
© REUTERS / Henry Nicholls
Anti-lockdown protest in London, Britain, August 29, 2020
The report, analysing the information available to UK policymakers in March, says
schools shouldn't have shut, that only vulnerable groups like the old should have been isolated, & that herd immunity may have been a better route.
A new
paper by researchers at Edinburgh University suggests that lockdowns do not help to reduce the death toll from Covid-19, but
may simply postpone those deaths. It's another piece of evidence that suggests that a different strategy to combat the pandemic - one that doesn't impose blanket restrictions across society - is needed.
The research was done by a team from Edinburgh's School of Physics and Astronomy. If that sounds odd, Professor Graeme Ackland, one of the authors, has a good explanation. He told me: "From March, every serious epidemiologist has been seconded to SPI-M (the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling) and SAGE (the main Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), producing new research on a timescale of days. There simply aren't enough of them to also do replication or even careful peer review. But there were thousands of people who could do data-cleaning, code checking, validation and replication."
Ackland and his colleagues were, he says, "tasked by SPI-M and SAGE with exploring any 'reservations'. SPI-M understood very well the problem of groupthink in a closed community, and asked us to 'kick the tyres' on everything. Another thing real epidemiologists would do themselves given enough time."
Their paper is
not really a criticism of the original modelling done before lockdown. In fact, it uses the model used by Imperial College to assess a wider range of scenarios than was done at the time. "My overall opinion", says Ackland, "is that the government's experts have reliably produced better predictions than the 'newspaper experts'."
Comment: The editors of the journal capitulated to the gatekeepers and put a disclaimer on the paper saying they aren't actually "pro-ID". Their excuse for allowing it? They were "unaware" that the keyword "intelligent design" was used: