Ross Clark

The AstraZeneca vaccine has been under attack ever since the results of its phase three trials were announced in December. When the results of US trials were released this week showing 79 per cent efficacy against symptomatic disease and 100 per cent protection from serious cases of Covid 19 – and failing to show up any serious side-effects – it seemed to help bolster its reputation.  Yet some of that was undone by subsequent accusations by the US Data and Safety Monitoring Board that AstraZeneca may have included out of date data in its trial results. The company has been asked to come back and present new calculations, using data gathered from its study up until March, rather than data up until February.

Covid deaths fell to 17 on Sunday, the lowest daily figure since 28 September and no higher than the levels being recorded throughout much of last summer. Deaths are down over 40 per cent on the week, hospitalisations down 21 per cent. Yet the better the news on vaccinations and serious illness, the longer the road seems to be out of lockdown. The latest potential roadblock seems to be the threat of a third wave in Europe. The Prime Minister said this lunchtime: 'On the Continent right now, you can see, sadly, there is a third wave under way. And people in this country should be under no illusions that... when a wave hits our friends in Europe it washes up on our shores as well. I expect we will feel those effects in due course.

There is a big, big hole in Ursula von der Leyen’s strategy of threatening to ban exports of the Pfizer vaccine to Britain unless Britain hands over shots of UK-made AstraZeneca vaccine to make up for a shortfall in EU-made supplies. Well, several holes perhaps – not least that EU member states have done their utmost to undermine public confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, with the result that millions of doses have sat unused in fridges. What is the point in extracting AstraZeneca vaccines from Britain if they, too, are left to languish in fridges while Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and others put people off accepting the vaccine?

Far from subsiding, as it seemed to be doing last week, the European war over the AstraZeneca vaccine has intensified. Over the past few weeks, EU leaders have swung from accusing the company – and Britain – of hoarding the vaccine and failing to supply it to EU countries, to claiming that it is ineffective, back to accusing us of hoarding it again. But the decision by several European countries to suspend rollout of the vaccine over fears of blood clots is the most serious challenge yet. This time, however, the blame cannot be laid at the door of the EU – the European Medicines Agency continues to declare the vaccine to be safe and has said that any negative side-effects are outweighed by the benefits.

Will the return of schools reverse, or dramatically slow, the sharp downwards trend in new Covid-19 infections, which is currently falling at more than 30 per cent a week? No one knows for sure, but it seems unlikely that the mass return of schools today will not have some effect on infections in England, especially given that it involves a section of the population that has not been vaccinated.  While few children suffer serious symptoms of Covid-19, they can carry the disease — older children, especially. For that reason, a return of unvaccinated children to school is likely to have a greater effect on raw infection numbers than, say, a return of vaccinated over-70s to bowls clubs and whist drives.

According to government figures the toll of Covid 19 so far has been 124,419 deaths (if you define a Covid death as any death which occurs within 28 days of someone being confirmed as infected with the virus) or 140,062 (if you define a Covid death as one where the word ‘Covid’ is mentioned anywhere on a death certificate – regardless of whether they have produced a positive tests). These are figures which have been compared with Jumbo Jet-loads or matched up against the loss of life in the Somme. But should we really be using raw death figures – which are hugely emotive – to influence decisions as to how to handle the pandemic?

Imperial College’s REACT study is given a prominence over other Covid data, but it is a struggle to understand why. This morning, as so often, BBC news bulletins included the latest tranche of results from the study, suggesting that the fall in new Covid infections is ‘slowing'.  The data appears to confirm a deceleration in the fall in infections that was evident in the Test and Trace figures a fortnight ago – and which I wrote about here a week ago – but which has since been reversed. React seems to be telling us a story which we could equally glean much earlier from the PHE figures.

The trouble with emergency financial measures is that the crises used to justify them never seem to end. Just as the Bank of England couldn’t bring itself to think the time was ever right to reel back the ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing it introduced at the nadir of the 2008/09 financial crisis, so the furlough scheme is steadily becoming a permanent part of Britain’s welfare infrastructure. Originally scheduled to end last June, it is to be extended yet again until the end of this September, by which time it will have been in operation for 18 months. This will be three months after all Covid restrictions are due to end. What, then, will be the excuse for the government to continue to pay the wages of employees who are not actually working?