Good grief. Will they never give up? A major new evidence review from the prestigious Royal Society has concluded that lockdowns, mask-wearing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting COVID-19 transmission. Is such a confident conclusion warranted? Of course not. But then, much of the work was carried out in China and Professor Neil Ferguson was one of the peer-reviewers, so what would you expect?
Released this morning, the report had the desired impact in the media. ‘Lockdowns and the ‘Rule of Six’ did slow the spread of Covid‘ declares the Mail.
‘Lockdowns and masks helped reduce transmission,’ announces the BMJ. “Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were ‘unequivocally’ effective when rolled out in tandem during the Covid pandemic and led to ‘powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission’, says a report by a team of experts brought together by the Royal Society,” it adds.
In the Times, Tom Whipple writes that the reduction from lockdowns was found to be “about 50%”:
The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the ‘R number’ — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50%.
And what about the harms, now widely accepted to be exceptionally high? That’s for others to look at, the report says. Why is it always someone else’s job to consider the harms? That was the excuse of SAGE and the Government advisers in 2020 and it’s the same excuse now from the Royal Society. To Whipple’s credit, he goes to Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at the Open University to make this point. “They seem to be saying, simply, that this kind of assessment is out of scope [for] this piece of work. If not the Royal Society, who is actually going to do it?”
Prof. McConway also criticises the lack of higher quality studies, which he says should lead to some soul searching among scientists as it “shows up the work of scientists on NPIs during the pandemic in a rather unfavourable light”.
Indeed it does. Three and a half years after the advent of lockdowns and mask mandates, where are the properly designed and controlled studies to test the effectiveness and safety of these extreme interventions? Few and far between. Instead we just keep being served up the same low quality observational and modelling studies, which now the Royal Society bizarrely claims demonstrate an “unequivocal” reduction in the infection rate – reported by the Times to be in the region of 50%. This is the kind of spin and misinformation that we’ve all become tiresomely accustomed to since 2020, but don’t imagine the Trusted News Initiative and BBC Verify will jump into action any time soon. Misinformation is only a problem when it contradicts the official narrative, as we know.
Here’s how the report summarises its own conclusions, which is what most of the media reports are quoting:
In summary, evidence about the effectiveness of NPIs applied to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 shows unequivocally that, when implemented in packages that combine a number of NPIs with complementary effects, these can provide powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission.
The report draws on six peer-reviewed evidence reviews commissioned by the Royal Society and published in a special edition of its in-house journal Philosophical Transactions A, which cover:
- Masks and face coverings
- Social distancing and lockdowns
- Test, trace and isolate
- Travel restrictions and controls across international borders
- Environmental controls
- Communication of NPIs in the U.K.
A closer look at the claims about face masks in particular gives a taste of the deep problems that beset this absurdly over-confident report.
Dr. Gary Sidley in the Daily Sceptic earlier today gave a good summary of the real state of evidence on face masks: “It is a long-established conclusion from the scientific world that face masks achieve no appreciable reduction in viral transmission.”
We knew this in 2015-16 with regard to surgeons and their patients (here and here). We knew this in 2020 from a gold-standard Cochrane review, an analysis of 14 studies on influenza and a healthcare investigation that concluded that masks “may paradoxically lead to more transmissions”. We knew this in 2021 based on the Danish mask study and two comprehensive evidence reviews (here and here). We knew this in 2022 in relation to primary schools and universities, and a debunking of premature pro-mask conclusions drawn from the Bangladesh study. And – as if more evidence was needed – at the start of 2023 we had the latest Cochrane review, yet again concluding that covering our faces with cloth and plastic does not significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting respiratory viral infections.
So what do the Royal Society researchers present to counter this wealth of high quality evidence? A whole pile of poor quality observational studies – the same ones that keep being recycled over and over as though mere repetition can polish the turd. They write (emphasis added here and below):
The investigation included 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational studies) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). …
Most observational studies relied on self-reported mask wearing among participants (n=42/46; 91%). …
Results are not presented as a meta-analysis owing to the great heterogeneity in study design and the variety of outcome measures across the included studies. For the same reason of study design heterogeneity, formal GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence was not universally applied. …
Although most of the numerous studies included in this review found that masks reduce transmission, almost all were at critical risk of bias in at least one of the domains embodied in ROB tools. In addition, the size of measured effects was variable and typically of low precision. …
Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical risk of bias. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence from all studies suggests that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators) and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Here’s the summary diagram from the report. I have circled the two gold-standard RCTs that show zero or near-zero significant effect. Note that the Abaluck Bangladesh study which found a small (12%) reduction in infections has been heavily criticised for its methodology, and in any case it found the effectiveness of cloth masks to be around zero. The rest of the studies were observational and at “critical risk of bias”, and so can tell us little of value.
If this is what the Royal Society deems to be “unequivocal” evidence of benefit then it plainly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.
What about lockdowns and social distancing? According to the report, these were “associated with considerable reductions in community-level transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the growth of the epidemic”.
Measures of greater stringency were typically associated with greater reductions in transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating what epidemiologists call a biological gradient. Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing measures, and restrictions on gathering sizes were repeatedly found to be associated with substantial community-wide reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and were frequently assessed using the time-varying reproduction number, Rt. …
The body of evidence consistently pointed to substantial community-level benefits of social distancing measures for reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, preventing large-scale outbreaks, and controlling rapid epidemic growth. Stringent social distancing measures, whether applied to particular settings or to the entire population, were identified to be the most effective means of reducing transmission.
Was the quality of the evidence any better here? Nope. The study states: “As most of the evidence identified in this review came from observational studies, the quality or certainty of the evidence was mainly rated as low or very low for most studies.”
Furthermore, many of the studies found no benefit anyway:
Three studies did not find a significant association between stay-at-home orders and COVID-19 cases. However, the effectiveness of stay-at-home measures on reducing mortality was mixed, with 16 studies reporting reductions, and nine studies reporting no significant associations.
There was, however, “a multi-national analysis that looked at 210 countries in early 2020 found that stay-at-home orders reduced the incidence of COVID-19 by 11.2%”. Even if we accept this finding at face value (and there are lots of reasons not to, not least that the study came from China), an 11% cut in incidence of a very low-mortality disease as a result of imprisoning the population in their homes should be no-one’s definition of success.
The report also claims to have strong evidence that school closures reduce infections. This is despite the report itself noting that a “study examining schools in North Carolina and Wisconsin, U.S., from 2020 to 2021 did not observe an increase in the secondary transmission rate in schools after distancing measures were relaxed, indicating they had no effect on transmission in these schools”. But not to worry, models to the rescue: “The remaining simulation studies found that school measures were associated with reductions in public health impacts of COVID-19, both in the schools and the community.”
A look at just the first two studies cited in support of the claim about school closures shows the centrality of modelling. From the first: “We estimate the average dynamic effect of each intervention on the incidence of COVID-19 and on people’s whereabouts by developing a statistical model that accounts for the contemporaneous adoption of multiple interventions.” From the second: “Our main counterfactual experiments suggest that nationally mandating face masks for employees early in the pandemic could have reduced the weekly growth rate of cases and deaths by more than 10 percentage points in late April.” It’s safe to assume most of the studies will continue in this vein.
But should we really be surprised that this evidence review came down firmly in favour of lockdowns when the team the Royal Society commissioned to look at lockdowns and social distancing was based mainly in China, the country that pioneered the Covid lockdown? Nine of the 13 listed study authors, including the lead author, are said to work at the “World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China”.
What’s more, one of the peer-reviewers for the project was said to be Professor Lockdown – Imperial’s Dr. Neil Ferguson himself – almost literally marking his own homework.
It’s safe to say that this report offers nothing like “unequivocal” evidence of benefit from lockdowns, masks and other pandemic NPIs. As we have seen, in its more candid moments it admits that the results from studies vary considerably and the quality of the evidence from observational studies is low and typically at “critical risk of bias”.
Frankly, the Royal Society should be embarrassed to have put out such a skewed report that dresses up poor quality data as “unequivocally” supportive of the official stance on lockdowns and NPIs – a stance that is, not coincidentally, shared by the Chinese Government, which would have had a hand in the report via the Chinese researchers involved. It should be withdrawn and the misleading media reports corrected.
Stop Press: Professor Carl Heneghan came to much the same conclusion about this report in an interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV this morning.
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 don’t care either way (though I’m sure it’s all nonsense).
Why is slowing the spread of covid important? Oh yes – so that we have time to prepare “vaccines”….
Anyway, getting on with normal life is way more important that whether a few more or less people die in a given period of some seasonal respiratory virus of the type we have coexisted with since time immemorial.
I just cannot understand all this drivel, as far as I am aware, every man and his dog eventually had the covid/cold/flu thingy at least once if not several times. Does anyone really think that all this hocus-pocus is going to stop everyone contracting this thingy? Do they really think that some people will completely avoid ever coming into contact with this, whatever it is, infectious thingy?
They want others to believe that. That’s one of the stock COVID fairly tales: If you still haven’t got seriously sick despite COVID raging among the population for years, then, you must be a super dodger (actual term used), ie, because of some unbelievable streak of luck, you managed to avoid it all the time. Reality is – of course – nobody dodged nothing, regular COVID just isn’t a serious illness.
I haven’t even had a cold for 4 years. No biotoxin jabs either. I have had vitamin D3 and zinc every day since early 2001.
Exactly. This is why I think it’s best to avoid getting into arguments about whether X or Y measure made any difference. It was just a bad flu, everyone needs to catch it, some people will die, as they always do, carry on living a normal life – if you’re that bothered, do something about improving your immune system.
I expect I’ve had “it” (if it exists, which I don’t much care about) several times, unvaxxed, not that young, felt rough a few days, nothing out of the ordinary.
When they launch their next Scamdemic I will hold a party and invite as many as I can.
They can just F R O!
That definitely would be a time to start organising many parties!
Poor old Ferguson and his gang of Experts Of The Science™ still cannot do basic math. The attached image shows exponential growth of something at a rate and at half the rate. As is clearly visible this make f*** all of a difference, it basically means apocalypse today for for full rate, apocalypse tomorrow for half rate (or whatever the base time interval happens to be).
AN expert is an unknown drip under pressure.
So true. All it does is delay the inevitable.
LDs destroyed your natural immune system. Diapers do the same.
You need; sunshine, vitamin D, C, B, and exercise. If ill fluids, rest, fresh air, homeopathy.
But ‘the science’ does not do natural anything.
The anti-science of LDs led to suicides, destroyed families, businesses, mental health, massive future inflation and psychological distress in children. Ditto diapers.
How the hell is any of that ‘healthy’.
Immune system 99.7% effective – that is the real science.
I thought Fergie was in prison.
And so the rift between normies and the fully aware widens further.
To normies that headline is a nice smoothing balm. Aahhh, the experts, so good that they were around to keep us safe and guide us. It was all worthwhile and for a good cause. Hmm. Lovely.
To the fully aware that’s news item is gloating and a threat from a the psyhos in power. We got away with it and we’ll do it to you again when we want to. And you won’t be able to stop us because we have the power and we’re in charge. We control everything. So suck it up.
Every day we are further apart and more likely to end up at each others throats in a bad way.
Indeed. I don’t much care what “normies” or anyone else believes, until they start using it as an excuse to screw my life up. Then it becomes a war.
Sadly tof I believe War was declared 20th March 2020.
It was indeed. I think the “normies” have retreated, or lost interest, but the danger that they can be whipped up again lurks.
Miri thinks the reason that they’re about to give all children the nasal flu vax starting on 2 September is to create health problems that will be used to whip up the thickos.
I’m not sure: the WTO treaty isn’t yet in place and they haven’t yet got the control of the internet they’re moving towards.
It is apparent we are dealing with something that is bordering on malevolent.
“Bordering on” is being charitable!
It’s very heartening to read the comments on the Mail story. The huge vast majority of who are now clearly just not buying it.
It’s why Genghis Khan in London City Hall is busy trying to tie ULEZ protestors in with the (fictional) ‘far right’, ‘COVID-deniers’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. People like him live in complete la la land where using a bunch of made-up names is supposed to dismiss a huge chunk of the population.
Maybe he knows it’s the only way he can sell his toxic policies.
Was it my bad grammar which gave me a downtick?
No just some twat most likely.
No, but tof sums it up very well.
I usually have at least two people trolling me every day. Even posting a “good morning” generally brings the downtickers out.
Best ignored.
I think mentioning downticks is a sure way to get downticked, which means I’ll probably get downticked now, unless the downtickers perversely want to prove me wrong!
Nope! They aren’t that bright.
So true. Most people have been red-pilled by now, and won’t get fooled again.
This is what institutional capture looks like. We’re in the 100th minute of the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and everything and everyone is falling apart.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/albertas-danielle-smith-refuses-to-enforce-trudeaus-unconstitutional-net-zero-energy-plan/
Danielle Smith, Premier in Alberta, Canada rejects Turdeau’s net zero lunacy. She is still apparently committed to Net Zero by 2050 but at least she is giving some fight back.
You’re making the mistake – which you’ve criticised others for – of mistaking evil for stupidity.
I would appreciate an explanation.
What a surprise, given the local industry – shale oil extraction.
Maybe, but keeping an industry going is surely more important than net zero bollox.
If she’s committed to it she’s not rejecting it.
“much of the work was carried out in China and Professor Neil Ferguson was one of the peer-reviewers, so what would you expect”
Neil Ferguson – this is like seeing Tony Bliar’s name attached to anything and like Bliar the name signifies utter lies and bullshit.
And like our Tony, just when you think he may have got the hint and cleared off, back he pops…
Published just as (northern hem) schools about to return and autumn sniffles begin. I don’t think this “study” is intended as a serious reflection on things past, just a preliminary prep/nudge piece for things to come. Will be amazed if they don’t try some form of “mask up for granny” campaign before Christmas – and even more amazed if anyone takes notice.
I would bet my life that these restrictions will be re-introduced within the next three months likely with an incremental approach. You can easily see the signalling in the media and of course the arrival of a new death shot, a booster that is due to be rolled out in in-September. The greatest booster ever and the booster to end all boosters. A population of strung out junkies just looking for ressurance even if it comes with a death sentence. It will be interesting to see how the public reacts this time around. I don’t know about the proportions but I suspect the situation will be rather more tasty and waspish this time around.. Not to mention black swan events which I think will hit at the same time. Escalation to all out air war, a collapse of tyhe financial system, starting with a credit event, unstoppable because there will be nowhere left to turn this time. No underwriting and the foundations have rotted. I think we should see it as a privilege to live through these times.
Enough people will say NO – if it’s only 20% itt’ll be enough
Bear in mind we are late in the game. This is over three years in and they are pushing harder than ever. There is no point of stasis where we can just sit idly by anymore. We all know the damage that has been done to every age group it is incalculable. If we don’t stop this now then we are worth nothing and we wouldn’t even be able to say to our children that we tried.
Indeed, these mandates and the ideology behind them must be completely eradicated, root and branch, lest they one day grow back again.
Must be a very shiny turd by now, Ferguson must drink Brasso.
If you don’t have a beautiful vision of the future then you aren’t higher than them, you are just partaking of the same poison on another level. You have to be careful and watchful this force is a clever one. It asks you to dig very deeply.there is no other way in our time.
The fighting of the demons is a very difficult area because we have been robbed of so much. But I would say that on that level they are on the run in terms of human consciousness. It might not seem like it but there is everything to be optimistic about in terms of human consciousness and its rapid development.
Don’t let them convince you that you are on the back foot because you certainly aren’t. We have everything behind us it is just bluster.
Don’t let this crap happen. Our society is in ruins and our mythos no longer sustains us but even so don’t let those vultures pick up the pieces. We are the English we can pick things up at any point and make them anew. That’s the whole reason that Christianity hid away in these islands for 500 years. The tradition of the law of one/Christianity existed for 500 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. If we live in these islands we have a sacred duty to resurrect the teaching really we do.
Please do elaborate on how Christianity existed in the British Isles 500 years before the birth of Jesus Christ himself.
“Alleged birth”
https://youtu.be/noTDsz8Dxvc?si=–cPXTjvWlNyIYCP
Eleven seconds. Unmissable
I’m More team Toby than team James.
But it looks like its starting again.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4YO6fMz_1u8
As I like to say, Cochrane Review beats peer review beats pal review beats anecdote beats pulled it out of where the sun don’t shine!
Especially if one of those pal reviewers is none other than Professor Pantsdown.
Warming us up for another winter of tyranny no doubt. Well they can go rot in hell I will not be following their lies
This is a good example of what I now call public peer review – a dissection of a paper by a real expert post publication. There is of course a lot of it about, as in the Daily Sceptic.
However – it is theoretically highly likely that a total lockdown works – one in which every last person is isolated and imprisoned. If no one can contact anyone for a sufficient time for a virus to die, then it will die out. It seems that Chinese lockdowns were like that. The downside is of course that everything stops. No transport, no deliveries, no refuse collections, no doctors visits, no hospital admissions. So those unprepared will starve, go mad or die of something treatable and decay at home. So from a practical perspective a total lockdown is unacceptable. Look at all the exceptions in the last lockdown in the UK and ask – can you really call this a lockdown? And could we ever tolerate a real, full one? Two questions to which the answer is no. If an analysis of lockdowns was confined to the worldwide incomplete ones I am certain it would find no benefit at all.
Total lockdown is indeed very likely to work — put everyone in an airtight cubicle and once they have all died of asphyxation, no one will ever get infected with anything anymore. The Chinese exercised this to the point where hunger revolts broke out as people had started dying of starvation at home. They weren’t able to get rid of Sars-CoV2 in this way.
A virus infection is not a special form of antisocial behaviour and can’t be controlled by policing behaviour. That the Chinese idiot-in-chief took a real long time to learn that doesn’t change the fact.
Indeed, and when we’re all dead, there will be no issues left to resolve. Of course, those pushing it would find a way to exempt themself from it all.
If even Xinnie the Pooh himself ultimately failed to stop the virus, despite the massive cost of the countermeasures, that really says something indeed. And now as karma would have it, they are reaping what they have sown, and it isn’t pretty.
The UK is financially crippled, on its knees. There is no way this country could withstand another lockdown. Too many experts have shown through their studies masks do not work and can cause harm. Lockdowns brought its own harms to people’s physical and mental health, their income, their children’s health and income, it wiped out businesses. Can the treasury really even think a lockdown is on the cards. Hard to imagine. Unless they are intentionally trying to sabotage the country. Hmmmmm
“We must act now, before it’s too late”————hahahaha jeez
This analysis is for those who do not agree that lockdown and other NPIs were unethical under any circumstances. It will demonstrate that the NPIs in England and Wales had a minimal and short-lived beneficial effect.
The cumulative deaths attributed to Covid (where Covid was mentioned on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death) occurring between the beginning of March 2020 and end of August 2020 closely matches a natural epidemic (Gompertz) curve. The curve is selected as a ‘best fit’ to the observed data and so it is to be expected that it will match the death data quite closely. However, we should expect the observed death counts to be higher than the best fit curve before and lower after the effect of any beneficial intervention on infections shows though in the death data – otherwise how can it be claimed to have been beneficial?
Did I mention it was a very close fit? There are very small differences between the green (cumulative death count) and red (best-fit Gompertz) curves.
If the observed time period represented a constant environment with no interventions then we should expect any differences between the observed death toll and the natural curve to vary randomly by small amounts each day above and below the curve as those who die will not survive infection by a rigidly fixed time period. However, the differences do not show random noise – they follow longer trends which are sometimes worse (more deaths/day) and sometimes better than the best-fit curve. We are interested in attempting to attribute the times when the difference trends change from worse to better or vice versa to the timing of NPIs or similar policy changes.
Here we see that throughout March the observed death toll was less than the best-fit natural curve (ie it was better). At the end of March the death toll started to increase and continued to do so until 19 April when it started to decrease again until around 26 May a persistent slow increase set in. So what caused the changes to the rates on 31 March (for the worse), 19 April (for the better) and 26 May (for the worse)?
The only change for the better was around 19 April. If lockdown had a beneficial effect on infections then this must be it showing through in the death data – there is no other change for the better in the data. The lockdown announcement was on 23 March; it took 27 days for the lockdown effect on infection rates to show through in the death data. The peak of deaths occurred on 8 April; 27 days previous was 12 March. Therefore, the peak of infections occurred around 12 March. Lockdown did not affect the peak of infections or cause the epidemic in England and Wales to recede.
The very minor beneficial effect of lockdown faded after about seven weeks.
Did I mention that the whole damn lockdown thing was unethical?
Well-said.
Probably no point in updating this now but:
The very minor beneficial effect of lockdown faded after about
sevenfive weeks.A similar analysis of the second (Alpha) and third (Delta) waves in England and Wales shows no beneficial effect of the lockdowns of 5 Nov 2020 and 6 Jan 2021.
I have no doubt that lock-downs slow the spread of any infectious disease, however I have yet to see evidence that they reduce the total number of infections.
The only logical reason for them would be if the first line health response was unprepared.
Any sane person for a second believe Boris Johnson nearly died from Covid-1984? Give me a break. More chance of him being eaten by a Dodo
This article alone is worthy of my monthly subscription.
They are never going to admit they were wrong or worse deliberately collaborated in the most evil scam against humanity.
Ah yes. The Royal Society. One a Wonder of the Scientific World.
Recently infested with the left wing Climate Catastrophists chosen to be Royal Society Presidents.
Let’s start with Baron Robert May of Oxford. Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government of one Tony B.liar. Trustee of the World Wildlife Fund. Member of the Committee of Climate Change. Great job, Bob!
Succeeded as RS President by Martin Rees. A lifelong Labour supporter although sits as a crossbencher in the House of Lords. Co-Author of report setting up the “Global Apollo Programme”, requiring “Developed Countries” to fund research “to make carbon free baseload electricity cost less than electricity from coal by 2025”.
Well, Rees helped close down UK coal but baseload electricity is now at least three times more expensive. Can we have our money back, Martin?
Rees was followed by “Sir” Paul Nurse
. The RS President and geneticist from the University of East Anglia, (see Climategate) parhaps best known as a long term seller of “Socialist Worker”. And Climate Change nutter.
Then came Venki Ramakrishnan. Who moaned about the Global Problem of Climate Change and the results of the 2016 decision (since betrayed) to get out of the EU.
And the present incumbent, Sir Adrian Smith. A statitician. Who was “Head of Mathematics at (guess where!), why, Imperial College! Gosh, I bet he went through this latest Report with a fine-toothed comb!
I bet the Presidents of old are spinning in their graves way fast enough to generate loads of carbon free baseload electricity!