Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the reduction in cases, hospitalisations and deaths “has not been achieved by the vaccination programme”. Rather, he claimed, “it’s the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement in the pandemic and in the figures that we’re seeing”. While the lockdown may have had some impact on the epidemic’s trajectory, we should be very sceptical of the Prime Minister’s claim.
First, as Will Jones pointed out yesterday in Lockdown Sceptics, there are several US states where numbers fell dramatically in the absence of any lockdown: Florida, Texas, Georgia, South Dakota, South Carolina and Mississippi. And to this list, one could add Sweden. As shown below, the trajectory of deaths per million in Sweden is strikingly similar to that in the UK, even though the country has never gone into lockdown. (It should be noted, of course, that measures not based on age-adjusted excess mortality can be misleading.)
These examples do not show that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic’s trajectory. But they do show that lockdowns are not necessary for case and death numbers to decline. Hence it is wrong to assume that, if numbers decline after a lockdown is introduced, it must have been the lockdown that caused the decline. (It might have been, but this cannot simply be assumed.)
Second, the most convincing study of the UK’s lockdowns of which I am aware (now published in Biometrics) concludes that each one was introduced only after the corresponding peak of fatal infections.
In particular, the statistician Simon Wood sought to reconstruct the actual time course of infections in England, based on available data. He notes that reported case numbers are subject to various forms of bias (e.g. non-representative samples, changes in the amount and type of testing) and that “under normal circumstances” statisticians would not “recommend attempting to estimate the effective reproduction number of the pathogen from such data”.
As an alternative, Wood used hospital death numbers (which, though imperfect, are less comprised than case numbers). In order to reconstruct the time course of infections, he combined these with the distribution of fatal disease durations (i.e., the number of days between infection and death), which he derived from the published literature.
His results are shown in the chart below. The grey dots are hospital deaths; the black line is inferred fatal infections; and the red lines are the lockdowns. As you can see, the peak of fatal infections occurs before the corresponding lockdown in each of the three cases. This finding casts serious doubt on the Prime Minister’s claim that the third lockdown has been “overwhelmingly important”.
Wood’s findings are consistent with those of economist David Paton, who notes that seven separate indicators all appear to show infections declining before the start of January’s lockdown. (Though it should be noted that parts of England were already under quite heavy restrictions when the lockdown began, and these may have contributed to the epidemic’s retreat.)
There is a large amount of evidence that lockdowns are neither necessary nor, in every case, sufficient to bring case and death numbers under control. This does not mean they have no impact on the epidemic’s trajectory, but it does mean that claims of “overwhelming” efficacy should be met with skepticism. And the best available evidence for England suggests that the infections were already declining when the third national lockdown was imposed.
Stop Press: Simon Wood, the author of the Biometrics study mentioned above, has written a piece for the Spectator responding to the Prime Minister’s comments, as well as the claim made by Imperial College that infections were surging right up until the first lockdown was imposed in March 2020.
This post has been updated.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Many statisticians have produced the same over the last 12 months. There is absolutely no data that supports lockdowns have an iota of difference to a respiratory disease. That is why no country or the WHO had lockdowns as part of a response. Only when Italy copied China did they decide ‘they could get away with it’.
Johnson is a liar, always has been. Its almost an insult to our intelligence to give anything he utters any credibility at all.
Boris doesn’t even know he’s lying. He’s just saying what he’s been told by Whitty and Ferguson
His pollsters are telling him that the majority of people want him to give them this message. Its an echo chamber, or an empty drum.
I think he knows, in a fuzzy sort of way – but I doubt he cares. That’s the nature of a psychopathic narcissist.
Ah yes, Bozo, [to tweak Bob Monkhouse’s famous joke] people used to laugh at the clown he was: they are not laughing now.
Yes he does. In his case it’s a disease, like gonorrhoea unmistakeable, but he’s probably lied about that as well.
bleargh
Although the headline is absolutely correct, that first line-graph – unfortunately – is utter bollocks.
It is indicated to show “ trajectory of deaths per million” – and suggests that the January peak was greater than April 2020.
This can be shown by the use of what we know as garbage – deaths labelled as ‘Covid’.
The only reliable data – all-cause mortality – shows precisely the opposite.
This is not the first time that the well-meaning Noah has been in drastic error, and needs some tiutelage.
Absolutely agree. I hate seeing that misleading graph. It’s deliberately misleading and I expect to see it on the BBC website, but not here.
I agree that the chart showing deaths within 28 days of a positive test is very misleading. I actually wrote a post about it on this website. The point is that, even if you use the data commonly cited by lockdown proponents, the evidence that lockdowns have a substantial impact on the epidemic’s trajectory is extremely weak. However, I have updated the post in response to your comment.
It was a good article. I agree that all cause mortality is a better metric – but even this gets confused with deaths from lockdown and can’t be considered without looking at previous years data for the dry tinder effect.
Ultimately data for this ‘pandemic’ is very hard to interpret because covid-19 kills people of ‘old age’.
Also hard to interpret because govts have been less than enthusiastic about using consistent, meaningful ways to measure things, and have not searched for the truth but rather used a variety of stats that suit their purposes at the time
Point is – all-cause is the only reasonable data. I agree that you cannot separate out Covid from lockdown (or any other) causation – that problem is just insoluble, even going back into each registration.
What it does do, however, is provide an overall metric of mortality that does show up any unusual features placed within an appropriate historical context.
For instance – one can see what looks like a typical viral event in April 2020 (too soon for much lockdown impact to have occurred). The January 2021 spike also shows up – but is more difficult to analyse, since both lockdown and, potentially, deaths of the vulnerable from jabs are definitely bundled in there.
Sorry Noah – I was a bit intemperate.
I’m afraid I’m intensely sensitive about the use of duff data – because even when you put the good stuff in front of people, you are liable to get denial. All the casedemic/covideath/excessdeath nonsense just confuses things further.
No worries, Rick.
Can I just say what a pleasure it is to be able to see readers speak to an author. (Not a computer data harvesting app like that DT article from Gove last week).
Thank you Boris! At last an honest politician who openly gives us notice of further lockdowns so we plan accordingly! And additional thanks for tipping us off about the effect of a vaccine; getting it won’t stop you being locked down, but having it does definitely help. Best PM ever.
Slipped in from Daily Mail worst rated comments section ?
You forgot the bit about being at home on full pay and pension still accruing.
Absolutely correct. I’m doing my bit for the country by staying at home, watching Netflix and ordering pizza; and I’m still being payed for doing it! I mean, how good does it get? Well done Boris, keep saving us from Covid.
The most depressing point about Boris Johnson’s statement is that he cannot believe what he has said. He must know it is a lie to dismiss the vaccination progress and state that it is all to do with lockdowns. The continuing lies and deceits in an attempt to manipulate the story is unacceptable. Let us pray that eventually the truth will be known and Boris Johnson be labelled correctly as the liar and charlatan that he is.
“He must know it is a lie to dismiss the vaccination progress”
I don’t think that is a lie. If anything the circumstantial evidence in the UK is that vaccination in January and February increased the death toll, while doing little to prevent further infection and transmission, at least in the short term.
I’m baffled as to why he came out with such a thing, other than SAGE told him to. Thing is now, whether it’s a lie or not, he cannot credibly trumpet vaccine rollout any more, as he has more or less said it’s pointless.
Not only that, he has shot himself in the foot re the wild idea of err, ‘persuading’ future attendees to various things to have the jab.
idiot
Idiot? I doubt it was idiotic. It reeks of the Behavioural Insights Team.
Bozo is a liar.
Bozo is a fool.
What else is new?
Disastrous as he is, I had until recently credited the PM with at least a modicum of political nous. Within the mad world of the coronapanic as seen by the majority of voters, lockdown until the vaccine made sense. The vaccine rollout will be seen by most as a triumph – we know it’s nothing of the sort, but that’s how it is seen.
But this latest nonsense will make no sense to Joe Public who has been following the “logic” up to now. People will just not understand it. It seems like a needless blunder to me, which further suggests he’s either even dumber that I thought, or following a sinister agenda.
Why not both?
Probably a bit of both.
Moist, I just have to tip my hat to your name.
“People will just not understand it …”
Trace your way back through all the lies, U-turns and flat contradictions.
When has understanding or logic – or memory – ever come into public reaction? This is about changing tack, and is an egregious example of yet another contradiction. Why? Well, I guess it’s abandoning vaccines so that they are no longer the promised end, and preparing the way for lockdowns being institutionalised – as many have forecast.
There have indeed been a lot of lies, U-turns and flat contradictions. But the broad thrust has been consistent – lockdown until vaccine saves us. People are very heavily invested in vaccines – they have a high level of confidence that vaccines are safe and will protect people. So I think this latest contradiction will be by far the most noticeable and least well received, if he sticks to it.
As to the why, I am quite prepared to believe SAGE and possibly Hancock want lockdowns forever, but I don’t overly see what’s in it for Johnson, personally or politically. But then I have never believed he’s been following orders from outside, just following advice from SAGE, of whom I believe he is afraid.
Afraid. Yes. As in this famous photo. Very telling.Image of #Whitty confronting #Johnson over #Covid19 goes viral. What WAS he saying? | Vox Political (voxpoliticalonline.com)
Yes, but the existing “high level of confidence” re vaccination is based on the long term performance of the real thing, in the main. A new, more suitable, term for the product on offer (which just mitigates the symptoms, and not much more – if you read the leaflets from the NHS) would have been better for maintaining such confidence in the future. If the new one crashes out, as it were, the whole lot could. Entirely possible that the WHO and the Pharma trade have made a mistake over that.
Has anyone produced or got access to a timeline of everything that’s happened from the start of all this nonsense?
I’d also like to see flu vaccination plotted against the “cases”
My guess is that he is trying to cover his fat ass when the vax problems become widely appreciated. You see, he will say, look how the scientists failed with their ‘vaccines’ and compare with how government-imposed controls worked.
Denmark bans AZ vaccine
“Instead, the country is offering its citizens the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.”
out of the frying pan and into the fire?
It will be very interesting to see the relative cull figures attained in a year or two in countries versus their choice(s) of ‘vaccines’.
When we finally have an enquiry it will be hard to pick who runs it that isn’t conflicted.
I can’t imagine Imperial college doing a very non-partisan job. Likewise Spiegelhalter, the ONS ‘lockdowns need to be harder and longer’, PHE. Who is going to be our equivalent to Feynman for the Challenger disaster? Maybe someone from abroad. Anders Tegnell stuck to the plan and clearly wasn’t whipped up into a hysteria.
Most people you can think of from the UK would be like the Nazis running the Nuremberg trials.
The only disinterested person of any standing I can think of is David Milliband but even he is currently sucking at the teat of the international Third Way.
Reiner Fuellmich?
If is probably more appropriate than ‘when’. However, enquirys are a source of income for some, so you never know. Of course, there could be another ‘difficulty’ that results in them being suspended, like the Grenfell Tower one, which has been suspended by Covid-19 (or is that a circular argument?).
I imagine releasing the details will “not be in the public interest”. Anyways I’m off to get my hair done….
Bonkers bozo is surely awaiting his Downfall Moment, trapped in his media bunker with his floozy and squabbling sycophants fighting a doomed war (for public opinion) using imaginary armies of contradictory strategies, advisors and models none of which make any sense.
One if these days the MSM will present a united front calling him out for his manifest failings. Today the Telegraph front page lead was about 25% of Covid deaths being non Covid which is old news for those who have been listening but even so might wake a few more people up to his flights of fantasy.
Incidentally today I used a taxi, the driver told me that after a flurry of activity on Monday with people going to non essential shops and the pub things were now back to the quiet normal of the past few weeks.
“One if these days the MSM will present a united front calling him out …”
The trouble is when that happens, the probable scenario will be that the establishment will have decided that he is no longer useful, and that some other tool needs to be installed to pick up the flag of Scamdom. Note Starmer is already in place to cover one contingency.
People will have gone back to work.
Could someone point out to him how a similar figure, whilst grovelling in his bunker, avoided his just desserts?!
Is it not more about 25% were COVID deaths and the rest would have happened anyway??
I just caught the headline in the newsagent. I’m sure it said 25% were not.
Has he had a haircut?
I see he’s still combing his hair with a balloon.
I’m not sure, but his weight loss looks as if it were very temporary.
Or a balloon combing his hair with a Boris?
They know all that.
And even if not, they’ll just ignore it.
They are simply not interested in a debate, different arguments and finding better or the best solutions- they never were and never will be.
They just have a plan to execute and will only monitor how much giving they have to do after the last and before the next taking.
They weren’t interested in Sweden&cos alternative approaches or the GBD, not in treatments, ignored all dissent on masks even in light of the clear danger they pose to peoples health, haven’t changed one thing about the ridiculous and illegal tests since their ct, snippet and confirmation problems are widely known (10 months now), mocked everyone who responded to their consultation by publishing another invite to comment in their main propaganda outlet to the base a day later and openly play the lockdown and vaccine coercion games alternating and for (their) fun.
As AZ, here they and the formerly GBP simply can’t and don’t want to be helped: Keep calm, carry on, hope for the best and if TSHTF here, blame it on furreinas and/or try to cover it up ruthlessly.
Nice article but I think stronger conclusions can be drawn from the data. I knew something was amiss with the whole idea of lockdown back in April 2020 when I calculated the 2nd derivative for the mortality curve. It went negative before lockdown could possibly have had an impact. In essence the “brakes” were already on. It was definitively not lockdown which caused this fundamental change in the dynamics. The example of Sweden only clarifies this point – the dynamics of cases (which are obviously closely correlated with deaths) are not driven by policy, but biology.
The lack of any clear consistent correlation between lockdown measures and mortality outcomes across the world shows that whatever lockdown may, or may not, be doing it cannot be significant. If it was significant one wouldn’t need a whole battery of statistical tests in order to (not) find the damned signal. Just for fun you should ask any pro-lockdown friends to spot the lockdown dates for the UK on the mortality graph – but give them Sweden’s graph instead.
The crucial thing to remember here is that infection is spread by symptomatic people coming into contact with susceptible people. Restricting the number of non-symptomatic with non-symptomatic interactions will have a very small effect on the disease progression (it will have some effect because of the small factor played by pre-symptomatic transmission). It is only by restricting symptomatic spread will there be any difference – and this is essentially why lockdowns of healthy non-symptomatic people have very little impact.
The tragic conclusion, of course, is that the UK lockdown has not saved a significant number of people from covid. A few thousand, maybe. But it’s pretty clear that there has been no net saving of life because lockdowns have killed thousands more. All that cost – to the economy, to peoples lives and livelihoods, to health, to mental health, to education, to rights and freedoms – for no benefit whatsoever. It’s truly, truly breath-taking the scale of the damage we have done – and we killed more than we saved. It’s a national disgrace.
Fantastic post. I love your suggestion to swap Sweden’s graphs with those of any other country or state, and ask the viewer to pinpoint when the lockdown efforts commenced. And your point about the “net” result of lockdowns on mortality is the most important point of them all. I would argue that for every life that was (arguably) “saved,” that at least 10 lives were sacrificed. The people who created and maniacally enforced these lockdowns actually have “blood on their hands.” A lot of “blood.”
And quite a few additional deaths are likely in the future, due to the restricted access to health care, including reduced confidence in the system as a whole.
There are too many articles like this one, using a blizzard of statistics, from Denmark to the Dakotas to challenge the latest utterance from the government lockdown machine. Boris’ latest pronouncement is lies, transparent hogwash, complete moonshine, and is his latest essay at ‘impressing the little man’ with the audacity of his untruths, maybe keen to find out just how much insulting nonsense the focus groupies will swallow before they’re full up.
From article: “These examples do not show that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic’s trajectory. But they do show that lockdowns are not necessary for case and death numbers to decline. Hence it is wrong to assume that, if numbers decline after a lockdown is introduced, it must have been the lockdown that caused the decline. (It might have been, but this cannot simply be assumed.)”
My comment: Great and important point, but I’d lose the info in the parenthesis.
In my state of Alabama, “daily new cases” peaked on January 12th (at 5,450). “Daily cases” have been below 200/day on four days in the past 10 (a decline of more than 96 percent in this metric). It should be noted that when this fall-off-a-cliff plunge began only about 2 percent of the state’s population had been “fully vaccinated.” Even today – three months later – only about 17 percent of the population has been “fully vaccinated.” I’d also add that among the first to get vaccinated (appropriately enough) were the elderly and people in nursing homes. This is the population that interacts with the fewest number of people. That is, the overwhelming majority of people “moving about” in society (and thus able to transmit the virus to others) had NOT been vaccinated. And still haven’t been for the most part … and yet cases, hospitalizations and deaths continue to decline.
Thank you for an interesting update from US. We all hear about a great uptake of vaccinations in US but perhaps not everywhere.Looking at the enrmous fall of cases in Mid West US seem very much a sesonal/weather effect than anything else.
During this time so many of my friends have not wanted to have this discussion with me, and have not wanted to feel sad or depressed even. So they ignore that churning in their belly and paint me as a depressive, or conspiracy theorist. I say, we are not entitled to be happy, or even to be free. Now is the time to take a stand, miserable as it is. And actually should I fight for you, and give my life for you, when you refuse to even see. We have heard the story before from communist regimes, that they were tricked until it was too late. But really were you tricked? Did you not just close your eyes, hoping that someone else would take the risks that you were not prepared to take?
The Default position of Johnson is to lie
At the margin lockdowns have reduced total numbers of infections. At the margins, perhaps at most 10% (based on heights and differences in slopes over non-seasonal periods. Of course that 10%’max…was it worth the costs? Clearly no, given forecasted deaths due to lockdown will be between 100-200k (to say nothing of billions of debt). But what is more, given that the primary population at risk of hospitalization and death are elderly, whose mobility was least impacted by lockdowns, we’d see them least benefit from the restrictions. The only factor possible to explain their declining rates of both is vaccination.
One day soon, during the public inquiry, all of these measures will have to be justified in light of pandemic performances in low or no lockdown settings. And the cost-benefit analysis that key lockdown from ever being considered before the CCP imposed it, will re-appear. In the coming weeks and months some of the strongest advocates of lockdown will be walking away from that support. And many of the 70% who backed them, as their own personal costs begin to be felt, will claim to have never backed the idea .
The only defense of lockdowns is that it was seen to be working in China and that at the beginning it was worth the effort. To claim it’s responsible for the past 3 months of change isn’t just unfounded, it’s lunacy. It not only creates momentum to avoid vaccination, it politically makes his most successful policy meaningless. Why cut your own knees off when you are depending on it most? Inexplicable.
Do you honestly think there will be a true cost-benefit analysis… particularly if we start to see growing numbers of vaccine deaths? I have my doubts.
Joseph Goebbels: “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”