Saturday, 18th December 2021
Professor Lockdown Predicts ‘5,000 Omicron Deaths a Day’ Unless We Lockdown
By Toby Young
Gloomy modelling by Neil Ferguson has forecast up to 5,000 Omicron deaths per day this winter unless restrictions are tightened within a fortnight. As usual, the fact that he’s got more or less every previous forecast wrong does not mean he won’t be taken seriously. MailOnline has more.
Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London found “no evidence” the variant is less severe than Delta but estimate it is five-and-a-half times more likely to re-infect people and make vaccines significantly weaker.
Drawing on data from Omicron’s spread in the UK and South Africa, as well as lab tests on vaccine effectiveness, they concluded: “Omicron poses a major, imminent threat to public health.”
Professor Ferguson – a Government adviser whose modelling has spooked No10 into lockdowns before – said tighter curbs were needed “in a week or two” to have a significant effect on the size of the peak of the new wave.
The latest projections will raise fears that Britons could be stung by last-minute festive restrictions once again, with Boris Johnson repeatedly refusing to rule a full lockdown out if hospitalisations start to surge.
Wales has already announced the return of social distancing and closure of nightclubs from Boxing Day, while Scots are urged to limit mixing to three households and people in England are advised to “prioritise” social events.
In a best case scenario, Imperial said without further curbs there could be in the region of 3,000 daily Omicron deaths at the peak in January – significantly higher than the previous record of 1,800 during the second wave.
Professor Azra Ghani, an epidemiologist at the university and one of the researchers behind the modelling, said it was an “illustration of the need to act”.
Yesterday, Chris Whitty told MPs yesterday that he was “extremely cautious” about SAGE’s modelling of Omicron because there are still some “really critical things we don’t know” about the variant.
SAGE’s models have been criticised several times in the past for overegging the UK’s epidemic, most recently projecting 6,000 daily Delta hospital admissions in October.
Worth reading in full.
Finally! YouGov Poll Finds Public Opposed to Lockdown
By Toby Young
A YouGov poll for the Times, has revealed that a majority of the British population are opposed to further Covid restrictions. Guido Fawkes has more.
Guido can’t remember the last time a poll on Covid saw the public really reject any proposed restrictions on civil liberties, however a new one in today’s Times demonstrates just that. According to a poll of 1,714 people between the 14th and 15th, the arrival in Omicron saw very little movement on the public’s opposition to:
– Shutting pubs and restaurants: 60% opposition
– Shutting non-essential shops: 65% opposition
– Banning indoor meetings with people from other households: 62% opposition
– Banning indoor meeting people from other households on Christmas Day: 68%
– Pubs, bars and restaurants not being allowed to open on New Year’s Eve: 53%According to YouGov’s polling, the government has already maxed out its support for anti-Covid measures – facemasks and passports – while leaving very little room for further restrictions if, as predicted, a wave of Omicron sweeps the land. For potentially the first time during this pandemic, civil liberties defenders have the overwhelming backing of the public…
Vaccine Effectiveness Drops Below Zero in 18-29 Year-Olds for First Time – But Boosters Appear to be Helping
By Will Jones
The latest UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report, containing data for the month ending December 12th, brings mixed news on the vaccines. First the bad news. Unadjusted vaccine effectiveness based on the raw reported infection rates is still negative for all aged between 18 and 70 (see above). In fact, it’s gone negative for the first time in 18-29 year-olds, down to minus-10.1%, after a sharp drop in the last week. A negative vaccine effectiveness means the infection rate per 100,000 people is higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. This means that vaccine passports and vaccine mandates will be ineffective at preventing transmission, and indeed it implies that the vaccinated are actually a higher transmission risk than the unvaccinated. Far from protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, then, as much current policy seems intended to do, perhaps the unvaccinated should be wary of the company of the vaccinated. For those in their 40s in particular, unadjusted vaccine effectiveness is minus-119%, meaning the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be carrying the virus as the unvaccinated.
The goods news, however, is that the boosters appear to be having a significant impact. Unadjusted vaccine effectiveness has been rising in the older age groups for some weeks, and is now solidly positive in the over-70s, albeit at a not-very-impressive 39.5% in 70-79 year-olds and 53.3% in the over-80s. That this rise is likely due to the third doses is indicated by the fact it has occurred in staggered fashion in each age group, apparently in line with when boosters were rolled out.
What appears to be the case to the casual eye has been put more rigorously to the test by Dr. Richard J. Booth, a retired civil servant with a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics. In a new piece published by the Daily Sceptic today, Dr. Booth undertakes statistical analysis to compare the booster rollout rates in each age group with the changes in the relative reported infection rates to see if there is any correlation over time. He explains:
It occurred to me that since the third doses have been deployed at different rates in the different age groups, it might be possible to observe, and analyse, a ripple of decreasing infection rates from older to younger people over the last few weeks. So I developed a statistical model for infection rates, including a value dependent on the week (because the epidemic progresses at a rather unpredictable rate from week to week), and a week-dependent value proportional to the number of people who two or more weeks earlier had had the third dose compared with the number having had at least the first dose. I divided out the infection rate data by its value in the first week, to put the different age ranges on the same footing.
He concludes that what appeared to be the case is validated by his model, and the booster rollout correlates well with the changes in relative infection rates.
I conclude that though three doses of vaccines may have been effective from the outset, statistical support for that proposition via these sources did not become apparent until week 44’s data was published, when nearly half of over 80’s had had boosters two or more weeks earlier, but has been sustained since then. Of course, ‘statistical support’ is not a cast-iron proof, as correlation is not causation and there might be ‘unknown unknowns’ at work. Nevertheless it is highly suggestive that the prior statistical work on Covid vaccines is vindicated here.
While not all readers will follow every detail in Dr. Booth’s thorough and technical article, it is well worth checking out.
There are signs of a similar rise in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death, which remain reassuringly high on this data.
The percentage of Covid hospital admissions in the unvaccinated has also been creeping up. While, contrary to what many claim, the unvaccinated still constitute a minority of Covid hospital admissions, the percentage has grown in the past month from 32.6% to 42.9%.
The booster success story is a double-edged one, however, as the sharp rise in unadjusted vaccine effectiveness since the rollout only underlines how poorly the two doses were performing only a few months after being administered. That the booster effect is showing up in the data indicates the data is telling us something meaningful about the vaccines. But that cuts both ways, as it means the negative vaccine effectiveness frequently showing up in the same data is also likely to be telling us something important.
If boosters are indeed boosting vaccine effectiveness, dragging the unadjusted rates up from below zero where they had long settled, the obvious question is: How long is the booster going to work for? How often are people going to have to have these injections? At the moment, there looks to be no end in sight. Since there are serious questions about the safety of the vaccines and their overall impact on mortality, the prospect of having two per year may, for many, become an increasingly unwelcome one.
Wales to Tighten Covid Restrictions Immediately After Christmas
By Luke Perry
On December 27th, the Welsh Government will introduce a series of new Covid restrictions which include shutting nightclubs, mandating that shops abide by social distancing protocols for both staff and customers, as well as bringing back work from home requirements. First Minister Mark Drakeford has declared that the spread of the Omicron variant necessitates this course of action, calling it “the most serious development in the pandemic to date”. MailOnline has more.
Until December 27th, the Welsh Government is encouraging people to follow five steps: getting vaccinated, making sure to have a negative lateral flow test result before going shopping or meeting people, meeting in well-ventilated areas (preferably outdoors), spacing out socialising to allow test days in between, and adhering to social distancing, wearing a face covering and washing hands.
It is also urging people to reduce contact with others over the coming days, especially if Christmas plans include seeing older or more vulnerable people.
First Minister Mark Drakeford said: “Delta will continue to be the main cause of Covid infections in Wales up to Christmas. But we are seeing cases of Omicron increasing rapidly every day in Wales, and across the U.K.
“We need a plan to keep us safe this Christmas and we need stronger measures to protect us afterwards, as we prepare for a large wave of Omicron infections.
“Omicron poses a new threat to our health and safety. It is the most serious development in the pandemic to date.
“It is one we must take seriously. We will continue to put in place proportionate measures to protect people’s lives and livelihoods.
“This is a virus which thrives on human contact. Every contact we have is an opportunity for us to spread or catch the virus.”
The changes for businesses comes with the announcement that up to £60 million will be available to support those affected by the new measures.
He added: “This year a smaller Christmas is a safer Christmas. The fewer people we see, the less chance we have of catching or passing on the virus.
“Please enjoy Christmas with your nearest and dearest, and think about meeting up with wider circles of friends when the threat posed by the Omicron variant has passed over.
“I also want to thank the many thousands of people who will be working this Christmas to keep us safe, especially all those who have cancelled their plans to work in the vaccination centres across Wales to increase our protection against this awful virus.”
The restrictions come after Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted today that the Government does not want to “lock stuff down” in England.
Instead, he urged Britons to “prioritise” social events, get a booster and do a lateral flow test before meeting people.
Worth reading in full.
2021 Was an Outstanding Year For Eco Loons And Climate Hypocrites
By Toby Young
We’re publishing an end-of-year celebration by freelance journalist Chris Morrison of all the eco loons and climate hypocrites who have made 2021 so entertaining. Here is an extract:
In January the Isle of Wight council considered planting trees to offset all the island’s CO2 emissions. By 2030 it would mean doubling the area covered by trees, something that was said to be not “totally impossible”. The estimable climate writer and retired accountant Paul Homewood did the maths and found almost the entire island would have to be turned into a forest. Of course, the trees would die within 40 years and the C02 would return to the atmosphere. In Brazil a group of academics suggested that climate change had led to a significant increase in hospitalisations for kidney disease. Marginal increases in temperature could affect almost anything, but a more credible explanation in this case might be better diagnosis in an improving local health care system.
The Potty Prelates section is always highly contested, but this year’s standout winner is the Archbishop of Canterbury. He told COP26 politicians that if they didn’t stop climate change by following an unproven science hypothesis they would be guilty of indirect genocide. Those who failed to take the necessary action, said Justin Welby, “would be viewed in an even worse light than those who had ignored the rise of Nazi Germany”. Pure ecclesiastical class of course, although some points were deducted when he issued a hasty apology following the broadcasting of his remarks on the BBC.
Worth reading in full.
An interview with David Paton
By Noah Carl
David Paton is a professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School. He’s also a lockdown sceptic and a member of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team. During the pandemic, he’s written articles about lockdowns, Sweden, the pingdemic and Covid forecasting. He tweets under @CricketWyvern. I interviewed him via email.
On 4th February, you wrote a piece for The Critic titled ‘Seven indicators that show infections were falling before Lockdown 3.0’, which argued that infections probably peaked before England entered full lockdown on 6th January. Could you briefly summarise the evidence you presented?
Working out when infections start to go up or down can be tricky for several reasons: not everyone with an infection will be tested, symptoms typically appear some time after the initial infection, and there will be a longer lag before an infection results in hospitalisation or death. These lags will vary from case to case and in an unknown proportion of cases, there are no symptoms at all.
The interesting thing about January’s lockdown is that every single indicator tells us that infections peaked well before the full lockdown was in place. Since my article in The Critic, two further pieces of evidence have confirmed this.
First, we now have the more formal analysis of mortality data by Professor Simon Wood of Edinburgh University, which concludes that infections were falling before each of the three English lockdowns.
Second, the ONS Official Incidence Estimates were published in mid-March and put the peak of infections between 20th and 26th December. By the time of lockdown, the ONS estimate infections had already fallen by 40%. These are estimates, but even the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for 20th–26th December is higher than the upper bound for the week of lockdown.
In my view, saying infections “probably” peaked before the lockdown is no longer a fair reflection of the evidence. Rather, we can be “virtually certain” that they did.
This has important implications. It means that, like the first two lockdowns, the January national lockdown was not necessary for infections in England to start falling. Put another way, hospital admissions would not have continued to rise to unsustainable levels in the absence of lockdown. Of course, this does not answer the secondary question of whether earlier tiered-restrictions had any significant impact on infections. However, it is worth noting that infections were falling pre-lockdown even in regions like Yorkshire which were never put into Tier 4.
Then on 18th March, you wrote an article for Spiked titled ‘The myth of our ‘late’ lockdown’, which argued that locking down earlier wouldn’t have made much difference. In the article, you referred to “the discredited assumption that governments can turn infections on or off like a tap”. What did you mean by that?
For the past two years, Governments around the world have made policy based on the assumptions that: Covid cases continue rising indefinitely unless restrictions are introduced, restrictions and lockdowns inevitably lead to lower infection rates, and lifting restrictions always leads to cases surging. All of these assumptions are wrong.
Time and again, we’ve seen infections go down before lockdowns were introduced or, as in Sweden in spring 2020, Florida a year later and many other cases, without significant additional restrictions. In other cases like Germany and the Czech Republic in early 2021, we’ve seen infections continue to rise during strict lockdowns. Particularly striking for me was England last November when infections in London and the South East actually started to rise in the middle of our national lockdown.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that lockdowns and other restrictions have no effect at all. In some cases, they may lead infections to fall a bit sooner than otherwise, or somewhat faster. But even the evidence for some small, marginal effect is not particularly strong, especially when you take a long term perspective. And for many restrictions like curfews, vaccine passports, table service at pubs and the rule of 6, it is hard to identify any supporting evidence at all. At a minimum, Governments (and often their scientific modellers) overestimate the impact of their interventions, particularly on serious health outcomes.
For many people this is counterintuitive – surely lockdowns reduce human interaction and hence have a very large impact on infections and deaths? In fact, the reality is more complicated. People respond to rising infections and deaths by changing their behaviour voluntarily. And these voluntary changes will be concentrated among the more vulnerable, meaning compulsory restrictions do hit activity (and hence the economy) even more, but because the vulnerable have already limited their interactions, they have less effect on serious outcomes.
In addition, restrictions can have unintended consequences that may outweigh any benefit of the intervention. Who can forget the scenes of packed tube stations when the 10pm curfew caused thousands of people to leave pubs and restaurants at the same time? And if you shut pubs for months on end, it is no surprise that young people simply decide to meet up in unlicensed venues and private homes. I discuss other reasons why lockdowns are less effective than people imagine in this article for Spiked.
Economists are trained in concepts like trade-offs, cost-benefit analysis and unintended consequences. Yet “most either stayed silent or actively promoted lockdown”, to quote Mikko Packalen and Jay Bhattacharya. Why have there been so few critics of lockdown within the economics profession?
In terms of our value judgements and personal stances, economists are probably no less susceptible to fearmongering messages from Government and social pressures to conform than other people. However, you are right that we should expect economists to be more prominent in pointing out the flaw of basing a policy almost entirely on one outcome, i.e., trying to control short run infections.
There has been some excellent work by economists looking more closely at the cost and benefits. An early example is the work of Professor David Miles and colleagues, who estimated that the costs of continuing restrictions were likely far higher than any benefits. A more recent paper by Professor Doug Allen of Simon Fraser University in the International Journal of the Economics of Business concluded that, using mid-point estimates, the costs of lockdowns probably exceeded the benefits by a factor of 141 times. As a result, Professor Allen suggests that “lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.”
The reality may be even worse than that. Recent research by economist Professors Karli and Anthony Glass and colleagues provides evidence that the first English lockdown probably had the net effect of increasing excess mortality. In other words, even if lockdowns averted some deaths due to Covid (and we cannot even be certain about that), these were outweighed by the deaths caused by lockdown.
There are other economists who have spoken out about the damage caused by lockdowns. However, one worrying thing which cannot be ignored is the vilification many academics experience when they do speak out against the mainstream policy response. I have been contacted personally by academics who have been threatened with disciplinary action for discussing evidence against lockdowns in a public forum. Given this, it is perhaps no surprise that many economists prefer to keep their heads under the parapet. It is hard to suppress the truth for ever, and I suspect that as more research comes out on the high costs of our interventions and their limited (at best) effectiveness, history will judge the lockdown sceptics favourably.
Some people argue that vaccine passports are needed to encourage take-up of the vaccines. What do you make of this argument?
It is a fundamental principle of medical ethics that treatment should only be given if there is full and informed consent. To introduce vaccine passports as a way of blackmailing young people to get vaccinated is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Indeed, I find it remarkable that politicians openly admit this is their intention. That in itself reveals a moral vacuum among many of our leaders.
Although such an approach is wrong in principle, there is little evidence to justify it even on public health grounds. A policy of offering vaccination to the elderly and vulnerable has a strong basis in terms of the impact on serious illness and deaths. The public policy benefits on infection rates from broader vaccination programmes of the general population is less clear.
For example, a recent paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology found that increases in infections were not associated with vaccination levels across countries or US counties. This should perhaps not be surprising given the increasing evidence on how fast vaccine effectiveness against infection (not necessarily serious illness) wanes, and the fact that a large proportion of the unvaccinated have immunity from previous infection.
There seems to be little acknowledgement of the possibility that, for some people, the risks of vaccination, even if low, may outweigh any benefits. Take, for example, a healthy 20-year old male who has recently had Covid. Given the immunity from previous infection and the very low risks of Covid for his age group, any benefit (public or private) of vaccination will be vanishingly small. In contrast, he faces a small but non-trivial risk of heart problems, particularly after the second dose. It is disgraceful that public policy is pressurising and (in the case of healthcare workers) coercing people into getting vaccinated when they judge that vaccination is not right for them at this time.
Apart from being unethical, authoritarian vaccination policies are likely to have adverse long-term consequences for public health by increasing vaccine hesitancy and distrust among key groups. Dr Alex de Figueiredo and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have published some interesting research data on this. Vaccine mandates and passports may well increase take up to some extent, but the danger is they will cause some people to get vaccinated when it is not in their interests, whilst others in vulnerable groups for whom vaccination may be very beneficial will double down on their hesitancy.
The official reason given for offering the vaccine to 12–15 year olds, against the recommendation of the JCVI, is that doing so would “reduce disruption to education”. But that doesn’t stack up, does it?
No it does not. I wrote about this for the Spectator when the rollout was announced. The official modelling suggested that, by reducing the number of infections and subsequent isolation, vaccination would only save an average of 15 minutes of education per child. But even this ignored time lost from vaccination process itself during the school day, as well as time lost due to vaccine side effects.
There are also problems with the modelling which, remarkably, ignored immunity from previous infection and assumed 55% vaccine effectiveness from one dose for a 6 month period. A recent pre-print (which hasn’t yet been peer reviewed) by researchers from the UK Health and Security Agency finds that, for the first 9 days following vaccination, children experience close to 30% negative effectiveness: i.e. for 9 days, vaccinated 12–15 year olds are more likely to test positive than the unvaccinated. Effectiveness rises to 75% by 2 weeks but then wanes very quickly: just 4 weeks later, vaccine effectiveness is already below the 55% used by in the Govt model.
The authors conclude that if the aim is to prevent infection, “regular Covid-19 vaccine boosters will be required” for adolescents. We can wonder what the response of parents would have been if they had been given this information when the vaccination rollout for children started in October.
You’re a Brit. Given what we know now, what should Boris Johnson have done in March of 2020?
We now have copious evidence that Government lockdowns and restrictions have very limited (and in many cases zero) benefit in terms of reducing serious illness and death. But they cause huge economic, social and psychological damage. As we discussed earlier, it is now also clear that infections were already decreasing at the time of the national lockdown. This is important as it means that, in contrast to the messages being put out at the time, there was no prospect of infections rising to such an extent that health services would have been overwhelmed.
So Boris Johnson could and should have avoided mandatory restrictions and lockdown back in March. Apart from investing in health service capacity and capability, the more general policy focus should have been on providing accurate information and advice (especially for the most vulnerable) and voluntary guidance. Instead, the Government did exactly the opposite with messaging designed to create fear, attempts to manipulate behaviour and a very one-sided presentation of statistics.
For example, as early as 13th April 2020, it was clear from the “deaths by specimen date” which I presented daily in my Twitter feed, that deaths in England had started to decline by 8th April. Given the lag from infection to death, this was the first evidence we had that infections peaked before the national lockdown on 23rd March.
Without a doubt Government advisors were aware of this too. Yet for weeks afterward, they continued to talk at the daily press conferences about increasing death numbers, focusing on days when there was a particularly high number of reported deaths, even though many of the deaths had occurred several weeks earlier. Had they presented the data fairly, the case for continuing lockdown would have been fatally weakened. Perhaps Ministers saw their approach as one of political necessity, but it will cause long term lack of trust in Government messaging.
It is sometimes argued that politicians can be excused for going down the lockdown route in the spring of 2020, as they were facing a new virus and there were so many uncertainties. I disagree. In such circumstances it is more important than ever to hold fast to principles and ethics.
We need to remember that the Government took it upon itself to decide who we could invite into our own homes, and even our gardens. They shut down schools for millions of children for months on end. They criminalised public worship. They ordered millions of healthy young people to stay locked up in their houses for most of the day. That they did all this without presenting any strong evidence that such measures have significant public health benefits makes it even worse.
Irrespective of any benefits, for the Government to criminalise normal human activity for months on end is simply wrong. It should never have happened and it should never happen again. The tragedy is that, given recent events in Parliament, I am not sure that any lessons have been learnt.
Downing Street Christmas Party Investigator Accused of Breaking Lockdown Rules
By Luke Perry
Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary who has been tasked with investigating last winter’s Downing Street Christmas parties, faces accusations that he himself broke lockdown rules by attending an informal Christmas work party with his colleagues in December 2020, in violation of London’s Tier Two restrictions which were in place at the time. Although the regulations meant that indoor socialisation was banned, Whitehall officials claim that alcohol was brought into the office, and that Case was seen mingling with the guests. The Independent has more.
Britain’s top civil servant – who is investigating claims parties were held at Downing Street – has been accused of attending an impromptu Christmas drinks himself last year in breach of Covid rules, the Independent has learnt.
Simon Case, who was asked by Boris Johnson to look into potential Government gatherings at the end of 2020 , is alleged to have shared drinks with 15 to 20 staff in mid-December 2020, according to two Whitehall officials who attended the event.
The informal event, according to a joint investigation by the Independent and Politico, was said to have taken place at his office and in the waiting room outside in 70 Whitehall.
A third official, who did not attend, said the event was discussed the following week and they were asked whether they attended the “waiting room drinks.”
Today, Labour and the SNP questioned whether Case was suitable to lead an investigation into Downing Street’s allegedly rule-breaching parties, in light of the revelations.
A source close to the Cabinet Office said they could not rule out that drinks had been consumed at civil servants’ desks, but a spokesman rejected claims of an organised gathering, saying in a statement: “These allegations are categorically untrue.”
At the time, London was in Tier Two restrictions, meaning people were not allowed to socialise indoors and were told to work from home where possible.
Several bottles of wine and Prosecco were poured in the office, the two officials present claim, and in the waiting room of the cabinet secretary. Case allegedly carried a glass through the group as he greeted staff who gathered for what one official characterised as “last-minute” drinks, including civil servants from other departments.
Case was described as “in and out” of the gathering, drinking with colleagues. Crisps were also served and there were Christmas decorations on the tables, one of those present claimed. The same official said it was “a fairly regular occurrence” for civil servants to drink at their desks during this time but claimed that the gathering in Case’s office was “a piss-up” including his team and members of other departments.
The Whitehall employees who spoke to the Independent and Politico questioned the suitability of Simon Case to lead the inquiry into Downing Street parties.
Worth reading in full.
Time Magazine is Right to Select Elon Musk as Person of the Year
By Luke Perry
Writing for Mail Plus, Toby has stood by Time magazine’s Person of the Year award going to Elon Musk, and has praised the tycoon’s bravery for being a devout lockdown sceptic. As Toby points out, earlier in the year, Musk tweeted a favourable response to one of Toby’s tweets commenting on how well Sweden had fared during the pandemic, with the tycoon’s internet fame ensuring that the original post got plenty of attraction. In his article, Toby explains why he was so delighted to get a response from the eccentric multi-billionaire.
There’s also the fact that in 2021 he became the richest man in the world – or, indeed, in the history of the world, with a net worth of over $250 billion. If Elon Musk is following me on Twitter, I thought, maybe he’ll buy me a new car for Christmas. Among other things, he owns Tesla, which controls two-thirds of America’s electric vehicle market and is worth a trillion dollars.
But the main reason I was so chuffed is because the tweet he was responding to – favourably, I might add – was about how well Sweden had fared during the pandemic. As anyone who’s been following the news will know, Sweden was almost alone in not imposing a lockdown in 2020 and experienced one of the lowest excess death rates in Europe.
So Musk, it turns out, is a lockdown sceptic, something that’s attracted a lot of criticism in the U.S. For instance, in May of last year he reopened his Tesla factory in northern California in defiance of a local public health order shutting down businesses and ordering citizens to stay at home.
“Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules,” he tweeted. “I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”
The local authorities decided to do nothing in response, proving it was possible to defy its authoritarian diktats without being punished.
Almost alone among the billionaire class, Musk has been fiercely critical of Covid restrictions, describing them as “fascist” and, at the height of the lockdowns, tweeting: “FREE AMERICA NOW.”
Earlier this year Musk relocated Tesla’s headquarters to Austin, thanks to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s more laissez-faire approach to dealing with the pandemic.
He isn’t a vaccine sceptic and has been vaccinated himself, but draws the line at ‘No Jab, No Job’ and believes any attempt to strong-arm people into having the jab is wrong.
“You are taking a risk, but people do risky things all the time,” he says of the unvaccinated. “I believe we’ve got to watch out for the erosion of freedom in America.”
Others will be fans of the eccentric industrialist for more conventional reasons. Time magazine made him its ‘Man of the Year’ in 2021, primarily because of the success of Space-X, his rocket company…
But Elon Musk is my Man of the Year because of his courageous stand against the madness that’s engulfed the world over the past year and a half. Being a lockdown sceptic can be a lonely business, with the vast majority of rich and powerful people ranged against you and dismissing you as a ‘denier’.
Worth reading in full.
North Shropshire By-Election: Humiliation for Boris Johnson as Tories lose to Lib Dems
By Toby Young
To no one’s surprise, the Conservatives have lost the North Shropshire by-election to the Lib Dems. Another blow to Boris’s authority and another reason it will be hard for him to impose a full lockdown without triggering a leadership challenge. The Telegraph has more.
The Liberal Democrats have pulled off an extraordinary victory in North Shropshire by taking a lifelong Tory seat in the by-election for the first time in 200 years.
In a shock result, the Lib Dem candidate Helen Morgan secured 17,957 votes, leaving the Conservative Neil Shastri-Hurst with 12,032, and giving the Lib Dems a majority of 5,925 after a massive swing of 34%.
The by-election was called after Owen Paterson resigned following sleaze allegations after he was found to have broken lobbying rules for taking around half a million pounds from two companies and seeking to influence government policy.
The North Shropshire seat has returned a Conservative MP since 1830. It will prove a humiliating defeat for the Tories and will be regarded by many as a referendum on Boris Johnson’s leadership.
Mr Paterson had represented the constituency since 1997 and held it in 2019 with a majority of 22,949 with 62.7% of the vote. Labour came second with 22.1% of the vote and the Lib Dems had just 10% of the vote. When Ms. Morgan, a chartered accountant, ran for the seat in 2019 she came third.
The constituency also voted Leave in the 2016 referendum, at odds with the Lib Dems who became synonymous with the Remain vote.
Worth reading in full.
News Round-Up
By Luke Perry
- “Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to no longer lead investigation after revelation of Christmas event in his office” – Cabinet Secretary Simon Case removes himself from his role in heading the probe into claims of parties being held in Downing Street and other Government buildings last year in alleged breaches of Covid lockdown rules, reports Sky News.
- “Fewer Covid patients are being admitted to hospital in South Africa” – Health Minister Joe Phaahla said 1.7% of cases were hospitalised during the second week of the current wave. For comparison, he said it was 19% in the second week of Delta, reports MailOnline.
- “They may not realise it, but the lockdown sceptics have won the Omicron war” – It’s now too late to impose a new lockdown. The variant is spreading much too fast for that to make any difference, says Juliet Samuel in the Telegraph.
- “A response to Curtis Yarvin on the pandemic” – Neoreactionary blogger Curtis Yarven has recently doubled-down on his support for ‘zero-Covid’, with the arguments and talking points he expresses challenged by Dr. Noah Smith in his latest Substack update.
- “Always winter, never Christmas: life in the bio-security state” – “The people of this country, whose ancestors gave their lives in the preservation of liberty, will be further moulded into the bio-security state,” writes Luke Perry, who examines the continuous intensification of Covid restrictions in Bournbrook Magazine.
- “Bosses call for financial support as Covid rips through companies” – “Business leaders have called on the Government to move quickly to restore confidence amid the rapid spread of Omicron and fears that a large number of workers will call in sick, creating further disruption to supply chains,” reports the Times.
- “Chris Whitty: Prepare for another 18 months of Covid chaos” – England’s Chief Medical Officer said he expects a universal jab to be ready at some point in mid-2023. But he admitted that in the meantime, ministers will have to rely on a mix of social curbs and boosters, reports MailOnline.
- “It’s time to abolish ‘emergency’ Covid powers” – “We need to claw back all the power seized by various institutions in the name of emergency. When that’s done, we need a searching inquiry into how the power was exercised,” writes Glenn Reynolds in the New York Post.
- “Restaurants face food waste mountain as cancellations soar over Omicron fears” – Hospitality industry struggles with drop-off in custom as Covid concerns lead to scrapping of festive plans, reports the Guardian.
- “Why Omicron may not lead to a surge in hospitalisations” – “For the moment there is little sign of a bulge in hospitalisations – and every reason, from the South African experience, to hope that the outcome will not be nearly as gloomy as last night’s press conference would suggest,” writes Ross Clark in the Spectator.
- “Horseshoe crabs could go to extinct because their blood tests vaccines” – U.S. scientists drain the horseshoe crabs of their blue blood for up to eight minutes and are returned to the wild, but data shows up to 30% of the creatures die shortly after, reports the Mail.
- “Premier League clubs want festive shutdown to tackle Covid crisis” – “A number of Premier League clubs are pushing for a festive firebreak shutdown as they fight to contain the Covid crisis in top-flight football,” reports the Times.
- “Presenting the case for Vitamin D” – “Vitamin D can improve immune functioning and suppress the inflammatory cytokine response, particularly important for Covid, while low vitamin D levels predispose us to increased risk of respiratory tract infections and pneumonia,” writes HART.
- “Thousands protest Covid rules as New Zealand marks 90% vaccine rates” – “Thousands marched in New Zealand’s capital Wellington on Thursday to protest against Covid vaccine mandates and lockdowns,” reports Reuters.
- “Fauci says Christmas parties can go ahead – for now” – Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday that fully vaccinated people “could still enjoy a social gathering generally in a home”, but advised people to be careful in large indoor public spaces, reports the Mail.
- “‘I can’t get a single present’: millions in U.S. barely scraping by amid holidays” – As of November, 15.6 million workers in the U.S. are still affected by the economic downturn caused by lockdown restrictions, reports the Guardian.
- “Australia cricket captain Pat Cummins escapes hotel quarantine on charter plane” – “The special treatment accorded Cummins might jar with England’s players, who had to serve two weeks of quarantine on the Gold Coast at the start of the tour,” reports the Times.
- “Switzerland to hold referendum on outlawing mandatory vaccinations” – “Switzerland is set to hold a referendum on whether all mandatory vaccinations should be banned. The Swiss Freedom Movement association collected 125,000 signatures, 25,000 more than required to trigger the vote,” reports MailOnline.
- “No, both sides of the culture war are not as bad as each other” – The woke oppose freedom, the anti-woke champion it. There is no moral equivalence, writes Patrick West in Spiked.
- “Don’t cancel Christmas again” – Dr. Roland Salmon speaks to Talkradio about why the Government must not cancel Christmas again: “I don’t think personal restrictions have delivered anything in public health terms. The impact of lockdown on the data is less dramatic than our mathematically inclined colleagues predict.”