We’re publishing a (sort of) review of a book today called Applied Wisdom: 700 Witticisms to Save Your Ass(ets) by Alexander Ineichen, a Swiss financial analyst. The review is by Edward Chancellor, a financial journalist and author of Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation (2000). The book consists of a collection of aphorisms that Ineichen has collected over the years and even though they’re intended to apply to the business of investing, most of them are applicable to speculation about the virus and its impacts. As Chancellor explains: “Both economists and epidemiologists attempt to forecast an immensely complex system, namely human society, equipped with models and data inputs that are not up to the task.” Here is an extract:
Ineichen says that markets are governed by Gump’s Law, (derived from a line in the movie Forrest Gump), which states that life is a box of chocolates because you don’t know what you’re going to get. When you next encounter someone who confidently predicts the course of the pandemic, some of the following responses might be apposite:
“Forecasting is not a respectable human activity, and not worthwhile beyond the shortest of periods.” – Peter Drucker
“The herd instinct among forecasters makes sheep look like independent thinkers.” – Edgar Fielder
“Anyone who causes harm by forecasting should be treated as either a fool or a liar. Some forecasters cause more damage to society than criminals.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb
“Many of us smile at old-fashioned fortune-tellers. But when the soothsayers work with computer algorithms rather than tarot cards, we take their predictions seriously and are prepared to pay for them.” – Gerd Gigerenzer
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Software engineer, have done some work on predicting financial markets (albeit as an amateur), and it is very, very, VERY difficult. At best you might be able to get a slight edge over random guessing, but it is small. My view is, anyone claiming to be able to do useful epidemiological modelling at anything but the most gross level is a charlatan selling snake oil.
But but if someone paid you too, would ya?
If someone paid me to do financial modelling, yes: their money, their choice. Epidemiological modelling, actually, no, on ethical/moral grounds.
Sadly, you’re in a minority. So they look for incompetent, morally bankrupt physics professors, there’s probably no shortage of those.
“a charlatan selling snake oil.”
I can’t think who you mean…
We seem to have reached a point of technological advancement where we cannot advance much further without a huge jump in AI – which quite understandably would probably decide to exterminate our (mostly) moronic race anyway. Our puny monkey brains have reached their limits, and can’t be expected to be capable of generating climate change models that need to incorporate incredibly complex science from so many disciplines that no single person could ever have a chance of comprehending.
Look the problem is not just hard it’s mathematically impossible (i.e. suffers from exponential error), so whatever buzzword -science is thrown at it won’t work.
…’which quite understandably would probably decide to exterminate our (mostly) moronic race anyway.’
Who’s to say that this isn’t already underway?
Forecasting is useful.
You get your forecasters to state their assumptions of the qualities of the epidemic and how these will change in the future. Then you wait to see if the forecasters are correct. If they’re not correct then you have evidence that their input assumptions and/or model might be incorrect.
So, let’s say that a scientist says that a pandemic can be predicted by a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) model. If it turns out that their model is incorrect then you have information that treating the disease like a SIR type disease is incorrect and might lead to serious problems if you keep on treating the disease as such.
Of course, you actually have to pay attention to the output — to keep on using the assumptions in a disease model to dictate public policy when the model and its assumptions reliably fails to predict the future would be moronic.
And of course governments would never do that! Nor would they continue with usless but highly damaging NPIs such as face nappies and lockdowns after if became clear that they didn’t actually make any demonstrable difference to the spread of an airborne virus…
Surely the only purpose for modelling is to help plan ahead! It should never be used as a tool to destroy economies, impact civil liberties or violate human rights, in fact, surely the whole point of such practices would be to help protect the aforementioned.
I’ve repeatedly asserted science is fine, applied science great for working out the best way to do something, not necessarily the right to do anything. The problem with debating accuracy/usefulness of models is advocating that we must follow the results of subjective & emotive “applied” science when likely to be true.
I disagree. It doesn’t matter what the science says, the moral question is should you sacrifice one life for another, what does the modelling say?
Sure. The science can give you information, but the decisions in the end are based on a moral framework.
The worst case scenario is where decisions are made to hide any mistakes made in previous decisions, and ‘science’ is hand-crafted to give whatever rationale is required to justify the decision. The moral framework in that case is ‘don’t get found out‘.
This approach of ‘do what you can to make yourself look right and opponents look wrong no matter what the actual reality of the situation’ is exactly what you’d expect to get if you filled the corridors of power with lawyers and PPE graduates.
Don’t be surprised if politicians play politics. I think my point is if you get bogged down in “the science” you’ll always be playing catch up.
There is a place for professionals & scientists seeking the truth, but we live in a corrupt system that doesn’t give a toss about the truth, your expertise is valued for the courtroom, but first we have to fix the corruption of the judiciary.
This is the entire justification for the diktats coming out of No.10!
Ignore the modelling – it has no morality.
The moral question of sacrificing one life for another depends on humanity – a concept which has been forgotten during the past two years.
If, in extremis, I could guarantee that my death would ensure long life and happiness for my two granddaughters I would willingly agree. But I can’t. And nor can the Government.
And so, the ultimate decision must be mine and mine alone. Will my being ‘jabbed’ preserve the lives of my girls?
Well yes, that is how science used to work by testing something was false and also comparing which ideas are less false.
But that was in the past, now we change reality (well adjust the raw data) to match the model.
I can’t seem to post anything on the previous article, but I have just found out that my son is having a non uniform day tomorrow and donating £1 to #UniteTheUniforms for the @999Cenotaph.
This hero worshipping is going too far. Completely denigrating what the actual Cenotaph is and represents. They want one for them too! http://www.999Cenotaph.org.uk/UTU
Don’t think anyone can
It certainly is. That’s appalling.
They are trying to add cops and firemen (sorry, “firefighters”) to the NHS religion. We will have to bang our pots and pans in praise of the cops who smack our heads open for protesting against lockdown as well as the nurse that stitches the wounds.
Excuse me while I throw up.
Testing testing testing
From Telegram:
From Germany: [21.11.2021 08:15] Dear friends,
I think it was a shock for many of us when the news of compulsory vaccination came today from our neighbouring country Austria.
Of course, it was clear to everyone that this was the perfect plan for Germany, and as was to be expected, our beloved Södolf also jumped on this bandwagon and demanded mandatory vaccination in our country as well, just minutes after the announcement.
But after the first short shock, when the brain can think clearly again, one thing struck me….
Why on earth does this compulsory vaccination only start on 1 February 2022????
If these tyrants are already planning to implement it, there is nothing in the world that can stop them from doing it tomorrow. No one could stop them anyway. But then why wait so long?
There is only one logical explanation to this question. The psychological pressure on the population will be massively intensified during these two and a half months. In other words, the masses of hitherto indomitable vaccine opponents will be forced to run “voluntarily” into the syringe. But why is this “voluntarism” so important to you?
The answer is very simple. As long as a person does something “voluntarily,” he bears the responsibility and liability for it. The second it really happens by official state coercion, the one who issued the order bears the legal responsibility. Legally, this is an incredibly big difference and, in the light of the possible threat of Nuremberg Trials 2.0, possibly life-changing.
So whether this compulsory vaccination actually comes to Austria in February or not, God knows. The tyrants, however, are only interested in forcing as many people as possible to be injected without responsibility.
We are in the endgame and it is only a matter of holding out until the whole sham collapses. Which will undoubtedly happen because the combination of “vaccine breakthrough” and vaccine damage can no longer be kept secret, and even the lying and corrupt mass media will no longer help. With this knowledge in mind, the criminal elites have no choice but to go full throttle. Hang in there and don’t give up is the motto now! It’s them who are running out of time, not us…
Please share this text everywhere, because ignorance and panic among the population are the elites’ most powerful weapons. We have backbone and perseverance. If we stand firm and do not give in, this entire criminal system will fall globally. And it should have been done a long time ago.
Good post absolutely right & what I’ve always thought they know they can’t forcibly stab you with the needle, these deadlines are clearly used to pressure people into volunteering, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they won’t follow through, but it is a threat not a promise.
At the end of the day it comes down to the integrity of the judicial system, governments have unlimited legal resources these strategies have clearly been scrutinized by their legal teams. So it may require more than litigation or formal trials/adjudication to get natural justice.
HOLD THE LINE!
The same though has occurred to me.
Deadline for NHS workers is April 1st, ostensibly because they cannot risk losing people over the peak scare period. Similarly for care workers, who can self-exempt to the end of the year, then have three months to get an official exception: April 1st, quel surprise!
Also, look at the “case” curve at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/austria which is already cratering, just like Bulgaria is and Romania already has (two lowest vaxxed countries). By February 1st in Austria, it will likely have gone to near zero, and they can back down (not without a lot of shouting and whatnot, but even so).
Very well said, Kate. I thought that too. I’ve been saying all along that they take people’s compliance as consent. If people stop acquiescing this stops! But the campaign of terror in the population put them in such a state of fear, they willingly handed over their freedom for safety. But many are coming out through the other side now and waking up. We MUST hold hard and stand firm.
Shouldn’t medical coercion opponents in Germany and Austria write to your GP telling them about the Nuremburg trials and how many medics were convicted for not getting the informed, witnessed & written permission of the patient!
Computerised groupthink is still groupthink. The models are designed to present the required result with a cloak of credibility. Garbage in; garbage out.
Near perfect in * near perfect model) => imperfect output * near perfect model => iffy output * near perfect model => garbage output * near perfect model
It’s worse than garbage in garbage out.
square 0.95 a few times and see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YRYF9bfOy8
Saying it like it is
The basic premise is correct and there are very close similarities between financial modelling and epidemiological modelling.
However the difference is that financial models are backtested to see if they would have correctly predicted past – and therefore known – market movements and are continually reassessed and refined as more real world data is known. The models are never static and are adjusted probably on a daily basis.
If they prove to be continually wrong they are abandoned and any modeller who consistently produces incorrect models that fail to even approximate future market movements very quickly lose their reputation if not their job.
Epidemiologists – yes you Imperial – appear to do no back testing, do not replace their assumptions and factor in real world data as it crystallises, do not refine their models when they are demonstrably wrong, retain their unsullied reputation despite the continual failures of their models and get to claim that their models are 100% accurate and that it is in fact the real world that is ‘wrong’.
Nice work if you can get it…..
No mention of the even more ludicrous climate modelling…
I particularly like the quote from Nassim Nicholas Taleb: “Anyone who causes harm by forecasting should be treated as either a fool or a liar. Some forecasters cause more damage to society than criminals”. Precisely! The SAGE modellers who consistently get things wrong should have been held to account. Why has this not happened? In my opinion, it is largely because they share the same political outlook as those who control the MSM. They are all working hard to create the authoritarian nanny state they have long craved. But I also believe the incompetent modelling will eventually be seen for what it is: the biggest scientific scandal in decades.