Australian PM, Scott Morrison, is pushing hard on the federal government’s roadmap to “re-open Australia”, be done with lockdowns and border closures, and “learn to live with the virus”.
Morrison’s plan is eminently sensible and is clearly based on the real-world experience of places like Britain and Florida. Places far harder hit by the Wuhan plague than Australia ever was or will be, but which have realised the essential futility – not to say cruelty – of lockdowns.
Naturally, those with the most to lose are pushing back against Morrison. Namely state premiers and public health bureaucrats, who’ve enjoyed virtually unlimited power thanks to the panic over the virus, while paying not a scintilla of the costs of lockdowns. None of these people have lost a single day’s work. Many have enjoyed pay rises.
So, of course, they’re ramping up the fear-mongering and hysteria. With “computer modelling”, of course.
New research shows that under the current settings, daily COVID-19 case numbers will continue to climb and could peak between 1,500 and 6,000 a day by early October.
The University of Sydney has used complex modelling to forecast the trajectory of the latest outbreak, factoring in the high infectiousness of the Delta variant, current lockdown settings and the progress of the vaccine rollout.
Computer models are not “research”. Modelling does not and cannot show that anything “will” happen. This is fundamentally fake news.
Using data available up until August 25, it found that if restrictions were fully lifted when 80 per cent of adults were vaccinated, infections could surge to 40,000 cases a day.
The modelling showed that in the following month, half a million people could become infected with the virus, even with continued testing, tracing, isolation, quarantine and international travel restrictions.
If there is one thing we ought all to learn from the Wuhan pandemic, it’s that the “predictions” of “experts”, especially those based on computer modelling, must be treated with a Siberian grain of salt.
“Expert modelling”, like Professor Neil Ferguson’s in the UK, which was the basis of terrifying predictions not just in the UK but in the US and Australia too, was yet again exposed as utter garbage. Ferguson has been repeatedly wrong about nearly everything he has solemnly prognosticated upon.
“Modelling” for Australia has been no better. Yet still we are told to “listen to the experts”.
The stark figure supports the NSW Premier and Chief Health Officer’s decision to keep some restrictions in place even after the 80 per cent vaccination threshold is reached.
While Gladys Berejiklian hasn’t outlined exactly which restrictions will stay, Dr Kerry Chant earlier this week flagged that mask wearing might remain “for years” to battle COVID-19.
ABC Australia
These people are insane.
Exactly these sorts of hysterical predictions were made in the lead-up to Britain’s “Freedom Day”, when the Johnson government lifted nearly all restrictions.
“Wildly irresponsible!” screeched the “experts”. No realistic good scenario possible, blubbered a clinical virologist. “A threat to the world! Dangerous and unethical!” shrieked The Lancet and the British Medical Journal.
So what really happened? As opposed to the “expert modelling”?
Cases in Britain fell by up to 40% a week.
The experts were wrong. Yet again.
So, why on earth would anyone keep listening to the very people who’ve been wrong at nearly every turn?
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD
