Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

[ToraToraTora]

An interesting view from Peter Hitchens here. Has he got a point?

[naomi24]

Excellent BA.

[jim360]

The analysis of the BA is sadly somewhat flawed, though. The rise of cases in the UK has gone from exponential to something closer to linear (or possibly quadratic), which indicates that the lockdown measures are having at least some effect. It will take some time to show up, but the same has been true in Spain, Italy etc, where daily deaths grew rapidly to a few hundred and then sort of stalled there.

I'm sorry but it's not an excellent BA, as it is misreading the situation. There can be no doubt that relaxing the measures would lead to the death toll exploding, to the point that the death toll would be surely well into six figures.

It's a shame that Hitchens and NJ are wrong, because what could be better than returning to normal, but it's simply not possible to do so right now.

[ichkeria]

One thing you have to ask though is:
How much worse would it have been without the lockdown
On the other hand, Mr Hitchens is not saying we should do nothing. Just questioning how far we need to go

[jim360]

Just to put the figures into a proper context: before the lockdown, the daily rise in number of cases was averaging 30% (based on data from March 4th-23rd). It's now averaging 10% and still falling. Similar trends can be seen in Spain, France, Italy, etc. The lockdown is working.

[jim360]

Incidentally, there's more or less nobody who takes seriously the claim that we know about everybody who's had it. Clearly, total cases are being under-reported. We can only estimate how many people have had it without being known to be positive/tested, although I believe the generally accepted upper limit in the UK is 10% of the population (6 million). That's probably a bit high, but almost certainly you can multiply the total number of confirmed cases by at least 10 to hit actual cases.

[jim360]

And, finally, what was NJ expecting? That total new cases three weeks into the lockdown would plummet to zero already? That's not how disease spread works. The question, if anything, is not whether the lockdown works but why it wasn't implemented sooner -- witness the trend in New Zealand, for example, where they introduced tough measures much earlier into the disease's progress than here, and the effect has been impressive, to say the least.

[THECORBYLOON]

"The numbers have continued to increase and although the percentage increase is down (as you might expect as the base gets bigger) it is has still averaged almost 10% per day for the last week."

Surely if an infected person infects X number of others on average, without mitigation, that would continue at that rate until the virus begins to run out of folk to infect?

[naomi24]

//it's not an excellent BA//

In my opinion it is … but I’ve already said that. Like NJ many have suffered peculiar flu-type illnesses in recent months - me included. I think most could have safely carried on with normal life, thereby alleviating the devastating cost to the economy that this lockdown will necessarily create. People are working, they’ve worked throughout, and they continue to work.

[jim360]

The problem with that approach is two-fold. Firstly, as long as we don't know who's been affected we can't say who was truly vulnerable, and secondly, as I've already said, the death toll would have been an order of magnitude higher at least if there were no such restrictions.

Economies recover. Lives don't. There's no contest between which the government should have put first.

[Spicerack]

Worth bearing in mind, that video is nearly 3 weeks old.
A long time under the current circumstances.
Mr Hitchins may have revised all or some of his opinions.

[naomi24]

I didn't suggest 'no such restrictions'. I said I think most could have safely carried on with normal life.

[Deskdiary]

I’m even boring myself now with my view that we MUST now consider the economy - put it first.

If the lockdown continues for too long, what we are experiencing now will pale into insignificance; businesses will fail, people will be without jobs, mortgages/rent will go unpaid, people will be destitute and in penury.

The lockdown needs to stop, and it needs to stop as soon as possible.

[jim360]

Perhaps, although apparently not. He's still busy comparing this to "regular flu", which is nonsense, and argued recently that there's no evidence lockdown would save a single life, which is also nonsense. Nobody should take him seriously on this.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/piers-morgan-loses-rag-peter-18012056
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1262665/Piers-Morgan-loses-it-Peter-Hitchens-coronavirus-debate-Good-Morning-Britain-ITV-video

[jim360]

// I didn't suggest 'no such restrictions'. I said I think most could have safely carried on with normal life. //

Fair point, Naomi. Still, the only way to determine who could carry on and who would need to stay at home would be to roll out widespread testing, which is beyond the capabilities of the Government at present*. So a blanket lockdown was reasonable.

*Logistically unfeasible, but hopefully they're moving in the required direction. 100k tests daily will help, for exmaple.

[naomi24]

Jim, people don't need to listen to Peter Hitchens. They are, however, entitled to their own opinions.

[jim360]

Of course. But an opinion if it's based on flawed reasoning needs to be challenged, which is all I'm doing.

[Gromit]

A month ago Donald Trump made similar noises as Hitchens, worrying about the damage to the economy.

Trump said
// we have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done. //

Trump didn’t introduce any lockdown or social distancing until it was far too late. Today the number of cases in the US is not close to zero, it is close to 545,673.

[naomi24]

//But an opinion if it's based on flawed reasoning needs to be challenged. //

But Jim, in my opinion your opinions are based on flawed reasoning - as you know - which is why I challenge them. I don't however declare them to be categorically wrong - which is what you've done here - again.

[Spicerack]

//Trump didn’t introduce any lockdown or social distancing until it was far too late.//

It's not within his power to do so. He could give himself those powers, under CDC Pandemic rules by shutting down democracy and introducing Martial Law. Wonder what you'd say about that?

[fiction-factory]

I'd be interested to see the best example from naomi of jim's flawed reasoning