The Voter Fraud Misdirection - What's the Point?

Obviously there's no foundation to any of the Trump campaign's claims of voter fraud or there would have been some evidence produced by now. And that's even if anybody actually thinks a conspiracy of the size required to rig an election in a country the size (in area and population) is at all possible. How many people would need to be involved? At what levels of society? For how many years????

So why is he persisting? It can't just be ego or insanity as surely someone close to him (on whatever level) would point out that he looks like the world's biggest XXXX (insert your own insulting description of choice here) .

Or is there an unconstitutional, undemocratic (small D, no party affiliation intended) plan which may start civil uprisings and the destruction of an economic power? Maybe there is.....

TRUMP'S POSSIBLE ROADMAP TO KEEPING THE WHITE HOUSE

Donald Trump does have a precarious - and politically explosive - path to keeping the White House. To do it he needs to get Joe Biden's wins in a series of states set aside. 

With his claim that the Supreme Court would do that looking to have evaporated, instead he has to use the procedures of the Electoral College to turn it round. 

And he needs to do it in a lot of states: if Georgia and Arizona stay on track for Joe Biden, he will have 306 votes, far above the 270 needed. Trump appears to be taking legal action, or intending to, in six states: Pennsylvania, with 20 Electoral College votes; Georgia, with 16; Michigan with 16; Arizona with 11; Wisconsin with 10; and Nevada with six.

He needs to get at least any two of the larger three states plus one more state to go Republican to get Biden under 270. 

Here is how he might manage it: 

STEP ONE: GET COURTS TO PUT HOLDS ON CERTIFYING THE VOTE IN TARGET STATES 

The vote is not official until it is 'certified' - that is officially declared valid - which happens later in November. Georgia certifies on November 20, and Nevada and Wisconsin are last on December 1. 

Trump is already trying to get certification put on hold in Pennsylvania and Michigan, claiming large-scale irregularities.  That briefly appeared to succeed in Wayne County, MI, on Tuesday 17 when the Republicans on the bipartisan board of canvassers refused to certify - but only for a few hours before backing down. The next day they said they wanted to withdraw their signatures but it appeared to be too late under state laws; in the meantime Trump thanked them for their support.

OR: GET AN 'AUDIT' REQUESTED OR EVEN BETTER ORDERED - AND KEEP IT GOING PAST CERTIFICATION

Some Michigan Republican state senators have asked for an 'audit' claiming that allegations of irregularity need to be looked into.  This could be a useful tool if courts don't come through: at the very least it would allow Republicans to say they don't trust the certification because it has not been audited.

STEP TWO: KEEP THE CERTIFICATION ON HOLD PAST DECEMBER 8

This is the 'safe harbour' deadline when all election disputes must be resolved. If they are not fully played out, whoever has a court ruling in their favour at this point keeps that result. So if Trump has certification on hold in target states, he has a chance to flip them to him starting now. 

STEP THREE: GET REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES TO AGREE TO APPOINT THEIR OWN ELECTORS

You were not voting for the president directly: you were voting for electors to the electoral college. But the Constitution does not say that electors are winners of a popular vote. Instead the Constitution says: 'Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.' In the early 19th century, states rapidly moved to make the appointment of the electors the result of the popular vote; by 1832 South Carolina was the only holdout. It stuck with that approach until secession.

So Republicans in at least three and possibly more states would have to decide that because the results are not certified - or because they claim they don't trust the certification because of an audit or the lack of one - that they can take back control for themselves. They would argue that because the results aren't certified or trustworthy, it's up to them to work out the will of the people.

Then - undoubtedly in the face of huge public protest - they would appoint Republicans who will vote for Trump.  

STEP FOUR: SWEAT IT OUT WHEN GOVERNORS APPOINT THEIR OWN ELECTORS

All three of the biggest target states - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan - have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors. So now the governors could simply appoint their own electors - voting for Biden - and say that their votes are what counts on January 6, when the Electoral College is counted and record in Washington D.C.

STEP FOUR: SURVIVE A SUPREME COURT CHALLENGE TO THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORS 

Such a dramatic change would go to the Supreme Court. It has never directly ruled whether states could do that: in 2000, three of the five justices who gave the election to Bush over Gore said that state legislatures had complete control - but that is not a precedent. Now Trump's fate would be in the hands of nine justices, three of whom he appointed and one of whom - Clarence Thomas - said that legislatures are in charge.  

Democrats would of course argue that the governors' electors are the right ones, and a titanic battle would play out. If Trump wins - again in the face of likely huge public protest - he is on to the final stage. 

STEP FIVE: HOPE THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA REPUBLICAN SLATES DON'T GO FAITHLESS

If Pennsylvania is one of the states to ignore the popular vote, Trump needs its 20 Republican electors to stick to the plan - but the state allows faithless electors. So all, or even some, could make a difference in an already mathematically fraught bid to keep the presidency. But assuming he has enough votes not going to Biden, it is on to Washington D.C.

STEP FIVE:  MAKE IT TO JANUARY 6 

This is D-day for the plan: The newly-sworn in Congress meets to count the Electoral College votes. The vice-president, Mike Pence, presides, over a joint session. Normally the 'certificates' showing how each state voted are opened in front of the vice-president, the count is recorded and with a bang of the gavel, the electoral college winner is officially declared.

Now Trump needs Republicans in the House and Senate to work together. A member of the House and a senator can jointly object to a state's certificate when it is opened. The last time this happened was in 1877, which caused a months-long crisis, ended by compromise and followed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. 

This time the 1887 rules come into play. If there is an objection, they split into the House and Senate and there are two hours for debate. This has only happened once, in 2005, when a tiny number of Democrats objected to Ohio's vote count. But it was voted down overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate. 

And finally, the vote count is in alphabetical order, so Arizona will be the first battleground state where all this could be tested. 

STEP SIX: MAKE SURE THE RULES ARE IN YOUR FAVOUR

As the Trump ships enters uncharted waters, one issue is unresolved: how do you work out what a majority of the Electoral College is? That seems simple but it might not be. If the House and the Senate come to different conclusions on a state with rival slates of electors, then the question is what happens next. 

The most likely answer is that they are simply removed from Biden's total but not added to Trump. But does that mean the states still count in the Electoral College? The 1887 law is not clear: it seems to suggest both options are available, so Congress might have to try to decide - or Pence as president of the joint session could rule.

If Congress goes for the shrinking college, that favours Biden unless Trump has Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - all the states being targeted by Trump. But if it stays at 538, then Biden could well lose without Trump actually winning: once it falls below 270, there is no majority and therefore it is up to the House to decide.

STEP SEVEN: KEEP MITT ROMNEY, SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI ON TRUMP'S SIDE (AND HOPE PENCE CAN VOTE)

If Trump is to win, he has to have the Republicans in the Senate vote for Arizona's Republican slates as the first order of business. 

This is where the Georgia Senate race comes into play. 

If the Georgia runoffs are decided and Democrats take both seats, Pence would have to tie break in Trump's favour - if that is allowed. The rules say he is president of the joint session. But they are unclear on whether he retains his tie-break power as president of the Senate. The two roles are not identical and the 1887 law appears to give him a passive, rather than active, role in the session - more like the chief justice presiding over Trump's impeachment trial than a regular Senate session.

But if Republicans get one or both Georgia seats, the Senate will be 51-49 or 52-48, which means that any rebellion by Republicans is extremely dangerous. Assuming that Pence has a tie-break, it would take only two or three rebels to end Trump's run. There are three obvious candidates: Mitt Romney voted to impeach him, Susan Collins owes him nothing after he refused to campaign for her, and he has called for Lisa Murkowski to be primaried. 

STEP EIGHT: WATCH A DEBATE WHICH HAS NO PRECEDENT

The 1887 law sets some ground rules for how the House and the Senate debate which slate of electors are valid. They have to decide what the true vote was at the safe harbour deadline - back on December 8 - and which slate of electors were appointed in line with state law. So the debate should - in theory - not be partisan but a determination of which side is valid. In principle, that could mean different outcomes for different states. But assuming that  a Arizona goes Trump's way in the Senate and Biden's way in the House, that state is tied - and then it's on to a new constitutional crisis. 

STEP NINE: NOW IT'S GETTING REALLY MESSY - COULD THERE BE TWO PRESIDENTS

The law says that Congress can't move on to the next state until debate is resolved over the one in question. But it also says that the meeting cannot be dissolved until all states are decided.

So the whole proceeding could be deadlocked at Arizona. And as long as it remains deadlocked, there is a looming deadline of January 20 - at which point Pence and Trump are out of office anyway. In that scenario, Nancy Pelosi becomes president automatically at noon. 

However, Pence could break the deadlock on Arizona by ruling that the votes are not to be counted at all, and debate can resume on the next item.

Democrats clearly would not agree. In that scenario, it is impossible to say what would happen. They could walk out, say the debate is not resolved - which it would not be - and therefore Pelosi would be sworn in on January 20.

But Pence can then rule that the debate in fact is going on even without Democrats, run through the votes with only Republicans and come up with a Trump victory: meaning two rival presidents both claiming they are in charge. Both can be sworn in at noon on January 20, with only one with their personal items in the White House.

What happens then is impossible to say: the Supreme Court could try to rule between them, or the military might have to decide who is commander-in- chief. 

THE OTHER STEP NINE: KEEP DEBATING (ALTHOUGH WHY WOULD DEMOCRATS WANT TO?)

Of course Democrats could stick with the debate and keep going, debating each state as they go along. 

If Trump overturns six states' votes, it is inevitable that Democrats lose, regardless of the rules. If he has fewer states, he will want the 538 figure kept in play to get Biden into a minority. This highly unlikely step gets to neither having a majority in the Electoral College.

STEP NINE: THE HOUSE DECIDES - TRUMP HAS DONE IT

If Trump and Biden end up here this is safer ground: the House has decided before. It does not vote under normal rules. Instead each state delegation gets one vote and has to decide among the delegation how to allot it. 

So going by current House results, 27 states have Republican majorities, and all Trump has to do it get a simple majority of them. Trump has triumphed - but it is an exhaustingly long process to get back on the platform on January 20 to be sworn in.

Tin Foil Hats Don't Protect Against Alien Abduction Either

I read in yesterday's Times about a Canadian study which claims to show that face masks can almost halve the number of new Covid-19 cases, but with the caveat that it has not yet been peer-reviewed. So, being more than mildly cynical about the efficiency of wearing non-medical face coverings to mitigate against the transmission of microscopic organisms, I've been and found it....

For the study, the authors looked at the difference in case growth rate between Ontario’s 34 Public Health Units (PHUs) and between Canada’s ten provinces during the period when some had mask mandates in force and some did not. They allowed two weeks for mandates to have an impact on reported cases, and did additional primary research to show that the mandates did in fact coincide with a change in reported behaviour (i.e. more people reported wearing masks).

Add caption

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/canada/

The first point to be made is that the mask mandates came in during the general decline of the epidemic and the period of low prevalence in July and August when there were only around 400 cases per day nationally in Canada. This makes the data highly sensitive to the testing regime and susceptible to false positives. It is noteworthy that there was a substantial increase in testing in July, showing up as a bump in the otherwise declining cases curve. At the time Ontario was recording just 100 cases or so per day. Divided between the 34 PHUs, that’s just three each per day. At a time of very low prevalence and high levels of testing such data cannot be considered reliable.

From a big picture point of view, it is of significance that once masks were mandated everywhere in Ontario (from July 8th) and Quebec (from July 18th) by the end of August cases started climbing again and have continued to do so as autumn has drawn in. Additionally, if you look at the cases curve for each province the impact of increased testing is clear but there is no sign of any impact of masks (or other intervention), just a smooth curve. Neither of these points supports the hypothesis that masks make a difference.

The main graphs the authors present do show an average difference in case growth rate between mask mandate and non-mandate PHUs and provinces for the four weeks or so in July and early August when mask mandates were not universal. In line with the authors’ hypothesis, mask mandate PHUs and provinces had a lower overall growth rate, though this was not consistently the case. It is noteworthy that the time lag from the mandate dates to the divergence in case growth of mandate and non-mandate regions is very different on PHU level and province level – two weeks versus four weeks – again counting against a claim to causative effect.

The most obvious explanation for the divergence between the two categories (mandate and non-mandate) is that the different PHUs or provinces are on different trajectories and so when they move from one category to the other (non-mandate to mandate) this has a corresponding effect on the growth rates. There is strong evidence this is the case.

On the PHUs graph we see initially in the second week of July the few PHUs with mask mandates in place have a higher average growth rate than those without one – the opposite of the hypothesis. Then, as some of those without mandates impose mandates and switch categories in the following week, the mandate PHU average growth rate quickly declines while those remaining in the non-mandate category quickly begin to show a higher rate of growth. 

Finally, in the second week of August (when the study period comes to an end), most of the remaining PHUs impose mandates and switch categories, and the growth rate in the mandate PHUs spikes rapidly. The fact that this shift results in a spike rather than continued decline is indicative that any difference was an artefact of which PHUs happened to be in which category rather than the impact of masks. In other words, they brought their higher growth rate with them into the mandate category rather than seeing it curbed by their masks. In this regard it is significant that the remaining few PHUs with no mask mandate in the second week of August actually trend below those with mandates – again, the opposite of the hypothesis.

In the case of provinces, in addition to the problem mentioned above that the average difference takes four weeks to show up rather than two, the data is skewed by the fact that only two of the ten provinces adopt a mandate during the study period so the sample size is very small and, again, the effect could be merely a function of the different trajectories of the different provinces. As noted, there is no visible sign in the case curves of the mask mandates altering the trajectories, and most provinces have seen a large growth in cases during the autumn.

The paper includes an elaborate attempt to account for the impact of other government interventions, but as this is all modelling, based on a lot of estimates and guesses, it does not address the criticisms raised here.

The evidence that the general use of cloth masks by the general population is ineffective for preventing the spread of Covid-19 (and other similar viruses) is well established. This is why the World Health Organisation did not endorse them until June, and even then stated: ‘At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence.’ . It listed 11 ‘likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public’, including ‘potential increased risk of self-contamination’. It all but admitted to BBC medical correspondent Deborah Cohen on July 14th that the change of policy was due to political lobbying rather than evidence. Cohen said: 

    ‘We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny.’ 

The study from Canada is the latest effort to produce evidence for something that has long been established to be false. Viruses are too small to be caught by pieces of cloth and the general public will never use masks properly or keep them clean. Airborne infection is largely a function of the viral load or concentration that has built up in a non-ventilated space, not the projection of droplets from cough and sneezes, and cloth masks are useless in preventing such a build-up of virus particles or protecting from the inhalation of them. They are also bad for health in multiple ways because they obstruct breathing clean air, are bad for social interaction, and particularly bad for social psychology. 

I've been told - repeatedly - that resistance to wearing masks (especially as they don't need to be medical grade and could in theory be fashioned out of old string vests)  indicates a susceptibility to conspiracy theories, possible David Icke related madness, selfishness or even a sign of low intelligence. However, when the evidence in favour of their use is either flimsy (no pun intended), or non-existent, they are not much more than the 2020 version of wearing tin foil hats to prevent abduction by aliens.

The "Positive" Impact of Nationwide Lockdowns..

Cherry Picked Information

Only 56 Million Cases to go until we reach H1N1 (Swine Flu) Cases from 2019!
Remind me again how long were schools shut down for?

What type of masks were popular back then?

Not having anything like as much data analysis to do as would be the case were we not in a pandemic, I've investigated the above meme which has appeared in my Facebook scroller due to posting by a Friend and getting liked/commented by enough other people to make it the first thing I saw.

The first thing that occurred to me was "is this data accurate"? I am not sure which data sources, location, or how recent it is, but as the poster has an intertest in US politics, it's probably about the US even though there are no citations to back up the statement.

However, it is consistent with the US CDC’s data. Over a period of one year (from April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010), the CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases of H1N1 in the United States [1]. Using the same source, the current cases of Covid-19 in the US are 4,920,369 (about 4.9 million) [2]. So as of today, we need roughly 55.9 million more Covid-19 cases (almost 56 million) to catch up on the 2009 H1N1 cases. So, yes, the data in the meme seems accurate.

Now, what about the argument? Although the conclusion is implied, the argument appears to be:

Premise 1: There were more 2009 H1N1 cases than the current pandemic

Premise 2: But we wear masks and close schools for this pandemic, but not for the 2009 pandemic.

Conclusion: we (or the US if my initial assumption is correct) are overreacting and don’t need to wear masks and close schools for this pandemic.

So on first reading, and without any sort or critical thought, it seems to make a sensible point, but a closer look shows it to be spurious. The argument rests on the hidden assumption that the case numbers are the primary determining factor for deciding if masks should be worn and schools should be closed.

But that doesn't make much sense as the average adult probably gets the common cold a few times a year, and given the US population, the cases of such a mild illness would be several hundred million a year. Clearly, other factors must be considered when deciding how to mitigate disease, whether that mitigation is with masks, closing schools, social distancing, or whatever else.

There are a number of important metrics in epidemiology such as incident rates, morbidity rates, mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, and many others, so only focusing on the cases is ridiculous, especially when these two diseases, H1N1 and Covid-19 are very different.

Going over each metric would be take way too long when there's cricket on the television, but we can clearly see that these two diseases are different by looking at the deaths in conjunction with the cases. The US coronavirus deaths to date attributed to COVID-19 is about 160,220 since January 2020, with an estimated 4.9 million cases.

However, H1N1 had substantially fewer (12,469 deaths from April 2009 to April 2010), from a whopping 60.8 million cases. But there is something else to think about. The death data for H1N1 is for one year, whereas the COVID-19 numbers are for only 8 months—and it may not slow down for several more months. Moreover, the H1N1 pandemic had relatively few precautions to attenuate its spread. Few people wore masks, there was little social distancing, etc.

So what does this mean? This means that over a period of 8 months, with social distancing, Covid-19 has more than 12 times the deaths (with social distancing and masks) from less than 1/12 the number of cases H1N1 had over one year. Though the 2009 pandemic was concerning, it was clearly nowhere near as deadly as this current pandemic. Therefore, at least concerning how society should react to the two diseases, it doesn’t make sense to compare these two diseases as equal.

So therefore this meme, which probably took seconds to compose, and maybe a couple of hours to pull apart with cited sources, makes a fallacious argument by using cherry-picked data from two very different diseases, and hyper focuses on case numbers as the sole metric for these decisions.

Who would have that sort thing would be all over T'Internet eh? :)

1. CDC website. 2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 virus). Last reviewed: June 11, 2019. Accessed Aug 12, 2020.

2. CDC website. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19). Cases, Data, and Surveillance. Last updated. Aug. 8, 2020, 07:00 PM. Accessed Aug 12, 2020.

Not Thinking of Numbers!

For the first time in almost a decade, we now have controls on undergraduate numbers for providers in England, and controls on the recruitment of English students who may want to cross the border of one the three other home countries

The Department for Education (DfE) has attempted to stabilise 2020 undergraduate recruitment by doing something which arguably manages to make it significantly less stable, and at the same time undo many years of trying to widen access.

Although the caps are not public, providers have just been told how many undergraduates they can recruit based on last year's numbers, plus whatever was forecast for 2020/21, plus another 5%.

Instead of the expected (and frequently threatened fine) over-recruitment will be punished by a reduced fee level next time round for providers in England, and there’s a reduced Student Loan Company payment for the devolved nation miscreants.

And if that's not enough to disadvantage increasing popular FECs (and the majority of HEIs), there's a competition for 5,000 additional student numbers in subjects without an obviously common economic or societal skills need, which has designed to be available (at least in part)only to “elite” institutions. Numbers in these subjects (architecture, science, maths, engineering, and veterinary science) will only be available to providers whose non-benchmarked continuation rate is over 90 per cent, and which have a highly skilled employment/further study rate of over 75 per cent, and I can't think of a single FEC with a student demographic profiles those measures will apply to.

But the most damaging aspect, at least as far as FECs and any basic concepts of sense is concerned, is that the Full Time Student Number includes Apprentices, and most of them only attend college for one day a week, some maybe just for an afternoon or evening, So since their employers consider them to be PT they pay only PT fees - and why wouldn't they? - and the students don't come with OfS funding, colleges are now punished for recruiting the students the government has spent the last few encouraging them to educate!!!

All of which leaves me struggling to think of a positive. It certainly isn't to the benefit of students now more likely to want to study locally instead of leaving home for an expensive university experience. And it's going to negatively impact FECs by hundreds of thousand of pounds.

Who comes up with ideas like this and why?

Cummings and Goings On

Reproduced in its entirety (almost) from https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265449109449777160.html

Written by: @RussInCheshire

1. Dominic Cummings, one of the few men to have ever been found in contempt of Parliament, moved onto contempt for everything
2. When the story broke, and he was accused of doing things that look bad, he said he didn't care how things looked 
3. Then ministers said press outrage meant nothing, only the opinion of the people mattered
4. Then polls showed 52% of people wanted Cummings to resign
5. So Cummings decided to show the public some respect, by turning up 30 minutes late to make his explanation 
6. He began by saying he wasn't speaking for the govt, which must be why he was in the Rose Garden of 10 Downing Street
7. Then the self-styled "enemy of the Islington media elite" said his wife, who works in the media, had been ill in their house in Islington
8. But she was only a bit ill, so he popped home, got himself nice and infected, then went back to Downing Street for meetings with lots of vitally important people in the middle of a national crisis
9. But then he got ill too, so then it was suddenly important 
10. Sadly he couldn't get childcare in London, even though 3 immediate relatives live within 3 miles of his London home
11. So because he was carrying a virus that can cross a 2 metre distance and kill, he immediately locked himself in a car with his wife and child for 5 hours 
12. He then drove 264 miles without stopping in a Land Rover that gets maybe 25 MPG
13. Then the scourge of the metropolitan elites made himself extra-relatable by describing his family's sprawling country estate, multiple houses and idyllic woodlands 
14. He explained that he'd warned about a coronavirus years ago in his blog
15. Then it was revealed he actually secretly amended old blogs after he'd returned from Durham
16. And anyway, if he'd warned years ago, why was he so massively unprepared and slow to react
17. Then he said he was too ill to move for a week
18. But in the middle of that week, presumably with "wonky eyes", he drove his child to hospital
19. Then he said that to test his "wonky eyes" he put his wife and child in a car and drove 30 miles on public roads 
20. Then it was revealed his wife drives, so there was no reason for the "eye test", cos she could have driven them back to London
21. Then it was revealed the "eye test" trip to a local tourist spot took place on his wife's birthday
22. Then cameras filmed as he threw a cup onto the table, smirked and left
23. And then it emerged his wife had written an article during the time in Dunham, describing their experience of being in lockdown in London, which you'd definitely do if you weren't hiding anything
24. A govt scientific advisor said "more people will die" as a result of what Cummings had done.
25. Boris Johnson said he "wouldn't mark Cummings " down for what he'd done. 
26. The Attorney General said it was ok to break the law if you were acting on instinct
27. The Health Minister said it was OK to endanger public health if you meant well 
28. Johnson said Cummings' "story rings true" because his own eyesight was fine before coronavirus, but now he needs glasses
29. But in an interview with The Telegraph 5 years ago, Johnson said he needed glasses cos he was "blind as a bat" 
30. Michael Gove went on TV and said it was "wise" to drive 30 miles on public roads with your family in the car to test your eyesight
31. The DVLA tweeted that you should never, ever do this 
32. Then ministers started claiming Cummings had to go to Durham because he feared crowds attacking his home. The streets were empty because we were observing the lockdown.
33. And then a minister finally resigned 
34. Steve Baker, Richard Littlejohn, Isabel Oakeshott, Tim Montgomerie, Jan Moir, Ian Dale, Julia Hartley Brewer, 30 Tory MPs, half a dozen bishops and the actual Daily Mail said Cummings should go
35. The govt suggested we can ignore them, because they're all left-wingers 
36. Then a vicar asked Matt Hancock if other people who had been fined for doing exactly what Cummings did would get their fine dropped. Matt Hancock said he'd suggest it to the govt
37. The govt said no within an hour. Cummings' statement had lasted longer than that 
38. And if the guidelines were so clear, why were people being stopped and fined for driving to find childcare in the first place?
39. Then a new poll found people who wanted Cummings sacked had risen from 52% to 57%
40. Cummings is considered the smartest man in the govt 
41. And in the middle of all this, in case we take our eye off it: we reached 60,000 deaths. One of the highest per capita death rates worldwide.
42. We still face Brexit under this lot.
43. It's 4 years until an election
44. And it's still only Wednesday

"Yeah but yeah but yeah but Stephen Kinnock"
1 Kinnock wasn't infected, so wasn't self isolating
2 Kinnock was delivering food to elderly parents: permitted
3 Labour didn't make the policy breached
4 Kinnock isn't an advisor to Starmer
5 Kinnock didn't attempt to hide it
6 Kinnock didn't break regulations on staying overnight
7 Kinnock's friends didn't say it was OK for *him* to break the law, just not everyone else
8 When Kinnock did it, two senior govt advisors in the UK hadn't already had to resign for the same offence
9 Kinnock's wife didn't write an article in The Spectator describing his experience of lockdown in London, which mislead the public
10 Kinnock wasn't required to inform the Number 10 of his whereabouts, meaning there's a bigger cover-up.

So. What happens next? Johnson will hope this blows over, and in a couple of weeks we'll all forget. But how likely is it people will forget their mum died alone?
Or that they couldn't meet their grandkids for months?
Or their business failed cos nobody could leave home?
They say everyone remembered where they were when Kennedy was shot, or 9/11 happened.
Well this is similar, but it didn't happen miles away - it happened in your home.
We will all remember Covid19, even if we lost nobody.
And Cummings is a key event.
It won't be forgotten.
The instinct for Johnson will be: make something big happen that drags attention away.
But what big announcement could there be?
His schools thing yesterday was totally ignored.
Any "we're opening" announcement will be met by distrust and fear. That route out is closed ..

Raging Against the Machine is Rational, not Heartless

There was an article in yesterday's Times where one of the columnists tried to make a case that supporting governmental panic and the imposition of arbitrary authority by enforcing the current lockdown is a rational position.

Melanie Phillips lauds the Prime Minister's refusal to offer any serious prospect that the deprivation of personal liberty and economic strangulation may be nearing the end. She goes as far as to state that "Urged days ago to announce a speedy exit from lockdown, he has refused to be pushed. He'll set out his plan next week amid signs that restrictions will be lifted only slowly. This has taken courage."

I don't know anything about Ms Phillips's background or expertise, but in my opinion, this is ridiculous: we've not been supplied with any evidence to support claims that the lockdown policy has succeed. Even the government's official figures, now exaggerated by imprecise recording methods and the inclusion of categories not thought necessary a week or so ago, align more to my predictions from early March than those of the Imperial College model.

The much-vaunted new intensive care hospitals haven't been needed - 100 patients treated in total at the London Nightingale when there are 4000 beds! - and nor in my opinion will they be. Any assertions that this is because of the lockdown doesn't have any obvious basis. Just because B follows A doesn't mean that B caused A. It doesn't take "courage" for a largely pointless policy to have its outcome smoothly misrepresented as a success, courage would be the admission that the draconian restrictions on our civil liberties are an error.

The case against the PM's panic policy is not some arbitrary transient choice between compassion and money/freedom, or the worry that governments given or allowed the powers ours now has have always been reluctant to part with them. Melanie Phillips doesn't appear to care: "Yet among people for whom damage to the economy outweighs all other considerations, there's no acknowledgment of Johnson's complex balancing act. For such people, lockdown must end immediately. Some of them claim, moreover, that there never was any need for it in the first place. The virus, they say (with scant regard for either humanity or settled facts) poses no serious threat because it only kills relatively few old people or those who would have died this year anyway." and adds that "A dismaying number of these "economy-firsters" have seized on certain statistical studies to claim that the virus death rate is lower than had been forecast and therefore Covid-19 is not so dangerous after all."

Well I'm most definitely not an "economy-firster", and would like to think that I'm compassionate, sensitive and understanding (although my wife may disagree!), but you don't need statistical studies to know that the forecasts on which the Panic Policy was based were flawed: the empty Nightingale Hospitals show that.

The question is simply whether the government’s actions have caused the death rate to fall to "manageable levels", or whether they haven't, despite Ms Phillips assertion that "it's only because of the lockdown that it's under control". At the moment, without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up, the jury is still very much out on that one.

Ms Phillips adds: "But all these statistical calculations are suspect because we still don't know how many have been  infected, nor how many have died." Well, it is true that we won't really know how many have died until the outbreak is over, but even then it will be almost impossible as there is no rigour to the way deaths are attributed to Covid-19: They appear to be have been simultaneously over-estimated (in general) and under-estimated (in care homes).

I've got no doubt that there are heartless individuals "with scant regard for either humanity or settled facts", it is very, very wrong to suggest that they are the only people who oppose the PM's policy.
Some of us are not materialist. We simply analysed the data we had available and came to a very different conclusion, and we've yet to be proven wrong.

Nobody I know, and nobody any of them knows, has had, let alone died from Covid-19, which strongly suggests that the Lockdown Panic Measures are an unnecessary danger to the long-term life and health of the British public. We are going to end up living in a country which will not be able to sustain the health and welfare services we currently take for granted and which won't be able to afford the living standards which sustain health.

And all in response to a problem which even the government's chief advisor knew was never the size he'd claimed it to be, otherwise he'd have kept to his own social distancing values wouldn't he?

Terminal or Terminology Error?

I was triangulating some background research as part of a series of "What-If" planning scenarios for College Based Higher Education from September onwards (student numbers, financial impact on partner HEIs, etc) and when looking at the government's own High Consequence Infectious Disease page was surprised to discover that Covid-19 isn't one of them.

Had I been reading the website two days ago, I might have thought it to be some sort of April Fools joke, but we're apparently in full stay-at-home lockdown for something that the 4 Nations Public Health HCID Group and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) do not consider Covid-19 to meet the following criteria:
•acute infectious disease
•typically has a high case-fatality rate
•may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment •often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
•ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
•requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely

So what's really going on, and why?

 

Orwell's 1984: From Novel to Manifesto

I wasn't aware that Boris was going to make an announcement of any kind last night due to binge watching Bulletproof2 all day, so it was just a coincidence that I started watching ordinary TV just as "ordinary" life disappeared: The Prime Minister was addressing what until 8:30pm had been a free country and telling its population that we now live in a police state.

I, all my family and all my friends, have been placed under house arrest without even being accused of a crime - we're guilty of ??? Well what exactly ???? I went out yesterday and didn't see one single person stood closer than five feet to anybody else: in my locality social distancing was more than just observed, it was respected.

Boris said it was "for own my good". Really? Confined to the house, deprived of social contact, restricted diet, no exercise except walking once a day or going for a bike ride (that'd be nice - I live at the top of a very steep hill: Chris Hoy would have issues!), unable to replace anything unless it's on his list of essentials?

My analysis of currently available (publicly anyway) data suggests that Covid-19 might end up being responsible for around 2500 UK deaths, not the 250,000 or so which could possibly justify "solutions" which as Donald Trump has said may be worse than the problem.

I don't think it should be beyond the intellect of our government to realise that Northern Italy has some of the worst air pollution in Europe (at least until the last two weeks according to European Air Quality Index), so is it not likely that after decades of breathing it, the local elderly develop respiratory problems?

Nearly all Covid-19-related fatalities have "underlying health issues" (or so we're told), and thousands die globally infected with some type of coronavirus such as influenza, so we the people of the UK have now had our civil liberties removed in what may be just an attempt to prevent one particular coronavirus, (Covid-19), from replacing others as the bedfellow of those "underlying health issues"?

I can't find any worst-case predictions for Covid-19 causing a massive increase over and above the current coronavirus situation, and we haven't been told how many ‘corona-deaths’ were of people infected with Covid-19 but didn’t necessarily die of it, just what appears to be an assumption that without Covid-19 they'd still be alive.

When we have so many unknowns, and so little reliable data, how can last night's announcement be justified? What will be the results of shutting down the economy? It's very likely that unemployment will rise dramatically, and crime will rise along with it. Mental Health issues will increase, families with dysfunctional or dangerous relationships will begin to collapse, and the elderly all this is supposed to be protecting get a worse quality of life due to isolation, so may end up with reduced life expectancy anyway.

An economic depression will definitely result in poverty, pain and death which may vastly outweigh the current pandemic crisis, and that may just re-set and re-start when our brave new world has its draconian restrictions lifted.

And what if they're not?
What if our government decides that going back to how we were just a few days ago isn't safe for other reasons? Civil unrest due to the inevitable shortages of whatever goods, services and products we've come to expect or rely on? Climate change? Maybe they'll just get to like the privilege, power and authority?

I'm sat here blogging instead of doing anything more productive, or simply playing golf in the sunshine, because isolation is "for my own good", and that's precisely what many of the vulnerable students I used to teach told me was something their abusive parents said to them as a justification for their cruelty or neglect.

None of this feels as if it's for my benefit, and that's without me thinking that the pandemic effects haven't been modelled on statistically robust data (unless of course Boris is privvy to information we've not been given), so on balance I'm already leading towards contracting Covid-19 and seeing what happens as a preference to eventually standing in front of an army tank because I want to see my daughter and seeing if that really is safer.

The Way I See It

The media (and the UK government earlier today) is calling Covid-19 a once-in-a-century pandemic, but it might also be a once-in-a-century series of interconnected chaotic global responses to a problem that hasn't been adequately defined.

Many countries have introduced draconian measures in an attempt to counteract the disease, but as far as I can tell, there just isn't enough reliable evidence as to the numbers infected, or continuing to become infected, for governments and modellers to make such monumental decisions or to monitor their impact.

If the pandemic dissipates, whether that's on its own or as a result of social distancing and lock-downs, the impact of it may allow the world to return to something like "normal", whatever that will mean for the next decade or so. However, if the pandemic continues to spread around the world, how will those making the decisions be able to ascertain whether they've made a positive or negative impact when the consequences of long-term lockdowns are unknown and vaccines or affordable treatments take years to develop and test properly.

The data collected so far (or at least the information I've been able to find), on the number of people infected and how the epidemic is evolving don't appear to be particularly reliable statistically speaking as it's probably safe to assume that some deaths and the vast majority of Covid-19 infections are being missed due to the limits on testing. Therefore, it's impossible to state with any degree of confidence if we are failing to capture instances of coronavirus by a factor of three or 300 as few countries, if any, can test a large number of people and so don't know how prevalent the virus is in a random sample of the general population.

This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19 as the reported fatality rates (according to the World Health Organisation it's 3.4%) don't just create fear and panic, they're completely meaningless. As far as I can tell, those who have been tested for Covid-19 are disproportionately patients of some description with severe symptoms and bad outcomes, and since few health systems have unlimited testing capacity, this sample selection bias will only get worse.

There has been only one instance of testing an entire, closed population, that of the passengers and crew of the Diamond Princess cruise ship where the case fatality rate was 1.0%, but it needs to be noted that this was a predominantly elderly demographic for whom  the Covid-19 death rate is thought to be higher than the general population.

Taking the Diamond Princess mortality rate and applying it across the age structure of the UK, our death rate of people from (or possibly with) coronavirus would be 0.125%. However, we need to caveat that as this calculation uses what I consider to be extremely thin base data (7 deaths from 712 out of almost 4000 on board) the true death rate could be one fifth of that (0.025%), or five times higher (0.625%).

We also need to consider the possibility that some of those infected may die later, and that cruise ship tourists may not be truly representative of the rest of the developed world (i.e. their lifestyle, on or off ship, may mean they have different frequencies of chronic diseases) so if we say double those base estimates we get a varying case fatality ratio somewhere between 0.05% and 1.25% across a country like ours.

That difference indicates the risk of what is being done as a population-wide fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza, which if it is the true proportion, the world's global lock-down and its likely social and financial consequences is not at all rational.

Now of course the Covid-19 case fatality rate isn't likely to be that low, and there are many common-cold-type viruses that have case fatality rates up to 10% when they infect the elderly, particularly if they're residents of nursing homes, but these “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of worldwide deaths every year without the vast majority being tested for their existence.

We've had successful influenza surveillance systems for decades, and typically something like 20% of laboratory tests confirm its presence in the samples sent for testing, while the estimated number of annual influenza-like deaths in the UK is between 4,500 and 11,000, therefore a positive test for coronavirus should not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.

If we take a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis of say 0.3% as the case fatality rate of individuals with Covid-19, and assume that 15% of the UK gets infected (7,000,000 people), that translates to about 30,000 deaths, but without anybody knowing there was a new virus this would just get buried in the annual noise of deaths due to an influenza-like illness.

According to the Office for National Statistics, this year's death rate remains below its five-year average, and a long way under the levels of 2017-18, but even if the 2,100 were to be added to that total we might casually just note that this season's flu seems to be a bit worse than average, and the media coverage would be proportionate to that which accompanies the marriage of two minor celebrities.

It's obvious from the empty shelves in our local supermarkets that many people are worried that the 104 deaths from (or with as it should probably be more accurately labelled) Covid-19 in the UK as of right now is going to increase exponentially to 520, 2600, 13,000, 65,000 ... and that the pattern will be similar all over the planet, but is that realistic? At what point will the curve flatten as our Chief Medical Officer keeps talking about every time he's on TV?

Statistically speaking, we can't answer those questions without knowing the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population, then  repeating the exercise at pre-defined time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections, but unfortunately that's information we don’t have.

So in the absence of data, we've got prepare-for-the-worst reasoning which has led to lock-downs and social distancing without knowing if these measures have any sort of positive impact. Closing the nation's colleges may reduce transmission rates, but it may backfire if students socialise anyway, and the school closures might mean children spend more time with susceptible grandparents, or disrupt their parents ability to work.

And looking further forward, with the caveat that I know next to nothing about virology, might school closures also have the potential to reduce the nation's chances of developing long-term herd immunity in an age group that is apparently free of serious disease?
"Flattening the curve" to avoid overwhelming the NHS as our country is apparently attempting to do is admittedly conceptually sound because it theoretically means that other common diseases and conditions can be adequately treated. However, if the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and these extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, flattening the curve could make things worse by crippling the NHS for longer instead of a short, admittedly acute, period of time.

The bottom line is that we simply don't know how long lock-downs and social distancing can be maintained without irreversibly crippling our economy, and  destroying the fabric of society for generations, possibly even to the extent of civil unrest and long-term mental health issues.

The very minimum we need right now is unbiased prevalence and incidence data, and that means not prioritising testing for those suspected of infection, but a true random population sample so that governments can make evidence-based decisions, not ones based entirely on theories and models.

The most pessimistic scenario I've had on my TV this week, and one that my maths mean I really don't subscribe to, is that Covid-19 might infect 60% of the population before we develop a herd immunity and if only 1% of infected people die, there'll be more than 40 million deaths globally. And since that would make Covid-19 as deadly as 1918's Spanish Flu (although in this case the deaths would be mainly the elderly or people with pre-existing conditions), this is the justification for lock-downs and social distancing, making them not just desirable, but imperative.

Hopefully, rather like back in 1918, life as we know it can continue, at least in something resembling civilised societies, but lock-downs of months and years have consequences we can only guess at, and the lives of billions, not just millions, will be impacted, so we really ought to have some data before continuing with these plans to jump off the cliff just in case there is a chance of actually landing somewhere safe.

Putting Panic into Context

Sanity and Sanitisers

A friend of mine has asked if I'll send him some hand sanitiser as all the shops where he lives have run out, and there is still some on the shelves in my local ASDA. At first, I didn't think he was serious as he's way too intelligent to get caught up in the Coronavirus panic, but apparently not: he genuinely wants me to post him as many bottles as I can get.

It may be that his family are pressuring him, but mine are far more grounded, as are all my friends living locally. Maybe it's a Yorkshire thing? Maybe we'd rather risk death than pay inflated prices for scented squirty soap? Or maybe as my daughter put it, Yorkshiremen would rather die than suffer the embarrassment of being thought panic shoppers?

I accept that Coronavirus (Covid-19) is a pretty virulent virus, but not in the contagious-imminent-danger-to-everybody's-health way.

As I type this there are 125,743 confirmed cases worldwide, almost 81,00 of which were or are in China, and 3,169 deaths in China plus another 1441 elsewhere in the world. So 4,610 deaths in total and half the planet is in lockdown.

Why? What has driven this hysteria? Two years ago, all the way back in 2017-18 the Office for National Statistics recorded 50,100 ‘excess winter deaths’ but it was business as usual. The explanation (for the deaths, not the lack of hysterical reaction), according to the ONS, was probably ‘the predominant strain of flu, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine, and below average winter temperatures’. Across the pond where Donald Trump has just announced a flight ban from mainland Europe and the golf I'm watching on TV is discussing the ban on spectators from tomorrow onwards, according to the US-based Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, over 80,000 died.

In both countries most of the victims were geriatric, many with compromised immune systems, as is the case with the UK Coronavirus deaths - or as I prefer to refer to them as a statistician, deaths of people with Coronavirus (not necessarily from, due to their age, health and underlying conditions)

And seasonal flu? According to an estimate by the CDCP, it causes somewhere between 291,000 and 646,000 deaths globally a year. To put it another way, if the number of deaths from coronavirus rises a hundredfold in the next few weeks or months, it will only have reached the lower bound of the estimate for existing strains of flu. How many of us wear face masks because of winter flu? How many planes and trains are cancelled? Does the stock market slump?

There is some justification for being more wary of Covid-19 than the flu as the former is an unknown quantity which we've not evolved with and don’t yet have a vaccine. But we know more about it by the day, its death rate is under 3 per cent and it is mostly killing people with pre-existing health conditions.

And probably more importantly, if it can, or does, spread quickly and easily, why don't we all have it already? In the past week, I've been on 8 trains (all crowded) and four buses (two full), attended a conference, a rock concert and a football match (1000, 2000 and 30000 people respectively) and been to the gym where nobody has cleaned down anything, sanitised between exercises, or avoided personal contact four times. And I'm ok. As is everybody I know and know of, but if the virus is virulent then surely this wouldn't be the case?

So where is the evidence that closing large gatherings of people makes anyone safer or slows the spread of disease? Is it logical to assume that Covid-19 can be passed on easier at a football match or the now-cancelled Australian Grand Prix than in a gym?

Maybe I'm missing something about Coronavirus and the attitude of people like me will only compound the problem, but it feels like this is just the latest "end of the world" phenomenon to trouble the populations of developed countries along with other apocalyptic portents such as climate alarmism, nuclear Armageddon and financial collapse.

At the end of January, Brexit had just been completed (sort of anyway) without incident, the standoff between the US and Iran had fizzled into nothing, the Australian bush fires had largely gone out, so did the media need something else to worry us about?

Reactionary hysteria has taken hold all over the world. Saudi Arabia has suspended religious pilgrimage trips to Mecca (oh the irony that the praying won't make the most devout any safer!), the Italian Prime Minister has ordered the lockdown of the country’s northern region, Ireland has closed schools and colleges, and Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said today it was 'inappropriate that we continue as normal' and will recommend the cancellation of gatherings of more than 500 people to protect front-line services from Monday. She didn't supply any information as to why Monday and not tomorrow if the measure is so necessary, or why allowing gatherings at the weekend was appropriate, but common sense does seem to be in short supply.

As the great Homer Simpson once said "you can prove anything with facts" so why haven't the governments of the world provided some which justifies their extreme actions?

Or is that there aren't any and this hysteria is the result of a media frenzy which has caused the "leaders" of some countries to be scared of not being seen to "do something" whether or not it makes sense?

Political Mathematics

Many years of interacting with MPs, advisors and policy makers has made me very sceptical when any of them start to use numbers to illustrate a point: the latest of which is the London Mayoral hopeful Rory Stewart who claims in this week's Sunday Times to have slept in 50 different homes around London as part of his ‘Come Kip With Me’ scheme.

However, as he apparently only launched his campaign in the second week of February, a whole 27 days before Sunday, this means that Mr Stewart would have to have slept in almost two homes a night every night, never spending an evening at home, for his claim to be true.

He also says that “you learn an amazing amount because you’re spending 14 hours with somebody”, which means he wants us to believe that he's spent 700 hours in other people’s homes over the last 27 days.

Which is an admirable amount of effort when there are only 648 hours in 27 days ….