----- Original Message -----
From: Nicola Morris
To: Francis Marlow
Cc: Lord Whitty
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: Reply to letter re LLI final report- letter to Mrs Beckett 31 July 2002

Dear Mr Marlow
Several points
Error in number of virus positive cases
If the figure of 1153 is not disputed then using  the correct heading  of ' % of confirmed cases subject to laboratory test  which tested positive for  virus' the percentages quoted in the the Lessons to be Learned Inquiry report (172-173) are wrong and the error should be brought to Parliament's attention as soon as possible. Certainly before the Animal Health Bill is debated in the Lords.
The percentages included on pages 172 and 173 are for all cases which tested positive. Of the cases testing posive 171 did not test positive for virus - they were positive for antibodies and negative for virus.
So obviously the percentages have been inflated.
Incidentally, why was the correct heading not used?   (ie   ' % of confirmed cases subject to laboratory test  which tested positive for  virus' )
Delays in slaughter    
Judging from your reply it is correct to say that the true delays in slaughter are not accurately recorded in the NAO or LLI report. As they refer to date of confirmation not the date of infection. When considering the spread of disease and the impact of delays in slaughter it is the day the farm became infected which is relevant.
Start date of the epidemic
Why have you not tackled this issue ?
Please explain how France and The Netherlands were infected by UK sheep if Hexham Market did not become infected until 13/02/01 ?
Calculation of Ro
Why have you not tackled this issue ?
Can I assume my figures are correct because if they are Dr Anderson must change his conclusions.
He stated that Ro was 1.2  before contiguous cull was implemented
DEFRA has calculated that Ro was <1 when contiguous cull was implemented ( this is based on the figure of 1153 virus positive premises which you say is not disputed and does also include 171 antibody positive cases).
Therefore, the correct data does not support Dr Andersons conclusion that the pre-emptive slaughter policy as implemented was  justified.
So we are back to the begining some of the data in the LLI report contradicts the data presented to EFRA select committee and PQs therefore Parliament, Dr Anderson, NAO have been misled and the situation must be rectified.
In view of the urgency of the situation (debate in House of Lords 8/9 October), we look forward to a speedy reply to this e-mail, including an explanation of how the errors in the LLI and NAO reports will be brought to the attention of Parliament.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Nicola Morris

See also the letter sent by Mrs Morris to MPs and Peers.