Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Whether or not the current number of deaths per day for Covid-19 is on a par with that for flu (and, note, the Covid-19 death rate is still increasing) is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not Vallance and Whitty were scaremongering or were deliberately distorting the facts as they knew them or were indulging themselves with politics. Vallance said “If – and that’s quite a big if – but if that continues unabated and this grows, doubling every seven days, [...] by mid-October, if that continued, you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October, per day.” He also went on to say that the “50,000 cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November, say, to 200-plus deaths per day." On the number of deaths issue, he has, clearly, been seen to be justified in what he said. He used the example of 200 deaths per days by mid-November and we have actually seen 200 deaths per day 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November. Whether or not that number should be considered as being a large number is not the point. Vallance was justified in his use of that number.
Was he right about the number of cases? Well, the first point to note that he absolutely did not 'predict' that there would be 50000 cases by the middle of November. He was very clear that it was not a prediction. He was using the number 50000 as an example of what could happen. Was he justified in using the number 50000? Well, the next point to note is that, since we're not testing the whole population, the number of cases will include people who had symptoms but didn't get tested, as well as people who were asymptomatic. So, how many cases were there in mid-October? I don't know, but it seems to me that the best estimate is unlikely to be a million miles from 50000. However, the number of positive test results was significantly below 50000. But the third point to note is that additional measures aimed at limiting the growth of cases were introduced after he spoke. He was referring to the scenario in which further action was not taken. So the question, then, is whether or not his use of the words "something like 50,000 cases" if the growth continued 'unabated' warranted his being accused of scaremongering, and deliberately exaggerating the need for urgent action, and wilfully - I like that 'wilfully', it's so hyperbolic - misrepresenting the facts, and grossly over-estimating case numbers, and using numbers that were 'implausible', and indulging in 'project fear', and committing a "sackable offence"? Clearly, those accusations were not warranted. And, of course, the exact number of cases is far less important than the number of deaths. Vallance used the example of 200 deaths per days by mid-November and we have actually seen 200 deaths per day 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November, and the number of deaths per day is still increasing. So, not only were those accusations not warranted, they were actually just plain silly.
On 23rd September Muddy Retriever made the point that "by mid October we should be able to judge whether their warnings were justified or simply scaremongering." He was right - we now know that their warnings were not scaremongering but were, in fact, justified.
The question here isn't whether or not the measures the Government have introduced are justified or sensible. The question is whether or not Vallance and Whitty acted with a lack of integrity, scientific or otherwise. The answer is that they didn't.
