Covid-19 Science

The science behind the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic

Why did the science fail us?

By Juergen Ude : 31st March 2021

There seems to be a belief that science is above God resulting in over-confidence in the science that was used to justify destroying lives believing that the lives saved were worth the suffering and hardship caused.

In the article, Where Did The Science Fail Us?, it was explained how bad the pandemic science was. This section will provide an insight into why the science was incompetent and even missing. How can we have justified hurting billions of people based on incompetent science? What has happened is unconscionable.

What is science? Why do we have so much misguided faith in science?

The following is an opinion based on 30 years real-world experience, university lecturing experience, and up-to PhD qualifications in statistics, data science and computer modelling.

Humanity has certainly benefited from science. Science is a good thing, but only in the right hands. Most of humanities achievements were the result of a handful individuals and no more. Many of these did not have academic qualifications, and instead achieved what has changed our lives through passion, belief and bumbling and fumbling. An example is Thomas Edison who was self-taught.

The following discusses academic thinking, incompetence and bias and short sightedness amongst academic based experts, whose only real-world experience is controlled research, based on assumptions and often conducted by students. But there are many highly intelligent academics with real world experience who do not fall in these categories. These real-world experts, as we have, have at the very beginning warned that the virus is here to stay, and has probably always existed, we just did not test for it. These real-world experts have warned that vaccines are not the solution. The Corona Virus is of the family of the common cold, for which no vaccine has been found and even the seasonal flu is not fully controlled by vaccines. Yet these experts have been ridiculed and called outrageous at the onset of the pandemic. Only now are political leaders realizing that things are not so simple, but for some reason are trying to convince us that they always knew there would be difficulties.

The German translation for science is ‘Wissenschaft’, which simply means the study of knowledge. Without knowledge we cannot make sound decisions. The problem is that the real world is so complex that we as human beings we will never have full knowledge of reality and hence having blind faith in science is foolish and dangerous and has arguably resulted in our lives being destroyed. Old school scientists knew of their limitations, but the new, ‘Ipad/tablet’ taught experts seem to be blinded to realities of life.

When we talk about bad science we are talking about the scientific process. The scientific process is about a reliable way of enhancing knowledge. Ignoring the scientific process is equally foolish to blind faith in science. The scientific process is about making hypothesis and using these to make predictions which are verified through experiments and empirical observations. What indisputable empirical experiments were performed to conclude that Covid is deadly? We cannot rely on reported deaths in Europe and the USA. Reported deaths are not evidence based deaths. We cannot rely on registered deaths because we may have caused many deaths through incompetence, overreaction, fear and panic. We are not Europe. We are not the USA. The USA has a high prevalence of health problems such as obesity and it has a health system problem. Decisions have been based on numbers only, not what we call real unbiased science.

The scientific process cannot be disputed. The problem is the human element. Negative human elements consist of conceit, ego, bias, lack of intelligence, and incompetence. Throughout the Covid pandemic there has been an assumption that these negative elements are absent. That is being real-world naïve. Human beings are driven by self-interest which manifests itself through conceit, ego and bias.

Over 30 years ago, whilst part of a university the difference between soft science and hard science was understood, but with time, we noticed an ego driven drive by soft science departments to convert their course content to hard science status. The consequence of this trend is that modern scientists have forgotten the difference between soft science and hard science. Every aspect of the pandemic is soft science.

The difference is not about easy and difficult science, but hard set-in-concrete conclusions and just possibilities. Soft science subjects, which includes virology, epidemiology, data science, statistics, psychology cannot be treated as if they were hard science. Twisting reality is insanity. No conclusion, no matter how diligent the scientific process can be relied on. All that the research performed by these experts can achieve is provide insights, ranging from unreliable to useful. Yet our political leaders and health advisers have treated conclusions about Covid-19 as set in concrete.

We have noticed a deterioration in education standards over the years. University education is an export earner and universities need to ensure sufficient students pass, or overseas parents will not invest in the education of their children. Having a qualification has lost its value. It is no longer guarantees competency.

Just because an expert from a reputable university is used as an adviser does not mean the advice is competent and balanced. Most specialists are highly biased around their area of expertise. The medial experts used were focused only on saving lives, without any regard to living. That is wrong. It is easy for them to make decisions that result in job losses, because their jobs are secure. Would advisers have made the same recommendations if their jobs were at stake?

We have always sacrificed lives to fight for freedom. What animal, if it could, would choose captivity just to extend its life. There is little life for a cockatoo who lives for up to 100 years in a cage. No wonder the cockatoo will pluck its feathers. That is what one sided experts who are unable to able to think beyond their area of expertise have done to many people. Some have taken their lives.

BIS.Net Analyst Change Analysis used in Covid-19 analysis

The above cockatoo may have its life extended by 30 years, but is it a life?

In a class of 100 students, only a small handful of students understand the material they are taught. Yet today we are supposed to follow the advice of the majority of experts, who based on our university learned reality, do not really understand life’s reality’s.

Many (not all) of the experts who advised how governments should respond to the pandemic came from an academic background. Life is far more complicated than academic thinking can conceptualize. Accademia has its place to prepare students for the real world, but then these students must add to this with real world experience. Once honed with real world experience these experts are the ones that must be listen to. Yet, these people are being censored.

Scientific conceit and bias are a major issue. One must read the many academic papers to note that the focus is on complexity to be seen as smart. Smart is about keeping things simple not complicated. Complexity is a sign of mediocracy.

Competence has been ignored. Leaders assume that their advisers are highly competent, possibly because of their many scientific publications, which mean little in the real world. Papers do not demonstrate real-world understanding. Only years of experience in the real world does.

Perhaps, the above is unfair to some advisers and apologies are given. There are great academic experts who have joined universities after decades of real-world experience. But, the fact is that there has been no demonstrated competence throughout the pandemic. We used models to prove deadliness which is scientific nonsense. Cases without factoring test numbers were creatin unnecessary panic. Definitions for Covid deaths were effectively about dying with Covid, not from. That is deceptive.

We jumped to conclusions. We only had a simple ‘caveman’ objective. We must save lives. Evidence was anything that supported our biased theories. Real-world scientists know that association of events with theory and correlations cannot be used to assume causality. We have resorted to knee jerk reactions now, which can hardly be called scientific. We have been blinded by our own propaganda.

Saving lives should never be the overriding priority. Living, which includes saving lives is. The current breed of science experts used to drive the responses did not have the competency to offer multi-objective solutions.

So, we now believe that the virus is deadlier than the flu, ready to pounce across corridors, ready to kill young and old alike. Yet there is no evidence. But the experts will use fact sheets to disagree, and yet these fact sheets are often based on flawed science.

We want to believe in the deadly virus. Yet, we need to open our eyes if we have a conscience. Here in Australia there is talk of no longer using case reporting after vaccination. Will this be the way to disguise the fact that a terrible mistake was made? Case reporting should never have been the basis for reporting the severity of the pandemic. Every year over 12 million people are infected with a common cold virus and who knows truly how many flu infections there are. Cases mean nothing. Changes in registered deaths are the only reliable way of reporting on the severity. Australia has had no changes at its peak prior to lockdown. ICU admissions are important, but not a flawless metric because admissions depend on the competency of the doctor’s assessment. Fear and Panic can result in unnecessary ICU treatment.

More and more anecdotal evidence from hospitals and nursing homes confirms the possibility that people have died, not because of the virus, but our reactions. More and more anecdotal ‘evidence’ is appearing that hospitals and nursing homes have exaggerated and staged deaths to get more funding. There is reasonable evidence supported by a medical Doctor that nursing homes have administered morphine in patients who had no symptoms. Nurses have stated that most patients who allegedly died of the virus were already on the death bed. If this is proven, and we have not scientifically proven it, than we have an unconscionable situation that someone must one day be held accountable for. Even though we have not scientifically proven this the anecdotal evidence is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

In the meanwhile, after only a few months China is enjoying life.

BIS.Net Analyst Change Analysis used in Covid-19 analysis

Australia, an island, with no change in registered deaths is still living in fear over the next lockdown based on only one case. Events are cancelled that people were looking forward to. What a life! Australian experts seem to believe that zero cases mean no cases. They do not understand sampling. Zero cases do not mean zero infections, so reacting when there is one case is unscientific. There is better science available to base decisions on.

Currently there is little hope with the blindness caused by covid propaganda believing in the science. when the science cannot possibly be reliable since we are talking about soft science.

It all comes back to conscience and honesty and understanding Science is not above God.

Covid-19 Analysis Report

Download the 40,000+ word analysis report on the science behind the response to the pandemic. AND/OR download the Open Letter attentioned to the world leaders.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Juergen Ude has a certificate in applied chemistry, a degree in applied science majoring in statistics and operations research as top student, a masters in economics with high distinctions in every subject, and a PhD in computer modelling and algorithms. He has lectured at Monash University on subjects of data analysis, computer modelling, and quality & reliability.

Prior to founding his own company (Qtech International Pty Ltd), Dr Ude worked as a statistician and operations researcher for 18 years in management roles having saved employers millions of dollars through his AI and ML algorithms. Through Qtech International, Dr Ude has developed data analysis solutions in over 40 countries for leading corporations such as Alcoa, Black and Decker, Coca-Cola Amatil, US Vision and many more. Additionally he has developed campaign analysis software for politicians.