Time to end the Covid restrictions?
Posted on October 7, 2020 Leave a Comment
I have thought for some time that the Covid restrictions are possibly more dangerous to our health than allowing Covid to run its course ‘naturally’. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD, https://gbdeclaration.org/) comes at a critical time, when governments are imposing yet more restrictions on movement, meetings and economic activity. For those who have missed the flurry of scientific argument over the last few days, the GBD is a document signed by several thousand scientists and medics who believe that the current restrictions should be removed and herd immunity allowed to run its course with Covid, with the proviso that the old and the vulnerable should be protected. It does not spell out in detail how all this should happen, but it is a starting point.
It is time that this position was laid out for debate. For too long the discussions about the impact of Covid have been too narrow, with the strong view that we need to wear masks, socially distance, work from home, etc, even though there is little solid evidence that these are having a positive effect – there is no control group to make a comparison with. While the science around a new virus is inevitably going to be ambiguous, the data contradictory, and speculations rife, we have had little opportunity to challenge the status quo. This is not only poor science, it also undermines the liberal consensus that has dominated Western society for centuries. Where controls are shown to be necessary we can accept the,, but it is not acceptable to force people to act in ways contrary to their wishes without very strong evidence, and then for as little time as possible.
Herd immunity was briefly considered and rejected by the UK Government early in the crisis. Perhaps at the time this was the right decision, perhaps not. Seven months on we know more, though we still lack consensus. The contradictions in the data and analyses are still present, the limitations of the actual data signficant. What we do know is that Covid tends to kill the old and the sick. It has relatively little impact on other groups. Yes, some younger people die, and there is the problem of long term illness in some people which seems to be a result of Covid infection, but most people are only affected to a minor degree.
While older people are expected to die – that is the nature of things – you may be wondering how we can think about a strategy that might allow younger people to die. Who are these younger people who are getting seriously ill and dying from Covid? Presumably people with underlying health conditions are at risk as with older age groups. Are there other factors involved such as illegal drug use making someone vulnerable? Is it drinking habits? Are there other general social risk factors which lead to a higher risk of having a severe response to Covid? We need to know these things, and if it is the case that there are risk factors then younger age groups need to be educated about them so they can make choices about how to behave.
To turn to the detrimental effects of the restrictions. Should we be imposing these restrictions on the general population when we know they are having a detrimental effect on both health and the economy?
The economic restrictions have put many people out of work, many others have reduced income, many businesses have gone bust or are struggling, cash reserves are dwindling fast both at the national level and in terms of individuals’ and businesses’ bank accounts. The health impact of the damaged ecomony is unclear, but it is inevitably going to be – already is – severe.
Another area of concern is that many hospitals restricted or shut down their normal care for people when the Covid crisis started. Health workers were shifted into Covid-ready positions, beds were cleared for the expected rush of Covid patients. This meant that many people with severe illnesses who required urgent treatment did not receive it. How many died, how many have a reduced life expectancy, how many remain more ill than they should be, remains to be seen. During the crisis period of April and May this year many more people died than we would normally expect. It is assumed they died because of Covid. That is probably so for some. It is also very likely that many died because they did not receive treatment for other serioous diseases.
I should declare a personal interest. Just before lockdown I was diagnosed with heart failure and with atrial fibrillation. That makes me ‘vulnerable’ (which is partly why I am happy to consider the argument of herd immunity, I may end up one of the victims (In the end the population matters more than the individual). I have recently had successful treatment for my atrial fibrillation that has made my health and my life significantly better. I should have received this treatment in April or May. I received it in September. Just a small example, but it shows the impact of the NHS shutting down much of its general treatment for Covid. Healthwise, I have been very ill most of the year instead of for two or three months, economically I have been off work since January. This has cost my employer a significant amount of money. I could have been back at work in May (hopefully I will be back in November).
Yes, I have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. I have joined the thousands of other scientists and medical practitioners who want to change the way we are dealing with Covid. Yes, there are problems with the position. It might be wrong, but we need to at least look at the alternatives to the current course of action which is undoubtedly causing a great deal of problems regarding health and the economy both within the country and across the world. I worry that once we get back to normal and analyse the impact of Covid we will find significantly more problems because of our over-reaction (?) than because of the virus itself.
Rural rides
Posted on April 21, 2020 Leave a Comment
In the early 19th Century William Cobbett rode around England to find out about the attitude of rural people towards the corn laws. It is time for our politicians to do the same.
There is a big difference between urban and rural areas of the UK. The new law on lockdown is clearly designed for people who live in large towns and cities (London, to be honest). The – some would say – draconian measures dished out to people walking along roads and in parks is quite shocking to those of us lucky enough to live in more rural areas. People do need to get some fresh air. In our village we do not need restrictions relating to exercise. We can get up and go out at any time of the day, walking from home, and head into the hills and fields, following the wide array of footpaths – we have around 70 just in our parish and many more in adjacent parishes. It is easy to avoid paths that go through farmyards, and if we meet people we can easily pass at 2 metres to retain social distancing – and there is nothing to stop us having a chat with them.
We are lucky in having the expanse of the Peak District nearby, an ideal spot for longer walks, drives or even picnics. There is no problem with ensuring social distancing if people are careful. We might have to watch out for the Derbyshire police drones on Calver Edge, but hopefully they have learned their lesson on that one! Over-policing really is not necessary in these circumstances.
We tend to have more and bigger gardens in the countryside (I know this is far from universally true), and this has implications for further activity. The closure of nurseries and garden centres at such a critical time of the year was senseless, clearly devised by city-based politicians and advisers. Whether we are rural or urban, we need seeds, plants, fertiliser and so on in order to ensure our gardens are functioning. This has a number of benefits in lockdown. Through gardening we can grow food and we can exercise – with both physical and psychological benefits. Even for those with limited or no garden space, being able to visit a garden centre and get plants and herbs for the window sill has obvious benefits. Garden centres also tend to be rather spacious, even more so than supermarkets, and so are ideal for social distancing.
My son works for another National Park. He is working from home. One of the activities he should be doing is carrying out surveys in the woodlands of that park. He is, under current rules, not allowed to do so. Why? Because the city-based politicians say so. Again, there is no problem with him driving to these woods, walking around making notes, driving home again and writing up the reports on is computer.
Another instance. We keep hearing reports about not allowing people back to work because of the dangers of overcrowding the public transport system. In our village we have one bus an hour going either way (and not in the evening). It is often mostly empty. Most people go to work by car. While some people use public transport, restricting work because of public transport fears has little relevance for most people in most rural areas.
The economy needs to start working as soon as possible, as said daily by the politicians, though they seem to do little about it, but it is not necessarily going to be the same everywhere. The countryside is the ideal place to start reducing the lockdown. Farmers have never stopped working (they never do), and there are plenty of other countryside activities that can be started up. Not only that, being out in the countryside has psychological benefits for people who have been cooped up in their houses for too long.
Please politicians, start the process of getting the economy moving again by focusing – at least a little – on the countryside. Rural areas play a key role in the economy and leisure, and there is no good reason why we cannot differentiate lockdown rules between city and village. There is no harm in having a drive or a walk in the countryside – or even, dare I say it, sitting in a field and having a picnic. Let’s join William Cobbett and his Rural Rides. Cobbett did after all explore England by horseback in order to find out the views of farmers and other rural people in order to advise the Government on the correct course of action (I know, corn laws, not CV-19, but you get the point).
The Kindly Ones: Jonathan Little
Posted on April 20, 2020 Leave a Comment
This is a fascinating and disturbing read, nearly 1,000 pages describing in detail the life of an SS officer, Max Aue, who experiences some of the worst of the German atrocities in the Second World War. Written as an autobiography, Aue is living as an old man in France, reflecting on his experiences. In 1941 he is attached to the Einsatzgruppen, so we have vividly described scenes of the killing of, among others, the Jews, including at Babi Yar in Kiev. The author, Jonathan Little, has a way of bringing to life the barbarity and the ordinariness of the barbarity, including the detailed statistics gathered by the German forces. The book moves on to the limits of the German advance to the Caucasus, where our ‘hero’ is tasked with helping understand something of the various ethnic groups living in the area. After spending time with the German 6th Army cut off in Stalingrad Auer returns to Berlin, then to Auschwitz where the slaughter of the unwanted has reached industrial proportions, and finally to the Battle for Berlin, where Aue is fighting for his own life.
The protagonist is a learned man, a doctor of law, caught up in very difficult times. The author said that he tried to imagine how he would behave if he was living as a young adult in Nazi Germany. In this it is an honest account, and should be read by anyone who claims that they would refuse to be involved. We know from the works of Stanley Milgram and others in the 1960s that so-called ordinary people do what are normally conceived of as despicable things when the culture they live in requires them to do so. This is one of the great things about the book, that it shows ordinary people, including intellectuals, doing extraordinary things, living perfectly normal lives, studying others, writing articles, discussing the nuances of Caucasian languages, and killing people.
For me there is too much on Aue’s unusual sexuality and too many descriptions of diarrhoea. On the other hand, these elements and others, including his vivid dreams, do demonstrate the depth of characterisation of Aue. While aspects of his sexuality before the war is described, the descriptions of shit and dreams may be seen as Aue’s trauma, the responses of an already disturbed individual becoming ever more disturbed by his experiences. Against this, Aue describes the world in a mechanical and non-emotional manner. This is exemplified through the style. There are few paragraphs, and conversations are held entirely within paragraphs, so the reader sometimes has to concentrate to know who is speaking. This also adds to the relentlessness of the book.
I do finish many books and they disappear quickly from my mind, but this one leaves a lingering sense of the horror of war, particularly the atrocities of the Second World War and how I might have acted in those times. I have now read it twice. It made me feel that I experienced something of what the book describes, and for that reason alone the book is worthwhile.
The author is French, where the book was a bestseller, winning the Prix Goncourt. He spent 18 months conducting research, including visiting the main sites where the action of the book took place. He incorporates many historical characters, from Himmler through to the lower level leaders of the Einsatzgruppen and other organisations. The intertwining of history and fiction works well.
The translator does a good job of transmitting the sense of Aue’s personality. As I have not read the original I cannot know, but there is a congruence between the Aue we get to know and the writing style.
The book should become a classic, and a must read for anyone interested in understanding the Holocaust. We usually get the Jewish version of the Holocaust, but it is important to try and balance this by getting the perpetrators outlook. They were, after all, human too. While The Kindly Ones is fiction, it still provides us with some historical understanding of the German perspective.
Covid-19 and the elephant in the room
Posted on April 19, 2020 Leave a Comment
The current reporting of CV-19 is rather disappointing. It is shallow and emotive. There is more focus on clapping the NHS and reporting relatives’ comments about their dead loved ones than having a rational debate about the impact of the virus.
For instnace, there is virtually no discussion and analysis about those who are dying. In the UK up to 17 April there were 13918 deaths in hospital (and presumably many more in care homes and at home; it is only in the last couple of days that journalists have picked up on this). Of these 12727 were aged over 60, that is 91.4%. There were 1079 deaths in the age group 40-59 (7.8%), leaving only 112 (0.75%) 39 or under. If CV-19 is equally likely to affect everyone as is generally reported then these figures must be wrong. From the evidence so far CV-19 affects those with a pre-existing health condition more severely than others. We know that pre-existing conditions are correlated with age, so again older people are more likely to die.
A number of NHS staff and carers have died, and these are presumably younger than the average of those who are dying, but we do not know whether they had pre-existing conditions. For younger people generally, though there are not many deaths, there are some. We should be focusing on these cases and determining a) did they die of CV-19, b) did they have a pre-existing disorder, and c) are there other reasons they may have become infected (other personal factors, genetic, environmental, etc). There is also the issue of whether some ethnic groups are more likely to get CV-19. Furthermore, from what we understand so far men are more susceptible than women.
It is still relatively early days, and we don’t have full datasets regarding who has died of CV-19 and what comorbid conditions they had (if any), but the data we do have suggests that older people are much more likely to die of the virus than younger people, particularly if they have a pre-existing condition.
Given this situation, the next argument must be about economic strategy. At the moment outside the fields of health and food distribution there is relatively little economic activity in the country. This situation, the longer it continues, will have a growing impact on the physical and mental health of the population. People will start getting ill and dying of things other than CV-19, they probably already are. There are many people with illnesses that are not being treated normally because hospitals are focusing on CV-19.
I am not claiming that the current strategy is necessarily wrong, what I am saying is that we need a much higher level of debate at all levels to develop an appropriate strategy for the future. The Government is saying there will be no strategy for the time being, and it is also saying that the membership of SAGE (the scientific advisory body for the Government) will be kept secret. These are terrible decisions. We are in desperate need of decent investigative journalists, effective opposition MPs and scientists who are prepared to openly debate, discuss and challenge the Government’s position.
Social Democratic Republic of South Wingfield (SDRSW)
Posted on January 31, 2020 Leave a Comment
An open letter to all EU leaders
Back in 1997, when Tony Blair came to power, we were not that impressed by his policies, personality and so on (oh for the return of those days – we didn’t realise how much worse it would become), we declared independence from the UK and became SDRSW. We were social, we were democratic, we didn’t have a monarch. We had a flag and everything, so it was valid.
Now we are on the day that the UK is leaving the EU it is time to reinstitute the SDRSW. Basically, we are not leaving. We are staying in the EU; the whole house and garden is remaining a full member. We will continue to have free movement of people, goods, services, and capital (though we don’t have much of the last one – or the rest for that matter) between the SDRSW and the rest of the EU.
We do have a problem. Like West Berlin before the fall of the USSR we need a corridor between the EU and ourselves, as we are in the middle of Derbyshire. We have yet to negotiate this with Johnson, but expect to have the corridor through to Portsmouth so we can easily get on Brittany Ferries and go to France without showing our passports – because we are in Schengen, or we will be once the EU agrees to it. While we are at it we would also appreciate joining the Euro, and perhaps having a little more political union.
As full members of the EU we are of course willing to contribute our share of the funding. We realise that you will not be accepting those dodgy new so-called 50 pence pieces that Johnson is introducing (I am surprised they are not 10 bob notes), but I am sure you will accept Paypal. In return of course we will be able to apply for grants for the less well off areas of the SDRSW. A couple of my sheds are in need of new felt roofs and there is a bit of damp at the bottom of the stairs.
In case anyone thinks this is not democratic (unlike leaving the EU without a further referendum when polls suggest a clear majority wanting to stay in) we have had a vote and 100% of the population want to remain in the EU. Even the cat realises the benefits of membership.
We are looking forward to a long and fruitful relationship within the EU. When the day comes, and come it surely will, when the rest of the UK, its economy in the doldrums, its chicken all chlorinated, its sewers overflowing with the excrement coming from the mouths of Johnson and Co, its genetically modified crops rotting in the field for want of staff, its NHS bought and destroyed by Trump, its trade agreements with the rest of the world non-existent or written very much in favour of the other parties, its barbed wire borders saturated with the rotting corpses of those trying to escape the barbarity within, then we will welcome the UK back into the EU with open arms.
In the meantime, as the Brexiters would have it, we have decided to take back control. And we are happily flying the EU flag.
Yours sincerely
SDRSW – EU
Dr Nigel Hunt 