 PMOct 4
to
BullionVault is the world's largest online investment gold service taking care of $2 billion for more than 85,000 users. It is part-owned by both GBIT and Augmentum Fintech plc.
Bars are stored in professional-market vaults in Zurich, London, Toronto, Singapore or New York. You choose where. Because of our size, you benefit from the low storage costs we have negotiated, which always include insurance.
You can buy large quantities while you connected to the
5 international gold markets
You can sell at any time, without penalty, and your money will be wired the next business day. You can also withdraw your bars.
BullionVault is quick and easy. You could own any quantity of physical gold and silver bullion in about 2 hours.
Insurance and storage is 0.12% per annum for gold. This is less than a third of the normal 0.4% charged as an annual management fee by most ETFs.
To start working with our company you need :
1- Open an account
2- Transfer funds
3- Buy gold, silver or platinum
4- Validate your account
To find out the prices and buy, please log in via the link below 👇
http://www.bullionvaultaffiliate.com/stars37/en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages