I know it the Gran but in this article External Link/Members Only
A neuroscientist who's models about peaks have all been accurate to within a day or two, is asked the following question:
What do your models say about the risk of a second wave?[/b]
Here's his answer:
The models support the idea that what happens in the next few weeks is not going to have a great impact in terms of triggering a rebound – because the population is protected to some extent by immunity acquired during the first wave. The real worry is that a second wave could erupt some months down the line when that immunity wears off.
Thanks for the reminder about this group, I'd not spent time understanding why they're in play.
No thanks for the last several hours I've spent trying to determine their cause, see what they've been discussing and trying to understand where this Prof Friston is getting his conclusion from.
It seems Dr King set this up because he didn't like the (at the time) secrecy around the SAGE deliberations and possible influence by DC beyond the expected ministerial override of scientific advice. I can't find anything to indicate he has questions over the credentials or competence of the members of SAGE and the various committees feeding into it. However he is possibly wary of the fact that some of these specialists are paid by the Government (I haven't bothered to discover who is civil servant or Tory appointee).
It also appears this committee is an "on it's own good and honourable conscience" forum free to be at odds with the Government decision making and supposedly based purely on the science, there is no declared political bent.
As of May 4 Prof Friston did not know how much of the UK pop had been infected, he had a number in his mind but was happy to accept other significantly different percentages quoted by his colleagues, there're no subsequent data sets (or links) published to indicate where he is now taking that knowledge from. The modelling he is advocating appears to be something with more variables to consider more aspects of the propagation of the virus however all these new considerations, relevant as they are, are then populated with "inferences" i.e. best guesses.
So his model has more guesses in it covering more aspects. It appears this model is tracking actuality better than other models but there's no indication which models SAGE are using for their advice building and their (in)accuracy or irrelevance to decision making.
Whilst he indicates that this rebound may be lessened by existing immunity there's no quote as to the proportion of the population he has assumed is immune. The media are the ones labelling this resurgence a "second wave". The "genuine" second wave he refers to a few months on is based on what happened in previous pandemics and the fear is that it will be much bigger as any immunity may have worn off and there will be that many more carriers (and possibly mutations) resurging across the populace as opposed to imported by those coming from foreign places.
External Link/Members Only
