"[Britain's] Lockdown Three, I’m sorry to say (and I can hear the howls from sceptics as I write this), is justifiable, practically and ethically. Given the rollout of the vaccine, the emergence of the new variant and the plausible risk of the [UK's] healthcare system falling over, there is probably now no realistic alternative. Whatever one’s objections to the first two lockdowns, on both cost-benefit and libertarian grounds, it is at least a defensible position to acknowledge the merit of a brief lockdown during a maximum-speed vaccination campaign to minimise morbidity and mortality along the way.
"The calculation is entirely different now from that of the previous two lockdowns. Given the vaccine, the variant and the healthcare situation, the current restriction can be supported (regretfully) without cognitive dissonance by those who opposed the previous lockdowns vehemently and vocally. It is either bad logic, bad faith or fundamentalism to argue otherwise."~ Alastair Hames, from his op-ed 'Lockdown sceptics should support this lockdown'
.
1 comment:
The onus of proof to justify lockdowns and other public health measures is proof of their effectiveness beyond reasonable doubt vs other less disruptive measures. Alister Hames is only considering a few of the relevant factors in this article. I’ll identify some of the other factors he should be considering.
Hospitals have been short on capacity during many previous winter flu seasons with the same effects mentioned in the article. I can attest to this occurring in our Starship Children’s hospital. That is the comparison this article should be considering. Should we go into lockdown every winter flu season or are there other effective things we can be doing?
The claim is that Covid-19 peaks might have been higher without intense lockdowns and other measures to “flatten the curve”. However there’s evidence that non-universal measures would have been just as effective if the most important measures are implemented. Comparison of intense lockdown measures vs places where lesser measures were mandated during peaks should provide for reasonable doubt at least for certain conditions in certain geographical and demographic regions.
The alternative most often recommended by sceptical health scientists is provision for premium focussed health monitoring and improvement and protection for the most vulnerable groups. This has been poorly implemented in most countries. For example, closely monitored and well managed diabetes reduces the diabetic person’s risk. Many people can improve their vulnerability.
The other primary measure in my considered opinion is isolation of the infectious. Identification of the infectious is not only by the PCR test due to inaccuracy and the inability to test the whole population. Symptoms are the key. It has been demonstrated by track and trace studies that asymptomatic cases very rarely pass on the virus.
Arguably less necessary or useful measures have clouded the most important messages that the general public need to heed compulsory or otherwise. Two important recommendations are much easier for everybody to understand and comply with than multiple often contradictory and disruptive ones.
I submit that people who are not significantly vulnerable and asymptomatic people should be free to go about their business and ask that universal lockdown proponents prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. I could provide multiple links to support my statements but actually the onus of proof is not on me.
Post a Comment