Readers will recall the ban on singing of all kinds during the lockdowns and even after they were lifted because singing was supposedly a ‘transmission risk’. Turns out, this typical piece of Covid hysteria was based on a flawed study. The Church Times has more.
The ban arose out of reports in the United States in March 2020 that 52 of 61 singers who attended a rehearsal of the Skagit Valley Chorale, in Mount Vernon, Washington, had subsequently contracted Covid. The source was judged to have been a chorister at the practice who later tested positive for the virus, and was considered the super-spreader.
The Los Angeles Times carried the headline: “A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead.” An investigation by the county’s public-health officials was referred to in other scientific papers and widely disseminated, and, with a growing consensus that airborne droplets were spreading the virus, all indoor singing was banned.
It dealt a serious blow to many choirs, both professional and amateur. Scientific study accelerated. Two lay vicars from Salisbury Cathedral took part in rigorous trials at Porton Down, the MOD’s Science and Technology laboratory, to test how far airborne droplets could travel. These, and other studies commissioned by the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, were reported eventually to have given the Government confidence to reconsider appropriate mitigations.
Now a review of the Skagit case by scientists at Nottingham Trent University (NTU), Brunel University, and Brighton and Sussex Medical School, has concluded that many of the choristers’ symptoms had started too early to have been caused by the rehearsal.
In a paper entitled “The Skagit County Choir COVID-19 Outbreak: Have we got it wrong?” they review and analyse the original outbreak data in relation to published data on incubation. They conclude that it was “vanishingly unlikely that this was a single point source outbreak as has been widely claimed and on which modelling has been based”.
An unexamined assumption led to “erroneous policy conclusions about the risks of singing, and indoor spaces more generally, and the benefits of increased levels of ventilation”, the paper says.
“Although never publicly identified, one individual bears a moral burden of knowing what health outcomes have been attributed to their actions. We call for these claims to be re-examined and for greater ethical responsibility in the assumption of a point source in outbreak investigations.”
One of the co-authors, Professor Robert Dingwall, of NTU, said on Wednesday that the speed with which the choristers were being infected and displaying symptoms was implausible, and did not fit the epidemic curve.
“All the ‘mights’ got turned into definite findings by the people who quoted [the original study],” he said. “We looked at it and saw the distribution of days on which the symptoms appeared, and realised they just couldn’t all have been affected at that rehearsal – the symptoms were just appearing too quickly.”
Worth reading in full.
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.
I always assumed supposed super-spreader events such as the South Dakota bikers or a crowded pub were another COVID myth used to justify restrictions.
Most likely. Gathering restrictions did literally ZILCH to stop the virus at a population level, or even slow it down once it had gathered momentum. The kernel of truth is that large gatherings may temporarily accelerate transmission at the very, very beginning, but by the time the restrictions were imposed the horse was long since out of the barn.
Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega knew that from the beginning, and actually *encouraged* mass gatherings given the futility of banning or restricting them, and their vital functions in preserving a sense of normalcy for the community. And he is a hard leftist, go figure.
The vast majority of lockdown policies, including lockdown itself, were based on flawed evidence, accompanied by the impression that the so-called experts had just gone back to college! We are all still suffering from it – although some have made a profit in the short term.
I’m not criticising the idea that airborne transmission of any kind of virus in poorly ventilated environments though. Although I’m reasonably confident that the last time I caught a minor respiratory infection (lets call it a common cold), in late 2019, was in such a place, I have never believed in the idea that wearing face covers etc was any good. Crass overreaction to the whole affair has been a large part of the panic.
Indeed, the fact that poor ventilation accelerates transmission of airborne viruses was known for nearly a century, even before viruses themselves were discovered. Back then, they simply called it “vitiated air”, and central heating systems then were literally designed to be operated with the windows open. That’s why in very old buildings with old-style steam boiler heating, the temperature always feels significantly hotter than the thermostat says, unless you open the nearest window (or if there’s a draft). That’s a feature, not a bug.
Perhaps in some cases things were done based on flawed evidence in the sense that those doing them genuinely believed the evidence was solid. But in a lot of cases restrictions and decisions were not based on evidence at all – what actually happened was decisions were made and then evidence found or fabricated that appeared to justify the decision.
One of the lesser reasons I will never believe or respect anything any government says again, ever, this is one of the finer ways in which the government cried wolf. It’s almost as if they were actively searching for petty things to ban, to “appear to be doing something”, along with the taped up benches and playgrounds.
Is there an army removing any remaining signs about masks and social distancing? There ought to be.
Although each government takes ultimate responsibility for engineering and promoting the claptrap around a hyped up ‘killer virus’, the opposition parties were just as bad – if not worse, ie Labour – encouraging and egging them on to do their worst.
edit spelling
That period was so dystopian. I went for a walk with my wife. People (all in masks) jumped off pavements. We sat on a bench, were glared at, and wondered what hell we were in. I used to admire the people I shared this country with. Now I pity and, generally speaking have no trust in them. I’m ill.
Masks were things worn by actors in Greek plays. You found yourself in a myth. You could hardly communicate. You were atomised, stereotyped, and thrown apart. God help me recover.
So true.
There are still people out there who leap back from you if you get too close. people also get off the pavement to avoid getting too close. Masks are still in evidence where we live. Shops still have signs about social distancing which are ignored for the most part but are still there. Some people will never get over the nonsense we were fed.