If there was ever a time that ‘Zero Covid’ – the goal of eliminating Covid altogether – made sense, it was when the virus first appeared in Wuhan. Had the Chinese authorities raised the alarm sooner, and scrambled to contain the virus, perhaps there never would have been a pandemic.
But there was one. Covid has now been with us for two full years (perhaps longer). Hundreds of millions have been infected, and even greater numbers have received the vaccine. At this point, you might say, ‘Zero Covid’ is a non-starter.
Yet people are still pushing the idea. A recent article in the Daily Kos – a left-wing news site in the U.S. – argues that “COVID-19 must be eliminated, not become endemic, if America is to survive”.
Is this just a case where the headline is much more radical than the article itself? No – the one thing of which the author can’t be accused is attempting to downplay his position. “We cannot live with endemic COVID-19,” he writes, “Hang on, let me say that again: We. Cannot. Live. With. Endemic. COVID-19.”
Let’s consider his arguments, one by one. The author begins by comparing Covid to the flu, noting that the former is much more contagious. Whereas seasonal influenza has a basic reproduction number of 1.4, he notes, “COVID-19 has a R0 that is over five. Maybe as high as 10.”
I don’t know where he got the figure of ‘10’ from, but even if you take the higher estimates of Covid’s R0 at face value, they correspond to circumstances in which the population was immunologically naïve.
Once enough people have caught the virus at least once, the number still susceptible to infection will be substantially reduced. Not to zero, of course, as even natural immunity wanes – but enough to forestall the kind of transmission levels we saw in the spring of 2020.
Note: this is evident not just from the protective effect of natural immunity, but also from the declining transmission advantage of new variants. As immunity to each new variant rises (particularly among the subset of individuals who’re most likely to infect others), the effective reproductive number correspondingly declines.
The author then claims that a world with endemic Covid will be one where health care is much more expensive, due to demands placed on the system by constant surges of new Covid patients. Here again, however, he ignores the impact of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.
“Endemic COVID-19,” he writes, “would behave exactly the same as epidemic COVID-19: in surges, waves, or spikes.” Would it? What seems far more likely is that endemic Covid would not behave in this way. At the very least, any “surges, waves, or spikes” will be smaller and less deadly than those observed during the epidemic phase of the disease.
The author’s next argument is that, even once Covid becomes endemic, we’ll still see a lot of deaths. But as before, he fails to take account of immunity. “If the level of COVID-19 fatalities could be dropped to just 0.5%,” he writes, “then the rate of deaths would be “just” 160,000 people a year.”
Yet ‘0.5%’ is an implausibly high estimate of the IFR for a world where Covid is endemic. In a recent Twitter thread, Professor Francois Balloux used the figure of 0.1%, adding that even this was “probably far too pessimistic”.
The author then invokes the spectre of long Covid, noting that persistent symptoms “are not rare”. However, if he’d referred to the latest estimates from the ONS, he’d know that only 2–3% of patients still report symptoms after 12 weeks, and this is before you factor in widespread immunity.
Even if ‘Zero Covid’ were achievable, which it almost certainly is not, the costs of getting there would be enormous. We’d not only need a massive annual re-vaccination program, but also constant vigilance at the border, as well as large-scale testing in perpetuity.
“Whatever the price of defeating COVID-19 may be,” the Daily Kos article concludes, “it must be paid.” And that more or less sums up the case for, and against, ‘Zero Covid’. For you can’t take a proposal seriously if there’s no estimate of costs.
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 activities of this and many other large businesses has strayed into political campaigning. If it was any good at its job ElCom would call for registration and reports from them as political campaigning is a controlled activity.
When there is even a single political party that does not support the narrative of the Westminster parties, such campaigns are party political and should be limited according to the law.
Hear, hear.
One proviso – Elcom are absolutely useless and as an official of a minor political party I know of what I speak.
It’s political if it’s trying to change the opinion of someone on anything. Buy TOFU because it tastes great and looks really good! is a pure commercial, Buy TOFU to help Israel to fight Arabian terrorists (to be replaced with Buy TOFU to help the Palestinians to drive off the foreign invaders in muslim countries) is a political statement, despite the plan is to sell more TOFU in both cases.
This bank is 39% owned by the tax payer and thus you would think the Government has a duty to hold the senior management to account for their blatant engagement in spying on their customers and engagement in woke and green politics. But we know the Tories won’t reprimand them as they are comfortable with spying on us all and committed to the Net Zero scam too.
It is NOT just a matter for the Government to act in loco UK taxpayers, even if it could participate in AGMs as a competent entity with a “shareholding” ; there is a clear, if only potential, conflict of interest in that the Government with an 80 seat and declining majority makes the/any Law which may impact NatWest….legal challenges would surely result?
The much bigger issue, IMHO, is The Faded Rose’s actions as CEO of an FCA/PRA regulated business – how and by whom is she being/was she held to account? The Board; Nope – expressed total confidence in her and then endorsed her resignation; instigated an independent enquiry in NF’s debunking from a Legal firm with anti Brexit “form” at the top which SHOULD have removed them from the candidates ( difficult if only one…) or seen that firm recuse themselves if they had a developed professionally ethical compass. Their Phase 1 conclusion that NF’s debunking was due to “commercial” reasons is …interesting; if a multi phase review concludes at Phase 1 “nothing to see”, what the hell are they reviewing in Phase 2, 3, 4…..?
No, the FCA is the competent authority to scrutinise her actions, and those of her employer ( If she was a member of ANY professional body with a Code of Conduct, they would be also)
Ms Rose admitted to a a breach of client confidentiality; she held several Senior Manager functions (SMF) with NatWest but crucially with Coutts – all of which were subject to significantly higher scrutiny by the FCA. SMF compliance was/is much much more stringent than ordinary, non SMF mortals especially since the FCA removed individual “regularity approval” to work in an FCA regulated business ( that decision was devolved to……..the employer……very problematical IMHO ) She had to be an FCA “approved person” to hold these positions…..see here but be warned it is a labyrinth: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/approved-persons/senior-management-functions; how can her admitted indiscretion not attract that “approval” process..?
The FCA issued an initial whitewash to a crescendo of criticism – not heard anything since then*. If her membership of the NAtWest Group’s pension scheme has a “lien” clause – to enable any losses incurred by the employer through “negligent acts or omissions” by the employee (very unlikely but not unknown) – who is going to check that out? Perhaps the Board might ask the Trustees because of this gobsmacking revelation but somehow I do not think that is going to happen:
““While no bank, building society or payment firm reported to us that they had closed accounts primarily due to someone’s political views, further work is needed for us to be sure,” said FCA boss Nikhil Rathi.”*
That statement would be laughable if it was not so damned serious by implication. Meanwhile Dame Rose appears to be being considered to be rewarded for deliberate breaking of regulations prescribed by law……and which appear to be endorsed, at the time by the Board under Howard Davies…an ex FSA Chairman.
Can “it” get any worse?
Thank-you for that valuable insight into the regulatory aspect of this issue. More homework for me!
Thanks for this.
“The bank’s app asks its users to try adding tofu and lentils to their diets as substitutes for eating meat.”
Lentils are good for greening the planet as they turn the eater in to a fart factory as do most pulses. I’m not sure about tofu. I have only tried it once but it is disgusting. I am not a fussy eater and am known as someone who doesn’t let much passed the pot.
Doubtless Nut West have failed to understand the gas stoking attributes of pulses and legumes.
It’s funny.
Methane is a greenhouse gas too. No smoking.
That should be (some) people employed by NatWest abuse a position which enables them to access customer data for (commerical self-interest driven) political preaching.
Quite. NatWest users: is it possible to decline this spying?
That’s a good question. If this is UCE¹, sending it should be illegal. OTOH, there’s probably a If you don’t want to be informed about Really Important Stuff™, uncheck this box control somewhere. Don’t install the app likely works, too.
¹ unsolicited commercial e-mail
It seems that, at the minute, this is a function on the App that customers have the option of using which is fine, although “right on” eco-worriers will no doubt already be doing most if not all of the things the App suggests. If/when it becomes impossible to opt out of being sent this propaganda is the time to worry about it. Until then if NatWest want to send out this kind of advice to people who want to waste their time reading it I don’t see the problem.
Like MPs the only thing these immensely arrogant people/corporations understand is rejection of them at the ballot box or their product. Just a suggestion- Switch to another bank and collect £200 and donate the money to organisations like DS and TCW who give expose to the liberty threatening politicisation of industry.
This politicisation of corporations has Larry Finks and others in the Investment bank industry all over it.
Start with moneysupermarket for a list of offers.
I wish I banked with them, so I could leave indignantly.
Where would you go?
Well done far as I’m aware my bank don’t do this yet, although the sheep effect means it’s probably only a matter of time
Lloyds or 1st Direct will give you £175 if you switch to them, it’s so easy to do.
Telling people to repair broken electronic devices themselves is not sensible advice unless they know what they are doing. Plant based alternatives to milk are not ‘eco’, if you care about that sort of thing. Thousands of acres of almond trees, necessarily expensively processed, just so middle class hypocrites can pretend they are doing something to ‘save the planet’ by drinking almond milk. In actual fact such extensive mono-culture (plus the exploitation of the low paid labourers needed to care for the trees) is damaging to the environment and prevents more useful food crops being grown. All these milk alternatives are expensive to produce, and some of them are no better than drinking a can of coke, the sugar content is so high. What could be easier than just squeezing a cows teat and getting a drink of milk instantly – if a bit warm maybe!
Exactly.
Just more processed crap food. But natural unadulterated products aren’t conducive to the health of pharma & corporate bank balances.
What’s a bit of hypocrisy between friends if “you’re saving the planet”?
NatWest is doing a grand job of alienating customers this year – first the Farago and now this.
My wife worked for them and hated it.
My son tried to get an overdraft for a start-up and was told his business plan was unrealistic. He exceeded the first year t/o prediction and now owns several businesses employing 70+ people and is quite a rich young man. Santander were the beneficiaries.
Another reason for using cash only, I guess.
Repairing electronics devices? They are designed to be unrepairable. eg laptops, that used to have removable batteries, but no longer have that. Why are plant based products more enviromentally friendly than meat based products? Ploughing grassland releases the carbon from the grass, and grazing animals are important in conservation. Anyway, Natwest need to persuade places to China, India, Russia etc etc to adopt dramatic CO2 cutting – they won’t has they realise it is ecominc suicide. So that means the West will (try to) cut out CO2, committing economic suicide, and make diddly squat difference to the planet. I know, why don’t they ban smart phones as they must use up loads more energy that the old phones? Mm I suspect not as they don’t suit the agenda.
It isn’t any banks business to interfere in our shopping habits. They are there to do banking. I don’t need Greta Thunberg as my bank manager.
Here is an idea for NatWest. As they are so keen to provide information about carbon footprints, could they please provide the carbon footprints of their board of directors and their top management. As a benchmark.
That way when they show each custoner’s “footprint”, the customer can compare it against that of the NatWest board members and the top management. And if it’s less, which it probably is, then they can sit tight and not change anything until people with a bigger “footprint” sort that out first.
Who gets sued when you try to repair an electronic device yourself and electrocute yourself or set fire to your home?
“NatWest is telling customers to stop eating meat…”
If I may…
NatWest is telling customers to stop banking with them if they’ve got any sense.
De-bank them of your custom, like any other provider trying to pull this sort of woke nonsense.
Aside from the creepy, invasive data-scraping for social credit score reasons, unevidenced and blatantly propagandised ideology and dietary suggestions to people who might not actually be able to be vegetarian (yes, that is a thing) – I wonder what commercial food and clothing retailers, airlines and travel companies think of this and the consquences for their profit margins?
Use cash and they won’t know where you spent it
leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
They have lost sight of profitability. I wonder who their shareholders are? Let’s all be bloody stupid and get £10m golden goodbyes.
This is the kind of thing I see in my local newspaper every week which has simply become a party political broadcast for the GREEN party. Last week they were advising us all not to buy a new lawnmower next spring but instead to borrow one from a neighbour down the street. I can imagine the look on Mr Smith’s face when I knock in his door to ask for a loan his mower all summer so I can “save the planet”. I am also pretty sure that the company not far from me that sells mowers and garden equipment will not be too happy that the local paper is trying to put them out of business by encouraging us all not to buy their products. This Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) that has seeped into government and corporations is a diabolical disgrace. Nat West like many other big businesses have decided to impose Eco Communism on us all and only by waking up to this tyranny and removing savings from them will they learn we will not tolerate this. ——At the moment we seem to be doing just that though. But let’s see how woke all these people are when their sales and profits drop like a stone, and they will U turn like all cowrads do. eg Disney with their Snow White Wokery holding back the film till they review their “inclusive” crap because they fear losing money big style.
Bankers – the first letter should be replaced by the second letter in the qwerty keyboard.
I’ve moved a big chunk of my money out of Natwest exactly because of this. their Sinister app measures your spending in “Carbon Foot print ” & if you opt out, it still calculates it n the background. It’s 1984 Banking
I wouldn’t mind being advised on how to reduce environmental harm but only if it’s an opt in option though I prefer to make my own mind up about this from more reliable sources than a bank! I’m more concerned with the illegal and immoral breach of privacy of Rose et al, compounded by her being up for a.huge bonus, plus the lack of an overhaul of other NE personnel involved in this scandal. It seems like confirmations if needed that it’s one rule for them another for us.