A Crisis of Democracy

When Joe Biden announced during the US election campaign that the Democrats had an extensive "voter fraud organization", taken completely out of context (as the video itself shows), was this something rather prescient? From what we have seen since the polls closed last Tuesday night there are many who are seizing upon this as evidence that impropriety has indeed taken place - Attorney General Bill Barr has now ordered an investigation after multiple claims and affidavits from election officials testifying to witnessing wrongdoing - meaning the presidential election race cannot be called fully and firmly just yet even if the press and the world's leaders have crowned Biden as the victor.

All this is an extremely sad indictment of a voting system that needs to be examined closely, and makes me proud that despite its flaws the UK election system is light years ahead of that across the pond. 

This post will attempt to draw comparisons between the voting systems here and in the US, look at the flaws in the US system (especially during the pandemic), and try to make sense of what happened. 

The UK - imperfect but streets ahead...

I have been involved in the voting side of elections in the UK since I first counted votes in the 1998 local elections (and referendum on whether we wanted a Mayor in London), and as such have taken a keen interest in psephology and the system we use here. 

In the twenty or so years since we have seen an increase in postal voting, which in turn has led to an increase in questioning the validity of voting - personally I am against postal voting for all bar those who physically cannot be at the polling station on election day, but I appreciate I'm probably in the minority on that one. From my perspective every step you take away from fully verified in person voting the more chance there is of voting imperfections. The US commentator Tim Pool describes this as the "chain of custody". 

The Electoral Commission published a report in 2014 into voter fraud in the UK - thankfully the conclusion is that it's not widespread but pointed to the postal system being problematic, and called for the introduction of voter ID at polling stations (in line with most democracies) - something that the current government has pledged to introduce. For me this is not before time. At the moment as long as I know the name and address of a voter I can walk into their polling station, say I am said person, and cast their vote for them. I can cast my vote by post (so "invisibly"), then be the first voter at my polling station and give my downstairs neighbour's name and address. Anecdotal evidence (I have no physical evidence of this so won't claim otherwise) has claimed that whole busloads of people have been ferried around from polling station to polling station, told who they are to pretend to be at that station, voted, then got back aboard and moved to the next one. As I say, this is totally unverified so I cannot claim that this is true.

But when all is said and done, there is little evidence to say postal voting or non-ID voting has actually swung an election in the UK (there were calls to investigate the Peterborough by-election last year but no evidence was found of wrongdoing), and long may it continue.

...and the US - imperfect and streets behind

And then there's the US. While it's not the first time the system in the US has been thrown into chaos ("hanging chads", anyone?), the 2020 election has blown everything wide open and, to my mind, needs root and branch reform. There are so many moving parts that this will be difficult, nigh on impossible perhaps, but it needs to be examined so there is a clear and unambiguous winner without recourse to the courts.

Starting right at the beginning - why is there a need to declare party affiliation at the point of registering to vote? What works here is the fact every household registers anonymously (we do need to do better at ensuring the people registered actually live there, but again it's not considered a widespread issue), everyone then gets a ballot card. The moment you have party affiliation on your ballot registration is the moment voters can be "accidentally" disenfranchised. 

Next is the age old "Federal vs State" debate - which means the voting system is decided at State level. Whoever controls the State controls the voting system. This led to a number of changes, mainly in Democrat-run States, that had the opposition crying "foul" before a single ballot was cast. It may be that there was nothing untoward in what was done, but once a seed of suspicion is sown (and Trump was particularly aggressive on that score throughout), it does nothing but germinate.

Following on from this is the approach to, and viability of, postal voting in the US. One of the key arguments following last Tuesday is how to count, or whether to count at all, certain votes cast by post. One issue is the US Postal Service itself - when I spent a year living in the US I despaired at just how inefficient their service is. It's understandable in a country as huge and disparate as it is, but at State level there's no excuse for post to take so long to be delivered. Here in the UK I have confidence in the system that if I post something before a certain time on Monday, it will arrive on Tuesday. So surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a ballot posted on Monday in the US will reach the local counting office on the Tuesday? And yet we see states accepting, and counting, votes long after election day. Voters can even post their ballot on election day itself and still be counted. To my mind this is absurd. Another comparison to make with the UK is that here, your ballot needs to have been received by the close of polls in order to count. If it hasn't arrived, tough.

Another rather tinfoil-hat bit of conspiracy theory around postal voting is around how people post items in the US - if you wish to post something you don't need to find your nearest post box, you simply put your items in your letterbox at home and put the little flag thing up, so when the postman comes to deliver the mail, they see your flag up and remove the items from your letterbox. What is to stop a postman who supports party X seeing a property with a board supporting the party Y candidate and accidentally "losing" their ballot? Reports have been posted about ballots being found dumped, so perhaps it's not so fanciful after all.

The counting of votes itself is also vague at best. In the UK, what happens is that come 10pm the ballot boxes are sealed, and opened only in the counting venue. At that point the votes are firstly verified to ensure that the number of ballot papers in the box tallies with the number of votes registered at the polling station (with several recounts of the box if necessary). Once all the votes in each box have been successfully verified, the votes are then counted, in full view of agents from each party who can intervene if a mistake is made or a ballot is regarded as "doubtful". The count then ends only when each vote is counted and allocated to each candidate and the result of the vote is declared.

Compare and contrast with the mess of the count in the US, which has given rise to suspicions of foul play - computers mysteriously deleting and re-allocating votes, vote counts going up when the counting isn't taking place, new ballots being "found" - and one can at least begin to understand why supporters of the "losing" party might think all is not right. 

The context in 2020...

The 2020 US Election was always going to be a particularly strange one. Trump essentially won in 2016 because while there was a massive movement against him, there was also the factor of having a Democrat candidate who was absolutely despised by large sections of the electorate. I saw this for myself when my brief residency in the US coincided with her tenure as the First Lady - the running joke was around announcing "The President, and her husband Bill".

While Trump in the intervening years did little to assuage the fears of those diametrically opposed to him in terms of his bombast and generally divisive attitude, he did seem to solidify his support base by essentially doing what he set out to do (whether a positive or not) while his foreign policy, often baffling, yielded several landmark deals involving Israel that could positively impact the Middle East in the long term, while dialogue has been taking place with North Korea that could lead to it opening up in future. The US economy seemed to be on the right track too heading into 2020. Pundits were suggesting that having finally brushed off Impeachment, he'd win fairly comfortably especially given his opponent.

Then Covid happened, and all that changed. Trump's handling of the pandemic has been widely criticised, which brought the election back into play. 

As for Biden, well there was very little overt enthusiasm for him, but nor was there the anger at him that there was towards Clinton. While there were fears both around his cognitive abilities and whether he was having his strings pulled by the far left of the party (as evidenced by his choice of running mate), these fears nor the fears around Trump weren't really enough to sway the vote decisively either way.

And that is perhaps the crux of the issue. The context is that the Democrats pushed, in these pandemic times, for voters to vote early by mail. The Republicans, who have generally treated the pandemic less seriously (many perhaps due to living in less densely populated areas), said this was a recipe for fraud and to therefore vote in person. This was then evidenced by the on-the-night counts themselves. Those states where mail in votes were counted immediately saw the Democrats leap out into the lead then be clawed back as in person votes started to be counted. And vice versa for those states where mail in votes weren't counted until after the in person votes. This meant that it was incredibly difficult to judge the mood on the night and to call winners, then the suspicious-looking stuff happened. There may well be a logical explanation for why Biden's totals in some states would leap up while Trump's totals stayed static (especially if this happened while people weren't actually counting votes, as is alleged), but if you've been drilled into thinking the vote was going to be rigged, seeing things like this would only reinforce that view.

Had there been clear evidence on the night that either Trump or Biden was heading towards a decisive victory, it would have been easy for one to be declared the winner and for the other to concede graciously (or as graciously as one might expect in certain quarters...!). However, the close races in key states have magnified the claims of voting impropriety, which means that nothing is done until everything is done. Furthermore, when looking "down ballot" at the results in the House, Senate, Governor and State legislature votes, which showed a generally strong Republican performance, Trump supporters have further ammunition (rightly or wrongly) to cry foul. How come Biden received so many votes that had absolutely no votes registered "down ballot"? This could be perfectly reasonable especially given a demographic who were said to be voting "against Trump", but suspicions remain and questions raised.

It is an embarrassment that one of the world's great democracies is having its name dragged through the mud, but so too is it embarrassing that people are trying to say "move along, nothing to see here". While I *totally* buy the idea that every (legal) vote should be counted, so too do I believe that if there is suspicious activity, it should be investigated. If it is investigated and found that a) there was nothing naughty, or b) there were pockets of activity but not enough to alter the result, then fine, let's get on and welcome Joe Biden as the 46th President after he won fair and square, and good luck to him.

Lest we forget, meanwhile, that the Democrats spent most of the Trump term questioning the 2016 result and generally refusing to accept Trump won by fair means. Another four years of suspicion, this time from the Trump side of the fence, would be counterproductive to the long-term political stability of the country - so like every vote being counted, so too should every suspicious vote pattern be investigated.

Lessons to be learnt

If future US elections are to have the increased postal voting engagement we saw in 2020 due to the pandemic, there needs to be a realignment of their voting system and restrictions. How votes are collected and counted needs to be put under the spotlight, with control perhaps shifting from State to Federal. Votes should be received by the time the polls in each state close, and votes should be counted in one go like they are in the UK. Voter registration should be verified more closely (no dead people!) with tighter controls on the issue of ballots (an estimated 100,000 incorrect ballots were sent out in New York, for example). There needs to be greater transparency at vote counts themselves. Using a common set of guidelines and principles will go a long way to ensuring there is less recourse to the courts to decide outcomes.

I'm sure that in the end everything will be resolved, and I'm sure also that the result will not be overturned by the various legal challenges by the Trump team. Hopefully in 2024 with two less divisive candidates/parties, and after a root and branch review of the voting system, we won't be left wondering beyond election day. Meanwhile we in the UK can continue to show the way to a gold(ish) standard election system.

Striking a Lockdown Balance

So, here we go again. As of Thursday, most of our daily life, such as it has been in recent months, will shut down again. The tiered system was given but weeks, only to be temporarily chucked out of the window. There are massive contrasts with how this has been received - polling suggests a clear majority of people in favour of locking down, while Labour were calling for it for the last couple of weeks - but there has been widespread anger and disbelief. A number of Conservative members have torn up their membership cards as a result, while the business community has largely reacted negatively.

The issues at hand are: has the right approach to dealing with Covid-19 been taken throughout; why apply a national lockdown to what appears to be a more localised problem; should we trust the numbers; what are the alternatives.

Now, as always I caveat things by saying that when it comes to the science, I'm only a short step away from "dunce" category (I do have an AS Level in Chemistry, but that's as far as it goes). Where I do possess an amount of expertise is in data analysis, but even then my expertise is more reactive than in forecasting (although I am in print predicting the 2008 recession when the official line was to deny it - yay me and Vince Cable). All I can do is look at the numbers, the regional variances and make inferences based on those.

Anyway, I digress. When cases started to increase once again, the government introduced their tiered system of localised measures. On the face of it, these were sensible and could account for local spikes being controlled, while allowing those in lower risk areas to continue in some sort of normality. There remained quibbles with some measures, such as the "Rule of 6", for example in why small children counted towards this figure where they haven't elsewhere. As a result, by dint of my sister very selfishly deciding to have another baby in February, we haven't been able to meet up due to now being seven between us. 

London then moved into Tier 2 a couple of weeks ago, which once again causes many beneath the surface issues. My wife had a rare night out with some friends planned, that had to be cancelled. One other issue remained for those living on the outer edge of London in that these rules could easily be circumnavigated. Last week my wife, daughter and I decided to treat ourselves to a Sunday roast at a pub owned by friends of ours. In chatting to our friend, she made the valid complaint that the Tier 2 restrictions meant they were losing custom to places on the other side of the zone, about a 10 minute drive away, because they weren't subjected to the same restrictions on who could sit and eat together.

The Numbers Game

The big question regarding the announcement on Saturday regarded the numbers being put before us, and gives rise to the suspicion that we may not have approached things well. A chart was presented by Messrs Whitty and Vallance that showed estimated death rates using a variety of models. The problem was the figures used to justify the lockdown came from Public Health England, whose forecast of around 4,000 deaths per day at its peak (without new measures) put all other figures massively in the shade - including those of Imperial, usually the benchmark for ultra-pessimistic predictions. When one model is shown to be massively out of step with other models, the usual approach is to treat this as an outlier, not the basis upon which to make political decisions. 

While there is no denying that the number of cases is increasing, as is the daily death rate (currently running at around the same level as in late May despite the figures at that time including "suspected" deaths rather than only "confirmed" as is the case now), there appears to be no basis currently whereby a figure of 4,000 deaths per day would be reached. I have no doubt the situation re: deaths will get (possibly a lot) worse before it gets better, but while deaths in the first wave hit a peak of around 1,000 deaths per day, I'd be interested to know how a figure of 4,000 per day was arrived at. 

Some have speculated that PHE went off outdated figures and had updated their model to be showing a peak closer to 1,000 - with further speculation that the 4,000 figure was kept for political expediency purposes (i.e. it's easier to justify draconian measures based off the higher number). If this turns out to be the case, then heads should roll, quite frankly.

A Question of Compliance

My fear is that this new lockdown may prove difficult to enforce. Back in March when the country first went into lockdown, the overwhelming majority felt that it was a necessary evil. Even though we as a country are used to being free to come and go as we please, there was a sense that "we're all in it together" and so people queued dutifully outside the shops, they gave each other a wide berth on the pavement, they didn't flout the regulations. Cracks did eventually begin to show, especially amongst the younger members of society who, perhaps fairly, thought themselves less at risk and therefore less justified in being locked up, but even then most people were compliant and were relieved when the country began to be opened up once more.

While snap polling indicated public support (even amongst Conservative voters) for this new lockdown, anecdotally this doesn't necessarily appear to be the case. Perhaps it's an echo chamber mentality, but the Conservative Facebook groups are in meltdown over this. Some have announced their resignation from the party, others continuing to support the party but not these measures. Several prominent Conservative MPs too have said they will not support the new lockdown, although with Sir Keir Starmer announcing he will support it, there's no danger of the measures not being approved.

As for the public, the contrast in the weather currently vs the first lockdown may instil an artificial sense of compliance as people tend to stay indoors more during bad weather - but had we been enjoying an Indian Summer I suspect compliance would have been a massive issue.

The Health of the Nation vs The Health of the People

A major battle of wills when dealing with this pandemic is about how to balance mitigating and controlling the virus with mitigating and controlling the damage to the economy and the overall health of the people. When the pandemic first hit, capacity in the NHS was given over mainly to handling patients with the virus, to the detriment of a number of other people dealing with their own serious health issues (both physical and mental). The damage to the economy was inevitable as the government sought to deal with businesses forced to close and people losing their jobs (or having their hours restricted). 

Businesses have struggled to get back to some sort of normality, only to be now told to close again. For many, this will have been the final straw, and with no end in sight will throw in the towel - causing further damage to the economy. Economic crises tend to exacerbate other issues around public health, giving rise to the very real concern that the cure is proving to be worse than the illness. If by saving 1,000 lives to the virus you cause 2,000 unnecessary deaths to other ailments (including suicide), where does it end?

The key remains how to exit entirely from the restrictions we find ourselves under - and of course the number one exit route remains the development of, and widespread implementation of, an effective vaccine. We keep being told that a vaccine is imminent, but how imminent is imminent? And how much longer can we put the economy on hold until it's in place? 

The Alternative?

The main alternative that has been mooted is to shield the vulnerable while allowing others to go about their business as normal. This is certainly not without its merits - it keeps the economy going, it accounts for the fact that most people can experience Covid without serious issues, and there's the possibility of some sort of herd immunity developing (although sadly it seems the antibodies fade over time, going by recently published research).

The issue I see with this is that you cannot imprison the vulnerable forever, and that their vulnerability to Covid could be outweighed by their vulnerability to other issues (physical and mental). My mother is considered to be highly vulnerable due to Diabetes (the result of an operation that removed most of her pancreas, and therefore destroyed her immune system) - fortunately she lives in a house in the middle of nowhere with a big garden and a swimming pool, so shielding isn't so much of an issue. However, she's a lucky one, others stuck in a bedsit or a care home alone may not be so lucky. 

If we could guarantee that those needing to shield would be guaranteed (rather than hoped for) a vaccine by Christmas, then I would say "go for it". However, it's my belief that the elderly and vulnerable need to be able to have some sort of life too, so I err on the side of mitigation rather than imprisonment.

In Conclusion

To conclude, overall I'm not in favour of this new lockdown - although I shall comply with the new restrictions, as I have done throughout the various degrees of restrictions imposed since March. My ambition back in March was to have some sort of Cricket season - the measures taken ensured that we got a half-season, for which I was so grateful. My ambition now is that we will be able to take part in our usual large family Christmas - and if these measures enable us to get together in Dorset, I will consider it to have been worthwhile. 

What we do need to do is ensure we can trust just *why* these measures are being put in place. Fiddling the figures for political expediency is not the way forward, and will only breed mistrust. While I appreciate the need to paint a worst case scenario, the worst case should be realistic, and there's little evidence to suggest this is the case.

We'll see over the coming weeks whether the new restrictions will have a lasting effect on case and death numbers, but in my opinion it's fine to remain sceptical, whether that it is about whether these restrictions are necessary or whether these restrictions will solve the issue.

Let He Who is Without Sin...

I have been watching the events of the past couple of weeks with an increasing sense of bewilderment. Having been quite badly ill with what turned out to be vertigo caused by a fluid imbalance in my ears and which caused my blood pressure to rocket, my attempts to find a calming oasis have been shattered by what has gone on.

Let's start by saying the global pandemic, the likes of which we haven't seen for almost exactly 100 years, has caused a lot of angst and anxiety the world over. People are scared for their lives and their livelihoods, which creates a powder keg situation where a slight spark will ignite it and bring tensions to the surface. That spark happened in Minneapolis with the killing of black man George Floyd by white policeman Derek Chauvin. There's no denying it was a horrific and senseless killing which, captured on film, showed police brutality at its fatal worst. Much is said of Floyd's criminal past and possible other factors, but that's irrelevant - once restraint is achieved that should be the end of it, the suspect should then be immobilised by other means - handcuffing, being placed in the police vehicle. Not murdered.

That this happened at all is shocking and a terrible indictment on civilised society and rightfully causes outrage - I get that. But why now, when sadly this isn't the first (nor likely the last) time that a civilian has been killed unlawfully by the police, and why the global reaction? As I said before, we're living in a powder keg situation right now, and this was it - the spark to ignite violent retribution. Protests have taken place all over the world, London especially has been a focal point of protests outside the US. Celebrities have spoken out, the sports pages (devoid of any actual sport to report) have been filled with punch and counter-punch, while companies have fallen over themselves to out-outrage each other.

It is obvious now that we have reached tipping point when it comes to respect for the law and authority, and the approach law enforcement agencies need to take. Respect is, however, a two-way street. If you are (rightly) to condemn police brutality, so must you also condemn brutality against innocent police officers who are just doing their job. In London over 40 police officers have been injured during protests (which the BBC prefaced as "largely peaceful" in their headline), while I hope all but a twisted view found the footage of the bicycle being thrown at a police horse nauseating. In the USA at time of writing four black police officers (one a 77 year old retired chief killed when answering an alarm about the looting of a pawn shop) have been killed by protestors with no outpouring of grief and anger that I've seen from those who have been most vocal about Floyd's killing. Do these black lives not matter because they were in uniform?

And therein lies part of the problem. While I have no doubt the overwhelming majority breaking virus restrictions to protest in the past week or so have honourable intentions and a genuine desire to see complete equity of treatment, there is an undercurrent of anti-authority anarchism behind it. Note the banners being waved about with their Socialist Worker font. And note also the stated aims of the Black Lives Matter movement, the starkest of which is to "defund the police". How many people who peacefully protested over the past week realised they were protesting under an umbrella banner of an organisation whose stated aim is to abolish the police? How many of the companies, celebrities and sportsmen who have donated huge sums to Black Lives Matter knowing that this is their ultimate goal? What alternative do Black Lives Matter suggest in order to maintain law and order on our streets?

My final word on this particular subject concerns celebrity reaction, which has been powerful but at times counter-productive. I have no reason to doubt Jermain Defoe when he says he has been stopped by police frequently because he's a black man driving a Ferrari - and this is clearly something in police behaviour that needs to change - if officers are genuinely stopping people purely because they think a black man driving a Ferrari clearly equals criminal, then that is outrageous.

However, you have things like ESPN NBA reporter Chris Palmer, who tweeted his support for burning down a building (which turned out to be a housing project development aimed at the poorest in society) then changed his tune when the gated community next to his was targeted. Nice NIMBYism there.

And then there's Anthony Joshua. I have enormous respect for Joshua as someone who spectacularly turned his life around from teenage criminal to world champion boxer. He is a living embodiment of what a young black man can achieve if he gets his head down and focuses his energy into positive action. He could have spoken out with a positive message about engagement, co-operation and mutual trust being developed to aid relations. However, instead he saw fit to deliver a speech at a protest fomenting a form of Apartheid by imploring black people to only buy from black businesses. His get out was that it wasn't his speech but he was speaking on behalf of someone who was unable to attend, but the fact is he said the words. What a wasted opportunity.

The moment we compartmentalise, the battle is lost, and this is where this whole thing mirrors a society that is determined to compartmentalise. The phrase "cultural appropriation" is something I'd ban were I in charge as it is something that is completely meaningless. People have been taking ideas from other cultures since the dawn of time, it's part of what enriches the planet and encourages the melting pot that is an admirable aspiration. So Jamie Oliver has launched a ready meal based on a jerk recipe? So flipping what! So a celebrity dares to wear a Chinese-style dress? Big flipping deal! So someone decides to braid their hair? Wow, call the thought police! What next - the banning of Spaghetti Bolognese unless you serve exactly the ingredients of the original recipe? The banning of white people playing rock music because it originated in black culture?

No, instead of compartmentalising cultures and banning others from utilising yours, celebrate the fact that someone else feels so inspired by your culture that they wish to adapt it for themselves. Imitation and flattery, you get it, right?

Anyway, the further attempt at subversion has emerged in recent days with attempts to airbrush history through the vandalism (and in one case, the removal) of monuments to historical figures. We'll ignore the lame-brained vandalism of the statue of Abraham Lincoln (you know, the guy whose desire to end slavery caused the US Civil War and his own assassination), a worrying movement has sprung up dedicated to erasing most of the UK's monuments if the person being commemorated ever said or did anything contrary to today's standards.

Churchill has been a target for a few years - there's no denying that beneath the surface he was a bit of a wrong 'un. A heavy drinker, quite an unpleasant character with views that wouldn't be tolerated today. However, when it came to defeating the ultimate racist, who murdered several million of his own people because they didn't conform to his standards of what constituted human civilisation, Churchill came to the fore to protect this country, and should be celebrated in this manner. This doesn't mean people shouldn't denounce his bad side, I get that, but that's no reason to vandalise his statue or call for its removal.

The argument for removing the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol on Sunday was "but he was a slave trader" - yes, I get that, but at what point is his statue commemorating this fact? The simple truth is, if you were a trader in a port city in that era, particularly Bristol and Liverpool which served as prime ports for imports from the "new world" and Africa, chances are one of the items you'd be trading, alongside raw materials, foodstuffs and tobacco, would be slaves. This may seem unpalatable now, and rightly so, but again this is to judge people of yesterday by today's standards. While a small part of his trade wealth was from the buying of slaves from black slave masters, he more than put back into the city of my alma mater through his philanthropy. And it is this philanthropy that means Colston's name is forever connected positively with the development of the city.

And it has spread like wildfire. I admire the brass tack of Ntokozo Qwabe, the UK leader of the "Rhodes Must Fall" movement, in what's a brilliant piece of "biting the hand that feeds" - Qwabe himself got into Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. So here we have someone who clearly feels that strongly about Sir Cecil Rhodes that he wants him airbrushed from history, yet was happy to take his money and study at the university which hosts the people whose education was paid out of his pocket.

While there are arguments surrounding why there's a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in London, he's now on the hitlist because he, in common with much of science in the early 1900s, was a proponent of eugenics. We'll forget his other stuff, like his non-violent battle to gain independence for India.

And the hits just keep coming. Thomas Guy, you know, he of Guy's Hospital. Sir Robert Peel, a great reforming Prime Minister who did so much to improve lives for the poorest at a time when they were disenfranchised - which ultimately cost him his career when he repealed the Corn Laws. But not noted anti-Semite Karl Marx. Funny that. How about Joseph Rowntree?

The spread continues to popular culture - the BBC has announced it has pulled Little Britain from its on demand services. Why? Because one of their recurring sketches featured some racists and at times Messrs Lucas and Walliams might have blacked up. As usual, this spectacularly misses the point. When people laughed at the racist sketch (and I'm sure some did - I didn't but that's because I considered that sketch to be simply unfunny), they were laughing about the fact these people were so prejudiced, not agreeing with them. Likewise back in the day there was Alf Garnett - it was always important to note that he was someone to be laughed at, not with, and that Garnett's prejudices always came back to haunt him and make him out to be the monster.

Anyway, if you've reached the end of my diatribe, congratulations. If you can take away anything from this, I'd hope it's to take a deep breath, step back, survey the situation, celebrate our history and heritage while being mindful of the fact that we live in different and more enlightened times - at least on the surface (modern slavery is very much a thing in a number of cultures). If you search for the bad in every historical figure, you'll find it, but if they're overall on the right side of the ledger, celebrate this. Respect authority and expect respect back. Be colourblind, don't compartmentalise by seeking to create artificial divides. Celebrate diversity but don't denigrate those who seek to celebrate yours.

Another Armchair Virus Expert Writes....

Hello everyone - long time no see, and all that. Two and a half years in mothballs, and after nearly two months stuck indoors I've finally been compelled to write a new edition of this blog to capture my thoughts on the dreaded Coronavirus, given social media is currently awash with armchair experts (especially in light of the Prime Minister's statement announcing how the lockdown will be gradually eased) - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Now, I should caveat this post at the outset by stating a couple of things. Firstly, and I don't think this should come as a shock to anyone reading this, I am writing this from the perspective of a Conservative Party activist (with the lofty title of Deputy Chairman - Membership and Fundraising for the Osterley and Spring Grove ward of the Brentford & Isleworth association); Secondly, and this is a "well, duh!" statement, I am no scientific expert, as my A-Level grade for Chemistry will testify. What I do have in the credit column, however, is that I have spent most of my working life in the field of data analysis, which means I don't take numbers at face value without forensically examining the story behind the numbers. This, in particular, is where I hope to be able to impart at least a little knowledge.

At a Crossroads - To Ease or Not to Ease?

It is clear the UK has reached a crossroads in terms of moving from lockdown back to something related to "normal", however that will look. With the announcement ahead of the weekend that the Prime Minister was to make a statement about easing the lockdown, my social media feed went into overdrive, which moved into hysteria mode after the statement - to the extent I've considered taking a break from the book of face until it's all over.

It would seem there are five main strands emerging. The first is those who prior to the statement were yelling that any easing of the lockdown will immediately kill everyone ever. The equal and opposite strand is those who didn't believe the lockdown should have taken place at all, and therefore anything short of just cancelling the whole thing would be too little. A third strand to consider is those who consider Boris Johnson to be the Antichrist and therefore whatever he announced would be wrong. The equal and opposite also applies in this case for the fourth strand, those with a slavish devotion to his every word. The final strand is those complaining about people complaining.

So, what was announced? At the time of writing the full guidance has yet to be published, but it's pretty small potatoes: From Wednesday, if you can't work from home you should go to work provided they have in place appropriate social distancing measures. To get there you should avoid using public transport if possible. Instead of being allowed to leave the house once a day you can now come and go as you please, again as long as you follow social distancing guidance - this now includes being able to exercise in parks (e.g. playing sport) with members of your household, as well as playing Golf (again either alone or with a member of your household). 

Assuming the "r" number continues to be below 1, and cases/deaths continue to fall, the restrictions will be further eased in June, the biggest announcement being that primary schools can open to Reception, Year 1 and Year 6, while Secondary schools could be open to Year 10 at some point. 

Finally, and again assuming the above, from July we might start seeing a return to the "new normal", with the hospitality sector gradually reopening.

Naturally, the reaction from the strands above has been: First strand - he's going to kill us all, aaaarrrgghhh! Second strand - he's going to kill the economy, aaaaarrrggghhh! Third strand - Boris is the Antichrist, aaaaarrrrggghhh! Fourth strand - Boris is God, aaaarrrrggghhh! Fifth strand - just shut up will you, aaaaarrrrrggghhh!

The Numbers Game

I don't know about you, but I've been following the numbers around this awful virus pretty closely, in fact I keep a running tally of daily cases and deaths, with a 7-day rolling average globally and in the UK, using the excellent Worldometers site.  Now, this is where it gets tricky.

The official numbers show that currently the UK has the highest death toll in Europe and is second only to the USA overall. This is, of course tragic - every death from this virus is a death too many. The generally anti-Boris / anti-Conservative mob have got very busy with their vitriol and memes decrying this. There are several factors and potential caveats at play here.

Total numbers vs comparative totals: Who'da thunk the death toll in one of the highest populated nations of Europe would have been higher than that of nations with a fraction of the population? Deaths per million of population shows a different picture, although again there are caveats, as per below.

Population and population density: It stands to reason that if you have a contagious disease, the contagion is worse in areas of high population density (the more people you come into contact with, the more people you can infect). Of all the larger populations of Europe, the UK is third to the Netherlands and Belgium (two other countries particularly hard-hit) in terms of population density. However, England's population density is higher still than these two nations at 430 per sq/km.  Compare this with Germany (233), Italy (200), France (123) and Spain (93). Sweden, held up as an example of a far looser lockdown, has a population density of just 2, although Stockholm's density is broadly comparable with that of London, and has been the major epicentre of the country's outbreak.

How deaths are recorded in the UK: This is where it is impossible to compare apples with apples, and therefore why simply bemoaning the fact the UK's official death toll is second to the USA is fraught with data flaws. Since April 29th we know that the UK's official death toll is of all cases where the deceased tested positive for the virus. On the one hand, this therefore doesn't record deaths where no test has taken place, which could raise the numbers. On the other hand, however, the UK records deaths "with", rather than "of", which means that if the virus is present, the deceased is recorded in the official numbers even if the virus is not what killed them. The independent fact checking site Full Fact stated that in March 14% of deaths where Coronavirus was listed on the death certificate, the virus was not the underlying cause of death. Full Fact also said that other common causes of death (especially heart disease) dropped substantially, suggesting that some of those recorded as dying of Coronavirus would have died anyway of their underlying condition.

How deaths are recorded elsewhere: The simple answer is we don't know for sure, or the data is sketchy and/or inconsistent. For example, some countries have not declared the setting of Coronavirus deaths, so their tolls could be much higher than the official numbers state. Full Fact (above) showed that some countries had big "unexplained" spikes in deaths which suggested under-reporting, while others didn't. The official US guidance is to report "suspected" deaths, although at time of writing I believe only three states have followed this. Other countries are believed to follow a more strict "of", rather than "with", recording of deaths. Belgium, whose deaths per million is the highest of all major nations, is thought to record "suspected" deaths in all settings. At this point there's no point speculating about certain countries and their death tolls (and whether they are accurate).

What would have happened without lockdown, or had we been stricter?

Again, this is a case of "who knows". Sweden has been held up as the European example of a less strict lockdown (although there was a lockdown of sorts there). Their death toll stands currently at 319 per million. This is compared with 747 in Belgium, 569 in Spain, 505 in Italy, 469 in the UK and 404 in France. So far so "good". However, neighbouring Denmark, which had a strict lockdown, has recorded just 91 deaths per million. So, had Sweden locked down as strictly as Denmark, would their death rate per million be comparable? Or vice versa? Again we're not comparing apples with apples (and we have no definitive insight into the recording of data), so it's hard to tell, although it does give credence to the view that strict lockdowns have been saving lives.

The UK's lockdown has been strict, but not as strict as in other of the more stricken countries - in France it has been illegal (until today) to leave the house without a signed affidavit explaining why they're out. In Spain children were housebound for several weeks. 

One major bone of contention has been around people entering the UK and the need for a quarantine period - in essence I'm a little uneasy with previous lax restrictions (although what many are not aware of is that anyone passing through our airports is subject to a temperature check by surveillance) and the announcement of quarantine measures to come soon are in my opinion too little too late. That said, it would appear the overwhelming majority of inward travel in recent weeks has been the repatriation of UK citizens and the continuation of essential trade. This shouldn't be cut off completely.

The availability of testing has been a massive issue, although again should carry some caveats. Firstly, we look over to Germany and their testing regime, but overlook that they had access to the testing in the first place due to the country being the EU's designated producer of testing kits. It's easy to forget that in the early stages of the European virus wave that Germany came under intense criticism particularly in Italy for being slow to come to their aid. Secondly, the test is like an MOT, it's only good up to the point of the test. Had we had 70 million tests available, we could have tested everyone in the UK, only for many testing negative today to become positive tomorrow. At one point there were German officials who broke ranks to say they believed they should have adopted the UK's stance of targeted testing. However, this point is moot in the end. We simply didn't have enough tests to hand to do widespread testing immediately.

The UK's Public Health Crisis

One final factor to be considered is the condition of this nation's health and its contribution to the overall death toll. It's a sad fact that the UK ranks poorly in terms of physical health, whereas were you to look at countries in the far east which have largely had a low ratio of cases to deaths, these are nations who rank more highly in terms of public health and life expectancy. The virus has thrown a spotlight over the UK's public health crisis, but this is something where as a small "c" conservative I believe it's something that the people, as well as the government, need to address. 

We need to move away from our dependency on fast, processed food in favour of fresh produce. And it needn't be costly - I made a conscious decision a few years ago to incorporate more home cooking into my lifestyle having lived off microwave meals previously, and my food bill actually went down quite considerably, thus making a mockery of the argument that people cannot afford to eat healthily. 

We need to look after our bodies better. I don't exercise enough, I know that. I'm 3-4 stone overweight. That's entirely my fault, not the government's. I'm trying to drill into myself to walk where walking's possible, and not to overindulge (this is the harder bit!). It is incumbent on us all to look at what we're putting into our bodies, and how we're maintaining them. It might need a generational shift to do this, but it's a lesson for us all. The disease isn't generally killing healthy people.

Conclusion

Well done for reading this far. I hope I have been informative in terms of understanding the numbers, if nothing else. When all is said and done, and we have beaten this horrible illness once and for all, we can look back and take stock of how we as a nation "performed" in dealing with the crisis. Hindsight remains a wonderful thing, you only need to see the baffled ramblings of Piers Morgan to know this (look at his dismissive attitude around the time of lockdown and that now to see a volte face of epic proportions!).

Also, the picture would only become less muddy with a full understanding of the figures, and for some uniformity across nations. This, I fear, will be lost in a fog (as it is already), and will be used as a stick to beat nations with depending on one's own confirmation bias. 

So let's take a deep breath, keep following the rules, and let's emerge the other side a chastened, but positive, nation ready to embrace the "new normal".