What Prof Hendy gets wrong, and wrong, and wrong…

[Wandering Eyes]

COMMENTS ON THE VIEWS OF PROFESSOR HENDY

Dr Martin Lally

Director, Capital Financial Consultants Ltd

lallym@xtra.co.nz

Professor Shaun Hendy is another prominent adviser to the New Zealand government on covid-19 issues.  Like Professor Baker, he combines frequent commentary via popular media in support of lockdowns with papers written (with numerous co-authors) in the academic style.  However, unlike Professor Baker, he does not seem to have done any prior research in epidemiology (he is a Professor of Physics).  His epidemiological work starts with his first covid paper, which was posted to a website on 25 March 2020:

https://www.tepunahamatatini.ac.nz/2020/03/26/suppression-and-mitigation-strategies-for-control-of-covid-19-in-new-zealand/

Table 2 of the paper presents predictions of the death tolls in New Zealand from a range of possible control strategies.  No control yields predicted deaths of 83,000 (1.67% of the population).  Case isolation and quarantining of members of their households reduces this to 62,500 (1.25% of the population).  Adding population-wide social distancing reduces this to 3,000 (0.06% of the population), and adding school and university closures reduces it further to 20.  On page 7, they consider a strategy they describe as “mitigation”, with a predicted death toll of 25,000 (0.508% of the population), and involving a combination of periods of low control (case isolation plus household quarantining) with periods of high control (add population-wide social distancing and school and university closures) as required to keep the number of cases within the capacity of the hospital system.  None of these strategies correspond to mitigation as defined in the 23 March published paper by Professors Baker, Wilson and Blakely (isolation of the over 60s). The most interesting features of the Hendy paper are:

4. The worst case scenario (in which no control measures are instituted) was 83,000 dead (1.67% population mortality rate, as per their Table 2).  By contrast, the worst case death toll (with no control measures) in the many papers of Professors Baker and Wilson (who were the most significant advisers to the government at this time) was 30,600 (in the Baker et al paper of 23 March).  Hendy et al do not even cite this paper, which predates theirs, let alone explain why their worst case figure is almost three times that of Baker et al.  The usual practice in academic work is to cite relevant existing work, and explain why your approach is better.  The need for this is amplified by the fact that none of the Hendy et al co-authors is an epidemiologist, while all co-authors of the Baker et al paper are.
5. The set of control strategies examined did not include lockdown (closing down all but essential businesses as well as all the restrictions described by Hendy), and yet Hendy et al concluded that deaths could be limited to 20 in the highest control state examined by them.  The only places of work that are closed down in any of the control states in Hendy’s Table 2 are schools and universities.  Since it took lockdowns on repeated occasions to achieve New Zealand’s covid death toll to date of 27, Hendy’s belief that this could be achieved without lockdowns would seem to have been far too optimistic. Interestingly, in Baker et al’s paper of 23 March, the authors do not define the restrictions involved in their high control scenario (which they call “eradication”) but the lack of specification of the restrictions at least allows for the possibility that it involved lockdowns.
6. None of the control strategies examined by Hendy et al corresponds to Level 3 or Level 4, despite these levels having been defined by the government on 21 March 2020, which was four days before the Hendy paper was released.  So, by the time the paper was released, it was already superseded by the events of 21 March.
7. The costs of adopting different control strategies are not even mentioned, let alone quantified.  Nor was there any conversion of predicted deaths to life years lost, nor valuation of this in accordance with standard methodology in the medical literature.  Again this contrasts with the Baker et al paper.

The next significant paper by Hendy et al was on 21 October 2020 and was concerned with the economic costs of the Level 3 August 2020 Auckland lockdown relative to those of an alternative Level 4 lockdown:

https://www.tepunahamatatini.ac.nz/2020/11/16/economic-comparison-of-the-use-of-alert-levels-3-and-4-for-aucklands-august-outbreak/

The paper assumes adoption of the government’s elimination strategy and is only concerned with the question of whether Level 4 restrictions would have been more or less costly (in lost GDP) than the Level 3 restrictions actually adopted in Auckland (Level 4 restrictions cost more per day than Level 3 restrictions but are likely to end sooner).   They find a modest such advantage to Level 4, because the expected time in lockdown to reach their epidemiological target is shorter in Level 4, which more than compensates for the higher costs per day.  This seems to be the first paper from Hendy et al that considers the costs of competing policies, but none of the co-authors appears to have any expertise in economics. The most interesting features of the paper are:

7. Despite considering the costs of these two options, the paper does not accord with the standard methodology in the medical literature of assessing the comparative deaths of the two options and converting this to a cost per QALY saved.
8. The data in their Tables 1 and 2 does not reconcile.  For example, Table 1 states that the cost per day in Level 3 is $57m, Table 2 gives expected days under Level 3 restrictions as 23, implying a cost of $1.3b, but Table 2 gives a cost of $1.8b instead.  The same problem applies to the Level 4 restrictions.  I raised this point with the lead author (Rachel Binny) on 17 November and received a reply from Professor Hendy but he did not address this issue over the course of several emails (in which I reminded him about the point).  I therefore presume that Table 2 is in error.
9. Page 8 of the paper says “Figure 2B shows the economic cost of the outbreak for a particular probability of elimination in the cases where the elimination was successful.”  This is not correct. The Figure is premised on exiting lockdown when cases have fallen to a level at which the probability of elimination has fallen to a particular level, and shows the economic cost for the expected lockdown period for a particular probability of elimination. Whether elimination was subsequently achieved is irrelevant to this calculation.  I also raised this point with the lead author (Rachel Binny) on 17 November and received a reply from Professor Hendy but he did not address this issue over the course of several emails (in which I reminded him about the point).
10. The authors acknowledge that their analysis does not consider the “..longer term economic costs of the measures..” (Executive Summary) and that “These factors may take the analysis to a different conclusion.” (page 10).  What then is the usefulness of the analysis?
11. Despite limiting themselves to the question examined, they note in passing that cost benefit analyses such as those performed by Heatley (2020) and Lally (2020) “…might be useful for informing a mitigation strategy but are not useful for a decision maker considering or following an elimination strategy” (pp. 4-5).  This seems to be accepting that cost-benefit analysis might be appropriate for choosing between mitigation and elimination strategies, as was the focus of Lally (2020), whilst denying its usefulness in choosing between Level 3 and 4 restrictions.  However, even if one has decided on an elimination strategy, for whatever reasons, there are competing variants of it, as Hendy et al recognises in comparing a Level 3 and Level 4 response to the Auckland outbreak, and cost-benefit analysis should also be used to choose between them, as Heatley does and Hendy et al do not.
12. Hendy et al refer again later to the cost-benefit analyses of Heatley and Lally, and state that “Combining our approach….with these more in-depth economic analyses may be useful in informing future responses.” (page 10). This seems to be accepting that cost-benefit analysis may be useful for choosing between Level 3 and 4 restrictions, thereby undercutting the contrary claim quoted in the previous point.
13. The equivocal comments by Hendy et al quoted in the last two points (“may” or “might”) suggest a lack of confidence on the part of the authors about basic economic issues that anyone offering policy advice ought to be confident about. This is understandable in view of none of the authors having any apparent expertise in economics, but it is harder to understand why they would offer policy advice about matters that they are so uncertain about.

 

View the full article

[Chief Stipe]

So this fool Hendy has come out and said that if we don't get over 80% vaccinated we will have 7,000 Covid-19 deaths a year.

Aside from the fact that Hendy hasn't got anything right so far can he please explain what has happened in Sweden?

Sweden 14,809 deaths since 10 March 2020.  So that's 19 months. So if we adjust that figure to a yearly rate we 9,400 a year.

Sweden has a population of 11m i.e. twice NZ's.  So divide that 9,400 by 2 to get an equivalent rate for NZ.  

4,700!!!  Nowhere near 7,000!!!

Now that rate for Sweden occurred primarily when there was ZERO vaccination!!!!!

71% of those that died were over the age of 70.  The average age of those that died of Covid-19 was greater than the normal average mortality of 82!!!

13 of the 14,809 that have died have been under the age of 19.  That's 0.08%  They all had underlying health conditions!!!  

[Freda]

Which brings the quote to mind   ' lies, damned lies, and statistics..'

[curious]

https://www.tepunahamatatini.ac.nz/files/2017/01/modelling-to-support-a-future-covid-19-strategy.pdf

[curious]

Vaccine effectiveness assumptions, as shown in Table 1, are the same as used in [3] with the
assumption of no waning immunity.

 

How could they possibly assume no waning immunity! Lowest transmission effectiveness 70% ??? The two decent studies I've read suggest it is closer to zero against delta and who knows against the other 20 letters of the greek alphabet.

[curious]

Heavens. They put that in a note but base the modelling on a pipe dream.

There is still a high degree of uncertainty about the effectiveness of vaccines against the Delta
variant, particularly for breakthrough infection and subsequent propensity to transmit. Furthermore
immunity may wane over time.

[Chief Stipe]

29 minutes ago, Freda said:

Which brings the quote to mind   ' lies, damned lies, and statistics..'

What I posted are very simple items of data.  They are not derived statistics with the intent of proving a hypothesis. 

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

Vaccine effectiveness assumptions, as shown in Table 1, are the same as used in [3] with the
assumption of no waning immunity.

 

How could they possibly assume no waning immunity! Lowest transmission effectiveness 70% ??? The two decent studies I've read suggest it is closer to zero against delta and who knows against the other 20 letters of the greek alphabet.

The model is a crock of shit.  Excuse my language but this shit is really doing my head in.  "We'll give your freedom back to you if you get injected with this experimental vaccine"....."Oh by the way it doesn't work that well...."  "7,000 people will die a year if you don't"....

So 7,000 dead at 80% of the population vaccinated over age 5.  But less than 500 if we reach more than 90%!!!!  Fucking insane.

What will be interesting is what the spin will be when the data coming out of England over the next few weeks as they enter the respiratory disease season.  You watch they will approve vaccinating under 12s within the next fortnight.  Start vaccinating in schools.  Justifying it all by saying "look at the UK their problem is caused by not having their children and 90% of their entire population vaccinated".

I've started OIA requests but the delays are so long that this lunacy will be ramped up before it can be stopped.  The media are a useless bunch of compliant idiots as well.

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

Heavens. They put that in a note but base the modelling on a pipe dream.

There is still a high degree of uncertainty about the effectiveness of vaccines against the Delta
variant, particularly for breakthrough infection and subsequent propensity to transmit. Furthermore
immunity may wane over time.

Pzifer's own data shows that vaccine immunity wanes over time!!!!  That was from March this year!!!!  Natural immunity doesn't seem to wane.  Again you can see this in countries like Sweden.

BTW what credibility Bloomfield had in my eyes went right out the window when he labelled Ivermectin a horse worming drug.  Now the compliant media are repeating it.  I have my doubts about its efficacy as a therapeutic or prophylactic for Covid-19 even though there is data from India that shows it does do something.  That aside Ivermectin is derivative of Avermectin.  Yes its original use was for treating parasite infections in domestic animals.  BUT at the same time they started testing in humans and found that it was very effective in eliminating the parasite that causes River Bindness and other serious diseases caused by parasites.  Subsequently it has saved the lives of millions of humans in third world countries and has been one of the most safely prescribed drugs in human history!!!  Literally billions of doses have been given to humans.  Yet the head of our health organisation supposedly leading the pandemic strategy uses misinformation and calls it a horse dewormer!!

That is how insane this is.

 

[curious]

Yes. See Covid 19 and vaccine risk section #6 here:

https://nzdsos.com/

A lot of doctors don't agree with him on Ivermectin.

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. See Covid 19 and vaccine risk section #6 here:

https://nzdsos.com/

A lot of doctors don't agree with him on Ivermectin.

I know.  This article discusses what happened in India.  MSN have reported it as well.  I haven't done due diligence but you'd have to say what they did had some impact and certainly didn't cause any more deaths!!

https://trialsitenews.com/msn-showcases-the-amazing-uttar-pradesh-turnaround-the-ivermectin-based-home-medicine-kits/

It's interesting too because it isn't entirely clear what Ivermectin does do with regard to disease treatment other than killing the parasites.  But some of the parasites carry specific viruses which MAY be what causes the disease.

The meta analysis study that was led by Dr Tess Lawrie has one major flaw in that the largest piece of research has been discredited although removing that study form the meta analysis still results in showing Ivermectin has an effect.

Ivermectin is also interesting in that it is biological in origin being derived from a soil bacteria that has only ever been found in Japan and nowhere else.

[Chief Stipe]

With regard to Ivermectin it is believed that its mode of operation is as follows.  When I read that I could see how it might actually work for Covid-19 because it actually suppresses the parasites ability to disable the immune system.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

The prevailing school of thought is that ivermectin actually interferes with the ability of microfilariae to evade the human immune system, resulting in the host’s own immune response being able to overcome the immature worms and so kill them.⁵⁰⁾ Recently published research has indicated that GUCl⁻ activity is solely expressed in musculature surrounding the microfilarial excretory–secretory (ES) vesicle, suggesting that any compound originating from the ES vesicle is regulated by the activity. The addition of ivermectin markedly reduces the amount of a protein (which is postulated to play a role in helping the parasite elude the host’s immune system) that is released from the ES in microfilariae.⁵¹⁾ The growing body of evidence supports the theory that the rapid microfilarial clearance following ivermectin treatment results not from the direct impact of the drug but via suppression of the ability of the parasite to secrete proteins that enable it to evade the host’s natural immune defence mechanism.

[aquaman]

I like the bit where children are been brought into the conversation more and more. Using the children in their argument to promote the so called vaccine. Today we learn that 21 babies have now been infected by the dreaded disease. Notice no mention of the outcome or result to the babies concerned. Reason of course is they all recover with no hospital treatment needed, in fact effecting them to the point that its not noticeable. Anybody with half a brain could not possibly believe anything the horse head and her sidekick bloomfield say.

[curious]

21 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The model is a crock of shit.  Excuse my language but this shit is really doing my head in.  "We'll give your freedom back to you if you get injected with this experimental vaccine"....."Oh by the way it doesn't work that well...."  "7,000 people will die a year if you don't"....

So 7,000 dead at 80% of the population vaccinated over age 5.  But less than 500 if we reach more than 90%!!!!  Fucking insane.

 

TPM modelling criticised for stoking ‘unnecessary fear’

Economic modeller Rodney Jones has continued his criticism of Te Pūnaha Matatini’s modelling of the future of New Zealand’s Covid response, which was presented by Shaun Hendy at yesterday’s 1pm government briefing. As reported in yesterday’s updates, Jones called the TPM modelling, which predicts 7,000 deaths a year if vaccination doesn’t get past 80%, “unconvincing”.

Speaking on RNZ’s Morning Report this morning, Jones said the modelling, which paints a bleak picture for New Zealand’s future at anything less than 90% vaccination, was attempting to fight fear with fear. “We can’t just throw out these numbers and say the world’s going to end if we don’t get vaccinated,” he said.

“Keep it simple and the risk of Covid has been very clear, exaggerate and you cause deception. I still don’t see that throwing big numbers around helps our narrative.”

Jones said while modelling was helpful early in the outbreak, it was now time for modellers to take a step back.

Hendy defended his modelling this morning, telling Morning Report that while there was no doubt some people would find the numbers uncomfortable, it was important to put them out there. Yesterday he told Checkpoint the chances of stamping out the current outbreak were “on a knife edge”.

[Chief Stipe]

McElnay has just said on TV that the Pzifer vaccine is 95% effective at preventing death and hospitalisation.  Utter BS!!!!  BUT she also said they were waiting on data from Pzifer regarding Delta efficacy!!!!!   FFS.

[Chief Stipe]

LOL.

 

[Chief Stipe]

BTW Hendy must have got on the plonk last night because he twitted some really weird stuff which has since been deleted.