The objective of mathematical models of an epidemic is to predict the Infection Fatality Rate or IFR. Two extreme scenarios (and everything in between) fit the available data which as shown above is so incomplete as to be useless. In the one used by the Imperial College modellers, the fatality rate is in the benchmark of 1pc which would imply that the epidemic took off towards the end of February in the UK, and less than 10pc of the population had been exposed by time of lockdown.
In the other, the fatality rate could be as low as 0.01pc; this would require the virus to have been introduced about a month earlier and for over 50pc of individuals to be exposed by March 23.
These figures for the number of people exposed to the virius but not affected by it can only ever be pure guesswork of course. Most modellers have “fitted” their model to the , in plain English again, adjusted the algorithms to produce the answer whoever is funding the research requires from thevery limited data available on cases and deaths as reported. If fact one model used to formulate advice given to the UK government was, we are given to understan, from the Diamond Princess Cruise Liner. This corresponds to running a model of a national community based on a large number of people confined within a limited space which guarantees thel SIR model will produce an artificially high a high fatality rate – or present governments with the worst case scenario on which to formulate policies.
But how plausible is a fatality rate of 1pc? First we must remind ourselves
The author is a “a professor of theoretical epidemiology”, in plain English another academic highly qualified in the science of making things up. How much money could we save as a nation if we just stoppeed funding these parasites and the universities that employ them. So what we are prsented with is another theoretical “scientist” who likes playing around with computers and statistics despite being spectacularly unqualified to do so. More garbage in in – garbage out conclusions.
A notable feature of this crisis has been the tendency of authority to obscure the figures to suit their purposes, both here and in the US. If the university brainwashed half – wits in government want to calculatethe likely death rate from COVID – 19 and the total all cause deasths related to the pandeimic, let them find and disclose the number of people who have died as a result of the first closure of the NHS in its history. It is likely to show that more have died of the response to the “crisis” or from causes not related to COVID – 19 after having been expose to this similar to seasonal ‘flu but not as bad Coronavirus variant.
Then we should take Novartis’s upper estimate for annual flu deaths of 22,000 and then add the above figure to that, and subtract that total from the total “excess deaths” figure to find the casualty figure for which the whole country of sixty seven million has been assaulted by idiots fooled by criminals. in the UK, the virus had two or three months to spread in the population before lockdown. And yet it managed to kill only 238 healthy people under 60 in England. For context 68,000 people died in 2018 anyway. That does not suggest that this is a particularly deadly disease for healthy people up to 60, and perhaps even for healthy people beyond that age.