With his speech to the Nation the Prime Minister has cautiously changed the conditions of lockdowna little. For instance, more people can go to work (not sure how that works for commuters from Bromley who have little choice), outside exercise periods can be longer and can involve lingering (for instance in our parks). The overall message seems to be that we may come out of our homes a little but must stay alert. My main take the word alert is that is that we must maintain strict social distancing at all times and no physical contact (handshakes etc) should occur when out.
A slight easing of lockdown is, of course, good news but I remain shocked that the UK now has had more deaths than any other country in Europe because of Coronavirus. How come? I have always been convinced that ours was amongst the best public health systems in the World. When Italy and then Spain’s mortality figures rose so fast, I was, I hesitate to say this but I was, rather complacent and smug in so far as I thought that would not happen here. It has apparently – plus! I despair about it.
The figures say it all. Now we have people who have over 32,000 people who have died from Coronavirus which is well ahead of both Italy and Spain. But ministers who daily stand up and give us the daily Downing Street Briefing suggest that such figures do not give a correct impression. To misquote someone who I think might have been a lovely person as well as a bit-player in the Profumo Scandal in 1961, Ms Mandy Rice-Davies: they … “would say that wouldn’t they?”
To be fair the Medical Scientific advisors to the Government have always warned that we would be following Italy and then Spain with infections but I just did not believe it could happen here. Clearly, I was wrong.
The same Medical Scientists are now saying that the naked figures are misleading. I wonder? Wasn’t it Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin (there is some doubt) who said a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic? But for me over 32,000 deaths is a huge tragedy and I still wonder why we are at the top of the European Coronavirus Mortality League?
Outside Europe the United States tops that League. It looks like the UK comes second in World rankings now. How ghastly!
I am sure that many people with little affection for the present Government might put it all down to mismanagement and poor administration. It’s easy to knock the Government on this I accept but I cannot see what else the Executive could have done. Maybe brought in lockdown a little earlier and got UK industry mobilised faster to produce PPE? But I’m not sure that would have made much difference. Abroad France’s Le Monde newspaper, no friend of Boris Johnson over the years, implies Boris we should have done more. I won’t argue that point here but simply will say Le Monde has a cheek!
So, assuming those that argue we shouldn’t just look at stark figures have a point, what is it? Their argument resolves around the percentage of a population who have died because of Coronavirus not the absolute numbers in any country. Actually, I agree with that. It does make sense.
So, what are the statistics like when read that way? Per 100,000 people as a sample the UK does a bit better. Top of the Mortality League is poor old Belgium with 69 deaths per 100,000 of its population. Then comes Spain with 54, Italy with 48, the UK with 43, France with 37 and the United States with 21 on average out of each 100,000 in the population. China, the original epicentre of Coronavirus, hardly features. If Chinese statistics are honest (they are probably not) China has had 4,633 deaths resulting from Coronavirus as at 6th May. That is simply nothing when compared with the overall 1.4 billion Chinese population.
Then the experts say that all countries gather their statistics differently. Some states only include deaths in hospitals as we did until late April when we adjusted the statistics. For example, last week Le Monde in France printed that deaths at home (estimated to be about 10,000) would not be included in French figures for a few months. Statistics are also used to prove that Sweden did or did not get it right with its lockdown-light approach. It all depends on the way you cut the figures.
Benjamin Disraeli reportedly claimed (although this is disputed) that there were three kinds of lies: lies, lies and statistics. Of course, statistics are cut in order to support viewpoints. They can be employed as some sozzled drunk might use a lamppost outside the pub from which he has just been ejected: for support rather than to see anything clearly.
Of course, regions and countries are different too. Apparently, Bromley has one of the highest infection rates in London which could be down to the fact that we have quite an ageing population here. Equally many countries, particularly in Africa, have very young populations and apparently the virus is not so potent amongst them. Yes, I can follow both logics.
In summary I accept that statistics can indeed be manipulated by experts to support their arguments. I get that totally. But still I remain perplexed as to why so many of us have died when I hoped (obviously in vain) that we would be hit in a lighter way than other countries. I don’t know why we have lost so many people; maybe that may come out in a later wash. To be straight I thought we would have done better and, tragically we haven’t honestly.