Mathematical models badly overstate ebola numbers


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science: New evidence suggests that the on-going ebola epidemic in Africa is beginning to ease, contrary to the predictions made by computer models.

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa has infected at least 13,567 people and killed 4,951, according to figures released on 31 October by the World Health Organization (WHO). Now, in a rare encouraging sign, the number of new cases in Liberia seems to be flattening after months of exponential growth. Scientists say it is too soon to declare that the disease is in retreat: case data are often unreliable, and Ebola can be quick to resurge. But it is clear that mathematical models have failed to accurately project the outbreak’s course. [emphasis mine]

The creators of these mathematical models should switch fields and go into climate change modeling. At least in that field the journal Nature would never trumpet the failure of their models to work. In climate science, the major journals do whatever they can, for political reasons, to hide these failures.

Share

One comment

  • Jake

    Is it possible that the models being used to predict the spread of Ebola were borrowed from Michael Mann’s climate change models? They don’t work, either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *