Had a fascinating discussion yesterday with Nick Hudson, co-ordinator of PANDA, the group of actuaries independently stress testing SA’s official Covid-19 projections. Have a listen to our conversation through accessing the podcast by clicking here. Perhaps you’re able to poke holes in his argument. I couldn’t.
During the chat an obvious penny now dropped for me. More importantly, you have to ask whether it has also done so in the Union Buildings. Because if “official” pandemic modellers have indeed been working off false assumptions – as PANDA steadfastly maintains – SA will be counting the cost of the miscalculation for a long, long time.
Hudson says Government was panicked by an initial projection from those it listens to of 375,000 Covid-19 deaths. Hence its implementation of a lengthy and economically destructive lockdown. Late last month that horrific and massively inflated forecast was cut almost 90% to 40,000 mortalities. Even here, PANDA calculations say it’s still four times too high.
To avert even more damage from Government’s tourniquet, PANDA is now calling for the official modellers to publicly disclose their assumptions so these can be interrogated in public. Hopefully that will happen soon. If only to ensure the nation avoids repeating some clear mistakes when the next coronavirus hits. As it invariably will.
* Discovery hosts a “sending our children safely back to school” webinar at noon today as a public service ahead of next week’s re-opening of classrooms. Attendance is free with pre-registration at Discovery.co.za.
To receive Biznews founder Alec Hogg’s Daily Insider every weekday at 6am in your inbox click here. You can also sign up to the Weekender for a wrap of the best content Biznews has to offer, for a leisurely Saturday read.
Comment from Biznews community member Serge Belamant:
Hi Alec,
Interesting interview.
It is clear that initial models were built with many assumptions that are now not factually valid.
When the disease commenced spreading, certain assumptions such as for example, all people can be infected equally, had to be made as there was no evidence that this was not true.
The failure therefore is not the modelling per say but rather the fact that the models were not updated at all or only when scientific evidence was no longer equivocal. Unfortunately, the science ignored the actual facts or dismissed these as they could not be proven or logically explained. Eg. Why are children less affected?, Does Chloroquine work?, Do BCG vaccinations help? Why are black people more likely to die from the disease (this is true in the UK and America – does it also apply to local black Africans?)
Advisers to governments have to err on the safer side as else the political fall out would be huge. Eg. the UK has now the worse statistics in the world. Why? Government is being blamed! They were not prepared, they believed in herd immunity, they did not have the PPE, test kits, ventilators, hospital beds, etc.
Why is Germany so much better than all other European countries. This is attributed to a) earlier lockdown, b) bed availability, c) better medical care. Bottom line is that the population at large thinks that less people could have died if the pandemic was better managed. What Nick says is that the lockdown was not necessary at all as the time to the peak was a constant regardless of the lockdown timing or measures.
He may be proved right in time. The question remains – who will take on the responsibility if he is wrong?
How many additional people will die if he is wrong!
Trying to curb the pandemic until a vaccine is available must save lives – no doubt!
Perhaps the way most governments are going about this is not 100% correct and perhaps over the top.
Unfortunately, this is a little like marketing – you know you are wasting at least half of your money, but you don’t know which half!
Really enjoyed the podcast.
