Who Is Targeting Muslims? by Les May

YESTERDAY I was sent an image of a leaflet which seemed to be aimed at Muslims. It was headed ‘Vaccine Warning’ and ‘Vaccines = Poison’ and included ‘They are attempting to dismantle your family, your culture and your faith’. The person who sent it to me raised the possibility that it originated with a Far Right organisation attempting to sow discord and dissuade Muslims from gaining the protection afforded by the available vaccines. This seems a reasonable possibility as it contains at least some untruths about matters which might weigh heavily with followers of Islam.

For example: the vaccine contains animal products (not true), the vaccine has been cultured using aborted fetal cells HEK293 cells (not true), the vaccine will change your DNA (not true), Imams and Sheikhs have either been bought, paid or bribed to push the vaccine (no evidence is provided and I am extremely doubtful that this is true).

As my wife and I have been fully vaccinated and now have some protection against becoming very ill if we are exposed to the virus which causes Covid 19 and would like others to have the same protection, irrespective of their faith or lack of it, I quote below part of a more detailed statement which can be found at:

https://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AFC-Coronavirus-COVID-19-Vaccine-Fatwa.pdf

The Australian Fatwa Council consulted with Muslim doctors and medical experts who specialise in the field of vaccines and viruses seeking clarity on the composition of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and its effects. The following was the outcome; The Muslim doctors and medical experts scientifically confirmed that the vaccines (specifically: Pfizer and AstraZeneca) do not contain any prohibited substances or ingredients and that they have met the clinical standards of the TGA (at this stage Pfizer vaccine only. Astra Zeneca TGA application for approval is in progress and is also expected to be approved by the TGA quite soon), deeming them safe.

Based on what was conveyed by the trusted Muslim doctors and medical experts, the vaccine for the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is permissible according to the Islamic law as there is no known religious harm attributed to being vaccinated nor does it contain any forbidden substances. The vaccine will be considered necessary if there is any possible risk of harm to other humans due to non-vaccination.

NV can no longer embed links in the text of articles. To use this link copy the full text of the link into your browser (Startpage, DuckDuckGo or Google) and search in the usual way.

****************************************************************************

Men, Women, Covid and Risk 'Take 2' by Les May

THE expert group advising the Government on Stage 2 of the vaccination programme which will is now being extended to people under the age of 50 have chosen to continue with the present procedure of offering injections to people based upon age. This is by far the simplest procedure as information about a patient’s age is included in the medical record held by their doctor.

It also takes account of the fact that even with these relatively younger individuals, age remains the major risk factor. What was however striking about the graphic presented during the briefing was that it showed the significantly heightened level of risk to men in the 45 to 49 age group compared with women of the same age. Men have about twice the risk of women.

I previously pointed to this higher level of risk for men compared with women in my NV piece of January 27th ‘Men, Women, Covid and Risk’, though the disparity has attracted little or no attention in the broadcast or print media. This is in sharp contrast to the uncritical attention given by news outlets to the higher level of risk which may be suffered by some ethnic groups.

Significantly the speaker highlighted the need to encourage men under 50 to come forward for vaccination, as well as people from non-white backgrounds. Attention is often focused upon the reasons why some individuals from non-white backgrounds exhibit some reluctance to receive the vaccine. Often this is couched in terms of lack of trust or past experiences.

It would be difficult to claim that the public face of the NHS prioritises men’s health issues. Much attention is paid to promoting screening for breast and cervical cancers. Is there similar promotion of health issues affecting men?

Such services are available, screening for colo-rectal cancers and thin aortas are two examples, but there seems little effort to promote them.

Will the print and broadcast media take a stance which encourages men to come forward? Will any perceived reluctance of men to take up the offer of vaccination be couched in terms of lack of trust or past experiences with the Health Service? I’m not holding my breath!

************************************************************

Preying On The Private Renter by Les May

THE Government is rightly proud that almost 17 million people have received the first dose of a vaccine which it is hoped will make them safe from Covid 19. It has nothing to be proud of in the fact that almost half that number of people, 8 million, are living in overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable housing, according to a recent report by the National Housing Federation. This figure is revealed in a report published today with the title ‘Coming Home: Tackling the housing crisis together’.

The new report describes as 'a national scandal' the fact that eight million people in England live in overcrowded, unaffordable, or unsuitable homes, and says that this is 'neither accidental nor inevitable… The present situation is unjust, and the burden of bad housing is falling unjustly on the poor'.

Among the list of recommendations:

- a 20-year political programme to improve the quality and affordability of the nation’s housing stock, agreed by all parties and thus immune to changing political fortunes;

- a redefinition of 'affordability' that relates to income rather than property prices;

- a short-term reform of the benefits system to meet the shortfall between housing support and the true cost of housing;

- a review of tenancy agreements, redressing the present imbalance, introducing an explicit duty of care of landlords for their tenants, and removing Section 21 (”no fault”) evictions;

- an improvement in the stock of temporary housing;

- new mechanisms for improving the existing housing stock, 11 per cent of which is defined as sub-standard, and making it more sustainable;

There is also a draft charter for new housing, which suggests it should be:

Sustainable: adapt and reuse existing building stock where possible; water, waste and energy designed to minimise impact on the environment: plant one tree per house.

Safe: landowner to maintain an interest and participate in the project; design criteria to be built into partnership agreements to ensure compliance.

Stable: encouragement to people to put down roots through community site-management schemes; reference to the wider community.

Sociable: mixed-use dwellings in walkable neighbourhoods; design to ensure that affordable houses are indistinguishable from private-tenure houses, and 'pepper-potted' throughout the site.

Satisfying: use design to create distinctiveness and encourage a sense of belonging; ensure that the development fits into the natural landscape.

Polly Neate the chief executive of the charity Shelter responded to the report by saying: 'It is brilliant to see the Church of England showing leadership and taking action to tackle our growing housing emergency. Looking at how church land can be best used to fight homelessness is extremely welcome.

'Homelessness isn’t inevitable. It’s the result of decades of political failure to build social homes. This is the reason over a quarter of a million people in England are homeless and trapped in temporary accommodation during the pandemic — half of them children.

'The Church is right that homes have to be affordable to local people and tied to local incomes. This is what social housing does, which is why we want to see the Church, the Government, and other landowners play their part in building a new generation of social homes.'

There may be a shortage of affordable housing but there has never been a shortage of worthy reports about the problem. It will be interesting to see if after all the fanfare it is allowed to fade into the background.

We can pray it does not or we can vote for the politicians who will recognise the fundamental economic forces that work against affordability and do something about it. Sixty per cent of the nation’s wealth is reckoned to be held in property, leading to its being regarded as a financial asset rather than a universal necessity. Are we willing to change that?

******************************************************

News From The Rumour Mill by Les May

EARLIER this month an article by Tom Taylor appeared on ‘The Mill’ website which contained the text of a letter from RMBC Director of Children’s Services Gail Hopper claimed that school staff had been ‘jumping the queue’ to get themselves vaccinated against Covid 19. The text is given below.

Inevitably this has been interpreted as it being teachers who are doing this and tenuously linked to Labour’s calls for these workers being prioritised over other groups.

When documents are ‘leaked’ like this it is worth asking who will gain? Certainly not the intended recipients.

This question is of more than passing interest as I am aware that the names of specific councillors who are also finding ways of jumping the queue by ‘volunteering’ at local vaccination centres have been passed to a Northern Voices editor and that at least one of the councillors named has been asked to comment on this report. Let’s hope s/he is conscientious at picking up their e-mails.

We live in interesting times!

Dear head teacher,

I am sorry to have to write to you all about this matter and hope that you will understand my purpose for doing so. It has come to our attention that a booking link sent to NHS employees to book a vaccination slot at one of the identified hospital sites, has been inappropriately shared. This was not the intention when the non-transferable link was provided and should not have happened. Not surprisingly it is now spreading widely.

This testing site in the hospitals listed are for NHS patients, staff and social care staff only. This protects community sites for the older age and high risk groups. We know that by it being shared, some school based staff (and others), who are not part of the priority groups identified by government, have booked appointments. Indeed some been [sic] vaccinated. Others are now planning to do the same. Our concern is we are fully committed, to ensuring vaccinations are directed to priority groups first. Rochdale has a tight target to vaccinate all care home residents and staff, residents over 75 years and Clinically Extremely Vulnerable residents, along with NHS and social care staff by 15th February – if sufficient vaccine supplies reach us. This is a really challenging target. For every vaccine given to someone outside the priority groups, the risk is increased of our most vulnerable residents being delayed in receiving it.

The publicity of this happening would be very damaging for the borough. It will also increase the risk that NHSE cancels future supplies until it can be assured that the borough follows the required process. This would be disastrous, given the success so far in delivering up to 1200 daily vaccinations.

I recognise that some colleagues feel unhappy that schools based staff have not been prioritised by government in the first two groups. I fully sympathise with that and if the choice was ours, schools staff would have been in the first group. We continue to lobby government about this issue. However, it cannot be right that individuals use unauthorised routes when to do so denies others with entitlement. The question that I would ask is how would any of us feel if, by one of our colleagues accessing a vaccination, our mother or father was denied.

As I’m sure you’ll recognise, we have to take action to prevent this activity. With immediate effect health and social care staff will be required to attend their booked appointment with ID and a letter that matches that ID from their employer / local authority. We have requested that anyone that cannot provide this be refused access.

We ask that you advise any colleagues who have accessed the link and plan to or have already booked an appointment not to do so. We would rather avoid the embarrassment of them not gaining admission to the vaccination site. Please ask anyone with an appointment booked to cancel it quickly, so it can be offered to those in priority groups. Could you also impress on staff the importance of not passing on this link to any others inside or outside the borough. Some may have received it from contacts in other boroughs as this link is shared with Bury, Oldham and Salford. Any such sharing undermines the efforts to ensure vaccinations are directed to priority groups first. We continue to work locally to identify how we can ensure that all schools colleagues can be invited for vaccination and will try to do this as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your assistance in addressing this difficult issue.

Yours sincerely,

Gail Hopper

Director of Children’s Services

Rochdale Borough Council

Distracting Dilemma of Deserving Councillor Class by Brian Bamford

WHO'S JUMPING JAB LINE-UP FOR VIRUS IN ROCHDALE?

NICK STATHAM of the local Rochdale democracy service, in last Saturday's Rochdale Observer delivered front-page story entited: 'Warning to Covid queue jumpers' with a byline 'Evidence some school staff have been "gaming" the system'.

On page 7 of the same Ob. issue he claims: 'A leaked emal from Rochdale council to all headteachers in the borough said some staff had been using an "inappropriaterly-shared" link intended only for NHS workers.' Furthermore, according to Gail Hopper head of children's services, this practice could 'scupper the borough's attempts to hit its vaccination targets, and even lead to doses being withheld by government.'

And Mr. Statham continues: 'The message reads: "Rochdale has a tight target to vaccinate all care home residents over 75 years and "clinically extreamely vunerable" residents, along with NHS and social care staff by February - if sufficent vaccine supplies reach us. This is a really challenging target. For every vaccine given to someone outside the priority groups, the risk is increased of our most vulnerable residents being delayed in receiving it".'

The message warns: 'The publicity of this happening would be very damaging for the borough. It will also increase the risk that NHSE cancels future supplies until it can be assured that the borough follows required process.'

COUNCIL CONFIRM COVID WARNING LEAK

A spokesman for Rochdale councile has confirmed that an e-mail was sent out to the Rochdale schools in the borough.

Their statement concluded: 'This letter was about a wider concern over the vaccination booking link being shared inappropriately, which has happening in many areas of the country. the letter is not about a specific school but an attempt to prevent abuse of the system.'

A LACK of INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM IN ROCHDALE

It is worth mentioning that local journalism in Rochdale in recent times has been notable for its lack of curiousity and penitrating investigative powers. The journalist Nick Starham himself was drafted in from Ludlow to take on the role of 'democracy service' to manage to see that local reports are circulated regularly and that the locals are informed about what's going on in their area.

It has not worked well, because the effect in the local media including the Rochdale Observer, Rochdale Online, and even the Manchester Evening News, has been that what we have got is a form of megaphone journalism in which people in power like the Rochdale Council issue press statements and the local news outlets obediently echo what they have to say. In normal circumstances Northern Voices would have welcomed the revelation of this leaked e-mail by Nick Statham. Perhaps we would have even labelled it an exclusive. But it does take much imagination to consider that this e-mail was deliberately leaked to the media by the top brass at Rochdale Council to distract the public from the fact that local councillors themselves have found a way of side-stepping the vaccination process and getting the innoculated ahead of schedule.

**********************************************************

COVID-19: FOR HOW MUCH LONGER?

In this weekend's FT TIM HARFORD THE UNDERCOVER ECONOMIST ASKS 'COVID-19: HOW CLOSE IS THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL?

'IN THE UK, Margaret Keenan receive a first dose of vaccine on December 8, but it needs a couple of weeks to prove much protection. She and her fellow first-day vaccinees were much safer by Christmass...The UK had vaccinated (with the first dose) about 1 per cent of its population by Christmas, but funeral directors will not notice the effect of that until Valentine's Day.'

*****************************************************************

Home Secretary Priti Patel sets out details of the Government’s new forced quarantine policy

HOME SECRETARY Priti Patel set out the details of the Government’s new forced quarantine policy for arrivals into the UK yesterday. Kate Andrews in the Spectator has the details.

Arrivals from 22 “high-risk” areas will soon be forced to quarantine in a hotel when they arrive in Britain. There will be no exceptions to the rule, and travellers must stay put for 10 days, even if they test negative for COVID-19. The “red list” of countries include Portugal, South Africa, Brazil and Cape Verde.

This crackdown was a long time coming. When Denmark found a mutant strain of Covid last autumn amongst its mink farms, the UK became the only country in the world to close its borders to anyone from there. Did the fast response acknowledge regret among ministers about not being stricter on the border last spring? Quite possibly. This time, the Government has been much clearer about the reasoning behind this decision. Priti Patel told the Commons:

“The Government’s focus is on protecting the UK’s world-leading vaccination programme – a programme that we should be proud of. And reducing the risk of a new strain of the virus being transmitted from someone coming into the UK.“

The details of this quarantine scheme are still up in the air and it is not yet clear when it will come into effect. But despite these tougher measures, it seems that some in the Cabinet wanted the Government to go further. Had Patel had it her way, the measures would have extended to everyone arriving in Britain. Boris Johnson stopped short of this for now. But once the infrastructure is in place, it is easy to see how arrivals from any country, with no advanced warning, could be affected.

Is this an attempt to emulate Australia and New Zealand? Except their strategy was to wait in splendid isolation for a vaccine. But we’re closing borders after the vaccine has arrived because we’re worried about new vaccine-resistant variants. The problem with this is that the logic seems permanent – after all, there will always be a risk of some new mutant variant emerging. As Kate says: “Britain will be one of the first countries to close its borders to countries based on a hypothetical scenario – the possibility of a mutant Covid strain that can evade vaccines – rather than an immediate threat.” Such excessive caution bodes ill for the future and a return to normal." *

***************************************************************

The Scum Always Rises by Les May

A FRIEND of mine got an e-mail with the subject: Book and Appointment using the NHS e-Referral Service - NHSVaccination

It had the sender as: noreply@nhs.gov.uk on behalf of NHS digital which superficially looks genuine until you look at the end of the line.

On one of my machines I am able to safely 'peep' at where the link in this e-mail takes you to if you click on it.  It is an attempt to put malicious software on your machine which will corrupt it.

I circulated the above to friends and family. This morning I got the following response from one of the recipients:

Hi Les, Thanks, I have forwarded it on to rest of the family.

As I told you I had my injection Tuesday last week, on Saturday two people came to the door. One was in a dark blue sisters uniform the other was dressed in navy trousers and white nurses top. Both females. Coats over top but clear enough to see uniforms. As it happens S--- put me a chain on my door the day before so I can open it a few inches to speak.

They asked had I had any injections and I said yes. Wanted to know if I had one or two. Told them I had had my first one. As it happened they had some spare ones in a FREEZER BAG and they could give me my second one for £175. I just got my phone out of my pocket and said do you mind if I just double check with surgery who will probably get in touch with the police. They just disappeared!

Caveat emptor!

**********************************************

Common-sense and Covid 19 by John Wilkins

OUR politicians hide behind following the science to escape criticism when things change for the worse. How about some plain, old fashioned common-sense?

Testing: Far too late in being implemented and even over last few months has only been stepped up at air ports. A friend, early last year, had been working in Venezuela training young doctors in his specialism, orthopaedic surgery. Deciding he needed to return to the UK he had to travel through three airports to get home. In three poor Latin American countries he was tested in each one, even though one was a temperature check. Yet he strolled through the airport here with NO test whatsoever!

Preparedness: Latest figures I could find showed the UK had less hospital beds per capita than most of Europe with only Sweden slightly worse. Significantly Sweden had far more doctors per capita whereas only Poland and Slovakia had less than us. We were low down on the list for critical care beds with just over half of those in Italy less than a quarter of those in Germany. As for our NHS the UK has by far and away the greatest number of private hospital beds in Europe.

Outside of Europe it is interesting to note that S. Korea has the second highest number of hospital beds in the world having been one of only a handful of countries to increase capacity in recent times. It is not surprising then that we have not coped well with this pandemic yet S. Korea has been one of the best to do so.

Clarity and leadership: Many people have complained about the lack of clarity about lock down rules and lack of common sense in formulating them.

So we have walkers targetted in the wilds of Derbyshire yet the PM's adviser, Cummings, dashed off to Barnard Castle to he claims to have an eye test with impunity. Boris Johnson contracted the virus shortly after leaving a meeting with several other people less than two metres apart and not wearing masks. Having experienced the illness he has been more careful since.

His father visited Greece "on essential business" to ensure a property he rents out was "Covid-proof". Baloney! At the time Greece had banned flights from UK there which Joe Johnson got around by flying in from Bulgaria.

Our PM could do with a course in leadership from New Zealand's leader, Jacinda Ardern. She brought unity after the horrendous attack on a mosque and carried the country with her in their lockdown. How? The people had respect and therefore trust in her.

Injections: Like Trump our Government were quick to pat themselves on the back for a) developing a vaccine and b) in the UK for being one of the first to use it. We are all grateful to the world's scientists for working collaboratively (not a word which can often apply to politicians) to create the vaccine.

The Government's job is how to deliver it and many have reservations about how it has been done. Although the expertise behind the Astra Zenica vaccines scientists at Oxford University the main production hub is at a vaccine factory in Belgium run by its partner Novasep. There have been recent problems there which might slow deliveries down across Europe.

As I got an invite to have the injection (Pfizer) some time ago I felt guilty as I am only 76 and in good health but especially so when the PM warned it might be up to twelve weeks to get the second dose.

I thought the plan was to get as many over 80's, people with underlying health conditions and key workers vaccinated first.

Now a report from Israel has raised concerns that the effectiveness was only 52.4% between the first and second dose if spaced just 21 days apart.

My concerns have been shared by Baroness Joan Bakewell who has threatened the Government with legal action over delays to the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Also Alejandro Cravioto, chairman of WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization, said the two doses of the Pfizer jab should be administered within 21 to 28 days.

Time for yet another U-turn Mat Hancock.

Following the rules: Hot topic after guests fled from a Jewish school when police arrived. The organisers faced a £10,000 fine for breaking lockdown rules and five guests were issued with £200 fixed penalty notices, according to police, out of about 150 present. Whilst I am not usually in favour of more offences resulting in prison, I am when the public's health is put at risk. The organisers deserve a custodial sentence or at least community service and more fines should be handed out.

In general people are obeying the rules but when shopping outlets say mask wearing is mandatory then make it so. People need to have more confidence in using forms of transport if we are to get more people into work safely. People are entitled to their opinions on the way the virus is tackled but our cherished freedom of speech does not mean anti-vaxxers can pedal false news and protest outside hospitals where NHS staff are putting their lives on the line. Take note Piers Corbyn and his acolytes!

Their activities have resulted in a drop in trust of vaccination particularly in the BAME community who have been shown to be most at risk of the virus.

We used to be admired as a nation for sticking to rules but not any more perhaps.

Postscript: Since I wrote this the EU look like playing 'hardball' over distribution of Pfizer vaccine from European plants.

*******************************************************

Steve Baker calls on Boris to publish Freedom Plan

From Lockdown Sceptic Website

by by Will Jones / 15 January 2021

Steve Baker, the Deputy Chair of the anti-lockdown Covid Recovery Group (CRG) of Conservative MPs, has issued a rallying cry to the group’s members. The Sun has the story.

In an explosive rallying call to fellow members of the lockdown-sceptic Covid Recovery Group, the ex-minister blasted: “People are telling me they are losing faith in our Conservative Party leadership.”

The group represents dozens of Tory backbenchers who are worried about the side effects of long lockdowns.

Mr Baker urged those colleagues to make their concerns directly to Mr Johnson’s Commons enforcer, Chief Whip Mark Spencer.

In a bombshell note to MPs seen by the Sun, Mr Baker writes: “I am sorry to have to say this again and as bluntly as this: it is imperative you equip the Chief Whip today with your opinion that debate will become about the PM’s leadership if the Government does not set out a clear plan for when our full freedoms will be restored.”

He told them to demand “a guarantee that this strategy will not be used again next winter”.

The major intervention reads: “Government has adopted a strategy devoid of any commitment to liberty without any clarification about when our most basic freedoms will be restored and with no guarantee that they will never be taken away again.”

The action appears to have been triggered by key Government advisers going public with their view that lockdowns must continue well into 2021.

****************************************************

Avon Lady Calling With The Virus by Les May

EARLIER this evening someone dropped an ‘Avon Catalogue’ enclosed in a plastic bag through my door. I could see the information that it would be collected on Sunday. If whoever did this is infected with the virus which causes Covid 19 then potentially they are putting in danger the lives of everyone in the houses to which they distributed the catalogue.

No doubt this action not specifically excluded by the lockdown regulations. But that does not mean it is a sensible thing to do. If by chance whoever did this is prosecuted I shall not waste any crocodile tears on them.

**********************************************************************

Lockdown sceptics should support this lockdown

Editorial Comment: THE Spectator ran an article on the 6th, January by Alistair Haimes, who had until then been a enthusiastic lockdown sceptic, which called on others to support the current government Lockdown. As a consequence of this both Will Jones on the LOCKDOWN SCEPTIC WEBSITE and Les May on the NV Blog have responded with their views on posts displayed below on the NV Blog.

*************************************************

Scepticism is supposed to be the bedrock of science. But where scepticism shades into cynicism it can be as blind to changing events as the unexamined credence it claims to displace. Scientific belief should be based on informed supposition which is then rigorously tested against the evidence — that is the basis of the scientific method. There should be no shame in changing opinions and assumptions when facts change. We start with assumptions, test them against the evidence (which itself changes) and then use that conclusion to repeat the process, ad infinitum. So if conclusions don’t change when facts change, something might have gone awry.

As an example: your view on the merits of the current winter lockdown versus the Halloween lockdown. First: do you think a lockdown is prima facie defensible? To some people, ‘no!’; to far more people, ‘normally no, but it depends’. Whatever initial view you put into your decision hopper, now try to bend that assumption around the first input of information: the healthcare system either (a) clearly has capacity left, apparently running at below average levels for the time of year, as it was in October; or (b) might credibly need to triage fairly basic healthcare within, say, three weeks as seems to be the case now, or so we are told. Whether we are in (a) or (b) should change your opinion; if it doesn’t, you might be doing this wrong.

Now, add in the game-changer of approved, effective vaccines. Your opinion should be different before and after the approval of the vaccines (2 December for Pfizer, 30 December for Oxford). Put simply, it is perfectly justifiable to be against open-ended restrictions in a world with no vaccine, but to think a brief period of restriction while vaccines are rolled out is sensible, and personally I know many lockdown sceptics whose views pivoted on the day the first vaccine was approved.

Finally, consider the pace of the epidemic. Have cases apparently stabilised, as at end of October, or has there been an out-of-leftfield development like the Kentish variant, which experts believe might be at least 50 per cent more transmissible with no obvious sign of deceleration? Whatever the state of your opinion on lockdown so far, this development should alter it at least somewhat.

You might be stridently, philosophically, against lockdowns whatever the consequences, or you might be a dour socialist zealot who instinctively thinks that the cilice should always be tightened in a crisis; but for everyone in-between, allowing opinion to change with evidence like this is likely an excellent idea. Where opinion becomes rigid it can also become brittle, and often doesn’t age well.

Personally (not that it matters given I’m just a punter rather than in government) I have unashamedly been sceptical of the government’s use of interventions throughout the epidemic, though I’m closer to the moderate than the fundamentalist wing. I thought that the March 2020 lockdown was sensible and inevitable while disease parameters and treatment protocols were clarified and healthcare capacity was built, but believe it dragged on far too long, inflicting incredible social, economic and collateral health damage when the first wave of Covid was obviously waning with the seasons. It appeared the government was allowing opinion-polls to lead it down a path of ever more severe restriction rather than examining realistic targeted alternatives that could tide us over sustainably until a vaccine arrived (which I admit came miles faster than I’d imagined possible), and hadn’t stopped to gauge the damage done along the way.

You can of course understand the bind. There is a crisis, the government needs to do something, lockdown is something it can do, so it does lockdown. It might well be the only lever to pull initially, but that doesn’t mean the lever should stay pulled. Who knows, it may even be the best answer in the medium-term, but it is hard to believe that scrutinising every cost and alternative along the way wasn’t a very worthwhile exercise even so.

For lockdown two, like many others, I thought that the case in November was not well argued, was farcically presented with scary out-of-date death charts and poorly administered (creating the boom Halloween weekend by leaking plans on the Friday night was absolutely unforgiveable).

Every intervention, after all, has a beginning and an end, and the degree of social mixing from the ‘one last shindig’ at the beginning to the ‘thank God that’s over’ effect at the end may conceivably outweigh the temporary reduction in R — such ‘forcing events’ cause discrete social circles to overlap which otherwise wouldn’t intersect.

But in the event, the key moment in autumn (possibly during lockdown) wasn’t underground kids parties or news presenters’ knees-ups, it was the emergence of the Kentish variant. Some have hypothesised that the variant emerged from the way we treat Covid sufferers. Hospitals with chronically ill patients create living petri dishes for mutation (it is worth remembering that a quarter of all infections are still presumed hospital acquired). Add in treatments like convalescent plasma (blood extract containing antibodies­) and there are then all the pressures needed to evolve a mutant strain. We will, like good scientists, have to await more data.

Lockdown three, I’m sorry to say (and I can hear the howls from sceptics as I write this), is justifiable, practically and ethically. Given the rollout of the vaccine, the emergence of the new variant and the plausible risk of the healthcare system falling over, there is probably now no realistic alternative. Whatever one’s objections to the first two lockdowns, on both cost-benefit and libertarian grounds, it is at least a defensible position to acknowledge the merit of a brief lockdown during a maximum-speed vaccination campaign to minimise morbidity and mortality along the way.

The calculation is entirely different now from that of the previous two lockdowns. Given the vaccine, the variant and the healthcare situation, the current restriction can be supported (regretfully) without cognitive dissonance by those who opposed the previous lockdowns vehemently and vocally. It is either bad logic, bad faith or fundamentalism to argue otherwise.

This is a position that will make no friends. The zero-Covid Sanhedrin (whose ship sailed long ago in a connected Europe) and the libertarian sceptics (very few of whom are actually anti-vaxx by the way) will both find reasons why this nuanced view is outrageous.

The big, big difference this time is this: an opening in a rock without an exit is a cave — but if you can see an exit, it’s a tunnel. The previous two lockdowns were caves. It was dark and nasty, possibly involving bats, and we had no idea how we were going to get out except back into the same world we’d entered from. But this time really is different: we’re going not into a cave but into a tunnel, there is a credible exit strategy that we can see and believe in, and we’re scheduled to emerge in about 100 days (give-or-take) into a country where almost all the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated and where lockdown is not just lifted but dismantled, hopefully never to be seen again, and good riddance.

*******************************************************

Scepticism About The Sceptics, by Les May

I AM responding to the piece by Will Jones taken from the ‘Lockdown Sceptics’ website.

Let us start with a few statements which I think are sufficiently well established that we can call them facts.

1. The cause of the disease known as Covid 19 is a virus.

2. The virus has the ability to infect humans.

3. The virus can be transmitted between humans.

4. The virus can enter the body via our eyes, our nose and our mouth.

5. Infected people carry virus particles in their upper respiratory tract.

6. Speaking, singing, coughing, sneezing and breathing cause infected people to shed into the air virus particles in droplets and aerosols which do not settle immediately, but may do so after a time depending on their size.

7. Virus particles can be inhaled as droplets or aerosol.

8. Droplets settle out of air more rapidly than aerosols.

9. People who are infected may shed the virus without showing clinical symptoms.

10. Virus particles settling on surfaces remain capable of causing infection for variable amounts of time depending on the nature of the surface.

11. Virus particles can be transferred to our hands by touching a contaminated surface.

So what do these tell us about how we can reduce the spread of infections?

Point 4 suggests we should so far as possible avoid touching our eyes, nose or mouth.

Points 10 and 11 suggest we should take steps to decontaminate surfaces regularly or if this is not possible place anything entering our house in quarantine for a period.

Points 4, 10 and 11 suggest we should wash our hands regularly.

Points 3, 5. 6, 7 and 9 suggest we should try to encounter as few people as possible.

Point 7 suggests that if we do encounter people we should attempt to keep as far away from them as possible and that a physical barrier such as a mask, worn by them and us, may help to protect us from inhaling droplets, but unless produced to n95 specifications will not fully protect us from aerosols.

All the above methods of reducing the spread of infections are ‘non pharmaceutical’ methods. Taken alone, none will guarantee that we will remain free of infection, but each incrementally reduces the likelihood of picking up the infection. That’s why hospitals implement similar, but more stringent methods. In other words, contrary to what Will Jones claims, non pharmaceutical methods do work.

Will Jones may not like what the government is doing, but however flawed their methods are they are simply an attempt to use what we know about the virus and how it spreads, to reduce the number of infections.

The restrictions which have been implemented will cause economic damage, and they will restrict children’s education, but not making any attempt to halt the number of infections also has its costs.

Is he suggesting that in order to allow hospitals to continue functioning as they did before the pandemic they should effectively close their doors to Covid 19 patients? Is he suggesting that it is acceptable to expect nurses and doctors to treat a continuing stream of Covid 19 patients when any one of them may be the cause of their death? Is he suggesting that an increase of more than a million (1,013,190) new infections in the three week period 19 December to 9 January will not have economic and social costs? Is he able to assure us that the behaviour of himself and his lockdown sceptical friends has not resulted the death from Covid 19 of anyone who had the misfortune to encounter them?

He claims that it would be ‘inhumane to expect the vulnerable to shut themselves away’. These are fine words. I am one of the ‘vulnerable’ as is my wife and most of our friends. Since last March the only time I have been more than 200m from my house taking exercise, is a visit to the doctors for a flu jab. And one reason for that is because I don’t know when I am going to meet someone who does not take the guidelines on distancing and the other non pharmaceutical interventions seriously, in other words a ‘Lockdown Sceptic’. One could say their ‘freedom’ is my ‘prison’.

In his autobiographical account of the development of British radar during WW2 Robert Watson-Watt says that when under pressure to improve the equipment he always accepted the 3rd best solution. His reasoning was that the 2nd best would be too late and the best would never arrive. Lockdowns may be a third rate solution to controlling infections, but they may also be the best we are ever going to get until, people like Will Jones recognise that their behaviour may be contributing to prolonging the pandemic.

*****************************************************************

A Defence of Lockdown Sceptics

FROM the LOCKDOWN SCEPTIC's WEBSITE - By Will Jones / 8 January 2021

I was disappointed to read the Spectator article by Lockdown Sceptics contributor Alistair Haimes about his departure from our ranks. The brilliant data analyst has been a valuable ally and I hope he will return to the fold in due course.

His argument boils down to this: “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But what facts have changed? He cites three. First, the health service is under severe stress and unless we can reduce virus transmission over the next few weeks it’s at serious risk of being overwhelmed. That wasn’t true when the second national lockdown was imposed in November, he says, but it is today. Second, we now have two approved Covid vaccines, with more to follow, so any new restrictions will be short-lived. Third, there is a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 which is around 50% more transmissible than the pre-existing variants.

I’ll take each of these in turn – although I may digress a bit.

First, I’m sceptical of the claim that we have X number of days to save the NHS – a familiar trope that I thought the Labour Party had flogged to death. Let’s not forget that a winter bed crisis in the NHS is an annual event, as you can see from this collection of Guardian headlines. According to PHE, there was no statistically significant excess all-cause mortality in England in the final week of 2020 and while excess winter deaths this season are above the five-year average, they are currently below the peaks reached in 2016/17 and 2017/18. We published a piece on Wednesday in Lockdown Sceptics by Dr Clare Craig on Emergency Department Syndromic Indicators that looked at various indexes of ill-health, such as hospital admissions for Acute Respiratory Infection, Influenza-like illness and Pneumonia, and those are all below the baseline for an English winter – or were until a week ago. These data suggest that some of the people currently in English hospitals with COVID-19 have either been misdiagnosed or would have been hospitalised with something else if they hadn’t been laid low with Covid. In some NHS regions, Critical care bed occupancy numbers are currently above what they were in December 2019 – an unusually mild flu season – but there was still some headroom on December 27th, as you can see from this bar chart.

But let’s allow that things have got worse by an order of magnitude in the past week or so and some NHS trusts really are on the cusp of being overwhelmed, which they may well be. (See today’s report from the senior doctor.) Will the lockdown Boris announced on Monday do anything to avert this catastrophe, as Alistair seems to think? The only difference between the new national lockdown and the Tier 4 restrictions that were already in place in 80% of England on January 1st is that restaurants and pubs can no longer serve alcohol to take away and schools will be closed. But schools had already closed when London went into Tier 4 on December 20th and there isn’t much evidence that those restrictions reduced the R number in the capital. As SAGE member Professor Andrew Hayward pointed out on Tuesday, nearly 10 million key workers are still travelling to and from work. In addition, people are still going to supermarkets, chemists and corner shops. The statistician William M. Briggs, co-author of The Price of Panic, argues that it’s misleading to think of lockdowns as quarantines. Rather, they just create a number of ‘concentration points’, herding people into a limited number of spaces, and in that way increase the rate of transmission. If masks worked this mobility might not matter, but the recent mask study in Denmark suggests they don’t.

Some lockdown enthusiasts pick out a handful of examples where lockdowns have coincided with a fall in Covid deaths but that’s not a scientific approach. Numerous research studies, published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, have concluded that there’s no association between Covid mortality and the standard suite of non-pharmacuetical interventions, such as mandating masks in indoor settings, closing schools and universities, shutting non-essential shops, imposing curfews and banning domestic travel. You can adjust the lockdown variables all you like – timing, severity, etc. – but there’s no signal in the noise. The American Institute for Economic Research has collected some of the best of these studies here and we’ve created a compendium of the evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions don’t work at Lockdown Sceptics. The epidemiological models that SAGE uses to persuade the Government to ratchet up the restrictions rely on counterfactuals – if you don’t do y, x number of people will die – that cannot be falsified because the Government always end up doing SAGE’s bidding, as Alistair Haimes has pointed out.

On the other hand, it is incontestable that lockdowns cause harm. Lockdown sceptics are sometimes accused of putting profit before people, but I’m not just talking about economic harm – increased borrowing, businesses going bankrupt, growing unemployment. The negative impact of school closures on children has been flagged up by numerous educational organisations, including Ofsted, with the most disadvantaged paying the highest price. The Centre for Mental Health estimated in October that that up to 10 million people will need either new or additional mental health support, thanks to the trauma of enforced isolation, and reports of domestic abuse to the Metropolitan Police increased by 11% during the first lockdown compared to the same period last year. Drug overdoses in San Francisco killed more than three times the number of people last year than COVID-19.

It’s also nonsense to imagine the economic damage caused by the lockdowns won’t have ruinous public health consequences – anything that hurts profits, hurts people. Professor Sunetra Gupta estimates that the global economic recession caused by the lockdowns will result in 130 million people starving to death and the United Nations predicts it will plunge as many as 420 million residents of the developing world into extreme poverty, with low-income countries seeing average incomes falling for the first time in 60 years.

Even in the absence of the detailed cost-benefit analysis the Covid Recovery Group of MPs has repeatedly asked for, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the harms caused by lockdowns in the UK alone are greater than the harms they prevent. According to one study out of Bristol University, the ongoing restrictions will cause 560,000 deaths, 310,000 more than Professor Neil Ferguson and his team predicted would die absent a lockdown but with voluntary ‘mitigation’ measures in place. As the now disgraced President of the United States said, the cure is worse than the disease. That essential point hasn’t changed, so I see no reason why sceptics should change their minds about lockdowns now. Yes, the NHS may be in genuine peril, but that doesn’t mean we should set aside our well-founded doubts about the effectiveness of heavy-handed interventions. On the contrary, trying to quarantine people for a third time, given that the policy clearly hasn’t worked, seems like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

What about the vaccines? True, some sceptics did argue that shutting people in their homes until a vaccine became available was impractical because it might take years to develop one. But that was never the central plank of our case (see above). On the contrary, our preferred alternative to locking down is ‘focused protection’, as set out in the Great Barrington Declaration, and vaccines make that strategy more attractive, not less.

Our starting point is that the number of people who died from COVID-19 in English hospitals in 2020 who were under 60 with no underlying health conditions was 388 and the virus is less deadly than seasonal flu for healthy people under 70. Note, we’re not claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is less deadly than the average bout of seasonal flu for the entire population – although that’s true of some flu seasons – only that it’s likely to kill fewer healthy people under-70, including children. Whenever we cite that 388 statistic, critics accuse us of being callous, as though we’re saying older people and those with chronic conditions don’t matter. Far from it. We think the Government should pull out all the stops to protect those who are vulnerable to this disease, including care home residents, who made up about 40% of those who died from COVID-19 in the first wave (and 50% of those who died in Scotland). Shielding for people in these groups should not be compulsory – we believe in trusting people to make their own risk assessments and adjust their behaviour accordingly. But it should be a viable option, with all the necessary support. Meanwhile, the rest of us should be permitted to go about our lives, taking the same precautions we would in a normal flu season.

The arguments for and against ‘focused protection’ have been well-rehearsed, but the vaccines deal with one of the best objections – that it would be inhumane to expect the vulnerable to shut themselves away until the rest of the population develops natural herd immunity. That would create a two-tier society. But now that we have a vaccine, those groups only need shield until they’ve been immunised, at which point they can re-enter society (something they can’t do at present, even after they’ve had the jab, because there’s no ‘society’ to re-enter). The Government is planning to vaccinate 13.9 million people by mid-February – although that number includes everyone who works in health and social care settings – and there are about 16 million who fall into the above vulnerable categories.

So, yes, the vaccines do make a difference – they strengthen the sceptics’ case by making ‘focused protection’ more palatable.

What about the new variant? I’m reserving judgment on whether it’s more transmissible. As Mike Hearn pointed out yesterday, ONS infection survey data released on December 23rd show that the percentage of the UK population testing positive for the new variant began to fall in November before taking off again, and in some areas it has already started to dip, as was clear from the plot presented by Chris Whitty on Tuesday. If it’s 50% more transmissible than pre-existing variants, why isn’t the percentage just constantly rising in all parts of England?

But suppose the new variant is more infectious. What evidence is there that the new lockdown measures will interrupt transmission? If the first two lockdowns didn’t stop the original virus in its tracks, why will a third stop a turbo-charged version?

I sympathise with Alistair Haimes. He believes the NHS is at risk of falling over and wants us to do something – anything – to protect it. Lockdown sceptics also don’t want to see the NHS fall over, but where I part company with Alistair is in believing that a third national lockdown is the right mitigation strategy. Wouldn’t it be better to offer robust protection to the vulnerable and make vaccinating them an absolute priority? Not only would that be more likely to ‘save the NHS’, it would save the rest of us from the harms caused by yet another lockdown. ‘Focused protection’ is sometimes dismissed as not scientifically credible, but the 700,000+ signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration include over 13,000 medical and public health scientists and nearly 40,000 medical practitioners.

Alistair thinks this lockdown is more palatable than the others because there’s light at the end of the tunnel, thanks to the vaccine. Within 100 days, he estimates, it can be dismantled, hopefully never to be seen again. I wish I shared his optimism. At Tuesday’s Downing Street briefing, Chris Whitty said restrictions might well be back next winter and some people have called for masks to remain mandatory indefinitely.

The problem with allowing the state to suspend your civil liberties is that you may never get them back. I treat the Government’s claims that it will relinquish the powers it has arrogated to itself when the crisis is over with extreme scepticism, just as I do every official announcement about the virus.

One final point. Over the past week or so, some of the most prominent lockdown sceptics have been vilified in the media, accused of encouraging members of the public to ignore social distancing guidelines and thereby causing people to die. These attacks may ratchet up over the next few days as the NHS comes under more and more pressure, although it’s hard to imagine them becoming even more hysterical. Paul Mason wrote a column in the New Statesman on Wednesday saying that Allison Pearson, Laurence Fox, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Peter Hitchens and me should be consigned to the seventh circle of hell. But the assumption underlying these criticisms is that lockdowns work, which is precisely the point under dispute. Is it reasonable to expect us to just take that on faith and keep any doubts we have to ourselves? After all, we don’t ask the Paul Masons of this world to take it on faith that lockdowns cause more harm than good and accuse them of killing people by advocating for tougher restrictions. We think history will prove us right, but we’re not so full of righteous certitude that we want to silence our opponents.

One of the most unpleasant aspects of this crisis is that it has brought out an ugly, authoritarian streak in so many people, particularly those in positions of authority. Before March of last year, I believed that totalitarianism could never take root in British soil because we are such a Rabelaisian, freedom-loving people, fiercely proud of our independence. Now, I’m not so sure.

************************************************************

Scrap GCSEs & A-Levels, say 2000 Headteachers

TODAY on the Lockdown Sceptic's website edited by Toby Young, reported:

As night follows day, headteachers are now demanding that GCSEs and A-levels be scrapped again this year. Why? To protect their staff from being infected with a virus that, if you’re under-70 and healthy, is less deadly than seasonal flu....

Head teachers have warned that GCSE and A-level exams cannot go ahead this summer after plans for reopening schools for the spring term were thrown into chaos.

Most primary schools in England are due to open tomorrow, followed by a phased start for secondary schools a week later with GCSE and A-level pupils returning first. The Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, still insists that teenagers must sit the national exams.

However, a network of 2,000 head teachers in 80 local authorities will today insist that teachers, pupils and parents should not be put at risk of contracting COVID-19 in order to protect the GCSE and A-level timetables.

“Wider public health, pupil and staff safety should be prioritised ahead of examinations,” said the head teachers from the WorthLess? campaign group.

“Public safety should not be risked or driven by an inflexible pursuit of GCSE and A-levels.”

Surely Toby Young, the editor of the Lockdown Sceptic's website, should support this downgrading of A-levels given his own historic poor performance when doing them years ago?

***********************************************************

COVID-19: 'SCIENCE ON TRIAL' ?

THIAGO CARVALHO* in this weekend's Financial Times asks: 'So what have we learned about the limits of science? First, we were reminded that spectacular successes are built on a foundation of decades of basic research. Even the novel, first-in-class vaccines are at the end of a long road. It was slow-going to get to warp speed. We learned that there are no shortcuts to deciphering how a new virus makes us sick (and kills us) and that there is no ignoring the importance of human diversity for cracking this code. Diabetes, obesity, hypertension - we are still finding our way through a comorbidity labyrinth. Most of all, we have learned an old lesson again: science is the art of the soluable. No amount of resorces and personnel, no Manhattan Project, can ensure that science will solve a problem in the absence of a well-stocked toolbox and a solid, painstaking built theoretical framework.'

He reminds us: 'South Korea recorded its first Covid-19 case on January 20. Eleven days later, Spain confirmed its first infection: a German tourist in the Canary Islands. Spain and South Korea have similar populations of about 50m people. As of ublication of this piece, South Korea has had 879 deaths, while Spain reports over 50,000. The west missed its moment.'

* The writer is an immunologist at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon.

********************************************************************

Toby Young's slip-up on Twitter

SOME weeks ago Toby Young, editor of the Lockdown Sceptics website, tweeted: 'New study suggests more than five million Britons have had the coronavirus. Given that -50,000 people have died from it, that means an IFR [infection fatality rate] of 0.1%.'

Tim Harford, the UNDERCOVER ECONOMIST in the Financial Times [19th, DECEMBER 2020] wrote 'There was just one small problem with that tweet: the arithmatic.' Young duly clarified: 'That last tweet was wrong... had a brain fart. If 5 million Brits have been infected and -50,000 have died, that equals an IFR of 1%.'

Tbat suggests that Young's second tweet admits that the virus is 10 times more deadly than he had thought. Meaning that rather that anticipating one death per thousand infections, his updated calculation suggests we should expect 10.

Tim Harford admits that it is easy to slip-up with decimal points, and thus to make false statements about Covid-19. He argues that the 'strongest arguements in favour of lockdowns is the kind of information peddled by some lockdown sceptics.' He writes: 'When you see demonstratably false claims that most people who died with Covid-19 did not die of it, that we are seeing a "casedemic" founded on false postives or most infections are asymptomatic throughout - that's the point you think: gosh, maybe we really can't be trusted after all.'

*****************************************************

Government to Close Schools

THE Government has announced targeted school closures for England in an attempt to control the spread of the virus (though it’s unlikely to help much, as Toby explained yesterday). The Telegraph has the details.

One million primary school pupils will not return to classrooms as planned next term as Boris Johnson unveiled sweeping school closures and warned more could follow.

The Prime Minister said that in order to combat the spread of the new coronavirus variant, the majority of secondary school pupils will now stay at home until “at least” January 18th, two weeks after term was supposed to start. Those in exam years 11 and 13 will return on January 11th.

Only the children of key workers and vulnerable children will go back on January 4th, the scheduled start date. It means the staggered start to term which had previously been announced will be moved back by a week.

Primary schools in “high infection areas”, estimated to affect one million pupils, will also close for the first time since the spring for at least two weeks as Mr Johnson said “even tougher action” was needed because of the “sheer pace” of the rising infections.

The Prime Minister said there was no guarantee that the January 18th return date would not slip further, as the latest data on infection rates would be reviewed at that point.

He added: “I want to stress that, depending on the spread of the disease, it may be necessary to take further action in their cases as well.”

The announcement came as three quarters of the population of England were quarantined in Tier 4 as of this morning, with the rest of the country left in the scarcely less restrictive Tier 3, creating a new national lockdown in all but name.

LOCKDOWN SCEPTICS' Stop Press: In Sarah Vine’s column in yesterday’s Daily Mail she opposed school closures, saying “it’s madness to treat our schools like nail bars or nightclubs“. Yet her husband Michael Gove is reported to have sided with Matt Hancock and opposed Gavin Williamson’s efforts to keep schools open. Trouble in paradise?

*******************************************

LOCKDOWN SCEPTICS & a new strain of virus!

TODAY TIM JONES on the Lockdown Sceptics website asks: 'If the new strain has a biological advantage that makes it more transmissible why isn’t it taking over in every region?'

He continues: 'However it is a real question that needs answering, and one that’s also being asked by Professor Francois Balloux on Twitter:

'The new 'UK #SARSCoV2 variant' (lineage B 1.1.7) which has recently gone up in frequency in the UK has been identified in numerous countries including in Denmark, where its frequency remained at ~1% in mid-December.

1/ https://t.co/ElOC2zqTAW

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) December 29, 2020 'A number of media outlets have reported on the new technical briefing from Public Health England that shows considerably more being infected by carriers of the new variant than carriers of other variants. Here’s the report in the Times. 'Contacts of people with the new coronavirus variant are 54% more likely to develop the disease, according to new analysis from Public Health England. 'They found, however, that it did not appear likely to cause more severe disease or higher death rates.

'Researchers found the “secondary attack rate”, or proportion of contacts of confirmed cases that develop the disease themselves, was 15.1% for people with a confirmed case of the new variant and 9.8% for people confirmed to have another variant.'

The figures were published yesterday in a technical report on the variant, now named VOC (variant of concern) 202012/01.

Ministers pointed to the variant’s increased infectiousness when announcing higher Tier 4 restrictions for much of England earlier this month.

However, according to Tim Jones, 'the PHE briefing does not draw any conclusions about transmissibility from the data it presents (it doesn’t mention transmissibility at all). Is this because the authors are aware that this may be just coincidence? In other words, that it appears to be more transmissible just because most of the infections with it happen to be in the areas that are currently surging? This by itself would explain why the secondary attack rate (the proportion of contacts who become infected) for the new variant in England is higher in recent weeks – because it happens to be the variant most prevalent in the areas of the country where more people are currently being infected. To know whether it is the new variant itself that is responsible for the higher secondary attack rate, or something else, we would need to see it higher in other regions, not just the one currently surging. And as Loftus and Prof Balloux observe, there is not currently evidence of that.'

***********************************************************

Zhang Zhan, sentenced to 4-years by Shanghai Court for reporting on pandemic outbreak

Chinese Citizen Journalist Jailed For 4 Years For Wuhan Virus Reports

Zhang Zhan, a former lawyer, was sentenced at a brief hearing in a Shanghai court for allegedly "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" for her reporting in the chaotic initial stages of the outbreak.

Shanghai:

Updated: December 28, 2020

A Chinese citizen journalist was jailed for four years Monday for her reporting from Wuhan as the Covid-19 outbreak unfurled, her lawyer said, almost a year after details of an "unknown viral pneumonia" surfaced in the central China city.

Zhang Zhan, a former lawyer, was sentenced at a brief hearing in a Shanghai court for allegedly "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" during her reporting in the chaotic initial stages of the outbreak.

Her live reports and essays were shared on social media platforms in February, grabbing the attention of authorities, who have punished eight virus whistleblowers so far as they defang criticism of the government's response to the outbreak.

Beijing has congratulated itself for "extraordinary" success in controlling the virus inside its borders, with an economy on the rebound while much of the rest of the world stutters through painful lockdowns and surging caseloads a year on from the start of the pandemic in Wuhan.

Controlling the information flow during an unprecedented global health crisis has been pivotal in allowing China's communist authorities to reframe the narrative in their favour, with President Xi Jinping being garlanded for his leadership by the country's ruling party.

But that has come at a serious cost to anyone who has picked holes in the official storyline.

The court said Zhang Zhan had spread "false remarks" online, according to one of her lawyers Zhang Keke, but the prosecution did not fully divulge its evidence in court.

"We had no way of understanding what exactly Zhang Zhan was accused of doing," he added, describing it as "a speedy, rushed hearing."

In return the defendant "didn't respond [to questions]... She refused to answer when the judge asked her to confirm her identity."

The defendant's mother sobbed loudly as the verdict was read out, Ren Quanniu, another member of Zhang's defence team, told reporters who were barred from entering the court.

Concerns are mounting over the health of 37-year-old Zhang, who began a hunger strike in June and has been force-fed via a nasal tube.

Her legal team said her health was in decline and she suffered from headaches, dizziness and stomach pain, and that she had appeared in court in a wheelchair.

"She said when I visited her (last week): 'If they give me a heavy sentence then I will refuse food until the very end.'... She thinks she will die in prison,"Ren said before the trial.

"It's an extreme method of protesting against this society and this environment."

China's communist authorities have a history of putting dissidents on trial in opaque courts between Christmas and New Year in an effort to minimise Western scrutiny.

Example made

The sentencing comes just weeks before an international team of World Health Organization experts is expected to arrive in China to investigate the origins of Covid-19.

Zhang was critical of the early response in Wuhan, writing in a February essay that the government "didn't give people enough information, then simply locked down the city".

"This is a great violation of human rights," she wrote.

Rights groups and embassies have also drawn attention to her case, although diplomats from several countries were denied requests to monitor the hearing. "Zhang Zhan's case raises serious concerns about media freedom in China," the British embassy in Beijing said, urging "China to release all those detained for their reporting."

Authorities "want to use her case as an example to scare off other dissidents from raising questions about the pandemic situation in Wuhan earlier this year", added Leo Lan, research and advocacy consultant at the Chinese Human Rights Defenders NGO.

Zhang is the first of a group of four citizen journalists detained by authorities after reporting from Wuhan to face trial.

Previous attempts by AFP to contact the other three -- Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin and Li Zehua -- were unsuccessful.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

********************************************************************