If the models were wrong, why are we in lockdown?

Back in the pre-covid era, whenever a tabloid devoted its front page to news of the “latest model”, readers could expect something salacious. An ageing MP’S “close friendship” with a young aspiring actress, perhaps? Or gossip about the love life of the latest catwalk star.

These days, the “latest model” makes headlines across all types of newspapers. But the articles are more frightening than fun. For mathematical models, built by faceless scientists across Whitehall and academia, have lately been used to generate terrifying predictions of Covid hospital admissions and deaths.

Such models, and the boffins who build them, have been driving the Government’s approach to tackling this virus. Why the return to national lockdown last week? Because of official scientific advisers citing blood-curdling forecasts of Covidrelated carnage.

Back in September, Sir Patrick Vallance and Prof Chris Whitty, the UK’S Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer respectively, presented what was later dubbed their “doom graph” at a Downing Street press conference.

Their modelling showed Covid-19 cases “doubling every seven days”, resulting in a predicted 50,000 new cases every day by mid-october. No other scenario was presented. In the event, despite ever more testing, cases were barely a third of that.

Going into this latest lockdown, Vallance and Whitty were at it again, warning that by December, more than 4,000 people could die each day from Covid-19 – four times higher than the April peak of this pandemic. This new doom graph, unveiled at yet another Downing Street press conference, drove countless “4,000-deaths-a-day” headlines. It was Exhibit A as Boris Johnson tried to justify a renewed lockdown, having previously ruled it out.

It soon became clear, though, that the modelling work behind this latest horror graphic was already a month out of date when it was paraded on prime-time television. During that month, Covid-19 cases and deaths had been much lower than the model predicted. So why was it still being used?

To hit 4,000 daily deaths by December, under the same model, Covid fatalities would have needed to be at 1,000 a day by early this month, the time of the pre-lockdown press conference.

The actual number was little more than one quarter of that.

Clearly, some 250 deaths per day represent much grief and tragedy for the families concerned. But the figure also suggests this so-called “second wave”, far from peaking at a death rate four times higher than in April, is set to be less severe.

A few days into lockdown, the Vallance/ Whitty modelling fell apart completely. Official predictions that had pushed the country into a second lockdown were quietly revised so that projected deaths no longer outstripped the 1,000-a-day April peak. This is vitally important, and not just in terms of immediate human suffering. Because when we had around 1,000 deaths for a few days during early April, the NHS coped – even without the aid of the temporary Nightingale hospitals.

So if “4,000 deaths a day” is nonsense, and official forecasts of the second wave are now below what we saw in the spring, again, there’s no danger of the NHS being overwhelmed. And that raises very serious questions indeed about why we are now back in lockdown.

Parliament is finally stirring.

Yes, the House of Commons passed these new restrictions with a large majority last week, but there was stern questioning of “the science” by some notable rebels.

“The first lockdown was triggered by modelling from Imperial College that was grossly inaccurate,” boomed Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the influential 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers. “And this second one appears to be predicated on implausible projections of Covid deaths in the coming weeks.”

Another backbench broadside came from Theresa May, last seen in tears at a lectern outside Downing Street. The former prime minister has since regained her poise. “The 4,000 deathsa-day prediction was wrong before it was even used,” May told the Tory front bench. “It looks like figures are being chosen to support the policy, rather than the policy being based on the figures.”

She went on, urging ministers

“to assess the costs of lockdown, in terms of non-covid deaths due to a lack of NHS treatment, domestic abuse, mental health, possibly more suicides and, of course, the costs to the economy – jobs lost, livelihoods shattered, businesses failing, whole sectors damaged”.

It was a powerful intervention, by a politician with personal scores to settle, yes, but who may yet have big political cards to play.

The Prime Minister walked out of the Chamber while his predecessor was speaking – a move that may come back to bite him.

♦ Join us on our metaphorical rocket of right thinking, our capsule of common sense, by listening to the Planet Normal podcast – out every Thursday. It’s free – at telegraph.co.uk/planetnormal or via itunes, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts