----- Original Message -----
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.
Explanation
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