Re: Not to incite a language war but apparently the Corona lockdown was based on 13 year old undocumented C-Code

[Optikos <ZUERCHER_Andreas@outlook.com>]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 3:29:13 PM UTC-5, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2020-05-13 21:58, Optikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-5, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-13 16:52, Optikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:36:15 AM UTC-5, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-05-13 1:39, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/13/20 12:20 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that it would be troubling. If you could find that statement,
> >>>>>> it would interest me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/ it says,
> >>>>> "the code produces critically different results, even for identical
> >>>>> starting seeds and parameters."
> >>>>
> >>>> While the review claims that as a general flaw, it then "illustrates"
> >>>> the claim by discussing the two cases I detailed, in particular the
> >>>> unexpected influence of the option controlling how the program "stores
> >>>> data tables". This was eventually traced to a difference in the way the
> >>>> program used the RNG, depending on this option, which then led to
> >>>> different PRN sequences, depending on this option. An error in the
> >>>> program, of course, but not non-determinism.
> >>>>
> >>>> For programs that use RNGs to drive simulations, a single extra RNG
> >>>> call, or a single omitted RNG call, will completely change the
> >>>> subsequent PRN sequence. This has no effect on the statistical
> >>>> properties of the results from many runs, but will of course change the
> >>>> results of the particular run in which the change occurs.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Initially it was claimed that this was
> >>>>> only true for multiple cores, but later that was retracted: "But
> >>>>> Edinburgh came back and reported that – even in single-threaded mode –
> >>>>> they still see the problem."
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that some users (Edinburgh) reported that the results varied,
> >>>> and reported they were using multi-core mode. The authors of the program
> >>>> (Imperial) replied that result variations are expected in multi-core
> >>>> mode; this was of course a sloppy analysis of the problem, but not an
> >>>> unnatural one. When the users reported that the problem occurs also in
> >>>> single-core mode, depending on the "data table storage" option, the
> >>>> authors found and fixed the error.
> >>>
> >>> On which date did they fix the problem?  Before or after governments
> >>> acted on the miscalculations?
> >>
> >> There has been no demonstration that the early predictions from this
> >> program, that prodded governments into action, were "miscalculations" to
> >> any significant degree, especially after the recommended practice of
> >> performing several runs and considering the ensemble of results.
> > 
> > https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19
> 
> 
> In that article, the main objection to Ferguson's model seems to be that 
> the model predicts that as much as 81% of the population would be 
> infected. But the proponents of quick herd immunity suggest something 
> over 60% as desirable, so 81% does not seem outrageous. The article then 
> complains that Ferguson's model is unrealistic because it assumes that 
> no precautions against infection are taken, neither by individuals nor 
> by governments. As I understand it, this assumption was stated and not 
> hidden by Ferguson, so complaining about it is not to the point. 
> Ferguson's point was that precautions *should* be taken to avoid the 2.2 
> million deaths.
> 
> > https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked/amp
> 
> By all means, ask Ferguson such questions, but also let him answer.
> 
> > 2.2 million deaths in the USA and a half million deaths in the UK
> > due to Covid-19 [...] were not a miscalculation, but rather a
> > perfectly accurate calculation. Okey dokey, then.
> 
> You seem to have misunderstood what we are discussing. The question is 
> if Ferguson's results were influenced by errors (bugs) in Ferguson's 
> code, not if Ferguson's assumptions or mathematical models are realistic 
> or correct for this pandemic.

No, we are not discussing only your dictates and narrow reframings.

We are discussing:

from Rick Newbie on 11 May 2020:
> There's a reason C is not used in safety critical applications.

from Rick Newbie on 11 May 2020:
> with C-Code we have a greater chance to have unmaintainable problems
> that go unnoticed. 

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 7:25:42 PM UTC-5, Olivier Henley wrote:
> Wow!  https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/
> 
> This is ugly, lol... and they give another go in C++. (facepalm)
> 
> For sure it would have fewer bugs or even no bugs in Ada.
> 
> 1. The modeling power (embedded clarity combined with capabilities/paradigms properly supported) of
> Ada has no equivalent.
> 
> 2. Nothing hard about making clean multithreading.
> 
> 3. Using object-oriented techniques for handling complexity while retaining flexibility and reusability is
> Part 3 of John English, Ada 95: The craft of object-oriented programming ... and any good undergrad
> software book written since 1996.
> 
> Other languages are underspecified, lack features uniformity, are plagued by idiom trends, and the
> average Joes inevitably pile up their own party mess by arguing their right to express their style of
> programming, more often than not, under the auspice of a god syndrome lacking frugal taste. 
> 
> Ada just cuts the crap on all of these fronts while retaining all the crucial bits of something like C and
> C++, performance and low level hand really. Is is that simple.
> 
> Governments should just force Ada on their workforce. The public pays and therefore should be entitled
> to quality stuff that compounds. If you do not want to learn it, ... like you learned Python on Youtube, on
> the job for the last 3 months, well you know where the door is.

As witnessed by the non-Holsti quotations above, we are discussing whether C is too cryptic & too ill-disciplined & insufficiently transparent for society to be making multi-ten-trillion-dollar reckless bets.  We are discussing whether having a competing model written in Ada would at least be less cryptic, better disciplined, and more transparent so that it doesn't require severely botched results for foot-&-mouth, H1N1, H5N1, Mad Cow, and now the comparable-to-the-Great-Depression economic meltdown of Covid-19 for anyone to care enough to even try to properly maintain the crappy C code the best that they can.

Conversely, the rest of us along this thread are not unrelentingly shilling in vigorous defense of Neil-Ferguson orthodoxy.