Prof Philip Thomas: There will be no third wave of deaths
A welcome sense of normality is at last beginning to return to Britain. As shops and bars re-open and families reunite, the long ordeal of lockdown appears to be coming to an end. Given the current positive trends, the Government’s target of full freedom by June 21 looks like it should be met. But that is not the message conveyed by a number of pessimistic experts. Full of bleak foreboding, they warn that the lifting of Covid restrictions could plunge us into another health crisis.
Last week, Professor Jeremy Brown, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), told the BBC that ‘a big third wave could still end up with 30,000 to 50,000 deaths, potentially, if it was a similar sort of size to the previous waves.’
The model called the Predictor Corrector Coronavirus Filter (PCCF) looks at what will happen if the R-rate is held at 0.6
In the same vein, at the beginning of the month, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) — whose modelling has provided the basis for the tough lockdown policy — warned that Britain is ‘highly likely’ to suffer a third wave, while any attempt to return to life as it was in February 2020 would probably result in ‘a big epidemic’.
This gloom has been compounded by fears about the advent of more infectious variants of the virus, such as the new B.1.617 type from India, whose spread across the subcontinent has just forced the Prime Minister to cancel his forthcoming visit there.
But as a scientist specialising in risk management, I believe this negativity is overdone. There is little convincing evidence to back the claim that, as lockdown is eased, Britain is about to be hit by a third wave, accompanied by a renewed surge in deaths.
On the contrary, it is my view that if there is indeed an increase in infections over the coming months, it will have little significant impact and the death toll will remain extremely low. That is because of the huge success of the vaccine programme, which will mean that by June, the overwhelming majority of the population is protected.
The reality is we are beating the pandemic. As we move into the summer, immunity will grow. In such circumstances, there would be no justification for keeping restrictive measures in place.
This optimism is based partly on the mathematical model I have created, which uses data to project the trajectory of the virus. This is tested against independent measurements made by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
My work on modelling has proved accurate in the past, notably in the 1990s when there was deep concern in government circles about the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) — known as Mad Cow Disease — and its human equivalent, the brain disorder Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).
Based on my analysis of the data, my contention made in 1996 was that CJD would claim 20 to 520 lives, with a central estimate of 130.
That turned out to be remarkably close to the real figure of 180.
In contrast, the official advisory team, led by Professor Sir Roy Anderson of Imperial College London, set out scenarios where the death toll ranged from 100 to 10 million.
Intriguingly, one member of Professor Anderson’s team was Professor Neil Ferguson, who has gained a high public profile during the Covid crisis as one of the most voluble advocates of lockdown.
In studying the coronavirus, I developed a model called the Predictor Corrector Coronavirus Filter (PCCF). It is a simple software device, inspired by the work of two pioneering Scots: the mathematical epidemiologist Anderson McKendrick and the biochemist William Kermack, who came up with a hypothesis that could track the spread of an infectious disease.
Like all models, the PCCF had a number of assumptions fed into it, including high levels of both the take-up and effectiveness of the vaccines, based on field data.
What the PCCF model indicates is that there is little danger of our society being overwhelmed by a third wave.
My prediction is that, although the total number of active infections in England could reach a peak of 160,000 in the early autumn of this year, this rise will not lead to a spike in deaths or hospitalisations.
That is because, thanks to the vaccines, the link between Covid infections and fatalities has been broken.
In this new, safer environment, roughly one third of people who are infected will have no symptoms at all, while the vast majority of the remainder will have only mild symptoms. As a result, even when the peak is reached, the death toll will probably be less than 20 per day.
I can have full confidence in this forecast because my PCCF model has proved reassuringly accurate over recent months. Its figures are updated daily online and, each week, they turn out to be retrospectively validated by the latest Covid report from the ONS, which surveys the population through the use of Covid tests on 150,000 participants every fortnight.
Every time, my own data and that of the ONS are reconciled almost exactly, which can hardly be said of all the predictions from Sage.
What the most recent findings prove for certain is the efficacy of the vaccines. That is why we are winning the war on Covid. Even the new variants are a far less deadly threat because the jabs have ‘drawn their sting’, to use the phrase of the epidemiologist Professor Andrew Hayward.
Before the programme started, there were concerns about hesitancy in the public to have the jab, but they have proved unfounded. According to the ONS, 65 per cent of England’s adult population have received at least one dose, while that figure rises to 97 per cent for the over-50s.
Moreover, they have proved even more effective than expected. My PCCF model has turned out to be justified in its assumptions that a first jab provides 69 per cent protection against infection and transmission, as well as reducing the chances of dying by 85 per cent after eight weeks.
So why are some other experts so pessimistic? I think it is because they are fixated by the goal of eradicating Covid, no matter what the social and economic cost, so they view any measure of freedom as a potential threat.
But this approach lacks any sense of perspective. It fails to take into account the huge collateral damage done by the lockdowns, including poor mental and physical health, financial insecurity, business failures and unemployment.
It has been cruel to the older people locked in care homes and to students trapped on university campuses. One clear indicator of a society’s prosperity is life expectancy. Thanks to the fall-out from lockdown, our average length of life in Britain may already be reducing, which means that people of all ages will die earlier than they should.
We have stored up colossal problems for the future. The last vestiges of lockdown should not continue a moment longer that was planned in the Government’s roadmap. And my model shows that they will not need to.
That is a cause for celebration, not anxiety.
See more here: dailymail.co.uk
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Mark Tapley
| #
The fake virus, fake test and fake numbers will never go away as long as the population is dumb enough and cowardly enough to tolerate this attack on their natural rights. This fear campaign is being used to condition the livestock to be obedient barnyard animals on the Zionist plantation. The allopathic big Pharma vaccine fraud has been used now for over a hundred years to weaken, debilitate and sterilize the herd while reinforcing the germ theory lie of pathogen transmission. Reclaim you liberties and be free of fear and government oppression. Refuse any mandates and throw all the zionist operatives out of office.
Reply
Tom
| #
I plan to do just that. Refuse the entire pile of cowflop.
Reply
Alan
| #
Where is the data to support the claim that the vaccines reduce the chance of dying by 85%? None of the published trial results mention dying, because nobody on the trials died, including the control group.
Reply
alice rabideau
| #
All chickens need to be vaccinated against Marek’s disease virus. New chickens put in with vaccinated chickens become extremely ill, this caused by the latter “shedding”. Are we now the chickens, having injected the population with a “leaky” vaccine. Why are unvaccinated women, working/living with vaccinated, having miscarriages and strange things happen to their cycles? For a start..
Reply
Artelia
| #
LEAKY vaccines? I suspected they may leak but do they continue to leak? And this is affecting women who have not taken the jab and causing miscarriages. Is this for real?
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Prof Thomas is too wordy.
He should take a course on the art of plain talk.
I have great reservations about his information when it takes him so long to put his point across.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Well, it would make sense if the vaccines did prevent deaths, but even the manufacturers themselves state their vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission and they only claim that serious conditions may be prevented in some unknown number of cases. The truth of that is yet to be established. I do not share the author’s faith in these vaccines.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
There will be a much larger death toll in a third wave due to the success of the vaccine campaign.
Reply
Andy
| #
Good point Herb.
Reply
Tom
| #
That’s the scary part as the risks of dying from the fake vaccines become much greater than those of dying from CoV-2.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
I actually read “That is because of the huge success of the vaccine programme, which will mean that by June, the overwhelming majority of the population is dead.” I hope it’s just another freudian slip.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Dear Prof Thomas:
I read this article with interest. I noted, in particular, the statement
“Like all models, the PCCF had a number of assumptions fed into it, including high levels of both the take-up and effectiveness of the vaccines, based on field data.”
In this case, the assumption is the “effectiveness of the vaccines.” Is this assumption correct and valid? The effectiveness of the vaccines is based on the PCR test. The projections will be as good as the test results.
It is a very well-known fact that the PCR test does not test anything related, including virus, illness, and the vaccine’s effectiveness. In addition, any results obtained from PCR testing are mostly irrelevant and with a high degree of variability. This will be reflected negatively in your modeling efforts.
I understand that your modeling provided better results in the past than those from the Imperial College, London, but could it still not be considered a chance occurrence. It is quite possible that you might get lucky the second time, but the conclusions drawn from modeling will still be based on false inputs (PCR test).
I would suggest that you consider seeking the validation report of the PCR test, particularly the variance component, developed with a reference virus sample, and then reevaluate your modeling for a scientific and accurate assessment of the situation.
Best of luck.
Reply
Paul Ashley
| #
“… ‘a big third wave could still end up with 30,000 to 50,000 deaths, potentially, if it was a similar sort of size to the previous waves.” – Professor Jeremy Brown
This is a tautology, essentially saying that “a third wave could have a lot of deaths if it has a lot of deaths”. This is not an argument but fear porn designed to scare the gullible. Unfortunately, Jeremy Brown seems to be as stupid as those who will buy this line. And this guy’s a professor!
Reply
Artelia
| #
Does the vaccine work with or just along side 5G?
Reply