An important article from AIER. A year on we can see that Neil Ferguson's modelling was a total failure in the control countries and US states which didn't lock down. (And that's even when taking the 'Covid death' definition at face value.)

1/n https://www.aier.org/article/the-failure-of-imperial-college-modeling-is-far-worse-than-we-knew/

We now know that Ferguson seriously misled the public about the modelling of Sweden. When questioned by Matt Ridley in the Lords, Ferguson denied that his team had made any Sweden predictions, or that predictions made by an Uppsala Uni team had anything to do with his model.

2/n

But the Uppsala Uni people had used Ferguson's model as their framework.

Moreover, Ferguson's team *had* made their own predictions about Sweden, which were very close to the predictions made by the Uppsala people, and equally wrong.

3/n

From the AIER article:

>Imperial’s own projected results for Sweden are nearly identical to the Uppsala adaptation of their UK model. Ferguson’s team forecast up to 90,157 deaths under “unmitigated” spread (compared to Uppsala’s 96,000).

4/n

>Under the “population-level social distancing” scenario meant to approximate NPI mitigation measures such as lockdowns, the Imperial modelers predicted Sweden would incur up to 42,473 deaths (compared to 40,000 from the Uppsala adaptation).

5/n

>One year later we may now look back to see how Imperial College’s international projections performed, paying closer attention to the small number of countries that bucked his lockdown recommendations.

6/n

>The results are not pretty for Ferguson, and point to a clear pattern of modeling that systematically exaggerated the projected death tolls of Covid-19 in the absence of lockdowns and related NPIs.

7/n