Ross Clark

It turns out we’re not quite so in awe of predictive modelling after all. How different it was back in March when Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College published their paper predicting 250,000 deaths from Covid unless the government changed course and put the country into lockdown. It was ‘the science’; it was fact, beyond question. Yet no sooner had the A-level results been published last week than a very different attitude began to prevail. How terrible, nearly everyone now says, that an 18-year-old’s future can be determined by an algorithm which tries to predict what grade they would have achieved had they sat the cancelled exams.

We are, of course, in the middle of a deadly pandemic of a novel infectious disease. It’s just that it is not, at present, killing remotely as many people in England and Wales as that boring old disease which no-one seems ever to worry about: the summer flu. Winter flu, yes – sometimes we worry about that overwhelming the NHS. We take the precaution of vaccination the elderly and other vulnerable groups. But the summer flu? It hardly registers. Yet few seem to have noticed, while we fret about whether reopening schools, bars and so on will cause a second wave of Covid-19, that flu (and pneumonia) appears to be killing five times as many people in England and Wales.

Why do so many news outlets – the BBC in particular – prefer reporting grim worst-case scenarios made by mathematical models to more optimistic real-world data? The Today programme excelled itself again this morning by putting in its lead 8.10am slot a study by UCL and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine into the possible consequences of the Covid-19 epidemic on reopening schools. Many listeners will have picked up on, and gone away with, one simple message: that a second spike of Covid-19 next winter could be twice as large as the first.

A similar phenomenon is developing with the Covid recession as happened with Brexit. News outlets – the BBC in particular – are choosing to focus on dire economic predictions at the expense of more positive real-world data. Yesterday, we heard no end of it when EY forecast that the economy would not reach its pre-Covid size until the end of 2024, 18 months longer than it had previously forecast. Yet where is the coverage today of the CBI’s distributive trades survey, which suggests that retail sales in July have been pretty much back to where they were a year ago, and that car sales are actually up on last July?

More data emerges on one of the central questions of the Covid-19 epidemic: just how many of us have had the infection and have, as a result, built up some immunity towards it? The question is crucial because it governs whether or not we need to fear a second spike of the epidemic.  It is possible that many people may have effective immunity without the detectable presence of antibodies in their blood In its latest weekly surveillance report, Public Health England (PHE) revises its estimate for the percentage of the English population which is carrying antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. It now says that 6.5 per cent have had the virus, compared with an estimate of 8.5 per cent it made on 4 June. In London, it estimates that 9.

Hopes for economic recovery have faded a little of late as Covid-19 cases continue to rack up in many parts of the world. The grand reopening of bars, restaurants and the like has turned into a bit of damp squib, serving to remind everyone how far we remain from normality. Yet today comes a double bill of good news – verging, indeed, on the dramatic. The Office for National Statistics put out its figures for retail sales in June, which turned out to be 13.9 per cent up on those in May. This is way in excess of what economists were expecting – a survey for Reuters showed a consensus of around 8 per cent – and takes retail sales pretty much back to where they were before the crisis struck. Year on year, sales for June were down just 1.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could debate climate change for five minutes without hearing about polar bears or being subjected to footage of them perched precariously on a melting ice floe? But that is a little too much to expect. Polar bears have become the pin-ups of climate change, the poor creatures who are supposed to jolt us out of thinking about abstract concepts and make us weep that our own selfishness is condemning these magnificent animals to a painful and hungry end. Needless to say, the Guardian and BBC jumped on the opportunity for more polar bear coverage when a paper appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change, predicting that a high carbon emissions scenario ‘will jeopardise the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.

How excited should we be about the latest news of the Oxford vaccine? At least this time – in contrast to previous updates, which have tended to come via Downing Street briefings – we have a paper in a scientific journal, the Lancet, to go by. The paper reports that 1,077 people took part in the trial and that 90 per cent developed antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus after a single dose of the vaccine. All developed antibodies after a second dose. The trial also tested for adverse side-effects – which were widespread, but all of which were described as ‘mild’ or ‘moderate’. Some patients were given paracetamol along with the vaccine, but of those who were not, 70 per cent reported a sense of fatigue and 68 per cent reported a headache.