7 thoughts on “Is the lockdown worth it?”

  1. Posted 03/04/2020 at 15:42 | Permalink

    At least, fewer people will be drinking themselves to an early death down the local pub

    No. They will be taking up solitary drinking, which is worse. All my friends have considerably increased their alcohol intake under lockdown.

    To use an extreme example, we wouldn’t have assessed the pros and cons of fighting World War II in this way.

    No because a war is when you sacrifice lives to gain liberty and/or wealth. We are sacrificing liberty and wealth to save lives. So the metric is 100% the wrong way round.

  2. Posted 04/04/2020 at 23:01 | Permalink

    “you could also justify using a much higher number for the cost of a life, such as the ‘Value of a Statistical Life’ saved by a road safety improvement, which is more than £1 million”

    No you can’t, because the £1 million figure is per life, so you can’t multiply that by the life years that you’re using.

    Anyway, £1 million per “Statistical Life” is less than NICE’s £30,000 per QALY (at £30,000 per QALY, that’s only 33 years for a “life”).

  3. Posted 05/04/2020 at 22:44 | Permalink

    On a smallish point: the years of life lost is presumably rather lower than 11, since most who die have multiple comorbities and so presumably have a rather shorter than average life expectancy. Perhaps more like half that?

  4. Posted 06/04/2020 at 00:20 | Permalink

    So 80+ years old with several illnesses could live another 11 years if coronavirus don’t exist ? Would this person contribute £30k a year to economy ? Hmmmm , don’t think so.

  5. Posted 13/04/2020 at 14:02 | Permalink

    Surely it is fundamental that every human life has equal value? Certainly that is my moral judgement. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope – who next can be sacrificed after the elderley? Fat people, smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, assylum seekers, young people with expensive medical conditions etc? Where will that end? Which family will be happy to sacrifice their own elders? Western society has more than enough resources, but nowadays makes very selfish choices about the allocation. We have already for a number of years now been unwilling but not unable to fund a decent social care system for the care of those unable to care for themselves, but they are all members of someone’s family. Numerous life decisions are not based upon economic rationallity, otherwise life becomes survival of the fittest – how many people would vote for that?

  6. Posted 14/04/2020 at 22:32 | Permalink

    There are major problems with this calculation whichever way you do it.
    Even the models that the government were using to justify lockdown show that it won’t reduce the number of people getting Covid very much, just slow it down, simultaneously slowing down herd immunity so that the virus is more likely to resurge as soon as lockdown is lifted. This could save lives if it prevents the NHS from being so overwhelmed that people who actually could have been saved are not, but as long as we are at a level where there are hospital beds free then any further lockdown measures save hardly any lives at all, while dragging out the effects on society over a longer period of time. In a situation where the more you lock down, the longer you have to lock down for there are no simple answers. The above article completely ignores the length of time the lockdown lasts on the effect it has on both the economy and the virus, neither of which are linear.

    It is not just people feeling a bit depressed that we are worried about – this can lead to increased violence and suicide. Though this works both ways: it looks like teen suicides may actually be falling during lockdown in the UK. But in the long run, unemployment is the biggest trigger of suicide in adult men, and loneliness in women. This should not be ignored in the analysis.

    It’s not lives Vs money, it’s lives Vs lives.

    There will also be “life-years” lot due to many people getting less excercise and being more stressed during lockdown. And economic costs now mean less money for the NHS and so more life-and death decisions limited by money in future.

    Another set of major problems is there simply isn’t enough data, about Covid19 in particular but also the economy and, for obvious reasons, the future, to generate any truly meaningful numbers for your calculations. We simply don’t know how many people would die in any given scenario, by a few orders of magnitude. Anyone expoundinding on this subject in the press is going on emotions and opinions, not data and reasons: the back-of-the-envelope numbers are just cover.

    Finally and perhaps most importantly, this article also fails to address quality vs quantity of life. Many of us, old and vulnerable people included, would choose one year with their families and friends and leisure activities over two years of life without. Which I think may have been Toby Young’s main point?

  7. Posted 06/05/2020 at 07:54 | Permalink

    It’s obvious governments have lost sight of the Green Book and NICE limits. I read a report in the US that they are spending effectively up to $3m per life saved. And little account has been taken of the extra deaths which the lockdown will bring (poverty, addiction through boredom and so on). Lockdown life is definitely unhealthy for humans (and ironically healthy for the planet).

    So it’s a question of not if, but when. Perhaps a regional release, the three other countries of the UK being obvious examples. Or start with counties based on their distance from London.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.