As most of the Western world is in strict lockdown to fight Coronavirus, those who are sceptical about the policy of lockdown find it hard to be heard. Mainstream media largely ignore dissenting voices and the UK government has gagged themselves when it comes to presenting any argument against lockdown for fear of ‘diluting the message’. But there are good reasons to be sceptical about the lockdown. Here is a list of ten:
- There is no scientific consensus on the threat of Coronavirus. In the UK and some other Western countries, policy has largely been shaped by a highly influential paper from London’s Imperial College. But the report’s dire predictions of spread and death toll are controversial. An alternative paper from Oxford University’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease lab, which draws starkly different conclusions and was published a few days after the Imperial report, has largely been ignored by both policy makers and the media.
- There is no scientific consensus on the effectiveness of lockdown. Sweden has famously resisted international pressure to lock down their economy and though the country has experienced more deaths than their neighbouring Scandinavian countries, their proportional death toll is much lower than countries like France and the UK who has implemented strict lockdowns.
- The economic cost of lockdown is becoming clearer and it is enormous. Some of the most recent estimates of the economic contraction as a result of Coronavirus ranges from the disastrous to the catastrophic. A drop in UK GDP of 30-35% is now considered likely, amongst others by the Bank of England. Economists and politicians are playing catch-up as the economy craters at an accelerating pace. As an example, the UK government initially estimated an uptake of 3 million for their Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which pays 80% of salaries of furloughed workers. A few weeks later the estimate went up to more than 6 million. At the same time the scheme has been extended from the original end date in June to July. The total cost is estimated at £30-40bn.
- The benefit of lockdown is likely overestimated. If the purpose of lockdown is to save lives, especially the lives of the frail and the elderly who are much more likely to die from Coronavirus, then is important to realise that many of the lives which are being saved are prolonged by mere months. In more brutal words, many of those who are now saved by having access to ICU care will die soon anyway. Many of those who have been saved by being spared exposure to the virus altogether will also die soon anyway.
- If lockdown worked at all, it has already served its purpose. The purpose was to prevent overwhelming health care services. In the UK, despite dire warnings in March, the NHS has plenty of ICU capacity and the number hospitalized with the virus has dropped considerably, mainly in London. Though reported deaths from the virus are still over 800/day, those deaths are often dating back days, and are not the actual count of new hospital deaths. That number is much lower and shows that the UK is clearly beyond the peak.
- The curve will flatten automatically, even without lockdown. As the virus spreads through the population, the weakest and most susceptible will die first. This natural selection will automatically flatten the curve, both of deaths and of those needing hospitalization.
- The death rate could be as low as 0.1%. Estimates of death rates vary wildly between countries and among academics. The data material is poor due to the novelty of the virus. Different countries apply different criteria to what constitutes a Coronavirus death but the main problem is that lack of widespread testing means that the number of infected is largely guess work. But the study from Oxford University puts the death rate at between 0.1% and 0.36%, not much higher than the common flu.
- Herd immunity may already be close to saving us. Herd immunity is obtained when a sufficiently large proportion of the population has been exposed to the virus and have developed antibodies. The exact proportion depends on the infectiousness of the virus. For Covid-19, the number is probably around 70%. In late March, the Oxford paper estimated that half of the population of the UK may have already been infected. We may already have achieved herd immunity. In Sweden. Dr Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist behind the country’s controversial Coronavirus strategy, expects that herd immunity will be reached in May.
- People can think for themselves. As lockdown measures have been lifted in China, life has not returned to normal. Shops and restaurants stand empty as people are reluctant to expose themselves to the risk of infection even if the government tells them that it is ok. Some claim Sweden’s successful strategy of no lockdown is due to the population ‘self-regulating’ – self-isolating if necessary and practising social distancing voluntarily. In any case, the person best able to evaluate risk and reward from a certain behaviour is of course the individual.
- There are other costs than lives and money. In a world where politics permeates almost everything we do, Coronavirus has introduced the long arm of the law into what little private sphere we have left. One early casualty of lockdown was basic civil liberties that only weeks ago seemed sacrosanct. Police have unfortunately but predictably responded with relish to their new powers. It remains to be seen when those new powers will be retracted. Some fear that some measure will be retained, much like some supposed emergency measures introduced after 9/11 are still in place two decades later.
Lockdown should be a controversial policy. But the mainstream media has largely closed ranks with the government and more or less dismissed sceptics to the intellectual dark web. They are portraited as valuing economic prosperity over human lives, a naïve caricature that omits the obvious fact that money (or the wealth it represents) of course is instrumental in preserving life. The cost in human life of an economic Armageddon like the one we are facing will be enormous. Add to that the economic cost and the costs to our freedoms and the case for lockdown looks weak. Eventually measures will be relaxed, not least because the government knows that lockdown fatigue will set in. It is important to make the case against lockdown to accelerate that process.