Why is the media still swallowing Ferguson’s lockdown nonsense?

Professor Neil Ferguson, whose notorious modelling predicting more than a quarter of a million deaths in a voluntary social distancing scenario prompted the UK lockdown on March 23, was at it again on Wednesday.

Despite resigning in disgrace at the start of May after being caught breaking lockdown to host his married lover, he was back in Parliament asserting to the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee that if the Government had locked down a week earlier, the death toll would be less than half what it is now.

‘The epidemic was doubling every three to four days before lockdown interventions were introduced,’ he told MPs, and later the BBC. ‘So, had we introduced lockdown measures a week earlier, we would have reduced the final death toll by at least a half.’

This claim has been repeated as though gospel in much of the media, especially the BBC, who made it their lead news story, with almost no critical scrutiny – leaving Ross Clark at the Spectator wondering why journalists are failing in their basic duty to question what they are being told.

He said: ‘All through the Covid-19 crisis we have been poorly served by broadcasters, who have leapt on every hyperbolic paper or statement by Imperial College without looking more widely at the scientific evidence.’

Although Ferguson candidly admitted to MPs that he was ‘second-guessing at this point’, he nonetheless – in what must surely be taken as a signal of the man’s tenuous relationship with evidence – went on to claim that ‘certainly had we introduced (lockdown) earlier, we would have seen many fewer deaths.’

Certain second guesses seem to be Professor Ferguson’s speciality. Yet the media lap it up, no questions asked. It’s like they want to be in lockdown, or want to believe it’s all been worth it, that it’s achieved something important. Is the greatest fear now that it was all for nothing, that it made little or no difference? Is that why Professor Ferguson’s certain second-guessing is received so uncritically?

Yet it is not difficult to see that Ferguson’s claim cannot be correct. Here’s the graph of Covid-19 deaths in London hospitals (smoothed using a seven-day rolling average):

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

The peak is April 6 and it slows down well before that, so there is no way infections could still have been doubling every three to four days on March 23, as Ferguson told MPs.

Even allowing the lowest estimate of average interval between infection and death of 14 days, that puts the infection peak on March 23, with the slowdown in the week leading up to it.

Furthermore, the brief period of exponential growth early on decays into linear growth (so not doubling every few days) on March 24, which corresponds to a slowdown in infections from March 10 at the latest. Thus the claim that infections were doubling every three to four days up to lockdown on March 23 has no basis in the data whatsoever. They had slowed down in London nearly two weeks earlier.

Why, it has to be asked, can we see this here in front of our eyes through the cunning use of an Excel spreadsheet, yet our de facto State epidemiologist can carry on making baseless claims about doubling infection rates up to lockdown? Where is the basic level of curiosity amongst scientists and journalists about the single most consequential scientific model of our time?

The truth is there is no evidence that lockdowns and social distancing have made any impact on the coronavirus epidemic at all. The signals for these measures just don’t show up in the data.

As numerous analysts have pointed out, the R number curves and death curves in different countries are very similar no matter what interventions are introduced or when they are brought in.

There are no sharp drop-offs, such as might be expected from severe social distancing measures. All death curves decline steadily over the course of about two months after the peak, with new infections continuing to appear throughout despite lockdown.

No second spikes have yet appeared in countries that have begun easing restrictions. The overall death tolls show no sign of correlating with early social distancing measures.

This is a strong indication that the virus does not spread so much in the community as in hospitals, care homes and private homes – contexts not affected by the lockdown. It is also an indication that it has run its course in most countries (though perhaps not those which sealed their borders quickly) despite the measures taken, and that it has reached a collective immunity threshold much lower than expected, owing to pre-existing resistance in the population.

All these things are becoming clear to those who care to look. But not to Professor Ferguson, and not to the Government and its scientific advisers, and not to the media. I used to believe that humans were a rational species. Now I’m not so sure.

First published in Conservative Woman.

2 thoughts on “Why is the media still swallowing Ferguson’s lockdown nonsense?

Add yours

  1. Many words have yet to be spilled on the flawed analysis and panic reaction of the government which precipitated the March lockdown. Professor Ferguson is doubling down and getting his defence in early for the part he played: at this point it’s still more about presentation and propaganda than the kind of detailed look at the figures we have seen on this site. And it’s no surprise that the MSM which has played a central role in the propaganda effort which drove the nation to accept lockdown is also doubling down alongside him.

    There is a case for saying that, at the moment when lockdown was introduced, the figures which had just started to reveal a downturn in the infection curve might have been masking a truly dangerous trajectory: they could have been a chance dip which would soon be strongly reversed. It could be argued that making the wrong call at that pivotal moment was not a risk we could afford to take. And virtually every country was making much the same decision. However, Ferguson is not making this case; he doesn’t even acknowledge that the figures were already turning down.

    And he’s a lucky man because there doesn’t seem to be one mainstream journalist who has actually been curious enough to look at the figures, open minded enough to accept what they were indicating, and courageous enough publicly to present them to Ferguson and challenge him as to his reasoning.

    And so a flawed narrative continued to drive lockdown far past any point when there could be the slightest excuse for keeping it going. Economic and social damage will have been compounded every day of that senseless delay. And, should Covid-19 yet have a deadly mutation up its sleeve, nicely timed for the approaching winter, what state will we be in to deal with it? No one doubts we are severely weakened by such a prolonged lockdown. So let’s hope our good luck holds. Because we should be in no doubt: Covid-19 has smiled on us so far compared with what it could have delivered. What a pity we didn’t recognise our good fortune and put ourselves in far better readiness to cope with something much worse which could always come upon us at any time.

    The whole wretched mess does indeed start to present a picture of a nation which has lost its powers of reason.

    Like

  2. Also, the now revealed SAGE minutes show that at no point did Ferguson call for lockdown to be implemented earlier than it was.
    It’s possible that Ferguson’s science is driven by his politics. Even so, the government should have taken advice from a number of sources, possibly even from an epidemiologist..?
    The whole sorry episode has exposed Johnson for the weak man that he is. Here was his “Falkland’s moment”, and he blew it. He must be the only ever PM with an 80 seat majority who is a dead man walking. I fully expect him to cave in on Brexit too and extend the transition period.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Andy Dan Cancel 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.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑