The view from Billinudgel

I see… a flattening curve
The purpose of the government’s COVID-19 modelling may not be what you expect

Crystal ball photograph by Ron Bodoh

Last week Scott Morrison finally released the government’s modelling regarding its response to the coronavirus pandemic, while assuring us in tones of unshakeable conviction that the data was irrelevant to the current situation in Australia.

He went on to add that the government would proceed with other modelling, and presumably when that too is irrelevant to the situation in Australia, it will also be released to the public.

This was not quite what the public, who had been demanding the release, had in mind. If that was what it was all about, it looked like a waste of time; the public was seeking explanations, transparency and an insight into the deliberations underlying Morrison’s somewhat confusing strategy.

But in fact it was the public who missed the point. The modelling was never intended as a guide for the masses. It was devised to give the government context and options.

Thus it was based not on the very early Australian experience but on the reactions in Asia, where the infection had first taken hold. And some of the options had horrendous, obviously unacceptable consequences.

Although that did not mean these options should be ignored; they could provide guidelines to not only what should be done but also what should not be done. And as it has turned out even the best options proved to be overly pessimistic.

It is still early days, but Australia seems to be getting through better than anyone dared hope. The modelling does not deserve so much of the credit, but at the very least it has offered us some encouragement. And this is what modelling is: not making firm predictions (although it is nice if it does) but canvassing possibilities, suggesting a range of proposals and a range of outcomes resulting from them.

It has been overhyped as some sort of crystal ball through which the future can be seen with precision and clarity, and is thus easily dismissed when it fails to deliver the certainty it never claims to offer.

The prime example is the various models that scientists use to labour over the fiendishly complex issue of climate change. They can’t produce real-time outcomes – the exact date global temperatures will increase and by precisely how much, how far sea levels will rise, the rate at which the ice shelves will melt – or address the many more questions we would like answered.

But serious scientists know that all these things are happening. And if some (but not all) of the modelling does not eventuate to the last centimetre, the last degree, the last year, well, they never said it would. But of course the denialists seize on the slightest discrepancy to insist that it demonstrates beyond doubt that the whole scientific consensus is a hoax, a conspiracy to implement a totalitarian socialist government.

Fortunately this is not happening over the modelling for COVID-19. The real-world evidence is too immediate, too stark to be wished away by nitpicking. But it may be one reason why Morrison has, until now, been reluctant to make it public and then say that it doesn’t really matter anyway. There is enough confusion already without an argument about modelling.

Mungo MacCallum

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. His books include Run Johnny Run, Poll Dancing, and Punch and Judy. Visit his blog, The View from Billinudgel.

Read on

Image of Gough Whitlam in October 1975

It’s about time

The High Court’s landmark ruling on the ‘Palace Papers’ is a win for Australian social democracy

Image of Robyn Davidson

Something mythic

For Robyn Davidson, her acclaimed memoir ‘Tracks’ was an act of freedom whose reception hemmed her in

COVID-19 versus human rights

The virus is the latest excuse for governments to slash and burn the individual rights of prisoners

Image of Energy Minister Angus Taylor.

Road map to nowhere

Angus Taylor’s road map is anything but an emissions reduction strategy