Cost Of Lockdown Not Worth Lives Saved

[Hymie]

This study claims that the lockdown has not been worth the economic cost.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8555171/The-cost-lockdown-Britains-economy-not-worth-lives-saved-study-claims.html

If only we had had some visionary, who at the start of all this could have predicted this – how much loss to the economy we could have prevented.

Of course such a person would have had to have a brilliant mind to see the consequences that no one else foresaw – but undoubted if they posted their ideas on social media sites (such as AB) they would have been ridiculed by others and had their posts deleted by moderators.

If only we were lucky enough such a have such a person amongst us, we should all bow-down and pay homage to them.

Hey, wait a minute – didn’t this guy post exactly that, back in March of this year?

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1703112.html
See the post timed at 21:38 on 13 April in this post – Wow!!!!

[ichkeria]

It’s interesting reading about Sweden which never had a lockdown. Was treated as a pariah state by the rest of Scandinavia and saw very large rates of infection and deaths.
And yet scientists are divided on whether it was a good or a bad thing as their objective was the same as ours:
“The strategy was to flatten the curve, not overwhelm health care capacity. That seems to have worked. If you take care homes out of the equation, things actually look much brighter”

That sounds pretty much like here

[ichkeria]

The cute versus solution balance is very tricky. You didn’t need to be a visionary to see that the cost economically would be huge. But it’s not as simple as that because you can’t be seen to be just letting people die

[fiction-factory]

"It calculates that 440,000 lives have been saved by lockdown"

I suppose it depends whether they would have included us or loved ones or friends- or just been old/overweight/ill people we didn't know

[douglas9401]

I remember a drop-in used for a while on QI.

NOBODY KNOWS.

[Gromit]

That post was stupid.

The Government has to prevent 500,000+ Excess deaths. Because it is seen as preventable, and the people that let it happen are culpable. And it would be a huge cost to the economy.
As it was, they let 65,000 die, and that might have political consequences at the end of this pandemic, but certainly a lot less cost than doing nothing.

[jourdain2]

It's all been overdone i.m.o.. The long-term damage is incalculable (including effects on negotiations for trade deals etc now going on). I've never been able to understand it. It's a very nasty disease, I understand, but we've never done anything as stupid as this current reaction before. (I remember outbreaks of Scarlet Fever, Smallpox, Polio, Measles and Mumps in the 1950s.) More people will die as a result of the recession and cutbacks to come. I didn't post at the time because I had a very wonky computer and it seemed too obvious.

You are right, Hymie, say anything outside 'Hide away, your children will die' etc. etc.. brought massive opprobrium. Happened to me when I said kids should be at school.

[woofgang]

“To know what would have happened, child? said Aslan. No. Nobody is ever told that.”
CS Lewis

[andy-hughes]

The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I did echo Hymie's point at the time - that the saving of lives has to be balanced against the damage to the entire society, including those saved.

Hindsight will show the mistakes made, but hindsight always does.

I believe one of the problems was relying on the calculations of scientists whose projections in other instances have proved wildly inaccurate.

Slavery to boffins never ends well.

[allenlondon]

Nice link to that old AB post where some notable AB ‘luminaries’ were poo-pooing the predicted death toll.

May they now admit their gross error of judgment!

[jim360]

To be honest what I get out of this is that our economy is poorly designed.

[andy-hughes]

allenlondon - // … some notable AB ‘luminaries’ … //

What's that, and how do you get to be one?

[mushroom25]

from today, we all wear masks in the shops; on the news tonight were ominous rumblings about the state of retail if we're still wearing them at Christmas. well we will be, and we'll still be wearing them in 12 months, maybe longer. and we'll still be socially distanced too. it's not over yet by a long way, and that's not taking account of a second spike, which all the medicos are predicting (another 3 month curve-flattening lockdown, anyone?)

[jourdain2]

'Slavery to boffins never ends well.' Exactly, A-H (as I have postulated before and been castigated for before). It is a matter of fact that when Boris said words to the effect that 'They would be guided by the science' Mr. J2 and I looked at each other and said -'It will be a disaster'. I know you only have my word for it, but it is true.

Woofgang - yes, hindsight is great. In this case I was arguing my point for months and months. It has cost me dearly with hate posts on other media and my younger daughter (to whom I have given my life to help this last year by collecting kids from a school 57 miles away etc. so she could complete a teaching qualification) actually used the 'f' word to me when I stuck to my p.o.v.. The relationship is now, so far as I can see, defunct after 40 loving years. 'Cassandra' comes to mind.

[woofgang]

jourdain, my post is not about hindsight.

[New Judge]

//To be honest what I get out of this is that our economy is poorly designed.//

No it isn't. It works perfectly well. Of course if you forcibly shut huge swathes of it down, with the collateral damage that follows to businesses depending on the closed ones, then it will falter.

[youngmafbog]

I still stand by my post at the top of that thread.

All over the top, the mask thing now is ludicrous.

IMHO Boris and Han Cock are finished.

[youngmafbog]

Jim, you really dont understand finance do you?

Let me guess, you are paid out the public purse?

[youngmafbog]

"Slavery to boffins never ends well."

That sentence alone warrants BA.

[jim360]

You guess wrongly, ymb.

I don't claim to be an expert in economics. Because it would be clearly wrong. Here, maybe I'm just being straight-up naive. But I'm still left wondering if an economy that, in essence, relies on staying open in a way that leads to a lot of people dying is an economy worth saving.

Still, here's a thought: why not try to explain what's flawed about this way of thinking for a change?

[jim360]

"Slavery to boffins never ends well."

Who can argue with this when expressed so baldly? But that's not really what was happening in this case (ie the "following the science" mantra also carries the "not our fault, guys" message, which is pretty convenient politically). As a case in point, the recent "mask thing" isn't based on some fresh, updated scientific advice: various of the key scientists have made it clear that the position on masks hasn't materially changed since around April.

And, besides, to whom are you going to listen if not people who have studied the subject intensely for their entire career? Not to mention the collective experience of the field that these people represent. Almost by definition, the only people left to listen to, if not the experts, are those who *don't* have any experience.

Slavery to any mindset is obviously damaging. There's nothing unique about the "boffin" that deserves extra contempt.