Reply To: SAGE : Conflicts Of Interest


Home Forums Discussion Forum SAGE : Conflicts Of Interest Reply To: SAGE : Conflicts Of Interest

#62544
Clark

Harcombe’s article is confused, contradictory, dishonest and nonsense.

She’s claiming that SAGE, particularly Ferguson, tricked the government into imposing “lockdown” to reduce the number of people getting infected, so that more people would eventually get vaccinated. But she contrasts the UK with Sweden (as do all these cranks) despite Sweden having a lower proportion infected than the UK. And she repeats the false accusations against Ferguson found on the Lockdownsceptics site.

Basically, Harcombe’s article is just a hit-piece against Ferguson built from other people’s dishonesty; not even original. Here’s a good comment thread from statistical modellers who assessed Ferguson’s predictions and code for themselves:

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/

And the ICL model was only one of several anyway:

http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y

It seems to me that Harcombe is none too honest, and just writes what she knows certain people want to hear. For instance, here’s an article in which she insinuates that the reproduction number Rt is entirely unrelated to the death rate:

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/11/uk-deaths-with-covid-19-r/

But look how she omits R (the red bands) when it was very high ie. before the first peak in deaths, and she cuts off the deaths (the blue line) just as it starts to rise again. If she’d shown this data it would be clear that in both cases, a peak in R preceded a peak in the death rate, which is exactly what should be expected.