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

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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