Evaluating the free market by comparing it to the alternatives (We don't need more regulations, We don't need more price controls, No Socialism in the courtroom, Hey, White House, leave us all alone)
Friday, June 12, 2020
New study suggests Covid infections were falling before lockdown
"We
now know enough about the virus to look at hospital figures and work
backwards, drawing a chart of its likely infection rate. These tend to
draw a different shape: the infection rate rising, hitting a peak, then
falling fast. But what makes it fall? Lockdown – or something else?
Norway found that the virus had peaked before lockdown and was in fast
decline. This led the Norwegian public health chief to say that they
could have controlled it without locking down – relying, instead, on the
social distancing going on at the time. This is relevant, the
Norwegians say, because if there is a second wave we need to be brutally
honest about what works and what does not.
Now,
a version of this study for England and Wales has been done by Simon
Wood, a professor at Bristol University. The study is here (pdf`) and main graph is below.
It
shows that infections peaked about five days before lockdown and were
in fast decline by the time it was introduced. Several social distancing
measures were already in place by then – but all on a voluntary, rather
than compulsory basis. 'It is suggestive that pre-lockdown social
distancing may have been sufficient for the fatal infections to have
started declining in England and Wales some time before lockdown,' Prof.
Wood tells me. This does not say that lockdown was pointless: the
decline in infections might have been far less steep without it.
Prof.
Wood’s study is presented with the usual health warnings: it is an
extrapolation from hospital death data and makes several assumptions:
particularly about the distribution of time from infection to death.
There are plenty of other factors. For example, if our ability to treat
Covid had rapidly improved, that would change things – as the decline in
deaths would reflect improved treatment, rather than earlier reductions
in the number of infections. But there have, alas, been no such
improvements reported.
But
the wider question is a simple one: what forced the virus into reverse
in Britain? Prof. Wood’s study strongly suggests that it was not
lockdown. It’s a valuable contribution to the debate on whether
voluntary measures would have been enough and whether the decline of the
virus would have happened anyway."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.