So, here we go again. As of Thursday, most of our daily life, such as it has been in recent months, will shut down again. The tiered system was given but weeks, only to be temporarily chucked out of the window. There are massive contrasts with how this has been received - polling suggests a clear majority of people in favour of locking down, while Labour were calling for it for the last couple of weeks - but there has been widespread anger and disbelief. A number of Conservative members have torn up their membership cards as a result, while the business community has largely reacted negatively.
The issues at hand are: has the right approach to dealing with Covid-19 been taken throughout; why apply a national lockdown to what appears to be a more localised problem; should we trust the numbers; what are the alternatives.
Now, as always I caveat things by saying that when it comes to the science, I'm only a short step away from "dunce" category (I do have an AS Level in Chemistry, but that's as far as it goes). Where I do possess an amount of expertise is in data analysis, but even then my expertise is more reactive than in forecasting (although I am in print predicting the 2008 recession when the official line was to deny it - yay me and Vince Cable). All I can do is look at the numbers, the regional variances and make inferences based on those.
Anyway, I digress. When cases started to increase once again, the government introduced their tiered system of localised measures. On the face of it, these were sensible and could account for local spikes being controlled, while allowing those in lower risk areas to continue in some sort of normality. There remained quibbles with some measures, such as the "Rule of 6", for example in why small children counted towards this figure where they haven't elsewhere. As a result, by dint of my sister very selfishly deciding to have another baby in February, we haven't been able to meet up due to now being seven between us.
London then moved into Tier 2 a couple of weeks ago, which once again causes many beneath the surface issues. My wife had a rare night out with some friends planned, that had to be cancelled. One other issue remained for those living on the outer edge of London in that these rules could easily be circumnavigated. Last week my wife, daughter and I decided to treat ourselves to a Sunday roast at a pub owned by friends of ours. In chatting to our friend, she made the valid complaint that the Tier 2 restrictions meant they were losing custom to places on the other side of the zone, about a 10 minute drive away, because they weren't subjected to the same restrictions on who could sit and eat together.
The Numbers Game
The big question regarding the announcement on Saturday regarded the numbers being put before us, and gives rise to the suspicion that we may not have approached things well. A chart was presented by Messrs Whitty and Vallance that showed estimated death rates using a variety of models. The problem was the figures used to justify the lockdown came from Public Health England, whose forecast of around 4,000 deaths per day at its peak (without new measures) put all other figures massively in the shade - including those of Imperial, usually the benchmark for ultra-pessimistic predictions. When one model is shown to be massively out of step with other models, the usual approach is to treat this as an outlier, not the basis upon which to make political decisions.
While there is no denying that the number of cases is increasing, as is the daily death rate (currently running at around the same level as in late May despite the figures at that time including "suspected" deaths rather than only "confirmed" as is the case now), there appears to be no basis currently whereby a figure of 4,000 deaths per day would be reached. I have no doubt the situation re: deaths will get (possibly a lot) worse before it gets better, but while deaths in the first wave hit a peak of around 1,000 deaths per day, I'd be interested to know how a figure of 4,000 per day was arrived at.
Some have speculated that PHE went off outdated figures and had updated their model to be showing a peak closer to 1,000 - with further speculation that the 4,000 figure was kept for political expediency purposes (i.e. it's easier to justify draconian measures based off the higher number). If this turns out to be the case, then heads should roll, quite frankly.
A Question of Compliance
My fear is that this new lockdown may prove difficult to enforce. Back in March when the country first went into lockdown, the overwhelming majority felt that it was a necessary evil. Even though we as a country are used to being free to come and go as we please, there was a sense that "we're all in it together" and so people queued dutifully outside the shops, they gave each other a wide berth on the pavement, they didn't flout the regulations. Cracks did eventually begin to show, especially amongst the younger members of society who, perhaps fairly, thought themselves less at risk and therefore less justified in being locked up, but even then most people were compliant and were relieved when the country began to be opened up once more.
While snap polling indicated public support (even amongst Conservative voters) for this new lockdown, anecdotally this doesn't necessarily appear to be the case. Perhaps it's an echo chamber mentality, but the Conservative Facebook groups are in meltdown over this. Some have announced their resignation from the party, others continuing to support the party but not these measures. Several prominent Conservative MPs too have said they will not support the new lockdown, although with Sir Keir Starmer announcing he will support it, there's no danger of the measures not being approved.
As for the public, the contrast in the weather currently vs the first lockdown may instil an artificial sense of compliance as people tend to stay indoors more during bad weather - but had we been enjoying an Indian Summer I suspect compliance would have been a massive issue.
The Health of the Nation vs The Health of the People
A major battle of wills when dealing with this pandemic is about how to balance mitigating and controlling the virus with mitigating and controlling the damage to the economy and the overall health of the people. When the pandemic first hit, capacity in the NHS was given over mainly to handling patients with the virus, to the detriment of a number of other people dealing with their own serious health issues (both physical and mental). The damage to the economy was inevitable as the government sought to deal with businesses forced to close and people losing their jobs (or having their hours restricted).
Businesses have struggled to get back to some sort of normality, only to be now told to close again. For many, this will have been the final straw, and with no end in sight will throw in the towel - causing further damage to the economy. Economic crises tend to exacerbate other issues around public health, giving rise to the very real concern that the cure is proving to be worse than the illness. If by saving 1,000 lives to the virus you cause 2,000 unnecessary deaths to other ailments (including suicide), where does it end?
The key remains how to exit entirely from the restrictions we find ourselves under - and of course the number one exit route remains the development of, and widespread implementation of, an effective vaccine. We keep being told that a vaccine is imminent, but how imminent is imminent? And how much longer can we put the economy on hold until it's in place?
The Alternative?
The main alternative that has been mooted is to shield the vulnerable while allowing others to go about their business as normal. This is certainly not without its merits - it keeps the economy going, it accounts for the fact that most people can experience Covid without serious issues, and there's the possibility of some sort of herd immunity developing (although sadly it seems the antibodies fade over time, going by recently published research).
The issue I see with this is that you cannot imprison the vulnerable forever, and that their vulnerability to Covid could be outweighed by their vulnerability to other issues (physical and mental). My mother is considered to be highly vulnerable due to Diabetes (the result of an operation that removed most of her pancreas, and therefore destroyed her immune system) - fortunately she lives in a house in the middle of nowhere with a big garden and a swimming pool, so shielding isn't so much of an issue. However, she's a lucky one, others stuck in a bedsit or a care home alone may not be so lucky.
If we could guarantee that those needing to shield would be guaranteed (rather than hoped for) a vaccine by Christmas, then I would say "go for it". However, it's my belief that the elderly and vulnerable need to be able to have some sort of life too, so I err on the side of mitigation rather than imprisonment.
In Conclusion
To conclude, overall I'm not in favour of this new lockdown - although I shall comply with the new restrictions, as I have done throughout the various degrees of restrictions imposed since March. My ambition back in March was to have some sort of Cricket season - the measures taken ensured that we got a half-season, for which I was so grateful. My ambition now is that we will be able to take part in our usual large family Christmas - and if these measures enable us to get together in Dorset, I will consider it to have been worthwhile.
What we do need to do is ensure we can trust just *why* these measures are being put in place. Fiddling the figures for political expediency is not the way forward, and will only breed mistrust. While I appreciate the need to paint a worst case scenario, the worst case should be realistic, and there's little evidence to suggest this is the case.
We'll see over the coming weeks whether the new restrictions will have a lasting effect on case and death numbers, but in my opinion it's fine to remain sceptical, whether that it is about whether these restrictions are necessary or whether these restrictions will solve the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment