I come from the holistic medical world. People like me have always been isolated hubs trying to spread the message of looking at the big picture. Now, we are not so isolated since people like you came onto the scene with your superb and relevant skills in describing the bigger picture – and doing it in a comprehensive but concise manner. Thank you for advocating for the voiceless but harmed.
Very good - thanks Clare. Another aspect of the McNamaran fallacy is that the drive towards these unsuitable secondary targets creates the fertile ground for these catastrophe, some of which then manifest themselves as unspeakable atrocities, as moral compasses malfunction. The My Lai massacre in 1968 is a terrible example of this.
I remember watching Fergus Walsh on the BBC News in early 2020 showing a graph of Covid cases and the effect of Non Pharmaceutical Measures such as social distancing and school closures etc. He explained that these measures would “flatten the curve” but wouldn’t be as effective as the idea of LOCKDOWN! As he pointed to a flat line on the graph he excitedly exclaimed “LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF LOCKDOWN!!!”……..
……Of course what he didn’t say was that it was all based on MODELLING and ASSUMPTIONS. Covid would only flatline on the graph because that was an input of the MODEL. But it was sold to the public as essential with no mention of the catastrophic harms it could cause.
Lovely parallel construct and very useful. It also reminded me of Edwards Demming's absolute obsession with measuring data significant to task performance and quality management, and his rejection of the complacency in data measured because it was convenient and plausible.
Another valuable view from you, Dr. Craig, from your stepping back to see differently in order to learn. I think that the focus solely on measurables can be intentional in order to deceive (the self or others), or through ignorance of other factors.
The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the
most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
END OF QUOTE
Seriously!? What evidence did they have to make that statement?
A few days after Ferguson et al's report was published Public Health England reported: "As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK".
So what is going on? How could Ferguson et al's report be taken seriously? This report recommended suppression of 'the virus' "until a vaccine becomes available" - but why was a vaccine solution being pursued if COVID-19 was no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease?
It's important to reveal now that Ferguson et al's report did not disclose a significant conflict of interest, i.e. that Ferguson is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, arguably the world's foremost vaccine promoter.
Ferguson et al's report had a massive impact, also influencing modelling in Australia which put the country into lockdown and restrictions.
When is this shambles going to be properly exposed?
A useful frame; we’ve seen many of these framings over the last few years; they all point to the same conclusion. Thanks Claire for maintaining the narrative - it’s a subject that many want to forget
I think you might have been somewhat unfair to Ferguson. The numbers he used in his model in March 2020 on CFR, IFR, age stratification, time from onset to death, hospitalisation rate etc came from a paper which used data from China and a number of other locations to produce estimates. Based on that data, any epidemiological analysis using realistic assumptions would have reached similar results to those of Ferguson. Criticism of Ferguson may be better aimed at that other paper - "Estimates of the severity of COVID-19 disease", Verity et al, published in the Lancet, June 2020.
I come from the holistic medical world. People like me have always been isolated hubs trying to spread the message of looking at the big picture. Now, we are not so isolated since people like you came onto the scene with your superb and relevant skills in describing the bigger picture – and doing it in a comprehensive but concise manner. Thank you for advocating for the voiceless but harmed.
Well said, MSB!
Very good - thanks Clare. Another aspect of the McNamaran fallacy is that the drive towards these unsuitable secondary targets creates the fertile ground for these catastrophe, some of which then manifest themselves as unspeakable atrocities, as moral compasses malfunction. The My Lai massacre in 1968 is a terrible example of this.
Excellent Clare.
I remember watching Fergus Walsh on the BBC News in early 2020 showing a graph of Covid cases and the effect of Non Pharmaceutical Measures such as social distancing and school closures etc. He explained that these measures would “flatten the curve” but wouldn’t be as effective as the idea of LOCKDOWN! As he pointed to a flat line on the graph he excitedly exclaimed “LOOK AT THE EFFECT OF LOCKDOWN!!!”……..
……Of course what he didn’t say was that it was all based on MODELLING and ASSUMPTIONS. Covid would only flatline on the graph because that was an input of the MODEL. But it was sold to the public as essential with no mention of the catastrophic harms it could cause.
Figuers dont lie but lyers figuer. corrupt date in corrupt data out. ----- I, Grampa
Brilliant as ever, Clare.
Both fallacies seem to provide the underpinnings for the very worst of the "scientism" mindset.
Thank you, yet again, for your clear articulation. Always appreciated.
Lovely parallel construct and very useful. It also reminded me of Edwards Demming's absolute obsession with measuring data significant to task performance and quality management, and his rejection of the complacency in data measured because it was convenient and plausible.
Dr. Craig, you have destroyed the field of "Behavioural Economics" with this post.
100%
Another valuable view from you, Dr. Craig, from your stepping back to see differently in order to learn. I think that the focus solely on measurables can be intentional in order to deceive (the self or others), or through ignorance of other factors.
This, to a degree. also explains much of our climate policies.
The summary of Neil Ferguson et al's notorious Imperial College Report 9, published on 16 March 2020, starts: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
QUOTE:
The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the
most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
END OF QUOTE
Seriously!? What evidence did they have to make that statement?
A few days after Ferguson et al's report was published Public Health England reported: "As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK".
So what is going on? How could Ferguson et al's report be taken seriously? This report recommended suppression of 'the virus' "until a vaccine becomes available" - but why was a vaccine solution being pursued if COVID-19 was no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease?
It's important to reveal now that Ferguson et al's report did not disclose a significant conflict of interest, i.e. that Ferguson is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, arguably the world's foremost vaccine promoter.
Ferguson et al's report had a massive impact, also influencing modelling in Australia which put the country into lockdown and restrictions.
When is this shambles going to be properly exposed?
For background, see:
- Emma McArthur's email to Jodie McVernon, Doherty Institute and Murdoch Children's Research Institute including reference to the influence of Ferguson et al's modelling in Australia: https://humanityattheprecipice.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/jodie-mcvernon-is-australia-being-held-to-ransom-thanks-to-e28098scientific-fiction-by-the-doherty-institute-2-09-2021-1.pdf
Also see my emails to Neil Ferguson:
- Neil Ferguson: "...not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term..." 23 March 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/neil-ferguson-not-at-all-certain-that-suppression-will-succeed-long-term.pdf
- Neil Ferguson and Andrew Pollard sharing a taxi...? 5 August 2021: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/neil-ferguson-and-andrew-pollard-sharing-a-taxi...-1.pdf
See: The Master And His Emissary: The Divided Brain And The Making Of The Western World
by Iain McGilchrist. He provides an intriguing context for these ideas
Apologies for being slightly off-topic - Just saw Dr Campbell's clip of your speech covering the scamdemic.
Thought this might be of interest to you, around extra deaths in April 2020.
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/an-even-deeper-dive-into-the-uks
extra 40,000 deaths in April 2020 – C19 or Midazolam + morphine? What was on the death certificates as primary and secondary cause of death????
There are large differences in the increases in extra deaths per the 300 or so health areas.
All the best
A useful frame; we’ve seen many of these framings over the last few years; they all point to the same conclusion. Thanks Claire for maintaining the narrative - it’s a subject that many want to forget
This is all very well, but if I try saying 'Aramancm' to anyone they'll think I'm drunk.
There evidently was no pandemic nor any credible proof of a virus
Brilliant short piece thank you. In my internal monologue I've always referred to this as the 'quantification bias'. Love your work Clare.
I think you might have been somewhat unfair to Ferguson. The numbers he used in his model in March 2020 on CFR, IFR, age stratification, time from onset to death, hospitalisation rate etc came from a paper which used data from China and a number of other locations to produce estimates. Based on that data, any epidemiological analysis using realistic assumptions would have reached similar results to those of Ferguson. Criticism of Ferguson may be better aimed at that other paper - "Estimates of the severity of COVID-19 disease", Verity et al, published in the Lancet, June 2020.