Good article. Most of the arguments against lockdown miss the point that the impact on both the economy and healthcare system would be enormous and long lasting with no lockdown. If we are able to suppress the spread with the lockdown, and then keep infections under control with a combination of social distancing, shielding, and test and trace, that will be a much better outcome for both the economy and lives. It may be impossible, but we have to give it our best shot. We also maximize out optionality if an effective therapy is found, or vaccine becomes available.
Andrew Baldwin
4 years ago
“It’s better to lock down when you don’t need to, than not lock down when you do need to.” Really? So much for cost-benefit analysis. This duplicates the conclusion of Tom’s BBC documentary, and seems to simply brush off so much of the cogent argumentation against a tough lockdown that it presented. There is surely a difference between erring on the side of caution and a reckless policy of economic devastation.
Adrian Smith
4 years ago
Another great interview. Why is the main stream media not doing this sort of thing – Rhetorical question we know why it is because they just want headline grabbing death figures to beat up politicians with.
So yet more evidence that Prof F got both R0 and IFR wrong by significant margins and when you put both of those errors together you get totally wrong apocalyptic predictions. Acting on his paper without proper peer review was a big mistake, especially given his track record of crying wolf in the past.
Yet more evidence that the Swedish approach was the right one, making all those who screamed at Sweden to lockdown harder look very silly. The German approach also locked down too hard too fast. It also goes a way towards explaining why New York was so badly hit – too many people being too loud in confined spaces.
The key question on whether we locked down too early is how close did we really come to overloading the health service? If you can find someone to answer that it would help put all this into perspective.
Rich Smith
4 years ago
As a counterpoint to this, the latest serological studies in NYC suggest an IFR of about 0.5%. This is close to Ferguson’s prediction of 0.6% IFR for the city.
It’s surprising that we still have such a range of predictions, but presumably we’ll get better data soon.
The article speculates that a third of people in the UK may have had it, but that doesn’t match my experience. Hardly anyone I know has had it. A huge number of people would have to be asymptomatic for that to be the case, which doesn’t feel right. The people I do know who have had it have infected people they have had contact with, who quickly exhibited symptoms.
When Boris got the thing, his fiancee, Cummings, Whitty, Hancock, and others were suddenly isolating with symptoms. You wouldn’t expect that if asymptomatic cases were a massive proportion.
Monica Elrod
4 years ago
I agree that we are operating with a lot of uncertainty, and while the virus does spread easily, not every case is lethal. So how do we balance the tradeoffs? We are bombarded daily with traumatic news about the virus, tragic cases of fatalities that leave us grieving and emotionally hungover. My concern is over the emotional impact, and more lives lost due to depression over money concerns, increased use of alcohol and drugs to get by. We are losing lives due to the shutdown as well…
Robin Bury
4 years ago
It is the over 60s that covid is killing and about 95% of total deaths are in this age group. So? Well protect them and use physical distancing and not allow back to work Let the under 60s return to work and some will get sick but almost none will die according to figures I have read.
Good article. Most of the arguments against lockdown miss the point that the impact on both the economy and healthcare system would be enormous and long lasting with no lockdown. If we are able to suppress the spread with the lockdown, and then keep infections under control with a combination of social distancing, shielding, and test and trace, that will be a much better outcome for both the economy and lives. It may be impossible, but we have to give it our best shot. We also maximize out optionality if an effective therapy is found, or vaccine becomes available.
“It’s better to lock down when you don’t need to, than not lock down when you do need to.” Really? So much for cost-benefit analysis. This duplicates the conclusion of Tom’s BBC documentary, and seems to simply brush off so much of the cogent argumentation against a tough lockdown that it presented. There is surely a difference between erring on the side of caution and a reckless policy of economic devastation.
Another great interview. Why is the main stream media not doing this sort of thing – Rhetorical question we know why it is because they just want headline grabbing death figures to beat up politicians with.
So yet more evidence that Prof F got both R0 and IFR wrong by significant margins and when you put both of those errors together you get totally wrong apocalyptic predictions. Acting on his paper without proper peer review was a big mistake, especially given his track record of crying wolf in the past.
Yet more evidence that the Swedish approach was the right one, making all those who screamed at Sweden to lockdown harder look very silly. The German approach also locked down too hard too fast. It also goes a way towards explaining why New York was so badly hit – too many people being too loud in confined spaces.
The key question on whether we locked down too early is how close did we really come to overloading the health service? If you can find someone to answer that it would help put all this into perspective.
As a counterpoint to this, the latest serological studies in NYC suggest an IFR of about 0.5%. This is close to Ferguson’s prediction of 0.6% IFR for the city.
It’s surprising that we still have such a range of predictions, but presumably we’ll get better data soon.
The article speculates that a third of people in the UK may have had it, but that doesn’t match my experience. Hardly anyone I know has had it. A huge number of people would have to be asymptomatic for that to be the case, which doesn’t feel right. The people I do know who have had it have infected people they have had contact with, who quickly exhibited symptoms.
When Boris got the thing, his fiancee, Cummings, Whitty, Hancock, and others were suddenly isolating with symptoms. You wouldn’t expect that if asymptomatic cases were a massive proportion.
I agree that we are operating with a lot of uncertainty, and while the virus does spread easily, not every case is lethal. So how do we balance the tradeoffs? We are bombarded daily with traumatic news about the virus, tragic cases of fatalities that leave us grieving and emotionally hungover. My concern is over the emotional impact, and more lives lost due to depression over money concerns, increased use of alcohol and drugs to get by. We are losing lives due to the shutdown as well…
It is the over 60s that covid is killing and about 95% of total deaths are in this age group. So? Well protect them and use physical distancing and not allow back to work Let the under 60s return to work and some will get sick but almost none will die according to figures I have read.