I've enjoyed reading the vaccine efficacy discussion. It's not something I've done much independent research into, so thanks to those who have. .... As might be expected in this 'parish', there's been a lot of detailed discussion on narrow topics, but nobody's really responded to my question on whether lockdown will be, in the final analysis, successful or proportionate or damaging and disproportionate.
Well, for a start, although that is 'your question', we're never going to be able to do more than speculate about the answer (presumably on the basis of, very fallible, modelling and suchlike) since there is no way that we can 're-run history' and obtain some actual facts and figures about what 'might have been' with different strategy/management. That is probably at least one reason why there has been "a lot of detailed discussion on narrow topics", since they have at least been topics in relation to which there is data, and scope for scientific discussion, rather than speculation.
However, even if one does try to speculate about the answer to your question, in some senses you are the only person who could answer it, since "successful or proportionate" and "damaging and disproportionate" are very subjective, and potentially emotive, issues about which there will be a very wide spectrum of (often strongly held) views.
My view is that lockdown has turned a public health crisis into not only a public health crisis, but an economic crisis, an education crisis, a mental health crisis, a democratic crisis, a legal crisis and a moral crisis. .... We cannot judge lockdown on sole criterion of suppressing Covid, even if it can be demonstrated that it had some limited effect (which is very much contested). .... I've always thought it disproportionate, and I suspect we will learn just how much over the years to come.
As I've said before, you're far from alone in that view, and are essentially reflecting the view of my daughter and her colleagues, at least in terms of how they feel history will look back on the world (not just the UK!) and ask "what on earth were they thinking back then".
However, as above, your suspicion that, in the years to come, "we" will "learn how disproportionate our responses has been" is seriously complicated by the faction that that "we" consists of millions of individuals with widely varying opinions as to what constitutes "disproportionate". The very word implies a numerical comparison of some sort, and at least some of that comparison would inevitably end up with the always-very-difficult (and controversial, and disturbing, and very emotive) issue of trying to put monetary values on human lives (or deaths).
You're also asking us to speculate about the answer to your question in a very 'one-sided' fashion, since we don't know what you are postulating as an alternative - I think you need to tell us what you feel would have been a "successful and proportionate" approach that would not have turned the public health crisis into all the other types of crisis you mention.
If the population (also known as 'the electorate'
) had been prepared to accept/tolerate it, we could have minimised the impact on the economy, on non-Covid aspects of healthcare (including mental heath), on education etc. etc. by basically 'ignoring' the virus. Absolutely no NPIs and everyone told to carry on working and behaving 'as normal' and with a policy of not offering any NHS treatment to people with Covid infection (who would have to muddle along, and survive or die, at home with minimal, if any healthcare support) - maybe a tiny number could be treated without detrimentally impacting on other NHS activities, but since they were already over-stretched before the pandemic, that would probably be a trivial number.
The economy, NHS, education etc. will then have carried on largely unscathed (so no 'disproportionate' effects on any of them), whilst maybe 500,000 - 1,000,000 people died, probably pretty quickly (probably within a small number of months). Is that the sort of 'proportionate' approach and outcome you are considering (i.e. you feel that such a number of deaths is 'proportionate' to the beneficial effects on economy, healthcare, education etc.) - or did you have some other (workable) approach/strategy in mind?
Finally, I suppose I should declare a sort-of 'vested interest', albeit in behalf of others. A large number of my friends, colleagues and contacts have been working "at the NHS coalface" for nearly 18 months and, even when the last Covid wave subsided as a result of the 'lockdown', they have been under tremendous pressure to address the 'backlog' of non-Covid healthcare. They are exhausted, highly stressed, frustrated, disillusioned and, in many cases, frightened. A good few have suffered mental health problems as a result of the situation and at least one has tried (thankfully unsuccessfully) to take her own life because of the stress etc. - and, for what it's worth, I've lost three colleagues to Covid.
If we allow the number of cases (inevitably followed by everything else) to soar, these NHS staff are going to be the first people to suffer directly. Although Covid hospitalisations are currently low (in comparison with previous waves), thanks to the vaccine, they have been rising quite rapidly (even before today's 'relaxations') and are already at about 15% of their peak in January. If that rise continues (or, as one might expect, worsens) I would suspect that if it gets to anywhere near even 50% of the January peak, that may well represent 'the last straw' for a good few of them (many of whom are 'about to crack'). I realise that front-line NHS workers are only a small proportion of the country's population, but I don't think that is an acceptable reason for ignoring their plight as an 'acceptable price to be paid' for some 'greater good', particularly when so many of them are my friends!!
Kind Regards, John
