Expert slams pandemic statements

An epidemiologist has warned that the public statements by data analytics and lobby organisation Pandemics Data and Analytics (Panda) could be unhelpful in the fight against the pandemic.

Panda has over the past year made several statements on Covid-19 vaccines, herd immunity and the functionality of lockdowns, and have been quoted in several publications as experts.

Now the organisation has doubled down on controversial claims that contradict scientific consensus, about how the virus spreads and kills, and what governments should be doing about it.

Most recent is their December endorsement of a study report which claimed, among other things, vaccines were inherently dangerous.

The December 2020 report by discredited Canadian scientist Dennis G Rancourt claims that lockdown measures do not prevent deaths, transmission of Covid-19 does not happen via contact, and that vaccines are “inherently” dangerous.

Epidemiologist and senior lecturer emeritus at Stellenbosch University Jo Barnes said the science community is concerned about some assertions being made by Panda, describing its claims about the deadliness of lockdowns as being without scientific foundation. She said much of their analyses was based on an approach that was less than scientific.

Barnes described Rancourt’s report as “a waste of time”, criticising him for relying heavily on circular reasoning by quoting himself as the authority for many of his contentious statements.

“Quite a number of the rest of the articles are old or from early on in the pandemic.

“The article relies heavily on opinions but does not reflect the recent work by many scientists.

“I have not had the time to study this piece and really don’t want to go deep into it, since he is so openly biased and unwilling to consider the evidence fairly,” Barnes said.

Hudson, however, said the organisation stood by their decision to publicly endorse the article, although the actuary appeared to want to distance himself from the alternative science of Rancourt.

“We believe it is wrong that scientists’ reasonably argued views are prevented from being aired simply because somebody doesn’t like them. The views are Dennis’, not necessarily Panda’s,” he said.

Rancourt is so openly biased and unwilling to consider the evidence fairly.

Jo Barnes

Epidemiologist, senior lecturer at Stellenbosch University