ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates how over-reliance on a single modelling approach hampered pandemic forecasting and response. Through detailed analysis of high-profile UK modelling – especially the influential ICL9 report – it identifies key predictive errors in critical care capacity, attack rate, and timing of the first wave. The authors also examine missteps by the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in 2021, including forecasts that were unfit for purpose, incorrect, or sometimes both, and a lack of evaluation of past predictions. Contrasts are drawn with South Africa and Sweden, where more flexible, context-sensitive approaches yielded better outcomes. By showing how methodological rigidity reduces adaptability and masks uncertainty, the chapter makes the case for pluralism in models and methods – not only as a scientific virtue but as a practical safeguard in fast-moving crises.
