The article below was originally published on Linked In on the 30th October, see Original Linked In Article
Introduction
If you are fearful about Covid it suggests you haven’t been given reliable information, so hopefully this will help to reduce your fear.
Covid is endemic in the UK and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
It is unrealistic to consider eradicating it, let alone significantly controlling Covid in the UK. The country would have to shut down and remain isolated for at least 6 months and then stay like this. This is New Zealand’s approach and also fate. At some stage, New Zealand will have to come out of near total isolation and, if a vaccine is only short-lived, they will eventually “suffer” the virus at some stage in the future.
So, politicians and scientists saying we must control the virus are saying this because they want to manage patient numbers needing NHS treatment (& by implication deaths, although their policies have actually caused more total deaths than would have occurred without their policies!); not because they want to eradicate the virus. The latter is futile.
The Scientists
Epidemiologists specialise in infections, they are not economists, policy makers or generalists; they are narrow specialists. The main criteria for them is the Reproduction Number which shows whether the infection rate is growing, stable or declining. This is a key parameter for Epidemiologists; however, it is a rather crude estimated parameter, often an average of low and high values and consequently not very accurate, or useful. Sorry.
The Epidemiological Rule Book says the infection must be controlled to prevent it spreading, which is why you hear most Epidemiologists saying the same thing all over the World. This is why the majority of governments around the World have tried to “control the virus”, as per the Rule Book.
Authoritarian countries, in the short term, can be successful in this approach; however, as with Democracies, the economic consequences are dire, plus the excess deaths can outweigh this approach.
How Dangerous is Covid?
Covid can be fatal; however, for the vast majority of people, it is not, as will be shown below.
Normal daily activities such as driving and particularly motorcycling can also be fatal; however, we don’t fear these variably risky activities, let alone others.
In March 2020, Imperial College published the table below with their estimates of age-related Covid impacts:
What does this data actually show us?
For people younger than 60, 99% of those infected won’t die.
For people in the age range 60 to 69, approximately 98% of those infected won’t die.
For people in the age range 70-79, approximately 95% of those infected won’t die.
And for people older than 80, approximately 91% of those infected also, won’t die.
So why are large numbers of people fearful?
Since March the actual data from the UK largely supports the data shown in this table. But, because the medics have worked out better ways to treat infection, today the numbers requiring critical care and dying are lower than shown in the table.
Why are governments placing restrictions on the entire population when in fact the chances of dying are very, very low for young people and actually not very high for the elderly?
One answer to this question is that the Epidemiologists, for largely unexplained reasons, want to prevent the virus getting into all age groups, when in reality it is the elderly where the (low to moderate) risk exists. In a normal year many of the elderly succumb to “normal” winter infections; however, in the late winter early spring of 2020, many succumbed through government policy failures, as well.
Sadly this is likely to happen again this winter, unless the vulnerable rapidly put in-place their own protection. At the time of writing (29th Oct) the government feels the vulnerable should not be shielding, which is a very strange approach.
If you are vulnerable you should be shielding constantly. The only respite for you is an effective vaccine. You have to decide on your risk/life balance; don’t rely on the government, they’re not very competent.
This table also raises a very significant question as to why the scientists didn’t broadcast the clear conclusion about fatality being very low for younger healthy people and potentially dangerous for the elderly? No rocket science is required to understand this; however, the authors of the report this table comes from, do not draw this conclusion, neither did SAGE (i.e the Chief Scientific Officer nor Chief Medical Office); nor do the government.
Why has this fundamental truth been ignored?
The answer to this question is to do with politics. In the spring, the advising scientists had decided that the only solution to prevent the NHS being swamped in April was a hard national lockdown. They convinced the government of this but it would have been counter-productive, in terms of the lockdown, to be saying that Covid is not dangerous to the vast majority of people, as the table shows and has been demonstrated since.
We are continuing to be impacted by this unscientific approach.
You’ll remember the high levels of fear in the spring, which were deliberately stoked by the government’s lockdown campaign and mantra: “Stay Home, Protect the NHS & Save Lives”? We did the stay home bit brilliantly but sadly the propaganda about protecting the NHS was poorly thought through and caused large numbers of unnecessary deaths, subsequently failing badly on the last part of the mantra: Saving Lives.
The correct strategy did require a short, full national lockdown in order to get NHS resources organised & the vulnerable protected. But, as the table clearly demonstrates, the strategy should have been “Stay Home, Protect the Vulnerable & Save Lives”. This correctly reflects the science, is simple to communicate & understand for the full duration of the pandemic. Once the NHS resources had been put in-place, to cope with the predicted requirement, plus the vulnerable protected, lockdown could end and life could re-start in the new normal.
What Metrics are Important?
The public health bodies, Epidemiologists, politicians and therefore the media focus on the number of positive cases of Covid. This is misleading and should not be given much weight.
A positive PCR test indicates that some Covid DNA/RNA has been detected in the swab.
It doesn’t mean the person is currently infectious, but that person could be infectious.
A huge number, potentially millions of people were infected in the late winter and spring of 2020; the vast majority having no, mild or even severe symptoms. All these people have residual Covid DNA, which can be picked up by PCR tests and show as positive.
The number of positive cases will be a function of the number of tests undertaken, picking up old as well as new “infections”.
This is why the number of PCR test positives is problematic; it’s not an accurate reflection of the real state of infection in the UK, see: What Do PCR Positives Mean?
But the Epidemiologists & Public Health folk continue to use these data to estimate the Reproduction Number which then scares politicians into “controlling the virus” by imposing restrictions.
Here we go again.
The only useful metrics are:
- Hospitalisation Rate
- Critical Care Rate
- Total Death Rate and
- Excess Death Rate
All of the other metrics are inaccurate and therefore largely meaningless; so you can ignore the positive case rate. It is not a robust metric for making policies.
A government (plus advising scientists) should be publishing the four recommended rates above as graphs with the equivalent 5 year averages of these metrics, for comparison. It is essential to include the 5 year averages in order to see the context of the current situation and prevent knee-jerk decisions plus, inappropriate policies.
The advising scientists haven’t done this publically, which is a major failing. Not surprisingly, the government won’t do this, because they don’t understand the data or the science.
Ivor Cummins has been analysing the correct metrics and his view was that the pandemic ended in May and that this winter we will see a “normal” (5 year average) number of hospitalisations and fatalities. We’ll see if his theory is correct in the next month or so.
See: UK Second Wave or Normal Winter?
Carl Heneghan is also very good at using the reliable metrics within the correct context, so look out for his analyses.
See: UK Summary of Registered Deaths to 29th Sep 2020
Restrictions
Any scientists saying we have to control the virus is taking a very narrow view, failing to understand that restrictions cause more deaths and come with a huge economic cost ending up with the opposite result to that intended. Hence Lose-lose.
So, you probably have a good idea of your level of vulnerability and you should be able to decide on your level of risk vs lifestyle. This is not something the government should be doing; it’s your personal choice. We don’t live in China!
Clearly students now understand they have minimal to no risk of death and want to have a normal life. And why shouldn’t they?
The onus should be on those of you who are vulnerable & capable to put in-place the protections you feel necessary. Employers and the government should support this. This is where government funding should be focussed, not on supporting employees & businesses impacted by an (ineffective) lockdown.
If you are not capable of putting in-place these protections then you do need government help to protect you. I feel concerned for you because the government is not something I recommend you rely on; but this is where a competent government should be focussing resources and funds, not on wrecking businesses and the economy.
Herd Immunity
Today, no one considers, or recommends herd immunity as a policy. Unfortunately the UK’s Chief Scientific Officer talked about herd immunity in March, which some people took to be a recommended strategy. It’s not. Covid is very unlikely to generate long term natural immunity and it is quite possible any approved vaccines may only provide short or medium term protection.
So, you can ignore all the discussion of herd immunity. We will have to live with Covid until it dies out naturally, or an effective long term vaccine is developed.
Selected Conclusions
Covid is not a highly dangerous virus, in terms of direct fatality rate.
99% of people under the age of 60, who get infected, are predicted to survive.
The elderly have a slightly higher risk of death, as a result of infection. It is estimated that approximately 90% of infected 80+ year olds will survive.
Restrictions on people under 60 years old simply cannot be justified on the basis of fatality risk.
Even the higher risk of death in the elderly doesn’t warrant draconian restrictions such as Segmentation as enunciated by SAGE and other public health personnel.
Vulnerable people need help to prevent them getting infected; however, this should be a personal strategy not a government imposed, “segmentation” approach. This would be a hugely valuable investment of public money and almost certainly a tiny fraction of the amount spent (wasted?) by the government during the pandemic & since.
The UK Government’s science advisory group SAGE is largely not fit for purpose, having failed to communicate the significance of risk to the elderly in the early stages of the pandemic and then helped to create unnecessary fear via “worst case” scenarios, plus misuse of metrics, which maintains the element of fear.
The UK Government’s scientists, public health officials and politicians have lost the confidence of the public as a result of the mishandling of the main pandemic in the spring, followed by the regional adaptive suppression approach, currently in progress.
Recommendations
The government urgently needs to put in-place competent, experienced scientists who can properly communicate the correct science behind the pandemic. My recommendation is Professor Mark Woolhouse together with Professor Carl Heneghan. Said scientists should integrate directly with the government’s economists and policymakers in order to provide the recommended strategy for debate in the House of Commons.
The government should use only the meaningful metrics, both for the basis of policy making and regular briefings to the public.
Having spent hundreds of billions of Pounds trying to control the virus and ending up with a high excess death rate, the government should:
- Expand the NHS’ resources to cope with the most-likely predicted number of hospitalisations resulting from modelling of the country without lockdowns but with protection for the elderly/vulnerable, general social distancing and enhanced hygiene control. Infection control in hospitals and social care must be much improved in order to minimise infections in these locations (so, money well spent).
- Provide funding for assisting the elderly whilst they are shielding, with responsibility for proper implementation given to the local Public Health organisation who should be able to advise and, if requested, put in-place robust infection control for those who request it. So, no draconian segmentation of all elderly or vulnerable people.
I'm always open to constructive, substantiated challenge or criticism. Try not to be driven by irrational, unsubstantiated fear and remember; anything presented without the full, correct context is likely to be erroneous, so don't get influenced by such things.
If you’re interested in the science and how some of the scientific work done in February & March 2020 wasn't very good quality, take a look at my review of Imperial College’s Report-9 (referenced earlier):
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
Comments
Post a Comment