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.
And so it begins.
Maybe…
Just in case they say they didn’t know – I mean it’s only their job after all – get out of papers such as this being sent to them –
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
First published January 2022.
Details how and why the genetically modified RNA is likely to cause –
Cancer (because to “work” it is deliberately designed to avoid destruction by the immune system.
CV problems (which even wilfully blind medics are beginning to realise – although not it woud seem the British Heart Fouundation).
And last but not least a whole plethora of other auto immune “diseases” by impairment of DNA reair mechanisms and inclusion of mRNA imto DNA, suppression of interferons – in short a whole range of unpredictable complex immune effects – unpredictable because the immune system is poorly understood, and even worse, misunderstood.
Never forget, Nature Bats Last.
If there be grounds to prosecute the enablers (and the myriad pushers, that includes you the MSM) may I suggest they be charged with Malfeasance in a Public Office. This is a Common Law offence, triable only on Indictment – and, best of all, it can carry a Life Sentence.
I really hope it focuses on the kids they murdered with the vaxx. That’s the way in to this story, to pull at the heart strings of the wives/mothers who are now the guardians of right/wrong thought in the west. They knowingly murdered kids, that’s got to be the sales pitch, once that door is ajar big pharma can be sued out of existence. Next the MSM can be pursued for pushing it down ppls throats.
Nothing is beginning. It’s the MPs that should be on trial first.
I wrote a long letter to the MHRA a year ago posing very specific questions.
got a three page letter back stating how ‘safe and effective’ these vaccines are.
Nice piece of evidence .
I hope there is no attempt to limit the scope to the AZ vaccine.
It’s a valid concern, a scapegoat would be convenient.
I ascribe the death of a friend of mine to the AZ muck.
Don’t be fooled. It’s impossible for this group of MP’s, and all others for that matter, to not be aware that the ‘vaccine’ was likely to be unsafe. Ditto (in bold capitals) for the MHRA. Impossible for all the same reasons that we knew it was likely to be unsafe. Cognitive dissonance may explain silence for some of the severely mentally challenged, but not for most. They continue to play us like a fiddle.
As the article states, yet another Dame knew the stabs were not safe nor effective and that the MHRA an ‘enabler’ not a watchdog…funded as they are by Big Pharma, follow that money to find ‘The $cience’
Dame June Raine, the Chief Executive of the MHRA, who announced she would be stepping down last week said in 2022 the agency was transitioning from being a “watchdog” to an “enabler”, a phrase which MPs said warranted its own investigation
One string presumably.
I hadn’t realised that our latest ‘Dame of Disaster’ J Raine was doing a runner as well. I think she saw the route J Van Tam took (Moderna flunky) and decided she wanted a piece of that. All of the £££ and none of this public scrutiny malarkey (that’s for little people).
However I have a feeling this might not go as smoothly as she hopes. Her comments about “being an enabler not regulator” will not age well as the facts start to come out. Possibly, or probably, a future Vennells as the Government cast around looking for a scapegoat.
Yes another Dame who no doubt benefitted from the Rona fascist scamdemic fraud.
Don’t remember hearing this Dame piping up and ringing alarm bells during the Fascism. She was pretty quiet and probably rather happy with her growing bank account.
On the contrary, I suggest that it’s fairly unlikely this side of the next General Election here, and the Autumn US Presidential one. After that, who knows?
Why didn’t they speak up at the time? Even the “covid sceptical” MPs were cheerleaders for the “vaccines” (though a tiny few did vote against vaxx passports and mandates).
Prof Bhakdi, Dr Yeadon and others predicted the effects the jabs would have. They were silenced, cancelled and prosecuted.
Dr Sam Smith, Dr Aseem Malhotra and many others have been highlighting the devastating impact they’re having for two+ years now ….. and they too have been silenced, cancelled and ignored.
Blaming the MHRA isn’t going to cut it. The Government inflicted this catastrophe on us, using their bought-and-paid-for “Scientists” to justify it.
Yesterday’s open letter from the Guernsey heart consultant was rather encouraging. This whole sh*tshow needs to be blown wide open.
I’d be less angry if it wasn’t mandated and people had been free to choose.
Some may argue that there was no mandate, but the patronising, the name-calling, the open discussion of no-jab-no-job, the imposition of the vaxxports, while denying it was going to happen all amount to the same thing.
An acquaintance of mine even stated that the unjabbed didn’t deserve medical care and they’d brought it in themselves. I immediately lost all respect for that person.
I read that letter with real sadness for the poor souls on Guernsey (where I have family) and also enthusiasm that another dedicated and caring doctor was speaking out. Knowing how the regulator works, based on its past history and recent announcement that it was answerable to parliament, when it should be all about patient safety and regulating the profession, left me wondering how they would react. Suspension and erasure, or is this simply too big now to ignore? Rather like the Diamond Princess was a perfect ‘test’ group, so are the population of this lovely island, unfortunately.
So Raine is stepping down on a higher pension before the enabled enabling and will probably pop up in the Blair institute and other advisory roles with pharma companies within a year or two.
You’re one of those Conspiracy Theorists the BBC warns me about.
Dangerous those far right (so far) types
Who authorised the changed role of this regulator and who thought of it. I have little doubt the Quango itself and a dozy Minister failed to react when it was done.
amazing how many honours there are among the Quangocracy. Amazing how often they seemlessly glide from one position to another, the better to build their address books. Or rather, OUR address books which they steal and exploit.
Just scrolled through the online Telegraph headlines. No sign of this article. Editor Evans is a card, isn’t he.
‘Dame’ is now a term of contempt.
The Telegraph made this report into a modified limited hangout – small headline, down page, soon removed. It’s a blockbuster scandal if ever there was one. The MHRA was, and probably still is, a murder machine, knowingly inflicting quack medicine poisons on the entire population.
The MHRA have made it clear where their priorities lie – enabling Big Pharma to bring dangerous and untested medications to the market place. Regulating them? Nope. Not their job any more. They need to be closed down and 100% taxpayer funded, to stop the unholy influence of evil bastards like Gates
100% taxpayer funded won’t make any difference because the Chunts in charge of the taxpayer funds are all WEFfers. So we end up paying wholly for our own poisons.
It might not be a good idea making such business suggestions
So this will be Hallett Mark in ? In other words it will cost a disgraceful amount of taxpayers money but come to the same conclusions – safe and effective – only using different words.
I see.
Oh really? The MPs are complaining that the regulator didn’t warn them. Well, WE warned them! And they ignored every single warning. They were spineless at best, and corrupt, and now they’re looking for a scapegoat. These people should be in prison for their sheer dereliction of duty that led to a massive loss of life.
Andrew Bridgen MP is due an apology.
He has sufficient integrity to put his neck on the line and he’s been treated abysmally.
The deliberate emptying of the debating chamber before he spoke is a damning indictment of the moral fibre of our so-called leaders.
Promising. But will this investigation focus in on the MRHA being 80% funded by the pharmaceutical industry? Will an investigation also reveal how much Raine, Vallance, Johnson, Sunak, Van Tam, Whitty ad infinitum have trousered from the pharmaceutical industry? Will they all end up in prison for malfeasance and corporate manslaughter? I doubt it.
In 2019 the Australian Journal of Virology published a report saying the safety and effectiveness of mRNA ‘vaccines’ are at least a decade away. 2020 it’s being mandated for all of us
Haven’t the Tories splashed out oodles of tax payers money in a partnership with Moderna to build a large MRNA production unit in Oxford.?
Has anyone got any view of what the further fallout of this all will be?
So far I think there is a growing distrust in vaccines, the medical profession and the political class.
The truth will out and become mainstream.
So what will happen? I know of several people who have taken the mRNA products and feel really cheated by the system. They are angry (in a polite way).
So what is likely going to happen?
More to the point, what are those people who feel cheated by the system going to do?
This is not a welcome development. Why?
MPs are the reason the MHRA is so corrupt and has been for decades. They know how powerful and politically influential the drug industry is as a lobby so they keep quiet and do nothing.
Any inquiry they launch will not address the real problems which they will continue to bury.
Look at what they did to Andrew Bridgen – the Conservative Party kicked him out for telling the truth about the kill shots.
And that disgusting Penny Mordaunt called him a conspiracy theorist. And she is Leader of the House of Commons!!!
But just for balance, Starmer in a recent TV interview which had nothing to do with healthcare deliberately chose to be pictured standing in from of a Novartis building with the Novartis name prominent and worse still right next to one of those free-standing upright banners with the Novartis name also prominent on it.
We are cheated by MPs. As a class they steal our votes with false promises and fail to do anything about the issues that have created broken Britain – a phrase Starmer uses but we can guarantee he will do nothing about.
If you want a test of who to vote for or whether to vote at all – this issue will be one to watch.
Look out for MPs who duck the real issues.
They will all make noises about the MHRA, say nothing about the corruption in the drug industry and produce conclusions and proposals which will make zero difference.
Ask yourself this question – when we know we can treat many diseases with nutrition and natural products – how come doctors when training do not study nutrition and its use in treating disease?
They learn and know nothing about it beyond the five-a-day highly limited NHS sloganising.
And another question – how come most doctors – the vast majority – learn nothing about vaccines when training? But they still promote them as so important and ‘save millions of lives’ when they are not and do not.
At long last Steve Brine was made fully aware of these issues from very early on in the pandemic once the facts started to emerge. I know because as a doctor and one of his constituents I informed him of the problems and his moral obligation to take swift appropriate action!
About bloody time just hope it’s not another whitewash.
Of course it will be – that is inevitable – for why read this comment.
What kept them? About time.