Last week, I explained on this site why there is still a significant chance of damage caused by a wave at the moment, either directly from Covid-19 and its effect on the NHS’s ability to keep all essential facilities running.
Today, I will review to answer the key question of what our answer will be. The existing scenario is almost precisely the opposite of the one I discussed in June related to the lifting of lock restrictions. Divisions remain and public aptitude messages still want to improve, however, there is now a greater popularity of Covid-19’s desire to balance the covid-19 misdeeds with those of the blockade.
I would have liked to have the same confidence as armchair epidemiologists in the most productive course of action, but the fact is that we now have a real pleasure in managing the first waves (rather than just modeling), the ”science” remains very uncertain, with contradictory evidence of the effectiveness of other methods (mitigation vs. suppression) in other countries.
I explained in more detail on my blog why it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, but, in short, the evidence we have comes from low-quality observational knowledge that has significant limitations, so we do not know for sure whether the relief in the disease was due to intervention or other factors.
Furthermore, many interventions were instituted simultaneously, so we do not know which one had the greatest effect in reducing infections, however, it is clear that pre-lockdown measures (self-isolation and social remoteness) have reduced infections and will have to remain the cornerstone of our response.
Country-to-country comparisons are particularly problematic because countries differ in many ways, but I will briefly talk about Sweden’s delight because its technique has attracted a lot of attention (and supporters and detractors). ) had a mortality rate of five to ten times higher with a similar economic decline, confirming that countries that closed the past had fewer coronavirus deaths (because they had fewer cases), as expected as the virus wants human interaction to spread.
However, compared to the UNITED Kingdom, Belgium or France, Sweden has a fatality point with much greater economic functionality and has shown that the first waves can be wiped out by measures that do not allow for a lock-up. comprehensive (including, most importantly, keeping schools open).
But it is too early to say that Sweden has escaped a wave of moments, as happens about 3 months after the end of the first and sweden did not end until July, however, I think this is unlikely, as they have not reached the point of antibodies. 20% that can confer collective immunity (about 7%).
In addition, in general, the locks postpone that save you the infection (although the mortality rate deserves to be decreasing in the waves at the moment, due to greater treatments) and Israel gives an example of its limits where they now have a wave of much higher deaths that led to a moment of blockade. And this blocking cycle deserves to be repeated until highly effective vaccines/treatments are obtained, which is no guarantee.
Among major European countries, Germany has (so far) controlled the coronavirus most efficiently, with fewer deaths in the first wave (and less economic damage) and no wave so far, which turns out to be due to increased testing and tracing, and some of the ultimate armor at risk.
However, it is still too early to say which national methods are correct and we will not know until the end of the pandemic. But, of course, we have to make decisions now based on the evidence we have.
While I do not agree with all the measures, I believe that the technique described through the Prime Minister and the Medical Director, which can be noted as a hybrid mitigation / elimination strategy, is broadly correct and correctly focuses on balancing the damage in order to produce the overall result.
And while there is now ample agreement that we will have to check to save you a moment of national blockade, there is already tension to further increase restrictions.
But before I do this, I urge Parliament and Parliament to ask these 3 questions:
We now have a much larger evidence base, with the other interventions used during the summer and some knowledge of ‘natural experiments’ carried out while decentralized nations have brought other measures slightly (e. g. on rule 6, bubble size, family mix, etc. ).
The measures also deserve to be in place for at least two weeks to assess effectiveness before considering new ones; however, they also deserve to be reviewed and not kept more than necessary (the government also deserves to urgently fund trials to verify other interventions in other regions in order to download more evidence).
In some cases, this is transparent (e. g. breaking self-disalting regulations when the voluntary formula worked well) but, in general, damage to (particularly social) restrictions can be mitigated simply by making them voluntary.
It is difficult to see how a momentary national lockdown can be justified, even for fitness reasons, as the government’s own fitness cost-benefit research appears to have long-term physical fitness effects of the two-month lockdown and the recession-induced lockdown higher than those of direct deaths from Covid-19. (It is vital to note that this research was based on the fact that mitigation measures to decrease coronavirus infections (e. g. social distancing) were in place, otherwise the damage caused by Covid-19 deaths plus 3 times greater than the confinement).
Other analyses have also reached the same conclusion, i. e. when also the economic prices of the blockade, which also harms aptitude and society.
Evidence of the effectiveness of local locks is mixed, however, it will have related damage and exacerbate inequalities and therefore comprehensive analysis of similar costs and benefits is needed, with input from economists and educators.
New blockages should only be considered when there is transparent evidence of more benefits than damage, and school closures are the last resort.
We will need to prioritize interventions that minimize the direct and oblique damage of Covid-19 (which will reduce the need for more restrictions) while doing the least harm to everything else, especially other damage to health, education and the economy.
In our experience, those are 3 interventions that can save thousands of lives this time:
However, I do not believe that this shield deserves to update other measures to suppress the virus in the general population. Lately there is inadequate evidence to show that it is imaginable to protect all high-risk Americans well or to achieve collective immunity without a meaningful direct response. damage to low-risk equipment where adverse effects on physical fitness occur in about a third of cases, adding young people and those with mild symptoms.
(Of course, verification and tracking are also essential, and there is room for improvement, especially in schools, although the UK has one of the highest verification rates in Europe. )
Citizenship has the greatest vital role of all in the fight against the virus and will therefore have to be convinced that it sticks to existing restrictions and obtains the compulsory aid for it. To improve consent and citizenship compliance, the government deserves to publish and evidence – and is right in the process of decision-making, uncertainties and compensation.
The next few months will be complicated for everyone and we will have to be informed to live with the virus and replace our habit accordingly. For some, this means cutting off our social contacts; for others, overcoming our fears; and for all, caring for the vulnerable, being patient and making sacrifices for the common good.
Finally, having served on the front line, I am well aware of the death and suffering caused by Covid-19, but the mistakes of a momentary blockade would be greater. We will have to stick to existing measures and through protective society. , schooling and the economy, as well as the NHS, will save and maximize lives.
Start your day with the latest conservative news and analysis.
You want to sign in to post a comment.
The leading British conservative blog on news, commentary, research and campaigns, edited through Paul Goodman. We’re independent of the Conservative Party, but we are.
Start your day with the latest conservative news and analysis.
Privacy Policy