Ross Clark

In a strategy that now appears to be one of outright suppression, the government has put huge stock in the approval of a vaccine before too long. But could the answer turn out to be not a vaccine but an anti-viral drug? Research by a team from Bristol University and published in the journal Science today has discovered a possible basis for a drug that could prevent the SARS-Cov-2 virus entering the human body.  While studying the spike protein that facilitates spread of the virus, the team, led by Imre Berger and Christiane Schaffitzel, unexpectedly found molecules of linoleic acid in a pocket of the protein.

Back in May I wrote about a study by La Jolla Institute for Immunology, which raised the possibility that exposure to coronaviruses which cause the common cold could offer some degree of immunity to Covid-19. Scientists involved in the research had discovered a reaction to Sars-CoV-2 – the virus which causes Covid-19 – in the T cells of people who had not been infected with the virus, but at the time they weren’t sure whether it was a strong enough reaction to offer any effective immunity. Since then, however, more and more evidence has emerged of T cell immune responses against Sars-CoV-2 which have been provoked by exposure to other coronaviruses, such as the common cold.

Perhaps the most reliable test of Covid-19 levels is carried out by the Office for National Statistics, which every week releases the results of random samples. The results, just published, show a striking divergence in age. Another significant rise amongst the young but, importantly, almost no rise amongst the over-70s who are those who made up the vast majority of deaths so far. For this week’s issue, out this morning, 208,730 people in England were swabbed in the mouth and throat. From this, it estimates that between 49,900 and 75,200 people are currently infected with the virus — with a central estimate of 59,800. This would equate to around one in 900 people — 0.12 per cent of the population — being infected.

It was easy to criticise Westminster for caving into Extinction Rebellion’s demands for a ‘citizen’s assembly’ on climate change when it agreed to convene just such a body at the end of last year. By appeasing the group’s law-breaking, so the argument went, parliament was emboldening XR and other direct action groups to block streets, spraypaint buildings, smash windows and so on.  But the exercise, which has just concluded in a handful of recommendations to government, has served one purpose: it has proved that the public’s views on climate change and what to do about it are nowhere near that of Extinction Rebellion.

It was only a matter of time before Covid-19 got swept up into the wider narrative of humans facing impending doom thanks to our abuse of the planet. But one might have expected better of Sir David Attenborough. His latest BBC documentary, Extinction: The Facts, broadcast on Sunday night might as well have been produced by Extinction Rebellion, so determined was it to present a hysterical picture of apocalypse caused by consumerism and capitalism. Just to ram home the point, one contributor, naturalist Robert Watson, spoke of 'many in the private sector making a huge profit at the expense of the natural world', seemingly oblivious to the far greater rape of the environment committed by the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries.

Are we a lot closer to achieving herd immunity with Covid-19 than has been made out? It is a question which has been asked many times, not least because the disease has a tendency to fizzle out in communities where around a fifth of people have been infected – as has been observed in London, New York, the Brazilian city of Manaus and the Diamond Princess cruise ship. The government’s switch away from a herd immunity strategy to one of full lockdown in March, on the other hand, was based partly on the assumption that we would need at least 60 per cent of people to be infected before herd immunity was achieved.

The latest data on weekly deaths in England and Wales, published today by the Office of National Statistics, show what could be the beginning of a disturbing trend. From mid-June to mid-July, the number of excess deaths has been running at below the five-year average. But for the second week running, that has reversed: in the week ending 21 August there were 9,631 deaths, 474 higher (5.2 per cent) than the five-year average for this week of the year. The rise does not appear to have been caused by any increase in deaths from Covid-19, however. On the contrary, there were just 138 deaths for which the death certificate mentioned Covid-19 – the lowest for 22 weeks.

As schools return to full in-person teaching, a survey reveals just how far behind pupils are in their education. The National Foundation for Education Research polled 3,000 head teachers and other senior staff across 2,200 schools to ask how their pupils’ education has been affected. The replies reveal not just how far behind children have fallen, but how wide the gap has grown between the most and least-disadvantaged. The average response is that pupils are three months behind where they would normally be at this time of year. Just two per cent of teachers believe that their pupils have managed to keep up to date with learning. Ten per cent say that pupils are five months behind and four per cent believe their students are more than six months behind.

According to Jo Grady of the University and College Union, universities risk becoming the ‘care homes of the second wave’ unless students defy the government’s attempt to get them back in face-to-face education. She went on to claim that a return to campus ‘risks doing untold damage to people's health and exacerbating the worst public health crisis of our lifetimes’ and could lead to a ‘silent avalanche of infections’. Are these fears justified, or are they an attempt by the union to get its members out of having to do any work (while presumably collecting their salaries)? Any large number of people getting together and mixing from across the country risks some spreading of an infectious disease.

There are many reasons why employees might want to return to their offices and why their employers might be keen to get them there – such as to promote the exchange of ideas in an active environment, to help new recruits learn on the job, and, as Matthew Lynn argued here earlier, for employees to avoid their jobs being outsourced to South Asia. But is it really the job of government to launch a ‘back to the office’ campaign just to prop up the nation’s coffee shops?