Rewind a few weeks and most of us couldn’t spell epidemiologist, let alone name any. Now we all know who Neil Ferguson is. We are all familiar with the “R-rate”, herd immunity, isolate and trace, and other strategies for controlling the spread of diseases we hardly thought about before. It’s right that we should be. Covid-19 is a lethal disease that has already caused 30,000 deaths in the UK, 277,000 around the world, and has the potential to overwhelm societies if it is allowed to spread unchecked. To combat it, we need to listen to the scientists. This is not a time, to borrow a phrase from the Brexit debates, when we should have had enough of experts.
Forecasts are mostly useless
Yet we should not be blind to their failings. Let’s take a comparison with economists. We let the experts on supply and demand guide huge swathes of public policy. There are teams of them at the Treasury and even more at every think tank and investment bank. We generally put them in charge of our central banks and allow them to run monetary policy independently of the government or the electorate.
There is nothing wrong with that. Economics has lots of hugely useful insights. Left to themselves, markets usually solve most problems. Lower taxes sometimes generate more revenues. We should import stuff even if we can make it ourselves because it frees up resources to do other things. Governments can spend more than they raise in taxes, often for a very long time, and that can help fix recessions. And so on. None of those points are obvious and economists help remind us of them.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
But there are caveats. They are useless at forecasts. Even the most sophisticated central-bank model virtually never accurately predicts a recession. There are simply too many variables at play and the models are never sophisticated enough to capture all of them. And they are as guilty of groupthink as any other profession. Economists form a consensus and everyone signs up to it, even when there is far less evidence for it than they think.
The same is true of epidemiologists. They have useful insights. They should be able to tell us how and where a virus is transmitted. They should be able to help work out who is most at risk. Rates of infection and the likely rise in cases should be roughly mapped out. But like the economists, they may turn out to be just as useless at forecasting because, as with the economy, there are too many variables at play for any model to be meaningful. Will everyone stick to the lockdown, or will a few people (including some high-profile epidemiologists) ignore it? Will social distancing be strictly observed at the shops that open? Change the percentage of people breaking the rules by a fraction of a point and you get a hugely different outcome.
Who are the cranks?
Epidemiologists too are subject to groupthink. A specialist academic discipline, with little movement between institutions, may well produce fine science. But it also creates a closed world in which assumptions are not questioned and everyone comes up with similar answers.
With epidemiologists there is another caveat. Economists have been subjected to public scrutiny for years. We have been judging their forecasts and predictions for a long time and running league tables of which ones are more accurate and which less so. We have a pretty good idea of who to listen to and who is a crank. By contrast, epidemiologists have been subject to little scrutiny. We don’t really know what their record is like – not that great, as it turns out – or which ones are really good.
We must learn to treat epidemiologists as we do economists. Listen to what the science has to teach us and accept many of its insights, perhaps most of all when they are not intuitively obvious. But we should also accept that they can’t forecast anything reliably and won’t ever be able to. We should be guided by what they have to say, but not to the exclusion of all other considerations. And we certainly shouldn’t put them in charge of the country.
-
Should you sell in May this year?The market adage looks unlikely to apply in 2024, and global equities are proving resilient
-
Should you invest in UK equities?The FTSE 100 hit a record high this week, but UK equities remain unloved and undervalued compared to their global and US peers. Should you snap them up at a discount?
-
UK wages grow at a record paceThe latest UK wages data will add pressure on the BoE to push interest rates even higher.
-
Trapped in a time of zombie governmentIt’s not just companies that are eking out an existence, says Max King. The state is in the twilight zone too.
-
America is in deep denial over debtThe downgrade in America’s credit rating was much criticised by the US government, says Alex Rankine. But was it a long time coming?
-
UK economy avoids stagnation with surprise growthGross domestic product increased by 0.2% in the second quarter and by 0.5% in June
-
Bank of England raises interest rates to 5.25%The Bank has hiked rates from 5% to 5.25%, marking the 14th increase in a row. We explain what it means for savers and homeowners - and whether more rate rises are on the horizon
-
UK wage growth hits a record highStubborn inflation fuels wage growth, hitting a 20-year record high. But unemployment jumps
-
UK inflation remains at 8.7% ‒ what it means for your moneyInflation was unmoved at 8.7% in the 12 months to May. What does this ‘sticky’ rate of inflation mean for your money?
-
VICE bankruptcy: how did it happen?Was the VICE bankruptcy inevitable? We look into how the once multibillion-dollar came crashing down.
