WAS the fall from grace of “Professor Lockdown” a well deserved come-uppance for a professional who wouldn’t abide by his own rules, a strangely timed distraction from Britain’s horrifying new status as the Covid deaths capital of Europe – or both?
Professor Neil Ferguson was forced to quit his role on the SAGE advisory committee after The Telegraph reported his “married lover” had visited him twice during the lockdown, in contravention of the self-isolation guidelines he helped create.
It was Ferguson’s modelling work at Imperial College London which finally roused a complacent UK Government on March 16, with a 20-page paper showing 510,000 people could die if the Government didn’t abandon its strategy of allowing “herd immunity” to build. Five days later, the UK shifted to a suppression strategy and weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was entirely responsible for that change, so he’s probably saved tens of thousands of lives. But he may also have unknowingly jeopardised a handful of very important lives, since Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson himself started showing Covid symptoms shortly after he visited Number 10. The Prime Minister won’t comment on how he got the infection, and it would be hard to pin that terrible responsibility on anyone, given the reckless disregard for social-distancing that was taking place across Westminster.
Still, there’s no doubt Ferguson’s resignation distracted many newspaper editors on the day Britain overtook Italy to record the the highest Covid-19 related death toll in Europe, and the second-highest in the entire world.
Was that just a coincidence?
It was The Telegraph’s deputy political editor who stumbled across the story, which suggests the story probably emanated from an “unattributable source” in Number 10. Since Ferguson’s transgressions apparently took place a month earlier, perhaps someone had saved this “bombshell” for just such a day? We’ll never know.
But there was absolutely no hesitation or regret from the UK Government over Ferguson’s decision to resign. The Health Secretary described his adviser’s actions as “extraordinary” and said he would support the police in any action they chose to take. Compare and contrast Nicola Sturgeon’s obvious frustration and regret at having to lose a woman whose medical advice she clearly rated highly. Comments from other high-ranking Tories suggested they couldn’t get rid of Ferguson quickly enough.
Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr tweeted: “The whole point of SAGE is that it’s meant to be independent so scientists can be free to speak their mind. Yet look what happens if you do.”
That raises an important question – did Ferguson get found out by the Boris-supporting Telegraph, or was he fed to the lions in a very deliberate leak from Number 10?
Of course, Ferguson made a bad error of judgement. The man is in the public eye and many other people followed his rules and stayed distanced from mothers, fathers, children, partners and even dying relatives. So even if Ferguson believed his earlier Covid infection and recovery gave him immunity, his actions were undoubtedly a case of “one rule for us, another for the little people”. Agreed. There’s also no proof any leak came from Number 10, though the Prime Minister’s Office has serious form with this kind of thing.
But consider. Until now there’s been no effort to chastise prominent rule-breakers by the British Government or Conservative party. As we all know, chief medical officer Catherine Calderwood resigned after visiting her second home in Fife, and whilst it was a damned shame, it was unquestionably the right thing to do, given her employment by the Scottish Government in her role and the pivotal role in persuading everyone else to stay at home.
But Murdo Fraser’s inessential Munro-bagging expedition received no criticism from the Conservative party, English Housing Minister Robert Jenrick survived driving from London to see his parents at their Shropshire home via his own constituency home in Herefordshire and Nigel Farage was only ticked off by the police after travelling more than 100 miles to Dover to film a video about immigration. No words of condemnation flowed from anyone in a position of authority.
OF course, some might say that punishing a SAGE advisory committee member for breaking lockdown might be a welcome, if belated, UK Government effort to adopt the same firm line demonstrated by Nicola Sturgeon several weeks ago.
It might, but Professor Neil Ferguson’s resignation is starting to look far fishier than that.
Not only did his resignation, complete with lurid details of his lover’s open relationship, provide a massive distraction on the day our terrible Covid-19 death toll should have been the only news – it also silenced an outspoken and credible opponent of a premature and disorganised end to lockdown.
Peter Tennant, a health data scientist at Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, tweeted yesterday: “Neil isn’t a politician. Nor in public office. He’s a scientist offering his expertise and advice in good faith. Attacking his personal life is a haunting warning to all scientists; if you tell an unpopular truth we’ll come for you; and you too will face a public flogging.”
What is that “unpopular truth”?
Just 10 days ago, Professor Ferguson was quoted in Sunday papers warning that 100,000 British deaths could result from the present universal lockdown being replaced with “shielding” policies that protect only the most vulnerable while others circulate freely.
Yet we now know such a system is exactly what Boris Johnson is planning to announce next week.
So, did this look like a good time to get rid of a highly respected (albeit personally flawed) scientist, whose opposition might soon undermine the UK Government’s contention that its staged exit from lockdown is “guided by the science”?
Once again, we’ll probably never know.
But other scientists are also breaking rank.
Sir David King, a a professor of physical chemistry at the University of Cambridge, former No 10 adviser to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has set up an “Alternative SAGE” group with other scientists critical of Boris Johnson’s policies. King stated baldly at the group’s launch: “The UK didn’t follow World Health Organisation advice and there are real questions to be asked about why not.”
When asked if there might be a lower death toll if Britain had kept testing and introduced lockdown sooner, King replied: “I don’t think there’s any might about it, of course it would.”
Already leading Tories have wellied in, accusing King and his group of ulterior political motives. But King’s move demonstrates the lack of scientific consensus, and undermines Johnson’s claim that “the science” is leading the way.
Let’s face it. The Telegraph and other Tory-supporting papers have their own agenda. They and big business want Britain back to work. Indeed, days before its revelation about Professor Ferguson, the paper published a column by former European Research Group chairman Steve Baker MP describing the lockdown as absurd, dystopian and tyrannical. The paper has also reported a growing clamour to get children back to school, despite opinion polls suggesting the vast majority of people are NOT clamouring for this until it’s part of a credible, thorough, well explained, strategy backed by testing and the freely given backing of scientific experts.
Will anyone now believe the science is guiding policy in England?
And if Nicola Sturgeon’s well articulated Covid red lines are crossed, is the Scottish Government ready to deviate from an imminent and probably chaotic UK end to lockdown?
We may get some answers next week.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel