| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid 08:10 - Oct 11 with 1983 views | BringBackTheRedRoom |
Covid in the UK hasn’t been quite as polarised as Brexit or the political landscape of the United States. But it is polarised enough. At one extreme are the zero-Covid advocates; at the other, the lockdown sceptics. Who is right?
Some lockdown sceptics have advanced a variety of dishonest or deluded views over the course of the pandemic. Months ago, one correspondent wrote to assure me that the infection fatality rate was just one in 2,000. This implies 33,500 deaths if the whole UK population was infected. We have suffered 67,500 excess deaths; am I to conclude that we have all had the virus twice?
Then, in what now looks like a line from a Shakespearean tragedy, there is Donald Trump’s early declaration: “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
But there is an honest argument against lockdowns – namely that while the disease is dangerous, the lockdown cure is worse. The virus has the power to kill many more people than died in the first wave. Yet in England and Wales, the vast majority of those who have died were 65 or over, with three-quarters of them aged 75 or over.
The honest lockdown sceptic asks, is it wise or fair to impose radical limits on the freedom of all with no apparent end in sight? Thousands of lives are being saved – but millions of young people are seeing their prospects sacrificed.
Is their sacrifice worthwhile?
The zero-Covid position reaches the opposite conclusion from the same starting point: since there will be no end to the suffering as long as the virus is circulating, the answer is to eliminate the virus in the UK and Ireland. We are island nations, like New Zealand. If community transmission can be stopped, then border controls – plus contact tracing for the occasional outbreak – can keep the virus out.
The most prominent British advocates of the zero-Covid approach are the scientists calling themselves “Independent Sage”.
In July, they explained that the first step would be to apply lockdowns until we reached “control”, defined as one new case per million people per day. Thereafter, a contact- tracing system, plus support for people in isolation, would eliminate the virus on these shores.
Both sides of this debate hold out tempting rewards if only we are willing to suffer now. But both are mistaken. Zero-Covid looks prohibitively costly for European countries. A relentless lockdown would be needed even to reach the “control” step, with no guarantee against backsliding.
One example of “control” listed by Independent Sage was Germany, but it has never met their definition. It has rarely averaged below five cases per million people per day and is currently at more than 20. South Korea did reach the “control level” for months but the virus spiked again. Elimination seems endlessly elusive.
As for the lockdown sceptics, we should not pretend that we could simply tough out a rough couple of months. If the virus spread uncontrolled, tens of millions would catch it, and several hundred thousand people would die.
Far more likely is that as the virus smouldered and the deaths mounted, many people would retreat from public spaces out of justifiable fear for themselves and their loved ones. The struggle would go on for many months. I would not give much for the chances of reviving tourism, cinemas or the West End.
Sweden, darling of the sceptics, has done important things right – notably, kept schools open for younger pupils. It has preserved individual freedoms, which is no small matter. But it has suffered vastly more deaths than its Nordic neighbours for no discernible economic benefit. It is hardly a slam-dunk case against lockdowns.
In summary: zero-Covid looks like a prohibitively expensive quest for a fleeting goal. But the death toll and endless grind of damn-the-consequences reopening looks equally unacceptable, and it is telling that many lockdown sceptics have been unwilling to be frank about the true dangers of the virus.
Is there no answer? Of course there is. It lies not in the extreme ends of the debate, but in the tedious, complex business of basic public health. Lockdowns can work if they allow a properly run contact-tracing programme to take over.
Consider Germany. It slowed the first wave by establishing a test-and-trace capacity quickly. The German lockdown thus came much earlier on the epidemic curve, saving many lives but also ensuring that the country could reopen after just six weeks – despite being nowhere near Independent Sage’s definition of “control”.
Since then, Germany has learnt to live with the virus as a constant yet contained threat. The secret is no secret: lockdown suppressed the virus enough to allow contact tracing, mask-wearing and general vigilance to take over. In July, at a time when the British were still emerging from their homes, blinking in the sunlight, I visited Bavaria. Masks and sanitisers were everywhere, but it was thriving.
The UK had the same opportunity but we are squandering it. Our contact-tracing system was slow to grind into action, our testing capacity was overwhelmed by the predictable surge in demand as schools reopened and, most recently, a technical error led to many thousands of positive test results not entering the contact tracing system promptly.
Forget the clash of grand ideas, of Sweden versus New Zealand. Just stop bungling the basics. It is not much of a slogan. But it might just be a solution.
Tim Harford’s new book is “How to Make the World Add Up”
https://www.ft.com/content/0143a8b8-d32b-46e0-bd84-f152bb9df2d7?emailId=5f80a3f2 |  |
| ‘Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair’ |
| |  |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 11:40 - Oct 11 with 1956 views | ROTTWEILERS |
This guy sets his stall out early then pretends to carefully consider the points. File under 'bedwetter'. |  |
| |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 20:34 - Oct 11 with 1937 views | spell_chekker |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 11:40 - Oct 11 by ROTTWEILERS |
This guy sets his stall out early then pretends to carefully consider the points. File under 'bedwetter'. |
I don't know what to believe.
The number of deaths per number of infections has dramatically decreased since March / April.
Happy to have a reasonable explanation. |  |
| |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 20:45 - Oct 11 with 1933 views | spudgun |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 20:34 - Oct 11 by spell_chekker |
I don't know what to believe.
The number of deaths per number of infections has dramatically decreased since March / April.
Happy to have a reasonable explanation. |
Yep agree with that spell.
Part of the problem is that many people seems to want to a fly a flag of certainty and profess that their side knows better; I struggle to be absolutely certain on many things.
I am happy to admit that I don`t really know what is for the best and I appreciate it is a very difficult call for the government, (although they have been useless on most things).
I also don`t care for some on social media who using pejoratives for people who take a different view and try to ridicule others, or those that just filter conformation bias information and regurgitate it as gospel. All gets a little Brexity, and we know what happened there... |  | | |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 21:28 - Oct 11 with 1931 views | BringBackTheRedRoom |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 20:45 - Oct 11 by spudgun |
Yep agree with that spell.
Part of the problem is that many people seems to want to a fly a flag of certainty and profess that their side knows better; I struggle to be absolutely certain on many things.
I am happy to admit that I don`t really know what is for the best and I appreciate it is a very difficult call for the government, (although they have been useless on most things).
I also don`t care for some on social media who using pejoratives for people who take a different view and try to ridicule others, or those that just filter conformation bias information and regurgitate it as gospel. All gets a little Brexity, and we know what happened there... |
I'm not against lockdown as a tool, but it should be the very last tool to be used, even after you thrown the toolbox itself at the problem.
The problem with the opposite ends of the argument going at each other is it's let the Government off the hook to cock up as and when they please.
10 months down the line, and the only plan is more personal restrictions?, but only in certain parts of the country?
It would have been nice if some of the tens of billions given to companies had been used to get the NHS ready for winter, helped secure care homes, get a bloody targeted track and trace system in place, run at a local level and a proper sheltered/shielding scheme to be offered to those who are vulnerable (voluntary not compulsory) . Instead we get Mike Hancock standing up in Parliament threatening to stop cancer treatment unless Covid is under control. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 0:48]
| |
| ‘Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair’ |
| |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 22:35 - Oct 11 with 1928 views | spell_chekker |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 21:28 - Oct 11 by BringBackTheRedRoom |
I'm not against lockdown as a tool, but it should be the very last tool to be used, even after you thrown the toolbox itself at the problem.
The problem with the opposite ends of the argument going at each other is it's let the Government off the hook to cock up as and when they please.
10 months down the line, and the only plan is more personal restrictions?, but only in certain parts of the country?
It would have been nice if some of the tens of billions given to companies had been used to get the NHS ready for winter, helped secure care homes, get a bloody targeted track and trace system in place, run at a local level and a proper sheltered/shielding scheme to be offered to those who are vulnerable (voluntary not compulsory) . Instead we get Mike Hancock standing up in Parliament threatening to stop cancer treatment unless Covid is under control. [Post edited 12 Oct 2020 0:48]
|
Please stop Red, stop.
Rott is a shit shite.
He's been locked down, under a shirt (maybe even a skirt), for a few months now is and afraid to come out.
He can stay in there but personally, I'm out there, on the front line in the real world. | |
| |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 05:34 - Oct 12 with 1915 views | ROTTWEILERS |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 22:35 - Oct 11 by spell_chekker |
Please stop Red, stop.
Rott is a shit shite.
He's been locked down, under a shirt (maybe even a skirt), for a few months now is and afraid to come out.
He can stay in there but personally, I'm out there, on the front line in the real world. |
What's a shit shite?  | |
| |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 10:05 - Oct 12 with 1910 views | BringBackTheRedRoom |
| Lockdown sceptics v zero-Covid on 05:34 - Oct 12 by ROTTWEILERS |
What's a shit shite? |
It's what happens the next day after one and a half bottles of dodgy French red wine the night before. | |
| ‘Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair’ |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
