As SAGE makes the case for new restrictions and even the cancellation of Christmas, Fraser Nelson probes SAGE modeller Graham Medley on Twitter on why SAGE's models are so often pessimistic and wrong.
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, F.A. Hayek noted: "the erroneous belief that the exercise of some power would have beneficial consequences is likely to lead to a new power to coerce". This remains true today.
The epiforecast group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine recently held a competition to forecast cases and deaths. They found that self-declared experts performed slightly worse than non-experts.
Lockdowns represent a radical departure from conventional forms of pandemic management. So where did 'The Science' of lockdown come from? It's a story that involves Italy, the WHO and our old friend Neil Ferguson.
During the spring of 2020, the official advice on masks went from "do not wear one" to "wear one" in a matter of weeks. Why such a sudden change? It may have all started with a chart that went viral on social media.
Many people – including some world leaders – see the vaccines as a way to ensure that nobody ever has to get COVID. But this view is based more on safetyism than on science. And ironically, it’s causing real harm.
There's a terrific piece in the Tablet by John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford, about what has gone wrong in the scientific community in the past 18 months. Why did scepticism lose out to authoritarianism?
In this week's London Calling, James and I rage against vaccine passports, immunising kids, and the absurdity of the Govt's claim that it is 'following the Science'. Every time you think they've reached rock bottom...
We are publishing a guest post on the Daily Sceptic today by a Senior Lecturer in Politics pointing out that when it comes to vaccinating healthy 12-15 year-olds the Govt can no longer claim to be following the science.
Neil Ferguson et al have just published a paper arguing that had the UK adopted Sweden's approach to Covid, our death toll would be twice as high. But the paper is just flat out wrong, from the first sentence onwards.
