Many years ago the financial officer of my company, who was in charge of producing our annual accounts, decided in advance what our trading results should be and to prove this prepared a balance sheet where he started of with the bottom line balancing figures of assets and liabilities and worked backwards producing numbers that would prove these figures to be correct. Fortunately, the auditors subsequently saw through this before any harm was done.
One cannot help feeling we have a similar situation with the Two Ronnies double act of Witty and Vallance. They, along with their fellow academics of the Sage advisory group (most of whom appear to have little idea of how the rest of us mere mortals outside the realm of academia live), have decided that another lockdown is the only possible course of action and have produced statistics designed to back this up.
These were produced in the form or graphs and numbers together with language that, frankly, was little short of threatening to the prime minister if their ‘advice’ was not taken.
An exponential growth in infections was forecast….er….sorry, I mean ‘modelled’, apparently this is different to a forecast, and the result of this was going to be 4,000 deaths daily if we did not go into immediate lockdown to ‘defeat’ the virus.
The problem here was that not only did their presentation conveniently leave out some statistics, while emphasising others (to say nothing of a totally incomprehensible ‘heat’ graph) but the whole thing was based on out of date information that was already three weeks old.
Rye’s Dr Andrew Bamji contributed his thoughts to the subject recently and these produced interesting observations from some of those readers who commented on the piece. He has kindly agreed to update this with his usual carefully measured conclusions:
“As we contemplate another lock-up despite having the one of the lowest Covid-19 infection rates in the country we might perhaps be able to relax a little in the knowledge that visitors will not be able to bring it to us. However the effect of a lockdown on businesses is serious; the effect on workers who will lose income, and possibly their jobs, is dreadful.
“A lockdown will drop transmission rates, of that there is no doubt. But is it actually necessary this time? The alarming graphs and graphics produced in its justification were too full of detail to take in at first sight (and rather absent of detail as to how they were derived, and by whom). But others have now looked at the figures, and found them wanting.
“Prophesies based on extrapolation”
“Firstly the dire predictions – or scenarios as they have been called – are not cast in stone. They are prophesies based on extrapolation. But that extrapolation was based on data that was three weeks out of date, so may be criticised on that ground alone.
“Secondly while the number of positive tests has been increasing significantly so has the total number of tests being done. The percentage that are positive show a lift at the end of September, from under 2% to around 7%, but overall has not risen beyond that.
“So there is no evidence yet of any exponential growth, and that is without even considering the statistical influence of false positives, or the likelihood of positive re-tests, where people may be positive but no longer infectious, or the likelihood of T-cell immunity.
“Thirdly the graphs described as showing continuing rises in cases and hospital admissions actually showed if anything a falling-off in the last few days. The Centre for Evidence-based Medicine in Oxford certainly considers the projections to be significantly overstated.
“Bed capacity is always under threat”
“Lastly the fear-inducing statements that without action the NHS may be overwhelmed have ignored the sad fact that, because the NHS runs a very tight and economical ship, bed capacity is always under threat as winter approaches; it was ever thus.
“So far, therefore, the dire predictions of deaths have not been realised. To extrapolate, as has been done, from too early a point in time produces a number of deaths greater than that of India, which is somewhat unlikely.
“All of that said, I think it is wise to err on the side of caution. Trying to call the game at a single point is akin to predicting the outcome of the 2020 Six Nations Championship halfway through the Italy-England game.
“So while I entertain serious doubts about the validity of political decision-making, along with many clinicians and academics, I will still be following the rules. It will help to keep transmission down. Whether it’s really necessary to do this when there is no virus to transmit is another matter!
Keeping more people off ventilators
“The one bit of positive news is that more and more intensive care units are using steroids in the right way, and keeping more people off ventilators. Both of these are helping to reduce the fatality rate. My disappointment is that I suggested those treatment options at the beginning of May, but it’s reckoned in medicine that innovations take up to six years to become common practice, so perhaps six months is not so bad. And a vaccine is getting closer.”
Andrew’s final comment on the production of a vaccine could possibly be the one argument for lockdown – it would buy time to develop and put into effect a vaccination program. However, such a vaccine is not expected until the spring of 2021 at the earliest, which would mean a long, economically and socially devastating lockdown indeed.
But of course lockdown is not yet (at the time of writing this – Wednesday, November 4) a done deal. The prime minister could still change his mind – although unlikely, and a case of damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. No wonder he is looking so haggard these days – and Parliament still has to approve the measure [Editor’s note: And did later on Wednesday]
But with the support of the official opposition, and despite some rebellious Conservative MPs, it seems likely that by the time you are reading this we will be back in confinement and with a governmental control over us (supported by the police and the Stasi-like ‘snitches’ that are being encouraged) that has only before been seen in the most hard line of authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world.
Before the vote took place we asked our MP, Sally-Ann Hart for her views, which we received on Thursday, shortly before publication. She voted with the government for lockdown and her statement is as follows:
“I spent much of my time this week, before the vote yesterday, in meetings about these further restrictions, analysing data, questioning various experts and speaking with local public health officials.
“Cases locally have been rising sharply – faster than expected – compared to what we experienced during the first wave. In addition, the pattern is reported to be different from the previous outbreak, giving rise to some concern.
“There is a growing concern as figures are rising across the county as they have done all over the country. In East Sussex – Hastings and Rye – we have only a small number of people who have built up immunity which reportedly leaves us vulnerable. There is no guarantee that we will maintain the low transmission rates as experienced during the spring.
“More testing is being done, but the cause for concern is the increase in positive cases – including in the +65 age group. More positive cases in the older age groups means more hospital admissions within a short period. This time, hospital services will not be suspended for non-covid patients (which, as we know, was so damaging during the spring lockdown).
“It is important to note that last year, even without covid, our local hospitals were almost at capacity throughout the winter. So, adding in covid and maintaining normal non-covid hospital business (as far as possible 70-90%), the risk that our hospitals will be overwhelmed is high if these short, sharp, shock national restrictions, as advised by scientists and public health officials, are not taken. The aim is to get covid levels, the ‘R’ rate, down at the start of winter so that all hospital treatment and services are manageable.
“The challenge to those who oppose these restrictions is: What non-covid services would you limit to cope with a rise in covid patients? I could not in all conscience answer that and I therefore voted in support of these new national restrictions for a time limited 4 week period. I am an advocate of the tiered regional approach and have been assured that we will be returning to that system on 2nd December.”
Image Credits: HM Government .