AT THE MERCY OF TWO DATA PROBLEMS.

Coming soon from a Canadian government near you: more data. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, having balked at the idea of releasing data and projections on the COVID-19 disaster, now plans to provide at least some essential facts as early as Friday. In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford — who earlier implied that releasing the data could “cause panic” — now says his province’s data and modelling will be released.

It is long past time. In a column on this page last week I wrote that it was unacceptable for Canadian governments, but especially the prime minister, to shut down economic activity and take control of people’s daily lives without providing answers to key questions. “Trudeau is effectively shuffling responsibility offstage. It is unacceptable for politicians to download the reasons and background details for their unprecedented decisions onto unidentified scientists, experts and top researchers.”

It would be wise, however, to curb any enthusiasm that we are on the brink of getting a wide-open and clear factual exploration of the models and assumptions that government consulted before deciding to strangle the Canadian economy to protect the population from a killer virus. A full and frank exposition of the facts should not be expected from governments that have already adopted massive and unprecedented interventions into the economic and daily lives of every individual. The need to justify actions taken to date is likely to take precedent over a balanced review of the science and the options.

There’s another reason for skepticism about the coming data release, and that’s the nature of the scientific information at the heart of all the decisions that governments have taken to date. The unfortunate fact is that Canada and the world are at the mercy of two scientific professions that deploy computer modelling that may or may not be dependable as guides to massive state intervention.

The leading science behind the COVID-19 effort is epidemiology. The second is economics. Neither discipline should be counted on to provide solid forecasts on the future course of life and death or GDP growth. Both fields are hotbeds of conflict and contradiction. Yet both are now being called on by politicians to justify their actions.

The epidemiological science battle, crucial to policy, has yet to be resolved. Exactly how deadly COVID-19 might be remains unknown due to insufficient testing of the population. The science data and real-life experience to date point in many directions. Much of it is speculative and impenetrable.

One illustration of the clash of perspectives is the work of the Imperial College London, whose scientific modelling on the impact of COVID-19 has influenced many governments, including the United Kingdom and the United States. Canadian governments have never released the source of their coronavirus fatality rates and other projections, but the Imperial College has to be a major influence, especially with its claims that COVID-19 deaths could hit 510,000 in the U.K. and 2.2 million in the U.S. No number for Canada has ever been released.

But the modelling work behind the Imperial College projections has been called into question on many issues. A competing paper from epidemiologists at Oxford implied that the Imperial death toll may be wildly off base. Who’s right may not be decided for some time, mainly because it is apparently impossible to review the models.

A Wall Street Journal commentary Thursday by the Global Warming Policy Forum — a climate skeptic organization — noted that the scientists at the Imperial College have yet to reveal the computer code behind their dire forecast model. According to the Journal, the head of the study, Prof. Neil Ferguson, “has said that the computer code is 13 years old and thousands of lines of it ‘undocumented,’ making it hard for anyone to work with, let alone take it apart to identify potential errors.”

For Canadians, one question would be whether health and policy officials used the Imperial College work as a foundational justification for locking down the economy. Related is that the basis for economic action lacks solid testing of infection rates, death rates and immunity levels of the COVID-19 virus. As noted here the other day, Trudeau’s Chief Science Advisor, Mona Nemer, said Canada needs to randomly test at least one per cent of the population — more than 300,000 Canadians — to get an accurate reading on whether COVID-19 is as lethal as the headline numbers suggest.

We will see if that point is clear when Ottawa and Ontario release their data and projections.

Even more contentious is the science of economic forecasting, a notorious mug’s game. As the COVID-19 economic policy onslaught has been announced, daily pillages of federal and provincial treasuries are taking place without even pretending to forecast the impact on the economy. What is the economic cost of $200 billion in new debt and billions in Bank of Canada stimulus?

My guess is that the national shutdown of just about every business outside of grocery stores and video-streaming services has been ordered without so much as computer model run. In Ottawa — and at the Bank of Canada — fiscal and monetary policy are being imposed via a giant Staples red button that says “PRINT MONEY.”

There are few hard facts and zero certainty behind the epidemiological models used to evaluate the coronavirus risks, though it has obviously had a devastating impact in some areas.

The economic science modelling behind the global economic shutdown has not even been attempted.

That’s where we are now in Canada. Whether we will know more will depend on how much data Ottawa and the provinces are willing to reveal.