My primary focus: Challenging questions concerning the response to Covid
What is the main platform I am campaigning on?
My primary focus is securing an honest and meaningful evaluation of the response to the Covid crisis (as articulated in my motivation behind running for Council - see here). I believe that I can best facilitate this by pursuing three specific investigations, each designed to be “SMART” in nature (i.e. each investigation focuses on a query that is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed with a clear deadline). The investigations ask tough but fair questions of the Covid response: the answers to these questions will either provide satisfying reassurance or reveal shortcomings from which we will learn lessons that benefit us all.
My core platform on which I seek election to IFoA Council is a manifesto that I pursue these three investigations - a vote for me is an endorsement by my actuarial peers that:
This work is worthy of attention
I am a credible person to carry it out
Others should assist me with my enquiries until I have arrived at answers which satisfy me
Why these three investigations specifically?
I have chosen to focus on these three particular investigations for the following reasons:
What precisely are these three investigations?
The investigations are summarised by the questions below:
Investigation 1:
To what extent were there any clear, significant breaches of good practice risk management with respect to the development and roll-out of the Covid vaccines?
Investigation 2:
To what extent did the regions of the world which did not implement mandatory restrictions (or imposed very light constraints) suffer adverse levels of mortality as a consequence of this decision?
Investigation 3:
To what extent did any modelling (including the communication of results) used to support the UK government’s decision-making during the Covid crisis adhere to what the UK actuarial profession would consider best practice?
Important note: Investigation 1 does not question the safety outcome of the Covid vaccines but the robustness of the process behind their development/roll-out (the safety outcome has already been assessed and vindicated – see my presentation). It is conceivable that there were shortcomings in the development or roll-out process which could have caused problems, even if such hypothetical “near misses” did not result in any safety issues; indeed, my presentation highlights a couple of concerns. Investigation 1 is focused on assessing the extent to which there were any clear, significant mis-steps that we should learn from.
Why am I an appropriate individual to lead the investigations?
I’m the right man for this job!
I am passionately motivated to pursue this - just look at how much (unrewarded) effort I have put in already.
I have the appropriate skills and resources, as demonstrated by my unique actuarial background.
I have shown that I can be trusted to deliver based on my past history of raising sober challenges to the Covid response. For evidence I would point to my presentation - I can be trusted to pursue this sensitive work in the conciliatory spirit which is needed.
Where would you find a better candidate?
Significance
Each of the investigations asks an important question which is worthy of consideration. There are potentially valuable lessons to be learned from the results.
Outcome-focused
The questions are targeted so that it should be possible to draw clear conclusions from the investigations.
SMART
Each of the investigations concerns a query that is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed with a clear deadline.
Tractable
I am confident that I can independently deliver the work myself, from my existing skills and resources. I must caveat that I will need others to participate by answering the questions I raise, but I do not expect this to cause difficulties.
Challenging topics
The investigations relate to areas where I think the official Covid inquiries may struggle. For example, I question whether these inquirers have the appropriate technical expertise to judge whether the modelling or communications would meet the high standards expected by the actuarial profession.
What do I hope to achieve?
I am aiming to secure tangible outcomes from each investigation:
Investigation 1 – Either I will clearly reach the reassuring position that there were no clear, significant shortcomings in the process or I will have identified genuine, specific flaws (not outlandish conspiracy theories) which can be soberly noted and learned from to the benefit of everyone.
Investigation 2 – My work will extend the existing analysis of Working Paper 180 produced by the CMI, incorporating other territories and a more granular assessment of mortality by age/sex but more significantly offering some insight on the impact of the response measures. Ideally this will serve as a definitive resource for people working to understand the mortality which occurred during the Covid crisis and its aftermath.
Investigation 3 – This assessment will shed light on whether there were any shortcomings in the modelling/communication materials provided to the UK government relative to the best practice standards set by the actuarial profession. Any areas of weakness revealed by the investigation can be acted upon to improve the standard of future information provided to the UK’s decision makers.
However I also hope to secure some less tangible benefits by enabling a more mature conversation around the Covid crisis. I want to provide a demonstration of how complex, contentious topics can be meaningfully debated and conclusions reached in a way that does not villainise dissenters yet dismisses spurious assertions. I aspire to create an environment which is able to lay bare any mistakes or poor choices that were made, not for political “point scoring” but to learn from them. Most of all I hope to create the space for meaningful discussion and evaluation of the most significant global event we all lived through.
How do I intend to approach each of the three investigations?
I have drawn up a provisional plan detailing how I intend to approach each of the investigations. The plan for each investigation has a dedicated subpage, linked below:
What deliverables will I produce?
For each investigation I will produce a report that consolidates the answer I have reached with respect to that specific question. Each report will be accompanied by a slide deck presentation that I will create and deliver in a webinar format.
I will try to be as transparent as possible with the underlying analyses and correspondence. I hope to make all of these publicly available, although it is conceivable that I may be provided with some information that is sensitive in nature which cannot be shared.
I want to be realistic about timescales and so I have set myself the deadlines below, although please note that I provide additional context in my provisional plan for each investigation:
Investigation 1: All deliverables to be produced within 12 months of my election
Investigation 2: All deliverables to be produced within 18 months of my election
Investigation 3: All deliverables to be produced within 24 months of my election