Last week, I responded to several comments to my blog posts on COVID19, from David Ashcroft. Ashcroft had previously responded to a comment I had made on Coatesy's blog. He subsequently had to admit that he had misread what I had said in that comment, and that he had misrepresented me. Fair enough. Further exchanges of comments on Coatesy's blog were curtailed, because Coatesy is ill – fortunately okay, so I believe. I told Ashcroft that he was free to put his comments on my blog, setting out his further arguments. The interchange of those comments can be seen in relation to the posts last week on COVID19 - Eddie Large and COVID19, and COVID19 In Sweden and US.
As can be seen from those comments, attention to the facts, or details, is not one of Ashcroft's strong points. Not only had he had to admit that he had previously misread and misrepresented what I had said, but also, in one of his first comments to my blog, on the issue, he claimed that deaths in the US from COVID19 were already at 100,000, and headed to 1 million in just over a week's time. In actual fact, on 3rd April, when he made that claim, US deaths were only 5,000, and, even now, as we approach the point where he claimed they should be approaching 1 million, they have only just exceeded 15,000!! (Postscript: in a further comment on Denham's Blog, which illustrates his true nature as a troll, Ashcroft has claimed that he got the 100k figure by again misreading data from my blog post. He claims he took a figure for cases as being for deaths. In fact, that is wrong too, because the actual passage talks about official projections of deaths being 100k, its not about infections at all. Moreover, that official projection of 100k US deaths stands in stark contrast to Ashcroft's prediction of 1 million deaths!)
I picked up the comments Ashcroft made, but, he then stopped posting further comments, clearly seeing that I could easily deal with each one as he made it. Instead, he chose to launch into an attack on me on Jim Denham's blog – Shiraz Socialist. He posted two long attacks. Again, I responded, in short order, to the posts he made there, pointing out their deficiencies. I kept it to a minimum, posting a link, to my latest post which dealt with most of the issues Ashcroft had raised.
Ashcroft has now produced another hysterical post carried on Denham's Blog, and although I have posted some responses to it, the level of bullshitting, and just outright lies are such that I felt it was only fitting to deal with it in more detail, here.
The Chimera of Herd Immunity
Ashcroft says, in his post of 31st March
“Herd immunity is a chimera. All experience of past epidemics and pandemics suggests some people will have been infected, had no symptoms whatsoever, have now recovered, and will have acquired immunity for a greater or lesser period.
But there is precisely no direct evidence for how many people have passed through this stage, still less for how long any immunity lasts.”
This was in response to my statement that, in the absence of a vaccine – not expected for 18 months – the only sustainable means of protecting the population, against infection, is via the development of herd immunity. Now, you would think, from Ashcroft's comment, here, that he was rejecting that idea, by saying that herd immunity is a “chimera”, i.e. a mythical creature. The trouble, of course, for Ashcroft, is that, at various times, the government scientists, upon whom he wants to tell us he relies, have themselves stated that the only means of achieving protection is via the development of such herd immunity. When, therefore, I quoted back to Ashcroft, the recent comments from Professor Graham Medley, Ashcroft ceased his comments, and instead launched into full bullshitting mode in his latest post to Denham's blog. But, in that post, we now see Ashcroft say, not that herd immunity is a chimera, but that,
“As present restrictions become more irksome, and as the massive economic costs become ever more obvious, more and more people will seek an alternative course. The only one open is so-called herd immunity. Actually, the choice is not about whether the goal should be herd immunity, but about the least worst way of getting there.”
So, not a chimera after all then!
Fact v Fiction
Ashcroft changes his arguments as often as he changes his clothes, and, as for facts, he has whole sheets of them, all of his own, alternative facts that he conjures from thin air, to back whatever argument he presents at the time. Yet, despite the fact that my argument has not changed from Day One, Ashcroft accuses me of “twists and turns”. Let me summarise the position I have taken from the start, as it will help assess my actual position, as against the lies that Ashcroft has presented in relation to it, as he has squirmed from one position to the next. My position, all along, has been that, however bad COVID19 may or may not be, however many people it may or may not ultimately infect, there are only two rational means of minimising deaths from it. One is that adopted by South Korea, which was to test extensively from the beginning, before the virus could spread, so as to isolate the small number of people infected, and trace those they had infected so as to isolate them. As soon as infections have reached a critical mass, that strategy can't work, because, no matter what the scale of testing, you can't keep up with the spread of infections. The second route is to isolate the 20% of the population that are at serious risk from the virus. This amounts to around 13 million people. Having done so, the other 80% of the population can go about their business as usual. Finally, because a lot of the people most susceptible to the virus are people in hospitals or care homes, it was necessary for health and care workers to have been provided with appropriate PPE, and safety protocols from the start. COVID19 patients in hospital and care homes should have been in isolation from the start. Any hospital staff in the at risk 20% should have been put on indefinite sick leave on full pay. The PPE for health and care workers was needed to prevent them from spreading the virus to patients and residents. As I wrote, yesterday, that is also the position being outlined by government epidemiologists such as Professor Mark Woolhouse.
Bear that in mind, as I go through the lies that Ashcroft has presented. I will deal with the outright lies and misrepresentations first, and then I will deal with the other arguments Ashcroft puts forward in his post.
Sweden
This is what Ashcroft says,
“Sweden was behind the curve, things happening there perhaps a fortnight behind us in Britain, just as our experiences here were about a fortnight behind Italy. Boffy came back to say I must be exaggerating, that the Swedes had everything under control, their per capita death rate must be a lot lower than here. That’s when I took the time to actually check the figures.”
Ashcroft loves these subjectivist turns of phrase such as “perhaps”, which belie the dearth of actual facts he presents, instead simply providing a superficial blather of perhaps, maybes, could bes and talk of “luck” and other meaningless bullshit. Firstly, you can check the comments in relation to Sweden. I said nothing about Sweden having things “under control”. Nor did I say anything to the effect that Ashcroft “must be exaggerating”, implying that I had not actually checked the numbers for Sweden, Denmark and Britain, but had somehow assumed them from somewhere. It also is intended to give the impression that it was somehow Ashcroft who had provided actual numbers rather then me! Except, of course, unlike Ashcroft, I had checked the data for Sweden, and compared it with the data for Denmark and Britain, and it was contained in the initial post that Ashcroft was responding to! The trouble for Ashcroft was that the data for Sweden, as compared to Denmark and Britain, did not support his hypothesis. The data for Sweden showed that, despite no extensive lock down, its mortality rate was no worse, and, in fact, better than that of Britain, which had implemented a lock down.
Ashcroft's initial response to this was Sweden must have been lucky! His further response was that Sweden must be two weeks behind Britain, and so its number of deaths would catch-up. But, of course, that is just speculation not fact, and, in any case, it doesn't explain why the per capita mortality rate in Sweden is no worse than in Denmark, which has implemented a lock down like Britain. Even if Sweden were two weeks behind Britain, there is no reason it would be two weeks behind Denmark, next door! Ashcroft never deals, of course, with this comparison between Sweden and Denmark, preferring to base his argument on the speculation that Sweden's “luck” may run out, and that it will catch up with UK deaths in a fortnight's time!
In fact, total COVID19 deaths in Sweden now stand at 572 (time of writing). Its population is approximately a sixth of Britain's, which, therefore would equate to a UK total of about 3432. But, UK deaths are currently over 6159, meaning that the per capita rate in Sweden is only just over 50% that in the UK. Moreover, the latest data for Sweden shows that both its rate of increase for number of infections, and number of deaths already appears to have peaked, though a few days data can be misleading. So much for being two weeks behind.
In fact, Sky News had a chart showing a log scale of increase in deaths comparing different countries, which not only showed Sweden second to South Korea, but also showed this same trend of a topping out process.
Little Attention to Detail, and Large Lies
Ashcroft says,
“The comedian Eddie Little, according to Boffy the Pathologist, did not die of C-19: he died of his prior (and indeed serious) condition, but with a C-19 infection.”
This is just an outright lie. Read the post, because Ashcroft clearly didn't. Ashcroft with his usual attention to detail and the facts, can't even get Eddie Large's name right, confusing him with Sid Little, and, unfortunately, that is typical of his slapdash approach in general. I linked to the report of his death from the BBC, which commented “Comedian Eddie Large, best known for being part of double act Little and Large, has died with coronavirus.” I made the point that Eddie's death was typical, because he had gone into hospital with heart failure, and only having gone into hospital did he then contract COVID19. In other words, he had not gone into hospital because of COVID19, but because of heart failure! In other words, the important word here was "with". That he contracted COVID19 in hospital, which then contributed to his difficulties is not in doubt, but hospital doctors themselves have stated that the majority of the, particularly elderly, people who have died in hospital, who also had COVID19, would have died anyway, whether they had contracted COVID19, when they went into hospital, or not. Understanding this is vital to understanding why mortality rates have been high, precisely because, as in Italy, it is measuring deaths in large part amongst people who were already in hospital, whose immune systems were compromised, and who contracted the virus whilst in hospital! It means that the mortality rate amongst the general population is inevitably much lower. In fact, in Sweden, the analysis of the data by the authorities makes a clear distinction between those that die directly because of COVID19, and those that had gone into hospital as an emergency for other conditions, but who also were tested, and found to be carrying COVID19, or who contracted it in hospital. As, the ONS data relating to UK deaths, and their recording shows, this also makes a mockery of Ashcroft's claims about comparisons, and delays.
The point I was making in relation to Eddie, was that the news never covers, at an individual, personal level, the deaths of the vast majority of COVID19 victims, who fall into this category of the elderly, and people with underlying conditions. When it comes to those deaths, all we get are flat statistics. Its only when its a younger person that the news deals with their death at an individual level, with interviews with friends and family, and so on. And, this has the inevitable consequence of presenting a picture in which you are just as likely to die from COVID19 if you are fit and healthy, as if you are old and suffering from some other condition. But, of course, that is completely untrue. Even setting aside the question of underlying conditions, the Imperial data, itself, indicates that if you are over 80 you are 1550 times more likely to die than someone aged 10-19, and 310 times more likely to die than someone aged 20-29. Even being over 70 means those figures come down only to around 700 and 150.
Then Ashcroft says,
“This is a desperate argument. Little died from the interaction of a heart condition which meant he had had a transplant, the immune suppressing drugs he needed to keep taking ts stop his body from rejecting his new heart, and from the virus he contracted while in hospital having treatment for his heart condition. That will what be recorded, accurately, on his death certificate.”
But, that is exactly what I'd said. This is exactly the same as happened on Coatesy's blog when Ashcroft attacked me for a statement he claimed I'd made in relation to South Korea, but which he then had to admit he had completely misread and misrepresented, having himself made almost the exact same comment. He really needs to spend more time reading what other people say rather than firing off his missives willy-nilly with no regard to the facts.
When All Else Fails Use The Amalgam
Then Ashcroft feels he needs to engage in the old Stalinist tactic of the amalgam to bolster his failing arguments, by trying to tie me to Toby Young!!!!
“These kinds of desperate arguments are the way anyone who thinks there is an easier way around this crisis will be pulled. They may lack the openly offensive callousness of eugenicists like Toby Young, but there is a hint of a shared attitude that those who might die from C-19 are anyway reaching the end of their alloted time.”
Except, of course, that, from the beginning, it has been me who has said the exact opposite! It is me who has said that the elderly, the sick and infirm ought be our number one priority, in terms of ensuring that they are isolated from the possibility of infection! It is me who has said that anyone of working age, in that category, should be put on permanent sick leave with full pay, who has said that health and social care workers needed PPE from Day One, and appropriate safety and isolation protocols to protect those in their care from the risk of infection. It is me who has said that the only way of achieving that, effectively, and in a civilised manner, is if the rest of the economy continues to function! And, I have said that for the simple reason that it is impossible to isolate the whole of the population, which the experience of trying to close down the economy has demonstrated. But, the irony is that, later in his rant, Ashcroft himself says its impossible to protect the 20%, and to effectively isolate them!!! It turns out that it is Ashcroft who wants to abandon them to their fate!
Ashcroft then tries a similar tack in relation to conspiracy theories. But, I have specifically opposed any hint of conspiracy. On the contrary, its those who spread scare stories based on the optics of “herd immunity” who are closest to the conspiracy theory nuts, such as those who spoke about the dangers of vaccination in similar terms! In fact, rather than talking about hospital wards being artificially filled with patients, I pointed to the opposite, the vast sheds, such as that at the Excel Centre in London that continues to await its first patients (at time of writing), and which, in the meantime, appears to be occupying the time and resources of doctors and nursing staff, watching over an empty building! If anyone doubted the fact that the NHS is unfit for purpose, bureaucratic and top heavy, using resources inefficiently that is a case in point. Of course, the government and the media needed to claim that they could build a hospital in a fortnight just as well as the Chinese, though, in fact, they only, temporarily, fitted out an existing shed, much as would be done if a large exhibition was taking place. The NHS and Department of Health is good at these show-pieces, not so good at providing vital equipment, and adequate numbers of staff.
Facts and Official Figures
Ashcroft goes on,
“Where arguments less immediately deranged are made for a natural route to herd immunity, they tend to claim a figure of death rates similar to everyday flu, of less than one in a thousand. Boffy, for example, throws around the figure of 0.05%, one in two thousand. It most likely comes from trying to estimate the numbers infected, and compare that to the number of deaths.”
But, the figure of 1:1000 was the government's own figure! It was produced by the government's chief scientific advisor Sir Patrick Vallance, a fortnight ago! Jeremy Hunt asked Vallance if the figure of 1 death per 1,000 infections was about right, to which Vallance responded,
“We’ve tried to get a handle on that in Sage [the scientific advisory group for emergencies]. If you put all the modelling information together, that’s a reasonable ballpark way of looking at it. It’s not more accurate than that.”
Ashcroft has continually claimed that I never said where this figure came from, but I said from the beginning that it came from Vallance! See, for example, this post back on 19th March. Again, he simply only reads what he wants to read. As far as the 0.05% figure 1:2000 that is simply an extrapolation from the analysis of the team at Oxford, from the length of time of infection prior to the lockdown, based on an R of 3, and from the latest data on deaths. As an extrapolation, just half of Vallance's estimate of mortality rates, it is not, in any sense, near to the wild extrapolations provided by Ashcroft that sees 1,000 fold increases in mortality based on Malthusian style exponential progressions. It is mid-way between Vallance's previous estimate, and the actual out-turn for mortality rates for Swine Flu. If Oxford is right, and on the basis of the accepted R-figure, the number of people infected by each carrier, of 3, then we would expect, as Oxford said, that about half the UK population, or about 30 million people are already infected. If Vallance's estimate of final deaths, amounting to 20,000, turns out to be correct, a mortality rate of 0.05% implies that 40 million had been infected. Currently, UK deaths are only a quarter of this figure.
But, a look at even the median mortality rate, provided by Imperial, for those in the age groups below 60, gives a similar figure. It has a mortality rate of 0.002% for 0-9 year olds, going up to 0.6% for 50-59 year olds. As I have said before, these numbers overstate the actual position by a factor ten, because they are based on reported cases, rather than actual infections
But, a look at even the median mortality rate, provided by Imperial, for those in the age groups below 60, gives a similar figure. It has a mortality rate of 0.002% for 0-9 year olds, going up to 0.6% for 50-59 year olds. As I have said before, these numbers overstate the actual position by a factor ten, because they are based on reported cases, rather than actual infections
Age group
|
% symptomatic cases requiring hospital
|
%
hospitalised cases requiring critical care
|
%
Infection Fatality Ratio
|
|---|---|---|---|
0 to 9
|
0.1
|
5.00
|
0.002
|
10 to 19
|
0.3
|
5.00
|
0.006
|
20 to 29
|
1.2
|
5.00
|
0.030
|
30 to 39
|
3.2
|
5.00
|
0.080
|
40 to 49
|
4.9
|
6.30
|
0.150
|
50 to 59
|
10.2
|
12.20
|
0.600
|
60 to 69
|
16.6
|
27.40
|
2.200
|
70 to 79
|
24.3
|
43.20
|
5.100
|
80+
|
27.3
|
70.90
|
9.300
|
You Couldn't Make It Up, But Ashcroft Does!
Ashcroft says,
“Boffy actually claims that whatever the figure, it can be reached without significant further deaths.”
Another lie. My point has been that, because the government failed to start by locking down the 20% at risk, and, indeed, its attempts to lock down the 100% have meant that the 20% have frequently had to break their self-imposed isolation, and because the majority of deaths come from people in hospitals and care homes, where inadequate PPE, and protection of the vulnerable, via isolation, has not occurred, we are likely to see further significant deaths, in those populations, for some weeks to come, though, as people die in those locations, the numbers should diminish. Contrary, to what Ashcroft says, that is not something I view as acceptable, let alone desirable, but is the inevitable consequence of the government policy which failed to focus on isolating that 20% effectively, in favour of chasing after the actual chimera of a 100% lock-down of society, which is the strategy that Ashcroft supports!
In fact, Ashcroft admits it.
“His recommendation is to replace lockdown by isolating only those most vulnerable (he sets at 20% of the population) so they are kept completely clear of any chance of infection.”
This, of course, completely contradicts his previous lie, as part of his crude attempt at an amalgam, that I was in the same camp as Toby Young, and was engaged in a cruel programme of eugenics to kill off old and sick people, which would be a strange death-wish given that I am both old and asthmatic!
He continues, outlining his “version” of my proposal,
“The remaining 80% either have no symptoms of the virus, or only minor ones (wrong)”
Except its not wrong. All of the medical evidence is that 80% of the population has no symptoms, or only mild symptoms, from COVID19. Of course, even amongst the 20%, there will be people who also only have no, or only mild, symptoms - Prince Charles, for example. Some will have more severe symptoms, but recover. But, the fact remains that, even amongst the 20%, only a minority will die from COVID19. According to Imperial, about 9% of those over 80, infected, will die, but, if the figure is based on their other projections, that is probably also out by a factor of 10. Does it mean that no one in the 80% will suffer anything other than mild, or no, symptoms, of course not. If Ashcroft actually understood the use of statistics in science – no wonder he failed his Bsc. - he would know that it is based upon probability. I have the advantage over him that I did not fail my B.Soc.Sc. (Hons.), and, as part of it, studied Statistics as a subsidiary subject. In other words, the probability, if you are in the 80%, is strongly in favour of you only ever suffering mild or no symptoms, it clearly does not mean that there will not be this or that individual in the 80% who may be the exception to the rule. But, to use his flawed methodology, you might as well say, because some isolated individuals in the 20% suffer no serious illness, just carry on, and base public policy on those exceptions!
The actual data, as opposed to Ashcroft's speculations, shows that in the UK, 92% of those dying from or with COVID19 are over 60. In fact, 53% are over 80. Of the other 8%, the vast majority have other underlying medical conditions, with less than 1% not being prima facie in that category. However, further medical study would probably show that there was some underlying medical reason why this small number of individuals also succumbed, when everyone else in their cohort did not.
The actual data, as opposed to Ashcroft's speculations, shows that in the UK, 92% of those dying from or with COVID19 are over 60. In fact, 53% are over 80. Of the other 8%, the vast majority have other underlying medical conditions, with less than 1% not being prima facie in that category. However, further medical study would probably show that there was some underlying medical reason why this small number of individuals also succumbed, when everyone else in their cohort did not.
Herd Immunity and Bullshit and Bare Faced Lies
He says,
“Four fifths of the population (Boffy’s figures, I think three quarters) must get infected in the numbers which correspond to between one quarter and three quarters of the entire population, including the at risk).”
Not true, as I have set out before. Every study, including that of Imperial, suggests that herd immunity kicks in when around 60% of the population is infected, which is also why authorities like to get around at least that proportion vaccinated against measles, flu etc. The basis is that vaccination prevents a large part of the population from being infected, and so they cannot be transmitters of any virus, disease etc. That means that there is already, then, automatic large-scale social-distancing, because there are large distances, within the general population, between any carriers of a disease and potential victims, because 60% of the people they come in contact with are already immune, so the disease dies out, as it cannot find hosts to infect.
In fact, even at around 40-50% of the population having been infected, the number of transmissions should start to decline. If Oxford are right, and around 50% are already infected, we should expect that the number of deaths should start to decline, but first the distorting effects of deaths in hospitals and care homes will need to work their way through. If, the actual total infections settle at around 30 million, and the mortality rate turns out to be 0.05%, then we would expect deaths of around 15,000.
“As is already happening, the younger and healthier people who will suffer the worst infections and who will continue die unless they get the right PPE, are the front line health staff. I’ve given up following Boffy’s twists and turns in detail, but he was arguing that they did not need extra protective clothing around the time their first deaths were being announced.”
Another barefaced lie! I have never argued that health and care staff don't need additional PPE. Once again, he is just making stuff up as he goes along! Right from the beginning I argued, not only that those in the 20%, amongst health and care staff, should be put on sick leave with full pay, but that it was essential that health and care staff had PPE, and appropriate safety and isolation protocols, precisely so that they did not transmit the virus to patients and residents in hospitals and care homes. Is there no calumny to which Ashcroft will not stoop?
Now for the elements of just what is wrong in Ashcroft's arguments as opposed to his lies and calumnies. I will take that up in Part 2.
Forward To Part 2
Forward To Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment