Some people oppose lockdown on principle, arguing that the government should never infringe on fundamental liberties like the freedom to leave our home or open our business, regardless of the impact this may have on disease transmission.
It’s a reasonable position, but I’m more drawn to the consequentialist case against lockdowns. This can be summed up as “benefits small, costs large”. In other words, even if lockdowns do reduce mortality from COVID-19 (under some circumstances), they don’t do so by anywhere near enough to justify their costs.
As I noted recently, several cost-benefit analyses of the U.K.’s lockdowns have been published, and each one concluded that the costs almost certainly outweighed the benefits. (Which may explain why the Government has thus far refrained from publishing any estimates itself.)
A rather elegant demonstration of the consequentialist case against lockdown was provided back in May, in the form of a Twitter thread by the data scientist Youyang Gu.
Comparing the 50 U.S. states, Gu obtained data on the COVID-19 death rate, the change in unemployment rate, and the average Government Stringency Index. The latter is a measure of the number and severity of restrictions imposed during the course of the pandemic (school closures, stay-at-home orders, etc.). Gu’s two main charts are shown below:
He found that the Stringency Index was not associated with the COVID-19 death rate (left-hand chart), but was strongly associated with an increase in unemployment (right-hand chart). In other words, U.S. states with longer and more stringent lockdowns haven’t had fewer COVID-19 deaths, but they have seen higher unemployment.
In the replies to Gu’s thread, some critics argued that restrictions were often imposed in response to large outbreaks, so you can’t assume that causation only goes from restrictions to deaths and unemployment. However, Gu points out that the relative ordering of restriction levels is fairly constant over time, so this is unlikely to be a major issue.
His analysis adds to a large body of evidence indicating that – for the vast majority of Western states – the benefits of lockdown were small, but the costs were very large. Gu’s thread 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.
Anybody who can’t see that lockdowns take away the most basic human right, from the poorest people, doesn’t deserve a minute more of anyones time. The ability to be able to provide food and shelter is fundamental to human survival, yet it’s been removed from hundreds of millions worldwide.
Lockdowns are a WMD and should be consigned to the history books as a never again moment.
It is fair to say that in March 2020 many concerned voices in the UK were warning about the inevitable economic and social impacts of a lockdown of any duration. At that point – or before – it should have been an absolute priority for the government (which we are led to believe had been considering lockdown from much earlier) to have run a short but solid cost-benefit analysis across all major government departments, and also engaged the participation of the private sector.
This was never done at any point in a meaningful way, not even in the Treasury, and its absence removed any confidence in, or authority for, the subsequent knee-jerk measures imposed by the government.
When this largely self inflicted crisis has to some extent subsided, and it’s time to clear up the £trns mess, there can be no escaping the question as to why such a standard best practice procedure as a cost-benefit report was not implemented before rushing headlong into lockdown. There was plenty time to do so, and arguably this background economic information should be constantly updated as a matter of course, and so instantly at the government’s fingertips in the event of any crisis with the relevant tweaks and emphasis.
I’ve talked about the lack of a cost benefit analysis to very intelligent people I know
They ended up comparing me to Hitler or spouting about how they’ve always been people who cared a lot for the vulnerable
Agreed. I got into a CB argument on Disqus and was accused of being a monster who cared more about money than human life.
Don’t think I’m that bad. Though if anyone who knows me wants to disagree, be my guest. However, I do recognise that healthcare budgets are not an unlimited resource. Someone, somewhere pays for it and governments or their proxies like NICE have a duty to all us payers to ensure the money is spent wisely.
My experience is the same. You end up having to point out basic realities of how the world works – NICE etc – that they damned well were aware of in the past, and they tend to end up going quiet, or blowing up into the “you’re like Hitler” tirades to which you allude, or just insisting “it’s different because disease spread”. They have no sustainable answer (because their position is fundamentally infantile), but the next time you talk to them they have not changed their position.
Because as has been observed, you can’t reason a man out of a position he does not hold based on reason, especially if his social status, his job or his income depend on his holding to that position.
Or because they have seized this opportunity to feel virtuous and don’t want to let it go
But they don’t give all their spare money to the NHS
“very intelligent people”
I know what you mean, Julian – but the conundrum that has been raised by this is how to define ‘intelligence’. It is a term which, in our common experience defines something separate from a wider ‘stupidity’ when it’s not just about an arguable pragmatic decision.
It’s clearly false to assume that intelligence (however you define it – a very tricky topic indeed) will inherently lead to “correct” conclusions. Obviously the conclusions of any rational argument depend on the premises, including the objectives, which differ from one person to another.
In the past people have tended to distinguish between intelligence as referring to raw processing power, and the more subjective judgements like”common sense”, “emotional intelligence” etc.
Undoubtedly the people I have in mind, and I believe Julian as well, are very highly intelligent in the former sense. Extremely, in some cases. It has been very apparent that neither intelligence nor education, even to the extreme, have been any necessary defence against the Great Panic.
Exactly
For intelligence to be functional, the person who possesses it needs to be able to apply in the real world especially to important decisions and in the face of hysteria and groupthink and professional liars
The difference between functional and emotional intelligence. Politicians may score highly on the former but fail totally on the latter
Well said. I would like to expand my own thoughts on the subject if that’s ok. I think the accepted level of intelligence measure, IQ, is near enough redundant in how you view the Govt response to Covid.
I am collecting a number of contacts who are very sceptical, and I know full well some of their IQ levels aren’t the best (you should hear some of the things they believe – so desperate to make sense of the senseless). While I have lost some friends who I consider to be on the higher end of the IQ scale, due to the rather heated debates we have had on our positions on the govt response to Covid.
What I think carries more weight, is the (unfairly) labelled pseudo-science Briggs-Myers personality type indicator. Essentially, individuals are categorised into certain groups. And I think 2 of them are very relevant in determining your views.
From my anecdotal evidence (about 50 people) those that score high in Intuition, tend to be sceptical. Conversely those that score high in Sensing tend to be on the lockdown train.
A lesser, but still relevant categorisation is the Thinking & Feeling section. With thinkers being more sceptical, and feelers being more on board.
I believe if you combine the 2, Intuitive Thinkers are the most likely to be very sceptical of what is happening. To the point of extreme frustration with so many people not seeing what they are seeing. And the Sensing Feelers being most likely to be the Covid-Nazis.
Of course, this a disputed area of psychology, but one I believe has merit. The tests are easy enough to find online if people want to try it out. If you are sceptical, see how this test categorises you. Happy to be proved wrong
MBTI is a problem as it’s based on self perception. Better to consider Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman et al
You know some strange people Julian!
I have been banging on about Cost-Benefit analysis from March 2020t, and even born again Covidians and Vaxx Junkie neighbours have not been able to disagree – indeed quite the opposite, as there is no rational case for disagreement!!
I have never known a significant project without a thorough cost-benefit appraisal in addition to an initial basic SWOT type analysis (Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunites / Threats) as they used to be known, to see how the land lies. Such a figure free conceptual analysis is freely adaptable to policy decisions also.
Sorry, no excuse for this cabinet of fools.
It baffles me, especially as these are people who know me well and who I thought has some respect for me as a reasoning person
I think part of it is fear of having opinions considered crackpot and fear of the awful truth that the world has gone mad
The reason I find your comment (and Mark’s also) curious is that I have (by and large) found that this government’s failure to carry out a thorough cost benefit analysis (or have a solid economic plan) to have been common rallying points of agreement over the last 15 months – no matter how contentious masks, vaccine ethics, the NHS or detailed lockdown policy might be.
I have found this to be the case with voters of all stripes, with the only ones shying away from confronting the issue being the furloughed few.
Well that does surprise me. Perhaps you are a more subtle and persuasive arguer than I am, or know a better class of person. All I have had in response is “you can’t let all those people die” or “you can’t put a price on life” etc.
“It’s a reasonable position, but I’m more drawn to the consequentialist case against lockdowns.”
The trouble with that position is that if you adopt it honestly you have no defence (obviously) if the case turns even slightly against you. You will rotate like a weathercock as the arguments blow back and forth, and of course the issues are so complex, huge and obscure that there will always be opportunities to argue it in each direction..
It’s also, imo, not how most people really work. In practice, people tend to have a position they have adopted for other reasons – emotional, self-interest, prejudice, whatever. Then they use their reasoning powers internally to justify that position and externally to try to persuade others to support it.
Better imo to honestly take the position that these measures are wrong ab initio, and the consequentialist arguments merely reinforce that.
These are areas – free speech, basic liberty – where as far as humanly possible there should be no compromise. We have seen the consequences of compromising them in this country over the past century or so, with the steady rise in the power and scope of the state, and of the great corporations enabled, sustained and protected by the big state, the loss of freedom of speech, the growth in intolerance of dissent.
There will be compromise in practice anyway – the political world does not do absolutes. But the trick is to stop those compromises running away from you, as compromises over liberty and freedom of speech have in this country, where you can now be imprisoned merely for saying something that the vast majority of our great grandparents would have regarded as mere common sense, or for doing things that they would have regarded as basic exercises of fundamental human liberty..
That’s where empty consequentialism leads.
Governments have shown they cannot be trusted with the power
They will manipulate the information and the public to allow themselves to look like they’ve won the consequentialist argument
Exactly.
So? There has to be a government to run the State, and in the case of the UK its a democratically (sic) elected one. If you extrapolate your observation, one logical consequence is that the people (via the ballot box) cannot be trusted to vote in responsible politicians, as their choices have all too often proved to be suspect.
Or at this point do we just fall back on Lord Acton’s most well known dictum and accept the imperfections?
An equally valid analysis is that political parties when in government cannot be trusted with power, and so put strict limits on their financial leverage and curtail the advantages such corporate bodies enjoy with the UK electoral system, which is currently heavily biased against the individual candidate or smaller groupings.
Of course we need a government
We just need to severely limit their power especially in taking away fundamental rights and in using the mechanisms of state to manufacture consent and suppress free speech
But ultimately there is no foolproof system as we have discovered and the backstop is the people revolting- which they failed to do
In reality this is not out of the blue but a culmination of a trend that started a long time ago and we need a cultural shift back to more of a belief in individual freedom and freedom of speech
The state’s power cannot be so limited, as centuries of political discourse and practice has shown, or it would leave the country open to far worse abuses than corrupt politicians.
Of course the electoral system itself is open to endless variation in order to tweak the way the contract between state and people is exercised. Nevertheless, as the government remains an expression of the people’s will, in itself its power cannot be limited for it must have the ultimate power.
Statutory laws cannot bind any future government, nor should they. And the only way this limitation argument can proceed is toward an increasingly codified constitution with an enforceable Bill of Rights, and an increasing political role for a non-elected judiciary, a hugely retrograde step imho – but a one embraced by New Labour and the LibDems.
I think it is worth pausing to look carefully at just how free this country remains, and not judge it on the exceptional inept chaos of the last few months. The very fact that despite having a massive majority the government is now on the retreat is a vindication of the British constitution, and the effectiveness of free speech and those fundamental liberties that lie outside statutory law.
Constitutions don’t appear to have helped much, neither does the judiciary, I agree.
I don’t share your optimism about the future of this country, or most other rich countries for that matter.
But given what you say, all of which is true, then we have a majoritarian democracy, and people who are on one side in the covid debate may find themselves the oppressed minority on some other issue next year or next week.
“But given what you say, all of which is true, then we have a majoritarian democracy, and people who are on one side in the covid debate may find themselves the oppressed minority on some other issue next year or next week.“
Indeed, and what’s worse is that we have not just the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of a majority whose access to information has been fundamentally distorted by the ending of free speech and the power of broadcast and social media. So the majority opinion is probably more open to manipulation than at any time in history.
Really? Without the UK constitution its people would have been screwed many, many times. It will be the robustness of of our constitution and the common law that will see us emerge from the government inflicted mess, not a raft of unnecessary knee jerk statutes.
I meant as regards covid, here or elsewhere. Other than perhaps Sweden and Japan, and in the US as far respect for states’ rights goes.
The constitution did help in Sweden.
“The state’s power cannot be so limited, as centuries of political discourse and practice has shown, or it would leave the country open to far worse abuses than corrupt politicians.”
No, the worst abuses in history have almost always been committed by governments, because if any other grouping gets powerful enough to commit abuses on the scale of, say, the German, Chinese, Soviet, US, etc regimes, that have been guilty of the greatest historical abuses, they become de facto governmental or quasi-governmental authorities themselves.
The point is that having ultimate power is not what is important. What is important is having day to day power. The former should be in the hands of government, the latter as little as possible.
What’s crucial is to have small government so that power is as spread out as possible. Yes, there will always be companies, individuals families etc that will commit abuses. But by definition those will be less bad than the abuses that a big government can and will commit.
One of the ultimate powers government needs to exercise is to prevent the aforementioned groups (companies, families, individuals etc) from accumulating so much power as to become quasi-governmental themselves, and that is a problem we have now with corporations, especially multi-national ones. But their power is largely dependent on big government for regulatory exclusion of competitors, creation of barriers to entry for smaller competitors, and huge crony capitalist contracts from government bodies (NHS, MOD etc).
By and large, big government creates big business. The only involvement of government should be to break up overlarge corporate concentrations.
“I think it is worth pausing to look carefully at just how free this country remains, and not judge it on the exceptional inept chaos of the last few months.”
But the events of the past 18 months have been merely logical consequences of developments over the past century or so, and especially the past three-four decades. Collectivised healthcare making individual health the responsibility of the state, and making the exercise of individual freedom to take risks viewed as irresponsible imposition of costs on the collective purse. Massive state involvement in research and hence control of science and scientists, especially medical, alongside the multinational pharma corporations, whose staff rotate in and out of government. The end of the concept of freedom of speech and opinion, with the acceptance of the idea that opinions can be suppressed for the supposed greater good, or to protect people from being exposed to them. The attitudes and structures used to suppress “racist”, “homophobic”, etc opinions and science, seamlessly transitioned to suppressing coronapanic dissent.
These are not new features to the coronapanic, they are just new, and arguably inevitable, applications.
Before the coronapanic, you could be arrested. and would certainly lose your job, respect and access to research funding, for saying things that were regarded as mere common sense in your grandparents’ day. Freedom of association had been ended, to address first “sexism” and later “racism”. And you were not allowed to take risks with your own life and health if the state had deemed it unacceptable for you to do so.
And as I stated in my earlier point ‘the government remains an expression of the people’s will, in itself its power cannot be limited for it must have the ultimate power’.
The very nature of all governments and the necessary accumulation of power must leave it open to such potential abuse. And as horrendous as the results have at times been, at least we hopefully learn and apapt. The practice of day to day executive power would be impossible without the ultimate power to enforce it.
This in turn leads us to the question of legitimacy, and if a democratically elected government is not fit to hold ultimate power then what person or body is? Who would enforce that ultimate power, and who would hold that body to account? Finally, who or what defines those limitations if not the people themselves?
As uncomfortable as this conundrum is, it is at least a rational one capable of being resolved in time. However, remedying the apparent causes of the current situation with incomplete information when in the middle of that situation will only make things worse. Better to extricate ourselves, no matter how slowly and painfully, by using the existing constitutional levers, and take stock from there.
I understand your point regarding the changes that had already come about prior to C19, but these changes had been a consequence of successive neo-liberal centrist governments from 1997 onwards. They also fundamental attacks on the constitution such as tampering with the legal system (The Supreme Court) and Clegg’s destabilising FTPA that the Tory Party completely misjudged the impact of (although there had been a copious numbers of books and articles on the subject written before 2010).
Nevertheless,. as Johnson is trying to demonstrate with the FTPA, all changes are of course ultimately reversible given the will of the people – as was EU membership.
I maintain the constitution is never irreparably bust, but constitutional understanding and practice all too often leaves a lot to be desired (as Blair’s government in particular proved time and time again) which often leads to unnecessary and unjustified opportunist decisions. Like a game of Chess, it takes experience and skill to win, not a sudden convenient change in the rules.
I don’t think it’s “knee-jerk” to want to reinforce (or in truth reintroduce) the concepts of fundamental rights meaning rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances, and freedom of speech meaning the freedom to say things that are offensive to some or considered dangerous by some. Those concepts have largely been lost. They could be revived so that they become part of our culture and thus less easy to ride roughshod over.
Nor is it knee-jerk to limit the power of Big Tech over information by forcing them to behave as carriers, not responsible for the content they carry, and not allowing them to censor anything. Control of information gives immense power, more than ever. It can only get worse if left unchecked.
Yes, these two steps would go a long way to mitigating the damage that has been done.
First, remove the dangerous concept of freedom of speech having to be “balanced” against a concocted supposed “right” not to be offended or politically frightened.
Second, create a requirement for social media platforms to choose whether they are “free speech” common carriers or advocacy platforms.
In the former case they should be barred by law from exercising or being subject to political censorship or moderating, including the “political correctness” biases painted falsely as non-political, such as “antiracism” etc, and protected by law from attack, with tightly restricted exceptions perhaps for direct criminal advocacy (as per US 1st Amendment case law) and issues around libel. They should also have guaranteed access to basic service provision.
In the latter case, they should be free to impose any censorship model they desire, but be open to prosecution and lawsuit like any other business.
Well then it is all achieved with sensible level heads through elected MPs and appropriately drafted legislation. The durable UK constitution provides the necessary solid foundation.
Why would MPs want to do such a thing? Few of them have shown much interest in freedom of speech or individual liberty. The ruling party, with a large majority and plenty of time left on its term, seems very pleased with itself and perfectly happy to pursue the standard direction of travel away from freedom.
Then it is up to constituents to find a way choosing better MPs, and if they cannot then tough. They might get it right in another hundred years, after all in 1921 not all men let alone women had the vote in the UK – so it’s early days yet.
“This in turn leads us to the question of legitimacy, and if a democratically elected government is not fit to hold ultimate power then what person or body is? “
You missed the point I was making, which avoided this question arising, completely.
You need to make the crucial distinction between the power government has in theory and the power it can exercise in practice.
The latter depends on the existence, size and scope of institutions and bodies, of established laws, and of attitudes.
In theory any government can build the latter sufficiently to commit atrocities, given time and support. But if it has to first construct those capabilities, then that builds in delays, and obstacles that require the expending of political capital to remove. and that in turn allows resistance to build and gives time for people to see what is coming.
That’s why the smaller the scope and size of government, the better, provided it is sufficient to meet the core functions of government – protection of borders and national defence, and basic law and order.
Then we have the political system in place to achieve this, should it be the will of the people – a point you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
I have no love of Big Government, indeed quite the opposite, but I am aware that unless and until it is the people who mandate such change via the ballot box then such change is illegitimate.
The difference between power in theory and power in practice is of course regulated partly by public and private institutions, not forgetting the ever evolving UK constitution. However, if the people abdicate their own day to day political and social responsibilities to safeguard individual civil liberties (as all to many have done in the last 15 months with their acceptance of arbitrary oppressive rules from distancing and mask wearing onwards…) the state and corporate power will move to occupy that space for as long as possible – just as nature abhors a vacuum.
“I have no love of Big Government, indeed quite the opposite, but I am aware that unless and until it is the people who mandate such change via the ballot box then such change is illegitimate.”
As far as I was aware we were discussing what the position should be, not whether or how that could be achieved.
If you wind back in the thread, you will see I replied to Julian’s comment that
to point out that Government (and by extension the form of the government) is a direct consequence of the will of the people – not some abstract tyrannical imposition.
You stated
which to me is like saying the worst accidents have happened when travelling by aeroplane; until something better comes along we are stuck with them. Unlike aeroplanes, the government’s form and function is ultimately bestowed by the electorate, so it becomes a circular argument until the electorate grasp this responsibility.
When you expressed a preference for smaller government,
I admitted having no love ‘for Big Government’, although hitherto I hadn’t expressed a preference one way or the other on its form, only its competence. I do, however, accept the bigger the government the bigger the potential of corruption, abuse of power and curtailment of freedoms – but this is not unique to the Big State.
“Government (and by extension the form of the government) is a direct consequence of the will of the people – not some abstract tyrannical imposition.”
Not really, because government in practice reflects the outcome of a balance of the forces in a society. The wishes of individuals and groups influence that outcome in various directions and to different degrees according to how much power particular individuals and groups are able to exert.
The “will of the people” is a theoretical construct that has little hard reality to it, except insofar as it is simply defined as the outcome of the aforementioned balance of forces.
“I do, however, accept the bigger the government the bigger the potential of corruption, abuse of power and curtailment of freedoms – but this is not unique to the Big State.”
It is in the sense that a government by definition has the monopoly of force. Granted if the government is too weak to enforce that monopoly (which can happen for various reasons), other groups can arise that exercise quasi-governmental power. So long as the government retains that monopoly of force and the capability of enforcing the rule of law, however, that puts a fairly hard cap on the kinds of abuses that can be inflicted by other groups.
Democracy is the least worst of governmental options. Winston Churchill?
There was a modelling study published last year “”Stay at Home, Protect the National Health Service, Save Lives”: A cost benefit analysis of the lockdown in the United Kingdom” which estimated that cost per QALY of between 7-125 times the NICE guideline of £30k/QALY would be required to justify lockdown.If lockdown was a drug, NICE would not have approved it for use.
“It’s a reasonable position, but I’m more drawn to the consequentialist case against lockdowns. “
‘Reasonable’ position rather than ‘fundamental’? So – you are a partial – incipient – bedwetter with uncertain ethics, Noah, thinking that the fable of this virus could justify an assault on humanity?
Remember – we are not looking at short-term emergency action to counter an ‘unprecedented’ event.
Not a good look.
“Some people oppose lockdown on principle, arguing that the government should never infringe on fundamental liberties like the freedom to leave our home or open our business, regardless of the impact this may have on disease transmission.”
This is false in terms of leaving home. The stay at home order had so many loopholes attached to it that it wasn’t a stay at home order at all.
The loopholes were required to make the law ‘legal’ and most people don’t read the law.