Who is PANDA (Pandemic – Data Analysis)? They came
out of nowhere with their report “Lockdown is a humanitarian disaster to
dwarf COVID-19”, which Business Day broke on April 5.
Since then they’ve received a lot of media coverage questioning
government’s epidemiological models that predict large numbers of coronavirus infections
and deaths in South Africa.
Little is known about them other than they’re a newly formed ad hoc advocacy group (also called a “consortium") of actuaries Nick Hudson and Peter Castleden and an unnamed medical doctor
and economist. PANDA has no website or even a blog. But there are plenty of hits about them.
Credulous media,
public, pandemic denialists and conspiracy theorists (BizNews chief among them)
have unquestioningly taken their and generally business’ narrative the
lockdown, at level 3 since June 1, is unnecessary and its economic consequences
shall allegedly cause more deaths than the lockdown itself. Fund manager Allan
Gray’s CEO Andrew Lapping too, without adequate information, agreed.
In a report late April PANDA, whom I started calling “PANDenialist”,
stated worst case deaths are little over 20 000 when other modellers, including
epidemiologists, calculate far higher. They
did so again yesterday.
On 29 April 2020 the Actuarial Society
of SA issued a statement: “Actuarial
Society’s COVID-19 Model confirms Government’s risk concerns”. And on May 6:
“Actuarial
Society clarifies its position on PANDA statement” in which they declined
to confirm the authenticity of PANDenialist’s lockdown report.
Instead they stated “The Actuarial Society supports research
and modelling by individual members especially when the outcomes inform a
critical debate such as the one around appropriate measures to deal with the
COVID-19 pandemic.”
In these posts (here
and here)
I wrote epidemiological models are based on the scant known facts about the novel
coronavirus, which is changing almost daily, and assumptions about its
transmission, complicated by unique local circumstances. Even within a country
or city the coronavirus presents differently – the Western Cape
compared to the rest of the country. No one is sure why.
The most important of the assumptions, as Imperial College
and other experts repeatedly said, is infections and deaths will likely
increase substantially without interventions.
At the moment the only measure available are lockdowns aka
isolation and quarantine used in one form or another by over half the world’s countries.
South Africa’s, which is described as one of the strictest, started on March
27.
Lockdowns are implemented in conjunction with testing and
tracing. Notable exceptions were South Korea and Taiwan that successfully controlled
the epidemic without resorting to full lockdowns, but physical distancing and
wearing masks in public were mandatory.
Sweden, which lockdown denialists use as a good example,
didn’t implement a lockdown but has among the highest infections per capita in
the world, much higher than its neighbours that did. It has been excluded from
cross-border travel between Scandinavian countries.
Yesterday Hudson
issued an open letter to Professor Juliet Pulliam of the South African
Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis calling for the models used
to arrive at Covid-19 death projections to be made public. He called the estimates
of around 40 000 “outlandish”. They appear not to understand the prevention paradox.
While I agree information and models must be released for
transparency, PANDenialist’s adamant rejection of all models presented for South Africa’s situation
– about six not including theirs that indicate more deaths (34 000 to 50 000 by November
for the official government model) if there are no interventions – while only
theirs is correct is arrogant and concerning. Note modellers stress estimates
are uncertain and subject to change if new data becomes available.
PANDenialist’s members are not epidemiologists and virologists. But they
claim to have more information and a better understanding of public health and
epidemiological modelling than those who’ve devoted their lives to its study.
This includes government’s lead advisor on the pandemic, Prof. Salim Abdool
Karim. He’s a member of the Royal Society and has been on international panels
with the director of the US’ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases Anthony Fauci.
PANDA’s first report the lockdown would cause more deaths
than Covid-19 was wrong as it was based on actuarial formulae unfit for a pandemic and
particularly a novel coronavirus that differs from epidemics that preceded it.
Using a formula, they created causality between poverty and unemployment, the
purported result of the lockdown, to mortality (causes of death) without understanding
poverty in general and especially the facts of poverty in South Africa.
Like the (white) privileged elite they are, they view poverty and
unemployment as a tool or weapon (like Trump uses the Bible and church) in a political
argument and as an economic “problem” rather than people who are affected. They were never
concerned about the poor before March – gave them no thought as they drove past
them every day. But now allege the poor are constantly on their minds and
who are driving them.
They prefer not to know poverty, and abject poverty, and
unemployment existed in South Africa for decades. It was not eradicated after
1994. The poor – about 50% of the population – are not numbers but people. While
jobs are being lost during the lockdown, the poor shall not be significantly impacted
because they are already included among the 40% unemployed. They survived before and shall survive
tomorrow.
The newly unemployed are mainly in the working class. As always,
the middle class are insulated. There is hunger now because of job losses and
reduced wages. But there was hunger before and I never heard Hudson, Castleden
and members of their privileged circle saying anything about it and advocating
for the poor who are all black and brown.
And because of their race in a race-obsessed country, the poor were
never worth mentioning until now they can be used as a weapon in an academic and
political dispute. Once again elite whites are exploiting blacks, this time
they’re calling it “science”. PANDA is weaponizing the poor for political and
economic reasons.
While the group’s input is welcome – debate always is – they
must be honest about their intentions. Hudson and Castleden are CEOs of fund
managers. They have a business interest seeing the lockdown end and life
returning to normal – the profit before lives agenda. Their income and clients’ depend on it.
Unlike other modellers who’re concerned about the subject professionally
and in the public interest, they have a personal interest at stake. While this
shouldn’t exclude their contribution, their motives are suspect. Their
appearance out of the blue for this specific project – part
of the pandemic conspiracy movement – says it all.
Comments
Post a Comment