We’re publishing an original piece today by Lockdown Sceptics regular Glen Bishop, a second year maths student at Nottingham University. Glen has read a paper released by the Warwick modelling team that is part of SAGE’s SPI-M group last May and uncovered some interesting facts. Not the least of these is that when the team modelled what the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration refer to as “Focused Protection”, i.e. protecting the elderly and allowing those who aren’t vulnerable to the disease to go about their lives taking sensible precautions, as they would during a normal flu season, the projected loss of life between March 2020 and May 2021 was 138,000, only 11,000 more than the 127,000 that have supposedly died from Covid already, with the Government embracing the suppression strategy endorsed by SPI-M. The modelling team also acknowledges that of all the alternatives to an indiscriminate lockdown, shielding those aged 60 and over would have resulted in the least loss of life as well as the least socio-economic disruption. Here’s the key paragraph from the Warwick paper:
A completely uncontrolled outbreak is predicted to lead to around 200,000 deaths, approximately 2 million QALY losses but no lockdown impacts. If the current controls are maintained until the end of 2020, then we predict 39,000 deaths this year [2020], but a further 159,000 if controls were then completely removed. Regional switching and age-dependent strategies provide alternative exit strategies in the absence of pharmaceutical interventions. Of these, the age-dependent shielding of those age 60 or over generates the lowest mortality and also the lowest lockdown scale, thereby minimising socio-economic disruption. However, it is unclear if a protracted lockdown of this age-group would be practical, ethical or politically acceptable.
Glen’s article is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Whatever the ins and outs of this modelling, incarcerating people, either compulsorily or voluntarily, based on an arbitrary age selection, is unethical and unworkable. It may have escaped notice in the Realms of Academe that the retirement/pension age is at least 65, and many people work up to that age and beyond. Even if they are not in some form of paid employment, many also have other things to do, like child care and so forth. There seems to be an underlying assumption that post-60 people are just a drag, and the best thing to do do with them is to shut them up (for their own good, of course). Any compulsory shielding would be next to unenforceable anyway.
If older people wished to take the advice of Government regarding their health (an unwise move at the best of times) and remove themselves from circulation i.e. shield, at their own volition, and with complete financial and other support where required, then fair enough. In fact, I get the impression that a lot of people of all ages won’t emerge from behind their settees soon, even if we do get to Johnson’s broad sunny uplands of “freedom”, post June 21st.
That’s the point : people are perfectly capable of making their own assessment, based on their circumstances and knowledge.
The problem is that knowledge has been deliberately kept away from most. I am in the vulnerable category – but, having put some effort into looking at the evidence, I know what the risks are (almost non-existent at present), what sensible measures to take (hardly any of those sold by government or significance-seeking crap scientists).
As a result, we have never stopped seeing friends and family, and giving them a hug – indoors or out. Any constraints we have suffered are those imposed by the Fear experienced by other people that prevents them from behaving normally.
At the brief times of peak infection, I might have chosen to avoid packed indoor environments. But we were deprived of that choice.
Good to hear that you ‘did your own thing’ in the stupid pointless lockdown.
I have known many decrepit 45 year olds and many young and energetic 75 year olds – who is to say who is vulnerable? It cannot be decided on age alone.
We too did most of what you did. Funny thing was, most of those who didn’t want to mingle were the younger ones and not, as has been claimed, ‘the boomers’.
I don’t disagree with what you say but how do they square “a protracted lockdown of this group…..” but then go and lock down the whole country instead?
Sorry – but modelling (aka = playing with code) has an appalling record in this shit-show.
So – this tribute to the GBD isn’t much of an endorsement – even if it happens to be correct. We actually don’t need it to endorse simple evidence-based recommendations.
To be honesr as soon as I see the words – modelling and Inoerial college – in the same piece I stop reading because I know it’s going to be drivel.
I find the selectivity of lockdowns to be the worst thing – plebeian activities such as watching football or going to the pub will continue to be heavily restricted.
But can anybody doubt that the Great and Good will assemble 20,000 delegates from all over the world to attend the pointless but virtuous UN COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow in November?
Mr Bishop is a 2nd year student. His analysis is and has been crystal clear. Totally the opposite to all the brains of British academia pleasuring themselves on SAGE. Says it all, sadly.
Mr Bishop deserves to be awared his degree now; 1st Class Honours would seem to be merited.
It may be a trivial point, but we haven’t all lost 1.25 QALY’s. Given that the vast majority of people stayed alive they had some quality of life, even though it was greatly reduced for a lot of people. Therefore the average person may have lost 0.5 QALY’s, although this alone means that the cost of lockdown, even before considering excess deaths due to lockdown and the long term damage that has been done, is far greater than the benefits.
Would it have been possible to have offered screening for insulin resistance and other risk factors, offered assistance to shield for those at high risk along with advice on how they might reduce their risk level through diet and lifestyle changes should they wish to do so, along with practical support to help in such changes? I would call such a service The National Health Service, or NHS for short. Well I would, but the name has already been taken by an illness management and pharmaceuticals promotion service.