Pandemic reflections - why did we not follow the data?

Pandemic reflections - why did we not follow the data?

I am currently reading the book "Vaxxers" (2022) which describes the development of the Oxford AstroZeneca vaccine by two pivotal individuals; Professor Sarah Gilbert & Associate Professor Catherine Green, who were awarded a Damehood and OBE in 2021 respectively.  The degree of conviction and dedication in the development of a vaccine to save the world by these two individuals and their team(s) is unquestionable. Reflecting on the only YouTube presentation ⁽¹⁾ I made back in 2020 I questioned why do people like these two “scientists” not follow the data? My YouTube presentation focused on the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) excess mortality data from the ten regions of England and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic. This weekly mortality data, released shortly after the first wave of deaths, indicated that for all ten regions of England & Wales, hundreds of miles apart, deaths were commencing week 11/12, peaking week 16/17 and finishing on week 22. In addition, the deaths per million varied by no more than +/- 11% with the slight exception of Southwest region. The ONS data was public knowledge, yet it did not show a centre of transmission as the start, peak, finish and intensity for all ten regions were virtually identical and this included any other variation such as reporting.

This data was duplicated in many other regions of the world. Here is the data from the England, Wales and Scotland (Fig 1, week data) and Spain (Fig 2, date data):

Figures 1 & 2 indicates that the person-to-person (measles) transmission narrative must be wrong as it is inconceivable that the Sars-CoV-2 virus could spread around the UK and Spain with sufficient speed to create such a small window (3/4 day) of excess mortality response.  As everything was based on this transmission assumption including social distancing, masking and even vaccines, they could all be ineffective or detrimental. It is also implicit from these data that there has been extensive prior exposure to the virus and so there would be significant development of herd immunity. So, the concept of vaccinating and protecting uninfected individuals could be is intrinsically flawed.

So, a complete amateur tried in vain to point out to our leading scientists that the official data indicated they must be wrong.

Further investigation revealed that the Cirencester based researcher / physician Robert Edgar Hope-Simpson (REHS) identified over thirty years ago that the respiratory virus influenza also demonstrated no centre of transmission with regions in the UK triggering simultaneously and based on this and other painstakingly gathered data ⁽²⁾ proposed a new transmission narrative. This hypothesis may be summarised as follows:

·       The influenza virus infects our cells and lies dormant until it is seasonally activated by a signal related to solar activity.

·       Healthy activated individuals (super spreaders) are briefly sick releasing highly infectious viral particles.

·       Depending on the health of the infected immune system and antigenic distance (degree of mutation from the original variant) those secondary infections can be much more severe. The health and severity of response of the immune system relates to prior exposure and age.

The data and proposed hypothesis published by REHS fits well with that seen for Sars-CoV-2 yet has been virtually completely ignored by those “scientists” and politicians protecting and clinging to the accepted transmission narrative.

The solar signal that triggers the simultaneous emergence of the virus that eluded REHS has possibly been inadvertently identified during a study examining the impact of UV light on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  I have elaborated on this in another article ⁽³⁾.

The extensive data gathering and research during the pandemic has provided much more evidence supporting the REHS hypothesis and explains just why the measures taken during the pandemic were ineffective, some of which I have identified and written about on Substack ⁽⁴⁾. Perhaps readers have better more plausible explanations? I think it’s called science.

In summary it appears to me that our belief in flawed mechanisms that offer the illusion of control of our fears rather than following the data is one of mankind's greatest Achilles heel. Simply calling yourself a "scientist " does not exempt you from this failing and this appears to be the case for Sarah Gilbert & Catherine Green. To pick on these two well intended individuals is completely unfair but this weakness is all too common, which sadly includes me. Our only safeguards for anyone calling themselves a scientist, is an open dialogue, healthy scepticism, actively look for “black swans” that disprove your theory and follow the data.

References / Links

(1)  What does the Office of National Statistics data tell us about the coronovirus / covid-19 pandemic.

(2)    The role of season in the epidemiology of influenza by Robert Edgar Hope-Simpson

The role of season in the epidemiology of influenza. - PMC (nih.gov)

(3)  Is this one of the most important experiments that provides evidence on the mode of transmission of Covid-19?

https://substack.com/home/post/p-78147087?r=16e1vo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

(4)    Stephen Andrews – Substack link

Stephen Andrews | Substack