A group of leading UK scientists have insisted that the scientific basis for the coronavirus lockdown is the work of a large group of experts, and that epidemiologist Prof Neil Ferguson is just one voice among many.
In a letter co-ordinated by Dr Thibaut Jombart, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, more than 25 prominent scientists said debates after Ferguson’s “individual error” – in which he flouted lockdown rules by receiving visits at home from his lover – had amplified a misconception that he alone persuaded the government to change policy.
Jombart told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he did not believe Ferguson should have resigned.
“In a time of crisis like this I think [his actions] confuse the message of the government,” said Jombart, who is also a senior lecturer at Imperial College. “[But] I think he is one of the top epidemiologists in the world. We need all the assets we can use. So I think he should [not have resigned].”
He added: “He’s a very experienced modeller, so I’d rather have him on Sage [the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies], as part of informing the decision-making process.”
Jombart said he and a large number of colleagues had advised the government from the beginning and had recommended a lockdown from early March. At first the government adopted a less stringent set of measures like those in Sweden, only implementing a full lockdown on 23 March.
“We wanted to dispel the view that the architect of the lockdown, as he has been named, singlehandedly made this information,” Jombart said, adding that he should not have resigned after the Daily Telegraph broke the news of his flouting of the lockdown rules.
Asked if quarantining all arrivals to the UK was taken into consideration when the lockdown was implemented, Jompart said: “That would be a drop in the ocean … By the time we went into lockdown there were clearly thousands of cases in the country and it was no longer possible to contain it.”
Jombart said there was scientific consensus that the lockdown had had a strong impact in reducing the rate of coronavirus transmission.
Modelling by Imperial College forecast that in a worst-case scenario without the implementation of wide-ranging measures to reduce transmission, 510,000 people in the UK could die. This unpublished study led to the government’s volte-face, but has since come under growing scrutiny.
In the letter, the scientists said that although Ferguson was undoubtedly an influential scientist, the collaborative scientific effort to inform the government’s decision-making was quite different to that being suggested.
“At the time of writing, Sage lists 56 participants, and receives inputs from a much larger number of advisors through dedicated sub-committees,” it reads. “The subcommittee focusing on modelling has so far included 44 contributors, most of whom are independent academic researchers, who themselves represent a large number of groups throughout the country and their ongoing work.
“Hence, any scientific advice to the UK government, including advice which preceded the lockdown is the result of the work of hundreds of researchers throughout the UK.
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that Sars-Cov-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in northern Italy at the time. Although new studies and data have since emerged, this consensus has not changed.”
