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.
This tragedy occurred in Bradfordistan yesterday. What’s unusual is that they’ve named the attacker and even stated his ethnicity. Sadly, what isn’t unusual is that as far as stabbings go, much like sexual assaults, it’s the usual suspect, yet to be apprehended;
”Police are hunting a suspect after a young mum was stabbed to death in a busy city centre.
The victim, a 27-year-old woman, was killed ‘in broad daylight’ in Bradford on Saturday afternoon while pushing a pram.
Locals say the victim was stabbed four times in the neck and left to die in front of her baby boy.
Police are still trying ‘to locate and arrest the man responsible’ after he was said to run from the scene in Bradford and have now named Habibur Masum as a suspect.”
https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/07/woman-27-stabbed-death-broad-daylight-killer-loose-20600506/
Good grief.
Enoch was right.
So was Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson, Paul Weston and Sir Winston Churchill.
Paul Weston arrested for quoting Winston Churchill’s words on Islam | Daily Mail Online
Weston quoted Churchill:
‘Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’
Churchill was far too restrained when describing Islam, or maybe he wasn’t fully aware of the horrors that can be imposed, particularly on women, by conservative/fundamentalist Muslims. As just one example, last month the Taliban reintroduced death by stoning for women convicted of adultery. It seems like “adultery” actually means any sex outside of (forced) marriage, including by consenting young women. However we’re all meant to respect Islam and under Sir Kneel Starmer will be guilty of a criminal offence for criticising the “religion of peace”.
True, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Little did Sir Winston imagine that only a few decades after he wrote those words, an Englishman would be arrested for quoting him.
I note the Mail sidebar quotes a longer piece which includes that your quoted.
“‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,’ wrote Churchill.
‘Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
‘The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
‘The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.'”
while I know and have worked with many Moslem who have risen above this, I cannot disagree that this tenet remains valid amongst the majority. I wouldnt mind betting the woman who reported Paul Weston ( a former frequent and informed contributor to Kathy Gyngell’s far right* Conservative Woman) to the police is some liberal leftwinger who is completely ignorant of the veracity of this summary. I will endeavour to remember it.
*=
Winston obviously got closer to the truth than the abridged part of his speech suggests. The bit about slavery is particularly apt. Domestic slavery is bad enough, but young women/girls in forced marriages are also sex slaves as under Islamic law they can’t choose not to have sex with their husband. There’s a Hadith that says that a woman should always be sexually available to her husband, even on the back of a camel (but this Hadith won’t be displayed at Kings Cross).
Is there any point saying more on this subject as I’m pretty sure the vast majority of DS commenters know the full facts about Islam. It’s how to get the rest of the population to see the truth that’s the real challenge.
Thanks for that wonderful extended quote. One sentence is particularly striking, and sums up the real difference between Christianity and other religions worldwide, including satanism:
“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”
I was surprised to read somewhere the honest view of an Indian immigrant to the USA, who said that the reason he left India was to get away from Indians, because all they cared about was sex and money, whereas Ethnic Europeans (= white people) were interested in so many other things.
And I’ve just watched one of Katie Hopkins’ newest videos. I forgot to add her to the List of Honour above, which should be Enoch Powell, Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson, Paul Weston, Katie Hopkins & Sir Winston Churchill, among many other brave people.
Katie Hopkins: how long before the UK has an ‘Islam Party’ approved by the Electoral Commission? (youtube.com)
Reverend Simon Sideways made the point that maybe people will have to embrace Christianity — Just like with the Orange Order, not all will believe in it but they march as one because they know what is at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJE-vA7IgE
Thanks for that link, with some great comments agreeing with you, such as this from SparkyAlan1411:
“I’m a 60 year old white English man and have been atheist since birth. I am seriously thinking of going to church regularly and all atheists need to consider the same. We were brought up with Christian values that hark back hundreds of years. It is part of our islanders DNA. We should support those values before they are taken over by inferior religious ideas that have no place in the Northern Hemisphere…a show of strength and unity that once made Britain great and its inhabitants revered.”
Some of us have been quietly doing this for decades and been scoffed at for following our Sky-pixie. Not sure the founder of the faith would be too chuffed with people using it for purposes of ‘up-yours, Mohammed- ness’.
I suppose those converting to Islam in jail are about as earnest in the endeavour as the lying so-and-so’s declaring their intention to follow Jesus if it will get them granted asylum.
We need more jails, prison staff, and a more punitive penal system.
Well done to Richard Eldred for highlighting Jonathan Hall’s report.
Jonathan Hall KC: at last an honest judge who actually strives for Justice,
a King’s Counsel who tells the truth to the public, thereby serving the people and the monarch.
Not really a surprise when Islamification of Britain seems to be a policy for both Labour and Tories.
I am not a pedant do mot mean to detract from this important piece but to grow to 15,584 from 3,681 is an increase of 4 times so it is 423% of (this equates to “times”) 3,681.
Thank you all for your contribution and quotes by Churchill. Aren’t you afraid the police will knock on your door too? LOL. Now I know we have entered a state of totalitarianism where anyone can report ‘hate’ to the police and the latter does act on it; it is beyond belief or common sense.
“Ministry of Justice figures recently revealed there were 15,584 Muslim prisoners in England and Wales last September compared to just 3,681 in 1997.”
———
In 1997 there were between 1.2 and 1.4 million Muslims in the UK.
In 2022 there were 3.87 million, which means there are probably about 4.5 million now.
So the increase of 3.1 million Muslims has resulted in an increase of 11,903 prisoners; and that’s at a time when sentencing deters incarceration.
Perhaps that is why we saw a call for criminals to be sentenced differently, depending on their level of “deprivation.”