Covid: kicking and screaming

By Richard North - December 23, 2021

It was only on Sunday, when the Omicrons seemed to be taking the world by storm, that the Guardian was wibbling that “the science is clear”, arguing that the case for more Covid restrictions was “overwhelming”.

By Tuesday it was desperately holding the line, hosting a piece from a prestigious scientist, squealing that: “Omicron is spreading at an alarming rate, and there’s no solid evidence it’s ‘milder”.

But, by late yesterday, however, the paper was being dragged kicking and screaming towards the light, as science editor Ian Sample and political editor Heather Stewart were forced to concede: “Risk of hospital stay 40% lower with Omicron than Delta, UK data suggests”.

Even then, the pair are doing their best to hold the line for “the science” blob, relying on a report produced by Ferguson’s Imperial College modellers, who have analysed hospitalisations and vaccine records among all PCR-confirmed Covid cases in England between 1 and 14 December – a dataset which included 56,000 cases of omicron and 269,000 cases of delta.

In a nutshell, this group noted that the risk of any attendance at hospital was 20-25 percent lower with omicron versus delta, and 40-45 percent lower when the visit resulted in admission for at least one night. For the small percentage of people who had neither been previously infected with Covid nor vaccinated, the risk of hospitalisation was about 11 percent lower for Omicron versus Delta.

One can almost imagine the struggle Ferguson must have had in admitting that this was “good news”, not least because he immediately reverted to arse-covering mode, claiming that the assessment “did not substantially change Sage modelling”. Perversely, he still expects 3,000 daily hospitalisations in England at the peak of the wave next month unless there are restrictions beyond the plan B measures currently in place.

This, he justifies by claiming that, while his analysis shows evidence of “a moderate reduction” in the risk of hospitalisation associated with omicron compared with delta, “this appears to be offset by the reduced efficacy of vaccines against infection with the omicron variant”.

Thus, he relies for his face-saver on the “high transmissibility” of omicron, arguing that there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand “if omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks”.

Only then do we get from the Guardian that those hospitalised with omicron had on average shorter stays. The figures quoted are 0.22 days compared with 0.32 days for delta – which hardly seems long enough to register with A&E, much less get any treatment. Many patients spend longer in ambulances.

But, we are told, “it is too early to assess the risk of admission to intensive care and death” and only tucked in is the note that “greater reductions in risk are possible”.

The crucial data concerning the impact of omicron on the older age groups – where the uptake of booster vaccinations has been higher – have not been assessed. Although the researchers conceded that omicron is currently less prevalent in these groups, they can’t offer any more “good news” because “more data is (sic) needed”.

These diffident findings contrast with the latest report from South Africa. This, the Guardian does not mention. This is possibly because the research there found that the odds of needing hospital treatment for omicron were reduced by up to 80 percent, compared to other variants, while the odds of suffering severe disease were reduced by 70 percent.

By contrast, when the Telegraph offers the “good news” about omicron, it goes straight to the South African study, carried out by the country’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases, covering 160,000 cases.

The paper also refers to a much smaller Scottish study (as does the Guardian) covering just 15 omicron hospitalisations. It comes up with remarkably similar findings, putting the odds ratio of being hospitalised between 19 and 52 percent. The study also covered people aged 20 to 39, meaning researchers were unable to assess the severity of the disease in elderly people – who are more vulnerable but more likely to have received booster vaccination.

However, the Telegraph also publishes a piece which says that the Scottish work is expected to be confirmed today by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). It will agree that Britons who fall ill with omicron are less likely to become severely sick, with more suffering a mild illness.

As daily Covid positive test results are only up to just over 100,000, putting the increase at 35 percent since last Wednesday, compared with hospitalisations rising by only four percent to 8,008 – driven to a great extent by unvaccinated “diverse” Londoners – this puts the management of the epidemic back in the political domain, where it belongs.

The Mail (print edition) triumphantly marks the passage with the front-page banner headline declaring: “Official: omicron 50% less severe”, adding, “… and a raft of other studies confirm variant IS weaker – vindicating PM’s refusal to bring in new curbs”.

One can afford a wry smile here as it is the push-back from “Partygate” and the recent “garden party” photograph – together with a Cabinet and backbench rebellion – which has prevented Johnson from ordering new controls, purely on the basis that the public were increasingly minded to ignore them. Now, it looks as if he is getting the credit for not doing something that he couldn’t do anyway.

This paper has Johnson waiting until after Christmas Day before announcing any further changes, with the Telegraph referring to a “government source” saying: “Without a doubt these new developments are positive albeit indicative signs which weaken the case for further restrictions”.

It has a Cabinet minister said that the data are “good news, as expected, for those of us who have been resisting more restrictions”. The minister went on to say that, if hospital numbers did not grow, it could represent a “killer blow” against those in the government who support further measures.

A source close to Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, said: “He is of the opinion that measures so far, combined with self-initiated behavioural change, have been adequate to date”.

This, though, has not been the fortune of Wales and Scotland (and, to a lesser extent Northern Ireland), whose devolved administrations have opted for tighter controls from Boxing Day onwards. Still in the grip of “the science”, they have slurped up the risk-averse “precautionary principle” which is looking increasingly inappropriate.

The Mail is quick to point out that Ferguson warned just last week that there could be up to 5,000 daily omicron deaths in the UK, putting down a marker for a more thorough debunking.

As each day passes, it seems, we get more and more evidence that “the science” faction have overstated their case – as they so often do. I have not forgotten that back in 1996, “respected” scientists were predicting 500,000 cases of vCJD associated with BSE and, a few years earlier, were openly claiming that we would see a salmonella epidemic causing one million cases a year.

Over the years, such scientists have had a very poor record for predicting the scale of current threats – including climate change – which is presumably why the likes of the Guardian insist that “the science is settled”, thereby seeking to shut down discussion on the increasingly absurd claims.

Uncertainties, of course, will remain, but the biggest uncertainty of them all them all is the competence of the scientists who have so far been making the running on the management of this epidemic.