Lockdown – A Cure That's Worse Than The Disease

Government imposed social lockdowns are a cure that is far worse than the disease. They have caused economies, across the globe, to suffer the worst economic slowdown in 300 years. In developed economies, that is resulting in mass unemployment, rising poverty, inflation, astronomical levels of debt that are on top of existing, already astronomical levels of debt, and rising interest rates that will cause a financial crisis that will dwarf 2008, and, in the short-term, at least, have its own impact on the real economy. In developing, and poor countries, the consequence is much worse. Oxfam calculates that an additional 500 million people will be thrown into poverty as a result of the economic calamity caused by government imposed lockdowns. Tens of millions of people, globally, will die from malnutrition, and other diseases arising as a direct result of the global economic slowdown caused by these self-inflicted lockdowns. That is death and destruction on a scale far greater, and which will persist for far longer, than even the worst catastrophist predictions of what COVID19, itself, would have caused, had there been no response to it. What is worse, as an effective response, lockdown itself has proved useless. A look at a scattergraph of countries imposing lockdowns plotted against mortality rates shows no correlation between the two.

Source: https://www.pandata.org.za/category/reports/

Yet, those that proposed this crazy solution, at the start, persist in purveying the myths and outright lies that were used to justify the lockdown in the first place, so as to cover themselves, as the devastating consequences of their agenda begins to become apparent. 

For example, from the very beginning, we knew that COVID19 is very targeted on the type of people for whom it poses a serious risk. The data provided by Imperial College, based on actual deaths in China, showed that it posed a risk to elderly people that was more than a thousand times greater than for younger people. 

Age group	% symptomatic cases requiring hospital	% hospitalised cases requiring critical care	% Infection Fatality Ratio
0 to 9	0.1	5.00	0.002
10 to 19	0.3	5.00	0.006
20 to 29	1.2	5.00	0.030
30 to 39	3.2	5.00	0.080
40 to 49	4.9	6.30	0.150
50 to 59	10.2	12.20	0.600
60 to 69	16.6	27.40	2.200
70 to 79	24.3	43.20	5.100
80+	27.3	70.90	9.300

Any sensible risk assessment would have taken that information, and concluded that an effective strategy involved protecting those elderly people from the risk of infection. As I wrote, months ago, when we identify that it is only people with serious nut allergies who are at risk of a serious allergic reaction or death from eating nuts, we try to enable that minority to avoid nuts, and to provide them with a response should those attempts fail. We do not ban all nut production, or the use of nuts in foods, or ban every individual, including those not at risk from nuts, from coming into contact with them. A sensible risk assessment and response, always starts from identifying a level of risk, and to make provision for eliminating the highest risk. Why on Earth try to ban social interaction by 100% of the population, and in the process destroy your economy, when it it is only 20% of the population (the large majority of whom are elderly, and not in work) who are at serious risk? 

For something like coronavirus, which is highly contagious, attempts to prevent its spread are likely a costly and ineffective fool's errand. That is why it has never been possible to contain the spread of the common cold, which is also caused by the coronavirus amongst others. Those countries that appeared to have early success with trying to prevent, or slow, the spread of COVID19, via extensive test and trace solutions, are themselves now finding that, as soon as they relax those measures, the virus flares once more, and, in many places, those responses are simply not capable of keeping pace with the rate of infection. The truth is that COVID19 is a coronavirus, as is the common cold, and we already know that the common cold is constantly with us, infecting new hosts each year, the only protection against it being that people who had it in previous years, develop their own antibodies, and so a herd immunity develops to limit the extent of the spread. Even so, the common cold kills thousands of people each year, not by its direct effect, but because, as with COVID19, for certain groups of people that have no effective immune response to it, it results in secondary complications, such as the development of pneumonia. 

Societies have not closed down social interaction to prevent the recurrence of the common cold, just as they have not closed down social interaction to prevent the annual flu epidemics that kill, on average, half a million people, each and every year. Instead, societies try to protect those at risk from these viruses from infection. In the case of flu, vaccines have been produced that are given, in many countries, free to those in at risk groups, such as the elderly, the young, those with underlying illnesses such as asthma, diabetes and so on, and which, thereby enables a process of developing herd immunity to prevent the spread of the virus. 

And, the reason for this response is rational. It is only a small minority of those infected who are at serious risk of severe ill-health or death. The mortality rate for flu is around 0.1% of those infected, for the common cold much less. The mortality rate for COVID19 is also likely to turn out to be no more than for flu, and probably less, if taken over a number of years. Even if taken for a single year, its likely to be no worse, if adjusted for the fact that, in Britain, for example, most of those at risk from infection by flu, are protected against it by having the annual flu jab. In other words, so far, around 45,000 people have died from COVID19, in Britain, which is more than twice the number who died from flu in 2018 (17,000), but that is probably because far more people have been infected with COVID19 than are infected with flu, because the herd immunity against flu developed over years of infections, alongside widespread vaccinations, limits its spread. 

Yet, the media has persisted in spreading the concept that everyone is equally at serious risk from COVID19, which is a lie. The data from Imperial showed from the start that the elderly were the ones at serious risk, followed some way behind by those that have underlying conditions that impair their immune response, one such condition, now being identified as obesity, which, in reality, was apparent from the start, given its relation to diabetes and other conditions. But, not only did the original data show that that would be the case when the virus spread in Britain and elsewhere, the subsequent data on deaths and serious ill-health further confirms it. The ONS data show that 89% of deaths, in Britain, are of those aged over 65. In other words, 45,812 out of a total of 51,264.  It shows just 6 people under the age of 14 having died, and even up to aged 44, only a further 551. That is just a clear and simple fact, and so continuing to claim that younger people are at equal risk amounts to being simply just a lie.

Recently, on TV, I heard one medical professional respond, when asked about this, in a typically duplicitous manner. She stated that the median age of deaths was 45. But, a median age, is meaningless. The median is simply the mid point between the oldest and youngest deaths that have occurred, so its no wonder that the median is somewhere in the mid 40's! If 100,000 people aged 80 die, whilst just one person aged 20 dies, the median age of death is mid way between 20 and 80, i.e. 50, even though 99.99% of people who died were aged 80! The only meaningful average is the mean, and measured on that basis, the actual average age of death, in Britain, is 81. 

Large numbers of people jumped on to a bandwagon demanding lockdowns at the beginning. Some did so for shortsighted political opportunist reasons, some did so because they did not want to be the ones pointing out that the Emperor had no clothes on, and like all bureaucrats preferred to parrot an official line. But, the insanity of the lockdown, as a response, is becoming clear, and those that are responsible for it, have to continue to try to deny reality, in order to cover their culpability for the unfolding catastrophe. Whilst lockdowns have not stopped the spread of the virus, and huge numbers of people have died unnecessarily, where they have been actually locked down in care homes and hospitals.  COVID deaths in care homes account for around a third of all COVID19 deaths.  Whilst as soon as the lockdowns are even relaxed the virus begins, inevitably, to spread rapidly once more, because no herd immunity has been developed, economies have been wrecked. 

The US saw a 35% drop in its GDP, on an annualised basis in the second quarter. Similar drops are being seen in other developed economies. Unemployment has soared, despite large numbers being artificially kept on payrolls by government backed furlough schemes. Some of those that proposed lockdowns, now want to have governments deal with the economic effects of the lockdown policy they promoted, by having them continue these schemes. That is as insane, and as much a refusal to accept reality, as the lockdown policy itself. If new value is not being created by labour, because labour is not being undertaken, as a consequence of lockdowns, then the equivalent form of that value, money, is not being created either. If you ask governments to simply print more money tokens to hand out that is insane, because it means that all of these money tokens that are essentially IOU's, then chase after a load of commodities – goods and services – that have not been produced. Its the kind of madness that causes hyperinflation. 

Alongside that there is vast amounts of borrowing by businesses, households and governments to cover the impact of the lockdowns, which will cause interest rates to spike, and cause a crash in asset prices that will dwarf 2008. In the aftermath of 2008, the credit crunch impacted the real economy itself, but banks and other companies that had speculated in asset prices also went bust, which has a knock on effect on the real economy. However, the real damage after 2008, came from the imposition of austerity by conservative governments, and also by the attempt to reflate asset prices by using QE to divert potential money capital away from productive investment, and back into speculation in financial and property markets. That is not possible this time around. 

Economies that did not lockdown have not been as badly hit economically as those that did. Sweden, for example, did not lock down, and its GDP, is likely to show only about a 7% contraction, when its announced on Wednesday, which is about a third of the contraction suffered by its neighbours, and other EU countries. But, it is still a contraction, and inevitably so, because no country can be separated from the global economy, and particularly the economies of its nearest neighbours and trading partners. The economic catastrophe caused by government imposed lockdowns has already had an effect on the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, therefore, and we know that this has long term effects on health and mortality. Where large scale deaths from COVID19 are probably a short-term phenomenon, until herd immunity is acquired, the damage to health of the population due to economic catastrophe, resulting from government lockdowns is a long-term effect. People will suffer ill-health and death for decades as a consequence of those government imposed lockdowns. 

Oxfam -  has said that 500 million additional people will be pushed into poverty as a result of the economic chaos caused by government imposed lockdowns. Millions will die from malnutrition, as the global slowdown necessarily has its greatest effect on the poorest in society, and on the poorest economies in the world economy.  Those that promoted these lockdowns need to be held accountable for the economic chaos, and death and destruction they are causing, and which will be with us for years to come.  In Britain, that economic chaos is wholly the responsibility of the Tory government.  Don't let them get away with it.