Post by BrritSki Post by krw Post by BrritSki
This is completely scary. I'm not a lockdown sceptic - I don't think
the Gov't had much choice whatever the science said given the state
of public opinion, but that one of the major "scientific" models is
non-deterministic is simply unbelievable. Call DEVS !
I am not sure I understand all of it but the bits I do understand
imply to me that this is not entirely reliable as a way of
determining the science which underlies the political decisions.
Indeed a wet finger in the air might better determine which way the
wind is blowing!
There are so many variables, as well as unknowns both known and unknown
(to sort of quote the much-misrepresented [over this, anyway Donald
Rumsfeld), that I'm reminded of a short story called "the machine that
won the war" - I forget who by, but I think either Arthur C. Clarke or
Isaac Asimov. It starts by looking at the complex computer model that
made the decisions. It then looks at the data fed into the computer, and
the data that generated that data, ...
The last line is - "Heads or tails, gentlemen?"
Post by BrritSki
Probably best not to ask Prof. Ferguson how his finger got wet.
Nice! That might live as long as Paddy Ashdown's nickname.
Post by BrritSki
And the article finished with "Who can blame a boffin for wanting to
spend time massaging their Staats" :)
I'm a bit puzzled that _he_ is pilloried for _her_ calling on _him_; as
always, of course, the mainstream media reports don't give adequate
(any, usually) background/details.
And depressed that they kept referring to her as his "married lover".
The first word is unnecessary, and the second (unproven and) just
smutty. (I've nothing against good smut, in its place - even good porn
[and there's some very good writing there among the dross]; but its
place is _not_ when discussing public figures where it's not
_relevant_.) The use of that phrase shows that a significant part of the
media is still in the 1970s, if not even decades earlier.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]