Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 June 2020 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Anja Aucamp
Herkulaas Combrink.

A lot can be said about forecasting and modelling, its accuracy, and how it works. Forecasting and modelling provide any decision-maker with plausible predictions or outcomes to give some kind of estimated consequence. Without this field of science, planning would be difficult, as one would simply make decisions without knowing what might potentially happen to a specific cohort, market, or product. Forecasting as a concept can be seen as a set of mathematical, statistical and/or computational tools applied to a set of assumptions about something.

This is according to Herkulaas Combrink of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at the University of the Free State (UFS) and PhD candidate in Computer Science at the University of Pretoria (UP), following the South African government’s modelling of how many people would contract COVID-19 and die, which has come under fire in recent times – with one expert saying it was “flawed and illogical and made wild assumptions”. 

Combrink is of the opinion that South Africa – by using the MASHA Consortium – is using the best minds that the country has to offer. The fact that the leadership took a pragmatic stance and reached out to the scientific community has mitigated a medical disaster in a healthcare system that was not ready a few months ago.

“The government is looking at as many models as they can, but is working very closely with MASHA and the CSIR” says Combrink, who has been involved in clinical surveillance, and also forms part of the modelling team during his secondment to the Free State Department of Health. 

Prof Shabhir Madhi, the former head of the SA National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), recently said that the initial modelling and fatality estimates were “back-of-envelope calculations”.

According to a news report, the government’s initial model also predicted that 600 COVID-19 patients would need treatment in intensive care units (ICU) in SA by April 1. But by April 18, the last publicly released figures showed that there were 32 COVID-19 patients in ICU.

Tried-and-tested models
The models currently used are tried-and-tested epidemiological models, mathematical models, and economic forecasting models that have been used in the past. It has now been calibrated to the specifications that we know of this disease, which come from publications. The reason why you would use more than one model is to compare models retrospectively, so that you can see what is going on.

“The government immediately reached out to the best minds in the country, and with the aid of the consortium, took a stance to throw scenarios at the different models and stress test them so that they could know that they are using the best possible models to assist in resource management and decision-making. If government responded in a different way and didn’t reach out, we might not have had a lockdown and subsequently would probably have been in a different position where the country wouldn’t be ready.” 

“We can say with a high degree of confidence that the lockdown really helps to ease and flatten the curve in the country. In light of flattening the curve, the right decisions have been made,” says Combrink.

COVID-19 still new
Unfortunately, says Combrink, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was not enough information related to the disease assumptions and it lacked the rigour and perfection associated with the already existing prediction models. Although it may feel like a lifetime, the first COVID-19 case was only reported in December 2019. Add to this that not all the parameters related to the disease were known in January, it was challenging to determine all the ‘ins and outs’ of this disease. 

“Luckily, the mathematics and statistics of an outbreak have been extensively studied, and as a result, we only needed to use the correct parameters to estimate the spread of the disease in some of the outbreak models. The Minister of Health, Dr Zweli Mkhize, and the national modellers led by Dr Harry Moultrie, were transparent with not only their projections, but also how they derived their conclusions and what parameters they used,” says Combrink.

The most important thing in modelling is to calibrate according to what is known about the disease and people, explains Combrink. “It is impossible to predict people and a disease100% accurately, because you don’t always know how a virus will react to every single person’s body and you can’t predict human behaviour.” 

“So, there is a certain degree of error and a certain degree of confidence that lies within each model, and that is why you evaluate these models on a regular basis. And this is important. You will never be able to say this is the exact number. Just like the weather. If the weather patterns were predicted to be 12 degrees tomorrow, and it turns out to be 16 degrees, you at least packed a jersey. You knew it was going to be cold. The chances that the weather predicts that it will be 12 and it turns out to be 57 degrees, is virtually zero. It gives you more or less an indication what to prepare for

Models are useful, but can also be wrong
Combrink says if you want to apply any model, you need to understand the assumptions and the limitations of the models. Given a certain set of criteria – what are the assumptions you are making and what are the expected outcomes – you can only act according to that. He says, as time goes by, we can now see that there are some models that yield much better results because we can now compare what was predicted two months ago and what is actually happening. 
 “Some models are useful. We can get a better understanding of the pandemic’s possible trajectories or gain an understanding of the impact that different interventions have made. Models are used for decision-making. These decision-making strategies can save lives. That is the purpose of models and modelling during these times.”

Combrink uses the weather forecast to explain how modelling works and that models can be wrong. “Yes, models are wrong all the time. Take the concept of weather as an example. How many times has the weather forecast predicted that there is an 80% chance of rain, and then it doesn’t rain? Models can give you a certain degree of confidence in an outcome related to a specific event or scenario, so that you, with some degree of confidence, can go forth and plan accordingly.” 

“However, models can’t tell you what exactly will happen tomorrow, or the day after. It is not a crystal ball, and it is not a mirror into the future, but it can give you an indication of what is likely possible related to a specific scenario if you used the right variables. Let us consider that there is an 80% chance of rain in the weather forecast; will you a) go to work without an umbrella or b) with an umbrella? If it doesn’t rain, you are at least prepared for the rain because you took your umbrella. If you didn’t take the umbrella and it does rain, you may run into trouble because you did not appreciate the warning of the weather forecast. I think it is this concept that makes modelling so powerful. You can use it as a tool to prepare for things, in the event that it does happen, with a certain degree of confidence. Just like the previous example, there is also a 20% chance that it might not rain, but wouldn’t you want to be prepared?” explains Combrink. 
 
Models are tools that can be used to base decisions on
No one truly knows how the pandemic will play out, and according to Combrink, it can be said with a high degree of confidence that if nothing is done about the pandemic, we know how it would turn out from a healthcare perspective. 
“If you look at some of the global projections they gave months ago (in January and February) and compare it to what they said for March and April, you can see that they predicted, with a fairly good degree of confidence, what actually happened in certain countries. We have a good idea in terms of numbers and how it will play out, but what we will never know is what the impact will be on the socio-economic status of a person, the economy, and the impact on other diseases.”

“We do not know what is going to happen when it comes to mental health and COVID-19, for example. This is why modelling is a multidimensional approach, requiring inputs from various fields. Models can help us in the same way the weather forecast does. It is a tool that we can use to base certain decisions on, to be more prepared, because without it we won’t know to pack an ‘umbrella’ if it is predicted to rain or pack a ‘jersey’ if it is projected to cool down.”

News Archive

UFS physicists publish in prestigious Nature journal
2017-10-16

Description: Boyden Observatory gravitational wave event Tags: Boyden Observatory, gravitational wave event, Dr Brian van Soelen, Hélène Szegedi, multi-wavelength astronomy 
Hélène Szegedi and Dr Brian van Soelen are scientists in the
Department of Physics at the University of the Free State.

Photo: Charl Devenish

In August 2017, the Boyden Observatory in Bloemfontein played a major role in obtaining optical observations of one of the biggest discoveries ever made in astrophysics: the detection of an electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave event.
 
An article reporting on this discovery will appear in the prestigious science journal, Nature, in October 2017. Co-authors of the article, Dr Brian van Soelen and Hélène Szegedi, are from the Department of Physics at the University of the Free State (UFS). Both Dr Van Soelen and Szegedi are researching multi-wavelength astronomy.
 
Discovery is the beginning of a new epoch in astronomy
 
Dr van Soelen said: “These observations and this discovery are the beginning of a new epoch in astronomy. We are now able to not only undertake multi-wavelength observations over the whole electromagnetic spectrum (radio up to gamma-rays) but have now been able to observe the same source in both electromagnetic and gravitational waves.”
 
Until recently it was only possible to observe the universe using light obtained from astronomical sources. This all changed in February 2016 when LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) stated that for the first time they had detected gravitational waves on 14 September 2015 from the merger of two black holes. Since then, LIGO has announced the detection of two more such mergers. A fourth was just reported (27 September 2017), which was the first detected by both LIGO and Virgo. However, despite the huge amount of energy released in these processes, none of this is detectable as radiation in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since the first LIGO detection astronomers have been searching for possible electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave detections. 
 
Large international collaboration of astronomers rushed to observe source
 
On 17 August 2017 LIGO and Virgo detected the first ever gravitational waves resulting from the merger of two neutron stars. Neutron star mergers produce massive explosions called kilonovae which will produce a specific electromagnetic signature. After the detection of the gravitational wave, telescopes around the world started searching for the optical counterpart, and it was discovered to be located in an elliptical galaxy, NGC4993, 130 million light years away. A large international collaboration of astronomers, including Dr Van Soelen and Szegedi, rushed to observe this source.
 
At the Boyden Observatory, Dr Van Soelen and Szegedi used the Boyden 1.5-m optical telescope to observe the source in the early evening, from 18 to 21 August. The observations obtained at Boyden Observatory, combined with observations from telescopes in Chile and Hawaii, confirmed that this was the first-ever detection of an electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave event. Combined with the detection of gamma-rays with the Fermi-LAT telescope, this also confirms that neutron star mergers are responsible for short gamma-ray bursts.  
 
The results from these optical observations are reported in A kilonova as the electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational-wave source published in Nature in October 2017.
 
“Our paper is one of a few that will be submitted by different groups that will report on this discovery, including a large LIGO-Virgo paper summarising all observations. The main results from our paper were obtained through the New Technology Telescope, the GROND system, and the Pan-STARRS system. The Boyden observations helped to obtain extra observations during the first 72 hours which showed that the light of the source decreased much quicker than was expected for supernova, classifying this source as a kilonova,” Dr Van Soelen said.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept