https://archive.vn/113vn
Why doesnt Britain regret lockdown?
Three years on, voters remain in favour
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
. The mea culpas will never arrive (ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Freddie Sayers is the Executive Editor of UnHerd. He was previously >Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.
freddiesayers
March 23, 2023
Filed under:
Groupthink CovidlockdownUnHerd Britain 2023
Share:
In retrospect, lockdowns were a mistake.
If you agree with the above statement, you are, Im afraid, still in the >minority. Three years to the day since Britain brought in its first >nationwide lockdown, the latest wave of UnHerd Britain polling shows
that only 27% of voters agree that lockdowns were a mistake, while 54% >disagree and 19% are not sure. The strength of feeling also tilts in the >other direction: fully 30% of people strongly disagree with the
statement, while only 12% strongly agree.
Like what youre reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Your email address
Sign up, for free
Already registered? Sign in
Having estimated results for all 632 constituencies in Britain, our
partners Focaldata could not find a single seat where the lockdown
sceptics outnumber the pro-lockdowners. Chorley in Lancashire and
Leeds Central are the closest thing to sceptical enclaves (here,
supporters of lockdowns outnumber opponents by a single percentage
point) but it is still a minority position. If defenders of lockdown
were a political party, it would sweep the nation in a landslide.
To those of us at the coalface of interrogating the wisdom of lockdowns
for the past three years, it is a bitter pill to swallow. As someone who >counts himself among the 12% of voters who strongly agree with the
statement, allow me to tell you what life is like inside this embattled >minority.
To the majority of people who believe lockdowns were right and
necessary, the Covid era was no doubt distressing, but it need not have
been cause to re-order their perception of the world. Faced with a new
and frightening disease, difficult decisions were taken by the people in >charge but we came together and got through it; mistakes were made, but >overall we did what we needed to do.
For the dissenting minority, the past three years have been very
different. We have had to grapple with the possibility that, through
panic and philosophical confusion, our governing class contrived to make
a bad situation much worse. Imagine living with the sense that the
manifold evils of the lockdowns that we all now know ripping up >centuries-old traditions of freedom, interrupting a generations
education, hastening the decline into decrepitude for millions of older >people, destroying businesses and our health service, dividing families, >saddling our economies with debt, fostering fear and alienation,
attacking all the best things in life neednt have happened for
anything like so long, if at all?
To those who place emphasis on good quality evidence, it has been >particularly exasperating. In the early days of 2020, we had only
intuitions there was no real data as to whether lockdowns worked, as
they had never been tried in this way. As millions tuned in to our
in-depth interviews on UnHerdTV with leading scientists, we made sure to
hear arguments in favour of lockdowns as well as against. Devi Sridhar
made the case for Zero Covid; Susan Michie said we should be locking
down even harder; Neil Ferguson (whose last-ever tweet was a link to his >UnHerd interview) told me how exciting it was that the world was
attempting to stop a highly infectious disease in its tracks.
There were periods when the evidence looked like it was going the other
way, such as Swedens worse-than-expected second wave in winter 2020-21. >Professor Fredrik Elgh dramatically predicted disaster for that country, >which ultimately didnt transpire but he had me worried.
SUGGESTED READING
How lockdown changed us
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
In the past year, however, we have for the first time been able to look
at the Covid data in the round. Many of the countries which appeared to
be doing well in terms of low levels of infections and deaths caught
up in the second year Norway ended up much closer to Sweden, while >countries such as Hungary, which were initially praised for strong early >lockdowns, have ended up with some of the worst death tolls in the
world. Due to the peculiarly competitive nature of the lockdowns, the
results were neatly tracked, allowing clear comparison between countries
and regions. While we spent the first year arguing about deaths with
Covid as opposed to deaths from Covid, all sides in this discussion
have now settled on overall excess deaths as the fairest measure of
success or failure: in other words, overall, how many more people died
in a particular place than you would normally expect?
My view on these results is quite simple: in order to justify a policy
as monumental as shutting down all of society for the first time in
history, the de minimis outcome must be a certainty that fewer people
died because of it. Lockdown was not one lever among many: it was the >nuclear option. The onus must be on those who promoted lockdowns to
produce a table showing a clear correlation between the places that
enacted mandatory shutdowns and their overall outcome in terms of excess >deaths. But there is no such table; there is no positive correlation.
Three years after, there is no non-theoretical evidence that lockdowns
were necessary to save lives. This is not an ambiguous outcome; it is
what failure looks like.
If anything, the correlation now looks like it goes the other way. The >refusal of Sweden to bring in a lockdown, and the neighbouring
Scandinavian countries shorter and less interventionist lockdowns and >swifter return to normality, provide a powerful control to the
international experiment. Three years on, these countries are at the
bottom of the European excess deaths league table, and depending on
which method you choose, Sweden is either at or very near the very
bottom of the list. So the countries that interfered the least with the >delicately balanced ecosystem of their societies caused the least
damage; and the only European country to eschew mandatory lockdowns >altogether ended up with the smallest increase in loss of life. Its a
fatal datapoint for the argument that lockdowns were the only option.
So why, three years on, do most people not share this conclusion? Partly >because most people havent seen the evidence. Nor will they. The media
and political establishment were so encouraging of lockdowns at the time
that their only critique was that they werent hard enough. They are
hardly going to acknowledge such a grave mistake now. Nor do I expect
the inquiry to ask the right questions: obfuscation and distraction will >continue and mea culpas will never arrive.
SUGGESTED READING
Questions the Covid Inquiry must ask
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
But it cant all be put down to the media. Over that strange period, we
were reminded of something important about human nature: when
frightened, people will choose security over freedom. Endless opinion
polls confirmed it, and politicians acted upon it. Tellingly, those >constituencies most in favour of lockdowns in our polling are leafy and >affluent New Forest West, Bexhill, Henley, The Cotswolds. Perhaps some >people even enjoyed it.
Meanwhile, the dissenting minority is not going anywhere. This new class
of citizen is now a feature of every Western society: deeply distrustful
of authority, sceptical of the narrative, hungry for alternative >explanations, inured to being demonised and laughed at. The dissident
class skews young (it includes 39% of 25-34 year olds) and clusters
around poorer inner-city neighbourhoods; it heads to alternative media >channels for information. Its number was greatly increased over the
lockdown era as those people lost faith in the way the world is run.
They will continue to make their presence felt in the years to come.
As for me, the past three years have changed how I view the world. I
feel no anger, simply a wariness: an increased sense of how fragile our >liberal way of life is, how precarious its institutions and principles,
and how good people, including those I greatly admire, are capable of >astonishing misjudgements given the right atmosphere of fear and moral
panic. In particular those years revealed the dark side of supposedly >enlightened secular rationalism how, if freed from its moorings, it
can tend towards a crudely mechanistic world in which inhuman decisions
are justified to achieve dubious measurable targets.
I hope there is no next time, and that the political class will never
again think nationwide lockdowns are a proper policy option in a liberal >democracy. But if they do, I suspect the opposition, while still perhaps
a minority, will be better organised.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://archive.vn/113vn
Why doesn’t Britain regret lockdown?
Three years on, voters remain in favour
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
. The mea culpas will never arrive (ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Freddie Sayers is the Executive Editor of UnHerd. He was previously
Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.
freddiesayers
March 23, 2023
Filed under:
Groupthink CovidlockdownUnHerd Britain 2023
Share:
“In retrospect, lockdowns were a mistake.”
If you agree with the above statement, you are, I’m afraid, still in the >> minority. Three years to the day since Britain brought in its first
nationwide lockdown, the latest wave of UnHerd Britain polling shows
that only 27% of voters agree that lockdowns were a mistake, while 54%
disagree and 19% are not sure. The strength of feeling also tilts in the
other direction: fully 30% of people strongly disagree with the
statement, while only 12% strongly agree.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Your email address
Sign up, for free
Already registered? Sign in
Having estimated results for all 632 constituencies in Britain, our
partners Focaldata could not find a single seat where the “lockdown
sceptics” outnumber the “pro-lockdowners.” Chorley in Lancashire and >> Leeds Central are the closest thing to sceptical enclaves (here,
supporters of lockdowns outnumber opponents by a single percentage
point) but it is still a minority position. If “defenders of lockdown” >> were a political party, it would sweep the nation in a landslide.
To those of us at the coalface of interrogating the wisdom of lockdowns
for the past three years, it is a bitter pill to swallow. As someone who
counts himself among the 12% of voters who strongly agree with the
statement, allow me to tell you what life is like inside this embattled
minority.
To the majority of people who believe lockdowns were right and
necessary, the Covid era was no doubt distressing, but it need not have
been cause to re-order their perception of the world. Faced with a new
and frightening disease, difficult decisions were taken by the people in
charge but we came together and got through it; mistakes were made, but
overall we did what we needed to do.
For the dissenting minority, the past three years have been very
different. We have had to grapple with the possibility that, through
panic and philosophical confusion, our governing class contrived to make
a bad situation much worse. Imagine living with the sense that the
manifold evils of the lockdowns that we all now know — ripping up
centuries-old traditions of freedom, interrupting a generation’s
education, hastening the decline into decrepitude for millions of older
people, destroying businesses and our health service, dividing families,
saddling our economies with debt, fostering fear and alienation,
attacking all the best things in life — needn’t have happened for
anything like so long, if at all?
To those who place emphasis on good quality evidence, it has been
particularly exasperating. In the early days of 2020, we had only
intuitions — there was no real data as to whether lockdowns worked, as
they had never been tried in this way. As millions tuned in to our
in-depth interviews on UnHerdTV with leading scientists, we made sure to
hear arguments in favour of lockdowns as well as against. Devi Sridhar
made the case for Zero Covid; Susan Michie said we should be locking
down even harder; Neil Ferguson (whose last-ever tweet was a link to his
UnHerd interview) told me how exciting it was that the world was
attempting to stop a highly infectious disease in its tracks.
There were periods when the evidence looked like it was going the other
way, such as Sweden’s worse-than-expected second wave in winter 2020-21. >> Professor Fredrik Elgh dramatically predicted disaster for that country,
which ultimately didn’t transpire — but he had me worried.
SUGGESTED READING
How lockdown changed us
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
In the past year, however, we have for the first time been able to look
at the Covid data in the round. Many of the countries which appeared to
be doing “well” in terms of low levels of infections and deaths caught >> up in the second year — Norway ended up much closer to Sweden, while
countries such as Hungary, which were initially praised for strong early
lockdowns, have ended up with some of the worst death tolls in the
world. Due to the peculiarly competitive nature of the lockdowns, the
results were neatly tracked, allowing clear comparison between countries
and regions. While we spent the first year arguing about deaths “with” >> Covid as opposed to deaths “from” Covid, all sides in this discussion
have now settled on overall “excess deaths” as the fairest measure of
success or failure: in other words, overall, how many more people died
in a particular place than you would normally expect?
My view on these results is quite simple: in order to justify a policy
as monumental as shutting down all of society for the first time in
history, the de minimis outcome must be a certainty that fewer people
died because of it. Lockdown was not one “lever” among many: it was the >> nuclear option. The onus must be on those who promoted lockdowns to
produce a table showing a clear correlation between the places that
enacted mandatory shutdowns and their overall outcome in terms of excess
deaths. But there is no such table; there is no positive correlation.
Three years after, there is no non-theoretical evidence that lockdowns
were necessary to save lives. This is not an ambiguous outcome; it is
what failure looks like.
If anything, the correlation now looks like it goes the other way. The
refusal of Sweden to bring in a lockdown, and the neighbouring
Scandinavian countries’ shorter and less interventionist lockdowns and
swifter return to normality, provide a powerful control to the
international experiment. Three years on, these countries are at the
bottom of the European excess deaths league table, and depending on
which method you choose, Sweden is either at or very near the very
bottom of the list. So the countries that interfered the least with the
delicately balanced ecosystem of their societies caused the least
damage; and the only European country to eschew mandatory lockdowns
altogether ended up with the smallest increase in loss of life. It’s a
fatal datapoint for the argument that lockdowns were the only option.
So why, three years on, do most people not share this conclusion? Partly
because most people haven’t seen the evidence. Nor will they. The media
and political establishment were so encouraging of lockdowns at the time
that their only critique was that they weren’t hard enough. They are
hardly going to acknowledge such a grave mistake now. Nor do I expect
the inquiry to ask the right questions: obfuscation and distraction will
continue and mea culpas will never arrive.
SUGGESTED READING
Questions the Covid Inquiry must ask
BY FREDDIE SAYERS
But it can’t all be put down to the media. Over that strange period, we
were reminded of something important about human nature: when
frightened, people will choose security over freedom. Endless opinion
polls confirmed it, and politicians acted upon it. Tellingly, those
constituencies most in favour of lockdowns in our polling are leafy and
affluent — New Forest West, Bexhill, Henley, The Cotswolds. Perhaps some >> people even enjoyed it.
Meanwhile, the dissenting minority is not going anywhere. This new class
of citizen is now a feature of every Western society: deeply distrustful
of authority, sceptical of the “narrative”, hungry for alternative
explanations, inured to being demonised and laughed at. The dissident
class skews young (it includes 39% of 25-34 year olds) and clusters
around poorer inner-city neighbourhoods; it heads to alternative media
channels for information. Its number was greatly increased over the
lockdown era as those people lost faith in the way the world is run.
They will continue to make their presence felt in the years to come.
As for me, the past three years have changed how I view the world. I
feel no anger, simply a wariness: an increased sense of how fragile our
liberal way of life is, how precarious its institutions and principles,
and how good people, including those I greatly admire, are capable of
astonishing misjudgements given the right atmosphere of fear and moral
panic. In particular those years revealed the dark side of supposedly
enlightened secular rationalism — how, if freed from its moorings, it
can tend towards a crudely mechanistic world in which inhuman decisions
are justified to achieve dubious measurable targets.
I hope there is no “next time”, and that the political class will never >> again think nationwide lockdowns are a proper policy option in a liberal
democracy. But if they do, I suspect the opposition, while still perhaps
a minority, will be better organised.
In the interim, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8) way to eradicate the COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
rapidly ( http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to http://WDJW.great-site.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) for them to
call their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of
stopping this pandemic. Thus, we're hoping for the best while
preparing for the worse-case scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations
and others like the Omicron, Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu &
Delta lineage mutations combining via slip-RNA-replication to form
hybrids like http://tinyurl.com/Deltamicron that may render current
COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( http://tinyurl.com/RapidOmicronTest
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
https://archive.vn/113vn
Why doesnt Britain regret lockdown?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 121:39:21 |
| Calls: | 6,769 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,299 |
| Messages: | 5,376,787 |
| Posted today: | 2 |