Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
]Not real world - looked what happened when the Torygraph promoted the UCL model on reaching Herd Immunity recently - all the rest of Academia pointed out the flaws.
|
However the "rest of Academia" needs data to be able to do this.
Herd immunity Monday was demonstrably ridiculous because of the amount of data in the public domain - number of vaccines, theoretical maximum vaccine efficacy, knowledge that this drops with variants and the fact the textbook HIT needs an equal distribution of "immune" people throughout a population.
However to flip that on it's head what's the real world consequences of the UCL academics who came up with such a flawed paper? None. I appreciate
nobody died however it could have, despite being discredited, some impact on population behaviours going forward. The rebuttals didn't get the same prominence from the same publications.
There's enough of the population who think it's all a hoax, think it's an authoritarian Government trying to cling onto unprecedented powers that it gives those who have been in denial all along further literature to reference that we don't need restrictions.
However there will be no consequence for these academics for publishing nonsense off their own back. Now do it on the Government dime and at least you get money for it.