Carlaw bypasses Sturgeon to get special access to Johnson’s ‘science’ on the 1 metre risk factor

Taking advantage of their personal connections, forged in the Young Conservatives theatre group (above-right), Jackson Carlaw has gained access to the ‘evidence’ used by the PM to reduce the 2 metre rule to 1 metre, with a face mask but not in a pub (above-right).

Many of us have wondered why, given that Great Britain is the most successful union in the world, Carlaw has not previously been able to use his connections to get access to the PM’s secret stash of evidence.

The Tusker can reveal that two peer-reviewed studies are key to the PM’s decision:

  1. A mathematical modelling paper produced by Sage in April, and based on past experiments carried out in other countries, concluded that the risk of exposure to the coronavirus “could be 10-30 times higher at one metre compared to two metres.”
  2. An analysis published in the Lancet found the risk of catching the coronavirus whilst standing one metre apart was only around twice that of standing two metres apart – a 2.6 per cent chance compared to 1.3 per cent.

The PM has looked at ‘the science’ which has clearly narrowed down the risk to between 2.6 and 30 times higher, at 1 metre and, as even any minor public school fool can see, points to a 1 metre distance being both good for the economy and ‘perfectly safe’ for the plebs.

Footnote:

The Tusker can reveal that no actual empirical study of the actual viral splash at different distances has ever actually been carried out.

The Tusker’s research ethics adviser, Professor Johnny Robertson, has pointed out that no University ethics committee, these days, would allow such a method.

The only known comparable example by research lead, Alexander Boris ‘Spaffing’ de Pfeffel Johnson (Balliol, Oxford) using Classics students to ‘spaff’ internal bodily fluids up a 14th Century wall, was rejected for publication.

4 thoughts on “Carlaw bypasses Sturgeon to get special access to Johnson’s ‘science’ on the 1 metre risk factor

  1. The scientists yesterday made it pretty clear that this “1metre” policy increased risk, and risk would be prevalent for some years to come.
    Money before mortality. The Tory theme tune.

    Like

  2. Yes. The WHO work on reducing the social distance has come under criticism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/14/scientists-report-flaws-in-who-study-on-two-metre-distancing

    ““The analysis of infection risk at 1 metre versus 2 metre should be treated with great caution,” said Prof David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at Cambridge University, who has participated in the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies . “I’m very suspicious of it.”

    Prof Kevin McConway, an applied statistician at the Open University, went further and called the analysis inappropriate. He said the work “should not be used in arguments about how much greater the infection risk is at 1-metre minimum distance as opposed to 2 metres”.

    The study, published in the Lancet, is the latest to come under fire from experts who fear that in the midst of the pandemic some research papers are being written, reviewed and published too fast for sufficient quality checks to be performed. Earlier this month, the Lancet and another elite publication, the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract coronavirus studies after flaws in the papers emerged.

    Doubts about the study emerged as Boris Johnson announced a formal review of the 2-metre physical distancing rule, which is expected to report by 4 July, the earliest date pubs and restaurants may reopen in England. In recent weeks, Johnson has come under intense pressure from Conservative MPs to relax the advice to help businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector.

    Led by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, the report pooled data from previously published studies to estimate the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus at different distances. It also considered how face masks and eye protection might help prevent the spread of disease.

    But in the analysis the authors assume the proportional impact on risk of moving from 2 metres to 1 metre is the same as moving from 1 metre to zero. “They are forcing the proportional fit to be the same,” Spiegelhalter told the Guardian.

    McConway believes there is a more fundamental problem in the way the risks of infection at different distances are compared in the study. He said: “The method of comparing the different distances in the paper is inappropriate for telling you exactly how the risk at 2-metre minimum distance compares to a 1 metre minimum distance. It does not support, and should not be used in, arguments about how much greater the risk is with a 1 metre limit versus a 2-metre limit.””

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.