'I stared at it, then I was in tears.' (Matthew Horwood/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/mary-100x100.jpeg)
As my daughter grows, ever more of our Christmas tree ornaments originate with her: decorated by her at school or preschool, or little end-of-term gifts from teachers. When we decorate the tree, unwrapping each one comes with a little payload of memory from the year it arrived. Recently, unpacking and hanging these decorations, one pulled me up short. It came from preschool, dated 2020. The snowman is wearing a mask.
I stared at it, then I was in tears.
Humans are resilient. Bad things happen, and eventually we move on. But we remember, too. We just wrap those memories up and store them in unexpected places, such as a box of Christmas tree ornaments. 2020 still feels like a blur to me: one long horrible Groundhog Day. But that little snowman abruptly took me right there. Lovingly painted, its little face-mask trying to make something fun of something nightmarish, it captures the heroic efforts of everyone with children in their care. So many parents and carers, making the best of something utterly beyond the capacity of an infant to understand: an official ban on almost all spontaneous touch and social connection.
What does Zoom mean to a toddler? So much of a child’s social world is wordless, conducted in the language of touch, face, and gesture. A loved and trusted other is not a face on a screen but a living, breathing, warm, huggable entity. And for this group, a virus which posed relatively little risk to them meant almost all of this was abruptly taken away. More under-18s died of influenza than Covid-19 in 2020, but we don’t shut the world down for the flu.
We did for Covid. Was it worth it?
How do you calculate something like that? We know that maternal post-natal depression can have lasting negative effects on a developing child. What, then, about the fact that rates of perinatal depression doubled during lockdown, affecting nearly half of all mothers of newborns? What of the children, now toddlers, who didn’t interact with anyone other than their parents for months or even years of their earliest life, and are now developmentally delayed on a raft of measures compared to previous cohorts?
Was it worth it for the millions of children left to scroll unspeakable corners of the internet, unsupervised, for months on end, while their parents tried to keep up with Zoom work? Those all the way up to university age who lost years of education? What about the depression and PTSD that rocketed in kids between seven and 12 between March and June that year? Was it worth that? What about those trapped at home with abusive or neglectful parents?
But just as the downsides of lockdown weren’t evenly distributed, nor were the risks of Covid. Someone elderly or immune-compromised might say: yes, kids were not at great danger from the virus. But why should the demographics most at risk of severe illness and death be recklessly endangered, for the sake of children with their whole lives ahead of them? And this is the nub of the problem. Every human culture prior to our own understood the tragic dimension of human life: that is, the truth that some situations have no good outcome, only messy choices and their painful aftermath. In the Christian tradition, we see something like this in the doctrine of original sin, which holds that we can never make life on earth perfect — because each of us carries a taint of wickedness, and can only hope and pray for salvation.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat a beautiful article.
My wife and I felt so alone in those times. We had 4 month old twins when lockdown arrived. We knew from the start the decision was a terrible one. But no one would brook any criticism. Now, apparently, everyone who scolded us for complaining were against it all along. Who knew.
We went mad as a country. We should talk about it in those terms. And resolve never to do it again.
I love this line: “we refused to defend love in the face of death”. Bravo Mary.
Some of us have not gone back on what we said back then – me for one.
I should have liked to see the following line from Mary. ‘We loved our children so much that we would sacrifice the lives of 100000 strangers to give them a normal childhood‘.
Except that has been shown to be a false dichotomy, as in Sweden, Florida and elsewhere! We should have some everything possible to protect the elderly and vulnerable, not lock down by law the entire healthy population, which had never been done in the entire history of dealing with pandemics. The UK, US, the entire western world in fact, made absolutely no effort to do so, indeed quite appallingly seeded covid throughout care homes to help, in our case, ‘protect our (beloved) NHS’. Of course with a pandemic people would have otherwise radically reduced their interactions in a voluntary manner, but crucially this wouldn’t have criminalised seeing your grandchildren, if that were a risk you wanted to take.
I think what happened was quite simple. Governments panicked, decided to shred their existing pandemic plans overnight, with no evidence as to their effectiveness or not, and decided to copy the world’s main totalitarian state, China, which some of them rather admired, at least in part. (This was explicitly acknowledged by Neil Ferguson, he of the dodgy models).
Frankly it is utterly chilling that overnight supposedly democratic and liberal governments could simply abolish all basic liberties (this was unconstitutional I believe in Sweden) and then govern by administrative fiat. They then worked with might and main together with Big Tech corporations to suppress any dissenting voices, especially in the US, as had now been proven beyond doubt by the release of the Twitter files.
For all the many faults of the Tory Party, at least some of its MPs were deeply troubled by this and were ultimately able to curtail the imposition of yet another lockdown when the Omicron variant began circulating. There was by then excellent strong evidence of its mildness from South Africa which was studiously ignored by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE etc. (Of course no one could see any adverse consequences of lockdowns, could they?). None of the other political parties, Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems ever did anything other than demand more intense and longer lockdowns. So with Starmer as PM, we would have had months and months more lockdowns.
By the way, the UK and several other western countries have excess deaths now as high as those at the height of the pandemic, but in this case it is underplayed in stark contrast to the previous covid hysteria. This is very likely caused in major part BY precisely that closing down of society and health services which then took place. It is amusing, but angering, to see the cheerleaders for lockdowns, including the BBC, blithely talking about viruses such as flu having worse effects than they would have, precisely BECAUSE people were so isolated for so long. Not much mea culpa or even reflection on show where there perhaps there ought to be.
That sums up the problem pretty well. Most of the reduction in social interactions – and the resultant costs – would have happened anyway. In Sweden they thought, quite likely correctly, that they would get enough compliance from mere advice, because Swedes tend to do what the government advises them to do. As my dad once said, ‘the sum of social pressure and legal compulsion required to obtain a given result is constant’. More individualistic countries would not have got the same compliance without a mandate. But the key words are “if that were a risk you wanted to take”. Fighting a pandemic is a collective job. everybody must pay the price and take the trouble, so that everybody can benefit. Every chance you take risks not only your own health, but also the health of all your contacts. If you are unwilling to take precautions that are not directly to your own benefit, then no one else will bother to take the precautions that might protect you. A mandate has the advantage that it is clear what you are supposed to do, and that you have a reason to comply to protect others, in return for other people doing the same for you. Leaving it to individual initiative means only idealistic fools will do anything much – and everybody suffers.
As for ‘the closing down of society and the health services’ – do you think that the NHS would have been in better nick and have less of a backlog of operations if there had been no lockdown, and all the COVID patients had flooded the hospitals?
Well said. But you will only get down voted on this site because, when it comes to COVID (and many other issues, too) it’s a bit of a bubble.
But it wasn’t well said – it jumped straight to the ‘moral’ argument by ignoring the false premises. If you accept the false premise, then sure, the moral argument would follow. This is precisely the muddled thinking of the mainstream – a moral argument (do as we say or you are a granny killer) built on false premises. Then if anyone challenges the false premise, you accuse them of immorality. Insidious. Almost insidious as complaining that Unherd is a bubble. Is there anywhere out there that’s not a bubble? If you are so satisfied with the mainstream narratives, why are you here?
If you can show that lockdowns do not and did not help, there is indeed no need for a moral discussion. But can you? I am not asking for proof (no one could prove this either way), but can you show me enough evidence to show that your view is most likely? I’d very much like to see it.
The definition of a bubble is pretty much that everybody inside share the same assumptions and the same ‘facts’ and are immune to evidence from those who do not agree. And if the evidence objectively does not sem to justify those ‘facts’ there is a strong suspicion that people choose their ‘facts’ to fit with the group opinions. I do think that anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown bubbles may be a little more at risk here than pro-lockdown bubbles. Both groups have the normal biases and personal interests (it is easier to be pro-lockdown if you can work from home, for instance). But the anti-lockdown groups have a strong personal reason to (want to) believe that they will be fine regardless. Our side do not have a strong personal incentive to believe that COVID is dangerous.
I’ll make a simple moral judgement: you are the distillation of evil and loved what was done TO, not FOR us very much … oh so very much … at a ‘cellular level’.
There’s nothing that Rasmus has posted that justifies that. Whether you agree or not, can we please keep this site free from such mindless invective? Thanks.
Derek you need to sharpen up a bit or keep quiet……we are attempting elicit truth vs angry ranting
There’s nothing that Rasmus has posted that justifies that. Whether you agree or not, can we please keep this site free from such mindless invective? Thanks.
Derek you need to sharpen up a bit or keep quiet……we are attempting elicit truth vs angry ranting
The argument is simple. Lockdowns could only ever be a delay tactic. They do not deal with the disease, they do not make it go away. At best they therefore delayed death by however long you were willing to endure the consequences of lockdown. Perhaps you could argue that delaying was worth it while we waited for the vaccine but even there the evidence does not support you. The severity of the lockdown in a country does not correlate well with death rates. Perversely, what lockdowns did was protect those least at danger from Covid by removing them from the general circulation while leaving those who could not isolate (think those who needed regular medical care or those living in long term care) to bare the brunt of the pandemic. We waited around for them to all get it and then opened up so the rest of us got it! Finally there is the vaccines themselves. With the waning effectiveness that they demonstrate, they unfortunately appear to be little more than a delay tactic themselves – unless you are willing to get boosted every 3 to 6 months.
I do not think your argument stacks up. The people who needed regular medical care or who who are living in long term care are exactly those who the Barrington strategy claimed we should protect, but, as you say, would have suffered anyway. Keeping the overall number of cases low would at least have reduced their exposure.
The death rates depend in complex ways on lots of things apart form lockdowns. There is no simple proof that lockdowns worked, but there is no simple proof either that they did not.
The numbers I remember seeing (cannot find a reference) was that Omicron was maybe half as lethal as the original variant, and better treatment and vaccination reduces the risk by another factor of maybe three. The first is luck (the next variant may be worse) but the second is the gain from delaying. And I am prerfectly happy to take boosters every six months, if that will help keep me alive.
It all depends on how you believe we get through this thing. I would argue that one gets through a pandemic only by having the population adjust to the new virus and build up its immunity over time so that the virus eventually ceases to be a major threat. Lockdowns delay that whole process thereby leaving the vulnerable, vulnerable for longer. While we can argue about whether lockdowns worked, what is inonctrevertible is the sheer damage of them. Millions thrown into poverty world wide according to the World Bank. Businesses shuttered, countries thrown into recessions, children’s education messed up for multiple years – all for something that maybe helped but really we can’t be sure and for a disease that is not a serious threat for the vast majority of people.
Not unreasonable. Just remember that there would have been some degree of “Businesses shuttered, countries thrown into recessions, children’s education messed up” etc. also just from the pandemic without lockdowns.
Not unreasonable. Just remember that there would have been some degree of “Businesses shuttered, countries thrown into recessions, children’s education messed up” etc. also just from the pandemic without lockdowns.
Rasmus that is the point – you are allowed to CHOOSE – all anyone wanted was informed choice……..(or even uninformed ) – and to be allowed to act like grownups vs children who needed legal enforcement/deterrant . I beleive many elderly folk also wanted that choice rather than being infantilised…..
It is good to be able to choose for yourself. But the big problem is that your choice has a lot of consequences for other people too. If you go freeclimbing without proper training, the only person who gets damaged is yourself. If you behave in a way that increases the spread of COVID, the main cost is borne by others, who may be more vulnerable and who do not share in the benefits you get. You cannot get a collective result of reducing transmission overall without some kind of mechanism to enforce compliance – and thereby to convince everybody that the annoyance of complying will indeed give them some kind of benefit.
In fact I think a lot of the anger in the debate comes from this. From the pro-lockdown side it looks like a lot of people simply refuse to accept that keeping other people alive is worth even some minimal inconvenience from their side. And then choose to believe in a set of facts that have little basis in evidence but that very conveniently means they do not have to do anything they do not feel like doing.
It is good to be able to choose for yourself. But the big problem is that your choice has a lot of consequences for other people too. If you go freeclimbing without proper training, the only person who gets damaged is yourself. If you behave in a way that increases the spread of COVID, the main cost is borne by others, who may be more vulnerable and who do not share in the benefits you get. You cannot get a collective result of reducing transmission overall without some kind of mechanism to enforce compliance – and thereby to convince everybody that the annoyance of complying will indeed give them some kind of benefit.
In fact I think a lot of the anger in the debate comes from this. From the pro-lockdown side it looks like a lot of people simply refuse to accept that keeping other people alive is worth even some minimal inconvenience from their side. And then choose to believe in a set of facts that have little basis in evidence but that very conveniently means they do not have to do anything they do not feel like doing.
It all depends on how you believe we get through this thing. I would argue that one gets through a pandemic only by having the population adjust to the new virus and build up its immunity over time so that the virus eventually ceases to be a major threat. Lockdowns delay that whole process thereby leaving the vulnerable, vulnerable for longer. While we can argue about whether lockdowns worked, what is inonctrevertible is the sheer damage of them. Millions thrown into poverty world wide according to the World Bank. Businesses shuttered, countries thrown into recessions, children’s education messed up for multiple years – all for something that maybe helped but really we can’t be sure and for a disease that is not a serious threat for the vast majority of people.
Rasmus that is the point – you are allowed to CHOOSE – all anyone wanted was informed choice……..(or even uninformed ) – and to be allowed to act like grownups vs children who needed legal enforcement/deterrant . I beleive many elderly folk also wanted that choice rather than being infantilised…..
I personally know half a dozen maximally boosted who all got it in the end anyway. One of them twice. Hard not to wonder if they weren’t being boosted with placebos. Maybe there is a huge RCT being conducted which we are unaware of?
I had Wuhan Flu 6 weeks after my booster. I didn’t enjoy it – it felt like a weed hangover. But it wasn’t too bad, and I guess it might have been worse without the vaccine.
I had Wuhan Flu 6 weeks after my booster. I didn’t enjoy it – it felt like a weed hangover. But it wasn’t too bad, and I guess it might have been worse without the vaccine.
They should have been concentrating on treatment not vaccines.
I do not think your argument stacks up. The people who needed regular medical care or who who are living in long term care are exactly those who the Barrington strategy claimed we should protect, but, as you say, would have suffered anyway. Keeping the overall number of cases low would at least have reduced their exposure.
The death rates depend in complex ways on lots of things apart form lockdowns. There is no simple proof that lockdowns worked, but there is no simple proof either that they did not.
The numbers I remember seeing (cannot find a reference) was that Omicron was maybe half as lethal as the original variant, and better treatment and vaccination reduces the risk by another factor of maybe three. The first is luck (the next variant may be worse) but the second is the gain from delaying. And I am prerfectly happy to take boosters every six months, if that will help keep me alive.
I personally know half a dozen maximally boosted who all got it in the end anyway. One of them twice. Hard not to wonder if they weren’t being boosted with placebos. Maybe there is a huge RCT being conducted which we are unaware of?
They should have been concentrating on treatment not vaccines.
It was probably an overreaction much in the same vein that Dan Patrick was viciously attacked when he said he was ready to sacrifice himself in order to keep the country open and not harm the younger generations. Most conservatives saw the risk and was willing to take it in order to save the country. The fact that we had been blatantly lied to many times and accused of granny killing had an extreme oppo effect on most. It didn’t help that the democrats and their media allies jumped on this crisis to destroy trumps chances; it was pretty obvious to most of us.
I’ll make a simple moral judgement: you are the distillation of evil and loved what was done TO, not FOR us very much … oh so very much … at a ‘cellular level’.
The argument is simple. Lockdowns could only ever be a delay tactic. They do not deal with the disease, they do not make it go away. At best they therefore delayed death by however long you were willing to endure the consequences of lockdown. Perhaps you could argue that delaying was worth it while we waited for the vaccine but even there the evidence does not support you. The severity of the lockdown in a country does not correlate well with death rates. Perversely, what lockdowns did was protect those least at danger from Covid by removing them from the general circulation while leaving those who could not isolate (think those who needed regular medical care or those living in long term care) to bare the brunt of the pandemic. We waited around for them to all get it and then opened up so the rest of us got it! Finally there is the vaccines themselves. With the waning effectiveness that they demonstrate, they unfortunately appear to be little more than a delay tactic themselves – unless you are willing to get boosted every 3 to 6 months.
It was probably an overreaction much in the same vein that Dan Patrick was viciously attacked when he said he was ready to sacrifice himself in order to keep the country open and not harm the younger generations. Most conservatives saw the risk and was willing to take it in order to save the country. The fact that we had been blatantly lied to many times and accused of granny killing had an extreme oppo effect on most. It didn’t help that the democrats and their media allies jumped on this crisis to destroy trumps chances; it was pretty obvious to most of us.
If you can show that lockdowns do not and did not help, there is indeed no need for a moral discussion. But can you? I am not asking for proof (no one could prove this either way), but can you show me enough evidence to show that your view is most likely? I’d very much like to see it.
The definition of a bubble is pretty much that everybody inside share the same assumptions and the same ‘facts’ and are immune to evidence from those who do not agree. And if the evidence objectively does not sem to justify those ‘facts’ there is a strong suspicion that people choose their ‘facts’ to fit with the group opinions. I do think that anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown bubbles may be a little more at risk here than pro-lockdown bubbles. Both groups have the normal biases and personal interests (it is easier to be pro-lockdown if you can work from home, for instance). But the anti-lockdown groups have a strong personal reason to (want to) believe that they will be fine regardless. Our side do not have a strong personal incentive to believe that COVID is dangerous.
You and Rasmus have well and truly drunken of the coolaid, havent you?
What is with all these downvotes? Am I not understanding this voting system? I thought it was kind of like Reddit: you downvote comments you want to make disappear – reserved for abuse, tirades, off-topic or simply incoherent. If people use voting to just say “I agree” or “I disagree” the comments are going to become a choir in an empty room with nobody around listening who isn’t singing.
But it wasn’t well said – it jumped straight to the ‘moral’ argument by ignoring the false premises. If you accept the false premise, then sure, the moral argument would follow. This is precisely the muddled thinking of the mainstream – a moral argument (do as we say or you are a granny killer) built on false premises. Then if anyone challenges the false premise, you accuse them of immorality. Insidious. Almost insidious as complaining that Unherd is a bubble. Is there anywhere out there that’s not a bubble? If you are so satisfied with the mainstream narratives, why are you here?
You and Rasmus have well and truly drunken of the coolaid, havent you?
What is with all these downvotes? Am I not understanding this voting system? I thought it was kind of like Reddit: you downvote comments you want to make disappear – reserved for abuse, tirades, off-topic or simply incoherent. If people use voting to just say “I agree” or “I disagree” the comments are going to become a choir in an empty room with nobody around listening who isn’t singing.
Florida doesn’t fit your stereotype of compliant peoples. This was the argument from March 2020 and it hasn’t stood the test of time.
We will never know about the NHS. But given many wards were shut down in preparation for a Covid-overload, you’d have to guess that, yes, we would be in better shape now had they been kept open. Cancer screenings, heart issues even mental health support would have been ahead of where it got stuck for two years.
I upvoted you, although I don’t agree with some of your premises, reasoning and conclusions. I come to Unherd to here intelligent differences of opinion and you’ve presented that.
Well said. But you will only get down voted on this site because, when it comes to COVID (and many other issues, too) it’s a bit of a bubble.
Florida doesn’t fit your stereotype of compliant peoples. This was the argument from March 2020 and it hasn’t stood the test of time.
We will never know about the NHS. But given many wards were shut down in preparation for a Covid-overload, you’d have to guess that, yes, we would be in better shape now had they been kept open. Cancer screenings, heart issues even mental health support would have been ahead of where it got stuck for two years.
I upvoted you, although I don’t agree with some of your premises, reasoning and conclusions. I come to Unherd to here intelligent differences of opinion and you’ve presented that.
Thanks. Sadly I think you are right.
I agree very much. I have begun to ponder whether the ready acceptance of unprecedented restrictions by liberal, progressive types was perhaps a perverse expression of their horror at the recent populist movements of Trump, Farage and others.
Covid offered an opportunity to demonstrate their anti- populist virtue in contrast to the anti- science sentiments undoubtedly held by those Brexit type people.
Rather like the Calvinists who needed to constantly show in their everyday behaviour that they were the chosen ones, as opposed to the clearly dammed, misbehaving masses.
What got lost in the copycat virtue signalling was respect for actual science; respect for facts, evidence and the measurable consequences of actions and behaviours.
Which anti-science sentiments undoubtedly held by Brexit-type people? That’s just about the most unscientific statement i’ve read on Unherd! Yes, i voted for Brexit. Maybe i’m a Brexit-type person, but your ignorant rhetoric will NOT go unchallenged.
You are attributing to Mr McKeever the idea that Brexit-type people are undoubtedly anti-science. But in fact, far from endorsing this idea, he instead was attributing it to (his words) ¨liberal progressive types¨, and – if I am not mistaken – implicitly critiquing it (and the latter, rather than the former, types) himself. So you and he appear to be largely in agreement.
If that was indeed what he was trying to suggest, his terminology should’ve been different.
D.Mckeever’s stance is a bit open to misinterpretation, but I think R.Sharpe does get it right.
D.Mckeever’s stance is a bit open to misinterpretation, but I think R.Sharpe does get it right.
Agreed. I had to read it twice, but I’m fairly sure he was just describing pro-science attitudes as one of the common conceits of liberal-progressive types that very often turn out to be no more than a thin veneer of rationalism in front of a head stuffed full of irrational drivel.
If that was indeed what he was trying to suggest, his terminology should’ve been different.
Agreed. I had to read it twice, but I’m fairly sure he was just describing pro-science attitudes as one of the common conceits of liberal-progressive types that very often turn out to be no more than a thin veneer of rationalism in front of a head stuffed full of irrational drivel.
You might find this interesting. I ran across this paragraph in a substack I was reading this morning:
“Quarantine policy and the science behind it was a huge flashpoint at the time. Instead of anti-vaxxers, the 19th century had anti-contagionists. The twist: the anti-contagionists were the ones trusting the science. At the time, most scientists thought it was obvious that diseases did not spread primarily by tiny little organisms because everybody knew you could get sick without getting close to a sick person. Progressives hated contagionism because reducing disease to germs ignored poverty’s role in public health, and merchants hated it because it legitimized quarantines, which slowed down shipping. It was hard to argue with anti-contagionists because they were always doing things like swallowing bouillon laced with cholera and then not getting sick. Contagionism won in the end, of course, but this helps explain why Galton would have found these quarantines amusing.”
https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/how-to-keep-cakes-moist-and-cause
Excellent contribution! Thanks.
Excellent contribution! Thanks.
You are attributing to Mr McKeever the idea that Brexit-type people are undoubtedly anti-science. But in fact, far from endorsing this idea, he instead was attributing it to (his words) ¨liberal progressive types¨, and – if I am not mistaken – implicitly critiquing it (and the latter, rather than the former, types) himself. So you and he appear to be largely in agreement.
You might find this interesting. I ran across this paragraph in a substack I was reading this morning:
“Quarantine policy and the science behind it was a huge flashpoint at the time. Instead of anti-vaxxers, the 19th century had anti-contagionists. The twist: the anti-contagionists were the ones trusting the science. At the time, most scientists thought it was obvious that diseases did not spread primarily by tiny little organisms because everybody knew you could get sick without getting close to a sick person. Progressives hated contagionism because reducing disease to germs ignored poverty’s role in public health, and merchants hated it because it legitimized quarantines, which slowed down shipping. It was hard to argue with anti-contagionists because they were always doing things like swallowing bouillon laced with cholera and then not getting sick. Contagionism won in the end, of course, but this helps explain why Galton would have found these quarantines amusing.”
https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/how-to-keep-cakes-moist-and-cause
I find myself in agreement with by the view that lockdown and endless borrowing for furlough together have been a mistake . Too much of both for too long. Advice not law would also have meant that we took if we needed to, informed risks. We will be repaying our borrowing for several generations.
So-called progressives aren’t liberal. They only usurp liberalism.
Which anti-science sentiments undoubtedly held by Brexit-type people? That’s just about the most unscientific statement i’ve read on Unherd! Yes, i voted for Brexit. Maybe i’m a Brexit-type person, but your ignorant rhetoric will NOT go unchallenged.
I find myself in agreement with by the view that lockdown and endless borrowing for furlough together have been a mistake . Too much of both for too long. Advice not law would also have meant that we took if we needed to, informed risks. We will be repaying our borrowing for several generations.
So-called progressives aren’t liberal. They only usurp liberalism.
That sums up the problem pretty well. Most of the reduction in social interactions – and the resultant costs – would have happened anyway. In Sweden they thought, quite likely correctly, that they would get enough compliance from mere advice, because Swedes tend to do what the government advises them to do. As my dad once said, ‘the sum of social pressure and legal compulsion required to obtain a given result is constant’. More individualistic countries would not have got the same compliance without a mandate. But the key words are “if that were a risk you wanted to take”. Fighting a pandemic is a collective job. everybody must pay the price and take the trouble, so that everybody can benefit. Every chance you take risks not only your own health, but also the health of all your contacts. If you are unwilling to take precautions that are not directly to your own benefit, then no one else will bother to take the precautions that might protect you. A mandate has the advantage that it is clear what you are supposed to do, and that you have a reason to comply to protect others, in return for other people doing the same for you. Leaving it to individual initiative means only idealistic fools will do anything much – and everybody suffers.
As for ‘the closing down of society and the health services’ – do you think that the NHS would have been in better nick and have less of a backlog of operations if there had been no lockdown, and all the COVID patients had flooded the hospitals?
Thanks. Sadly I think you are right.
I agree very much. I have begun to ponder whether the ready acceptance of unprecedented restrictions by liberal, progressive types was perhaps a perverse expression of their horror at the recent populist movements of Trump, Farage and others.
Covid offered an opportunity to demonstrate their anti- populist virtue in contrast to the anti- science sentiments undoubtedly held by those Brexit type people.
Rather like the Calvinists who needed to constantly show in their everyday behaviour that they were the chosen ones, as opposed to the clearly dammed, misbehaving masses.
What got lost in the copycat virtue signalling was respect for actual science; respect for facts, evidence and the measurable consequences of actions and behaviours.
Yeah, we know, ad nauseum.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.”
Aye, but whether it was “foolish” or not is the issue.
Aye, but whether it was “foolish” or not is the issue.
You waste your time on here. I would have let it run and burn itself out in the warmer weather. I do think however, looking at the news now, financial chaos, no ambulances, fewer nurses, waiting times, interest rates, inflation, businesses closing, unemployment, all we see now would have been then in 2020. Sadly a lot of elderly lost but the huge budget deficit would have been just the same.
That is a tenable position, certainly. Are you saying that we would have had the same bad situation but less accumulated government debt? You are a bit unclear here, but I would agree about the debt. The thing is that we would have had lot more dead that way. People would have got the disease before there was time to vaccinate them or get the COVID treatment protocols sorted out, and intensive care and hospitals would have been overwhelmed, so that people could not be treated properly. That was the expectation, at least, and I still think it is correct.
That is a tenable position, certainly. Are you saying that we would have had the same bad situation but less accumulated government debt? You are a bit unclear here, but I would agree about the debt. The thing is that we would have had lot more dead that way. People would have got the disease before there was time to vaccinate them or get the COVID treatment protocols sorted out, and intensive care and hospitals would have been overwhelmed, so that people could not be treated properly. That was the expectation, at least, and I still think it is correct.
Buried in your comments is the one truth about the modern world that horrifies so many if not all of us. It is a truth made known to us by Hegel; namely, there is no such thing as innocence. Like Regan and Cornwall, we aim first for the most precious targets.
Well, maybe that final statement could be seen another way: we inflicted decades of poorer quality of life on a generation of the young to give the elderly another few years of decrepitude.
I would put that differently – but I will not deny it.
I would put that differently – but I will not deny it.
Such an uninformed comment.
“100,000 older strangers with pre-existing health problems.” Before vaccinations the average age of death with Covid was, I am told, 82.
I don’t often use this kind of language but you are talking nonsense and that you do not know is deeply troubling.
I am in New Zealand where the rate of Covid deaths after a full vaccination program and a delay of a year to prepare is exactly what Johann Gieseke predicted for all Western Societies. 3 Covid Deaths for 1 flu. England, Sweden, and New Zealand have the same ratio of 3-1. That’s not from cranky conspiracy sites. It’s their own healthcare website.
Even more important is Sweden, the Scandinavian Country which is most like the rest of Europe in terms of interconnectedness as opposed to being remote, has a very creditable excess mortality rate compared to the rest of Europe and pursued “Lagom”, just right taking account of all the matters that Mary talks about so eloquently.
When I consider the multiple consequences to millions of people which is now well established of such inappropriate policy making I would get angry with you face to face.
2020 for me was one of the best years of my life so I have no axe to grind. The loser was my faith in the West.
That sounds interesting – but what are you actually saying here? That if New Zealand had not closed its borders, not vaccinated anyone, and not tried any kind of measures to reduce spread, the number of dead would still have been the same? In short that no human action could have made any kind of difference to the outcome? I find that very hard to believe. Could you say more clearly what you think we should have done different, and what you think the consequences would have been, to make it easier to make a comparison?
I did make a lightning check on the UK NHS site, just to see if your numbers showed up as raw total numbers, death rates, or what. What I found was:
Deaths involving Influenza and Pneumonia (underlying or secondary cause): 127,575
Deaths due to Influenza and Pneumonia (underlying cause): 21,614
Deaths involving COVID-19 (underlying or secondary cause): 102,554
Deaths due to COVID-19 (underlying cause): 92,913
As you see one could get to very different conclusions by picking either ‘underlying cause’ or ‘underlying or secondary cause’ from the table. Presumably only one of those is the right one to pick, but that makes it very hard for a non-specialist (like me) to make or evaluate conclusions from these numbers.
In short, you may well have an important point here, but I cannot evaluate it without a more detailed description of what the evidence is supposed to be saying, and a professional analysis of the data that I can at least try to read and check for rebuttals. Do you happen to have a link?
That sounds interesting – but what are you actually saying here? That if New Zealand had not closed its borders, not vaccinated anyone, and not tried any kind of measures to reduce spread, the number of dead would still have been the same? In short that no human action could have made any kind of difference to the outcome? I find that very hard to believe. Could you say more clearly what you think we should have done different, and what you think the consequences would have been, to make it easier to make a comparison?
I did make a lightning check on the UK NHS site, just to see if your numbers showed up as raw total numbers, death rates, or what. What I found was:
Deaths involving Influenza and Pneumonia (underlying or secondary cause): 127,575
Deaths due to Influenza and Pneumonia (underlying cause): 21,614
Deaths involving COVID-19 (underlying or secondary cause): 102,554
Deaths due to COVID-19 (underlying cause): 92,913
As you see one could get to very different conclusions by picking either ‘underlying cause’ or ‘underlying or secondary cause’ from the table. Presumably only one of those is the right one to pick, but that makes it very hard for a non-specialist (like me) to make or evaluate conclusions from these numbers.
In short, you may well have an important point here, but I cannot evaluate it without a more detailed description of what the evidence is supposed to be saying, and a professional analysis of the data that I can at least try to read and check for rebuttals. Do you happen to have a link?
Interesting. I think you may have set a record for largest negative down votes. I don’t recall seeing this many before.
A daft point that doesn’t even come close to being arithmetically plausible, not to mention the dodgy assumptions that must apply to the rest of it.
Except that has been shown to be a false dichotomy, as in Sweden, Florida and elsewhere! We should have some everything possible to protect the elderly and vulnerable, not lock down by law the entire healthy population, which had never been done in the entire history of dealing with pandemics. The UK, US, the entire western world in fact, made absolutely no effort to do so, indeed quite appallingly seeded covid throughout care homes to help, in our case, ‘protect our (beloved) NHS’. Of course with a pandemic people would have otherwise radically reduced their interactions in a voluntary manner, but crucially this wouldn’t have criminalised seeing your grandchildren, if that were a risk you wanted to take.
I think what happened was quite simple. Governments panicked, decided to shred their existing pandemic plans overnight, with no evidence as to their effectiveness or not, and decided to copy the world’s main totalitarian state, China, which some of them rather admired, at least in part. (This was explicitly acknowledged by Neil Ferguson, he of the dodgy models).
Frankly it is utterly chilling that overnight supposedly democratic and liberal governments could simply abolish all basic liberties (this was unconstitutional I believe in Sweden) and then govern by administrative fiat. They then worked with might and main together with Big Tech corporations to suppress any dissenting voices, especially in the US, as had now been proven beyond doubt by the release of the Twitter files.
For all the many faults of the Tory Party, at least some of its MPs were deeply troubled by this and were ultimately able to curtail the imposition of yet another lockdown when the Omicron variant began circulating. There was by then excellent strong evidence of its mildness from South Africa which was studiously ignored by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE etc. (Of course no one could see any adverse consequences of lockdowns, could they?). None of the other political parties, Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems ever did anything other than demand more intense and longer lockdowns. So with Starmer as PM, we would have had months and months more lockdowns.
By the way, the UK and several other western countries have excess deaths now as high as those at the height of the pandemic, but in this case it is underplayed in stark contrast to the previous covid hysteria. This is very likely caused in major part BY precisely that closing down of society and health services which then took place. It is amusing, but angering, to see the cheerleaders for lockdowns, including the BBC, blithely talking about viruses such as flu having worse effects than they would have, precisely BECAUSE people were so isolated for so long. Not much mea culpa or even reflection on show where there perhaps there ought to be.
Yeah, we know, ad nauseum.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.”
You waste your time on here. I would have let it run and burn itself out in the warmer weather. I do think however, looking at the news now, financial chaos, no ambulances, fewer nurses, waiting times, interest rates, inflation, businesses closing, unemployment, all we see now would have been then in 2020. Sadly a lot of elderly lost but the huge budget deficit would have been just the same.
Buried in your comments is the one truth about the modern world that horrifies so many if not all of us. It is a truth made known to us by Hegel; namely, there is no such thing as innocence. Like Regan and Cornwall, we aim first for the most precious targets.
Well, maybe that final statement could be seen another way: we inflicted decades of poorer quality of life on a generation of the young to give the elderly another few years of decrepitude.
Such an uninformed comment.
“100,000 older strangers with pre-existing health problems.” Before vaccinations the average age of death with Covid was, I am told, 82.
I don’t often use this kind of language but you are talking nonsense and that you do not know is deeply troubling.
I am in New Zealand where the rate of Covid deaths after a full vaccination program and a delay of a year to prepare is exactly what Johann Gieseke predicted for all Western Societies. 3 Covid Deaths for 1 flu. England, Sweden, and New Zealand have the same ratio of 3-1. That’s not from cranky conspiracy sites. It’s their own healthcare website.
Even more important is Sweden, the Scandinavian Country which is most like the rest of Europe in terms of interconnectedness as opposed to being remote, has a very creditable excess mortality rate compared to the rest of Europe and pursued “Lagom”, just right taking account of all the matters that Mary talks about so eloquently.
When I consider the multiple consequences to millions of people which is now well established of such inappropriate policy making I would get angry with you face to face.
2020 for me was one of the best years of my life so I have no axe to grind. The loser was my faith in the West.
Interesting. I think you may have set a record for largest negative down votes. I don’t recall seeing this many before.
A daft point that doesn’t even come close to being arithmetically plausible, not to mention the dodgy assumptions that must apply to the rest of it.
Yes…and all this under the guise of an ideology that insisted, “love is love”. We’d do well to remember that love (like hope) is a theological virtue
Mary – your article – What a miserable, relative morality, situational ethics, flexible code of honour tale of shame. I cannot believe parent could write such.
Your child and all children were greatly harmed. You justify it, and you let it go. NO. Child abuse on a scale of millions, billions, and you excuse it?
The ones who did this crime against humanity need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The ones complicit, who did it because it was their orders or will (Doctors, teachers,Police) need to sued for the harms they caused till they have lost everything they have as they have made innocent people lose everything by their fas* ist controlling and breaking all the legal rights of society.
”Someone elderly or immune-compromised might say: yes, kids were not at great danger from the virus. But why should the demographics most at risk of severe illness and death be recklessly endangered, for the sake of children with their whole lives ahead of them?”
That ANYONE would say the above – that anyone could say an adult with no dependent on them could sacrifice a child’s well-being for their own is so morally repugnant I cannot understand modern society.
No NO – I refused the mask although it was so much easier to surrender to this horror show of totalitarianism, I refused the vax – because it was Wrong! That the majority went along excused Nothing! The Nuremberg trials proved this. I hope they are gearing up for this exact same kind of trials –
Good health treatments that worked forbidden, Censored totally! and very dangerous mRNA experimental treatments said to be safe and effective when they were Neither! Then forced on the people wile denying them treatments which actually work to prevent ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ – A crime against Humanity!
NO – Mary you are 1000% in the wrong with your relativism article excusing child abuse on this epic scale. NO. The ones responsible must be called out.
Few seem to want to face it but as mad as we went (and we did), any PM but Boris would have been worse. Starmer was looking for more lockdowns after Summer 2021 – remember the “Boris Variant”
Exactly. An elderly neighbour of ours walked out of his residential place, reasoning that he had had his “three score years and ten” and if death should come for him, then that was no more than might be expected at his time of life and anyway, a few days’ respiratory illness was far preferable than years of lingering decline. To their great credit his family supported him in this.
If I was that family, I would have viewed supporting his decision as a no-brainer. We must NEVER let the authorities do this again.
If I was that family, I would have viewed supporting his decision as a no-brainer. We must NEVER let the authorities do this again.
Exceedingly well said.
Some of us have not gone back on what we said back then – me for one.
I should have liked to see the following line from Mary. ‘We loved our children so much that we would sacrifice the lives of 100000 strangers to give them a normal childhood‘.
Yes…and all this under the guise of an ideology that insisted, “love is love”. We’d do well to remember that love (like hope) is a theological virtue
Mary – your article – What a miserable, relative morality, situational ethics, flexible code of honour tale of shame. I cannot believe parent could write such.
Your child and all children were greatly harmed. You justify it, and you let it go. NO. Child abuse on a scale of millions, billions, and you excuse it?
The ones who did this crime against humanity need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The ones complicit, who did it because it was their orders or will (Doctors, teachers,Police) need to sued for the harms they caused till they have lost everything they have as they have made innocent people lose everything by their fas* ist controlling and breaking all the legal rights of society.
”Someone elderly or immune-compromised might say: yes, kids were not at great danger from the virus. But why should the demographics most at risk of severe illness and death be recklessly endangered, for the sake of children with their whole lives ahead of them?”
That ANYONE would say the above – that anyone could say an adult with no dependent on them could sacrifice a child’s well-being for their own is so morally repugnant I cannot understand modern society.
No NO – I refused the mask although it was so much easier to surrender to this horror show of totalitarianism, I refused the vax – because it was Wrong! That the majority went along excused Nothing! The Nuremberg trials proved this. I hope they are gearing up for this exact same kind of trials –
Good health treatments that worked forbidden, Censored totally! and very dangerous mRNA experimental treatments said to be safe and effective when they were Neither! Then forced on the people wile denying them treatments which actually work to prevent ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ – A crime against Humanity!
NO – Mary you are 1000% in the wrong with your relativism article excusing child abuse on this epic scale. NO. The ones responsible must be called out.
Few seem to want to face it but as mad as we went (and we did), any PM but Boris would have been worse. Starmer was looking for more lockdowns after Summer 2021 – remember the “Boris Variant”
Exactly. An elderly neighbour of ours walked out of his residential place, reasoning that he had had his “three score years and ten” and if death should come for him, then that was no more than might be expected at his time of life and anyway, a few days’ respiratory illness was far preferable than years of lingering decline. To their great credit his family supported him in this.
Exceedingly well said.
What a beautiful article.
My wife and I felt so alone in those times. We had 4 month old twins when lockdown arrived. We knew from the start the decision was a terrible one. But no one would brook any criticism. Now, apparently, everyone who scolded us for complaining were against it all along. Who knew.
We went mad as a country. We should talk about it in those terms. And resolve never to do it again.
I love this line: “we refused to defend love in the face of death”. Bravo Mary.
Mary, who in the name of Baby Jesus can make/give a masked snowman?
Anyway, although I can see where you are coming from, you are being FAR too generous with those in charge and those who went along with it. Without a reckoning of some sort we cannot really move on.
It will happen again! Mary has – for once- not pointed the finger at and identified the warped credo which determined the lockdown frenzy. It dominates all politics and culture so it is hard to miss. It is the pyschological terror of any form of discrimination. It is the Equality mania/hysteria which forbids ANY act which permits the preferential treatment of one group over another, no matter the wider benefits for society. I remember being stunned when those wretched ‘scientists’ and the Newspeak Propaganda so BBC venomously attacked Great Barrington as ‘eugenic’ in seeking to allow the majority to live normal lives while the tiny numbers of vulnerable (av death 84 remember) were to be shielded Even the welfare of children was expendable and knowingly sacrificed on the altar of this demented non discrimination groupthink. It is more powerful now. So we are powerless to stop further tyrannical over reactions in the future. They have got away with it. Scott free. All of them.
I remember talking to someone about the Great Barrington Declaration and he too complained about the unfairness of isolating seniors. I was stunned. So the better option was to isolate everyone? What sense does that make?
Modern society reminds me of Tolkien’s world, where true evil in the form of Morgoth created his army by corrupting and debasing the fair elves and turning them into the monstrous orcs.
We are seeing all that was good about mankind – notions such as fairness, equality, kindness – being twisted and corrupted, and being used against us, to subvert society and cause harm. The people doing this are not misguided, they are utterly evil.
I completely agree with the sentiment – it very much feels that way! On both (all) sides ironically. But feelings aside, the reality is likely that every human being is moral by their own definition. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. To Mary’s point – most people lack the capacity for moral reasoning.
Well done. The principle you’re appealing to is known as Hanlon’s Razor
Well done. The principle you’re appealing to is known as Hanlon’s Razor
I completely agree with the sentiment – it very much feels that way! On both (all) sides ironically. But feelings aside, the reality is likely that every human being is moral by their own definition. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. To Mary’s point – most people lack the capacity for moral reasoning.
If you were a “senior” you would feel differently about isolating seniors. Some of us are fairly healthy because we get out, exercise, get some fresh air and sunlight. And interact with our fellow humans.
A year of quarantine would have killed me. What sense does that make?
What we seem to be talking about is the cultural inability to just do nothing. (The Swedes, who barely reacted, get the prize for reasonableness.) Luckily, here in Brooklyn there was no real lockdown if you didn’t want it, some stores never insisted on masks and most of us spent 2020/21 sitting in the park, watching the kids grow.
Modern society reminds me of Tolkien’s world, where true evil in the form of Morgoth created his army by corrupting and debasing the fair elves and turning them into the monstrous orcs.
We are seeing all that was good about mankind – notions such as fairness, equality, kindness – being twisted and corrupted, and being used against us, to subvert society and cause harm. The people doing this are not misguided, they are utterly evil.
If you were a “senior” you would feel differently about isolating seniors. Some of us are fairly healthy because we get out, exercise, get some fresh air and sunlight. And interact with our fellow humans.
A year of quarantine would have killed me. What sense does that make?
What we seem to be talking about is the cultural inability to just do nothing. (The Swedes, who barely reacted, get the prize for reasonableness.) Luckily, here in Brooklyn there was no real lockdown if you didn’t want it, some stores never insisted on masks and most of us spent 2020/21 sitting in the park, watching the kids grow.
The problem with the Barrington declaration was not that it is wrong to discriminate. It was that there was no realistic prospect that the shielding would actually work. Too many people were vulnerable and, being vulnerable, they were in close contact with too many others, carers and the like. Justified or not, the Barrington course of action would have killed a lot of people, whatever the proposers said.
Concur RF. The GBD never specified how exactly you’d separate the young from the more senior. One suspects because it was a bit of side-line point scoring and they knew if they actually told us how they’d propose to do it there’d have been howls of outrage. It’s easy to commentate, esp when you can get away with over simplifying a problem, much harder to actually take responsibility for v difficult decisions.
In actual fact they discussed ‘how’ you would do it. In great detail as I recall. On this platform if I recall. This is when censorship becomes truly pernicious. Reminds me of the show trial in Germany for the general who plotted to overthrow Hitler – they took his uniform from him and forced him to wear rags that were so big he had to hold up his pants from falling down during the trial. Then the German press mocked him for his appearance!
In actual fact they discussed ‘how’ you would do it. In great detail as I recall. On this platform if I recall. This is when censorship becomes truly pernicious. Reminds me of the show trial in Germany for the general who plotted to overthrow Hitler – they took his uniform from him and forced him to wear rags that were so big he had to hold up his pants from falling down during the trial. Then the German press mocked him for his appearance!
There is of course a debate to be had on GB. You may be right. But this debate was never allowed. Ofcom and BBC banished it from airwaves. The Zero Discrimination mania did for EVERY and all such attempts to challenge full lockdown. Understanding the dqngerous force of this hysteria and groupthink in our meek rulers is the key to unlocking the lockdown catastrophe.
That is simply an assertion; no one seriously tried to do implement CBD principles. Another rather chilling commentary on our time seems to me that you evidence is completely secondary to our ‘virtuous’ feelings whether about covid, climate change or anything else. A comment below said the policy resulted from a fundamental egalitarianism, and this seems very plausible to me. It is better, in that view, to ban the social lives of 65 million people rather than perhaps 1 million!
Actually Mary Harrington wasn’t arguing one way or the other about whether lockdowns were justified or worked, but about trade offs, which were scarcely acknowledged at all by the pro lockdown orthodoxy.
A ‘lot more people’ were not in fact killed in Sweden, so your logic falls down straight away there, though they too made a mess of care homes.
We in fact seeded covid almost deliberately, at least cavalierly through care homes in order to ‘ er… protect hospitals, which as we know didn’t stay protected for long and became themselves main modes of covid transmission.
Something like the GBD measures have now been in fact now largely been implemented in care homes. Staff and patients can be tested regularly and rooms isolated if necessary. This is done by care homes I know of, not only for covid but for norovirus for example. This is not without its ethical problems, but it is a lot better than locking down the whole population by law.
To be fair to the chaotic Johnson government, we had it better than many countries, such as Italy France, where I have friends, where quite ludicrously public parks were closed and exercise effectively prohibited. People were
forced to live in sweltering temperatures in tiny flats for the vast majority of the time, often in multiple generation households! As we can see, hardly anyone died of covid because of those measures – did they?!
Lastly, the government reaction might be seen as plausible and having some arguments for it in rich western nations, but became a monstrous evil absurdity in the developing world, where most people are day labourers and were simply deprived of their livelihoods, which has been an even bigger concern of the GBD authors. Of course so many of our bien pensant virtue signalling Left know nothing and care less about actual poor people living in those countries!
The Barrington declaration is like anarchism: since it has never been seriously tried, there is no way to prove definitively that it does not work. In either case, I can think of good reasons why no one ever tried to implement it properly.
As for Sweden, it is too easy to cherrypick a country and claim it proves your point. I could compare Sweden to Denmark and use that to ‘prove’ that the Swedish approach was a disaster. The reality is that the problem is too complex to get an answer by a simple two-country comparison.
Give us and it a break Rasmus. Lockdowns weren’t tried either, nor were they in any guide in respect of a respiratory virus.
There were enough of us with logic and nous who had already read early on about the stats coming from the contained environments of the cruise ship Diamond Princess and from Prof Hendrik Streeck about the outbreak in the small town carnival in Germany to give us a good idea about IFR. We said so loudly on these pages ffs.
Besides that, it was published very early on that it was the overweight old people with co-morbidities who were most at risk.
Just admit you were wrong.
What about choosing Florida if you don’t like the Sweden argument? Lots and lots of old, overweight people with co-morbidities there.
Anarchy is the null hypothesis. Anarchism is an ideology that, far from being “never seriously tried,” may be the best label for the system Mary is critiquing here. Call it “actually existing anarchism”!
That has nothing to do with COVID but it sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?
My understanding of anarchism is that there should be no structures, no procedures, no power relations, no government or organisation, and that you can rely on people doing the right things for everyone – unprompted. I do not think that this has even been tried seriously as an organising principle for a society. Has that been tried? Or do you mean something else?
That has nothing to do with COVID but it sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?
My understanding of anarchism is that there should be no structures, no procedures, no power relations, no government or organisation, and that you can rely on people doing the right things for everyone – unprompted. I do not think that this has even been tried seriously as an organising principle for a society. Has that been tried? Or do you mean something else?
At this point the death toll in Sweden is sort of average for the post industrial nations. The amount of societal upset, though, is much lower. I don’t think they ever closed the elementary schools.
Give us and it a break Rasmus. Lockdowns weren’t tried either, nor were they in any guide in respect of a respiratory virus.
There were enough of us with logic and nous who had already read early on about the stats coming from the contained environments of the cruise ship Diamond Princess and from Prof Hendrik Streeck about the outbreak in the small town carnival in Germany to give us a good idea about IFR. We said so loudly on these pages ffs.
Besides that, it was published very early on that it was the overweight old people with co-morbidities who were most at risk.
Just admit you were wrong.
What about choosing Florida if you don’t like the Sweden argument? Lots and lots of old, overweight people with co-morbidities there.
Anarchy is the null hypothesis. Anarchism is an ideology that, far from being “never seriously tried,” may be the best label for the system Mary is critiquing here. Call it “actually existing anarchism”!
At this point the death toll in Sweden is sort of average for the post industrial nations. The amount of societal upset, though, is much lower. I don’t think they ever closed the elementary schools.
The Barrington declaration is like anarchism: since it has never been seriously tried, there is no way to prove definitively that it does not work. In either case, I can think of good reasons why no one ever tried to implement it properly.
As for Sweden, it is too easy to cherrypick a country and claim it proves your point. I could compare Sweden to Denmark and use that to ‘prove’ that the Swedish approach was a disaster. The reality is that the problem is too complex to get an answer by a simple two-country comparison.
A lot of people die in transport, road traffic accidents, for example. But we carry on with transport, because national life requires it.
But whereas people of all ages die in transport accidents, the people most likely to die of Covid were overwhelmingly 80+. In other words, they were near the natural end of their lives. The simplest internet search shows the figures which make this clear.
And they died, they weren’t ‘killed’.
Not making the connection here WD.
Firstly we don’t know what would have happened if GBD implemented instead of broader Lockdown because it’s proponents never defined how it’d work. They keep hiding behind generalities. Folks need to come off the fence and outline how would they have separated the young and old. Suspicion is they don’t because their contention would unravel.
Your second point is about broader accidents – fact was Hospitals (in UK at least and in part because we have underinvested in capacity) were overwhelmed and couldn’t treat the normal emergencies unless the Covid wave abated.
Finally the point about it killed predominantly those over 80 – yes this is true but a hindsight observation, and in part it’s because of all the action that was taken. Remember in the UK our PM ended up in Intensive care. Had that capacity been overwhelmed and no room for him he would have died. He wasn’t 80yrs of age and he wasn’t unique. Had we done nothing there would have no room for him by time he got Covid (obviously as PM he’d have been found a bed but you get the point). People forgot the nature of the virus was not well understood initially – it was killing/making serious ill some whilst others seemed completely unaffected.
Clearly the Policy decisions have affected many of us, kids potentially more so. But it’s a bit early for full historical perspective on this. Let’s see how China gets on too
Not making the connection here WD.
Firstly we don’t know what would have happened if GBD implemented instead of broader Lockdown because it’s proponents never defined how it’d work. They keep hiding behind generalities. Folks need to come off the fence and outline how would they have separated the young and old. Suspicion is they don’t because their contention would unravel.
Your second point is about broader accidents – fact was Hospitals (in UK at least and in part because we have underinvested in capacity) were overwhelmed and couldn’t treat the normal emergencies unless the Covid wave abated.
Finally the point about it killed predominantly those over 80 – yes this is true but a hindsight observation, and in part it’s because of all the action that was taken. Remember in the UK our PM ended up in Intensive care. Had that capacity been overwhelmed and no room for him he would have died. He wasn’t 80yrs of age and he wasn’t unique. Had we done nothing there would have no room for him by time he got Covid (obviously as PM he’d have been found a bed but you get the point). People forgot the nature of the virus was not well understood initially – it was killing/making serious ill some whilst others seemed completely unaffected.
Clearly the Policy decisions have affected many of us, kids potentially more so. But it’s a bit early for full historical perspective on this. Let’s see how China gets on too
“..I am not asking for proof (no one could prove this either way), but can you show me enough evidence to show that your view is most likely?”
Well, I can give you the argument. First, people start getting vulnerable at around age 60, to which you must add all the diabetics and people with a lot of other diseases below that age. If you wanted to protect them all, you would be in the tens of millions who need to be isolated from society – which is impossible. If you only protect the weakest and over-80, that leaves the 60- and 70-year-olds with over 1% death rate and no protection.
Then, sticking to the oldest and weakest, they generally are in contact with a lot of carers, nurses, cleaners, not to speak of familiy visits which a lot of people strongly object to curtailing. They need constant help, after all. If their carers get COVID, it will likely be passed on. So the carers would have to be in the isolation bubble too – which is hardly realistic in large numbers. You could do some kind of partial lockdown on all the carers (which would not be popular), but you are still talking about people who do have quite a few contacts to others – in the middle of a raging epidemic of a highly contagious disease that can be passed on before any symptoms show. After all, the plan is to let the disease run free until everybody not in a protection bubble has had it.
Someone compared the Barrington plan to sitting in the middle of raging fireand trying to keep an open bowl of gasoline from burning – without any attempt to put the fire out. That is probably an exaggeration. Still, it does not sound to me like the protection of the vulnerable is likely to be very effective. In fact I suspect that much of it would be mere security theatre – like a flammable fire safety curtain. Measures to make everybody feel like they something is being done to protect them, even though nobody who understands things expect it to actually work.
It is going to be a hard problem whatever you do, but trying to keep the rate of spread low by lockdowns etc., combined with test-and-trace and some special isolation measures for the most vulnerable sounds more likely to be effective.
Well, I can give you the argument. First, people start getting vulnerable at around age 60, to which you must add all the diabetics and people with a lot of other diseases below that age. If you wanted to protect them all, you would be in the tens of millions who need to be isolated from society – which is impossible. If you only protect the weakest and over-80, that leaves the 60- and 70-year-olds with over 1% death rate and no protection.
Then, sticking to the oldest and weakest, they generally are in contact with a lot of carers, nurses, cleaners, not to speak of familiy visits which a lot of people strongly object to curtailing. They need constant help, after all. If their carers get COVID, it will likely be passed on. So the carers would have to be in the isolation bubble too – which is hardly realistic in large numbers. You could do some kind of partial lockdown on all the carers (which would not be popular), but you are still talking about people who do have quite a few contacts to others – in the middle of a raging epidemic of a highly contagious disease that can be passed on before any symptoms show. After all, the plan is to let the disease run free until everybody not in a protection bubble has had it.
Someone compared the Barrington plan to sitting in the middle of raging fireand trying to keep an open bowl of gasoline from burning – without any attempt to put the fire out. That is probably an exaggeration. Still, it does not sound to me like the protection of the vulnerable is likely to be very effective. In fact I suspect that much of it would be mere security theatre – like a flammable fire safety curtain. Measures to make everybody feel like they something is being done to protect them, even though nobody who understands things expect it to actually work.
It is going to be a hard problem whatever you do, but trying to keep the rate of spread low by lockdowns etc., combined with test-and-trace and some special isolation measures for the most vulnerable sounds more likely to be effective.
The idea that Covid “would have killed a lot of people” without lockdown is exactly the evidence-free assertion that caused the problem.
Concur RF. The GBD never specified how exactly you’d separate the young from the more senior. One suspects because it was a bit of side-line point scoring and they knew if they actually told us how they’d propose to do it there’d have been howls of outrage. It’s easy to commentate, esp when you can get away with over simplifying a problem, much harder to actually take responsibility for v difficult decisions.
There is of course a debate to be had on GB. You may be right. But this debate was never allowed. Ofcom and BBC banished it from airwaves. The Zero Discrimination mania did for EVERY and all such attempts to challenge full lockdown. Understanding the dqngerous force of this hysteria and groupthink in our meek rulers is the key to unlocking the lockdown catastrophe.
That is simply an assertion; no one seriously tried to do implement CBD principles. Another rather chilling commentary on our time seems to me that you evidence is completely secondary to our ‘virtuous’ feelings whether about covid, climate change or anything else. A comment below said the policy resulted from a fundamental egalitarianism, and this seems very plausible to me. It is better, in that view, to ban the social lives of 65 million people rather than perhaps 1 million!
Actually Mary Harrington wasn’t arguing one way or the other about whether lockdowns were justified or worked, but about trade offs, which were scarcely acknowledged at all by the pro lockdown orthodoxy.
A ‘lot more people’ were not in fact killed in Sweden, so your logic falls down straight away there, though they too made a mess of care homes.
We in fact seeded covid almost deliberately, at least cavalierly through care homes in order to ‘ er… protect hospitals, which as we know didn’t stay protected for long and became themselves main modes of covid transmission.
Something like the GBD measures have now been in fact now largely been implemented in care homes. Staff and patients can be tested regularly and rooms isolated if necessary. This is done by care homes I know of, not only for covid but for norovirus for example. This is not without its ethical problems, but it is a lot better than locking down the whole population by law.
To be fair to the chaotic Johnson government, we had it better than many countries, such as Italy France, where I have friends, where quite ludicrously public parks were closed and exercise effectively prohibited. People were
forced to live in sweltering temperatures in tiny flats for the vast majority of the time, often in multiple generation households! As we can see, hardly anyone died of covid because of those measures – did they?!
Lastly, the government reaction might be seen as plausible and having some arguments for it in rich western nations, but became a monstrous evil absurdity in the developing world, where most people are day labourers and were simply deprived of their livelihoods, which has been an even bigger concern of the GBD authors. Of course so many of our bien pensant virtue signalling Left know nothing and care less about actual poor people living in those countries!
A lot of people die in transport, road traffic accidents, for example. But we carry on with transport, because national life requires it.
But whereas people of all ages die in transport accidents, the people most likely to die of Covid were overwhelmingly 80+. In other words, they were near the natural end of their lives. The simplest internet search shows the figures which make this clear.
And they died, they weren’t ‘killed’.
“..I am not asking for proof (no one could prove this either way), but can you show me enough evidence to show that your view is most likely?”
The idea that Covid “would have killed a lot of people” without lockdown is exactly the evidence-free assertion that caused the problem.
I agree with you WM; Mary has been too generous in spirit towards the perpetrators. They were the pseudo scientists acting as modellers, behavioral scientists(!), politicians with totalitarian power ideology and corrupt pharmaceutical companies. I say ‘corrupt’ because they knew their rushed-through vaccines would not stop transmission or stop the infection especially with 10 months of tests and not the normal 10 years. I am a retired farmer and not a epidermiologist but even I was able to email my young Tory MP and lay out in detail what would be the outcome if we lockdown – this was not after the event but the 3rd week of March 2020 …… and it all came to pass and I take no pride in being right.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. This whole debacle fragmented families even more than Brexit. We are still living with the aftermath of all of this, and no-one in my social circle who had an opposing view to mine is giving those of us that supported the Great Barrington Declaration and all it stood for, even a glimmer of recognition for being right in so many aspects, let alone an apology for the way we have been vilified, our jobs put on the line, our social movements curtailed, and the extreme loneliness many of us felt. This apathy and head-in-the-sand approach concerns me greatly. The Planet Normal podcast has seen many of us through and deserve praise for their wonderfully researched and courageous reporting on the pandemic.
I remember talking to someone about the Great Barrington Declaration and he too complained about the unfairness of isolating seniors. I was stunned. So the better option was to isolate everyone? What sense does that make?
The problem with the Barrington declaration was not that it is wrong to discriminate. It was that there was no realistic prospect that the shielding would actually work. Too many people were vulnerable and, being vulnerable, they were in close contact with too many others, carers and the like. Justified or not, the Barrington course of action would have killed a lot of people, whatever the proposers said.
I agree with you WM; Mary has been too generous in spirit towards the perpetrators. They were the pseudo scientists acting as modellers, behavioral scientists(!), politicians with totalitarian power ideology and corrupt pharmaceutical companies. I say ‘corrupt’ because they knew their rushed-through vaccines would not stop transmission or stop the infection especially with 10 months of tests and not the normal 10 years. I am a retired farmer and not a epidermiologist but even I was able to email my young Tory MP and lay out in detail what would be the outcome if we lockdown – this was not after the event but the 3rd week of March 2020 …… and it all came to pass and I take no pride in being right.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. This whole debacle fragmented families even more than Brexit. We are still living with the aftermath of all of this, and no-one in my social circle who had an opposing view to mine is giving those of us that supported the Great Barrington Declaration and all it stood for, even a glimmer of recognition for being right in so many aspects, let alone an apology for the way we have been vilified, our jobs put on the line, our social movements curtailed, and the extreme loneliness many of us felt. This apathy and head-in-the-sand approach concerns me greatly. The Planet Normal podcast has seen many of us through and deserve praise for their wonderfully researched and courageous reporting on the pandemic.
Arkadian, the very best illustration of what Mary excuses was a picture of an old man with a baby in one of those carriers that hold a baby against ones chest in a sling with their face inwards, and their back to the outside –
The line under it was:
COVID Stab Vest.
And that is exactly what lockdown and the vax were – ONLY they did not even work – so it was morally obscene – and pointless!
It will happen again! Mary has – for once- not pointed the finger at and identified the warped credo which determined the lockdown frenzy. It dominates all politics and culture so it is hard to miss. It is the pyschological terror of any form of discrimination. It is the Equality mania/hysteria which forbids ANY act which permits the preferential treatment of one group over another, no matter the wider benefits for society. I remember being stunned when those wretched ‘scientists’ and the Newspeak Propaganda so BBC venomously attacked Great Barrington as ‘eugenic’ in seeking to allow the majority to live normal lives while the tiny numbers of vulnerable (av death 84 remember) were to be shielded Even the welfare of children was expendable and knowingly sacrificed on the altar of this demented non discrimination groupthink. It is more powerful now. So we are powerless to stop further tyrannical over reactions in the future. They have got away with it. Scott free. All of them.
Arkadian, the very best illustration of what Mary excuses was a picture of an old man with a baby in one of those carriers that hold a baby against ones chest in a sling with their face inwards, and their back to the outside –
The line under it was:
COVID Stab Vest.
And that is exactly what lockdown and the vax were – ONLY they did not even work – so it was morally obscene – and pointless!
Mary, who in the name of Baby Jesus can make/give a masked snowman?
Anyway, although I can see where you are coming from, you are being FAR too generous with those in charge and those who went along with it. Without a reckoning of some sort we cannot really move on.
In an interview, right at the beginning of the so-called pandemic, Stanford professor John Ioannidis warned that we were making far-reaching decisions with potentially devastating economic and psychological implications on insufficient data. YouTube took it down. In a Substack post also near the beginning the Naked Emperor reported that research indicated the most effective nudge for compliance, was altruism (doing it for granny). Hard not to be cynical.
John Ioannidis was right, not for the first time. We were making far-reaching decisions with potentially devastating economic and psychological implications on insufficient data. The problem is that the decisions needed taking urgently, as in right now, and there was no time to wait for better data to come along. That being so, it is at least understandable if there was some official suppression of people who try to undermine compliance with health policy at the start of a pandemic.
When I was training in emergency response, I clearly remember one graph which showed time, and subsequently amount of information, along the X-axis and scope for action along the Y-axis; as time went by there was far less room for manoeuvre as the emergency got worse, it is the job of an emergency controller to decide when enough information is available and to act. The very last nugget of wisdom we were given was – when all is done and dusted, no matter what you did you will have been wrong. All those people who did not have to make decisions based on the limited kowledge you had at the time and now with all the information available will be telling you what you should have done.
Isn’t that because we default to outsourcing responsibility to external authorities? Trying to stop a virus is like asking Canute to turn back the tide. Expecting governments to save us with sweeping policies rather than taking responsibility for our own health is always going to result in disappointment and blame.
Isn’t that because we default to outsourcing responsibility to external authorities? Trying to stop a virus is like asking Canute to turn back the tide. Expecting governments to save us with sweeping policies rather than taking responsibility for our own health is always going to result in disappointment and blame.
So why does the suppression continue to this day? That’s called corruption.
That’s called a vacuum of basic Year 9 biology knowledge.
That’s called a vacuum of basic Year 9 biology knowledge.
When I was training in emergency response, I clearly remember one graph which showed time, and subsequently amount of information, along the X-axis and scope for action along the Y-axis; as time went by there was far less room for manoeuvre as the emergency got worse, it is the job of an emergency controller to decide when enough information is available and to act. The very last nugget of wisdom we were given was – when all is done and dusted, no matter what you did you will have been wrong. All those people who did not have to make decisions based on the limited kowledge you had at the time and now with all the information available will be telling you what you should have done.
So why does the suppression continue to this day? That’s called corruption.
Youtube, Facebook, Google, Gates, and Twitter are the very face of Evil – how they handle themselves over Covid and everything else. Evil!
John Ioannidis was right, not for the first time. We were making far-reaching decisions with potentially devastating economic and psychological implications on insufficient data. The problem is that the decisions needed taking urgently, as in right now, and there was no time to wait for better data to come along. That being so, it is at least understandable if there was some official suppression of people who try to undermine compliance with health policy at the start of a pandemic.
Youtube, Facebook, Google, Gates, and Twitter are the very face of Evil – how they handle themselves over Covid and everything else. Evil!
In an interview, right at the beginning of the so-called pandemic, Stanford professor John Ioannidis warned that we were making far-reaching decisions with potentially devastating economic and psychological implications on insufficient data. YouTube took it down. In a Substack post also near the beginning the Naked Emperor reported that research indicated the most effective nudge for compliance, was altruism (doing it for granny). Hard not to be cynical.
Amen, Mary. We truly have lost our capacity for moral reasoning, and so to act morally. Much like the fictional Captain Kirk, who as a cadet, is faced with a command simulation where he has to decide whether to risk his ship and all the lives on it in order to attempt to rescue the crew of a ship in distress in enemy territory. The purpose of the test was to force the cadet to make a moral choice – which was not to gamble with the lives of his own crew, even knowing he might have been able to save others. But Captain Kirk cheats – he reprograms the simulator to permit a solution where he can rescue the people in distress without losing his own ship. This is the ‘moral’ lesson in nearly every movie and tv show of our modern age – you don’t have to make a hard moral choice – you save everyone. What could be more virtuous? And this was the morality of the pandemic – we saved everyone, but only by cheating – and we continue to cheat by pretending that nothing we did caused any harm.
Brilliant comment!
Indeed we didn’t save everyone.
People with missed cancer diagnosis, people who missed several rounds of chemo because the hospital was closed to all regular patients.
People who’ve fallen into depression.
Care home residents, miserably unvisited.
Thousands of kids who fell out of the school system.
Not saved.
I understand how authorities got bounced into the first lockdown, but not its duration – and the second one and other restrictions was just them doubling down.
The tragedy is undeniable – but how many chemo appointments do you think there woudl have been if if had let the pandemic run free and the hospitals were spilling over with COVID patients? The blame lies with the virus, not the decision makers.
The tragedy is undeniable – but how many chemo appointments do you think there woudl have been if if had let the pandemic run free and the hospitals were spilling over with COVID patients? The blame lies with the virus, not the decision makers.
Brilliant comment!
Indeed we didn’t save everyone.
People with missed cancer diagnosis, people who missed several rounds of chemo because the hospital was closed to all regular patients.
People who’ve fallen into depression.
Care home residents, miserably unvisited.
Thousands of kids who fell out of the school system.
Not saved.
I understand how authorities got bounced into the first lockdown, but not its duration – and the second one and other restrictions was just them doubling down.
Amen, Mary. We truly have lost our capacity for moral reasoning, and so to act morally. Much like the fictional Captain Kirk, who as a cadet, is faced with a command simulation where he has to decide whether to risk his ship and all the lives on it in order to attempt to rescue the crew of a ship in distress in enemy territory. The purpose of the test was to force the cadet to make a moral choice – which was not to gamble with the lives of his own crew, even knowing he might have been able to save others. But Captain Kirk cheats – he reprograms the simulator to permit a solution where he can rescue the people in distress without losing his own ship. This is the ‘moral’ lesson in nearly every movie and tv show of our modern age – you don’t have to make a hard moral choice – you save everyone. What could be more virtuous? And this was the morality of the pandemic – we saved everyone, but only by cheating – and we continue to cheat by pretending that nothing we did caused any harm.
Without inquiries and trials I am not moving on from 2020. Our leadership shattered the country on the altar of ‘the science’ and destroyed the lives of countless people with little justification.
Without inquiries and trials I am not moving on from 2020. Our leadership shattered the country on the altar of ‘the science’ and destroyed the lives of countless people with little justification.
Lovely, thoughtful piece.
‘What of the children, now toddlers, who didn’t interact with anyone other than their parents for months or even years of their earliest life, and are now developmentally delayed on a raft of measures compared to previous cohorts?’
My second son was born 10 weeks early in the first week of lockdown. Usually parents decamp to the NICU and live by their preemie’s side until they’re ready to come home, and family can come and visit. Not in lockdown – one parent was allowed for 90 minutes a day. That’s it. For 7 weeks my poor boy didn’t interact with anyone but masked nurses and doctors, and a short daily cuddle with one parent. He’s turned out fine but there were children there with much more complex difficulties- I do worry about them.
A lady with a young child in a buggy was working on an allotment close to mine. When she had done and was walking past me she stopped to chat briefly. The child looked at me and howled. “I’m so sorry” the lady said “but he is terrified of any adult he sees without a mask!”
That’s really, really disturbing.
Unless that lady wore masks at home I find this story hard to believe personally
So do I. My kid was fine. No one wore masks in the parks outside round here or anything, or on their allotments.
Same, the only time my kids saw a mask was at the supermarket. It was the exception rather than the norm for them so I find it hard to believe a child would be scared by a face
Exactly! And everyone took them off outside the shops in town, the majority were not wearing them in the high street and such here. Mine was 3, I don’t like people going ott about the kids, we did loads of fun stuff, made it as normal as poss then went out loads to make up for it, I never made her wear a mask cos little ones were exempt, I think mines OK 🙂
Exactly! And everyone took them off outside the shops in town, the majority were not wearing them in the high street and such here. Mine was 3, I don’t like people going ott about the kids, we did loads of fun stuff, made it as normal as poss then went out loads to make up for it, I never made her wear a mask cos little ones were exempt, I think mines OK 🙂
Same, the only time my kids saw a mask was at the supermarket. It was the exception rather than the norm for them so I find it hard to believe a child would be scared by a face
So do I. My kid was fine. No one wore masks in the parks outside round here or anything, or on their allotments.
That’s really, really disturbing.
Unless that lady wore masks at home I find this story hard to believe personally
A lady with a young child in a buggy was working on an allotment close to mine. When she had done and was walking past me she stopped to chat briefly. The child looked at me and howled. “I’m so sorry” the lady said “but he is terrified of any adult he sees without a mask!”
Lovely, thoughtful piece.
‘What of the children, now toddlers, who didn’t interact with anyone other than their parents for months or even years of their earliest life, and are now developmentally delayed on a raft of measures compared to previous cohorts?’
My second son was born 10 weeks early in the first week of lockdown. Usually parents decamp to the NICU and live by their preemie’s side until they’re ready to come home, and family can come and visit. Not in lockdown – one parent was allowed for 90 minutes a day. That’s it. For 7 weeks my poor boy didn’t interact with anyone but masked nurses and doctors, and a short daily cuddle with one parent. He’s turned out fine but there were children there with much more complex difficulties- I do worry about them.
Leftism brought us lockdowns. Under Leftism everyone must be in the same boat, even if that boat is sinking.
Leftism brought us lockdowns. Under Leftism everyone must be in the same boat, even if that boat is sinking.
This is a wonderful, timely article. When my husband and I made the decision to see our grandchildren regardless of any risks (we were 59, in decent health) our son-in-law actually said to our daughter “as long as you’re comfortable with killing your parents.” She had four sons, 8 and under, including a baby, and was extremely isolated. He exhibited what we considered paranoid fear but what was actually closer to the norm in America. She wasn’t allowed to see friends, except occasionally outside at a distance wearing masks. It seemed idiotic and dangerous to us, the long term effects of prolonged fear of other people on children has to be greater than the risk to the elderly, like it or not we are all going to die. It became a major stressor in their marriage and communicated that stress to the children. Naturally they were on opposite sides of the vaccine debate.
Playgrounds here were closed for a long time, with yellow tape as if a crime had been ( or was about to be) committed. When our neighborhood playground’s tape had either been removed or blown away we took the two toddlers there. The older had been a socially astute, outgoing child. Another mom arrived with two children, thrilled to find unmasked humans who would actually sit and talk to her. My grandsons behaved as if they were terrified of the other children. They wouldn’t climb on the large gym if the other children were on it, even 25 feet away.
The fear among the elderly seems from my limited perspective to be strongly influenced by religious faith. Our Latin Mass community, which has many elderly members as well as young families, returned to church as soon as it was permitted. Most were anti Covid vaccination. Our culture has an unhealthy fear of death, not accepting it as a natural and inevitable end of each while urging unnatural and ill considered suicide on the vulnerable but very much alive. People have lost all sense of irony.
This is a wonderful, timely article. When my husband and I made the decision to see our grandchildren regardless of any risks (we were 59, in decent health) our son-in-law actually said to our daughter “as long as you’re comfortable with killing your parents.” She had four sons, 8 and under, including a baby, and was extremely isolated. He exhibited what we considered paranoid fear but what was actually closer to the norm in America. She wasn’t allowed to see friends, except occasionally outside at a distance wearing masks. It seemed idiotic and dangerous to us, the long term effects of prolonged fear of other people on children has to be greater than the risk to the elderly, like it or not we are all going to die. It became a major stressor in their marriage and communicated that stress to the children. Naturally they were on opposite sides of the vaccine debate.
Playgrounds here were closed for a long time, with yellow tape as if a crime had been ( or was about to be) committed. When our neighborhood playground’s tape had either been removed or blown away we took the two toddlers there. The older had been a socially astute, outgoing child. Another mom arrived with two children, thrilled to find unmasked humans who would actually sit and talk to her. My grandsons behaved as if they were terrified of the other children. They wouldn’t climb on the large gym if the other children were on it, even 25 feet away.
The fear among the elderly seems from my limited perspective to be strongly influenced by religious faith. Our Latin Mass community, which has many elderly members as well as young families, returned to church as soon as it was permitted. Most were anti Covid vaccination. Our culture has an unhealthy fear of death, not accepting it as a natural and inevitable end of each while urging unnatural and ill considered suicide on the vulnerable but very much alive. People have lost all sense of irony.
A society which lacks an authoritative, binding moral framework and backbone is vulnerable to attack by outsiders interested in exploiting and weakening it for their own ends. The CCP observed how weak and lost we were and, given a golden opportunity that “covid” presented, they pounced. In their world, might is right and all they care about is power for power’s sake. Communists never value scientific truth and progress as an intrinsic good but only as an instrument to obtain and maintain their own power and ideology.
But what is so important to understand is that the powerful people – the aging Davos set terrified of their own mortality and the younger wannabe “global leaders” who surround them – in the West are not, generally, evil communists. But they also have an ambivalent relationship with truth and many of them have communistic, utilitarian, leanings that an absence of spiritual and moral purpose can allow to sprout and grow like an aggressive knotweed. Many seem to have convinced themselves that they need, for the greater good, to maintain “trust” in the failing, fallen institutions that they lead, and doing so means avoiding any accountability for the horrendous mistakes that they made – especially the ones they were conned into making by the liars in power in Beijing. So they can only double down on the errors, refusing to acknowledge the enormous economic, political, and physical harms done by interventions of all descriptions. They’ve bet the farm, and there is no going back.
Which leaves the rest of us exposed. The WHO – with support of both the lying eastern Communists and the cowardly western Technocrats – is pushing ahead with a pandemic treaty that will empower the Communist in charge until at least 2027 to declare another “pandemic” and bind our so-called leaders into whatever he tells them to do next, with little or no regard for actual truth or for morality (at least not in the way any western civilisation understands it). To oppose it would mean admitting that the global institutions are rotten, and shine a bright light on the corruption at national level that has supported them. There are just too many vested interests – the pharma and tech lobby has captured the WHO and national regulators & politicians, and too many half-decent but weak-willed people are too dependent on the perpetuation of lies and silence for their material well-being and comfort for them to do anything meaningful about it.
And so on it goes, with no-one in a real position of leadership and authority willing to open their eyes and stand up and try and get off the bus that they know is heading full speed off a cliff. All that any of us can do is keeping calling it out, stay humble, speak what we perceive to be the objective truth as best we can, but most of all do not willingly submit to the machine out of fear, laziness, or greed. It cannot get you if you do not consent. It’s all going to come crashing down sooner or later and you’ll want to be on the right side it when it does.
A society which lacks an authoritative, binding moral framework and backbone is vulnerable to attack by outsiders interested in exploiting and weakening it for their own ends. The CCP observed how weak and lost we were and, given a golden opportunity that “covid” presented, they pounced. In their world, might is right and all they care about is power for power’s sake. Communists never value scientific truth and progress as an intrinsic good but only as an instrument to obtain and maintain their own power and ideology.
But what is so important to understand is that the powerful people – the aging Davos set terrified of their own mortality and the younger wannabe “global leaders” who surround them – in the West are not, generally, evil communists. But they also have an ambivalent relationship with truth and many of them have communistic, utilitarian, leanings that an absence of spiritual and moral purpose can allow to sprout and grow like an aggressive knotweed. Many seem to have convinced themselves that they need, for the greater good, to maintain “trust” in the failing, fallen institutions that they lead, and doing so means avoiding any accountability for the horrendous mistakes that they made – especially the ones they were conned into making by the liars in power in Beijing. So they can only double down on the errors, refusing to acknowledge the enormous economic, political, and physical harms done by interventions of all descriptions. They’ve bet the farm, and there is no going back.
Which leaves the rest of us exposed. The WHO – with support of both the lying eastern Communists and the cowardly western Technocrats – is pushing ahead with a pandemic treaty that will empower the Communist in charge until at least 2027 to declare another “pandemic” and bind our so-called leaders into whatever he tells them to do next, with little or no regard for actual truth or for morality (at least not in the way any western civilisation understands it). To oppose it would mean admitting that the global institutions are rotten, and shine a bright light on the corruption at national level that has supported them. There are just too many vested interests – the pharma and tech lobby has captured the WHO and national regulators & politicians, and too many half-decent but weak-willed people are too dependent on the perpetuation of lies and silence for their material well-being and comfort for them to do anything meaningful about it.
And so on it goes, with no-one in a real position of leadership and authority willing to open their eyes and stand up and try and get off the bus that they know is heading full speed off a cliff. All that any of us can do is keeping calling it out, stay humble, speak what we perceive to be the objective truth as best we can, but most of all do not willingly submit to the machine out of fear, laziness, or greed. It cannot get you if you do not consent. It’s all going to come crashing down sooner or later and you’ll want to be on the right side it when it does.
1) It’s impossible to have TOTAL lockdowns. We had partial lockdowns.
2) The virus is airborne and can infect people over distances of up to 40 metres. – So much for the 2 meter rule. And don’t forget about the ridiculous handwashing!
3) There is not a scintilla of scientific evidence anywhere that shows that mask wearing (in normal day to day use) reduces transmission of airborne viruses. On the contrary there is overwhelming evidence that those wearing masks can get Covid just as easily as those going about unmasked.
So overall what did the wretched partial lockdowns achieve?
We had many millions of doctors, nurses, ambulance crews and care workers (mainly dealing with the most vulnerable) together with postmen, police, and other essential workers milling around spreading the virus across society. When the immediate family of all those essential workers are added up there were, throughout the pandemic, 10 of millions of people circulating capable of spreading the virus. And what actually transpired? Almost 100% of the population were exposed to the virus at one time or another. DESPITE THE PARTIAL LOCKDOWNS.
The ‘lockdowns’ were a ‘sick joke’ -beyond pathetic!
All that was achieved was the worst of all possible worlds – the destruction of social life and of many livelihoods at vast cost to achieve NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER.
On the other hand, the harms done to society are now shown to be truly appalling.
The sheer ineptitude of the WHO and the various medical bureaucracies across the world is truly mind blowing. The fact that in the year of Our Lord 2020 they didn’t know how bog standard respiratory viruses spread will go down in history as conclusive evidence of their criminal incompetence.
1) It’s impossible to have TOTAL lockdowns. We had partial lockdowns.
2) The virus is airborne and can infect people over distances of up to 40 metres. – So much for the 2 meter rule. And don’t forget about the ridiculous handwashing!
3) There is not a scintilla of scientific evidence anywhere that shows that mask wearing (in normal day to day use) reduces transmission of airborne viruses. On the contrary there is overwhelming evidence that those wearing masks can get Covid just as easily as those going about unmasked.
So overall what did the wretched partial lockdowns achieve?
We had many millions of doctors, nurses, ambulance crews and care workers (mainly dealing with the most vulnerable) together with postmen, police, and other essential workers milling around spreading the virus across society. When the immediate family of all those essential workers are added up there were, throughout the pandemic, 10 of millions of people circulating capable of spreading the virus. And what actually transpired? Almost 100% of the population were exposed to the virus at one time or another. DESPITE THE PARTIAL LOCKDOWNS.
The ‘lockdowns’ were a ‘sick joke’ -beyond pathetic!
All that was achieved was the worst of all possible worlds – the destruction of social life and of many livelihoods at vast cost to achieve NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER.
On the other hand, the harms done to society are now shown to be truly appalling.
The sheer ineptitude of the WHO and the various medical bureaucracies across the world is truly mind blowing. The fact that in the year of Our Lord 2020 they didn’t know how bog standard respiratory viruses spread will go down in history as conclusive evidence of their criminal incompetence.
Given a choice between death today and depression tomorrow politicians chose the latter.
Given another pandemic they’d most likely do the same again… no matter how loudly you squeal and use hindsight to justify your position.
And that’s the crux of it. In those early days when every single media outlet was screaming for government to “Do Something” who, in any position of influence, would’ve been able to make a call by second-guessing the consequences of the virus – still at that stage largely unknown apart from its DNA sequence – when to make any other choice but to lockdown might just have killed half the population?
Another virus with similarly unknown consequences could (almost certainly will at some stage) emerge.
Anyone who says they knew better, in those early days, is a liar. But then came the Great Barrington Declaration. It was then that a recalibration was possible. Some countries emerged sooner than others, but the damage that Mary describes was already done.
What i’d ask is that, instead of people making out they knew better all along, just to pause and consider that hindsight isn’t actually “a wonderful thing”, it’s disingenuous in the extreme.
Will we be better prepared in the future? What if a new virus/plague proves to have no demographic preferences, such as the Black Death? Are we prepared to watch half the population develop hideous and excruciatingly painful boils before snuffing it in a matter of say, 48 hours? Go ahead, make that call not to lockdown.
Lord Jonathan Sumption was there from the very beginning, denouncing the terrible tyranny that was about to unfold.
He used logic NOT hindsight and predictably was proved correct.
His prowess as a logician only became validated once the demographics of the virus became established. Before that point, if he’d been the PM for instance, his logic would have counted for nothing.
It was very much validation in hindsight. I understand why this seems so appealing – the idea that someone can use logic to extrapolate how an unknown and still mutating virus will unfold. That’s far removed from political reality. I fully agree that once the true nature of the virus was established, different decisions might have been made.
I first heard LJS on or about the 21st March, 2020, and even by then he had established that the ‘Big C’ was predominantly a killer of the very old, the 80+ Cohort, and that HMG was on the cusp of making an historically catastrophic decision. And so it has proved to be!…..Irritatingly!
Nevertheless, it was politically impossible for any decision other than to lockdown, in the first instance. BJ was already being accused of having “blood on his hands” by hesitating to lockdown for a week or so. We all feel the consequences of decisions made during the pandemic, but i’d proffer the suggestion in all candour that had LJS been PM at the time, he’d either have been forced to commence lockdown or forced out of office.
It was ‘ politically impossible’ probably in large part because Johnson was a useless lightweight weathervane of a PM. (Among other rather large character flaws, he wants both to play the maverick but also desperately wants to be accepted by other leaders and his largely ‘progressive’ peers at the same time. But that’s another subject).
There is such a thing called leadership. Sweden somehow did manage not to get into legally mandated lockdowns, despite being endlessly attacked for doing so.
It’s well documented that the ‘political’ climate that made lockdown possible was helped along in no small measure by the Chinese. See the Tablet article from a while back with all the chilling details. Turns out authoritarianism is even more transmissible than Covid, especially when we are ‘immunologically naive’ to it.
Your views on BJ are not uncommon, but i’d defy you to find yourself in the situation he was faced with in March 2020 and not to have locked down. In fact, BJ brought the UK out of lockdowns ahead of most democracies that’d taken that route. To claim that you’d have done differently in the face of the howling media is at best disingenuous.
It’s well documented that the ‘political’ climate that made lockdown possible was helped along in no small measure by the Chinese. See the Tablet article from a while back with all the chilling details. Turns out authoritarianism is even more transmissible than Covid, especially when we are ‘immunologically naive’ to it.
Your views on BJ are not uncommon, but i’d defy you to find yourself in the situation he was faced with in March 2020 and not to have locked down. In fact, BJ brought the UK out of lockdowns ahead of most democracies that’d taken that route. To claim that you’d have done differently in the face of the howling media is at best disingenuous.
It was ‘ politically impossible’ probably in large part because Johnson was a useless lightweight weathervane of a PM. (Among other rather large character flaws, he wants both to play the maverick but also desperately wants to be accepted by other leaders and his largely ‘progressive’ peers at the same time. But that’s another subject).
There is such a thing called leadership. Sweden somehow did manage not to get into legally mandated lockdowns, despite being endlessly attacked for doing so.
Nevertheless, it was politically impossible for any decision other than to lockdown, in the first instance. BJ was already being accused of having “blood on his hands” by hesitating to lockdown for a week or so. We all feel the consequences of decisions made during the pandemic, but i’d proffer the suggestion in all candour that had LJS been PM at the time, he’d either have been forced to commence lockdown or forced out of office.
You can afford the government and advisors perhaps some slack at the beginning, not so much with the Omicron variant, when we nearly plunged into yet another months long lockdowns, as it would have become, despite very clear evidence about its mildness coming from South Africa.
And there was a complete failure not to even begin to understand or assess the short and long term costs of lockdown. Groupthink set in, other voices and views were deliberately suppressed, not a great way of dealing with a crisis.
I wouldn’t be a politician and they have a difficult job, but we shouldn’t stand by being ever so understanding as they make one short term, knee jerk decision after another, often at the behest of unrepresentative pressure groups. We have utterly mediocre governance and administration in the UK.
I agree. I was behind things for the most part up to Omicron. It wasn’t supportable beyond that.
I agree. I was behind things for the most part up to Omicron. It wasn’t supportable beyond that.
I first heard LJS on or about the 21st March, 2020, and even by then he had established that the ‘Big C’ was predominantly a killer of the very old, the 80+ Cohort, and that HMG was on the cusp of making an historically catastrophic decision. And so it has proved to be!…..Irritatingly!
You can afford the government and advisors perhaps some slack at the beginning, not so much with the Omicron variant, when we nearly plunged into yet another months long lockdowns, as it would have become, despite very clear evidence about its mildness coming from South Africa.
And there was a complete failure not to even begin to understand or assess the short and long term costs of lockdown. Groupthink set in, other voices and views were deliberately suppressed, not a great way of dealing with a crisis.
I wouldn’t be a politician and they have a difficult job, but we shouldn’t stand by being ever so understanding as they make one short term, knee jerk decision after another, often at the behest of unrepresentative pressure groups. We have utterly mediocre governance and administration in the UK.
As did a host of other people. We CANNOT use the hindsight argument in this context. That just will not do. Of course initially there was much unknown, but knowledge emerged within weeks and much of it was suppressed. Absolutely appalling stuff.
Indeed. The “we did the best we could at the time with the information we had” argument gets the “deciders” a pass until about June/July 2020 at the latest. By that time, it was already quite obvious that school closures and lockdowns were disastrous and indefensible policies. There is no excuse for everything that happened after that point. From that point on, the horrendous policies were not attributable to a lack of information. They were the result of a disastrous combination of hysteria, politics, and virtue-signaling.
Vaccine mandates were never defensible on basic ethical grounds, and became completely indefensible by June/July 2021, when Israel suffered a huge outbreak after vaccinating a large majority of its country with Pfizer’s jab.
Covering up and censoring the lab origins of the virus never even had a pretense of an excuse.
“We did the best we could” is not a viable excuse for the madness of the past 2.5 years.
Indeed. The “we did the best we could at the time with the information we had” argument gets the “deciders” a pass until about June/July 2020 at the latest. By that time, it was already quite obvious that school closures and lockdowns were disastrous and indefensible policies. There is no excuse for everything that happened after that point. From that point on, the horrendous policies were not attributable to a lack of information. They were the result of a disastrous combination of hysteria, politics, and virtue-signaling.
Vaccine mandates were never defensible on basic ethical grounds, and became completely indefensible by June/July 2021, when Israel suffered a huge outbreak after vaccinating a large majority of its country with Pfizer’s jab.
Covering up and censoring the lab origins of the virus never even had a pretense of an excuse.
“We did the best we could” is not a viable excuse for the madness of the past 2.5 years.
His prowess as a logician only became validated once the demographics of the virus became established. Before that point, if he’d been the PM for instance, his logic would have counted for nothing.
It was very much validation in hindsight. I understand why this seems so appealing – the idea that someone can use logic to extrapolate how an unknown and still mutating virus will unfold. That’s far removed from political reality. I fully agree that once the true nature of the virus was established, different decisions might have been made.
As did a host of other people. We CANNOT use the hindsight argument in this context. That just will not do. Of course initially there was much unknown, but knowledge emerged within weeks and much of it was suppressed. Absolutely appalling stuff.
I don’t believe that the initial lockdown was foolish; whatever people say, the costs of the virus were unknown and the high death rate in Bergamo was alarming. We can say all sorts of things in retrospect and we would be right in believing that we made big mistakes and tragic mistakes but that doesn’t mean we could have done better at the time.
However, two things strike me.
Firstly I did not feel that those making or influencing the decisions took the necessity to return to normal life seriously enough, in fact they disregarded this. As far as many were concerned, the lockdown could continue indefinitely.
Secondly, and more dangerously, the manner in which disagreeing voices were shut down was very alarming. Not just loud mouths attacking “covidiots” but the apparatus of the state through its control of big tech and media stifling knowledgeable people, challenging them.
If the black death returns, extreme measures are warranted but for how long and who is making the decisions?
Agreed.
Estimated IFR was already established – viz Diamond Princess and the carnival town in Germany.
actually: all the previous well documented knowledge about virus behaviour and pandemic do’s and don’t do’s was available, with predictions what mistakes would be made if heads were not kept cool (and these mistakes were all made). There is no way ANY gov actions on the pandemic can be justified, apart from maybe understandably bowing to the pressure of the press…
Agreed.
Estimated IFR was already established – viz Diamond Princess and the carnival town in Germany.
actually: all the previous well documented knowledge about virus behaviour and pandemic do’s and don’t do’s was available, with predictions what mistakes would be made if heads were not kept cool (and these mistakes were all made). There is no way ANY gov actions on the pandemic can be justified, apart from maybe understandably bowing to the pressure of the press…
May I recommend some research before publishing, Steve. A check of Titter feeds and Facebook pages will reveal many, many, people who declared lockdown was a mistake from the very beginning. There is no hindsight whatsoever. There were learned people from the world of medicine, legal people and thousands of everyday folk who could envision the consequences. A short lockdown to consider and regroup may have been useful, a matter of a few weeks, but what happened was a result of sheer panic.
Interestingly, the UKs‘s leading virologist was not invited to join SAGE, as from the beginning he declared lockdown to be wrong.
COVID was a new disease, and nobody really knew what it would do. Lockdowns and how people would react to them were also new and untried. When there is not enough information to make a considered judgement, people (especially including scientists) will be dominated by their biases and prior assumptions. That some people, even eminent scientists, would go for lockdown, some for Barrington, and some for do-nothing is only what you should have expected. The majority opinion proved to be for lockdown – which is what you would normally rely on. Deciding after the fact that one specific group of people ‘knew all along’ is pure hindsight. Much like putting a bet on all the horses in a race, and claiming afterwards that you had predicted the winner.
Just for fun: The Danish state Department of Health (a Danish equivalent of the sainted Swedish Tegnell) said when the first COVID cases came up that there was no need to do anything. COVID would not be a big problem, anyway it never get to Denmark, if it did nobody much would get it or die from it, and we already had a perfectly good pandemic plan we could follow. How is that for ‘envisioning the consequences’?
Every new disease is a new disease. We already knew estimated IFR of this one early on.
What ever happened to Monkey Pox?
What ever happened to Monkey Pox?
I’m not convinced by this. We actually knew the basics very early on. I remember seeing Italian Government statistics drawn from Lombardy being shared on Twitter in Feb 2020 – it was starkly clear even then where the risk lay (with the additional risk posed by obesity already flagged up for example).
The coronavirus is not a new virus family.
It has been on earth for millennia.
The reason why the survival rate worldwide is so high (99.8%) is because of cross-reactive and pre-existing immunity.
And, yet, no one discussed this from Day 1.
If you did – you were a granny killer and a nut.
I don’t know where you were at the time Mr Fogh. But the problem is not that the scientists and “experts” had a range of varying opinions.
The problem is that exactly half of that range of opinions (the half that has subsequently turned out to be the wiser half) was brutally and forcibly suppressed and censored by our own “democratic” governments and their pals in business, industry, the media and big tech.
Every new disease is a new disease. We already knew estimated IFR of this one early on.
I’m not convinced by this. We actually knew the basics very early on. I remember seeing Italian Government statistics drawn from Lombardy being shared on Twitter in Feb 2020 – it was starkly clear even then where the risk lay (with the additional risk posed by obesity already flagged up for example).
The coronavirus is not a new virus family.
It has been on earth for millennia.
The reason why the survival rate worldwide is so high (99.8%) is because of cross-reactive and pre-existing immunity.
And, yet, no one discussed this from Day 1.
If you did – you were a granny killer and a nut.
I don’t know where you were at the time Mr Fogh. But the problem is not that the scientists and “experts” had a range of varying opinions.
The problem is that exactly half of that range of opinions (the half that has subsequently turned out to be the wiser half) was brutally and forcibly suppressed and censored by our own “democratic” governments and their pals in business, industry, the media and big tech.
My local hospital had c80% of it’s beds full with covid related admissions by first wk of Apr 20. Frightening. All planned care activity had ceased, partly because of risk of cross infection (insufficient PPE and understanding of the virus) and simply too many staff off with Covid themselves. (Should add – hardly a Trust in the country where some staff didn’t die as a result of Covid too)
With the Lockdown the numbers peaked mid April and gradually but slowly dropped back to a manageable level by early summer. By which point the hospital was in a better position to handle things, albeit Vaccine remained months away.
Quite how anyone thinks we wouldn’t have killed more people had we just carried on I do not know. Can only be because these people were so far from the frontline they were (and remain) clueless on what it was really like. Get this into our heads – we couldn’t have handled other emergencies, let alone do cancer ops etc, as we were overwhelmed.
In fact if anything locking down late caused it to be longer. So there are lessons. As there are with subsequent Govt decisions – esp schools closure in early 21. But those arguing the initial Lockdown unnecessary a bit clueless on what would have then happened.
But infections had already peaked pre-lockdown. I distinctly remember the Gov predicting that deaths would peak circa Easter Sunday & then start falling. This was rubbished at the time because it implied infections peaking pre-lockdown which “of course” couldn’t be possible. Lo & behold deaths peaked around Easter Sunday as predicted.
No, not ‘covid admissions’ – covid positive patients. Quite often more than half were in the hospital with something else and had no covid symptoms. Why does the deliberate propaganda continue after the threat is gone?
With no symptoms, how do we know they’re contagious? So-called “asymptomatic transmission” is the piece of propaganda; it doesn’t exist.
Speaking of propaganda, all those “COVID positive” patients who died from something else counted as so-called “COVID deaths”, didn’t they? Not only elderly cancer patients with pneumonia but in certain infamous cases victims of “blunt force trauma” or “overdose”. Wildly–intentionally–inflating “deaths from covid”.
Why were healthy young people going to the hospital emergency room every time they got a fever? Because they were panic-stricken by lies about the severity of the Wuhan flu, and scared of “killing people”. More propaganda.
We should have just stopped taking so many tests, sensible advice offered by Trump that produced howls all over every form of media to a literally captive audience.
Speaking of health care professionals, lately I have been discovering how many used fake vaccine cards to keep their job and avoid the so-called vaccine, did you notice this at your hospital?
With no symptoms, how do we know they’re contagious? So-called “asymptomatic transmission” is the piece of propaganda; it doesn’t exist.
Speaking of propaganda, all those “COVID positive” patients who died from something else counted as so-called “COVID deaths”, didn’t they? Not only elderly cancer patients with pneumonia but in certain infamous cases victims of “blunt force trauma” or “overdose”. Wildly–intentionally–inflating “deaths from covid”.
Why were healthy young people going to the hospital emergency room every time they got a fever? Because they were panic-stricken by lies about the severity of the Wuhan flu, and scared of “killing people”. More propaganda.
We should have just stopped taking so many tests, sensible advice offered by Trump that produced howls all over every form of media to a literally captive audience.
Speaking of health care professionals, lately I have been discovering how many used fake vaccine cards to keep their job and avoid the so-called vaccine, did you notice this at your hospital?
J Watson
After China, After all that has happened there, just how on Earth, can you say this?
“…In fact if anything locking down late caused it to be longer…”
It’s like looking at the aftermath of Hiroshima and saying. “There you go, I said we should have used a bigger bomb.”
But infections had already peaked pre-lockdown. I distinctly remember the Gov predicting that deaths would peak circa Easter Sunday & then start falling. This was rubbished at the time because it implied infections peaking pre-lockdown which “of course” couldn’t be possible. Lo & behold deaths peaked around Easter Sunday as predicted.
No, not ‘covid admissions’ – covid positive patients. Quite often more than half were in the hospital with something else and had no covid symptoms. Why does the deliberate propaganda continue after the threat is gone?
J Watson
After China, After all that has happened there, just how on Earth, can you say this?
“…In fact if anything locking down late caused it to be longer…”
It’s like looking at the aftermath of Hiroshima and saying. “There you go, I said we should have used a bigger bomb.”
I kept myself abreast of the research at the time of the first lockdown, Guy; but i’ll repeat: i’d defy you to have taken that risk of not locking down in March 2020, if you’d held that ultimate responsibility. I’d therefore recommend a less sanctimonious stance before publishing.
COVID was a new disease, and nobody really knew what it would do. Lockdowns and how people would react to them were also new and untried. When there is not enough information to make a considered judgement, people (especially including scientists) will be dominated by their biases and prior assumptions. That some people, even eminent scientists, would go for lockdown, some for Barrington, and some for do-nothing is only what you should have expected. The majority opinion proved to be for lockdown – which is what you would normally rely on. Deciding after the fact that one specific group of people ‘knew all along’ is pure hindsight. Much like putting a bet on all the horses in a race, and claiming afterwards that you had predicted the winner.
Just for fun: The Danish state Department of Health (a Danish equivalent of the sainted Swedish Tegnell) said when the first COVID cases came up that there was no need to do anything. COVID would not be a big problem, anyway it never get to Denmark, if it did nobody much would get it or die from it, and we already had a perfectly good pandemic plan we could follow. How is that for ‘envisioning the consequences’?
My local hospital had c80% of it’s beds full with covid related admissions by first wk of Apr 20. Frightening. All planned care activity had ceased, partly because of risk of cross infection (insufficient PPE and understanding of the virus) and simply too many staff off with Covid themselves. (Should add – hardly a Trust in the country where some staff didn’t die as a result of Covid too)
With the Lockdown the numbers peaked mid April and gradually but slowly dropped back to a manageable level by early summer. By which point the hospital was in a better position to handle things, albeit Vaccine remained months away.
Quite how anyone thinks we wouldn’t have killed more people had we just carried on I do not know. Can only be because these people were so far from the frontline they were (and remain) clueless on what it was really like. Get this into our heads – we couldn’t have handled other emergencies, let alone do cancer ops etc, as we were overwhelmed.
In fact if anything locking down late caused it to be longer. So there are lessons. As there are with subsequent Govt decisions – esp schools closure in early 21. But those arguing the initial Lockdown unnecessary a bit clueless on what would have then happened.
I kept myself abreast of the research at the time of the first lockdown, Guy; but i’ll repeat: i’d defy you to have taken that risk of not locking down in March 2020, if you’d held that ultimate responsibility. I’d therefore recommend a less sanctimonious stance before publishing.
A pretty desperate pro lockdown argument there. So, we got it badly wrong, but we shouldn’t even learn any lessons from that at all (what you call ‘hindsight’)? Lockdowns didn’t work IN THEIR OWN terms! It was essentially impossible to stop a respiratory virus spreading. We knew it was a coronavirus rather than the Black Death, so that’s a straw man argument.
Perhaps if we had a very effective track and trace system in place earlier and closed the borders (oh no, that would be ‘racist’, as the Left were screaming at the time) we could have done much better. However, given the current shambles of border control, it seems unlikely.
As desperate arguments go, the one which claims to have known the full nature of the virus and its potential impact in March 2020 is the most desperately hindsight-driven of all.
As desperate arguments go, the one which claims to have known the full nature of the virus and its potential impact in March 2020 is the most desperately hindsight-driven of all.
Plenty of us posting here in 2020 ‘knew better’ 🙂
Yes….In hindsight I wish I’d been more courageous offline at the time. Even as it was I lost some friendships with my really rather mild “Are we 100% sure about all of this?” views. I remember for example looking at the sheer cost of lockdown in 2020 & just knowing we were heading for austerity + the slow death of the NHS by 2023 as a result, and that that would cost lives too. But the pressure was massive.
Fraser Bailey, Basil Chamberlain, Gelati T, etc. I miss them!
you do not recognize me?
Sorry yes, but I was momentarily at a loss to remember some of the names of former ‘colleagues’!
Sorry yes, but I was momentarily at a loss to remember some of the names of former ‘colleagues’!
you do not recognize me?
Yes….In hindsight I wish I’d been more courageous offline at the time. Even as it was I lost some friendships with my really rather mild “Are we 100% sure about all of this?” views. I remember for example looking at the sheer cost of lockdown in 2020 & just knowing we were heading for austerity + the slow death of the NHS by 2023 as a result, and that that would cost lives too. But the pressure was massive.
Fraser Bailey, Basil Chamberlain, Gelati T, etc. I miss them!
Again, I don’t understand why people are voting you down here. Good comment, whether one agrees or not.
Are there any Elm trees left in the world? I guess there might be – somewhere. My point is that they are all now dead (or very nearly so) due to a novel virus which mutated into existence during my lifetime. Seems to have been 100% lethal for Elm trees. Nobody knew in the beginning just how lethal this virus was going to turn out to be.
Aside: some biologists at the University of Washington managed to keep some Elms alive in a botanically isolated preserve in the far north of the state. They were experimenting with a genetic modification to the elm that would enable it to survive this virus. Anti-GMO activists broke in and destroyed everything. Way to go, Luddites.
Lord Jonathan Sumption was there from the very beginning, denouncing the terrible tyranny that was about to unfold.
He used logic NOT hindsight and predictably was proved correct.
I don’t believe that the initial lockdown was foolish; whatever people say, the costs of the virus were unknown and the high death rate in Bergamo was alarming. We can say all sorts of things in retrospect and we would be right in believing that we made big mistakes and tragic mistakes but that doesn’t mean we could have done better at the time.
However, two things strike me.
Firstly I did not feel that those making or influencing the decisions took the necessity to return to normal life seriously enough, in fact they disregarded this. As far as many were concerned, the lockdown could continue indefinitely.
Secondly, and more dangerously, the manner in which disagreeing voices were shut down was very alarming. Not just loud mouths attacking “covidiots” but the apparatus of the state through its control of big tech and media stifling knowledgeable people, challenging them.
If the black death returns, extreme measures are warranted but for how long and who is making the decisions?
May I recommend some research before publishing, Steve. A check of Titter feeds and Facebook pages will reveal many, many, people who declared lockdown was a mistake from the very beginning. There is no hindsight whatsoever. There were learned people from the world of medicine, legal people and thousands of everyday folk who could envision the consequences. A short lockdown to consider and regroup may have been useful, a matter of a few weeks, but what happened was a result of sheer panic.
Interestingly, the UKs‘s leading virologist was not invited to join SAGE, as from the beginning he declared lockdown to be wrong.
A pretty desperate pro lockdown argument there. So, we got it badly wrong, but we shouldn’t even learn any lessons from that at all (what you call ‘hindsight’)? Lockdowns didn’t work IN THEIR OWN terms! It was essentially impossible to stop a respiratory virus spreading. We knew it was a coronavirus rather than the Black Death, so that’s a straw man argument.
Perhaps if we had a very effective track and trace system in place earlier and closed the borders (oh no, that would be ‘racist’, as the Left were screaming at the time) we could have done much better. However, given the current shambles of border control, it seems unlikely.
Plenty of us posting here in 2020 ‘knew better’ 🙂
Again, I don’t understand why people are voting you down here. Good comment, whether one agrees or not.
Are there any Elm trees left in the world? I guess there might be – somewhere. My point is that they are all now dead (or very nearly so) due to a novel virus which mutated into existence during my lifetime. Seems to have been 100% lethal for Elm trees. Nobody knew in the beginning just how lethal this virus was going to turn out to be.
Aside: some biologists at the University of Washington managed to keep some Elms alive in a botanically isolated preserve in the far north of the state. They were experimenting with a genetic modification to the elm that would enable it to survive this virus. Anti-GMO activists broke in and destroyed everything. Way to go, Luddites.
‘Hindsight’ – do you mean learning from our mistakes?! I’m not sure actually western governments could AFFORD to do the same again, which might perhaps save us from becoming China again, at least for a while.
And by the way ‘death NOW’ as well, with excess mortality in many western countries at pandemic levels. But it’s not covid, so phew!!
(Ambrose Bierce)
(Ambrose Bierce)
And that’s the crux of it. In those early days when every single media outlet was screaming for government to “Do Something” who, in any position of influence, would’ve been able to make a call by second-guessing the consequences of the virus – still at that stage largely unknown apart from its DNA sequence – when to make any other choice but to lockdown might just have killed half the population?
Another virus with similarly unknown consequences could (almost certainly will at some stage) emerge.
Anyone who says they knew better, in those early days, is a liar. But then came the Great Barrington Declaration. It was then that a recalibration was possible. Some countries emerged sooner than others, but the damage that Mary describes was already done.
What i’d ask is that, instead of people making out they knew better all along, just to pause and consider that hindsight isn’t actually “a wonderful thing”, it’s disingenuous in the extreme.
Will we be better prepared in the future? What if a new virus/plague proves to have no demographic preferences, such as the Black Death? Are we prepared to watch half the population develop hideous and excruciatingly painful boils before snuffing it in a matter of say, 48 hours? Go ahead, make that call not to lockdown.
‘Hindsight’ – do you mean learning from our mistakes?! I’m not sure actually western governments could AFFORD to do the same again, which might perhaps save us from becoming China again, at least for a while.
And by the way ‘death NOW’ as well, with excess mortality in many western countries at pandemic levels. But it’s not covid, so phew!!
Given a choice between death today and depression tomorrow politicians chose the latter.
Given another pandemic they’d most likely do the same again… no matter how loudly you squeal and use hindsight to justify your position.
Is this essay based on the fact that lockdowns actually work and the decisions were made in response to this fact? Of course lockdowns don’t and didn’t work. So on the one hand we have sadness and on the other hand we have sadness and huge anger.
Sorry if I’ve missed anything as I’ve skimmed this morning and am happy for someone to correct me.
No it’s saying lockdowns favoured the old at the expense of the young. That choice was ostensibly made on rational/scientific grounds but is clearly a moral choice and should have been debated in that framework.
The thrust is we’ve lost the ability to make moral choices. All choices are now made on rational/scientific grounds.
As we all know, those grounds are constantly manipulated so we no longer debate whether something is intrinsically good or bad, any debate is just smothered in competing statistics.
OK, I got that, but do lockdowns work in and of themselves? This is the cornerstone of a discussion and has a bearing on any argument thereafter.
Machine theology!
The question is not ‘do they work’ but ‘is what “working” implies in this case unacceptable?’ It’s that Mitchell and Webb ‘have you tried killing all the poor?’ sketch.
(FWIW I also don’t think they worked, but calling them a failure because they didn’t work gets you to China – real lockdowns have never been tried)
The point of the essay is around the definition of what “works” means.
If the objective was to lower the total number of deaths, then demonstrably not in my view. If the objective was to “flatten the curve” ie spread the numbers of deaths over a longer period to avoid high peaks overwhelming the health service, then possibly. Both of these definitions use the rational/scientific mind set.
Did locking us all up “work” in the sense of being a morally justifiable societal good- very clearly not.
The flatten the curve argument has been thoroughly debunked. It was also foreseen…epidemic curves rise and fall regardless of measures taken. This was going on from the beginning… round about the time Sweden started to be shamed.
In SA during Omicron… the big contagious one remember – it was mostly let it it rip. Still the curve fell.
Are you saying that it beyond human power to make any difference to who get sick and who dies? Apart from being rather defeatist, that idea does not seem to apply to other diseases (polio, smallpox, VD, you name it). The concept of quarantine was proved by experience as a successful medical intervention centuries before anyone knew about germs.
No doubt an unintentional sleight of hand: it wasn’t ‘quarantine’ Rasmus – that means isolating the sick, not the entire population!
During Covid it was clearly the old, the overweight and those with co-morbidities who died. This was a respiratory virus that early on was discovered to be airborne – those were the facts early on (and IFR was already estimated – see my post above). There was NO reason for society to be locked down. You know it, I know it and everyone who was posting here in 2020 knows it. Except you! Ok and maybe a few other outliers who have disappeared into the ether. But cling on to that sinking log if you like. You were wrong and it was proven. Of course, you had a job and could play around – unlike many others who lost their livelihoods.
There was also plenty of evidence to link vitamin D deficiency with bad symptoms/extreme suffering of Covid and yet the answer the “scientists” came up with was for people to hide indoors and use excessive amounts of anti bacterial hand wash. Results – weight gain, increased Vit D deficiency and weakened immune system through lack of exposure.
How could it possibly go wrong!
Although I was, from the beginning, against lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations, the lockdowns in Western Australia may have worked in the sense that because of our isolation we were able to buy time to get practically everyone vaccinated (over & over) which probably kept a lot of people out of hospitals, symptoms being less severe in the vaccinated. I still think the costs weren’t worth it, and the long-term effects of the vaccines are still unknown.
Same with NZ, it’s geographical isolation meant it was able to keep the virus out until large numbers had received the vaccines, and the first more dangerous strains had largely disappeared. Omicron was the first variant that really spread through the population, and with large numbers having been vaccinated before it hit the number of deaths was negligible.
Whether the financial cost of doing this was worth it is a different argument, and one that can never realistically be definitively answered one way or the other
Same with NZ, it’s geographical isolation meant it was able to keep the virus out until large numbers had received the vaccines, and the first more dangerous strains had largely disappeared. Omicron was the first variant that really spread through the population, and with large numbers having been vaccinated before it hit the number of deaths was negligible.
Whether the financial cost of doing this was worth it is a different argument, and one that can never realistically be definitively answered one way or the other
There was also plenty of evidence to link vitamin D deficiency with bad symptoms/extreme suffering of Covid and yet the answer the “scientists” came up with was for people to hide indoors and use excessive amounts of anti bacterial hand wash. Results – weight gain, increased Vit D deficiency and weakened immune system through lack of exposure.
How could it possibly go wrong!
Although I was, from the beginning, against lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations, the lockdowns in Western Australia may have worked in the sense that because of our isolation we were able to buy time to get practically everyone vaccinated (over & over) which probably kept a lot of people out of hospitals, symptoms being less severe in the vaccinated. I still think the costs weren’t worth it, and the long-term effects of the vaccines are still unknown.
No doubt an unintentional sleight of hand: it wasn’t ‘quarantine’ Rasmus – that means isolating the sick, not the entire population!
During Covid it was clearly the old, the overweight and those with co-morbidities who died. This was a respiratory virus that early on was discovered to be airborne – those were the facts early on (and IFR was already estimated – see my post above). There was NO reason for society to be locked down. You know it, I know it and everyone who was posting here in 2020 knows it. Except you! Ok and maybe a few other outliers who have disappeared into the ether. But cling on to that sinking log if you like. You were wrong and it was proven. Of course, you had a job and could play around – unlike many others who lost their livelihoods.
In SA during Omicron… the big contagious one remember – it was mostly let it it rip. Still the curve fell.
Are you saying that it beyond human power to make any difference to who get sick and who dies? Apart from being rather defeatist, that idea does not seem to apply to other diseases (polio, smallpox, VD, you name it). The concept of quarantine was proved by experience as a successful medical intervention centuries before anyone knew about germs.
If you are saying that the measures taken against spreading COVID did not make any difference to the number of dead, could you back that up with a reference? From normal logic and what I read in the paper I would say you are definitely wrong, but I would like to hear your argument.
BTW, the point of ‘flattening the curve’ was not to spread the same number of dead over a longer period. It was to avoid a situation where *more* people would have died, because they could not get medical care when they needed it.
Well, Sweden has a much better record than the UK. And interestingly, though Norway and Denmark always get pushed into the pro lockdown camp, theirs were comparatively mild and lifted much earlier than in most western countries. Different countries had different experiences, but their different characteristics had more effect on the course of the pandemic than the specific measures they employed.
Exactly. Which is why quoting Sweden to ‘prove’ that lockdown was unnecesary, or Denmark to ‘prove’ that lockdown is crucial simply does not make sense. Regrettably the world is more complicated than we would like to be. We need to wait form some proper research on this.
Exactly. Which is why quoting Sweden to ‘prove’ that lockdown was unnecesary, or Denmark to ‘prove’ that lockdown is crucial simply does not make sense. Regrettably the world is more complicated than we would like to be. We need to wait form some proper research on this.
Exactly the same effect could have been achieved by simply shielding those most at risk effectively and letting everyone else do as they pleased…….shuting down the entire country, spending untold billions on the lunacy of paying people not to work….utter madness. And ultimately, what does it matter if we had a year or two, where life expectancy for older sicker people got shortened? There are far too many of us on this planet anyway and these things are natures way of sorting it out
Correct.
Here in the US the various States were all doing their own thing. So, now one can compare the published rules, the actual behaviors and the death tolls in different States. There wasn’t a lot of real effect one way or the other.
Just lots of hot air.
Well, Sweden has a much better record than the UK. And interestingly, though Norway and Denmark always get pushed into the pro lockdown camp, theirs were comparatively mild and lifted much earlier than in most western countries. Different countries had different experiences, but their different characteristics had more effect on the course of the pandemic than the specific measures they employed.
Exactly the same effect could have been achieved by simply shielding those most at risk effectively and letting everyone else do as they pleased…….shuting down the entire country, spending untold billions on the lunacy of paying people not to work….utter madness. And ultimately, what does it matter if we had a year or two, where life expectancy for older sicker people got shortened? There are far too many of us on this planet anyway and these things are natures way of sorting it out
Correct.
Here in the US the various States were all doing their own thing. So, now one can compare the published rules, the actual behaviors and the death tolls in different States. There wasn’t a lot of real effect one way or the other.
Just lots of hot air.
The flatten the curve argument has been thoroughly debunked. It was also foreseen…epidemic curves rise and fall regardless of measures taken. This was going on from the beginning… round about the time Sweden started to be shamed.
If you are saying that the measures taken against spreading COVID did not make any difference to the number of dead, could you back that up with a reference? From normal logic and what I read in the paper I would say you are definitely wrong, but I would like to hear your argument.
BTW, the point of ‘flattening the curve’ was not to spread the same number of dead over a longer period. It was to avoid a situation where *more* people would have died, because they could not get medical care when they needed it.
Of course lockdowns work – the question is whether you wil accept the cost. Lockdowns drastically reduce interpersonal contacts. Since the virus spreads via interpersonal contacts they drastically reduce virus transmission. In the West they helped delay people falling sick so that the hospitals were not overwhelmed, and so that there was time to develop a treatment protocol, develop a vaccine, and get it into people before they got sick. In China lockdown kept COVID cases, and deaths, low for a very long time, until the more transmissible Omicron variant overwhelmed the defences. I may not trust Chinese statistics much, but surely there is no doubt that they had a lot fewer cases than most countries for several years.
There are ways of avoiding lockdowns without getting a raging pandemic, but they are not universally available. Isolated islands (like Australia and NZ) can stop the virus at the borders. A good starting point and a very effective track-and-trace system would do it (as in Korea), though the newer more contagious variants nullify that. A population with a lot of single households and a marked willingness to reduce social contact based on mere suggestions can make it unnecessary to mandate lockdowns (as in Sweden) – but that gives the same social isolation anyway, just by saying ‘you should’ instead of ‘you must’. Not a big difference. The Barrington strategy was never tried – let the pandemic rage and protect the most vulnerable till everybody else has had it – but it seems pretty sure to fail. There are far too many vulnerable people with too many social contacts to keep them away from the virus for any length of time.
To make this a little more specific: What do you think we should have done? And what do you think the consequences would have been?
I agree with you.
The sad thing for all of us was that we were at the mercy of something unaccountable – a highly contagious virus, but some people cannot bear being helpless and so blame ensues, in much the same way that some people think that the Irish and Bengal famines were the fault of the British. It feels better to have someone to blame than to face up to human frailty during terrible events which we cannot control. Sometimes our circumstances are lose lose, that fact can be very difficult for proud people to accept.
I didn’t feel helpless – I read up about it and applied logic.
“Feeling” helpless and “being” helpless are two different things, in the same way that feeling you’re a woman and being a woman are two different things.
After you had read about it and applied your logic were you able to influence the pandemic and it’s effects, nationally or internationally ?
“Feeling” helpless and “being” helpless are two different things, in the same way that feeling you’re a woman and being a woman are two different things.
After you had read about it and applied your logic were you able to influence the pandemic and it’s effects, nationally or internationally ?
I didn’t feel helpless – I read up about it and applied logic.
The difference between advice and legal mandate is hardly a minor point, among other things the difference between living in a free society and not! It is pretty depressing you can’t see that, we are well on the way to China if those views are widespread. And on UnHerd as well!
I was in precisely this quandary with my mother, no services were available to bring her food – we checked ‘oh no, we can’t take bags over the threshold’. (She would have fallen trying to retrieve them). So, we break the rules or she starves!! But still, she wouldn’t have died of covid, which was the only driver of government policy!
It is not ‘advice’ as such. You are free to ignore advice. It is the difference between complying for fear of the police and complying for fear of the censure of your neighbours. Much like the difference between official censorship and cancel culture, really.
It is not ‘advice’ as such. You are free to ignore advice. It is the difference between complying for fear of the police and complying for fear of the censure of your neighbours. Much like the difference between official censorship and cancel culture, really.
During Covid it was clearly the old, the overweight and those with co-morbidities who died. This was a respiratory virus that early on was discovered to be airborne – those were the facts early on (and IFR was already estimated – see my post above). There was NO reason for society to be locked down. You know it, I know it and everyone who was posting here in 2020 knows it. Except you! Ok and maybe a few other outliers who have disappeared into the ether. But cling on to that sinking log if you like. You were wrong and it was proven. Of course, you had a job and could play around – unlike many others who lost their livelihoods.
So, again, what should we have done, what would have been the consequences, and where is the reliable evidence for it? If it has been proven that I was wrong, it should be easy for you to show me where it says so.
So, again, what should we have done, what would have been the consequences, and where is the reliable evidence for it? If it has been proven that I was wrong, it should be easy for you to show me where it says so.
You don’t trust Chinese statistics ‘much’?! They systematically lied at the outset of the pandemic as well as deleting the entire database at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as obviously lying about the million or so Uyghurs in concentration camps. It is a Leninist state – the ONLY thing that concerns the CCP leadership is staying in power. Almost certainly the covid death toll is much higher than they admit, it was worked out that their admitted per capita death rate was 100 times better than that of Singapore, which rather stretches credulity!
Taiwan would provide in fact a much better example for you, they relied on a very effective track and trace system and local humanely designed brief lockdowns.
Maybe the fact that China routinely bullies others into ignoring that state and its achievements has its effects in the examples we choose.
You are absolutely right that the Chinese state systematically lies. But my estimate is still that China had a lot fewer COVID deaths than you average western country, whatever the exact numbers. Do you think that is wrong? I will not ask you for proof, because this is not a matter for proving, but if you think they have been doing as badly as we have, what evidence do you base that on?
You are absolutely right that the Chinese state systematically lies. But my estimate is still that China had a lot fewer COVID deaths than you average western country, whatever the exact numbers. Do you think that is wrong? I will not ask you for proof, because this is not a matter for proving, but if you think they have been doing as badly as we have, what evidence do you base that on?
I agree with you.
The sad thing for all of us was that we were at the mercy of something unaccountable – a highly contagious virus, but some people cannot bear being helpless and so blame ensues, in much the same way that some people think that the Irish and Bengal famines were the fault of the British. It feels better to have someone to blame than to face up to human frailty during terrible events which we cannot control. Sometimes our circumstances are lose lose, that fact can be very difficult for proud people to accept.
The difference between advice and legal mandate is hardly a minor point, among other things the difference between living in a free society and not! It is pretty depressing you can’t see that, we are well on the way to China if those views are widespread. And on UnHerd as well!
I was in precisely this quandary with my mother, no services were available to bring her food – we checked ‘oh no, we can’t take bags over the threshold’. (She would have fallen trying to retrieve them). So, we break the rules or she starves!! But still, she wouldn’t have died of covid, which was the only driver of government policy!
During Covid it was clearly the old, the overweight and those with co-morbidities who died. This was a respiratory virus that early on was discovered to be airborne – those were the facts early on (and IFR was already estimated – see my post above). There was NO reason for society to be locked down. You know it, I know it and everyone who was posting here in 2020 knows it. Except you! Ok and maybe a few other outliers who have disappeared into the ether. But cling on to that sinking log if you like. You were wrong and it was proven. Of course, you had a job and could play around – unlike many others who lost their livelihoods.
You don’t trust Chinese statistics ‘much’?! They systematically lied at the outset of the pandemic as well as deleting the entire database at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as obviously lying about the million or so Uyghurs in concentration camps. It is a Leninist state – the ONLY thing that concerns the CCP leadership is staying in power. Almost certainly the covid death toll is much higher than they admit, it was worked out that their admitted per capita death rate was 100 times better than that of Singapore, which rather stretches credulity!
Taiwan would provide in fact a much better example for you, they relied on a very effective track and trace system and local humanely designed brief lockdowns.
Maybe the fact that China routinely bullies others into ignoring that state and its achievements has its effects in the examples we choose.
Machine theology!
The question is not ‘do they work’ but ‘is what “working” implies in this case unacceptable?’ It’s that Mitchell and Webb ‘have you tried killing all the poor?’ sketch.
(FWIW I also don’t think they worked, but calling them a failure because they didn’t work gets you to China – real lockdowns have never been tried)
The point of the essay is around the definition of what “works” means.
If the objective was to lower the total number of deaths, then demonstrably not in my view. If the objective was to “flatten the curve” ie spread the numbers of deaths over a longer period to avoid high peaks overwhelming the health service, then possibly. Both of these definitions use the rational/scientific mind set.
Did locking us all up “work” in the sense of being a morally justifiable societal good- very clearly not.
Of course lockdowns work – the question is whether you wil accept the cost. Lockdowns drastically reduce interpersonal contacts. Since the virus spreads via interpersonal contacts they drastically reduce virus transmission. In the West they helped delay people falling sick so that the hospitals were not overwhelmed, and so that there was time to develop a treatment protocol, develop a vaccine, and get it into people before they got sick. In China lockdown kept COVID cases, and deaths, low for a very long time, until the more transmissible Omicron variant overwhelmed the defences. I may not trust Chinese statistics much, but surely there is no doubt that they had a lot fewer cases than most countries for several years.
There are ways of avoiding lockdowns without getting a raging pandemic, but they are not universally available. Isolated islands (like Australia and NZ) can stop the virus at the borders. A good starting point and a very effective track-and-trace system would do it (as in Korea), though the newer more contagious variants nullify that. A population with a lot of single households and a marked willingness to reduce social contact based on mere suggestions can make it unnecessary to mandate lockdowns (as in Sweden) – but that gives the same social isolation anyway, just by saying ‘you should’ instead of ‘you must’. Not a big difference. The Barrington strategy was never tried – let the pandemic rage and protect the most vulnerable till everybody else has had it – but it seems pretty sure to fail. There are far too many vulnerable people with too many social contacts to keep them away from the virus for any length of time.
To make this a little more specific: What do you think we should have done? And what do you think the consequences would have been?
OK, I got that, but do lockdowns work in and of themselves? This is the cornerstone of a discussion and has a bearing on any argument thereafter.
No it’s saying lockdowns favoured the old at the expense of the young. That choice was ostensibly made on rational/scientific grounds but is clearly a moral choice and should have been debated in that framework.
The thrust is we’ve lost the ability to make moral choices. All choices are now made on rational/scientific grounds.
As we all know, those grounds are constantly manipulated so we no longer debate whether something is intrinsically good or bad, any debate is just smothered in competing statistics.
Is this essay based on the fact that lockdowns actually work and the decisions were made in response to this fact? Of course lockdowns don’t and didn’t work. So on the one hand we have sadness and on the other hand we have sadness and huge anger.
Sorry if I’ve missed anything as I’ve skimmed this morning and am happy for someone to correct me.
I am a medical doctor. There never was any medical justification for any of the “measures”. The whole Covid “pandemic” was and still is a gigantic fraud [the Council of Europe conducted a formal investigation into the alleged swine flu pandemic of 2009 and found that it was a fraud – see that body’s report]. Populations around the world were deliberately psychologically tortured by their own governments into a dangerous state of Stockholm Syndrome in a military grade psychological operation. In March 2020, there was a global coup d’etat. There is no way that that was not minutely planned. Our way of life was targetted and hijacked by traitors. What we have witnessed over the past three years constitutes global treason. These are the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed. It is extremely important that we face up to what has happened to us. Those responsible for and complicit in these multiple outrages must be held to account.
As you well know, most medical doctors think there was plenty of justification for those measures. You have the same right to offer your opinion as anyone else, but would you please stop pretending that you university degree gives you the authority to impose your scientific, let alone you political opinions?
The fact you’ve chosen to use bold type for your comment tells us something, whilst claiming some sort of authority in the debate because of being medically trained is a foolish look.
There is no way in hell a medical doctor would write anything like that. Especially in bold type face with phrases like ‘hijacked by traitors’.
Come back when you can utilise what would have to be, if you are a doctor, your extensive university education to provide sources for your assertions and a sensible argument not written in bold hyperbole.
Swine flu 2009 was over egged I’ll give you that but it is nothing to do with covid more than ten years later really.
Back to the qanon boards you go.
As you well know, most medical doctors think there was plenty of justification for those measures. You have the same right to offer your opinion as anyone else, but would you please stop pretending that you university degree gives you the authority to impose your scientific, let alone you political opinions?
The fact you’ve chosen to use bold type for your comment tells us something, whilst claiming some sort of authority in the debate because of being medically trained is a foolish look.
There is no way in hell a medical doctor would write anything like that. Especially in bold type face with phrases like ‘hijacked by traitors’.
Come back when you can utilise what would have to be, if you are a doctor, your extensive university education to provide sources for your assertions and a sensible argument not written in bold hyperbole.
Swine flu 2009 was over egged I’ll give you that but it is nothing to do with covid more than ten years later really.
Back to the qanon boards you go.
I am a medical doctor. There never was any medical justification for any of the “measures”. The whole Covid “pandemic” was and still is a gigantic fraud [the Council of Europe conducted a formal investigation into the alleged swine flu pandemic of 2009 and found that it was a fraud – see that body’s report]. Populations around the world were deliberately psychologically tortured by their own governments into a dangerous state of Stockholm Syndrome in a military grade psychological operation. In March 2020, there was a global coup d’etat. There is no way that that was not minutely planned. Our way of life was targetted and hijacked by traitors. What we have witnessed over the past three years constitutes global treason. These are the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed. It is extremely important that we face up to what has happened to us. Those responsible for and complicit in these multiple outrages must be held to account.
This is so important to think about now, but now it’s happened I don’t know how personally to deal with it. Previous generations (I feel sure) would have thought it morally repugnant to sacrifice the young for the interests of octogenarians. Different risk profiles due to age were known very early on. And now families have to gather at Christmas, knowing who said what when, who bullied whom about vaccines, who felt morally superior and paraded it. If I was a parent of a child damaged because of lockdown I’d find it very hard to forgive and forget in these circumstances.
Sacrificing the young to benefit the old is unfortunately par for the course now in most western nations. This is why we don’t build enough houses, import cheap labour and ensure pensions rise faster than wages
I’m with you jmo. I can’t forget the people who joined in, so uncritically and with such certainty, the clamours for more and more interventions and who wilfully ignored the mounting evidence. It was like being in a primitive tribe who believed that sacrificing to the river gods would stop the floods.
I don’t know how to deal with it either – family members and friends who might as well have put on ritual robes and danced around a bonfire. How do we come back from that?
Sacrificing the young to benefit the old is unfortunately par for the course now in most western nations. This is why we don’t build enough houses, import cheap labour and ensure pensions rise faster than wages
I’m with you jmo. I can’t forget the people who joined in, so uncritically and with such certainty, the clamours for more and more interventions and who wilfully ignored the mounting evidence. It was like being in a primitive tribe who believed that sacrificing to the river gods would stop the floods.
I don’t know how to deal with it either – family members and friends who might as well have put on ritual robes and danced around a bonfire. How do we come back from that?
This is so important to think about now, but now it’s happened I don’t know how personally to deal with it. Previous generations (I feel sure) would have thought it morally repugnant to sacrifice the young for the interests of octogenarians. Different risk profiles due to age were known very early on. And now families have to gather at Christmas, knowing who said what when, who bullied whom about vaccines, who felt morally superior and paraded it. If I was a parent of a child damaged because of lockdown I’d find it very hard to forgive and forget in these circumstances.
We also lost the ability to criticize these governmental decisions, being labelled as insurrectionists spreading disinformation. It is wrong on all fronts and I believe it is time for us to take our governments to task for not allowing us to make our own decisions. Great article, Mary!
Actually we weren’t just being labelled, we were being censored and silenced.
Actually we weren’t just being labelled, we were being censored and silenced.
We also lost the ability to criticize these governmental decisions, being labelled as insurrectionists spreading disinformation. It is wrong on all fronts and I believe it is time for us to take our governments to task for not allowing us to make our own decisions. Great article, Mary!
I never partook in the charade. After I had time to reflect, following the first few weeks, I reframed the situation as a morale/ philisophical problem, just as this piece does. I stopped reading statistics and said I don’t care. The philisophical juxtaposition to science was non sensical, debate could not be had, no common rule book existed.
Then sport was allowed and people could come together. I found engaging with people in person allowed a human perspective to be understood. The rule books began to share common ground. The horror of the Internet laid bare. I have never since replied to a thread in which I have already participated. I will state my piece and walk away, debate can not be had on the Internet.
Following Brexit, the pandemic clarified just how far down the Rabbit Hole the British people have been led. I have given up hope in other people. We do not engage enough, we do not read enough, to overcome the Government and Media. The machine has won, thank the iphone.
Never again implies that the people have a defence. I have regretfully succumbed to the notion they don’t.
I never partook in the charade. After I had time to reflect, following the first few weeks, I reframed the situation as a morale/ philisophical problem, just as this piece does. I stopped reading statistics and said I don’t care. The philisophical juxtaposition to science was non sensical, debate could not be had, no common rule book existed.
Then sport was allowed and people could come together. I found engaging with people in person allowed a human perspective to be understood. The rule books began to share common ground. The horror of the Internet laid bare. I have never since replied to a thread in which I have already participated. I will state my piece and walk away, debate can not be had on the Internet.
Following Brexit, the pandemic clarified just how far down the Rabbit Hole the British people have been led. I have given up hope in other people. We do not engage enough, we do not read enough, to overcome the Government and Media. The machine has won, thank the iphone.
Never again implies that the people have a defence. I have regretfully succumbed to the notion they don’t.
Covid really was a turning point. It demonstrates how gullible and authoritarian most of our population is. It showed how weak and unprincipled the people heading up the health authorities, universities and other thought leaders are. Finally it exposes the mainstream media for the quislings that they are. In some ways we should be thankful for Covid as it shook many people out of a stupor even if the majority remain sheep. Things like Musk’s takeover of Twitter are likely a direct result of this. Even the dimmest NPC is realizing that the vaccines don’t work and are processing the awkward question of why health authorities are still promoting them. The fact that so few parents are giving children the vaccines is showing that more people understand reality than are prepared to admit it. Finally it woke up many parents to how utterly indifferent school boards and teachers unions are to the wellbeing of their children. This is having a direct impact in Canada and the US where school board elections are now vigorously contested by ‘woke’ and ‘anti-woke’ forces.
As usual – references please?
Of course the real tragedy here is that mentally we live on different planets, but that the same laws and health system must appply to both our bodies. Since we are both convinced that the other is irrationally putting our health at risk I see little future but continuous fighting between us.
As usual – references please?
Of course the real tragedy here is that mentally we live on different planets, but that the same laws and health system must appply to both our bodies. Since we are both convinced that the other is irrationally putting our health at risk I see little future but continuous fighting between us.
Covid really was a turning point. It demonstrates how gullible and authoritarian most of our population is. It showed how weak and unprincipled the people heading up the health authorities, universities and other thought leaders are. Finally it exposes the mainstream media for the quislings that they are. In some ways we should be thankful for Covid as it shook many people out of a stupor even if the majority remain sheep. Things like Musk’s takeover of Twitter are likely a direct result of this. Even the dimmest NPC is realizing that the vaccines don’t work and are processing the awkward question of why health authorities are still promoting them. The fact that so few parents are giving children the vaccines is showing that more people understand reality than are prepared to admit it. Finally it woke up many parents to how utterly indifferent school boards and teachers unions are to the wellbeing of their children. This is having a direct impact in Canada and the US where school board elections are now vigorously contested by ‘woke’ and ‘anti-woke’ forces.
And you can reasonably argue that recent politicians have adopted a managerial style, promoting their own popularity through lies and spin and so have ignored the business of governance (moral choices) for a mess of pottage.
The last politician who wrestled with moral choices (in my opinion, yours may differ) was Margaret Thatcher. People loved or hated her for the moral choices she made. How would she have responded to COVID? We will never know.
As an Oxford educated Chemist, I suspect Lady T who have instantly spotted that COVID was going to turn out to be the greatest con trick since the Resurrection.
Don’t be silly. The vast majority of scientists, whatever university of subject, accept the fact that COVID was real, dangerous, and justified some far-reaching countermeasures. You may believe that Lady T had a divinely inspired intuition and would have reached the same conclusion as you, but whether that is true or not, it would certainly not be because of her Oxford science degree.
COVID was real, and dangerous – but only to a particular demographic (the very old, the immune compromised, and those with significant comorbidities). So far-reaching countermeasures were a panicked over-reaction which was obvious after the first lockdown but ignored. Arguably Focused Protection (the Great Barrington Declaration) was a more appropriate choice but the politicians were committed to the COVID theatre and didn’t have the moral strength to change course.
And even for the very old, the counter-measures may have cost too much. I think of my grandfather in Ireland, a very gregarious 89yo still living independently in 2020. The last two years of his life were massively marred by Covid restrictions in all sorts of ways (he was in Ireland which was much worse). And yes, it’s possible the restrictions bought him some of those two years, but was it worth it for him?
No, you can be sure it was not.
No, you can be sure it was not.
And even for the very old, the counter-measures may have cost too much. I think of my grandfather in Ireland, a very gregarious 89yo still living independently in 2020. The last two years of his life were massively marred by Covid restrictions in all sorts of ways (he was in Ireland which was much worse). And yes, it’s possible the restrictions bought him some of those two years, but was it worth it for him?
Majority of either very stupid or compromised scientists? The rest of them were muzzled.
I regret to say (as you already know) that ‘Science’ has broadly been compromised by NewThink. Most Science is directly or indirectly funded by governments who have political motivations well beyond the pursuit of knowledge.
I regret to say (as you already know) that ‘Science’ has broadly been compromised by NewThink. Most Science is directly or indirectly funded by governments who have political motivations well beyond the pursuit of knowledge.
The vast majority of scientists, whatever university of subject, accept the fact that COVID was real, dangerous, and justified some far-reaching countermeasures.
It’s amazing how easily rational statements on this site accumulate down votes from the Herd.
COVID was real, and dangerous – but only to a particular demographic (the very old, the immune compromised, and those with significant comorbidities). So far-reaching countermeasures were a panicked over-reaction which was obvious after the first lockdown but ignored. Arguably Focused Protection (the Great Barrington Declaration) was a more appropriate choice but the politicians were committed to the COVID theatre and didn’t have the moral strength to change course.
Majority of either very stupid or compromised scientists? The rest of them were muzzled.
The vast majority of scientists, whatever university of subject, accept the fact that COVID was real, dangerous, and justified some far-reaching countermeasures.
It’s amazing how easily rational statements on this site accumulate down votes from the Herd.
Don’t be silly. The vast majority of scientists, whatever university of subject, accept the fact that COVID was real, dangerous, and justified some far-reaching countermeasures. You may believe that Lady T had a divinely inspired intuition and would have reached the same conclusion as you, but whether that is true or not, it would certainly not be because of her Oxford science degree.
As an Oxford educated Chemist, I suspect Lady T who have instantly spotted that COVID was going to turn out to be the greatest con trick since the Resurrection.
And you can reasonably argue that recent politicians have adopted a managerial style, promoting their own popularity through lies and spin and so have ignored the business of governance (moral choices) for a mess of pottage.
The last politician who wrestled with moral choices (in my opinion, yours may differ) was Margaret Thatcher. People loved or hated her for the moral choices she made. How would she have responded to COVID? We will never know.
“and so the pandemic exposed the underlying, enduring truth that data-driven decision-making can only ever be a fig-leaf for the real business of governance, which is tragic moral choices.”
Actually, I think the opposite is true and that data driven decision-making was ceased upon by our elected representatives as a means of avoiding taking responsibility for the real business of governance and making difficult moral choices
“and so the pandemic exposed the underlying, enduring truth that data-driven decision-making can only ever be a fig-leaf for the real business of governance, which is tragic moral choices.”
Actually, I think the opposite is true and that data driven decision-making was ceased upon by our elected representatives as a means of avoiding taking responsibility for the real business of governance and making difficult moral choices
I’m afraid Mary it will be repeated: maybe not literally but in other ways/areas. Victim culture is everywhere, media spreads it and so ‘the people’ choose politicians accordingly. The only answer is: become resilient as an individual and family: physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.
I’m afraid Mary it will be repeated: maybe not literally but in other ways/areas. Victim culture is everywhere, media spreads it and so ‘the people’ choose politicians accordingly. The only answer is: become resilient as an individual and family: physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.
There is no real sense in which we made sacrifices on behalf of children. It is the other way around; our children made huge (involuntary) sacrifices for older people, on the basis of poor evidence and day science. Not all of our children will recover
There is no real sense in which we made sacrifices on behalf of children. It is the other way around; our children made huge (involuntary) sacrifices for older people, on the basis of poor evidence and day science. Not all of our children will recover
I see that the grasping and faunching about how bad covid is/was is unending. But what is anyone going to DO about it? All the regime apologists are winding up the mea culpas in trying to get out in front of a coming Reign Of Terror, where we round up all the covid Robespierrians and punish them for their excesses. Great. We should do it. Germany recently finished a trial of a 97-year-old woman who worked as a typist in an extermination camp. She was a teenager at the time. If there is no amnesty for her – 80 years later – why should we give the Branch Covidians a pass?
The bottom line is not to let this sh*t happen again (and believe me, it will because world governments won’t hesitate to weaponize the next crisis). The big question is, how will we collectively respond? Push back – vigorously, even violently if necessary – or grumble and mewl and knuckle under the way we did this last time?
I see that the grasping and faunching about how bad covid is/was is unending. But what is anyone going to DO about it? All the regime apologists are winding up the mea culpas in trying to get out in front of a coming Reign Of Terror, where we round up all the covid Robespierrians and punish them for their excesses. Great. We should do it. Germany recently finished a trial of a 97-year-old woman who worked as a typist in an extermination camp. She was a teenager at the time. If there is no amnesty for her – 80 years later – why should we give the Branch Covidians a pass?
The bottom line is not to let this sh*t happen again (and believe me, it will because world governments won’t hesitate to weaponize the next crisis). The big question is, how will we collectively respond? Push back – vigorously, even violently if necessary – or grumble and mewl and knuckle under the way we did this last time?
Covid was an exercise in orchestrated mass hysteria. Its overall logic had more holes in it than a tramp’s vest.
Take for example, the role of agency care-home staff. No-one wanted to discuss the simple and well-known fact that agency staff circulated freely between care homes and other such places where the vulnerable were congregated. This, despite the gratuitous cruelty inflicted on elderly residents and their families.
Covid was an exercise in orchestrated mass hysteria. Its overall logic had more holes in it than a tramp’s vest.
Take for example, the role of agency care-home staff. No-one wanted to discuss the simple and well-known fact that agency staff circulated freely between care homes and other such places where the vulnerable were congregated. This, despite the gratuitous cruelty inflicted on elderly residents and their families.
But we will repeat it. We have learned nothing. That the American people, the land of the free and the home of the brave, did not rise up with one voice and say, “Hell no” is an eternal disappointment to me.
We’d do it exactly the same in a heartbeat. Nothing fundamental has changed.
Weren’t they exposed as frauds! It goes deeper than this of course because the US is so polarised. Many of the old liberals are now ‘progressives’ who supported the rafts of idiotic decisions introduced despite lack of logic, morality or intelligence. Remember that these people believe in big government and nanny governments. They are truly lemmings.
Weren’t they exposed as frauds! It goes deeper than this of course because the US is so polarised. Many of the old liberals are now ‘progressives’ who supported the rafts of idiotic decisions introduced despite lack of logic, morality or intelligence. Remember that these people believe in big government and nanny governments. They are truly lemmings.
But we will repeat it. We have learned nothing. That the American people, the land of the free and the home of the brave, did not rise up with one voice and say, “Hell no” is an eternal disappointment to me.
We’d do it exactly the same in a heartbeat. Nothing fundamental has changed.
And again we have several long and complex threads just removed. FFS guys, ban me if you want rid of me, state some clear rules that we can follow, or stop this cat-and-mouse game, willya?
And again we have several long and complex threads just removed. FFS guys, ban me if you want rid of me, state some clear rules that we can follow, or stop this cat-and-mouse game, willya?
And there we have it: Experimental proof. A post reported as abusive is removed the very second. Surely that is what keeps happening to mine. What are you doing to prevent this? Do you take steps against people who abuse the reporting system? Do you have a timely check-and-reinstate system? Do you have any defenses against malicious actors systematically removing posts they do not like – or removing others in retribution for their own posts disappearing? Do you really think that you can have a functional debating forum for controversial and out-of-herd topics when this kind of thing keeps happening?
There was a thread the other day, someone complaining the same. I agree. I think your efforts to bring balance and stick it out despite enormous down votes are admirable even if I don’t always agree with you. And the couple of others doing the same.
There’s a lot people getting carried away…. If this was from China its pretty impossible to hold anyone there accountable tbh. If we are honest. Unless we go with America and amp up the war ships. That’s the only way of holding China really accountable at this point. They aren’t letting us in to investigate and arrest people. It would come at enormous cost. I’m still not sure if that’s a good idea either or who started it in the first place 🙂
Also, if we are honest and it escaped a bio lab, they may have been clueless at the start as to how it would effect the population especially if it hadn’t been widely trialled on anything before. There’s so many unanswered questions… I haven’t had the vaccine for the very reason I don’t think it was trialled properly and because they never told us the origin, you can’t make a vaccine without understanding what you’re vaccinating against and I didn’t like that either. But I know people that had it and felt safer, that’s up to them – I believe in freedom of choice so I am not about mandatory vaccination, especially with big pharma involved.
I understand why people are pi**ed off, I’m pi**ed off too, but we can’t have a debate without balance, without different opinions. So comment flaggers, give it a rest. Let Mr Fogh have his say. Flagging like this is the lowest of the low, Mr fogh is much more eloquent and less sweary than I am. He’s not offending anyone. You can’t think again in your own echo chamber.
OK, I got an answer to my complaint, and was told that posts are temporarily removed for random spot checks when someone makes a lot of comments – to prevent spam. I guess I can hardly complain about that one 😉
I suppose I could consider the nuclear option, and make fewer comments.
Now having the same trouble myself on a different thread ……with comments that were not sweary I hasten to add. Unimpressed.
Now having the same trouble myself on a different thread ……with comments that were not sweary I hasten to add. Unimpressed.
There was a thread the other day, someone complaining the same. I agree. I think your efforts to bring balance and stick it out despite enormous down votes are admirable even if I don’t always agree with you. And the couple of others doing the same.
There’s a lot people getting carried away…. If this was from China its pretty impossible to hold anyone there accountable tbh. If we are honest. Unless we go with America and amp up the war ships. That’s the only way of holding China really accountable at this point. They aren’t letting us in to investigate and arrest people. It would come at enormous cost. I’m still not sure if that’s a good idea either or who started it in the first place 🙂
Also, if we are honest and it escaped a bio lab, they may have been clueless at the start as to how it would effect the population especially if it hadn’t been widely trialled on anything before. There’s so many unanswered questions… I haven’t had the vaccine for the very reason I don’t think it was trialled properly and because they never told us the origin, you can’t make a vaccine without understanding what you’re vaccinating against and I didn’t like that either. But I know people that had it and felt safer, that’s up to them – I believe in freedom of choice so I am not about mandatory vaccination, especially with big pharma involved.
I understand why people are pi**ed off, I’m pi**ed off too, but we can’t have a debate without balance, without different opinions. So comment flaggers, give it a rest. Let Mr Fogh have his say. Flagging like this is the lowest of the low, Mr fogh is much more eloquent and less sweary than I am. He’s not offending anyone. You can’t think again in your own echo chamber.
OK, I got an answer to my complaint, and was told that posts are temporarily removed for random spot checks when someone makes a lot of comments – to prevent spam. I guess I can hardly complain about that one 😉
I suppose I could consider the nuclear option, and make fewer comments.
And there we have it: Experimental proof. A post reported as abusive is removed the very second. Surely that is what keeps happening to mine. What are you doing to prevent this? Do you take steps against people who abuse the reporting system? Do you have a timely check-and-reinstate system? Do you have any defenses against malicious actors systematically removing posts they do not like – or removing others in retribution for their own posts disappearing? Do you really think that you can have a functional debating forum for controversial and out-of-herd topics when this kind of thing keeps happening?
Why is it that the mere mention of Caligula drives the Censor demented?
Why is it that the mere mention of Caligula drives the Censor demented?
This article relates the COVID pandemic to a more disturbing human arrogance brought on by accelerating technological advance. Many people see ethical trade-offs as an inconvenience of the past and human relationships as optional. A great read.
This article relates the COVID pandemic to a more disturbing human arrogance brought on by accelerating technological advance. Many people see ethical trade-offs as an inconvenience of the past and human relationships as optional. A great read.
During the height of Covid mother in law went to the local hospital for tests for two hours. Her reward? Two weeks quarantine in her Senior’s home. During this time we would speak to her through a small window likely six feet from her bed. During this time she said,” I never knew I would die like this.”
Then an order from the Senior’s home that all windows would be closed. She died that weekend from unknown causes. I had her funeral with 5 others nearby. No comforting friends for my wife. Our electronically incompetent funeral director had forgotten to charge the sound system battery so cars on the roadside could hear. He was not able to master Zoom for family unable to travel due to Covid restrictions could see the service. My brother in law held up his phone to send the service out as I lead the outdoor graveside service.
There, on a sunny day, on a hill overlooking the site where the exiled French Acadians were put to sea from Grand Pre in Nova Scotia, Canada we said our farewells…all five of us, the maximum gathering allowed or provincial fines would follow.
We did our bit to save our failing health system, the Senior’s home managed to avoid negative publicity of Covid among the residents. Our home community could not show the much needed love in hugs and words to my wife. She was deprived of love. She has lost her Mom and part of her soul, and I lost a part of my wife.
Yes, our harsh lockdowns worked. Thousands of other Canadians moved to the relatively Covid free Maritimes driving up the price of anything that resembled a house even in rural areas. And now 14% of Nova Scotians have no family doctor.
The system won, community, family and souls lost.
That was brutal and cruel. I’m sorry
That was brutal and cruel. I’m sorry
During the height of Covid mother in law went to the local hospital for tests for two hours. Her reward? Two weeks quarantine in her Senior’s home. During this time we would speak to her through a small window likely six feet from her bed. During this time she said,” I never knew I would die like this.”
Then an order from the Senior’s home that all windows would be closed. She died that weekend from unknown causes. I had her funeral with 5 others nearby. No comforting friends for my wife. Our electronically incompetent funeral director had forgotten to charge the sound system battery so cars on the roadside could hear. He was not able to master Zoom for family unable to travel due to Covid restrictions could see the service. My brother in law held up his phone to send the service out as I lead the outdoor graveside service.
There, on a sunny day, on a hill overlooking the site where the exiled French Acadians were put to sea from Grand Pre in Nova Scotia, Canada we said our farewells…all five of us, the maximum gathering allowed or provincial fines would follow.
We did our bit to save our failing health system, the Senior’s home managed to avoid negative publicity of Covid among the residents. Our home community could not show the much needed love in hugs and words to my wife. She was deprived of love. She has lost her Mom and part of her soul, and I lost a part of my wife.
Yes, our harsh lockdowns worked. Thousands of other Canadians moved to the relatively Covid free Maritimes driving up the price of anything that resembled a house even in rural areas. And now 14% of Nova Scotians have no family doctor.
The system won, community, family and souls lost.
Reading this one has to have some sympathy with Caligula when he said: “Utinam populus Romanus unam cervicem haberet!”*
(*Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars.)
Reading this one has to have some sympathy with Caligula when he said: “Utinam populus Romanus unam cervicem haberet!”*
(*Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars.)
A lot of people are going to burn in hell for this. They know who they are, yet operate in a state of denial. With age will come clarity, and it will eat at them forever.
Is that not a bit extreme? I agree that the anti-vaxxers did a lot of irresponsible damage and seem rather too close to the father of lies – but surely there is forgiveness for them – even if they are operating in a state of denial?
Is that not a bit extreme? I agree that the anti-vaxxers did a lot of irresponsible damage and seem rather too close to the father of lies – but surely there is forgiveness for them – even if they are operating in a state of denial?
A lot of people are going to burn in hell for this. They know who they are, yet operate in a state of denial. With age will come clarity, and it will eat at them forever.
I can’t get my head around continuity maskers. I suppose they’re just mentally ill.
I can’t get my head around continuity maskers. I suppose they’re just mentally ill.
It was not a moral dilemma. It was a celebrity dilemma. What position could anyone take in public, with the risk that the BBC would stigmatise them as a murderer? The result is that society took the most expensive and morally bankrupt route, because it looked better on TV. Socialism is a kind of moral bankruptcy, and we took that route: greatest short term gain, biggest long term loss.
It was not a moral dilemma. It was a celebrity dilemma. What position could anyone take in public, with the risk that the BBC would stigmatise them as a murderer? The result is that society took the most expensive and morally bankrupt route, because it looked better on TV. Socialism is a kind of moral bankruptcy, and we took that route: greatest short term gain, biggest long term loss.
For me, the term ‘white woman’s tears’ became meaningful on reading the first paragraph. I couldn’t read on. In 2021, approximately 495200 children under 5 died of malaria. I am extremely anti-woke but the phrase ‘own your privilege’ springs to mind. I find contemporary moaning at life not living up-to peoples expectations very tedious and dull: the current hysteria surrounding the possibility of not being able to afford central heating. When I was young, most people I knew didn’t have central heating. You were lucky if you had an inside toilet. I know this is beginning to sound monty Pythonesque – you were one of the lucky ones.
For me, the term ‘white woman’s tears’ became meaningful on reading the first paragraph. I couldn’t read on. In 2021, approximately 495200 children under 5 died of malaria. I am extremely anti-woke but the phrase ‘own your privilege’ springs to mind. I find contemporary moaning at life not living up-to peoples expectations very tedious and dull: the current hysteria surrounding the possibility of not being able to afford central heating. When I was young, most people I knew didn’t have central heating. You were lucky if you had an inside toilet. I know this is beginning to sound monty Pythonesque – you were one of the lucky ones.
The longer this goes on, the more I think we were had by the ccp tbh using Who, etc. I think they may have used it to jump before they were pushed re: decoupling. Big pharma jumped on the gold train and let it loose and rampant. I think the media storm made it difficult for governments not to lockdown. Trump did keep calling it the Chinese flu.
I think russia going into Ukraine soon after is perhaps not actually a coincidence now. I think the East are getting ready to remind us how heavily we have relied on them. I have said we shouldn’t be parking our war ships over there, but perhaps I was wrong, if all of that is the case, perhaps conflict is inevitable.
I could be very wrong about all of that, just my humble opinion.
The longer this goes on, the more I think we were had by the ccp tbh using Who, etc. I think they may have used it to jump before they were pushed re: decoupling. Big pharma jumped on the gold train and let it loose and rampant. I think the media storm made it difficult for governments not to lockdown. Trump did keep calling it the Chinese flu.
I think russia going into Ukraine soon after is perhaps not actually a coincidence now. I think the East are getting ready to remind us how heavily we have relied on them. I have said we shouldn’t be parking our war ships over there, but perhaps I was wrong, if all of that is the case, perhaps conflict is inevitable.
I could be very wrong about all of that, just my humble opinion.
Why has all mention of the prescience of Lord Jonathan Sumption been expunged?
Truly pathetic of UnHerd to try to alter ‘history’ in this way! In fact way, way, ‘below the belt’, as others have already mentioned.
As at 1759hrs GMT. 23.12.22.
Mr Stanhope, I don’t like the sound of that, I posted an imf energy report yesterday and after that all my next comments went to…. Awaiting approval.
Rejoice Miss Emery as at 0830hrs GMT. 24.12.22 it has been restored! Hallelujah!
Rejoice Miss Emery as at 0830hrs GMT. 24.12.22 it has been restored! Hallelujah!
Mr Stanhope, I don’t like the sound of that, I posted an imf energy report yesterday and after that all my next comments went to…. Awaiting approval.
Why has all mention of the prescience of Lord Jonathan Sumption been expunged?
Truly pathetic of UnHerd to try to alter ‘history’ in this way! In fact way, way, ‘below the belt’, as others have already mentioned.
As at 1759hrs GMT. 23.12.22.
I think anger is appropriate, as well as tears.
I think anger is appropriate, as well as tears.
As so often Mary, you just nail it perfectly. And as you say, Never, Ever, Again.
I think you could be much harder on our politicians because throughout, while pretending to make “hard choices”, they actually took the path of least resistance at every single turn. They ruined our economy, ruined our children’s peace of mind, and ruined the incentive to work, because they wanted to look “compassionate” kind, protective (with “their arm around us all” – ugh!). They didn’t even achieve that – they looked weak, indecisive, and chaotic.
This was all deeply wrong and many were saying so half way through the very first lockdown. They were cancelled, derided, muzzled, and ignored. And now, finally, the awful truths of that censorship are emerging. What were slandered as “conspiracy theories” by highly qualified medical experts are now being accepted, shame-facedly, as being “what we actually should have done”. Completely avoidably, the West has ruined itself socially, economically, and spiritually.
The politicians will get their come-uppance over the next few years. And perhaps at a cost to many, as opportunists from both extremes of politics find themselves elected – to their own surprise. Or perhaps a brutal overthrow of the established “World order” is now no less than a complete imperative – whatever the fall-out may be. Who knows? But I think we shall find out.
In the meantime however, for politicos to to imprison us all in our homes?
Never, EVER, Again.
As so often Mary, you just nail it perfectly. And as you say, Never, Ever, Again.
I think you could be much harder on our politicians because throughout, while pretending to make “hard choices”, they actually took the path of least resistance at every single turn. They ruined our economy, ruined our children’s peace of mind, and ruined the incentive to work, because they wanted to look “compassionate” kind, protective (with “their arm around us all” – ugh!). They didn’t even achieve that – they looked weak, indecisive, and chaotic.
This was all deeply wrong and many were saying so half way through the very first lockdown. They were cancelled, derided, muzzled, and ignored. And now, finally, the awful truths of that censorship are emerging. What were slandered as “conspiracy theories” by highly qualified medical experts are now being accepted, shame-facedly, as being “what we actually should have done”. Completely avoidably, the West has ruined itself socially, economically, and spiritually.
The politicians will get their come-uppance over the next few years. And perhaps at a cost to many, as opportunists from both extremes of politics find themselves elected – to their own surprise. Or perhaps a brutal overthrow of the established “World order” is now no less than a complete imperative – whatever the fall-out may be. Who knows? But I think we shall find out.
In the meantime however, for politicos to to imprison us all in our homes?
Never, EVER, Again.
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
“Its corresponding mode of governance is technocracy, where the legitimacy of political choices rests in their adherence to “evidence” and “data”.
If only – the major problems came from there being little or no good data, espeically in the initial stages, which then led to emotive, political reasoning & governance. ‘Follow the science’ was a shallow aspirational comment, not usually followed through. The best way of cutting through the culture-war-bickering is to produce on-going good quality data, research, reflection, not more sound and fury, emotive appeals. We could start with an estimate of the spending per year of life saved. My back-of-fag-packet calculation is that we spent about £1 million per year of life saved (covid) – I believe the NHS official threshold is around £30,000 QUALY – discuss…..
“Its corresponding mode of governance is technocracy, where the legitimacy of political choices rests in their adherence to “evidence” and “data”.
If only – the major problems came from there being little or no good data, espeically in the initial stages, which then led to emotive, political reasoning & governance. ‘Follow the science’ was a shallow aspirational comment, not usually followed through. The best way of cutting through the culture-war-bickering is to produce on-going good quality data, research, reflection, not more sound and fury, emotive appeals. We could start with an estimate of the spending per year of life saved. My back-of-fag-packet calculation is that we spent about £1 million per year of life saved (covid) – I believe the NHS official threshold is around £30,000 QUALY – discuss…..
Somewhat hyperbolic. Uncharacteristically so. Our kids’ reading abilities improved during lockdown, and we’re much closer as a family. Prior to the first lockdown, I travelled so much for work (all unnecessary, of course – days travelling to a foreign conference room to hear some bloke I already knew well spin through a PowerPoint that had been e-mailed to me the previous week – what an absolute waste of time) that I barely saw my kids. Lockdown was a great liberation from being tied to the corporate hamster wheel. But one isn’t allowed to say that. The groupthink narrative is that we all “suffered” during lockdown. No we did not – we loved lockdown!
Yes, the harms of lockdown were not evenly distributed, no more than the harms of COVID were. But every policy benefits *some* people, just as every disease harms *some* people. That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the serious questions our COVID response poses for us.
I think for people who homeschooled, who had intact families, who had the time to actually see how little their children learned in school vs. how much they can learn with an engaged parent in a book rich environment in a few hours it had an upside. We had always lived that way, I was a stay at home mom, my husband worked at home much of our children’s childhoods. But relatively few children experience this. On balance more children and mothers were harmed than not. Childhood is short. Two years is a long time. Parents who did not have a vested interest in making sure their children were good company before may have become short tempered, neglectful, or abusive once they realized how little control they had.
I firmly believe in the power of the traditional family to raise healthy adults. But it doesn’t happen at the turn of a switch which is what Covid did.
Yes, the harms of lockdown were not evenly distributed, no more than the harms of COVID were. But every policy benefits *some* people, just as every disease harms *some* people. That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the serious questions our COVID response poses for us.
I think for people who homeschooled, who had intact families, who had the time to actually see how little their children learned in school vs. how much they can learn with an engaged parent in a book rich environment in a few hours it had an upside. We had always lived that way, I was a stay at home mom, my husband worked at home much of our children’s childhoods. But relatively few children experience this. On balance more children and mothers were harmed than not. Childhood is short. Two years is a long time. Parents who did not have a vested interest in making sure their children were good company before may have become short tempered, neglectful, or abusive once they realized how little control they had.
I firmly believe in the power of the traditional family to raise healthy adults. But it doesn’t happen at the turn of a switch which is what Covid did.
Somewhat hyperbolic. Uncharacteristically so. Our kids’ reading abilities improved during lockdown, and we’re much closer as a family. Prior to the first lockdown, I travelled so much for work (all unnecessary, of course – days travelling to a foreign conference room to hear some bloke I already knew well spin through a PowerPoint that had been e-mailed to me the previous week – what an absolute waste of time) that I barely saw my kids. Lockdown was a great liberation from being tied to the corporate hamster wheel. But one isn’t allowed to say that. The groupthink narrative is that we all “suffered” during lockdown. No we did not – we loved lockdown!
Good summary of the conservative case against modernity. And I’m not being sarcastic!
Good summary of the conservative case against modernity. And I’m not being sarcastic!
Spot on, Mary, although I would point out that every society, even pre-modern ones, have had their 1% of the filthy rich.
Spot on, Mary, although I would point out that every society, even pre-modern ones, have had their 1% of the filthy rich.
memento mori
memento mori
This is a brilliantly argued piece – as usual, from Mary Harrington.
There is one niggling point though and it’s about technocracy in this context. I am no fan of technocrats generally but I think it would be fair to make a distinction between the decidedly poor technocracy we presently have, and the sort of technocracy we might one day have if they eventually do start making rational decisions with data that is actually correct.
In the context of Covid, it is surely possible to admit that the technocrats just got it wrong when balancing the various interests. It wasn’t that technocratic decision-making failed in the face of a novel situation presenting no good choices, because the entirety of economics has always been about managing trade-offs and making zero-sum-game decisions – this is the stock-in-trade of politics and has been for centuries. The pandemic revealed simply that what we call technocracy in the modern age is actually just a failure of statecraft, but that doesn’t mean that the essential concept of technocracy can’t form a valuable part of effective government if it was to be done right.
I do have some sympathy with the scientists over Covid. Not so much sympathy that I’ll allow them to keep claiming that they made the best decisions from the available data at all times – that is clearly nonsense. But it is fair to say that Boris Johnson’s government turned them into a political shield to an absurd degree, with the inevitable consequence that the scientists had to become political players themselves – the very thing they are there to avoid becoming.
But the reality is that our technocrats had a pandemic plan prior to March 2020 that included an appreciation of the collateral damage that lockdowns would have as well as the fact that they would be of limited use in suppressing the spread of a respiratory virus anyway. It now turns out that had this technocratically-inspired plan been adhered to, most of the mess we’re now in would have been avoided. We might even say that the technocrats did their job properly until the rest of us had to show some faith in them and we didn’t. Bit of a stretch possibly, but if I was a technocrat myself, that’s what I’d be saying.
This is a brilliantly argued piece – as usual, from Mary Harrington.
There is one niggling point though and it’s about technocracy in this context. I am no fan of technocrats generally but I think it would be fair to make a distinction between the decidedly poor technocracy we presently have, and the sort of technocracy we might one day have if they eventually do start making rational decisions with data that is actually correct.
In the context of Covid, it is surely possible to admit that the technocrats just got it wrong when balancing the various interests. It wasn’t that technocratic decision-making failed in the face of a novel situation presenting no good choices, because the entirety of economics has always been about managing trade-offs and making zero-sum-game decisions – this is the stock-in-trade of politics and has been for centuries. The pandemic revealed simply that what we call technocracy in the modern age is actually just a failure of statecraft, but that doesn’t mean that the essential concept of technocracy can’t form a valuable part of effective government if it was to be done right.
I do have some sympathy with the scientists over Covid. Not so much sympathy that I’ll allow them to keep claiming that they made the best decisions from the available data at all times – that is clearly nonsense. But it is fair to say that Boris Johnson’s government turned them into a political shield to an absurd degree, with the inevitable consequence that the scientists had to become political players themselves – the very thing they are there to avoid becoming.
But the reality is that our technocrats had a pandemic plan prior to March 2020 that included an appreciation of the collateral damage that lockdowns would have as well as the fact that they would be of limited use in suppressing the spread of a respiratory virus anyway. It now turns out that had this technocratically-inspired plan been adhered to, most of the mess we’re now in would have been avoided. We might even say that the technocrats did their job properly until the rest of us had to show some faith in them and we didn’t. Bit of a stretch possibly, but if I was a technocrat myself, that’s what I’d be saying.
Experimental post. I will report this one as spam myself, and see if it immediately disappears.
Experimental post. I will report this one as spam myself, and see if it immediately disappears.
Far too heavy a sprinkling of the first person plural pronoun in this article.
“We” does not include me!
People are data, their numbers, their ages, their health, their occupation, where they come from, what education they had are all data. Why would our leaders try to make critical decisions in a crisis any other way than using available data?
The big unknown at the time was where Covid would go. Lockdowns bought us time to develop therapeutic medicine and vaccines, it bought us time to measure and evaluate strains and it probably stopped more less healthy and well nourished people in less developed countries bearing the brunt of deaths in the early days.
Hindsight is a fabulous but elusive thing. Sadness at Christmas in remembrance of sad times past is human and a natural part of life.
The only good thing that came out of the British response to the Pandemic was the vaccine (or vaccines), whose concerted and rapid development seems to reflect the British line of least resistance to go straight for an objective all guns blazing (as in the Falklands). All credit to our scientists, who so often in the past have succeeded despite government rather than thanks to it. The rest was, if not exactly chaos, flailing around with a bludgeon, though failing to hit an obvious target – keeping mobile care workers from carrying the infection between hospitals and care homes.
Obviously one should avoid crowded enclosed spaces. This, and wearing masks to avoid catching the bug – and yes, to avoid spreading it too?? – hardly needed a triumvirate of glum faces at Downing St to convey the message. Depriving the NHS of surgical masks? Not to worry; I found all of mine lying around in the streets, thanks to the throwaway British habit. Maybe the only bright spot was ‘eat out to help out’, an attempt to undo the damage caused by forcing ‘inessential’ businesses to close.
Having said all that, it is hard to see how closing schools could have been avoided. It’s the price we pay for creating a world in which the only way children can learn is by sitting in rows in a building. No ‘on the job’ for a segment of the population deprived of purpose. Is it a terrible thing to say that I had a good year in 2020, while people of my age or older, and some younger, were suffocating to death? Out in the local hills, I saw a huge increase in people, and families. I found it slightly amusing how they insisted on stepping back 2 metres on an otherwise empty country path, while presumably they still went shopping with everybody else. The line between reason and gesture was thin.
It’s over. Stop peering into the past. The masked snowman should be a symbol that represents survival of what could have been much worse.
Try considering life just now in Ukraine, Yemen or parts of China.
Yes. My immediate thought on this was “just throw it in the dustbin”.
Yes. My immediate thought on this was “just throw it in the dustbin”.
It’s over. Stop peering into the past. The masked snowman should be a symbol that represents survival of what could have been much worse.
Try considering life just now in Ukraine, Yemen or parts of China.
It’s over. Stop peering into the past. The masked snowman should be a symbol that represents survival of what could have been much worse.
How do you calculate such depth of snowflakery? Such lack of stiff upper lip? Try considering life just now in Ukraine, Yemen or parts of China.
…as if these present calamities were in no way conditioned by the global events preceding them?
…as if these present calamities were in no way conditioned by the global events preceding them?
It’s over. Stop peering into the past. The masked snowman should be a symbol that represents survival of what could have been much worse.
How do you calculate such depth of snowflakery? Such lack of stiff upper lip? Try considering life just now in Ukraine, Yemen or parts of China.
Hindsight is a great luxury. I agree with everything in this excellent article. However, in defence of the lockdowns, remember Covid-19 was new and feared and no-one was certain of its effect.
New and feared ?
This SARS virus behaved pretty much as a virus
would be expected to behave.
The government had a pandemic strategy in place but they didn’t stick to it.
That is EXACTLY why the government should
NOT have locked the the country.
Anyone with half brain should know that the ridiculous measures would not help the situation.
The distancing, the useless masks and the constant lies, many of us saw through this
andd were were proven right.
The lockdowns were an act of criminal folly.
There are a lot of in government and SAGE who should be facing long term jail sentences.
Hancock and Johnson should be first in the dock.
Your case crumbles somewhat on remembering that pretty much every country, every government (over) reacted in the same way. Mass hysteria perhaps.
My case doesn’t crumble and Sweden
proves that.
This happened because those governments
were following GLOBALIST directions
the aim being to introduce COVID passports
which would quickly become Chinese Communist Party style IDs.
Just because everyone else is doing something doesn’t make it right.
My case doesn’t crumble and Sweden
proves that.
This happened because those governments
were following GLOBALIST directions
the aim being to introduce COVID passports
which would quickly become Chinese Communist Party style IDs.
Just because everyone else is doing something doesn’t make it right.
Your case crumbles somewhat on remembering that pretty much every country, every government (over) reacted in the same way. Mass hysteria perhaps.
We had a pandemic plan prior to Covid19 that, it turns out, would have been a better plan that what we actually did. This cannot have been an accident.
New and feared ?
This SARS virus behaved pretty much as a virus
would be expected to behave.
The government had a pandemic strategy in place but they didn’t stick to it.
That is EXACTLY why the government should
NOT have locked the the country.
Anyone with half brain should know that the ridiculous measures would not help the situation.
The distancing, the useless masks and the constant lies, many of us saw through this
andd were were proven right.
The lockdowns were an act of criminal folly.
There are a lot of in government and SAGE who should be facing long term jail sentences.
Hancock and Johnson should be first in the dock.
We had a pandemic plan prior to Covid19 that, it turns out, would have been a better plan that what we actually did. This cannot have been an accident.
Hindsight is a great luxury. I agree with everything in this excellent article. However, in defence of the lockdowns, remember Covid-19 was new and feared and no-one was certain of its effect.
It is true enough that neutral science does not make your choices for you. But then, even with a moral framework it is not exactly clear whether it is more moral to let a lot of people die unnecessarily, or to have a ‘generation of developmentally-delayed babies and toddlers’. As MH says, there are no good choices here. And, as with the notorious ‘trolley problem’, there are no neutral courses of action.
Unfortunately MH still skives away from taking full responsibility for what she proposes. The minimum requirement – and here science can help – is to make an honest estimate of the consequences of either course of action, and to own up clearly to the cost of what you propose. MH says ‘it was terribly wrong to limit the social spaces available to our children‘. She skips over the next bit, which is to say ‘it would have been better instead to let 100000 people die’ (or whatever the right number is). I am not saying she is necessarily wrong – when you are taking life-and-death decisions, that is the kind of trade-off you sometimes have to make. But if you argue for a choice that would kill a lot of people who might have been saved, you should at the very least admit openly (also to yourself) what it is you are doing.
You keep repeating a counter-factual statistic for which there is absolutely no evidence. The case against mandated lockdowns has become stronger, not weaker, given the accumulated evidence. But clearly YOU want to believe it.
Nor did we actually significantly protect those older people, as I argued above, until much later.
BUT – to the choice as to whether to prioritise the lives of people overwhelmingly at the end of their lives, or of children and younger people. Some of these young people WILL themselves die, and many others be socially stunted and suffer other long lasting consequences as a result of the lockdowns at critical social stages of their development. Of course it was never going to work for many youth not in university etc who were perhaps less likely to obey the rules anyway, as a casual look around my local area of South east London showed. (The Chinese would of course dealt with them extremely harshly as well, yet another chilling consequence of your chilly authoritarian preference ‘for their own good’ philosophy).
I don’t actually think it’s good to encourage young people to break the law, but I was rather glad to see teenagers sitting on park benches with their arms around each other rather than the Chinese / Nazi alternative!
This decision should be an absolute no-brainer.
OK. If you will say straight out that having a large number of old or obese people die ten years before their time (the life expectancy of those still alive at 82, I believe) is better than the social effect of lock down on the young, I will listen respectfully. It is not a nice thing to say, but these are not nice decisions, and that is the kind of decision that sometimes has to be made. But if you are saying that is is proved that lockdowns do not and did not help, I will respectfully ask that you guide me to some reliable evidence. And if there is no such evidence, I would claim that it is reasonable to think that reducing human contact and virus transmission *does* reduce the death toll, by some significant amount, Like those people who claim that vaccines do not work and are more dangerous than the disease, I think you are otherwise – let us say – vulnerable to the temptation of selecting your data to suit your opinions.
You frame the question in a way that makes your answer correct. The question is not simply whether the measures were effective, but whether their cost exceeded their benefit. By pretending there were no costs and focusing only on the benefit, you are only half way to a rational position.
That was not my intention – I just led with the major item on each side of the ledger. By all means add in the economic cost (for both course of action, please!), the mental suffering (both sides, again) the additional deaths from running down the NHS and ignoring other diseases for a while (both sides, again) – bearing in mind that the initial deaths are a lot less uncertain than projections into the long term future. At the end you will still end up trading off a lot of likely immediate deaths against other longer-term considerations. It may be the right trade-off. But one has to own up to it.
Yes – that’s the trolley car problem – do we take action that we know causes harm if we think it might reduce another harm. But don’t forget the whole point of the trolley car problem – to ask the moral question – is it ever justifiable to cause harm? The medical profession’s founding principal – the Hippocratic oath – unequivocally says no. “First, DO NO HARM”. Our legal system also says no, except where the harm is imminent as in self defence. But if we accept the utilitarian view, that action which reduces harm is moral – then we still need a full accounting of the harms. And if we got it wrong, as I think is becoming more and more clear, then remember, ‘good intentions’ are not part of the utilitarian framework. The action action may ultimately be immoral by any standard of moral reasoning you choose.
As I understand it, the Hippocratic oath is not moral, but practical. In an uncertain situation with people who could get better by themselves, you get better long term results by avoiding iffy interventions.
Anyway, if you weigh up the consequences (and their uncertainty) and take the responsibility to decide that it would be better to let the COVID deaths happen, I will listen to you with respect. If you have an abstract morality that says it is it is always better to do nothing, even if the predicted consequences are terrible, than to to do something, if there is even a small risk of causing harm, I am less than impressed.
The hippocratic oath is not moral???? That’s exactly what it is. You have restated it in utilitarian terms, but its not utilitarian. In other words, its not a moral directive based on the expected outcome. Its a moral directive that says doing harm is always immoral, even if the hope is to reduce some other greater harm. You don’t get to experiment on human beings even if you think you’ll ultimately save more than you harm, as a stark example. I’m not putting it forward as my position or trying to impress you, I’m pointing out that 2500 years of western philosophy has wrestled with these issues. I think your confidence comes from the fact that you don’t know all these things – the Dunning Kruger effect.
So you think I am too ignorant or stupid to know what I am talking about? You could be right, I suppose. I can only play the instrument I’ve got. Still, with all due consideration to the uncertainty of our predictions and the limitations in our knowledge, I remain not impressed by the claim that you might have a moral duty to act so as to increase the net amount of harm in the world.
As Isaac Asimov (or Salvor Hardin, one of his characters) put it: “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right“. I can only rely on God to (eventually) let me know whether I got it right or not.
I didn’t say stupid. You’re obviously intelligent. I said you don’t know things. It sounds harsh but it might just be factual – at least in the context of debating the philosophy of morality. I’m sure whatever you did with your life, you did well.
No worries. I am not offended, as you see.
No worries. I am not offended, as you see.
I didn’t say stupid. You’re obviously intelligent. I said you don’t know things. It sounds harsh but it might just be factual – at least in the context of debating the philosophy of morality. I’m sure whatever you did with your life, you did well.
A bit of Googling got me this:
…
This makes no difference to your argument, but it fits pretty well with my understanding, such as it is.
So here’s where pure utilitarianism takes us to uncomfortable places. If you could harvest the stem cells from a baby to cure a disease and save 2 people, but the baby would die, is that moral? What about 100? 1000? A billion? What’s the number? Our ethical rules and laws have always said its never justifiable.
I do not believe in pure utilitarianism, or indeed pure anything. Ethical decisions are complex, situation-dependent, sometimes messy, but vital. I think it is wrong to reduce your ethics to a single concise formula, and replace the discussion of what you ought to do with arguments how a given situation fits with the wording of your rule, like two lawyers arguing over the linguistic meaning of a contract clause. I think that is what is wrong with the mania for ‘human rights’ in political decision making. They may be good principles, but they are guiding principles, no more. The important argument is about whether, say, preventing prisoners from voting is right, acceptable, or wrong. Not whether it contradicts the precise wording of an old document, as interpreted by a bunch of political appointees in Strasbourg.
More specifically, there are lots of decisions where you unavoidably harm some and not others, and sometimes all the alternatives are bad. Medical triage and resource allocation, health v. military budgets, v. paying for the coronation. Vaccine mandates – vaccination will save many, but harm some. Arguably all politics are about deciding who gets benefited and who gets harmed.
I can give you some examples of ethical choices if you like: I would definitely divert the trolley to the track with fewer people on. I might or might not push the fat man in front of it, but only if could be really sure that the five people were definitely going to die otherwise, the sacrifice would help – and I could not obtain the same results by jumping in front of the trolley myself. I would not kill a patient who was otherwise going to survive in order to save five people by transplanting the organs – the cost of reducing people to spare part deposits is way higher than a few lives – but I might take a patient off life-saving drugs if I could save five other patients instead. That kind of decision is what doctors are paid for.
But whichever way you add it up, I would dismiss out of hand anyone who presented me with the logic: ‘What you propose will harm someone; Hippocrates says that it is wrong to cause harm; therefore what you propose is wrong and you should not do it.” and claimed that this was the end of the matter.
I do not believe in pure utilitarianism, or indeed pure anything. Ethical decisions are complex, situation-dependent, sometimes messy, but vital. I think it is wrong to reduce your ethics to a single concise formula, and replace the discussion of what you ought to do with arguments how a given situation fits with the wording of your rule, like two lawyers arguing over the linguistic meaning of a contract clause. I think that is what is wrong with the mania for ‘human rights’ in political decision making. They may be good principles, but they are guiding principles, no more. The important argument is about whether, say, preventing prisoners from voting is right, acceptable, or wrong. Not whether it contradicts the precise wording of an old document, as interpreted by a bunch of political appointees in Strasbourg.
More specifically, there are lots of decisions where you unavoidably harm some and not others, and sometimes all the alternatives are bad. Medical triage and resource allocation, health v. military budgets, v. paying for the coronation. Vaccine mandates – vaccination will save many, but harm some. Arguably all politics are about deciding who gets benefited and who gets harmed.
I can give you some examples of ethical choices if you like: I would definitely divert the trolley to the track with fewer people on. I might or might not push the fat man in front of it, but only if could be really sure that the five people were definitely going to die otherwise, the sacrifice would help – and I could not obtain the same results by jumping in front of the trolley myself. I would not kill a patient who was otherwise going to survive in order to save five people by transplanting the organs – the cost of reducing people to spare part deposits is way higher than a few lives – but I might take a patient off life-saving drugs if I could save five other patients instead. That kind of decision is what doctors are paid for.
But whichever way you add it up, I would dismiss out of hand anyone who presented me with the logic: ‘What you propose will harm someone; Hippocrates says that it is wrong to cause harm; therefore what you propose is wrong and you should not do it.” and claimed that this was the end of the matter.
So here’s where pure utilitarianism takes us to uncomfortable places. If you could harvest the stem cells from a baby to cure a disease and save 2 people, but the baby would die, is that moral? What about 100? 1000? A billion? What’s the number? Our ethical rules and laws have always said its never justifiable.
So you think I am too ignorant or stupid to know what I am talking about? You could be right, I suppose. I can only play the instrument I’ve got. Still, with all due consideration to the uncertainty of our predictions and the limitations in our knowledge, I remain not impressed by the claim that you might have a moral duty to act so as to increase the net amount of harm in the world.
As Isaac Asimov (or Salvor Hardin, one of his characters) put it: “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right“. I can only rely on God to (eventually) let me know whether I got it right or not.
A bit of Googling got me this:
…
This makes no difference to your argument, but it fits pretty well with my understanding, such as it is.
The hippocratic oath is not moral???? That’s exactly what it is. You have restated it in utilitarian terms, but its not utilitarian. In other words, its not a moral directive based on the expected outcome. Its a moral directive that says doing harm is always immoral, even if the hope is to reduce some other greater harm. You don’t get to experiment on human beings even if you think you’ll ultimately save more than you harm, as a stark example. I’m not putting it forward as my position or trying to impress you, I’m pointing out that 2500 years of western philosophy has wrestled with these issues. I think your confidence comes from the fact that you don’t know all these things – the Dunning Kruger effect.
As I understand it, the Hippocratic oath is not moral, but practical. In an uncertain situation with people who could get better by themselves, you get better long term results by avoiding iffy interventions.
Anyway, if you weigh up the consequences (and their uncertainty) and take the responsibility to decide that it would be better to let the COVID deaths happen, I will listen to you with respect. If you have an abstract morality that says it is it is always better to do nothing, even if the predicted consequences are terrible, than to to do something, if there is even a small risk of causing harm, I am less than impressed.
Yes – that’s the trolley car problem – do we take action that we know causes harm if we think it might reduce another harm. But don’t forget the whole point of the trolley car problem – to ask the moral question – is it ever justifiable to cause harm? The medical profession’s founding principal – the Hippocratic oath – unequivocally says no. “First, DO NO HARM”. Our legal system also says no, except where the harm is imminent as in self defence. But if we accept the utilitarian view, that action which reduces harm is moral – then we still need a full accounting of the harms. And if we got it wrong, as I think is becoming more and more clear, then remember, ‘good intentions’ are not part of the utilitarian framework. The action action may ultimately be immoral by any standard of moral reasoning you choose.
That was not my intention – I just led with the major item on each side of the ledger. By all means add in the economic cost (for both course of action, please!), the mental suffering (both sides, again) the additional deaths from running down the NHS and ignoring other diseases for a while (both sides, again) – bearing in mind that the initial deaths are a lot less uncertain than projections into the long term future. At the end you will still end up trading off a lot of likely immediate deaths against other longer-term considerations. It may be the right trade-off. But one has to own up to it.
You frame the question in a way that makes your answer correct. The question is not simply whether the measures were effective, but whether their cost exceeded their benefit. By pretending there were no costs and focusing only on the benefit, you are only half way to a rational position.
OK. If you will say straight out that having a large number of old or obese people die ten years before their time (the life expectancy of those still alive at 82, I believe) is better than the social effect of lock down on the young, I will listen respectfully. It is not a nice thing to say, but these are not nice decisions, and that is the kind of decision that sometimes has to be made. But if you are saying that is is proved that lockdowns do not and did not help, I will respectfully ask that you guide me to some reliable evidence. And if there is no such evidence, I would claim that it is reasonable to think that reducing human contact and virus transmission *does* reduce the death toll, by some significant amount, Like those people who claim that vaccines do not work and are more dangerous than the disease, I think you are otherwise – let us say – vulnerable to the temptation of selecting your data to suit your opinions.
In the early days of lockdown Unherd published an interview with the eminent Swedish epidemiologist and advisor to the Swedish government, Dr. Johan Giesecke.
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
I’d advise everyone to revisit this interview which turned out to be utterly prophetic. In summary, the virus will spread no matter what measures you take and the end results will be much the same, just spread out differently over time. He even foresees that China will take lockdowns to the extreme and will have difficulty implementing an exit strategy.
By contrast, we relied on Neil Ferguson.
Hmmm. Just checking his most checkable prediction, he expected a COVID fatality rate of ca. 0.1%. The most reliable answer I could find in a hurry was here, which gives a median infection fatality rate of 0.3-0.5% for the year 2020 – albeit with such a huge age variation that it becomes less meaningful to talk in terms of overall rates.
But anyway, this is just one gues by one man – an informed guess but still a guess. One of his Danish equivalents – equally informed, equally credentialled – predicted at the start that COVID, like MERS, would never be a serious problem in Europe. My reaction then was that the Swedes might well end up being proved right, but that there was no way they could know for sure on the available data, and that it was irresponsible gambling on their part to take their initial estimates for granted; I still stand by that. It is too easy to wait till the result is known and then pick the prediction that fitted best.
Hmmm. Just checking his most checkable prediction, he expected a COVID fatality rate of ca. 0.1%. The most reliable answer I could find in a hurry was here, which gives a median infection fatality rate of 0.3-0.5% for the year 2020 – albeit with such a huge age variation that it becomes less meaningful to talk in terms of overall rates.
But anyway, this is just one gues by one man – an informed guess but still a guess. One of his Danish equivalents – equally informed, equally credentialled – predicted at the start that COVID, like MERS, would never be a serious problem in Europe. My reaction then was that the Swedes might well end up being proved right, but that there was no way they could know for sure on the available data, and that it was irresponsible gambling on their part to take their initial estimates for granted; I still stand by that. It is too easy to wait till the result is known and then pick the prediction that fitted best.
You are to be applauded: you are quite the comment warrior in this thread – reasonably expositing your point of view against a lot of exasperated people. Yet I believe you are very much wrong. Wishing Mrs. Harrington had included a line about “killing 100,000 to give her kids a normal childhood” badly misunderstands what this debate is about. It’s not about “saving lives.” Every society uses the idea of “balancing harms” as a stalking horse for its actual, underlying values – and we are no different. These are such vast questions, with such unsure data, and so many variables known and unknown, that our attempts to quantify the “balance of harm” are pure pseudo-science… they are masks for the expression of our true values.
There are many examples of this in our society, like the abortion debate, or the dangers of monkeypox to pick something more topical. This was disproportionately centered in the gay community as a result of their sexual practices. If “saving lives” were actually the value that motivated govt response to disease outbreak, we would have policed and prevented the behaviors that contributed to its spread. But on the contrary, the govt altered its science communication to obscure who the most at-risk groups were, and altered its disease response to ensure it would not be seen as discouraging the sexual practices which were spreading the disease. There were higher values than saving lives… pretending that gay sexual practices are safe was necessary to ensure we maximize self-actualization, sexual authenticity, personal freedom, etc.
Just contrast the “practice safe sex” shibboleth of that response, with our COVID response. Why “social distancing” and not “practice safe social interactions”? It wasn’t because society had completed its long calculation of how best to “balance harms.” All along in our COVID response, “savings lives” was a pretext, and underneath you can see our true values.
It is most telling that as you have repeated your comment that Mrs. Harrington should’ve said she wanted to kill 100,000 strangers to give her kids a normal childhood, you have also acknowledged that 100,000 may not be the right number. Just what is the acceptable range of uncertainty for that number, before it can justify such drastic mandates? So too you should acknowledge that though Mrs. Harrington was focused on a “normal childhood” in her essay, that’s not what actually lies on the other side of the balance. Some posting on this site weathered lockdowns without any trouble at all – because our COVID policies favored protecting those vulnerable to COVID, at the expense of those vulnerable to depression, addiction, domestic abuse, unemployment, etc. In other words, the older, richer, more educated, more stable, etc., that you were, the more likely lockdowns were to be a net benefit to you.
And so lockdowns were an expression of the upper class’ highest values… to materialism, to “science,” to expertise, to the beneficence of govt intervention, to the limitless self-righteous authority of the managerial class – in a nutshell, they exemplified the old, old story, of the people in power doing what was good for them, under the pretext of doing good for others. This is the instrument by which most human wrongs have been committed – justifying ourselves by the self-deception that what I want to do, is actually motivated by a desire to help others.
It will not be possible for society to come to a consensus evaluation of the lockdowns until the loyalties that divide us now have faded and been transmuted into some other set of allegiances.
Thanks for the nice words. I do not understand where your argument leads, though. So the people in power tended to do the things that fitted with their thinking, their worldview, and their interests? No surprise there. I will freely admit that the number of 100000 people is picked out of the air, and that there is a lot more on the other side than just ‘having a normal childhood’. Call it ‘rhetorical behaviour’? But I still cannot see any way forward but an abstract commitment to minimising harm – however we define and balance ‘harm’ – and a commitment to get a truthful estimate of the costs of our possible actions. If all we have is different groups trying to impose their values, I see no way to achieve that “the loyalties that divide us now [fade and are] transmuted into some other set of allegiances“. Unless of course President Xi should manage to remake the whole world in his image. The only way forward I could see then would be to fight to make sure that my group wins, and the other groups lose. I am white, male and straight, in case you care. But surely there is a better solution than that?
As for “discouraging the sexual practices which were spreading the disease.”, would the most obvious interpretation not be pragmatic? As was the case for AIDS or teenage pregnancy it is thought that discouraging people from having sex is unlikely to work, and that promoting ‘safe sex’ gives better results?
“No surprise there”? – I guess that means common sense isn’t so common. It was the public ignoring the decision makers’ self-interestedness that allowed those decision makers to harm the very populations they were supposedly serving. The ridiculous deceptions employed by the teachers’ unions and their political agents to ‘protect’ children – who were among the least at risk from COVID and the most at risk from isolation – is one among many illustrations. This seems clear to me… but then why do these lies keep working? Now, that’s the really interesting question, but perhaps off-topic here.
You suggest that the ineffectiveness of abstinence campaigns explains our public health response to gay sex health issues. I think that begs the question. Recall my thesis is that there are much deeper value commitments which are the real bases for our ‘balancing harms’ calculations. Our overlords decided not even to try *persuading* men to abstain from gay sex, despite the risks posed by an almost always fatal disease… but quickly resorted to use of the state’s *police power* to keep people off beaches, out of parks, out of schools, out of churches, even though the disease had almost no health effect on the vast majority of people. I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue that disparate levels of “effectiveness” explain the two differing public health responses. Does it make any sense that arresting people on beaches saved more lives from COVID than doing more to prevent promiscuous gay sex would’ve saved from AIDS?
It seems obvious to me that walking on the beach at the peak of COVID was a much healthier activity than bathhouse sex was at the peak of AIDS. Yet one prompted police intervention, while the other gave us ad campaigns promoting condom use. What this demonstrates is that ‘saving lives’ is in many cases so difficult to calculate, that we will allow our other values to put a thumb on the scale when the calculation is being read. Our society’s commitment to sexual freedom as a form of sexual self-actualization is (it turns out) much higher than its commitment to educating children, freedom of worship, or other mundane (though once sacrosanct) activities.
I think there is a much simpler explanation for the difference. In the case of AIDS each individual can keep himself completely safe without excessive trouble, by avoiding (unsafe) sex and needle sharing. The risk is overwhelmingly to the people choosing to do the risky activities – and if the risk of a deadly disease is not enough to make someone keep it in his pants, the risk of a fine or a scolding publicity campaign is unlikely to make much difference.
COVID being an airborne disease, the only way to keep yourself safe is to remain 100% isolated. Which is of course impossible, so at most you can reduce your own risk. Here reducing transmission is a matter of reducing risk *for other people*. If you are young and strong you may well think that the risk is too small for you to worry about, but by refusing to take precautions you are passing the risk on to your contacts who might catch it from you – and they do not share either your fun or your sense of invulnerability. In the specific case of schools, the rationale is not to protect the children, as much as to protect their parents, grandparents, and teachers,. and those who might in turn catch it from them.
In fact pandemic control is a clear example of a collective action problem. The costs of complying are individual, but the benefits are collective. Everybody benefits by keeping transmission low, but it only works if there is a high degree of compliance. Individually you get the best of both worlds if everybody else takes the trouble (protecting you) but you yourself do nothing (saving yourself any inconvenience). Here you can only get people to cooperate if you can convince them that other people will cooperate too, otherwise they would be fools for taking trouble that will ultimately benefit no one. And closing beaches, handing out fines, etc. can have a big effect in enforcing compliance – and in convincing everybody that the rules are going to be respected even in the cases where it seems like more hassle than it is worth.
I think there is a much simpler explanation for the difference. In the case of AIDS each individual can keep himself completely safe without excessive trouble, by avoiding (unsafe) sex and needle sharing. The risk is overwhelmingly to the people choosing to do the risky activities – and if the risk of a deadly disease is not enough to make someone keep it in his pants, the risk of a fine or a scolding publicity campaign is unlikely to make much difference.
COVID being an airborne disease, the only way to keep yourself safe is to remain 100% isolated. Which is of course impossible, so at most you can reduce your own risk. Here reducing transmission is a matter of reducing risk *for other people*. If you are young and strong you may well think that the risk is too small for you to worry about, but by refusing to take precautions you are passing the risk on to your contacts who might catch it from you – and they do not share either your fun or your sense of invulnerability. In the specific case of schools, the rationale is not to protect the children, as much as to protect their parents, grandparents, and teachers,. and those who might in turn catch it from them.
In fact pandemic control is a clear example of a collective action problem. The costs of complying are individual, but the benefits are collective. Everybody benefits by keeping transmission low, but it only works if there is a high degree of compliance. Individually you get the best of both worlds if everybody else takes the trouble (protecting you) but you yourself do nothing (saving yourself any inconvenience). Here you can only get people to cooperate if you can convince them that other people will cooperate too, otherwise they would be fools for taking trouble that will ultimately benefit no one. And closing beaches, handing out fines, etc. can have a big effect in enforcing compliance – and in convincing everybody that the rules are going to be respected even in the cases where it seems like more hassle than it is worth.
“No surprise there”? – I guess that means common sense isn’t so common. It was the public ignoring the decision makers’ self-interestedness that allowed those decision makers to harm the very populations they were supposedly serving. The ridiculous deceptions employed by the teachers’ unions and their political agents to ‘protect’ children – who were among the least at risk from COVID and the most at risk from isolation – is one among many illustrations. This seems clear to me… but then why do these lies keep working? Now, that’s the really interesting question, but perhaps off-topic here.
You suggest that the ineffectiveness of abstinence campaigns explains our public health response to gay sex health issues. I think that begs the question. Recall my thesis is that there are much deeper value commitments which are the real bases for our ‘balancing harms’ calculations. Our overlords decided not even to try *persuading* men to abstain from gay sex, despite the risks posed by an almost always fatal disease… but quickly resorted to use of the state’s *police power* to keep people off beaches, out of parks, out of schools, out of churches, even though the disease had almost no health effect on the vast majority of people. I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue that disparate levels of “effectiveness” explain the two differing public health responses. Does it make any sense that arresting people on beaches saved more lives from COVID than doing more to prevent promiscuous gay sex would’ve saved from AIDS?
It seems obvious to me that walking on the beach at the peak of COVID was a much healthier activity than bathhouse sex was at the peak of AIDS. Yet one prompted police intervention, while the other gave us ad campaigns promoting condom use. What this demonstrates is that ‘saving lives’ is in many cases so difficult to calculate, that we will allow our other values to put a thumb on the scale when the calculation is being read. Our society’s commitment to sexual freedom as a form of sexual self-actualization is (it turns out) much higher than its commitment to educating children, freedom of worship, or other mundane (though once sacrosanct) activities.
PS – it is not like I claim that minimising harm and knowing the consequences of our actions will *solve* the problems. The conflicts of interest will still be there. But it ought to give the best possible starting point for settling a solution.
Anyway, thanks for engaging.
Thanks for the nice words. I do not understand where your argument leads, though. So the people in power tended to do the things that fitted with their thinking, their worldview, and their interests? No surprise there. I will freely admit that the number of 100000 people is picked out of the air, and that there is a lot more on the other side than just ‘having a normal childhood’. Call it ‘rhetorical behaviour’? But I still cannot see any way forward but an abstract commitment to minimising harm – however we define and balance ‘harm’ – and a commitment to get a truthful estimate of the costs of our possible actions. If all we have is different groups trying to impose their values, I see no way to achieve that “the loyalties that divide us now [fade and are] transmuted into some other set of allegiances“. Unless of course President Xi should manage to remake the whole world in his image. The only way forward I could see then would be to fight to make sure that my group wins, and the other groups lose. I am white, male and straight, in case you care. But surely there is a better solution than that?
As for “discouraging the sexual practices which were spreading the disease.”, would the most obvious interpretation not be pragmatic? As was the case for AIDS or teenage pregnancy it is thought that discouraging people from having sex is unlikely to work, and that promoting ‘safe sex’ gives better results?
PS – it is not like I claim that minimising harm and knowing the consequences of our actions will *solve* the problems. The conflicts of interest will still be there. But it ought to give the best possible starting point for settling a solution.
Anyway, thanks for engaging.
You keep repeating a counter-factual statistic for which there is absolutely no evidence. The case against mandated lockdowns has become stronger, not weaker, given the accumulated evidence. But clearly YOU want to believe it.
Nor did we actually significantly protect those older people, as I argued above, until much later.
BUT – to the choice as to whether to prioritise the lives of people overwhelmingly at the end of their lives, or of children and younger people. Some of these young people WILL themselves die, and many others be socially stunted and suffer other long lasting consequences as a result of the lockdowns at critical social stages of their development. Of course it was never going to work for many youth not in university etc who were perhaps less likely to obey the rules anyway, as a casual look around my local area of South east London showed. (The Chinese would of course dealt with them extremely harshly as well, yet another chilling consequence of your chilly authoritarian preference ‘for their own good’ philosophy).
I don’t actually think it’s good to encourage young people to break the law, but I was rather glad to see teenagers sitting on park benches with their arms around each other rather than the Chinese / Nazi alternative!
This decision should be an absolute no-brainer.
In the early days of lockdown Unherd published an interview with the eminent Swedish epidemiologist and advisor to the Swedish government, Dr. Johan Giesecke.
https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-from-sweden/
I’d advise everyone to revisit this interview which turned out to be utterly prophetic. In summary, the virus will spread no matter what measures you take and the end results will be much the same, just spread out differently over time. He even foresees that China will take lockdowns to the extreme and will have difficulty implementing an exit strategy.
By contrast, we relied on Neil Ferguson.
You are to be applauded: you are quite the comment warrior in this thread – reasonably expositing your point of view against a lot of exasperated people. Yet I believe you are very much wrong. Wishing Mrs. Harrington had included a line about “killing 100,000 to give her kids a normal childhood” badly misunderstands what this debate is about. It’s not about “saving lives.” Every society uses the idea of “balancing harms” as a stalking horse for its actual, underlying values – and we are no different. These are such vast questions, with such unsure data, and so many variables known and unknown, that our attempts to quantify the “balance of harm” are pure pseudo-science… they are masks for the expression of our true values.
There are many examples of this in our society, like the abortion debate, or the dangers of monkeypox to pick something more topical. This was disproportionately centered in the gay community as a result of their sexual practices. If “saving lives” were actually the value that motivated govt response to disease outbreak, we would have policed and prevented the behaviors that contributed to its spread. But on the contrary, the govt altered its science communication to obscure who the most at-risk groups were, and altered its disease response to ensure it would not be seen as discouraging the sexual practices which were spreading the disease. There were higher values than saving lives… pretending that gay sexual practices are safe was necessary to ensure we maximize self-actualization, sexual authenticity, personal freedom, etc.
Just contrast the “practice safe sex” shibboleth of that response, with our COVID response. Why “social distancing” and not “practice safe social interactions”? It wasn’t because society had completed its long calculation of how best to “balance harms.” All along in our COVID response, “savings lives” was a pretext, and underneath you can see our true values.
It is most telling that as you have repeated your comment that Mrs. Harrington should’ve said she wanted to kill 100,000 strangers to give her kids a normal childhood, you have also acknowledged that 100,000 may not be the right number. Just what is the acceptable range of uncertainty for that number, before it can justify such drastic mandates? So too you should acknowledge that though Mrs. Harrington was focused on a “normal childhood” in her essay, that’s not what actually lies on the other side of the balance. Some posting on this site weathered lockdowns without any trouble at all – because our COVID policies favored protecting those vulnerable to COVID, at the expense of those vulnerable to depression, addiction, domestic abuse, unemployment, etc. In other words, the older, richer, more educated, more stable, etc., that you were, the more likely lockdowns were to be a net benefit to you.
And so lockdowns were an expression of the upper class’ highest values… to materialism, to “science,” to expertise, to the beneficence of govt intervention, to the limitless self-righteous authority of the managerial class – in a nutshell, they exemplified the old, old story, of the people in power doing what was good for them, under the pretext of doing good for others. This is the instrument by which most human wrongs have been committed – justifying ourselves by the self-deception that what I want to do, is actually motivated by a desire to help others.
It will not be possible for society to come to a consensus evaluation of the lockdowns until the loyalties that divide us now have faded and been transmuted into some other set of allegiances.
It is true enough that neutral science does not make your choices for you. But then, even with a moral framework it is not exactly clear whether it is more moral to let a lot of people die unnecessarily, or to have a ‘generation of developmentally-delayed babies and toddlers’. As MH says, there are no good choices here. And, as with the notorious ‘trolley problem’, there are no neutral courses of action.
Unfortunately MH still skives away from taking full responsibility for what she proposes. The minimum requirement – and here science can help – is to make an honest estimate of the consequences of either course of action, and to own up clearly to the cost of what you propose. MH says ‘it was terribly wrong to limit the social spaces available to our children‘. She skips over the next bit, which is to say ‘it would have been better instead to let 100000 people die’ (or whatever the right number is). I am not saying she is necessarily wrong – when you are taking life-and-death decisions, that is the kind of trade-off you sometimes have to make. But if you argue for a choice that would kill a lot of people who might have been saved, you should at the very least admit openly (also to yourself) what it is you are doing.