If lockdown is to continue, we should be trusted to know the reasons why
With so much riding on scientific advice, No10 should explain the logic behind its decisions
It’s unfair to blame Professor Neil Ferguson. He never asked for such power over our lives: he was asked for his opinion and gave it. His charts showed that school closures, social distancing, washing hands – nothing would do enough to impact the spread of the virus. Only a full lockdown, ran his argument, would crush the Covid growth rate – and it would do so almost overnight. Why was the professor so sure? There was no real time to ask, or explain. Advisers advise, ministers decide and the Prime Minister decided to take the advice of this particular adviser.
But now, it’s perhaps time to ask more questions about how we ended up here. At the time, Prof Ferguson was using models – or educated guesswork. Now we have all too much data, with the heaviest death toll in Europe. Enough to ask: what has lockdown achieved? Which parts worked, and which did not? Some epidemiologists now argue that Britain’s outcome – more deaths than anyone else in Europe – has shown the world that lockdown failed. Where is the evidence to disprove this?
So far, Britain has been engaged in what might be called black-box democracy: huge decisions being taken, on advice which is largely kept secret. We’re typically told that a policy is “guided by the best scientific understanding”, but there’s not much chance to scrutinise it. A committee of scientific advisers comes up with research and options, passes documents to No10 where decisions are taken. The advice might be emphatic, or full of caveats. It could be brilliant, or contain glaring omissions. There’s no real way of anyone outside No 10 knowing.
This secrecy is understandable in a crisis, where urgency is needed and there’s no time for debate. But when the worst of an emergency passes – as it has now in Britain – there’s a case for a return to democratic norms. With so much now riding on scientific advice, a case for sharing more of the logic.
For example: what’s stopping the schools going back? Dominic Raab said recently that, if they did, it would trigger a second spike in the virus. Does he have research to this effect? The Foreign Secretary might very well be right, but other studies have shown school closures having a minimal impact on the spread of the virus. Has this changed? And would it really hurt to share the evidence with us?
Then, the NHS. How many hospital beds lie unoccupied? Many countries publish these figures regularly to explain the Covid response. People want to know if the healthcare system risks being overwhelmed – or dangerously underused. The UK figure is calculated every morning, but is not made public – although Westminster insiders can normally find it out. As of 8am yesterday, 39 per cent of NHS beds were empty – about four times above what’s normal for this time of year. Such figures ought to be made public daily and discussed. What’s happening to those who would otherwise be lying in them?
There is also concern in parliament about the quality of Prof Ferguson’s modelling and the extent to which the work of his group at Imperial College London is relied on. One of Imperial’s specialities is estimating the rate at which the virus grows – or the so-called R-number. On March 30, it published this for several countries and said its figure for Sweden was high because it had rejected lockdown. Last week, Sweden published values for its R-number every day for the last few weeks. It bore almost no resemblance to Imperial’s calculations.
How accurate were Imperial’s calculations about Britain? This matters not because of recrimination – back then, guesswork was all anyone had. But it’s still unclear what evidence is being used to judge things now. A new University of East Anglia study surveys 30 European countries and finds, to the surprise of the authors, that stay-at-home orders might be the least effective tool. School closures emerge as the most effective.
The basic rationale for lockdown – better safe than sorry – was enough for me. Stay at home, avoid getting (or spreading) the lurgy: all simple enough. But a New York study has found that, contrary to expectations, key workers going into the city every day are no more likely to be hospitalised by the virus. Most of the new patients say they’ve been staying at home.
“That surprised me,” said Andrew Cuomo, the state governor, who commissioned the study. He has also published the results of antibody tests showing that a fifth of the city’s residents had had the virus. In Britain, the results of such tests remain confidential.
If backbench MPS are frustrated at the lack of transparency, they should spare a thought for Government ministers who feel just as much in the dark. Power currently rests in an inner core of ministers – Rishi Sunak, Michael Gove, Matt Hancock and the Prime Minister. The so-called ‘outer’ Cabinet members feel as if they are constantly playing sleuth, trying to find out what their departments need to know.
For example, the R-number – which No10 now says will decide the future of lockdown – is currently calculated twice a week. But only rarely is it shared with ministers. A few weeks ago, when it came up in Cabinet, those not admitted to the inner core started texting each other (a perk of Zoom meetings) asking what on earth “the R” meant. It was an illustration of how tightly No10 has been holding even basic information.
On Sunday, the Prime Minister will describe his route out of lockdown. An odd day for such an announcement. Would it have been so much worse to make this statement in parliament on Monday? He could take questions from MPS, who have no end of questions. The country is still pretty firmly behind him, so publishing the scientific advice would not weaken his position. As he told his Cabinet yesterday, it would be reckless to risk a return of the virus. But there’s more he can do to help us understand that risk.
The battle against Covid is, fundamentally, a battle to understand. It’s a battle that will be more likely to be won if more information is shared and more people are engaged in the struggle.