Article content continued

Photo by Blair Gable/Reuters

That was not the case with the federal government’s best guess on how the virus is likely to play out on the health front.

Public health modelling, like public opinion polling, should be used as a drunk uses a lamp-post – for support, rather than illumination.

Scientists hate models, for the obvious reason that they have the potential to make them look like idiots in hindsight.

Horacio Arruda, Quebec’s public health director, said models predicting the course of COVID-19 would have as much scientific veracity as a horoscope – the day before releasing his department’s projection model at the behest of his premier.

Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, clearly takes a similarly dim view of the astrology of virus prediction.

As she released her agency’s data, she warned the model is “imperfect” and “not a crystal ball”.

That reluctance was reflected in a report that was, at best, confusing, and at worst, misleading for anyone following along.

The precise numbers may be as accurate as astrology but the epidemiology is not pseudo-science

The Public Health Agency was bold enough to offer a straight up prediction on how things might go in the next week – namely an increase in cases to around 27,215 from the current infection rate of 18,447, and a rise in the death count to between 500-700 from 401 on Wednesday.

After that, things got hazy.

The agency offered a range of eventualities – suggesting a death toll of 11,000, if 2.5 per cent of the population is infected, or 22,000 if five per cent of Canadians become ill. These were cited as the best-case scenarios.