he Covid response was not an error, and it was not the result of rushing to address a crisis due to an unknown pathogen. It was a lot of people, mostly professionals in the field, systematically and collectively doing what they knew was wrong. It is helpful when this is systematically laid out, as such facts can form a basis from which to stop it being repeated.
Early in 2025, some statisticians from Scotland and Switzerland wrote a discussion paper with a characteristically (for Scots and Swiss) understated, even boring, title: “Some statistical aspects of the Covid-19 response.” Good science is stated clearly without fanfare, while “bombshell” announcements, or similar rants indicate a need to embellish. Good data speaks for itself. However, it only speaks widely if people read it.
The paper, by Wood and co-authors, was written for presentation at a meeting of the Royal Statistical Society in April 2025 in London. It remains one of the best reviews of the early response to Covid – in this case with a United Kingdom focus but relevant globally. However, some people don’t avidly read the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society – Series A: Statistics in Society, or attend their London meetings. A pity, as London is nice for three days in summer and this particular Royal Society seems to have a grasp of reality lacking in some of its siblings.
The paper provides simple statistical truths, as statisticians should. Truths are particularly valuable when applied to subjects where fallacies are more profitable. This is why, in public health, they have become so rare, and therefore so worth reading. Stating truths dispassionately regarding Covid helps to grasp how bad the public health response actually was.
Hellbound and Down 