Tren Griffin on Charlie Munger's multi-model approach

In Munger's view, it is better to be worldly wise than to spend time working with a single model that is precisely wrong.   A multiple-model approach that is only approximately right will produce a far better outcome in anything that involves people or a social system.

~ Tren Griffin, senior director of strategy at Microsoft

The Telegraph: "Neil Ferguson's Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time"

In the history of expensive software mistakes, Mariner 1 was probably the most notorious. The unmanned spacecraft was destroyed seconds after launch from Cape Canaveral in 1962 when it veered dangerously off-course due to a line of dodgy code.

But nobody died and the only hits were to Nasa’s budget and pride. Imperial College’s modelling of non-pharmaceutical interventions for Covid-19 which helped persuade the UK and other countries to bring in draconian lockdowns will supersede the failed Venus space probe and could go down in history as the most devastating software mistake of all time, in terms of economic costs and lives lost.

~ David Richards and Constantin Boudnik, "Neil Ferguson's Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time," The Telegraph, May 16, 2020

Alex Berenson on the economic damage from the coronavirus shutdowns

In February I was worried about the virus.  By mid-March I was more scared about the economy.  This isn’t complicated.  The models don’t work.  The hospitals are empty.  WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT INDEFINITE LOCKDOWNS?"

~ Alex Berenson, "Meet the former NYT reporter who is challenging the coronavirus narrative," Fox News, April 11, 2020

Tom Woods on the Covid-19 doom-and-gloom models

The IHME model has almost surely been the most influential one when it comes to estimating deaths from the coronavirus, and it was the basis of the claim by White House health officials that the United States could see well in excess of 200,000 deaths.

Since that time -- a mere week and a half ago -- the model has been revised downward twice. It's now saying about 60,000 deaths.

The response from the doomers has been twofold:

(1) "This is because we've been doing such a great job living like vegetables" -- er, "social distancing."

Nice try, but the model already assumed extreme social distancing: schools and businesses closed, and lockdown.

(2) Don't worry, everyone: the models aren't supposed to be right! And if you don't understand that, then you just don't know science, man!

Oh, sure! A model that the authorities explicitly rely on, and use to justify confining people in their homes, destroying their livelihoods, and putting their hopes, dreams, and aspirations on indefinite hold, isn't meant to be taken literally, you unscientific boob! We'll use it to scare the hell out of you, sure -- the model has to have some use -- but other than that, just roll with the punches when we make revisions downward of 25 percent in just two days. That's normal!

~ Tom Woods, April 9, 2020

Kevin Duffy: "The Covid-19 bubble is bursting"

The Covid-19 bubble is bursting as doomsayers backtrack on their death toll models.

The lesson: Do NOT trust self-proclaimed experts when a) dealing with complex phenomena, b) predicting doom, c) promoting massive government intervention, d) using simple narratives and e) gaining the attention of the crowd. At least 99 times out of 100 their fears will be way overblown and the response they're calling for far more damaging than the actual threat.

Now let's apply this logic to the climate change doom-and-gloomers ...

~ Kevin Duffy, April 9, 2020

"CDC Director Counters Media Narrative,
Predicts Covid-19 Death Toll Will Be 'Much Lower' Than Models"
The Western Journal