I will deal with Ashcroft's arguments as they appear in his last post.
COVID-19 and Flu
Ashcroft says,
“Flu deaths happen at a more or less steady rate through the colder moths of the year. They are happening at a more or less predictable rate which health care systems in wealthy economies are geared up to expect, and are used to coping with despite all effects of underfunding.
C-19 is hitting suddenly, rapidly and, unless controlled, at an ever-increasing speed. The word coming out from the heath care front line is ‘tsunami’ – but perhaps an even more accurate image could be an ever-accelerating continuous avalanche.”
This is simply untrue. Take the UK. In 2019, only 1,600 people died from flu. But, in 2018, 17,000 people died from flu. That is a variation of more than 15,000 deaths, and these additional deaths occur over a few short months. To claim that these deaths are “more or less predictable”, then, is completely false. In fact, this difference of more than 15,000 is nearly double the current number of UK deaths from COVID19 in total! If we take the US, the same can be seen. The number of people infected with flu each year varies from a low of 9 million to a high of 45 million. It results in a low of 140,000, and a high of 800,000 being hospitalised each year. Again, its hard to claim that a variation of 650,000 people, a ratio of nearly 6:1 high to low, represents any kind of predictability of numbers of flu victims, and, similarly, with US flu deaths, which range from a low of 12,000 to a high of 61,000.
Currently (at time of writing), US COVID19 deaths stand at around 17,000, or just about a third of the potential range of high to low flu deaths in the US. So, Ashcroft's claims that the current numbers of COVID19 deaths in the UK, or in the US, represent some kind of tsunami, completely unprecedented, as compared with variations in annual flu deaths simply does not stand up, as with the rest of his arguments. And, his claim that the trend (what in mathematics is called the second derivative) is “ever-accelerating”, also not true, and pure Malthusian fantasy and catastrophism. The trend has had a fairly uniform slope, meaning a constant rate of growth, and, if anything, has begun to grow at a slightly slower rate, i.e. a flattening of the curve. In fact, Sky News presented a chart, recently, that showed total UK Deaths from all causes, and presented COVID19 deaths in relation to it. They appear as a tiny chip in the corner of a huge slab of deaths from other causes. I haven't been able to find the graphic, but the numbers prove the point. UK deaths from all causes amount, on average, to 500,000 p.a. COVID19 deaths at 8,000 constitute just 1.6%. But, in the last decade, the highest number of deaths, in a single year, was 623,000. That means a variation of 123,000 deaths, or about 25%, which makes the 1.6%, accounted for by COVID19, pale into insignificance. Furthermore, 500,000 is the average number so that the variation between high and low will be even greater than that figure.
Moreover other data confirms this. If we take the number of emergency admissions to hospital in the UK, it amounts to over 6 million a year. That is equal to 115,000 per week, or 16,500 per day. Currently, around 10,000 people are being treated in hospital for COVID19, in total. If the total average hospital stay for each of these is 10 days, that is the equivalent of 1,000 admissions per day, which is only about 6% of average daily admissions for all emergencies.
No one denies, of course, that the NHS, and other health systems, are being overwhelmed, but blaming COVID19 for that, given the actual facts, is like blaming the straw for breaking the camel's back, rather than the several hundred-weight of other cargo it had been previously loaded with, whilst the camel driver had failed to feed it for a week!
Malthus Lives!
Ashcroft says,
“Total deaths from C-19 are doubling every few days – currently every 3 days in Britain (this and all other unsourced information, collated and published t https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus – scroll down for doubling times from latest statistics for all countries). That means that deaths in each country are just a tiny proportion of those from normal flu to one where they threated to dwarf the flu death rate.”
Note that doubling every 3 days, does not constitute an “ever-accelerating” trend, but a constant rate of acceleration. However, this is the typical method of exponential extrapolation that all catastrophists have employed since Malthus onwards, and probably before him. In Capital, Marx explains how Dr. Price convinced Pitt of the way the UK could be made rich by such measures of exponential growth in the form of compound as against simple interest. It was, of course, complete hogwash, and the same applies to the exponential extrapolation that Malthus undertook to claim that population would grow uncontrollably so that food production would not keep up, and millions would suffer famine. Modern day Malthusians, amongst the environmentalists, still put forward that argument as they argued for population growth to be curbed, and Ashcroft uses the same methodology to claim that, because the number of fatalities from COVID19 has doubled every few days, this doubling can be extrapolated into the future ad infinitum. In fact, before long, on that basis, twice as many people would have died from COVID 19 than are currently alive! But, Ashcroft simply confines himself to a prediction of a thousandfold increase in just a month!
Ashcroft is a veritable Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, or John Law of virology. This is epidemiology as pyramid scheme, not science. Like Buzz Lightyear, Ashcroft, when it comes to potential deaths from COVID19, sets his sights on infinity and beyond. Malthus, of course, was wrong, because population did not grow exponentially, as he had predicted, but also agricultural production grew even faster than population, so that, far from there being a consequent famine, food prices fell, and food per head of population increased, even as the number of people employed on the land continually declined.
Ashcroft fails to ask the question about whether the increases in deaths from COVID19, are normal for any such disease, in its initial phases, why that might be, and why, similarly, the dynamic that causes that, also puts a limit on that exponential growth. Well, its easy to see why, in the initial stages of the spread of any such disease, there would be such an exponential growth. Let's say that the mortality rate is 10%. Initially, 1 person has the infection. If they die they can't pass it on. If they recover, before coming into contact with others, they develop immunity, they no longer carry the virus, and so they don't pass it on. However, assume that, in the first week, they infect 10 other people. With a mortality rate of 10%, one of these is likely to die. In the second week, the first ten infect, now, 100 people, and so, out of these 10 are likely to die. In the third week, the 100 infect 1,000, so that 100 are likely to die, and so on.
Now, suppose the population is 5,000. If the 1,000 continue to infect others at the rate of 10:1, there is an obvious natural limit, here, because the population itself is only 5,000. If the remaining 4,000 people are then infected, that means that 400 people would die, so that the exponential progression stops. This is what in mathematics is called the second derivative, or rate of change. In other words, 400 is more in absolute terms than 100, but if the previous rate of change had continued, the figure should have been 1,000. And, because, now, the entire population is infected, there can be no further infections, and so there can, also, be no further deaths. The rate of change collapses to 0. Anyone familiar with Ponzi Schemes, and asset price bubbles will be familiar with this process. It is called in finance the bigger fool principle. In other words, an asset price bubble can continue to inflate, so long as all those buying the assets are prepared to pay ever higher prices for them on the basis that they will then be able to sell them to some bigger fool, who is prepared to pay an even higher price for the asset. The more parabolic the curve of the rise of such a bubble, the sooner it reaches its apex, and there are no more bigger fools left to buy, so that prices collapse. Here, it is a question that the faster the number of potential victims are infected, the faster infections reach a level where there is no one left to infect, so the infection rate, and with it, the number of deaths suddenly collapses. Given any mortality rate, the number of deaths is simply a function of the infection rate.
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
|
But, the Imperial data itself shows that there is not one single mortality rate for COVID19. It claims a mortality rate of 9% for the over 80's, but a mortality rate of just 0.002% for the 0-9's, 0.006% for the 10-19's, 0.030% for the 20-29's, 0.080% for the 30-39's, 0.15% for the 40-49's, and 0.600% for the 50-59's. Their overall mortality rate is 0.9%, because it is based on the Chinese data and relates to “reported cases” rather than actual infections. If we take the evidence of the government's Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, that the mortality rate, measured against estimated infections is only 0.1%, we would have to shift all of these above rates to the right by one decimal point.
So, the other question, here, that Ashcroft does not address is, who is it that is actually dying, and why are they dying in the numbers they are, and is this likely to continue in an exponential progression. Its only necessary to look at Imperial's data, along with the official data on deaths to see the answer. Despite the fact that the media only cover the death of an older person, or person with underlying conditions, if they are newsworthy in their own right, as with Eddie Large, whilst they highlight every individual death of younger people, the reality of the data is that, the overwhelming number of people dying from COVID19 are old people, and people with other underlying conditions, and even more where the two things go together.
Latest data shows that 53% of deaths were people over 80, 39% people aged 60-79, 7% were 40-59, 1% aged 20-39, and just 0.1% aged 0-19. In other words 92% of all the deaths in the UK from COVID19 were of people over 60. And, of the rest, a large majority suffered from other underlying causes, meaning that the number of people who are neither elderly nor suffering from other conditions, who die from COVID19, is statistically insignificant, however, tragic at an individual level, every such death is. In addition, without a full medical analysis, it is not possible, either, to say, whether any of those individuals had other factors contributing to their death. We are told, for example, that Boris Johnson is only 55, and fit, but really? ONS give a different breakdown, but with the same basic finding.
There is a simple reason that the mortality rate in the UK is high, and, similarly, why its potential to continue to remain high is constrained. It is firstly that it is measured against reported cases rather than infections, and secondly, the people dying, as the ONS data shows, are old and sick people, many of whom were already in hospitals, or in care homes to begin with. Given woeful lack of provision of PPE, or establishment of appropriate isolation and contact protocols, the other major vehicle for transmission amongst these vulnerable groups, is that of the underpaid, overworked, care workers, who have to fly from one location to another, to meet the needs of people in their own homes. The virus was provided with a captive population of the most vulnerable people to spread amongst, because a state capitalist hospital system, and care system, designed to meet the needs of capital not of workers, which, as a result, has suffered ten years of austerity, is not geared to provide the response required in such conditions. Its nature, in which prestige projects are privileged over primary care, over the provision of adequate staffing, and adequate basic equipment, meant that COVID19 could spread amongst elderly and sick people in hospitals, in care homes, and via the provision of care in the home, because the workers in those hospitals, in care homes and providing care in the home, lacked basic requirements like PPE, like the ability to properly isolate patients and so on. And, the same applies in Italy, the US and elsewhere. In fact, in the US with its lack of a socialised health care system, available to all, free at the point of use, that problem is even worse.
If the mortality rate was calculated against infections rather than reported cases, it would fall drastically, and immediately. If the current lock down achieved anything, it is simply to slow down the process of ensuring that the required herd immunity is acquired by the 80% of the population that are at no statistically significant risk from it. It has not slowed the number of deaths, because those deaths are occurring amongst a section of the population that is both at risk, and which was concentrated in particular environments, hospitals etc., where the virus was free, and, in large part, continues to be free, to spread amongst them. That is the tragedy of the government policy that failed to isolate that 20% of the population, to prevent them being infected. It is the tragedy of the policy that Ashcroft continues to propose, even as government advisors themselves begin to distance themselves from it. And, of course, the idea of there being a lock down is itself a sham. There is a lock down of citizens social activity, but not of their labour. Capital requires us, as workers to keep working, so as to keep producing profits for it. That is why the majority of workplaces continue to remain open, making a mockery of the idea of so called social-distancing. The social lockdown, has simply turned all workers into nothing more than drones, servicing the Queen bee of capital.
To Infinity and Beyond
So, Ashcroft says,
“Tiny numbers because the snowball which kicks off the avalanche is just starting to inch forward, and because it is still small. A doubling time of three days means a rise from one example to a thousand in ten times three days, that is, a month. It means if the same doubling period still holds for the next month the level will be a million examples.”
Its true that Ashcroft does admit that this exponential growth has limits, but apparently not any in sight, at least until we have gone from 1 to 1 million in this progression. And, hyped up on this cornucopia of death, he has already transported himself to this veritable necropolis in his own mind's eye, because, already, on 3rd April, he was informing us, from his own stock of alternative facts, that the number of deaths in the US had reached 100,000, and so was only a week and a half away from a million. The trouble was that US deaths were only 5,000, making him out by a factor of 20, and, even now, are only around 17,000, still a very long way from his 100,000, let alone a million! In fact, if his projection had been correct, even starting from the actual figure on 3rd April, we should have had 10,000 by 6th April, 20,000 by 9th April, and 40,000 by tomorrow!
Ashcroft then engages in a bit of sleight of hand.
“If the Oxford group were right, the infection should be slowing without any need to take extra measures”, he says.
But, we don't know if the infection rate is slowing, because we don't know how many are even infected. The government is barely doing 10,000 tests per day, which, even if there was no duplication, means that it would take around 6,000 days, or about 15 years to test the entire population!
“Hubei province, the original and so far worst known hot spot, has had 67,803 confirmed cases. In a population of 50.02 million that’s less than one in a thousand”, he continues.
Which rather proves the point. Firstly, this shows that its meaningless to talk about “confirmed cases” rather than the actual number of people infected. What is more, China does not even count, as a confirmed case, anyone who has had the virus, and has now become immune to it! Yet, its that data that Imperial based their projections of the mortality rate upon, and which Ashcroft wants to promote as good coin.
“That figure for confirmed cases will, even with the best recording methods achievable, have undercounted. Perhaps the real figure is ten times as many, even fifty times as many. Even depending on the (as yet unknown) levels needed to get to herd immunity it would have to have missed two hundred and fifty cases for every one recorded – perhaps seven hundred and fifty or more. Really?”
Yes, really, especially where, as in Britain, the amount of testing is more or less non-existent. So, for example, on the basis of the number of people tested, for every test done, 10,000 people are not tested. That means for every test done that is positive, there are 10,000 people who may be positive, but who have simply not been tested. Given that 80% of people infected with COVID19 have no symptoms, or only very mild symptoms, it is highly likely that there is such a large pool of such infected people out there, because the testing done up to now has only been of people that have flu-like symptoms, and in recent days, a small number of health workers.
He says,
“Italy doubling period is now down to nine days; Iran to twelve, China to forthy eight (lockdown in Hubei, testing plus rest of China). South Korea is 16 days, and Japan fifteen – they have put the brakes on well before herd immunity levels.”
But, of course, he has no basis for making such a claim, because he has no idea how many people in any of these places already have immunity against COVID19. The only way of actually assessing this is by having a large sample of people tested for COVID-19 antiboidies, so as to be able to get an idea of what proportion have acquired immunity, but anti-body tests are not being undertaken. The only places where a smaller number of people with such immunity is likely to exist is in South Korea, which, contrary to Ashcroft's proposal, has not implemented a lock down, because what South Korea did, as with Germany, is to institute widespread testing right at the start, so as to identify carriers, and to engage in comprehensive tracing of those they had come in contact with.
Autarky
Its not surprising that Ashcroft wants to go even further than the Tories in locking down the economy, creating autarky and the economic disaster that goes with it. The Tories version of lock down is indeed a farce. It is a strange kind of lock down that tells people to stay in their homes, keep their kids away from school and so on, but continues to rely on people ignoring the plea to stay at home in order to continue to go to work, and to go to the shops. But, of course, the reality is that, if people had done what the government asked, and stayed at home, the electricity would have gone off, the bins would not have been emptied, the sewers would back up, the water supply would stop, and so on, leading to an even greater economic disaster than the 30-50% drop in GDP that the Tories idiotic policy is already creating. Ashcroft is at least consistent in his demands that the economy and society be destroyed more comprehensively, by shutting it down completely.
And, of course, Ashcroft is not alone in this kind of catastrophist view. Marx destroyed the catastrophist arguments of Malthus, which had themselves been based upon a plagiarisation of the works of Sismondi. Lenin, similarly spent considerable time destroying the catastrophist and Sismondist ideas of the Narodniks, as I have been setting out in my series on Lenin and Economic Romanticism. The Narodniks argued that capitalism was alien to Russia, and would lead to catastrophe, because, whilst it was ruining the peasantry, it could not grow further once it had destroyed them all. This same kind of catastrophism is seen today amongst the reactionaries in the environmentalist movement, ranging from those that want to cull human populations via enforced sterilisation, and so on, to those who want to turn the clock back on human development, and go back to some more primitive mode of production. It is also seen in those “Marxists” who are continually looking for some kind of catastrophe to come along, be it environmental, or economic, such as via the law of the falling rate of profit, that will collapse capitalism in a way their activities have – fortunately – failed to achieve.
All of these trends are reactionary, mostly because they are also Utopian. Such catastrophes do not propel society forwards, but inevitably backwards. They lead to the kinds of implementation of martial law, and dictatorship already now being seen across Europe. Its no accident that the policy of lockdown only applies to a lockdown of our social activity, and most pointedly not to our work activity, as capital requires that we continue to act as drones, leaving our homes only in order to produce the profits that are its lifeblood. Already, we are seeing demands out of the shut down, for the closing of borders, and end to free movement. We have seen the biggest curtailment of civil liberty in Britain, ever. No such limitations were put on people, even, during WWII. This is a return to the conditions that serfs endured under feudalism, and even worse. At least then, you were not confined to your hut all day long.
Its no surprise that the reactionaries have taken the opportunity to make their calls for economic nationalism and an end to globalisation on the back of it.
Later Ashcroft returns to the question of catastrophism, referring to a couple of lines about oil I had made merely as an aside. But, in his response, he shows that he does not even understand the terms of the debate. He says,
“Oil production is rising, true. But only by opening new mines in ever more challenging conditions. Tapping strata with lower or poorer crude oil content; ever deeper beneath the earth’s crust; at ever increasing depths below the sea in waters exposed to more extreme weather conditions; ever more often drilling under the most challenging climates.
To maintain or cut the real price of oil under these deteriorating conditions requires continual increases in productivity: more efficient drilling, oil platforms, refineries, distribution networks. It requires continuing increasing productivity in the engineering sector producing the capital equipment to hold down the organic composition of capital of the oil industry, all keeping down the cost of production. Lowering turnover time.”
He seems blissfully unaware that, in providing this list of what he seems to think are exceptional factors that explain why the catastrophists of the 1970's were wrong, and the oil didn't run out, he has given precisely the Marxian explanation of why catastrophism and Malthusianism is bunk. Marx's response to Malthus' and Ricardo's claims about diminishing returns on the land, rising food prices, famine and so on, was precisely this. What Ashcroft thinks is an exception that proves why the oil did not not run out, as his fellow Malthusians predicted, is, of course, for Marx, and for Marxists, the rule! Basing himself on the work of Anderson, Marx shows that there was no reason why productivity on the land could not continue to rise, and rise faster than population growth. Marx shows that Malthus' population theory, and claims about exponential growth were, like Ashcroft's numbers, sucked out of his thumb, and based on no scientific evidence, or theory. In fact, more recent studies have shown that, everywhere, when living standards rise, family sizes decline, and population growth slows down. The whole point is that Marx's explanation and refutation of Malthusianism is that the proposed exponential rises do not exist, and secondly, technological solutions are introduced that raise productivity by more than is required to avoid the catastrophe. The same is true with oil and energy. The demand for oil did not rise exponentially, or even proportionally, because technology provided more efficient means of using it. Global GDP rose seven times more between 1980-2006, than did oil consumption for that reason. Secondly, just as technology raised agricultural productivity, and made possible opening up new lands, so that happened with oil drilling and production technology. Finally, technology has produced alternatives to oil so that its use will be phased out long before its supply runs out.
Ashcroft says,
“To cap it all, and only briefly an effect: right now an insane price war between two of the main global producer countries.”
Again, he seems oblivious to the fact that this price war, which began long before any real damage to oil demand due to the current closing down of the world economy, was itself a symptom of the fact that global oil supply has increased hugely, and has caused a massive oversupply in the market, which has broken the OPEC+ cartel wide apart!
He goes on,
“These are things which have to be assessed in detail before a serious comment is made on peak oil by anyone with pretensions to being a Marxist economist. No answers here. Boffy’s off the cuff couple of sentences ignores the need to ask the questions at all.”
This is again a typically dishonest method of arguing. I was not engaged in a serious debate on the question of peak oil! It was simply an allusion, for point of comparison. But, if Ashcroft is really interested in the question, rather than trying to simply score cheap debating points, I suggest that he looks at the plethora of my past posts on the question of oil, where he will find all those questions asked and answered in great detail. But, then reading carefully, and studying detail is not one of his strong suits.
As such, this has nothing to do with COVID19, but it is a symptom of the underlying catastrophist mindset, and methodology.
Catastrophism and Emotion
“Boffy’s second argument – lockdown is based on hysteria, as shown by the as yet low levels of cases and deaths in the United States or Sweden (although as deaths in the US soar we’ve been hearing less about it as an example). What this complacent argument fails to take into account is the tsunami / avalanche effect of accelerated increase in infections of a new disease.”
It fails to take account of this tsunami for the simple reason that it currently exists only in Ashcroft's head and not in reality, much as the predictions of oil running out 50 years ago were predictions in the heads of catastrophists of that time. There was actually a TV drama series back then, called Doomwatch that catered for stories surrounding such scenarios. And, in keeping with this kind of hysteria, and use of emotive language, rather than analysis of the facts, Ashcroft tells us that deaths in the US are “soaring”. Yet, deaths in the US, at time of writing are about 17,000, still a long way from the 100,000 figure Ashcroft thought existed on 3rd April, let alone from his prediction of 1 million!
And, if we take that 17,000 figure for the US, and compare it to a figure of 8,000 for the UK, then given that the US has a 5 times bigger population, its number of deaths per capita is just 42.5% that for Britain, but that hardly fits Ashcroft's argument, so he does not pursue it.
Instead, he takes up the issue of Sweden, which, as I set out in Part 1, he tried to portray in terms that he had presented the data, whilst I was left to only claim that his figures must be wrong. In fact, it was me that had presented the figures, and him that tried to explain why they didn't fit his argument, by telling us that it was all a question of luck, and the fact that he assumed that Sweden must be simply lagging behind the curve established in Britain. Of course, that didn't explain why Sweden's mortality figures were better also than its neighbour Denmark, which, like Britain has imposed a lock down! And, he still hasn't answered that point.
His comment,
“I really hope things have changed by now – the later things are left, the more drastic the action which needs to be taken.”
is illustrative, because it is typical of the catastrophist, who virtually wills on the catastrophe so as to have reality conform to their fantasies. Its like Trotsky's description of the sectarian who is characterised by the fact that they would much rather see the cause of the working-class set back if it can be used to argue that they had been right, than to admit that they had been wrong.
If Ashcroft were right, then, by now, we should have seen his predicted tsunami hitting Sweden, we should have seen its number of deaths rising exponentially. Have we? No. If anything, the latest data seems to suggest that infection rates and deaths in Sweden are reaching a peak, as the slope of the curve flattens, probably before that happens in Britain. Its too early to say, on the basis of a few data points, but that appears to be the case, and would be expected, if Sweden has simply built up the required amount of herd immunity to start slowing infections. And deaths in Sweden continue to be about a tenth of what they are in Britain, which on a per capita bases means that, Sweden is about half the number of deaths in the UK.
Track Records
Ashcroft says,
“Boffy’s condemnation of the Imperial prediction as an overreaction is based on 20/20 hindsight about the eventual impact – and even then relies on outlier estimates about the numbers infected.”
But, in the many other sources I have linked to, such as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, and others, there is plenty of evidence that others challenged the Imperial predictions back in 2009. He goes on to say that I have not made a serious assessment of the Imperial figures as they relate to the data as it comes out. But, the fact is that I have pointed to the statement by Vallance that the actual mortality rate is likely to be 1:1000, not the 0.9%, suggested by Imperial, and he derived that estimate based on his analysis of the actual progression of the virus, whereas Imperial made projections based on Chinese data from the past.
“Nothing from Boffy to suggest anyone else has a better track record than the Imperial group.”
But its not necessary to do so in order to challenge the data and analysis provided by Imperial on its own terms. In other words this is just a form of “whataboutery”. That there are plenty of other pulmonologists, virologists, epidemiologists and so on who also challenge the catastrophists claims is enough to give any sensible person pause for thought, but Ashcroft does not want to hear the voice of the child who shouted out that the King has no clothes on.
That the Imperial team got it so badly wrong with Swine Flu, itself you would think would give Ashcroft reason to be at least critical before rushing headlong into wanting to crash the global economy, and the millions of lives that will itself cost, but no, he has set his sights on infinity and beyond, and has blasted off regardless.
Ashcroft We Can't Isolate 20%, So Lets' Aim To Isolate 100% Instead!
I really have got a bit fed up of having to respond to all this bullshit, but we are near the end, and this bit is the most hilarious, in many ways, were the consequences not so serious. Ashcroft sets out my proposal that what should have been aimed at was to isolate and protect the 20% actually at serious risk. He then goes on to describe, why it is not practical to isolate this 20%. What is his answer, instead of trying to isolate just the 20%, let's go the whole hog and try to isolate 100%!!!
He discusses possible mortality rates, and calculates the potential number of infections from it. He says,
“Great, on the most wildly optimistic assumptions, we might already be two thirds of the way there – but if so we should already show signs of the infection beginning to lose momentum without lockdown.”
There are a number of problems with this. Firstly, we don't know if the number of infections is slowing down or not, because we only have numbers for a tiny fraction of the population that are being tested – currently less than 10,000 per day, or about 1 person in 6,500! In fact less than that because some people are tested multiple times. So, we might, as Oxford suggested, already have half the population infected. Deaths take about three weeks from infection, so we could still be a week or two weeks from the peak. But, in any case, precisely because of the point made earlier that there is no single morality rate, but a series of mortality rates for different groups in the population, we may already have reached the peak for new deaths in the general population, whilst having some way to go as far as the population in hospitals and care homes is concerned, where they are already closed down, and confined, and where the virus is, as in Italy, wreaking havoc. Ironically, if the lock down that the government has imposed did have its desired effect, then Ashcroft's argument also falls, because it would have slowed, if not prevented, the further spread of infection in the general population, and thereby the development of the required herd immunity! If it worked, the logic is that the lock down can't end until a vaccine is produced and given to everyone, and that is 18 months away.
If there were an actual lockdown, rather than just a lockdown on social activity, not work, that would destroy the economy and society, and is why the government's advisors like Gordon Medley have said that the current government policy is not based on good science, and that they need to get out of the dead end it has created.
Ashcroft goes through a list of people currently part of the 1.5 million the government is telling to self isolate. He uses this to set out the difficulty even in identifying these people. But, my proposal is much simpler. If you are over 60, or if you have some condition that means you would normally get a free flu jab, then you should be self isolating. The NHS and DWP has this detail, so its not difficult identifying this group. Moreover, as I have set out before, the largest cohort of this group is those over 60, so the question of the need to self-isolate others in these households tends to resolve itself. Indeed, it is the decision of the government to close schools, which means that many kids will now be staying with grandparents in the at risk group that is one of the biggest challenges to that.
He says,
“For those in care homes, all residents and staff.”
would need to be isolated, but staff do not need to be isolated, if they are provided with adequate PPE.
He goes on, describing the problem of provisioning these people.
“Possibly we are talking about anything up to a quarter of the population who will need to be isolated to protect the vulnerable. How could they be provisioned? The weekly food parcel for the one million is intended only as a limited supplement to their own food needs, not anyone they
share the home with.
At least as presently made up, some of these food parcels don’t even fit basic general guidelines for healthy eating, let alone any special dietary needs. Public Health (England) are working with the big supermarkets to ensure the million get priority for home deliveries. Good – for those with internet access and the skills to use it, including the energy and patience to order on websites groaning under a pressure they were never designed for.”
All very good. Except most of us needing to self isolate could manage perfectly well with our usual online shopping had the lockdown not caused that to become seized up. He has described the problems of ensuring that this minority of the population could effectively self-isolate. So, now, what is his solution to these problems, it is that the entire population should self isolate, that there should be an even more comprehensive lock down than currently exists! In other words, all of the problems he has just outlined in providing for this minority, albeit a sizeable minority, should be made ten times worse, by having the rest of the working-population stop work, and stay in doors itself!!!!
Where he thinks, then, any of the food, let alone the food parcels and deliveries, would come from is anyone's guess. But, he's already zoomed off to the stars, and his fantasy of exponential growth rates, so trivial things like actual workers needing to do actual work, to produce actual goods and services for society to consume never, it seems, enters his head.
“There’s always someone wrong on the internet. There’s always someone wrong in the real world.”
Yes, and mostly David, it appears to be you!
No comments:
Post a Comment