Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here

Following the science? This government lacks a basic grasp of the scientific method

Following the science? This government lacks a basic grasp of the scientific method

Verification and validation. It is hard to imagine a more nerdy phrase.

But it is, in essence, how science makes progress. It is what we have to do to check whether a scientific claim or theory is correct.

And it has been seriously neglected during the Covid-19 crisis.

Just over a century ago, for example, Albert Einstein revolutionised the world of physics with his general theory of relativity. The verification part of the process was to check that his high-powered maths did what he said it did.

Einstein claimed his theory was superior to the very longstanding one of Isaac Newton. This had to be validated by confronting it with real world evidence before it was believed. Some of the tests were pretty esoteric, involving things like fluctuations in the orbit of Mercury.  But Einstein’s theory passed with flying colours. It was both verified and validated.

Last week, Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for health, claimed that without the new lockdown measures there could be “hundreds of thousands of deaths”.

A quick but effective piece of validation shows the scientific model on which this is based is most unlikely to be true.

The evidence now suggests that, at the peak of the epidemic in late March/early April, there were around 100,000 new cases each day. Total deaths in these months were around 40,000.

So to get “hundreds of thousands” of deaths — which means at least 200,000 — simple arithmetic shows that there would have to be a minimum of half a million new cases every day.

We can add to this calculation the combination of better knowledge of how to treat the virus and the continued shielding efforts of the most vulnerable, which have caused the death rate to fall sharply.

If Hancock’s claim is correct, there would have to be a million new cases a day at a second peak.

Even Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance in their horror slideshow last week only felt able to claim 50,000 cases each day.

But the gloomy pair appear to have ignored the basic principles of verification and validation way back in February and March.

The lockdown was triggered by the predictions of Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College. Unless it was introduced, they projected, there would be 510,000 deaths.

Almost as soon as it was published, a range of scientists raised questions about verification of Ferguson’s model. Did the computer code do what was claimed? Ferguson himself tweeted “I wrote the thousands of lines of undocumented code 13+ years ago to model flu pandemics”.  For many weeks after it was not available for scrutiny.

It was rapidly pointed out that the model did not allow for any change in behaviour.  In the face of a pandemic, it assumed that people would carry on behaving exactly as they had always done — hardly consistent with the evidence of how people really do behave in these circumstances. Yet this was the basis for the lockdown restrictions we have seen over the past six months.

Verification and validation: boring words indeed. But their neglect by the government’s advisers has saddled us with the enormous social and economic costs of lockdown.

As published in City AM Wednesday 7th October 2020
Image: COVID-19 testing by Tom Wolf via Flickr  CC BY 2.0
Read More

‘Expertise’ has become a tool of the liberal establishment to drown out opposing views

‘Expertise’ has become a tool of the liberal establishment to drown out opposing views

The row over the Conservative-supporting journalist Toby Young’s appointment to the universities watchdog has been intense. Despite the relative obscurity of this public position, the left wing Twitterati have been besides themselves with rage. The affair has culminated in his resignation, over some tweets he posted. They are certainly a bit near the knuckle, to say the least.

Yet a great deal of Twitter consists of verbal abuse of one kind or another. Perhaps sensitive souls should steer clear of this medium of communication.

There was an altogether more sinister and fundamental aspect to the attacks on Young. He was deemed by many academics to lack suitable qualifications for the post. He did not have sufficient “expertise”.

Danny Blanchflower, a Gordon Brown appointment to the Monetary Policy Committee, called him “totally unqualified” and suggested that universities should boycott the Office for Students until Young is fired. It would be a diversion to recall Blanchflower’s own prediction that unemployment under George Osborne could rise to 4 or even 5 million. Forecasting errors of this magnitude seem an essential qualification to be on the MPC.

Young was educated at both Oxford and Harvard and taught at Cambridge. He is a founder of the successful New Schools Network. So it may not be readily apparent to the non-expert why he lacked the skills to serve on a body which regulates universities.

Perhaps a clue lies in the abuse of Patrick Minford in the latest issue of the newsletter of the Royal Economic Society (RES). Minford, a distinguished academic economist, is a strong supporter of Brexit.

The BBC is attacked in the newsletter for giving publicity to a report by Minford published by the group Economists for Free Trade. An Oxford professor is cited with approval for saying that Minford is not an expert in international trade. His views on the topic are those of a “maverick”.

Very few economists specialise in international trade. I have to confess here that I was one of the few to take the then available option on international trade theory in my final year at Cambridge. But I did so on the grounds that it seemed pretty straightforward and easy.

But a lack of this esoteric expertise has not prevented the “overwhelming majority of the economics profession”, according to the RES newsletter, from disapproving wholeheartedly of Brexit.

Underlying the great turmoil of politics at the moment is precisely the view that the “experts” are less trustworthy and objective than they purport to be. The suspicion is that they attempt to appear knowledgeable to impose the policies they prefer all along.

If we have a question on quantum physics, we might reasonably rely on an answer from Stephen Hawking. More prosaically, we can rely on an engineer to build us a bridge.

But many economic and social issues, such as Brexit or regulating universities, are far more complex. They do not admit answers which are scientifically proven in the same way.

What we are seeing is a concerted attempt by the metropolitan liberal elite to impose a bogus consensus on us. One which, dressed up as “expertise”, excludes any other views.

As published in City AM Wednesday 10th January 2018

Image: Twitter screen by Photo-Mix is licensed under CC by 0.0
Read More