Yesterday, a short paper titled “SARS-CoV-2 elimination, not mitigation, creates best outcomes for health, the economy, and civil liberties” was published in The Lancet. The authors claim, “Countries that consistently aim for elimination – i.e., maximum action to control SARS-CoV-2 and stop community transmission as quickly as possible – have generally fared better than countries that opt for mitigation – i.e., action increased in a stepwise, targeted way to reduce cases so as not to overwhelm health-care systems.”
This claim is supported by three charts, each comparing “OECD countries opting for elimination” with “OECD countries opting for mitigation” (see below). The first chart shows that “OECD countries opting for elimination” had fewer deaths per million; the second shows that they had smaller declines in GDP; and the third shows that they had less restrictive lockdowns.
The authors note, “With the proliferation of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, many scientists are calling for a coordinated international strategy to eliminate SARS-CoV-2.” They also note, “Countries that opt to live with the virus will likely pose a threat to other countries” whereas those “opting for elimination are likely to return to near normal”.
One might be tempted to conclude that “elimination” (or “Zero Covid” as it’s sometimes termed) is a sensible strategy going forward. However, I don’t find the authors’ analysis very convincing.
First, they don’t explain how they classified countries as either “opting for elimination” or “opting for mitigation”. For example, did they simply look at outcomes (which would be circular), or did they examine statements by politicians from the spring of last year? (E.g., “This Government will pursue an elimination strategy.”) It’s not clear.
Only five countries were classified as “opting for elimination”: Australia, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. All other OECD countries were classified as “opting for mitigation”. It may have occurred to you that the five “eliminationist” countries are not exactly representative. Four are islands and one is a peninsula (with a fairly impenetrable border to the north). Two are East Asian. And in fact, these two – Japan and South Korea – are the only East Asian countries in the OECD.
As I argued in a piece for Quillette, all the Western countries that have kept their death rates low are geographically peripheral countries that imposed strict border controls at the start (Norway and Finland, plus a few islands). Their geographic circumstances not only made border controls practical, but also gave them a head start in responding to the pandemic.
It’s very unlikely that large, highly connected countries like France, Italy or the US would have been able to contain the virus during the deadly first wave. And although Britain is an island, we probably wouldn’t have been able to either. The epidemic was already more advanced in London and other international hubs by the time most Western countries introduced lockdowns and social distancing.
In other words, “elimination” was probably never a realistic option for Britain and other large Western countries – even if it could have a passed a cost-benefit test. But what about Japan and South Korea?
Although South Korea did use a combination of early lockdowns and strict border controls to contain the virus, the same cannot be said for Japan. According to the Oxford Blavatnik School’s COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Japan has had only two days of mandatory business closures and zero days of mandatory stay-at-home orders since the pandemic began. (And the two days of mandatory business closures were the 25th and 26th of April this year.)
Japan did introduce border controls quite early, which may have protected it during the first wave. However, these were not sufficient to prevent an epidemic from burgeoning in the winter of 2020–21. (By early February, the number of daily deaths was in the 90s.) Yet this epidemic retreated without any real lockdown measures being imposed, which suggests that some other cultural or biological factor accounts for Japan’s success.
Second, even if you believe an “elimination” strategy was feasible for Britain and other large Western countries in the early weeks of the pandemic, that ship has arguably sailed. This is particularly true for Britain, where almost 70% of adults now have COVID antibodies. In other words: while it might have been sensible to “eliminate” the virus last spring (assuming that was possible), the costs of doing so now would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.
Overall, the Lancet study does not provide a strong case for “elimination” of COVID-19. And in fact, a survey by Nature of 119 experts found that 89% believe it is “likely” or “very likely” that SARS-CoV-2 will become an endemic virus. As Michael Osterholm – an American epidemiologist – noted, “Eradicating this virus right now from the world is a lot like trying to plan the construction of a stepping-stone pathway to the Moon. It’s unrealistic.”
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.
The oddest thing about Welby is his mixture of nihilism and atheism.
His true faith is Globalism.
So Catholic Peter Harris wants to replace Welby with a Catholic woman Helen Ann-Hartley, one of many Catholics subverting the Protestant Church of England, to drag everyone back into worshipping the Impostor Goddess of the Fake Virgin Birth and her Stolen Child, instead of Almighty God.
We know from the New Testament what St. Paul’s view of women preachers was, but modern politics easily sweeps that aside.
“Bishop” Helen Ann-Hartley and her fellow Bishop Martyn Snow were criticised by Reverend Dr. Thomas Woolford for promoting the church blessing of Sodomite Marriage, sodomy being the reason God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for which the practice of sodomy was named. “Sodomy” is a very useful English word for unnatural sexual relations between males with males, females with females, and humans with animals. No need for all the confusing and ridiculous labels like LBGTQ-whatever, when the one English word “Sodomy” suffices for all.
Well I’ve no time for the organised church of any and all persuasion.
They’re nothing but parasites, sucking at the teat of the poor, living in palaces decorated with the greatest works of art and preaching poverty.
Here’s the Marxist Pope praying before his new Vatican Nativity Set, featuring Stolen Baby E-zus lying on a MUSLIM PALESTINIAN SCARF!
Vatican Nativity Scene Features Baby Jesus on Palestinian Scarf
My god what a horror show.
Shame!
What am appalling bell-end he is.
Not called Justin for nothing.
I do think the name ‘Justin Isobel End’ does have a certain refined ring to it.
Let’s hope that whoever becomes his successor understand the following: Past injustices can’t be remedied by committing present-day injustices. The duty of the church is to its congregations and to the cultural heritage which is part of itself. It’s not to people who nowadays demand money for something which never even affected, let alone harmed them. Sins of dead people and what – if anything – is to be done about them belong to realm of God and not man. So, take care of your present-day duties, that is, don’t be so injust to punish, if only indirectly, church members of today for supposed sins of people who died long before their birth. Let God deal with what is rightfully his own and tell the reparation spongers to go pester someone else for spare millions.
The photographer clearly caught up with him at the weekend.
Basically, yet another entitled, out of touch, member of the establishment, blinded by his own vanity but still considers himself to be some form of egalitarian expert.
If Hartley is raised to the Canterbury See,
That will be the end of the CofE!
As a practicing Christian. For some time I’ve thought of Welby as Satan’s acolyte.
I wonder why so many old Etonians – that most Establishment of Establishment educational institutions in the UK – seem to be implementing a mission to destroy the public’s respect for ALL our ancient governmental Institutions?
When you look at the list of those who are responsible for the clusterfcuk the UK has become, it is noticeable how many went to that school.
A loathsome character. He probably feels misunderstood and unfairly treated. Let him crawl under a rock.
Welby is just the current symbol behind the fact that religions and their institutions are the problem. Whoever replaces him, more abuses will occur and we’ll be reading about them in the future & how those in charge chose to protect the organisation’s survival and reputation over the safety and well being of the public.
Just like mosques.
I did say religions.