How Boris Johnson can’t win over virus science – Bill Carmichael

If we just took our increasingly divisive politics out of the equation, and relied on the hard facts and data that science would provide, the path to recovery would run smoothly.

The idea that the Government was following an evidence-based strategy against Covid was visually emphasised – very deliberately – every time the Prime Minister appeared at televised news conferences flanked by his scientific wing men – the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance.

But the big problem with this approach is that sometimes the data and evidence simply are not sufficient to make a properly informed choice and a decision has to be made on the basis of facts that are far from clear or complete.

In other words the policy on how to fight Covid becomes a judgment call balancing the pros and cons of each action – and this is territory of imprecise politics rather than the clarity of science.

And to complicate matters further, quite often those impartial scientists giving advice to the politicians disagree with each other profoundly.

This week a group of distinguished academics, led by eminent scientists from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford universities, and backed by 6,000 other experts, issued something called the Great Barrington Declaration, named after the town in Massachusetts where it was drawn up, calling for a radical re-think of anti-Covid strategies around the world.

They cited the impact of pandemic restrictions on mental and physical health, particularly to the most disadvantaged sectors of society, and called for an end to blanket lockdowns.

They recommended younger and healthier people should be allowed to get back to normal, in order to build up “herd immunity”, while the more vulnerable, in care homes and hospitals, should be shielded.

Okay, if the science is clear, then perhaps that is the way the politicians should follow. Simple, isn’t it?

But hold on a second – the moment the Declaration was published equally distinguished scientists from equally prestigious universities were lining up to denounce it as rubbish. They argued that you might at a pinch be able to shield the vulnerable in care homes, but protecting older people in the wider community would be virtually impossible.

One eminent epidemiologist from Yale University said the proposal amounts to a “culling of the sick and disabled” and it goes without saying that no politician would want that on their CV.

So in short, the scientists cannot agree among themselves. I have read the evidence produced by both sides and I have to say I don’t know either. The data is simply not sufficient to make a firm conclusion either way.

And it is left to the politicians to pick the bones out of those conflicting and mutually exclusive arguments. Trying to elicit a bit of sympathy for our political leaders is not going to make me popular, but they are left with an impossible task.

It is a classic “no-win” situation. Whatever the politicians decide, people will die as a result. They will either die because lockdowns have eased and Covid has been allowed to spread, or they will die from mental health problems or undiagnosed cancers or other diseases that were untreated because severe lockdowns were imposed.

There are going to be losers either way. In six months’ time someone, somewhere will be able, quite truthfully, to say to Boris Johnson: “My mum died because of the policies you followed.” And that is true regardless of the actual decision the Prime Minister takes.

Frankly, I would not be in Johnson’s shoes, or any other government Minister’s for that matter, for all the riches in the world. They are on a hiding to nothing.

And with cases continuing to spike they will be forced to make some big decisions very soon. Should they follow Scotland’s example and start closing pubs and restaurants entirely? And should these be blanket restrictions on the whole country or imposed on specific areas?

As I say, I don’t know the answer to this question – and I strongly suspect nobody else does either. I just pray for the sake of our country the Government makes the right call.

Support The Yorkshire Post and become a subscriber today.

Your subscription will help us to continue to bring quality news to the people of Yorkshire. In return, you’ll see fewer ads on site, get free access to our app and receive exclusive members-only offers.

So, please - if you can - pay for our work. Just £5 per month is the starting point. If you think that which we are trying to achieve is worth more, you can pay us what you think we are worth. By doing so, you will be investing in something that is becoming increasingly rare. Independent journalism that cares less about right and left and more about right and wrong. Journalism you can trust.

Thank you

James Mitchinson