19th January 2021 - Some Real Analysis in the Media - What You Need to Know

The Anti-Lockdown brigade have known about this for months and it provides the foundation for their argument about lockdowns not working.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the government, the government scientists and the majority of the media decide not to acknowledge the inconvenient fact that, in terms of deaths, the pandemic ended in May 2020.

The graph of daily deaths below confirms this.

The black line shows the actual (total) number of (age-standardised) daily deaths, whilst the blue line shows the same data but averaged over 5 years.  So, the blue line is the reference to which the black line should be compared with.  Unfortunately the red line diverts attention away from the important story in this graph; so for now ignore the red line because it’s unlikely to be accurate (but it forms the centre-piece of the government’s story).

The pandemic deaths are clear in the spring of 2020, but there’s no significant increase in deaths in the winter so, what is going on?

First and foremost the government’s strategy was, from the beginning of the pandemic, to protect the NHS.  The advisors and politicians thought this was the best way to save lives.  They didn’t think it through, or factor in the huge economic costs.

Imperial College’s now infamous Report-9 looked at interventions which could “protect the NHS” (as well as providing a jaw-dropping estimate of fatalities if no actions were taken).  The lead author, Professor Neil Ferguson, included a suggested approach to managing the load on the NHS, which he called Adaptive Suppression. See: Review of Report-9

Whether the government actually understood the info in Report-9, or not, the UK continues to be subjected to Adaptive Suppression, with all the costs and burdens attached.

All to protect the NHS because, as we found out, the approach didn’t save lives, it cost more lives largely as a result of preventable mismanagement.

Having chosen the route of Adaptive Suppression it’s hard for politicians to acknowledge they got it wrong whilst the advising scientists should be very embarrassed, to the extent of considering their positions (don’t hold your breath).

As of January 2021 the government, scientists and media continue to hyperventilate over the “Second Wave” whilst Lockdown-3 continues.  Fear has ramped up to near March-April 2020 levels as a result of the media onslaught about positive cases and huge deaths.  But, the graph shows the total number of deaths is very similar to the 5 year average so, can we discount the official line?

The answer, at this point in time, is yes.

This winter is not experiencing a Pandemic Second Wave in terms of deaths.

The reason for the elevated fear is the government’s policy of protecting the NHS.  Unfortunately the NHS’ bed and staff capacity is reduced compared to this time in 2020, which means the NHS is under a lot of stress.

We should demand an explanation as to why the NHS wasn't properly prepared for the winter.

All public health workers convey the same message, sometimes very emotionally, that it’s the public’s responsibility to not get infected and put additional strain on the NHS.  Continuing to present Covid as a highly deadly disease helps to justify the restrictions; however, the graph shows that the death rate is similar to the 5 year average, which contradicts the official messaging.

The mutated version of Covid has played into the government’s strategy by providing additional fear just when restrictions had to be ramped up in order to bring the hospitalisation rate down.

The advising scientists use the predictions of hospital capacity as the primary metric to decide on the level of lockdown restrictions (harking back to Imperial College’s Report-9).

When will lockdown end in the UK?

So, for all those news editors out there, lockdown restrictions will only be lifted once the forecasts of hospitalisation rate indicate the NHS will be able to cope.

It’s quite ironic that a poorly scoped-out, insufficiently peer-reviewed paper (Report-9) provided the lockdown method and the same metrics and modelling will be used to release the UK from further lockdowns.  Report-9 is fundamentally flawed in that it looked at trivial interventions, failing to incorporate the most significant one: preventing the vulnerable from needing hospital treatment.  Report-9 should not have been published in its current form, let alone provided as part of an official government body (SAGE).  Likewise, Report-9 didn’t draw the most obvious conclusions from the input data.  If it had then a large number of elderly folk would probably still be alive today.

Where did it all go wrong?

The politics and politicised science, together with most of the media, aren’t presenting the correct story on Covid.  They continue to use largely meaningless metrics (positive PCR cases and Covid deaths) whilst the government focuses almost entirely on NHS capacity.  The NHS at the best of times is variably inefficient and always gets stressed in the winter.  It is indisputable that significant numbers of people are being hospitalised with Covid symptoms.  Covid has replaced flu as this winter’s respiratory infection.  People who get infected, which includes myself, respond differently but, because of the huge amount of fear associated with the virus, many will over-react.  It’s understandable if you start to have breathing difficulties; it’s quite disconcerting and worrying.  In my case it lasted overnight and was overcome by sleeping propped up.

The failure of the government’s Covid strategy is plain to see, unless of course you are in Public Health, or an embarrassed advising scientist.  The nature of politics is that once a policy is in-place it keeps going.  If a public enquiry, years down the road, shows the policy was flawed; so be it.  Most of the people involved will have likely moved on.

What was/is the ideal world?  Logic indicates (based on the input data used by Imperial College in Report-9) that resources should have been provided to ensure the vulnerable were protected from infection, whilst the NHS was properly re-purposed to provide separate Covid and non-Covid services.  Even today these haven’t been achieved, which is extremely disappointing considering the timeframe, huge bill, destroyed value and unnecessary deaths.

It’s a serious failure starting with the advising scientists leading into the policies and management of the NHS.  We are the ones bearing the myriad direct costs and our children will likely pay most of the bills for this failure.

The conclusions are clear, what about any recommendations?

In terms of science advice the current set-up (SAGE) is not fit for purpose.  Any science undertaken must be independently peer reviewed and ideally published publically prior to any advice being presented to the government.  SAGE must publish the actual advice they provide to the government, in real time.

With respect to the politics, it would appear the level of competence is just not good enough.  We’ve come to expect elected politicians to be barely competent; however, the Civil Service is meant to provide ongoing competence.  It appears this is no longer the case.  Is it really acceptable for someone to graduate and move directly into politics without any experience of how the world works and then have responsibility for a huge dysfunctional business such as the NHS?  Of course not.  But, there is a politician who did have the right experience, but he was almost persona non grata for daring to be the leader of the Conservative Party.  As we saw in the US, if you have inexperienced leaders, incompetence leads to shambolic government.

Sadly, this sums up the Covid pandemic in the UK, in 2020.

As in the US, the UK needs to ensure that leaders have the experience and competence to deliver, which means there needs to be specific criteria to ensure real competence in politicians who stand for high office.

March 2021: Here's an interesting read on behind the scenes in the UK government during 2020: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56361599