the lockdown was a waste of time and could cause more deaths than saved lives, says Nobel laureate Michael Levitt.
Stanford University Professor Michael Levitt, who correctly predicted the initial scale of the pandemic, suggested that the decision to keep people within the four walls due to the spread of the coronavirus was motivated by “panic”, and not a reasonable scientific considerations.
According to the Nobel laureate, made a Professor at Imperial College Neil Ferguson modeling, which led to the fact that the British government imposed a regime of isolation, overestimated the number of victims in “10 or 12 times.”
Michael Levitt told the Telegraph: “I don’t think this lock has saved lives. I think that it could cost lives. She saved several lives in connection with the accident, and the like, but social damage – domestic violence, divorce, alcoholism – was extreme. And then there are those who are not treated for other diseases.”
who Received the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2013 for “development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems” Michael Levitt for two months said that most forecasts of experts about the coronavirus wrong.
the Professor believes that the government instead of introducing insulation should encourage Britons to wear masks and find other ways to continue to work.
on the other hand, modeling of Professor Ferguson suggests that up to 500 thousand fatalities could have occurred if no measures had been introduced social distancing.
“For unclear to me reasons, I think the leaders panicked and panicked people. There was a big lack of discussions.”
Although the 73-year-old Nobel laureate is not an epidemiologist, but he appreciated the outbreak in China in the beginning of the crisis and have made alternative predictions based on their own calculations.
Recognizing the principle that isolation can be effective, Professor Levitt describes the restrictive measures as “medieval” and said that epidemiologists are exaggerating their claims that people are more likely to listen to them.
Leavitt’s Comments came amid reports of other scientists also claim that they are unable to validate the work of Professor Ferguson.
Competing research scientists whose models gave very different results, was largely ignored by the government advisers.
co-Founder of the British company, data processing WANdisco David Richards said that the model of Ferguson was a “buggy mess, which is more like a bowl of pasta than a finely tuned programming sample”.
Richards said: “In our commercial reality, we would SW��Lily someone for the development of such code, and any business that relies on it for production software for sale, likely to be bankrupt”.