Thread by @lewis_goodall

Why didn't we lockdown earlier? (Thread)

This is a subject about which theories are put forward endlessly

I wanted to explore it in more detail and teamed up with @BBCPM to do so

Two key areas emerged. The idea of lockdown fatigue and where we were on the epidemic cycle.

Lockdown fatigue first

It seems hard to recall now but one of the main reasons given as to why Britain wasn't locking down as other countries were was the idea of behavioural fatigue

The idea that this was a bullet which could be fired once and after a period we'd tire of it.

When you rewatch the govt briefings it's surprising how prominent it is

Eg Whitty 9th March:

"It is important on this - it’s not just a matter of what you do, it is also a matter of when you do it. Once we’ve started these things, you’ll have to continue them through the peak..

“... and that is for a period of time and there is a risk that if we go too early, people will understandably get fatigued and it’ll be difficult to sustain this over time."

One of the leading modellers who sits on SPI-M (effectively govt modelling service for the pandemic) Prof Mike Tildsely, told us this assumption was a key part of their modelling. He told us their assumption was lockdown could last for four to five weeks.

But he couldn't tell me where the evidence for that assumption came from. It was just, kind of there.

You might think that if it came from anywhere, it would be from SPI-B, the govt's expert group which advises on behavioural science and psychology

But it didn’t.

In fact, one of its leading members, Robert West, told us there was no evidence for behavioural fatigue at all.

“It certainly didn’t come from Spi-B. And it is not a behavioural sci term. If you look in the literature you won't find it because it doesn’t exist.”

The fact it isn't in the science is really odd because Whitty spoke as if it were.

12th March: " An important part of the science on this is actually the behavioural science, and what that shows is probably common sense to everybody in this audience...

..."which is that people start off with the best of intentions but enthusiasm at a certain point starts to flag."

We now know that was wrong- the public were willing to tolerate lockdown for far longer than experts assumed.

But it isn't just hindsight- there were sceptics at the time

On 12th March Jeremy Hunt told @KirstyWark that he was sceptical about it and he'd like to see the modelling and thinking behind the assumption

If he'd got his wish, what would he have seen?

Spi B Minutes from 4th March say:

"Empirical evidence for the behavioural and social impact of, and adherence to, each of the strategies is limited. We are not aware of any evidence on their interaction."

No joy there

SAGE minutes from 13th March -

"There is no strong evidence for public compliance rates changing during a major emergency."

So where did it come from?

Off the record, scientists and officials have pointed us to the influence of the Behavioural Insights Team (Nudge Unit)

In an unbroadcast interview w/ Mark Easton from 10th March, David Halpern (head of Nudge) talks about the idea of fatigue: "You don't want to cry wolf - you want to start asking people to do these things which are potentially quite a big ask when they're likely to be effective”

The BIT has told us they were categorically not responsible for advice on fatigue.

But it is striking that the CMO was talking about "the science" of this, for something with no science to its name

This is important. If ministers hadn’t been told about fatigue, it's is at least possible that they’d have been more likely to lockdown earlier and (as many experts say) lives could have been spared.

The other main driver of lockdown timing we focussed on was another assumption (or calculation) which turned out to be wrong: where we were on the epidemic curve.

On 12th March Vallance said the govt thought we were 10-12 weeks away from the peak

It was more like 4-5

On 16th March Vallance accepted we weren't 4 weeks behind Italy but more like three. That was later revised again

When asked why we weren't locking down, ministers and officials repeatedly said that we were behind the curve of other countries

It was a fateful miscalculation

As Prof Paul Hunter of UEA told us: "Everything we were looking at was 2-3 weeks out of date about what the infection was doing in the community. That was a big error and, I think, that has undoubtedly led to the large numbers of deaths and the duration of the lockdown."

Ie the central assumption around trying to time precisely time lockdown was foolhardy because in so doing (and on basis of bad data) you just lead to a longer lockdown:" If you start the lockdown sooner, it goes away quicker cos you’ve got fewer cases to get back down again."

In many ways, these questions address one which has been striking for months- why it is that Britain, with all its scientific capacity could perform so much worse than countries with very little

The natural answer is the politicians but that's not the whole picture

Instead can make an argument that politicians

1) waited for the science too long to make judgments
2) didn't consult a wide enough body of science (too many modellers not enough from public health, a common complaint from those we interviewed )

Ie why did certain countries with less scientific capacity do better than us? They didn't think they could finely calibrate a response, model it and reap the benefits. They used the precautionary principle, that this was a virus about which we knew little and should act as such.

Greg Clark, Conservative chair of the Science committee told us: “if you commit to taking scientific advice - there’s something in nature of a scientific body that is going to proceeding on a scientific basis....”

Takes time for evidence to come in, be analysed and conclusions to be drawn. It maybe that other countries that didn't make such a big and public commitment to following the science were free to make judgements that anticipated the evidence.”

Lots more on this, please do watch my special report tonight, prod by @ScarlettBarter @AlexRitchieMM and Sarah Teasdale, 1045pm BBC2.

In case you missed it or want to know more, here’s the full report from last night’s programme.

BIT (Nudge Unit) told us: "BIT categorically never proposed or suggested ‘behavioural fatigue’ with respect to covid-19, and in particular never proposed fatigue as grounds to delay or shorten social distancing or any other measures aimed at covid-19....

"However the phrase entered the public or policy discourse, it was not from us. We have given advice and undertaken extensive testing in the UK and elsewhere on some messaging around certain behaviour changes that help in the fight against covid-19....

"... for example, effective handwashing. As with all our work, this has always been rooted in the most up to date research from across academia and the results of our own trials and analysis."

The govt declined to be interviewed for the piece or for last night's programme. However, they did tell us: "“This is a new virus and an unprecedented global pandemic, and our strategy to protect the NHS and save lives was clear from the outset...."

"...At every stage, we have been guided by the advice of experts from SAGE and its sub-committees and our response ensured the NHS was not overwhelmed, even at the virus’ peak, so that everyone was always able to get the best possible care.”