The False Premise of COVID-19

Written by Joel Smalley MBA on July 21, 2020. Posted in Current News

Introduction On 23^rd March 2020, Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the UK, announced to the nation that the SARS-Cov-2 virus outbreak was the “biggest threat this country has faced for decades”. [1]

Justifying unprecedented, draconian measures of shutting down schools, businesses and shops, confining healthy people to their homes except for “basic necessities” as deemed by the government, and special powers to the police, he continued, “there will come a moment when no health service in the world could possibly cope because there won’t be enough ventilators, enough intensive care beds, enough doctors and nurses”.

“And as we have seen elsewhere, in other countries that also have fantastic health care systems, that is the moment of real danger. To put it simply, if too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to handle it – meaning more people are likely to die, not just from coronavirus but from other illnesses as well. So, it’s vital to slow the spread of the disease.”

The decisions taken by Johnson’s government, including the Chief Medical Officer Prof. Chris Whitty and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock, were on the premise of modelling by a team at Imperial College London, led by Prof. Neil Ferguson, showing that with no intervention, there could be 510,000 deaths in Britain. [2]

Critics of Johnson actually claimed that he should have acted by locking down sooner. [3] The Imperial team still later claimed that the interventions “may have prevented three million coronavirus deaths” across Europe. [4]

However, empirical analysis of the data compared to the model hypotheses strongly suggests that, at best, the interventions played no part in mitigating the impact of the virus. At worst, they probably caused considerably more harm than good.

Discussion

1. Hypothesis: According to the results of their model (the “model”), Ferguson et al. recommended a suppression strategy to be put in place until a vaccine was found which might take up to 18 months because mitigation was deemed unlikely to be effective: [5]

Empirical analysis: The suppression strategy was supposed to last 18 months and be subject to revision according to “ongoing surveillance” but still remain in place for “several months”.

According to surveillance of the empirical data, as depicted in Figure 1 and with respect to the progression of daily COVID deaths (even in spite of the fact that there is evidence of COVID deaths being exaggerated), the virus is no longer circulating so there is no need for further interventions. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] The expected timeframe for intervention is off by several months and the need for a vaccine is not apparent.

OTHER STUDIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT MITIGATION STRATEGIES WOULD HAVE WORKED AT LEAST AS WELL OR EVEN BETTER THAN FULL SUPPRESSION WITH SIGNIFICANTLY LESS COLLATERAL COST. [11] [12]

2. Hypothesis: After the first intervention, ICU occupation would peak 3 weeks later due to the expected lag between infection and hospitalization.

Empirical analysis: As depicted in Figure 1, ICU admissions peaked on 1^st April, just 8 days after all the interventions were imposed. The peak in weekly ICU admissions was 5^th April, case rate on 3^rd April, and absolute real cases on 8^th April, all well BEFORE 3 weeks since the main intervention. [13]

The information used in the model to predict a 3-week lag between infection and hospitalisation has been confirmed many times by independent empirical studies. [14] [15] [16] [17]

IT IS COMPLETELY UNFEASIBLE THAT THE INTERVENTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEAK IN ICU ADMISSIONS. 3 WEEKS AFTER THE INTERVENTION ICU ADMISSIONS HAD ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY DECLINED.

IT IS VERY STRONGLY IMPLIED THAT THE INTERVENTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE DECLINE IN CASES OR CASE RATE.

3. Hypothesis: Infections would quickly rise when interventions were relaxed, as measured by cases.

Empirical Analysis: As depicted in Figure 1, interventions have been lifted on 3 occasions since the beginning of June with absolutely no impact on cases, even in spite of the fact that more tests have been processed, in stark contrast to the hypothesis that transmission would “quickly rebound”. [18] [19]

IT IS VERY STRONGLY IMPLIED THAT THE INTERVENTIONS MADE NO IMPACT.

4. Hypothesis: If interventions were lifted after 5 months, ICU bed occupation (green line) would surge higher than initially forecasted in the “do nothing” scenario, effectively a “second wave”. According to the model, ICU occupation would rise from mid-October if interventions were lifted in August, i.e. 6 weeks later.

Empirical analysis: Given that interventions were lifted between June and July, it is still just too early to test this hypothesis but given that there has been no increase in cases which was expected to be immediate according to the model, nor subsequent increase in ICU admissions that were expected to have occurred within 3 weeks, it is very difficult to accept that ICU admissions will suddenly rise to the afore-predicted levels.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A “SECOND WAVE” OR A SURGE IN DEMAND FOR ICU CAPACITY.

5.Hypothesis: Strategy requires the relaxation and re-application of interventions triggered by weekly ICU bed admissions. The number widely reported as the target number of deaths as a result of this strategy was the result of the 200 trigger.

Empirical analysis: The interventions seem to have been lifted when weekly ICU admissions fell below 200 which is an extraordinarily low figure given that capacity is 5,000 beds and extra beds were made available in the Nightingale hospitals that were hardly used. [20] It is evident from the data well before then that there is no pressure on ICU capacity for some time.

INEXPLICABLY, THE ADDITIONAL ICU RESOURCE WAS REMOVED RATHER THAN INTERVENTIONS LIFTED.

Hypothesis: The reduction in deaths was only achievable if the strategy was maintained over a 2-year period. Inevitably, this is in recognition of the fact that the strategy would not reduce mortality, only defer it. The expectation is that a vaccine is discovered before the 2-year period which is how the mortality reduction is achieved.

It is clear that the pandemic is over in Britain by looking at both the case numbers and ICU admissions. The case rate, which is a more reliable measure of contagion than absolute number of cases since the latter is a function of the number of tests, has been below the false positive level of 2.3% since 4^th [21] [22]

This is supported by new information regarding lower adaptive herd immunity thresholds required for complete herd immunity due to the significant presence of innate and cross-immunity and a control in the form of Sweden who did not ostensibly lockdown. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Given all the above, it is therefore evident that the end result in terms of mortality is akin to the “do nothing” scenario. This is corroborated by the results of a Norwegian study (in Norwegian). [33] Norway did “lockdown” to the same extent as the UK.

The study shows that the R₀ in Norway was already in substantial decline by the time the interventions were imposed on 12^th March, prompting Norwegian Institute of Public Health, director general Camille Stoltenberg, to have the good grace to admit that lockdown was a mistake. [34]

According to official mortality data from the ONS, there have been 50,000 deaths where “COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate”, 0f which just over 1% were under 60 with no serious pre-existing comorbidity. [35]

It is evident from Figure 2 that during the height of the epidemic, a significant number of deaths could not be attributed to COVID-19 even using this liberal determination – roughly 14,000 deaths between weeks-ending 3^rd April to 1^st May.

IT IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT OTHER ACTIVITIES AND EFFECTS RESULTING FROM LOCKDOWN RATHER THAN DIRECTLY FROM THE VIRUS ITSELF WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EXCESS DEATHS.

It is also apparent from Figure 2 that there has been no material net excess death in England and Wales since the week-ending 22^nd May which would again indicate the end of the epidemic and imply the end of the circulation of the virus week-ending 8^th May, almost 1 month prior to the first easing of lockdown restrictions.

USING THE ABSOLUTE UPPER LIMIT OF 50,000 COVID-19 DEATHS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE MODEL OVER-ESTIMATED THE UNMITIGATED BURDEN OF DEATH BY AT LEAST AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

IT IS VERY STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT INTERVENTIONS, TO ANY EXTENT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE, COULD HAVE BEEN LIFTED SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THEY WERE.

7. Hypothesis: Without intervention, mortality (daily deaths) would peak after 3 months with 81% of the population infected with an R₀ of 2.4.

Empirical analysis: according to the official government website, coronavirus deaths peaked on 10^th April, and according to Figure 2 week-ending 17^th April, less than 3 to 4 weeks from the main interventions. [36] Given that it is evident that the interventions had little to no effect on transmission, this is effectively the unmitigated peak. The model was off by a significant magnitude.

Using well-substantiated, empirical observations of segmented infection fatality rates (0.04% for under 65s and 1.3% for over 65s), it can be estimated that the total population infected at the end of the epidemic is somewhere around 22.5%, which is consistent with the more recent studies that appear to have been disregarded. [37] [38] [39] [40]

THE MODEL ESTIMATES OF R₀, PEAK MORTALITY AND HERD IMMUNITY THRESHOLD, WHICH ARE ALL CRUCIAL IN THE ESTIMATION OF ULTIMATE DEATH TOLL, ARE ALL SO FAR OFF THAT THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE OF 510,000 UNMITIGATED DEATHS IS TOTALLY IMPLAUSIBLE.

8. Hypothesis: This was all a massive gamble.

Empirical analysis: THE GAMBLE FAILED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT OTHER AVOIDABLE LOSS OF LIFE (INCLUDING THE DEATHS OF CHILDREN), UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION, AND UNACCEPTABLE EROSION OF BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

THE PREMISE WAS THAT THE VIRUS WAS SO VIRULENT AND THE INTERVENTION SO SUCCESSFUL THAT ONCE LIFTED, VIRAL TRANSMISSION WOULD RESUME IMMEDIATELY, ATTAINING LEVELS OF ICU DEMAND AND DEATH THAT EXCEEDED ORIGINAL EXPECTATIONS. EVIDENTLY, THE EMPIRICAL REALITY COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE HYPOTHESIS.

EVIDENCE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ACTUAL DEATH TOLL WOULD EVEN HAVE BEEN MUCH LOWER IF THE NHS HAD NOT ISSUED AN EDICT TO SEND ELDERLY PATIENTS TO CARE HOMES WITHOUT TESTING AND TO CANCEL ALL OTHER ELECTIVE PROCEDURES ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN. [56] [57] [58] [59]

THE PREMISE UPON WHICH DRACONIAN AND PERNICIOUS INTERVENTIONS WERE MANDATED, I.E. THAT THERE WERE WOULD BE 510,000 UNMITIGATED DEATHS IS FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.

THE INTERVENTIONS THAT ENSUED AS A RESULT OF THE FALSE PREMISE HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE ALREADY BEEN HARMFUL IN ADDITION TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF MORE THAN 200,000 ADDITIONAL DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTERVENTIONS OVER THE COMING MONTHS BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY BENEFIT. [60]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/23/uk-coronavirus-live-news-latest-boris-johnson-minister-condemns-people-ignoring-two-metre-distance-rule-in-parks-as-very-selfish

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/249daf9a-67c3-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-24/coronavirus-uk-how-boris-johnson-s-government-let-virus-get-away

[4] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid19-lockdowns-three-million-deaths-europe-a4463016.html

[5] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

[6] https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

[7] https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-carl-heneghan-can-we-trust-the-covid-19-death-numbers/

[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-daily-deaths-public-health-england-uk-matt-hancock-stats-a9624126.html

[9] https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/deaths-covid-19

[10] https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/07/17/uk-government-panicking-as-fraudulent-covid-death-count-is-revealed/

[11] https://www.ed.ac.uk/covid-19-response/latest-news/two-tier-approach-could-begin-lockdown-end

[12] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_new-study-reveals-blueprint-for-getting-out-activity-6668047114670620673-9jds

[13] https://www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports

[14] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

[15] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-0504

[16] https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/2/538

[17] https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr155806

[18] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

[19] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public

[20] https://www.ft.com/content/09897050-13bc-4ebe-99af-25b8d2ab5781

[21] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

[22] https://mises.org/wire/false-positive-panic-over-covid-19

[23] https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/07/second-wave-not-even-close/

[24] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_covid19-activity-6688897384417640449-i5lt

[25] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1

[26] https://unherd.com/2020/06/karl-friston-up-to-80-not-even-susceptible-to-covid-19/

[27] https://www.aier.org/article/nobel-laureate-michael-levitt-on-the-lockdowns-i-think-it-is-a-huge-mistake/

[28] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1

[29] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_swiss-professor-offical-covid-narrative-activity-6685935004712755200-Y1IK

[30] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154294v1

[31] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_the-progress-of-the-covid-19-epidemic-in-activity-6684209216120598528-0HNT

[32] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_whitney-looks-like-sweden-was-right-after-activity-6688022310022082560-OAzt

[33] https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/c9e459cd7cc24991810a0d28d7803bd0/vedlegg/notat-om-risiko-og-respons-2020-05-05.pdf

[34] https://www.theweek.co.uk/107093/norweigian-health-chief-coronavirus-no-lockdown-sweden

[35] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

[36] https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[37] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3

[38] https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01691-x

[39] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_covid19-lockdowns-masks-activity-6687740644384882688-vISK

[40] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3

[41] https://forecasters.org/blog/2020/06/14/forecasting-for-covid-19-has-failed/

[42] https://www.pslhub.org/blogs/entry/1040-nhs-treatment-delays-linked-to-more-child-deaths-than-coronavirus/

[43] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_bbc-17th-may-lord-sumption-speaks-out-against-activity-6667860091712225280-L8g1

[44] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_evidencenotfear-activity-6688547995287359488-Whmc

[45] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_modelers-were-astronomically-wrong-in-covid-activity-6684560632479543296-SN53

[46] https://thefatemperor.com/ep85-viral-realities-revealed-dr-john-lee-pathology-professor-lockdown/

[47] https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/15/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/

[48] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_lockdown-covid19-activity-6683828404757909504-uXF7

[49] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_lockdown-corononavirus-covid19-activity-6677259221727272960-NZUn

[50] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_the-collateral-damage-of-the-uks-response-activity-6676543689835331586-yP_p

[51] https://altcensored.com/watch?v=-34hZNkHpAA

[52] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-activity-6667751914140241920-DDne

[53] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_david-starkey-covid-19-britains-disastrous-activity-6670291473742737408-pifc

[54] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_covid19-coronavirus-activity-6658688963064270848-91Xa

[55] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/12000-people-day-could-die-covid-19-linked-hunger-end-year-potentially-more-disease

[56] https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/urgent-next-steps-on-nhs-response-to-covid-19-letter-simon-stevens.pdf

[57] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880288/COVID-19_hospital_discharge_service_requirements.pdf

[58] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/893717/admission-and-care-of-residents-during-covid-19-incident-in-a-care-home.pdf#page=6

[59] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-adult-social-care-action-plan/covid-19-our-action-plan-for-adult-social-care

[60] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8539541/200-000-people-die-delays-healthcare-report-warns.html

About the author: Joel Smalley holds an MBA from the University of Toronto and  works as a Blockchain architect and early stage, polymath data-driven technologist, specializing in fintech, healthtech and IoT. He is currently CEO of Supermoney Ltd and CIO and CTO of Toucan Labs. 

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.