Cummins-2020-09-08 - Revision history

Alex: /* About */

2020-12-07T19:17:33Z

About

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 7 December 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	<blockquote style="background-color: #ececec; padding: 10px; border:solid thin grey">		<blockquote style="background-color: #ececec; padding: 10px; border:solid thin grey">
	The post below was written on 18 September 2020. This boxed update was written later (6 December 2020). As ~~every~~ serious ~~commentator~~ predicted, the "casedemic" in Europe and the US has since turned into a "deathdemic", with the supposedly "one-peak" northern states in the US being no exceptions.		The post below was written on 18 September 2020. This boxed update was written later (6 December 2020). As serious commentators predicted, the "casedemic" in Europe and the US has since turned into a "deathdemic", with the supposedly "one-peak" northern states in the US being no exceptions.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Alex at 20:01, 6 December 2020

2020-12-06T20:01:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 6 December 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=~~== Back to [[Main_Page\| Main Page]] ==~~=		= About =

	==~~= About ==~~=		[[Main_Page\|Back to main page]]

			<blockquote style="background-color: #ececec; padding: 10px; border:solid thin grey">
			The post below was written on 18 September 2020. This boxed update was written later (6 December 2020). As every serious commentator predicted, the "casedemic" in Europe and the US has since turned into a "deathdemic", with the supposedly "one-peak" northern states in the US being no exceptions.
			</blockquote>

			= Intro =

	This was written on 18 September 2020 in a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		This was written on 18 September 2020 in a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.
Line 23:		Line 29:
	In detail:		In detail:

	=== 1. The Gompertz Curve ===		= 1. The Gompertz Curve =

	The Gompertz curve ("the classic Gompertz curve" as Cummins is fond of saying) is a fiction of Prof Michael Levitt, the Nobel prize-winning chemist Cummins refers to at 0:50 into his video for his inspiration. To be clear, there is such a thing as a Gompertz curve, but there's no reason to believe that it fits the trajectory of the various Covid-19 epidemics around the world, and every reason to believe it doesn't. It's just numerology. (In fact Cummins mistakes the Gompertz curve, which is always increasing, for its derivative, but let's leave that aside.) In March and April Levitt simply fitted Gompertz curves to the existing epidemic curves around the world and extrapolated them into the future to get a prediction. Of course with three parameters to vary, and the general shape of a steep upslope followed by a slower downslope, you are likely to be able to get a fair visual fit to rather rough data if you fit these parameters afterwards, but this is about as enlightening as the brontosaurus theory of A. Elk (Miss) ("thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end").		The Gompertz curve ("the classic Gompertz curve" as Cummins is fond of saying) is a fiction of Prof Michael Levitt, the Nobel prize-winning chemist Cummins refers to at 0:50 into his video for his inspiration. To be clear, there is such a thing as a Gompertz curve, but there's no reason to believe that it fits the trajectory of the various Covid-19 epidemics around the world, and every reason to believe it doesn't. It's just numerology. (In fact Cummins mistakes the Gompertz curve, which is always increasing, for its derivative, but let's leave that aside.) In March and April Levitt simply fitted Gompertz curves to the existing epidemic curves around the world and extrapolated them into the future to get a prediction. Of course with three parameters to vary, and the general shape of a steep upslope followed by a slower downslope, you are likely to be able to get a fair visual fit to rather rough data if you fit these parameters afterwards, but this is about as enlightening as the brontosaurus theory of A. Elk (Miss) ("thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end").
Line 35:		Line 41:
	The fundamental point is that to the extent that the Gompertz curve fits the data at all, it is fitting the effect of the social response to the outbreak, not the natural trajectory of an unchecked outbreak. Ivor Cummins is making exactly the same mistake. This curve works to an extent so long as the the distancing (etc) measures play ball with it. But it's completely wrong to assume the infection is done when we're at the bottom of the curve. If distancing is relaxed enough the infection will certainly be back.		The fundamental point is that to the extent that the Gompertz curve fits the data at all, it is fitting the effect of the social response to the outbreak, not the natural trajectory of an unchecked outbreak. Ivor Cummins is making exactly the same mistake. This curve works to an extent so long as the the distancing (etc) measures play ball with it. But it's completely wrong to assume the infection is done when we're at the bottom of the curve. If distancing is relaxed enough the infection will certainly be back.

	=== 2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves ===		= 2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves =

	From their antibody survey, the ONS estimates about 6% of the UK has had Covid-19. It's possible the true number is a bit higher for various reasons, but there's no evidence that 20% of the country has been infected. And there is also no evidence that 80% of the population have some kind of prior immunity. (For some evidence against this idea, there are examples where the virus has circulated in a closed communities and infected most people, e.g., 85% [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161v1 on this fishing vessel] or a probable 87% [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm in this choir], which obviously wouldn't be possible if 80% of them were immune.)		From their antibody survey, the ONS estimates about 6% of the UK has had Covid-19. It's possible the true number is a bit higher for various reasons, but there's no evidence that 20% of the country has been infected. And there is also no evidence that 80% of the population have some kind of prior immunity. (For some evidence against this idea, there are examples where the virus has circulated in a closed communities and infected most people, e.g., 85% [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161v1 on this fishing vessel] or a probable 87% [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm in this choir], which obviously wouldn't be possible if 80% of them were immune.)
Line 51:		Line 57:
	As for Israel which has maybe the most pronounced second wave in the world right now, Cummins simply ignores it. I don't see how he can fit it into his model, but no doubt there would be a new idea to explain it.		As for Israel which has maybe the most pronounced second wave in the world right now, Cummins simply ignores it. I don't see how he can fit it into his model, but no doubt there would be a new idea to explain it.

	=== 3. Mortality displacement ("dry tinder") ===		= 3. Mortality displacement ("dry tinder") =

	The "dry tinder" theory. Around 2:45 into his video Cummins uses Euromomo data to compare with 2018. This is a somewhat cherry-picked year because winter 2017/18 was a bad flu season. But it's also slightly misleading for another reason: there wasn't a particular shortage in deaths in the winter of 2020 (prior to Covid). In fact it was roughly average, perhaps even a little worse than average for that time of year (depending on how you calculate the average). The trick from the Cummins video is that you are invited to believe that because the period Dec 2019-Feb 2020 wasn't as bad as Dec 2017-Feb 2018, there must have been some missing deaths. But there weren't: an average number of people died for that time of year. Another trick is that he is using the Euromomo set of countries, some of which haven't suffered particularly badly from Covid-19. This has the effect of diluting the Covid spike.		The "dry tinder" theory. Around 2:45 into his video Cummins uses Euromomo data to compare with 2018. This is a somewhat cherry-picked year because winter 2017/18 was a bad flu season. But it's also slightly misleading for another reason: there wasn't a particular shortage in deaths in the winter of 2020 (prior to Covid). In fact it was roughly average, perhaps even a little worse than average for that time of year (depending on how you calculate the average). The trick from the Cummins video is that you are invited to believe that because the period Dec 2019-Feb 2020 wasn't as bad as Dec 2017-Feb 2018, there must have been some missing deaths. But there weren't: an average number of people died for that time of year. Another trick is that he is using the Euromomo set of countries, some of which haven't suffered particularly badly from Covid-19. This has the effect of diluting the Covid spike.
Line 75:		Line 81:
	In other words, this is another lot of smoke and mirrors and does not prove what he thinks it proves.		In other words, this is another lot of smoke and mirrors and does not prove what he thinks it proves.

	=== 4. "Lockdown has no effect in preventing spread" ===		= 4. "Lockdown has no effect in preventing spread" =

	Saying lockdowns have no effect is ridiculous. Apart from the mountain of experimental evidence in the case of Covid-19, we've known for well over a hundred years how diseases spread by person-to-person contact (directly or via surfaces or through the air) and reducing contact has to reduce the rate of spread. There's no plausible mechanism by which isolating people wouldn't prevent the disease spreading. It doesn't spread by magic. We know that $$R_0$$ for Covid-19 in the UK is about 3 in the absence of distancing measures. Broadly speaking if contacts are reduced by a factor of 3 then $$R$$ should go below 1, which is what we need. We can measure $$R$$ and see how it responds to distancing measures and recently it has been going up in response to relaxation of such measures. This rise is entirely inexplicable in Cummins' view of the world where the disease is already played out and distancing makes no difference.		Saying lockdowns have no effect is ridiculous. Apart from the mountain of experimental evidence in the case of Covid-19, we've known for well over a hundred years how diseases spread by person-to-person contact (directly or via surfaces or through the air) and reducing contact has to reduce the rate of spread. There's no plausible mechanism by which isolating people wouldn't prevent the disease spreading. It doesn't spread by magic. We know that $$R_0$$ for Covid-19 in the UK is about 3 in the absence of distancing measures. Broadly speaking if contacts are reduced by a factor of 3 then $$R$$ should go below 1, which is what we need. We can measure $$R$$ and see how it responds to distancing measures and recently it has been going up in response to relaxation of such measures. This rise is entirely inexplicable in Cummins' view of the world where the disease is already played out and distancing makes no difference.
Line 81:		Line 87:
	At 12:33 he asks how can the number of deaths continue to fall even though we've been relaxing distancing. The answer is that relaxing distancing increases $$R$$, but at the end of June $$R$$ was low enough that you could increase $$R$$ and still maintain it below 1. In other words, relaxing distancing is compatible with reducing infection rates. As it is now, we are starting to see what happens when $$R$$ goes above 1: increased number of infections, which will in turn lead to an increased number of deaths.		At 12:33 he asks how can the number of deaths continue to fall even though we've been relaxing distancing. The answer is that relaxing distancing increases $$R$$, but at the end of June $$R$$ was low enough that you could increase $$R$$ and still maintain it below 1. In other words, relaxing distancing is compatible with reducing infection rates. As it is now, we are starting to see what happens when $$R$$ goes above 1: increased number of infections, which will in turn lead to an increased number of deaths.

	=== 5. "Lockdown has too much effect in preventing spread" ===		= 5. "Lockdown has too much effect in preventing spread" =

	Fast forwarding to 33:58. This is weird, isn't it? Now he's arguing that we should have let people infect each other during the summer in order to build immunity and thereby reduce winter infections. He argues it's better for people to get infected during the summer to build "T-cell, mucosal population community immunity" and we've avoiding developing the "normal, ancestral, evolutionary summer period community immunity". Ignoring all the other dubious aspects of this idea, notice how he has completely flipped from pretending that lockdown and distancing has no effect on the spread of the virus.		Fast forwarding to 33:58. This is weird, isn't it? Now he's arguing that we should have let people infect each other during the summer in order to build immunity and thereby reduce winter infections. He argues it's better for people to get infected during the summer to build "T-cell, mucosal population community immunity" and we've avoiding developing the "normal, ancestral, evolutionary summer period community immunity". Ignoring all the other dubious aspects of this idea, notice how he has completely flipped from pretending that lockdown and distancing has no effect on the spread of the virus.

Alex at 18:31, 27 November 2020

2020-11-27T18:31:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 27 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== ~~Written 18 September 2020~~ ===		=== Back to [[Main_Page\| Main Page]] ===

	This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		=== About ===

			This was written on 18 September 2020 in a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.

	Since I'm a mathematician, this will focus on the more mathematical aspects of the video. For a good critique that goes into some medical details, you can read [https://twitter.com/juniordrblog/status/1305861383607771137 this by Dr Dominic Pimenta].		Since I'm a mathematician, this will focus on the more mathematical aspects of the video. For a good critique that goes into some medical details, you can read [https://twitter.com/juniordrblog/status/1305861383607771137 this by Dr Dominic Pimenta].

Alex: /* Written 18 September 2020 by Alex Selby (About Me) */

2020-11-27T18:27:46Z

Written 18 September 2020 by Alex Selby (About Me)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 27 November 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Written 18 September 2020 ~~by Alex Selby ([[About Me]])~~ ===		=== Written 18 September 2020 ===

	This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.

Alex: /* 2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves */

2020-09-27T08:54:23Z

2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, 27 September 2020
Line 35:		Line 35:
	=== 2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves ===		=== 2. Prior immunity, infection rates, and second waves ===

	From their antibody survey, the ONS estimates about 6% of the ~~country~~ has had Covid-19. It's possible the true number is a bit higher for various reasons, but there's no evidence that 20% of the country has been infected. And there is also no evidence that 80% of the population have some kind of prior immunity. (For some evidence against this idea, there are examples where the virus has circulated in a closed communities and infected most people, e.g., 85% [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161v1 on this fishing vessel] or a probable 87% [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm in this choir], which obviously wouldn't be possible if 80% of them were immune.)		From their antibody survey, the ONS estimates about 6% of the UK has had Covid-19. It's possible the true number is a bit higher for various reasons, but there's no evidence that 20% of the country has been infected. And there is also no evidence that 80% of the population have some kind of prior immunity. (For some evidence against this idea, there are examples where the virus has circulated in a closed communities and infected most people, e.g., 85% [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161v1 on this fishing vessel] or a probable 87% [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm in this choir], which obviously wouldn't be possible if 80% of them were immune.)

	Of course if everyone were immune from the first wave, there could be no second wave. How then does he explain the second waves we're now seeing in Europe, US and Israel? He uses a variety of evasions.		Of course if everyone were immune from the first wave, there could be no second wave. How then does he explain the second waves we're now seeing in Europe, US and Israel? He uses a variety of evasions.

Alex at 23:37, 24 September 2020

2020-09-24T23:37:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 24 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Written 18 September 2020 / Alex Selby [[About Me]] ===		=== Written 18 September 2020 by Alex Selby ([[About Me]]) ===

	This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.

Alex at 22:52, 24 September 2020

2020-09-24T22:52:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 24 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Written 18 September 2020 ===		=== Written 18 September 2020 / Alex Selby [[About Me]] ===

	This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.

Alex: /* 3. Mortality displacement ("dry tinder") */

2020-09-23T18:24:35Z

3. Mortality displacement ("dry tinder")

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 23 September 2020
Line 53:		Line 53:
	The "dry tinder" theory. Around 2:45 into his video Cummins uses Euromomo data to compare with 2018. This is a somewhat cherry-picked year because winter 2017/18 was a bad flu season. But it's also slightly misleading for another reason: there wasn't a particular shortage in deaths in the winter of 2020 (prior to Covid). In fact it was roughly average, perhaps even a little worse than average for that time of year (depending on how you calculate the average). The trick from the Cummins video is that you are invited to believe that because the period Dec 2019-Feb 2020 wasn't as bad as Dec 2017-Feb 2018, there must have been some missing deaths. But there weren't: an average number of people died for that time of year. Another trick is that he is using the Euromomo set of countries, some of which haven't suffered particularly badly from Covid-19. This has the effect of diluting the Covid spike.		The "dry tinder" theory. Around 2:45 into his video Cummins uses Euromomo data to compare with 2018. This is a somewhat cherry-picked year because winter 2017/18 was a bad flu season. But it's also slightly misleading for another reason: there wasn't a particular shortage in deaths in the winter of 2020 (prior to Covid). In fact it was roughly average, perhaps even a little worse than average for that time of year (depending on how you calculate the average). The trick from the Cummins video is that you are invited to believe that because the period Dec 2019-Feb 2020 wasn't as bad as Dec 2017-Feb 2018, there must have been some missing deaths. But there weren't: an average number of people died for that time of year. Another trick is that he is using the Euromomo set of countries, some of which haven't suffered particularly badly from Covid-19. This has the effect of diluting the Covid spike.

	To check this, I made a graph [[File:mortality.png\|~~100px~~]] using what I think are reasonable methods/assumptions. Starting with the England+Wales weekly death figures (from www.mortality.org) from 2010, for each week of the year (1-52) construct the 10-year average for that week. Then plot the actual deaths and the 10-year average deaths on the same graph. You can see that from 2019 the number of deaths is just about average for the corresponding time of year, and in the run-up to Covid it's actually slightly above average, so I see no evidence of "dry tinder" here.		To check this, I made a graph (click to enlarge)

			[[File:mortality.png\|300px]]

			using what I think are reasonable methods/assumptions. Starting with the England+Wales weekly death figures (from www.mortality.org) from 2010, for each week of the year (1-52) construct the 10-year average for that week. Then plot the actual deaths and the 10-year average deaths on the same graph. You can see that from 2019 the number of deaths is just about average for the corresponding time of year, and in the run-up to Covid it's actually slightly above average, so I see no evidence of "dry tinder" here.

	If you change the assumptions, e.g. using a 5-yr average, you will get slightly different results, but in any case I don't believe you will see evidence of dry tinder accounting for more than a very small proportion of the Covid deaths.		If you change the assumptions, e.g. using a 5-yr average, you will get slightly different results, but in any case I don't believe you will see evidence of dry tinder accounting for more than a very small proportion of the Covid deaths.

Alex: /* 1. The Gompertz Curve */

2020-09-23T18:16:22Z

1. The Gompertz Curve

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:16, 23 September 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:
	On 25 July, Levitt predicted that the US would have 170k total Covid-19 deaths, which was 42k more deaths than there were on the date of his prediction. He also said the outbreak would be over in 4 weeks in the US. As of 19 Septemeber, 8 weeks after his prediction, there have been 75k more deaths and the disease is unfortunately still going strong.		On 25 July, Levitt predicted that the US would have 170k total Covid-19 deaths, which was 42k more deaths than there were on the date of his prediction. He also said the outbreak would be over in 4 weeks in the US. As of 19 Septemeber, 8 weeks after his prediction, there have been 75k more deaths and the disease is unfortunately still going strong.

	How did Levitt respond to these failures of his predictions? He did at least admit he was wrong, though he was pretty ungracious and minimised it [https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/ as you can see here], though of course that article was from the 28 August when the true scale of his wrongness was yet to make itself clear. See how he makes definite statements about [https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013/status/1287036738565738496?lang=en what ''will'' happen] without a hint of uncertainty. Such statements from such a high profile scientists have the potential to be used by Ivor Cumminses the world over and cause carnage. Yet when Levitt is proved wrong he just shrugs and says "oops", or to give you the exact quote "It was probably wrong of me to say that lockdown was a mistake. If people have done it, they should be told that it was probably a good idea when they did it, but it’s no longer necessary and there’s nothing left to be frightened of." a half-hearted apology with more disinformation tacked on the end.		How did Levitt respond to these failures of his predictions? He did at least admit he was wrong, though he was pretty ungracious and minimised it [https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/ as you can see here], though of course that article was from the 28 August when the true scale of his wrongness was yet to make itself clear. See how he makes definite statements about [https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013/status/1287036738565738496?lang=en what ''will'' happen] without a hint of uncertainty. Such (rather unscientific) statements from such a high profile scientists have the potential to be used by Ivor Cumminses the world over and cause carnage ("Who are you to disagree with a Nobel Prize winner?"). Yet when Levitt is proved wrong he just shrugs and says "oops", or to give you the exact quote "It was probably wrong of me to say that lockdown was a mistake. If people have done it, they should be told that it was probably a good idea when they did it, but it’s no longer necessary and there’s nothing left to be frightened of." a half-hearted apology with more disinformation tacked on the end.

	The fundamental point is that to the extent that the Gompertz curve fits the data at all, it is fitting the effect of the social response to the outbreak, not the natural trajectory of an unchecked outbreak. Ivor Cummins is making exactly the same mistake. This curve works to an extent so long as the the distancing (etc) measures play ball with it. But it's completely wrong to assume the infection is done when we're at the bottom of the curve. If distancing is relaxed enough the infection will certainly be back.		The fundamental point is that to the extent that the Gompertz curve fits the data at all, it is fitting the effect of the social response to the outbreak, not the natural trajectory of an unchecked outbreak. Ivor Cummins is making exactly the same mistake. This curve works to an extent so long as the the distancing (etc) measures play ball with it. But it's completely wrong to assume the infection is done when we're at the bottom of the curve. If distancing is relaxed enough the infection will certainly be back.

Alex: /* Written 18 September 2020 */

2020-09-23T18:14:53Z

Written 18 September 2020

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 23 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Written 18 September 2020 ===		=== Written 18 September 2020 ===

	This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.		This is a response to a widely-circulated [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac YouTube video by Ivor Cummins] in which he claims that Covid-19 is essentially all over, and that we've been lied to. His manner is persuasive with a kind of hypnotic lilt, carrying the air of the reasonable man wearily dismantling the establishment. His message is seductive because we'd all like to believe the pandemic is nothing to be worried about and we'd also all like to believe we have one over on the establishment who lack the perspective that we naturally possess (or who have some kind of malign ulterior motives that he darkly alludes to). Despite the fact that almost everything in the video is, I believe, completely wrong, I was actually struck by the persuasiveness of the presentation, and given how many views his video has (more than 1.2 million at the time of writing) I thought it was worth spending some time investigating its claims.

	Since I'm a mathematician, this will focus on the more mathematical aspects of the video. For a good critique that goes into some medical details, you can read [https://twitter.com/juniordrblog/status/1305861383607771137 this by Dr Dominic Pimenta].		Since I'm a mathematician, this will focus on the more mathematical aspects of the video. For a good critique that goes into some medical details, you can read [https://twitter.com/juniordrblog/status/1305861383607771137 this by Dr Dominic Pimenta].