Today the Northern Ireland Assembly will meet to vote on whether papers (or digital passes) will be required to participate fully in society from this point forward. At a time when the government is encouraging people to get their third Covid vaccine jab (as the previous two apparently don’t really have much efficacy after a few months) the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and (now) Northern Ireland are insisting on proof of ‘vaccination’ to take part in the most mundane activities – such as having coffee, or catching the latest James Bond movie at the local multiplex.
But we know that, during lockdown, those who had religious faith and wished to worship, had their rights to this most important aspect of their lives curtailed. It would seem that this may happen again under a State-mandated ‘vaxed-only’ apartheid.
I’m not a religious person. But I recognise that others are – and I fully respect their rights to religious freedom, and their rights to meet and worship. I also recognise that while I might refuse a medical procedure for my own secular reasons, others may have a doctrinal objection – an objection that should not result in them being ostracised by the majority or as a result of the strictures of the state.
It’s for these reasons that I have agreed to speak at an event that’s taking place in Northern Ireland on the 27th of November. There will be talks on the biblical response to vaccine mandates, the risks and benefits of the vaccines, and the ethics of vaccine passports. The event is being convened by Christians from various denominations and will have attendees from church leaders, church members and some, like me, who are secular, but wish to voice our support for religious freedom.
A few weeks ago I decided to produce a short video (see below) highlighting a very obvious fact that the government seemed to be ignoring – that Winter excess deaths are always higher than the Summer baseline. I was curious to know if the Winter of 2020/21 was proving to be much worse than other years. In fact, at the time I wrote the content, all-cause deaths in January 2021 were not much different to the Winter of 2014/15 (and were lower than other years such as 1999/2000). To illustrate this fact I used official data produced by the Office for National Statistics, for England. I also suggested that while in 2015 no large-scale laboratory testing programme was used to diagnose respiratory illness – especially among the elderly – in 2021 we seem to be in the midst of a government sponsored data pandemic, fuelled by testing. I produced the video myself. The views expressed were mine and mine only. No-one funded it. There were no sponsors.
As it turned out, based on the volume of video views, the video content resonated with many. Some people re-published it on YouTube. Others on LinkedIn. It has been watched by tens of thousands of people and seems to have been well received by most who watched it.
The video did not discuss, in detail, the merits of PCR testing as a methodology. I chose not to get into the detail of amplification cycles and cycle thresholds, the shoddiness of testing processes, the origins of the Drosten assay or any other academic discourse. No, this video was really about my view that testing was providing the excuse for continued lockdowns that are, in my view, much worse in terms of social harms and damage to individual liberty, than Covid-19.
The expression of viewpoints like this, especially when backed up with empirical data, tended to be respected, prior to Covid-19. For years, prior to the “pandemic”, I was sought out by media organisations to give my opinions on issues of the day. My profession is research. After graduating in Economics I worked in, or for, several of the world’s most respected opinion research firms. As a specialist in technology markets I worked as an evidence-based consultant for many of the world’s leading tech firms. And, most recently, I was engaged as an Advisor to the UK government for three years working on inward investment in the tech sector (until I resigned just before Christmas).
It came as something of a surprise, therefore, when – after publishing my little video on Facebook, that I was informed that the video contained “partly false information” and now bore a warning notice (reproduced below).
I was informed by Facebook that one of their “independent” fact-checkers had reported the video, hence the warning. In addition to the grave-looking warning notice, Facebook also placed a link to a post on the “independent fact checker’s” website – FactCheckNI.
I had never come across this organisation and had no idea about its existence. According to the organisation’s website it is an “independent, non-partisan, community interest company” that engages in fact checking. It also states, “We fact check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact check.”
None of “the management” of the organisation has any background in journalism. They seem to have appointed themselves to their opinion-policing roles. And quite why these people created this organisation is a mystery. Who checks them and the facts they choose to check?
So quite why the organisation had taken it upon itself to check the facts in my short video is a total mystery. At time of writing their post taking issue with the “facts” in my video is on the home page of their website. But I could find no fact checking posts on claims made by the government in their latest “look into their eyes” advertising or the thousands of media articles written or broadcast in support of government lockdowns. In fact, given the thousands of articles written and videos published about Covid response, why was mine given this bizarre treatment by this strange little organisation – that’s paid by Facebook to report content that clearly constitutes wrong-think.
Prior to Covid-19 we tended to diagnose respiratory disease based on symptoms – but we also believed that opinions were simply opinions. In fact many opinions were not of one “side” or another. They were simply opinions and could be nuanced. They were not subject to fact checking. And they could contain all sorts of shades and creative devices and arguments could be made using metaphors and similes. It’s called free speech.
In drafting the script for my video I drafted the following phrase. “[The] problem with PCR is that it’s something of a haystack creator in the search for the needle that should be very obvious.” This wasn’t a fact. It’s called a metaphor. It was a reference to looking for a needle in a haystack. My point was that PCR testing was not needed in the past as a diagnostic tool for respiratory disease during Winter – and that it created data that was of little use in identifying people who were infectious if the healthy and non-symptomatic were being labelled as infectious (when they, clearly, weren’t presenting in hospital). Moreover my video didn’t mention Northern Ireland once, nor was there any reference to Northern Ireland case data.
So why did FactCheckNI feel the need to fact-check the veracity of my metaphor?
Part of the reason may relate to reach and influence. Several prominent Northern Ireland business people shared my video on social media platforms and messaging. And I have a Northern Ireland accent. But, despite this, I’m an individual citizen and don’t have access to hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money for advertising and propaganda peddling.
Interestingly, when FactCheckNI tweeted the link to its post that “fact-checked” my article it included the following: The Minister for Health for Northern Ireland; the Department for Health for Northern Ireland and BBC Northern Ireland’s Health Correspondent – and various others. I wasn’t included in the list – even though the fact checking related to my video, my content, my intellectual property. And, clearly, for an organisation that doesn’t take sides it seems rather strange that it chose to notify only those organisations and individuals associated with one side of the PCR testing argument. Perhaps FactCheckNI could explain the facts behind this.
But let me explain certain facts to FactCheckNI. If I need to check facts I won’t be asking you – nor do I require you to check my opinions. And, as for Facebook, if you need to employ organisations like factCheck NI to police the opinions of your users, then your users will, like me, leave.
Perhaps you should, Facebook and FactCheckNI, note these words:
People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society. People no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard, and that has important consequences. I understand the concerns about how tech platforms have centralized power, but I actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people’s hands. It’s part of this amazing expansion of voice through law, culture and technology.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s speech at Georgetown University, October 2019
Since my appearance on BBC Radio Ulster Talkback on Friday I’ve had to face a fair amount of criticism on social media – but, thankfully, I’ve also received lots of messages of support. The criticism tended to focus on the fact that I clearly lost my temper on-air. My defence is that it’s tricky to maintain calmness when the interviewer (in this instance, William Crawley) was, from the outset, hostile. But, I also wanted to present an alternative to the calm and clerical sounding Chief Scientific Advisor who was allowed to ramble, unchallenged, about the need for yet another draconian lockdown in Northern Ireland from Boxing Day.
The day after that broadcast we heard from the Prime Minister that London and the SE of England was to have Christmas effectively cancelled as an opportunity for families to get together – as London moves into “Tier 4” of a tier system that starts with Tier 1/Medium and goes to Tier 4/Be Scared, Be Very Scared. The Covid Scare Taxonomy is running out of severity descriptors.
My attempts, on Friday, to provide an antidote to the scary stuff from public health “experts,” were stifled at every opportunity by Crawley. When I attempted to present evidence to counter the fear narrative, I was closed down with accusations that my evidence essentially wasn’t allowed. It was, apparently, misinformation. Only the correct sort of evidence is allowed by the BBC these days.
But there were three central points I was trying to get across on Crawley’s programme that were stifled.
The first relates to lockdowns themselves. They don’t work. An excellent article to this effect was published by Nick Hudson (of PANDA) on Medium today. Although there’s a growing body of evidence that viruses will do their thing until populations achieve near herd immunity. There’s good evidence that we’re there already in the UK. Winter seasonal flu, which has nearly overwhelmed A&Es in the past (e.g. in December 2017/January 2018) is now being reclassified, it would appear, as Covid (see chart, below). Bed occupancy in London has been pretty consistent since mid September, but patients are being reclassified as Covid to fit the narrative.
The second is that the PCR test is a duff test. I’m not going to re-hash a huge volume of work and back catalogue of research. There are a lot of resources on www.pcrclaims.co.uk that justify the view that the testing is creating a false narrative of “cases” – when they are, in fact, simply false positives. The PCR test produces large volumes of false positives simply because it is not fit for purpose for testing large populations of asymptomatic people.
Because PCR is the test of choice for NHS personnel it means that perfectly healthy healthcare workers are being sent home to isolate at a time when they are most needed i.e. during a Winter respiratory disease spike.
And the final point I wanted to make relates, inevitably, to the social cost of all of this – especially when the concept of asymptomatic transmission must be questioned. Covid-19 is not a particularly dangerous disease for most people. Many have innate immunity (probably around 50% from T-cell immunity). Many have acquired immunity from having had the disease, even in a mild form. Therefore, people who are concerned that they may suffer severe ill-health if exposed to it can choose to isolate or take precautions. But those of us prepared to take the risk should be allowed to get out and socialise or engage in trade. The restraint of trade, and restraint of education, that are the the cornerstones of lockdown are extraordinarily damaging – especially to business owners, children and young people.
These are not extraordinary claims or misinformation. These are valid concerns about a policy that has been tried, repeatedly, in all four home nations since March. It is a policy that’s is hugely damaging to our society and our way of life. If we are not allowed to question government policy, it starts to feel conspiratorial. Freedom of speech is at the heart of this. And curtailing that freedom – by the BBC or government – is the stuff of misinformation-spreading and propaganda.
When Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, was asked by Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio if the cost-benefit analysis would be presented to MPs later in the week, before they vote on another new-variant lockdown, Shapps retorted with a killer answer. Not only has such analysis been done, apparently, but a “huge data dump of a lot of analysis” would be delivered. This great dump, he suggested, could be pored over by MPs and, after their foraging in the dump, they would be super-wise to make a decision.
Shapps’ answer says it all. Government policy, regardless of what it is, can be justified by obfuscation and lots of references to the bigness of the data. He made clear that data analysis would be part of the smoke and mirrors process to make sure that MPs were no wiser at all about the rationale for locking people down from meeting, drinking, eating and shopping before Christmas.
Shapps, apparently, got his big job back in government (after being side-lined by previous administrations) because he was seen to be a good media performer. But his past, littered with get-rich-quick schemes and dodgy pyramid-selling, has been all about saying one thing and meaning something else entirely. Much of his dealings with the media in the past have been about justifying behaviour that was incompatible with high public office.
But being good with the media seems, whatever form this takes, is all. The Shapps approach involves knowing just enough about “data” to be able to evade what the data mean – what story it tells.
However, the arguments against the lockdown-based Covid response of the government have been made very well by scientists and very effective number-crunchers outside of government – notably Ivor Cummins, Carl Heneghan and Michael Yeadon.
Between them, they have meticulously destroyed the arguments for lockdown based on claimed Covid threat (centred around the R number). Instead, they have argued that PCR tests result in high levels of false positives, that the pandemic is probably over (based on reduced hospital admissions and evidence indicating T-cell immunity in a large percentage of the population). They have also made compelling cases indicating that lockdowns just don’t work. Along the way they have used precise and relevant data – not data dumps – to provide evidence for their assertions. But the government ministers responsible for implementing policies that are increasingly seen as damaging can run away from empirical evidence and use arguments that are based, frankly, on mumbo jumbo or just plain obfuscation.
The cost-benefit analysis of lockdown is likely to be complex and is likely to require some considerable evidence. But the result that we are seeking is an answer to this question: Is continued lockdown justified if the result is massive economic destruction, huge curtailment of non-Covid related treatment in hospitals, and significant damage to our civil society – even if a few more people get infected with what is, for most, a mild disease or one that results in no symptoms. The answer cannot be a “huge data dump of a lot of analysis”. That’s just not good enough anymore.
Every day people die. It’s an unfortunate fact. But people die. We’ll all die. And, when we do, our deaths – little data-points in the aggregate – will get added to the mix. Northern Ireland, like every administrative region in every part of the developed world, has a statistics agency that counts up all the deaths every day and collates them by month. And this year, 2020, is no different to any other year. Deaths have been tallied. There’s no denying the data. Or is there?
In this, a ‘pandemic’ year, the month by month death data are more interesting than most. I’ve been looking at the numbers. And one month really jumps out. The month? January 2018. Why is this month particularly note-worthy? Well in most months, most Winter months, around 1,200 or 1,300 or even 1,400 people die. But in January 2018 2,101 people died. In fact, more than 500 more people died in January 2018 than the average number of deaths for the five years previously. This is the excess deaths number. 506 to be precise.
But, we’re told, 2020 is a pandemic year? So presumably we’ve knocked that previous record out of the park? Well, no. In not one month of 2020 have we seen that number of deaths. In April we came close with 1,933 deaths. In January this year we had much fewer deaths than in January 2018.
In 2018 it was well publicised that the health service came close to being overrun. There was a crisis. Seasonal deaths were very high. But, of course, no convoluted tests were being used to determine what people were dying of. No doubt, respiratory diseases played a big part in causing end of life, especially among older people. But no new test was conceived. After all, if people are dying from chronic respiratory failure the symptoms are obvious, the diagnosis easy. No fancy tests are needed to test for what is normally described as Winter flu. Or perhaps a particularly virulent form of cold.
Now let’s focus on April 2020 again. This is the month this year that was nearly as bad as January 2018 in terms of death count. If the health service was completely overrun in 2018, surely that was the case again in April, in a pandemic year? Well, no. That’s not the case. Because in 2020 – in March and April and May – the chronically ill patients, mostly elderly, were sent to care homes to die – for fear of hospitals being overwhelmed. So there was no real crisis in the hospitals. And, of course, elderly people with co-morbidities aren’t eligible for the limited ICU beds (there are less than 100 of them in Northern Ireland). So ICU beds never got to capacity in April.
So what about the so-called “second wave” in 2020 in Northern Ireland? Well, we’re told, hospitals, many of them, are at more than 100% capacity. But in September deaths were pretty average for time of year at 1,384. This number isn’t significantly worse than the death number in September 2015. And yet, in 2015, most of the economy hadn’t been closed down. People weren’t on state-funded furlough. We could all still get out for a meal or a pint, and still get our hair cut. But in 2015 we didn’t have the PCR test – a test contrived to define people as sick who clearly aren’t. And one result of this PCR test is that perfectly healthy medical staff are being sent home to “self-isolate” – meaning that they can’t help the spike in Winter patients – spikes that have occurred frequently in the past.
And remember, the most severe spike was in January 2018, not in any month, so far, in 2020.
In one of his most recent posts on Citizen 2015 my colleague, Larry Larkin, provides an overview of a recent study undertaken by the Pew Research Centre. The study outlined how Americans were using government data and information.
The study showed that people tended to use government data – and relatively simple data at that – only from time to time and to address a relatively simple need (like getting library opening times). But often it’s lack of availability of data that results in citizen frustration – and citizens often aren’t even aware that this is the case.
One of the issues that governments face in terms of providing “service” to citizens is that citizens don’t consume government services in quite the same way as they consume commercial services. They tend to consume services on an as-needed basis. And they often don’t readily appreciate the relationship between data and service.
To date, attempts to make government more open and accountable have focused on the provision of information – giving data (or information) to people that want it. Opening up data is often the result of a citizen movement and many government bodies haven’t been entirely keen to let go of their monopolistic ownership of data. But there’s evidence that this war is being won.
But the next step for government is allowing data to be used to do things in better ways. Because often when citizens most need data they aren’t actually seeking it. Data is simply the means of providing service. In the commercial world data isn’t such a big deal. Rather it’s simply the enabler of service. There is an expectation that if one calls a contact center, for example, the contact center staff will be able to access data and answer questions quickly. Often this simply isn’t the case when citizens attempt to avail of government service.
For example, let’s assume a citizen makes a planning application for an extension to a house. Despite attempts to make the planning application process easier it’s often the case that a lack of data in the right place at the right time makes the overall service experience miserable for the applicant. The ability to submit all information via a self-help portal may be missing. The system may not be sufficiently ‘intelligent’ to be able to guide the user through all of the necessary processes for filing – resulting in incomplete or non-compliant applications. The work-flow may not create appropriate or timely communications. Contact center staff may not have the necessary information in order to deal with queries about applications. The contact center may constantly defer to planning specialists – resulting in bottle-necks.
Citizens who have to deal with these frustrations may not identify data as the main reason why a government service fails to deliver or results in frustration. But it clearly is a data problem if workflows are stunted, contact staff can’t deal with queries or systems contain fundamental bottle-necks. Data – or lack of it – results in poor performance.
It’s for this reason that the ‘government as a platform’ (GaaP) movement has to be the next big thing in government. GaaP is all about getting the data where it needs to be by thinking about processes and data calls. This is a poor definition of GaaP – and not strictly accurate. But I’m trying to make the point that without data in the right place at the right time services can be highly frustrating and utterly inefficient.
On the subject of GaaP, John Jackson of Camden Council in London was featured on the GDS website recently – and discusses how the concept is now very relevant at local government level too. John spoke at our Citizen2013 conference.
In April of this year, the Pew Research Center published a report titled Americans’ View on Open Government Data. This very interesting study provides a measure of how the public views federal, state and local governments’ efforts to become more open and transparent through the dissemination of their data. The report is based on a late 2014 survey of 3,200+ individuals. The study examined:
how aware the public is of governments’ data-sharing initiatives,
if these initiatives are actually resulting in people using the data to monitor government performance,
public’s view of whether these efforts have been – or have the potential to be – successful in making government perform better or become more accountable, and
how the public is using this data.
Some of the study’s key findings:
While most (65%) of the individuals surveyed are using the internet to find government information/data; they are using it to perform simple tasks such as finding out public library hours or paying a traffic ticket (Figure 1)
Just a minority of respondents indicated they paid much attention to how governments share data – and only a relative handful said they were aware of instances where government had done a good or bad job of sharing data.
Less than one-quarter of those surveyed use government-generated data to track the performance of services such as hospitals, healthcare providers, school systems, etc.
People were divided on whether the sharing of data has the potential to improve government transparency, accountability and performance – it’s also not clear to them that this will even happen (Figure 2).
Only 23% of respondents indicated that they trusted the government to do the right thing – at least most of the time. Of this group – the “Trusting Minority” – roughly three quarters believe open government data is beneficial and contributes to better government (Figure 3)
The study found that smartphone users (68% of the individuals surveyed) have embraced apps that are based on government-generated data or capabilities, such as weather and GPS – what I call government-enabled applications:
84% have used weather apps
81% have used map apps
66% have used apps that provide information about nearby stores, bars or restaurants
31% have used apps to get public transit information
14% have used apps to hire transportation such as Über or Lyft
Interestingly enough – but not surprising, I suppose – only 9% of all survey respondents believed that government-provided data helped the private sector “a lot” to develop new products and services (41% felt it helped “somewhat”).
In this interview with Bill Annibell of Sapient Government Services, Bill outlines how citizen to government engagement processes have had to change. To some extent it’s about the smartphone. To another it’s about much greater citizen expectations.
But delivering service, given these expectations, is challenging.
Bill outlines how too many government requests are for technology solutions rather than solutions that enrich the relationship between citizen and government entity. He talks about how so many government processes are separated and distinct rather than joined-up.
Bill makes a strong case for joined-up thinking and about all levels of government getting together to think about things from citizen perspectives.
Bill covers quite some ground in this interview…how he uses research to better understand customer need, how some levels of government ‘get it’ better than others. He talks about 18F, FedRAMP, and Generation Y.
Great insight from someone who understands how citizens and government can work better together.
When a government office is as significant as the Defense Travel Management Office of the US DoD, insights and analytics are critical. One fact highlights the magnitude of the operation. The office oversees annual spending of $32B.
Last week we interviewed Harvey Johnson, SES, Director of the Travel Management Office. Harvey is responsible for one of the world’s largest commercial travel operations – moving civilian and military personnel from one place to another using a vast network of travel providers.
We’ll feature more video content from the interview in the coming weeks. But to whet your appetite, in this short sequence, Harvey discusses the importance of data and insight in providing quality service and to help set the policy agenda.