PANDA actuaries are weaponizing the poor for political and economic reasons.

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.