I have been thinking about the story of Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist who became known as Prof Lockdown.
I feel sorry for Ferguson. I doubt he wanted to be in the public eye. The attention this pandemic has given him had already required that he rather publicly admit to what he thought to be an error in his work, which he corrected because he thought it in the public interest to do so.
Now he's been caught out taking about as much risk as I do every time I go to Tesco and been pilloried for it.
But what I could not understand was why the story took so long to break. Why was it out on Tuesday, which happened to be the day when the UK became the country with the most Covid-19 deaths in Europe, and became second only to the US in the world in this regard?
And why too did it happen the day before Boris Johnson began to suggest lockdown would be ending - which Paul Mason is already saying it virtually has done as a result, at least in London?
None of this stacks when the media - or the sources that provided this story to the media - apparently knew about Ferguson's activities by 8 April? Surely that does not make sense?
Unless it does of course, because I don't believe in cock-ups, but I do in conspiracies. So let me speculate. And I stress, this is just speculation.
To begin, some background thinking. Three thoughts here. First, if I can reach the conclusions I published on Tuesday about the potentially disastrous future for our economy then I am not alone in doing so. Someone around the government can too. And they, too, can reach the conclusion that this will be disastrous for their backers in finance and the property markets.
Second, the government is desperate to end lockdown and its hands on involvement in the economy, which goes against every instinct it has, but cannot do so unless the ‘science' that they claim to be following changes.
Third, Johnson (and / or Cummings) are now willing to stake all on a radical change of policy that is entirely outside the international consensus of opinion, knowing that if they do not there is no good end game for them in this situation. They have literally decided to ‘go for broke' which takes them back to where they were in February and Johnson's speech of 3 February when he was contemptuous of the already developing norms on this crisis.
I am, then expecting, really quite radical policy developments if Johnson / Cummings think there is any chance that this is possible over the next few weeks. But to do that I have to second guess the assumptions that they are making. I think that the government now hopes or believes that:
1) The Covid-19 death rate is falling heavily now, even though as yet there is no public evidence to rationally support that claim. They know other deaths are rising, but they'll blame the public for that for being to frightened to go to A&E when they should have done. Not all the excess deaths are their fault, they will claim, but they are obliged to stop them and that justifies radical action to stop them when Covid deaths will, they will say, be falling. This claim will be pivotal to their argument;
2) The number of people who have had Covid-19 is far higher than previously thought. Indeed, in some places they might even think half the population have had the disease, even though testing cannot prove that, and the vast majority will be asymptomatic and so unaware of this claimed fact;
3) The rate of reinfection (the so-called R0 ratio) of Covid 19 is now well below 1 in some areas, largely because so many have, they think, already had it, and again even though there has been far too little testing to prove that - and the number of tests is actually falling;
Which means that I suspect that they even think that:
4) Outside care homes, herd immunity is going to be reached very soon and death rates will be tumbling;
5) In care homes those who are dying would have done so sometime soon anyway, so that in fact by the end of the year they'll be claiming overall death rates weren't really that bad from Covid-19 after all, it's just deaths of those who were going to die this year all got clustered around April. This is, of course, close to an opinion Cummings is reputed to have held in March;
6) Lockdown, furlough and loan schemes must end because the government are terrified of growing government debt, which is the perennial fear of Tory governments.
I could add a seventh, which is:
7) They think they can find some of their staff and / or academics to support this theory, very soon. In other words, they are pretty sure that they can claim ‘the science has changed', which is a pre-condition for change,
What are the consequences? Again, these are my guesses.
First, on Sunday Johnson will proclaim the beginning of the end of lockdown. We'll be able to go out more. We may be able to mingle in small groups. Small shops will re-open. As will churches, because they matter to Tories. And Johnson will be sung to the rafters by his MPs : it's already happening in the Tory press this morning who have already, in effect, announced social distancing to be over. Watch those street parties on Friday!
And thereafter the move towards ending lockdown will be quite rapid. The government's great hope is that the Covid death rate falls next week and then again the week after, even if excess deaths do not. And if they do they will then claim the crisis is over and that lockdown can be ended as fast as possible, and should so that, they will argue, the NHS can get back to normal operations as quickly as possible, which will be impossible otherwise, whether that is true or not (and with 6,000 new Covid cases a day right now, I think not).
There is, however, a political problem. People have been told to expect this to last a very long time. And they have been told social distancing must go on until we have a vaccine. And the threat was that unless we all obeyed those rules (and most of us have) then the outcomes would be horrible. But now they want to say otherwise for fear that government debt will rise. And to justify this they are going to come up with the most amazing claim.
The story will not be that lockdown worked.
The story will be that the herd immunity policy worked.
And that, in fact, we never needed lockdown after all.
What will be said is that not only could Neil Ferguson not follow the rules. He also could not do stats. And it will be said that his first model was right and his second model was wrong. And his behaviour showed that this was his opinion too: lockdowns never was needed, which is why he did not comply with it.
Of course it will be accepted that we suffered excess deaths. But, it will be said, so did everyone. And it will still be claimed that international comparisons do not work. But it will be added that the unfortunate fact was that some people, most of whom were old, could not survive this virus, and that this is true of most viruses. We know this is the Cummings view.
But it will then be claimed that under scientific pressure the government over-reacted. And the excess deaths also happened because medics thought they had to ventilate people when that wasn't needed. But overall, all this virus did was kill some people who would in the main have died anyway. Plus some brave NHS workers who tried to help those who were always going to die.
In effect, Neil Ferguson will take the blame. That is what he has been framed for now. The story will be that he got his revised model horribly wrong. It will be said that he had in fact predicted major pandemics with significant excess deaths before now, and he got them wrong too. And so the government was wrong to ever take heed of him.
It will, in fact be said that the government's policy in February and early March was right and we should have followed the Swedish model (even though deaths there now exceed other Nordic states).
But the result is that the government now can, of course, end lockdown because the worst, by far, is over. Ot, at least, that is what will be said.
And the excuse will be that the government has said it always followed the science and still is. It had always done what it dictated. But what will now be said is that new science has been found. The science it followed was wrong. And it will say that as a result we should be free to get on with life again. I suspect that will happen, almost entirely, by 1 June.
Of course, I may be wrong. All this speculation, because one man has been shafted, may be a little excessive. And that may be the case.
But alternatively, it could be just what they plan to do, and say.
There is, though, a problem for the government in all this. I have a concern, and it's one that a great many will share when this government's data is already widely mistrusted. And that is that there will be a spike in infection and a great many more deaths will follow shortly thereafter, with a strong wave 2 lockdown then happening. And right now I cannot see how anyone can say that will not happen. Infection rates are rising in countries that have come out from lockdown, even very slightly.
But my belief is that they might risk this and then wait to see what happens. Because they know that whatever happens, if lockdown does not end they, or rather the interests that they represent, are ruined. And that means that they are willing to gamble on ending it, whatever the consequences.
The risk in this is apparent: the relationship between a government and the people it governs is one of trust. And I am beginning to wonder for how long that relationship might survive, most especially if this is tried. But again, now they have their backs against the wall the government are willing to stake hundreds of thousands of lives on their political instinct for survival. They think they now have no choice. For them this is a one way bet.
My advice to HMG right now? I think they are planning to play a very reckless game. I wouldn't do it if I was them. But we do not share mindsets. And I think my speculation is closer to the plan than I would wish that it might be.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“And they have been told social distancing must go on until we have a virus. ”
Vaccination?
Corrected, thanks
[…] the Bank knows that the government is planning to go for rapid release of lockdown for the reasons I have speculated on this morning. This is, in fact, now […]
“There is, however, a political problem. People have been told to expect this to last a very long time. And they have been told social distancing must go on until we have a virus. And the threat was that unless we all obeyed those rules (and most of us have) then the outcomes would be horrible. But now they want to say otherwise for fear that government debt will rise. And to justify this they are going to come up with the most amazing claim.”
Virus = Vaccine?
Correction ? No need to post
Corrected – and thanks!
Churches matter to a lot ot people irrespective of their politics.
That was a cheap shot.
I am aware that churches matter
But it was not a cheap shot in political terms – because the Tories play on this
This is all completely bonkers. I don’t know what to think.
There are scientists (apparently mainstream types) claiming that the lockdown measures weren’t helpful, that the disease will spread as it will and the people in countries with stricter lockdowns will get the disease sooner or later. So who knows? I don’t feel like I have the knowledge to make any kind of intelligent assessment about that. (for example the UnHerd YouTube channel has a broad range of interviews that include pro and anti lockdown views including Ferguson.)
The idea that Ferguson is a fall guy to support the government’s risk taking in the interests of preserving the current order sounds entirely plausible. The media and government are spinning yarns with the intention of controlling the public’s perception.
A big problem is, how do those of us with enquiring minds, figure out what is really going on (if such a thing even exists) and what should the response be?
Will people decide to act with caution? I fear the pressure to get back to work, to allay fears of financial ruin, will be too great, unless there is a massive sense of unity about it. I am already asking myself if I will resist going back to my workplace when the government recklessly abandons the lockdown.
And a second wave might be around the corner, we’ll have to watch the countries that are ahead of us.
It is bonkers, I agree
But I am trying to speculate on what those most bonkers might do
Clearly, myself and others are most interested and grateful for those speculations.
Minor point of detail, and to the media who misuse terms.
R0 is the free reproduction number of an infectious disease in the absence of intervention.
Rt is the time modified rate with interventions and increasing population immunity.
From a 2019 Nature article, prior to CoVid19:- “The basic reproductive number (R0) is a fundamental measure used to quantify the transmission potential of an epidemic in public health practice. However, R0 cannot reflect the time-varying nature of an epidemic. A time-varying effective reproductive number Rt can provide more information because it tracks the subsequent evolution of transmission.” https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55574-0
I knew that was weak and forgot to go back in the time available to improve it
Thanks!
A very plausible scenario, but one that raises a further spectre of an elephant in the room, to mix metaphors: what happens if the Scottish Government refuse to go along with this (as would be my guess will be th case.) The Tories – and above all the press – would not tolerate having thei narrative challenged so close to home, what might they not do as a result? Dissolve the Scottish Parliament? I wouldn’t put it past them. At the very least, cut off funding… and as ever with the terminal short-sightedness of the politics of greed, it may well lead to the opposite outcome than their desired one. That coud be the spur which finally drives the wish for independence to critical mass.
This is a very important dimension
I see Common Weal are not happy this morning…
You’ve speculated, so shall I. They might get away with it and end up smelling of roses. They will then proceed to totally dismantle and flog off the NHS with most of the media cheering them on. The future looks pretty scary and I wonder if all those ex labour voters who gave them that huge majority are having any second thoughts about this.
And that is possible
And they know that
Which is why they will take the gamble, because it’s the only option they’ll think they have got
The science has not changed at all. There are always scientists with different ideas. It is a community of different people. What has changed in the last couple of months is more observations and more data.
The PM would be a brave man to announce any substantial changes before the ONS numbers on Tuesday (unless he has a sneak preview). Excess deaths in the week to 24 April were still running around 12,000 per week above usual. The reported COVID death numbers peaked around 14-18 April at about 1000 per day, and have fallen about 100 per week since then (down to around 650 per day now – roughly one person dying every 2 minute of this disease: how casually we talk about that, how shocked we were when it reached 100 and then 200 per day) so there should be another gentle decline in excess deaths in the week to 1 May. The recovery has been very slow. Even if we stay as we are, it will be another month or two before we are back to anything like a normal rate of deaths.
In case we forget, the reason we locked down was the concern that death rates would be catastrophically worse (yes, worse even that this poor result) if cases suddenly spiked so our health service was overwhelmed. We will have the Nightingale hospitals (for what they are worth) so perhaps now is the time to start loosening the restrictions a little, like they are in other countries. Can can always turn up the dial again if we need to, but the three week lag between taking action and seeing results makes that a dangerous thing.
They are relying solely on Covid deaths
Not excess deaths
I made that distinction deliberately
I suspect the Covid deaths alone are down…
I can’t say why
I would just mention that the UK does not have the highest number of Covid-19 deaths PER CAPITA. (And I apologise for the capitals but there is no other way to denote emphasis). According to Worldometer which, I believe, gets its figures from John Hopkins University, if you take the population into account the UK is just north of average at (yesterday) 443 per million. The US is lower at 226. Sweden is 291 and, as you say, considerably worse that their Scandinavian neighbours. Other factors have to be taken into account such as density of population.
India’s is just over 1 per million, so go figure!
That’s been really weird. Some places look to have been fine and then got thumped very hard very suddenly. Russia (with very strict house arrest) for example. Maybe proximity to China is a factor? India like you say is, for now, really counter intuitive.
Unless India has a treatment or hetd immunity somehow.
Even on those COVID deaths per capita figures – which need to be taken with two large pinches of salt – the UK is still the sixth worst in the world, after Italy, Spain, Andorra, Belgium, and San Marino.
Ignoring San Marino (essentially a small piece of the badly affected area in Northern Italy) and Andorra (essentially a small piece of northern Spain) that leaves the UK fourth (443 per million) after Spain, Italy and Belgium (respectively 495, 558 and 726 per million). But somewhat worse than France (395).
Hardly a ringing endorsement.
If you believe it, the US is 228 per million; in China and India, it is single figures, 3 and 1.
Well if we believe the Worldometer numbers, how about Vietnam, 100 million people, land border with China. No deaths. Also impressive, Taiwan 29 million people, 6 deaths, Hong Kong 9 million densely packed plus land border with China, 4 deaths. Australia New Zealand got it right too. Most of Europe and US, despite plenty of warning, complete incompetence!
We do, of course, have to believe the data but I am suspecting it has some correlation with the facts
Bear in mind that the Belgian figures show deaths which are presumed to be due to Covid-19. A test is not required. Therefore, if one person dies in a care home and has a positive test for Covid-19, it is presumed that deaths in the care home in subsequent weeks with similar symptoms are also due to the virus and they are added to the figures.
It is why their numbers look so bad – they are likely to actually be much closer to the Belgian overall mortality figures when available. Not a yawning gap between confirmed Covid-19 deaths and overall mortality such as our own numbers.
That really is the issue with the Worldometer numbers. The figures from many countries are calculated so differently to others, comparison is all but meaningless.
It seems likely to me that the UK hospital deaths numbers will continue to fall substantially but it will keep on rolling through the care sector for some time. We saw persistent high numbers of deaths in Italy and Spain after the peak and I don’t see any reason that our figures should fall rapidly in comparison.
Sound speculation, I agree.
Small point, in #3 you should have written ‘R’ not ‘R0’
R0 is the initial value at time zero before any intervention. It does not change.
R is the value that changes as interventions (hopefully) take their effect
More at https://biffvernon.blogspot.com/2020/05/coronavirus-26.html
Accepted
Hmmmm…. if you are right that would explain the the Telegraph running the Ferguson story the way they did……
Except Sturgeon yesterday said it was not time to relax it here in Scotland and there are reports that Polis Scotland are preparing to man the borders and turn away English drivers thinking the relaxation in England means they can come to Scotland. IOW we will close our border.
With England leaving the EU and iScotland in the EU there would have to be a harder border. A poll last year asked people in Scotland about this and over 70% were in favour of it. So don’t expect much pushback here in Scotland if we do close our border. BTW polls also show only about 30% of folk are Never Surrender hard core Unionists. The rest are either Yes or potentially persuadable to Yes. So the 70% figure is not that surprising. It also indicates that 30% is the maximum any hardcore Unionist party (Tories) could get in Scotland. Note the SNP are polling around 54% in the constituencies for Holyrood elections. They are likely to pretty much sweep the board giving them a majority there and then before List votes are counted.
A virus closed border will look bad to many in England but good to the vast majority here in Scotland. Sturgeon’s handling of the virus has wide public support. She has copied Jacinda Ardern in NZ with daily honest and frank public briefings flanked by various health/police persons.
Contrast with the denial of reality from No10.
Note I am no particular fan of Sturgeon’s, I along with many in the wider Yes movement see her as the prime impediment to independence by her slavish adherence to No answers from No10 over a Section 30 order. So I’m not saying this out of some starry eyed devotion, just credit where it is due. I may still have to spoil my ballots next year.