Coronavirus

[Muddy Retriever]

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.

You say that Vallance did not predict that there would be 50,000 cases, that it was just an example of what could happen. Well why was that the only scenario presented then? I think he knew that the 50,000 would become the headline so that people would interpret that as a prediction.

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 that wasn't the point Vallance was making at all. He produced a graph showing the actual reported cases on the 15th September, which was 3,105. It then doubles every seven days so that by 13th October, it would be 49,000. So that's actual reported cases of people that have actually been tested and found to be positive.Vallance graph.JPG

Actual reported cases were 17,234, little over a third of his (not a) prediction.

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.

Well what were these extra measures then between 21st September and 13th October? The only significant change I recall was the 10pm curfew. Indeed I said at the time "To be fair, the new measures when they came were much less stringent than expected and I doubt they will have that much of an effect one way or the other". The 10pm curfew was apparently not recommended by Sage at the time and they have since said it would have marginal effect. Actually many people think it has made the situation worse, since large numbers of people are leaving at the same time, using public transport and going to takeaways/off licences etc.

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.

Yesterday, you quoted me saying that Vallance was wilfully misrepresenting the facts but you omitted to include the bit where I explained why. He said that cases were doubling every seven days. They weren’t doubling, it was not true. This could be seen from the figures that the Government publishes on its website. If I’m wrong I’m happy for you to show me.

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.

Yes I agree that deaths are more important than cases but I never mentioned them back then. It is Vallance who said that 50,000 cases would lead to 200+ deaths. So he was spectacularly wrong for one estimate in one direction and then spectacularly wrong on another estimate but in the other direction, getting close to the actual deaths figure by accident.

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.

But this doesn't make them always right. Back in March Vallance was initially not in favour of lockdown. On 12th March he said:

“It’s important to recognise it’s not to stop everyone getting [Covid-19]. You can’t do that. It’s not possible to stop everyone getting it, and it’s also not desirable because you want some immunity in the population. We need to have immunity to protect ourselves in the future.”

He thought that lockdowns would only suppress the virus for a while and then would come back in a second wave. As indeed it has.

He is now in favour of a circuit breaker lockdown. So was he right then or is he right now?