Methodological Pluralism in Epidemiology: Lessons from Covid-19

We are pleased to share a commentary published in Global Epidemiology by CPEMPH members Pieter Streicher and Alex Broadbent, with co-author Joel Hellewell (EMBL-EBI), titled The need for methodological pluralism in epidemiological modelling.”

This paper examines two high-profile failures in Covid-19 forecasting by the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), during the Delta and Omicron waves of 2021. In both instances, projections proved not only inaccurate but too vague to be practically useful—hospitalisations were overestimated by an order of magnitude, and deaths by even more.

The authors argue that a key contributor to these failures was SAGE’s reliance on a single modelling approach: mechanistic simulation. By contrast, the South African Covid-19 Modelling Consortium adopted a pluralistic strategy—combining mechanistic and descriptive methods, learning iteratively from outcomes, and achieving far greater predictive accuracy despite far fewer resources.

The commentary makes a strong case for adopting methodological pluralism in epidemic modelling, highlighting the value of multiple, complementary perspectives when dealing with uncertainty in high-stakes contexts. The paper calls for diverse methodological inputs, critical evaluation of past performance, and more open-minded engagement with data from a variety of global contexts.

📄 Read the full article here

Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable 9-10 May 2024

Registration is free but required. Register here

Going online for the first time, the latest instalment of the Roundtable brings together over fifty speakers from six continents to present the latest philosophical thinking on topics including:

  • Medicine and artificial intelligence
  • Ageing
  • Nature of health
  • Classification of disease
  • Disability and neurodiversity studies
  • Epistemic injustice in medicine
  • Medical research
  • Epidemiology
  • Population health
  • Social justice in medicine

…and many more.

Keynote speakers

  • Sandro Galea, Robert A. Knox professor and dean at the Boston University School of Public Health
  • Maël Lemoine, Professor of Philosophy and leader of the ImmunoConcept project at Bordeaux University
  • Jerome Wakefield, Professor at NYU Silver as well as an NYU University Professor with multidisciplinary appointments
  • Sarah Wieten, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Durham University

Programme

Abstracts

Publications

Selected papers from the conference will be published in a special section of Philosophy of Medicine.

Hosts

The event is hosted by the Centre for Philosophy of Epidemiology, Medicine, and Public Health, a joint enterprise between Durham University’s Institute for Medical Humanities and the University of Johannesburg’s Faculty of Humanities.

About the Roundtable

The International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable is an open group of philosophers, clinicians, epidemiologists, social scientists, statisticians, bioethicists, and anyone else with an interest in epistemological and ontological issues connected with medicine.

Registration for this conference is free but required. Register here

IFK Panel 27 May: Data and Delusion after Covid 19 – Shakir Mohammed (Google Deepmind), Chris Harley (UJ Engineering), Olaf Dammann (Tufts Public Health and Community Medicine) https://universityofjohannesburg.us/4ir/covid-19-webinar-3/ #epitwitter @mediauj

Please join us for a panel discussion on Data and delusion after Covid 19, Wednesday 27 May @ 1pm South Africa, W Europe |  12 noon UK | 7am US East Coast | 7pm Beijing China. Please “arrive” (log in) 15 minutes beforehand to ensure time for you to be admitted prior to the event as we admit participants individually for security reasons. We start sharp on the hour. To join you first need to register.

Panelists:

  • Dr. Shakir Mohammed is a Senior Researcher at Google DeepMind in London, United Kingdom (UK).
  • Professor Charis Harley is an academic based in the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), South Africa.
  • Professor Olaf Dammann is Vice-Chair of Public Health at Tufts University in Boston, United States (US), Professor of Perinatal Neuroepidemiology at Hannover Medical School, Germany, and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science at the University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway.

Facilitated by Professor Alex Broadbent, Director of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at the University of Johannesburg

Please register if you wish to watch this live. A recording will also be posted afterwards.

This is the third in a series of webinars on Reimagining the World After COVID-19, organised by the Institute for the Future of Knowledge in collaboration with the UJ Library and Information Centre on the initiative of the Vice Chancellor’s Office at the University of Johannesburg.

Data and delusion after COVID-19

An epidemic has a single centre from which disease spreads: an epicenter. A pandemic is what happens when the disease no longer spreads from a single centre but circulates and spreads throughout the population. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a pandemic of data. Data is offered, analysed, re-packaged and criticized by mighty international organisations and by tiny local outfits. Even private individuals with no prior expertise or interest in data, disease, or statistics spend hours poring over graphs and critiquing case fatality estimates.

Yet this proliferation of data and analysis has not yielded effective predictions. Instead, it has demonstrated how ill-equipped we are to deal with this new, non-hierarchical, distributed information context. Leading scientists have proved dramatically wrong. Or perhaps not – it depends who you ask. The unfolding pattern of spread still surprises us at every turn – except those who predicted it all along. Nothing is more common than the common cold, and coronavirus variants are one of its causes: yet we seem unable make reliable predictions about COVID-19.

This webinar explores a range of issues relating to data and trust in science in the aftermath of COVID-19. What went wrong with the modelling approach to prediction – if, indeed, anything did go wrong? How should policy and scientific research interact, and how should policy makers make use of data? Can people without domain-specific knowledge use data to predict better than the experts in that domain? If not, then can data analysts themselves make predictions merely by studying patterns in data? Turning to the generation of data, how does the individual interest in privacy weight against the public interest in private information, notably location, which can be very useful in the context of a pandemic?

Our improved data processing abilities did not help us as much as we might have imagined in this situation. Machine learning, in particular, thrives on spotting complex patterns in noisy datasets, and doing it fast; yet is has been conspicuously absent from the efforts to predict the course of this pandemic.

Register here