Optimism Bias

I've been on Twitter for quite a long time, but could never get to grips with it and therefore left it alone. However, I recently made a concerted effort and have been rewarded by obtaining information from the horse's mouth, which has dramatically changed my opinion of the medium. Yes, there's a lot of incoherent shouting taking place among the illiterati, but there are a few gems from people who are worth following.

I became aware of Adam Kucharski, an Associate Professor and Sir Henry Dale Fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who works on mathematical analysis of infectious disease outbreaks.

The particular Tweet that drew my attention was about the dialogue between science detractors and science buffs over the initial 500,000 death forecast for Covid and how the news media focussed on that and not the subsequent revisions of the number as mitigating actions were implemented. The 500,000 number was not a forecast of what would happen, but what could happen - if there were no mitigation. However, the 500k number is constantly used to beat science over the head, without really understanding where it came from and how the number subsequently changed. Mitigation scenario numbers were lower than the actual number of deaths.

The table above shows the mathematical modelling for the initial outbreak, showing a wide variety of scenarios. The news media naturally settled on the sensational red column and totally ignored the rest of the model and, as you can clearly see, the yellow and green numbers are substantially lower than what happened in reality.

One response to Kucharski's Tweet was particularly apposite; "The constant companion of pandemic: decision maker optimism bias." No-one can deny that Boris Johnson's constant optimism and reluctance to face up to reality - and consequent unwillingness to act early has contributed greatly to the number of dead. More battles have been lost because of over-optimism than to caution. Anyone would prefer early intervention if they're diagnosed with cancer than leaving it for a while to see what happens. Late action in the face of a problem invariably means greater and more costly action than would have been required had action been taken earlier. Remember that every bed that's used for Covid is a bed that's not available for some other deadly condition.

I was having a Twitter debate (or, rather, argument) with a chap who obviously has a downer on science and was labouring under the false assumption that I wanted a lockdown (many believe that to win an argument you should always put words into your opponent's mouth). Let's be clear; no-one wants a lockdown, but there comes a time when it's necessary for a short period, if only to afford Covid hit businesses with government funding, as that's the only way they can obtain it (yes, Rishi Sunak has released £1bn this time, but that's £6k per qualifying business, and not all qualify). This chap accused me of not being an epidemiologist, but neither was he - the key difference between us though is that I seek out the science and can read it, whereas he couldn't even be bothered to seek it out in the first place, limiting himself to newspaper headlines. You don't need to be an epidemiologist to read and understand what an epidemiologist says - all that's required is an enquiring mind and a bit of intelligence. It's simply galling that scientists can collect all this data and turn it into something I can read and understand. How dare they! They should use impenetrable language and lots of formulae in their conclusions such that only the media can interpret it.

The fact remains that sensible precautions are rendered ineffective by people either ignoring them completely, or faking tests in their attempt to assert their freedom to do whatever the hell they want, at an enormous cost to others. Those are the very people who shout loudest against lockdowns and yet, ironically, are the very cause of them.

I saw a Tweet from a media outlet that said a study had shown that having Covid reduces men's sperm quality substantially for 3 months. One wit replied that he'd had Covid and then 2 children, so it was a load of rubbish. For a start, they must have been twins, but I enquired whether he was certain he was the father....