In the midst of this Covid-19 crisis we are being assured that the WHO, Big Pharma, Bill Gates et al can predict the future and we the citizenry had better take their word for it that massive numbers will die unless we regularly take vaccines that they are financially invested in the production and distribution of. Governments worldwide are in thrall to these people and their doom mongering predictions of imminent disaster. But take a personal moment to reflect on the history of one’s own personal abilities in the area of predicting the future and you’ll soon admit that you don’t have any. The aphorism “no one knows what tomorrow will bring” has rolled off everyone’s tongues hasn’t it? So ask yourself why on earth should anyone else’s proficiency in predictions for the future be any better than yours? Mankind’s history of predicting anything has been consistently woeful. The original basis for the current Covid-19 panic began with MSM publishing Neil Ferguson’s doom-mongering predictions of the future surrounding Covid-19. The press adored him. Governments bowed to his expertise as a subject matter expert of and he was promptly promoted to become a member of the UKs SAGE committee.

Apart from The Spectator,  the MSM were scrupulously careful to avoid fact-checking Fergusons history in this area I will cover it here. It would be hilarious if it were not so serious:

A History of Neil Ferguson’s multiple “future health scare prediction farces” over six questions he should answer:

In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

Q1. How did he get this forecast so wrong? 

In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.

In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.

Q2. Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson’s words to Hancock this morning: ‘that prediction wasn’t just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.’

In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.

It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.

Q3. Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.

Q4. Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?

Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’

Q5. Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?

On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.

Q6. How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?

CONCLUSION: Dail Eireann’s ‘future-predictions’ on ALL of the following have proven to be demonstrably false:

  1. The trajectory of Covid-19 (remember the “three weeks to flatten the curve” prediction? And all of the other predictions since then…)
  2. Covid-19 fatality rate (turned out to be miniscule)
  3. The predicted outcomes of the Covid-19 restriction measures have all proved demonstrably false.

So when will the public wake up and stop taking this nonsense seriously?