Decision of the Complaints Committee – 11845-20 Whitehead
v telegraph.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. James Whitehead complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) in an
article headlined “When we have herd immunity Boris will face a reckoning on
this pointless and damaging lockdown” published 11 July 2020.
2. The article was a comment piece on the “lively debate
[which] took place about whether Britain should pursue a strategy of "herd
immunity"”. The article reported that “recent data coming out of New York
reveals…Sixty-eight per cent of people who took antibody tests at a clinic in
the [C]orona neighbourhood of Queens received positive results, suggesting
that, in this area at least, the population is already close to achieving
"herd immunity"”. It went on to state that “Some will have developed
antibodies without knowing they had the disease, while others will have a
natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other
coronaviruses, such as the common cold. People in that latter category will be
immune even though they won’t test positive for Covid-19 antibodies. That means
that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even
though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence
survey [for antibodies]”. Finally, the article concluded that “the British
population will soon achieve herd immunity, just as the population of Corona
has, and the lockdown has done nothing to mitigate the impact of the virus”. It
concluded that “this is good news: it means a "second wave" of
Covid-19 is unlikely and we can dispense with pointless social distancing measures”.
3. The complainant said it was inaccurate to state “others
will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off
other coronaviruses, such as the common cold”. First, he said only around 20%
of common colds are caused by coronaviruses. Secondly, he said prior exposure
to coronaviruses might lead to cross-reactive T-cells, which may lessen the
impact of Covid-19 but would not confer “natural immunity”: T-cells would not
stop people getting infected at all and would not therefore contribute to herd
immunity as the article implied. He also said it was misleading to state that
“the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even though
only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence [antibodies]
survey”. He said the scientific consensus is that the threshold for herd
immunity is considerably higher than 17%, and those with cross-reactive T-cells
do not count towards this as such cells do not stop the virus spreading. He
also provided a Lancet article which concluded that European countries had not
reached herd immunity. Finally, he said the assertion that “the British
population will soon achieve herd immunity, just as the population of Corona
has” was a claim of fact that the Corona neighbourhood had achieved herd
immunity, which he said was not supported by evidence. He did not dispute the
article’s previous claim that antibody tests “suggest[ed] that, in [Corona] at
least, the population is already close to achieving "herd immunity"”
as he said this was fair comment.
4. The publication did not accept it has breached the Code.
It emphasised that the article was clearly presented as an opinion piece on a
topic of considerable scientific uncertainty. It said it was not misleading to
state “others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully
fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold”. While it accepted
exposure to other coronaviruses would only confer cross-reactive T-cells, which
were not mentioned by the article, it stressed that the columnist was entitled
to term this “natural immunity” in circumstances where there was evidence that
cross-reactive T-cells protected against the adverse effects of Covid-19.
Further, it did not consider that the phrase –“other coronaviruses, such as the
common cold” –implied that all common colds were coronaviruses; only that the
common cold can be caused by coronaviruses, which the complainant accepted. It
stated that the claim that “the population of London is probably approaching
herd immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent
seroprevalence survey” was clearly conjectural. Even so, it provided an article
from the website lockdownskeptics.org that it said suggested that around 20% of
individuals having natural immunity might give rise to herd immunity. Finally,
it added that the phrase “the British population will soon achieve herd
immunity, just as the population of Corona has” was not a claim of fact that
Corona has herd immunity but rather speculation. The author was clearly picking
up on the earlier claim that antibody tests had shown 68% of Corona residents
testing positive which suggested there was herd immunity.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be correction, promptly and with due prominence, and –where
appropriate– an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
6. The article claimed that some people “will have a natural
immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses”
and that “people in [this] category will be immune”. In considering the
accuracy of these claims, the Committee had regard for what readers would
understand by the term “immunity”. The reader could not be expected to have
specialised knowledge of developing research into Covid-19 immunity, and it was
the Committee’s view that readers would understand “immunity” to refer to the
presence of antibodies to a particular disease in an individual’s immune system
which would offer future protection from that disease. Indeed, all previous
references to “immunity” within the article had been made in the context of
antibodies, including a definition of “herd immunity” in the opening paragraph
–“allowing coronavirus to spread until so many people had developed antibodies
that it no longer posed a threat to public health”. It therefore concluded that readers would
understand from the statements under complaint that people who “will have a
natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other
coronaviruses” would possess antibodies that would offer protection from
contracting Covid-19. The publication was unable to support this. It accepted
that these individuals referred to would only have cross-reactive T-cells. Such
cells do not stop people getting infected and may only make the symptoms of
Covid-19 less severe. The Committee acknowledged that there was ongoing
research into the relationship between T-cells and immunity to Covid-19;
however, the columnist had at no point referred to “T-cells”, made any effort
to explain their relationship to Covid-19 immunity, or even distinguish between
the commonly understood definition of “immunity” and the emerging science of
“T-cell immunity”. It could not therefore claim that this amounted to
“immunity”. The publication had therefore failed to take care not to publish
inaccurate and misleading information in breach of Clause 1(i).
7. The statement was significantly misleading. It
misrepresented the nature of immunity and implied that people previously
exposed to some common colds might be automatically immune to suffering
symptoms and passing on Covid-19 to others. As the publication did not offer to
correct this significantly misleading statement, there was a breach of Clause
1(ii).
8. The Committee then considered the claim that the presence
of cross-reactive T-cells “means that London is probably approaching herd
immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive [for antibodies] in the
most recent seroprevalence survey”. It noted that this statement could be
misleading in two distinct ways. First, whether cross-reactive T-cells could contribute
to herd immunity in London and, second, whether London was in fact “probably
approaching herd immunity”. It considered each point in turn.
9. As previously noted, the columnist had defined “herd
immunity” as “allowing coronavirus to spread until so many people had developed
antibodies that it no longer posed a threat to public health”. As individuals
with cross-reactive T-cells would still contract Covid-19 and perhaps pass it
on to others, these individuals would not create herd immunity. Therefore, it
was misleading to claim that people with cross-reactive T-cells mean “the
population of London is probably approaching herd immunity”. The Committee then
considered whether in fact “London is probably approaching herd immunity” as
claimed by the article. While there was an element of conjecture to this
assertion in the use of the term “probably”, the newspaper had an obligation to
ensure that there was indeed a case to support the claim. The newspaper had
provided an article from lockdown.skeptics.org in support of the columnist’s
claim. The article suggested that, according to two scientific studies, only
15-25% of the population being infected and becoming properly immune is
sufficient to stop the virus spreading, which the newspaper said had happened
in London. However, the two studies ultimately relied on did not conclude that
London specifically or the UK was “probably approaching herd immunity”. One
study acknowledged that standard epidemiological models predict that 60-70% is
the herd immunity threshold for Covid-19; and that this can be lower in certain
circumstances (such as where there are differences in population mixing and
initial susceptibility). There was no evidence presented that such
circumstances definitely or probably existed in the UK or London. Moreover, the
Lancet article provided by the complainant did apply to the UK and concluded
that the herd immunity threshold had not been reached. The newspaper had
therefore failed to establish that “London is probably approaching herd immunity”.
The newspaper failed to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading
information in breach of Clause 1(i).
10. The statement that cross-reactive T-cells mean “that the
population of London is probably approaching herd immunity” was significantly
misleading. It was misleading both as to how herd immunity is reached and
whether it existed in London; and the inaccuracy had been relied on to support
the article’s other arguments, such as the claims that “we can dispense with
pointless social distancing measures” and that “the lockdown has done nothing”.
As the newspaper did not offer to correct this significantly misleading
statement, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).
11. The statement that “the British population will soon
achieve herd immunity, just as the population of Corona has” was inseparable
from the columnist’s earlier point about the New York neighbourhood of Corona.
That earlier point made clear the columnist’s reasons for considering that herd
immunity may be close to being achieved in Corona; namely that a survey had
found that 68% of a sample of residents had antibodies. This was a reasonable
basis for these claims, especially as the author had elsewhere stated this
survey only “suggested” there was herd immunity in Corona. Read in the context
of the article as a whole, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
12. The claim that individuals will have “fought off other
coronaviruses, such as the common cold” meant only that some, rather than all,
common colds are caused by coronaviruses. The complainant had accepted that 20%
of common colds are caused by coronaviruses. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was upheld.
Remedial Action Required
14. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee
establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a
correction and/or adjudication. The nature, extent and placement of which is
determined by IPSO.
15. The Committee considered that the article contained
multiple breaches of Clause 1 on a topic of public importance. However, it also
noted that the disputed claims were on areas of significant scientific
uncertainty at the time of publication. In light of these considerations, the
Committee concluded that a correction was the appropriate remedy.
16. This correction should be added to the online article
and appear as a standalone correction in the online corrections and
clarifications column. This wording should only include information required to
correct the inaccuracies: that the article had stated that those exposed to
other coronaviruses will be immune and this means that London is probably
approaching herd immunity; that those exposed to other coronaviruses are not
“immune” as they may still contract and transmit the virus; that such
individuals would not create herd immunity in London; and that the newspaper
had failed to establish that London is “probably approaching herd immunity”.
The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it
has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation. If the publication intends to continue to publish the
online article without amendment the correction on the article should be
published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction
should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments that have been
made.
Date complaint received: 11/07/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/12/2020
Back to ruling listing