To software engineers criticizing Neil Ferguson’s epidemics simulation code
this is quite off the mark. the author sets the bar too low for himself by criticizing the most easily (and to be fair legitimately) dismissed criticisms of the Imperial College model.<p>here&#x27;s a better laid-out critique that the OP doesn&#x27;t speak to:<p><i>The Imperial College modelers released the source code a couple of days ago to the model that shut down the world economy. It&#x27;s not the original model code but was rather original source code turned over to volunteer programmers who re-wrote it so that is more readable. I have done some model review of financial models in the past but without the source code I would not be able to do a full review of the Imperial College model. Now that we have the source code (sort of), I can.</i><p><i>Any such model ought to have been independently reviewed before it is ever used for real policy decisions. Policy analysis is awash in models but no one ever really checks them. Going forward, health policy makers should ask for and disclose independent validation of any model before using its results to make recommendations of any consequence.</i><p><i>Normally, model reviews are long technical documents but there would also be a summary section. Here&#x27;s what I think a summary should have looked like.</i><p><i>Overall conclusion: this model cannot be relied on to guide coronavirus policy. Even if the documentation, coding, and testing problems were fixed, the model logic is fatally flawed, which is evidenced by its poor forecasting performance.</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;scarlett.strong.1&#x2F;posts&#x2F;252437219500976" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;scarlett.strong.1&#x2F;posts&#x2F;25243721950...</a>