1. When there is a surge in infections, cases eventually come down whether or not there is a lockdown/significant restrictions. 2. Lockdowns/many restrictions have little (not necessarily no) impact on hospitalisations & deaths.
Some find this hard to accept, as it seems so obvious:
Transmission comes from contact, restrictions reduce contact, so surely restrictions must reduce transmission & hence admissions & deaths?
But there are lots of reasons why restrictions may have less benefit than expected:
1. People change their behaviour voluntarily in response to changes in infections.
You choose to take less risk when infections surge, more risk when infections low, but just as importantly ...
... voluntary change has a bigger effect on riskier interactions
e.g. a student living with their vulnerable granny chooses to avoid gatherings & pub meet-ups when infections are high. People at lower risk continue to meet up.
That means ...
... shutting pubs to everyone mainly hits lower risk people, e.g. young people in flat share &/or who have already had Covid.
Voluntary behaviour change means it should be no surprise that the marginal effect of imposing (or lifting) restrictions is fairly low.
2. Restrictions change the mix of social interactions in ways which increase risk:
• Children get looked after by different family members when schools shut & parents out at work.
• When pubs with Covid-19 precautions in place shut, young people mix in (higher risk) homes ...
• Hospitality curfews lead to mass crowds on street & public transport.
• Lockdown limits low risk outdoor activity, forcing people to spend more time indoors where transmission risk is highest.
3. Lockdowns/restrictions are based on preventing lot of transmission from those who are asymptomatic, which Govt claims is 1 in 3 of those infected.
@profnfenton shows the proportion is actually much lower, so less scope for lockdowns to have an effect.
4. A sizeable proportion of serious cases & deaths come from care home and hospital outbreaks.
Local infection control measures are likely to be more important than lockdowns in affecting numbers in these settings.
In summary, it should be no surprise that lockdowns/legal restrictions have little independent impact on deaths & hospitalisations. Some restrictions may have some impact, others none at all, whilst others may even be counterproductive.
The other reason people find the data hard to accept is the implication: our policy of rolling lockdowns imposed unimaginable economic & social costs but may have been close to useless in alleviating pressure on the NHS.
For some that possibility is just too much to contemplate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An objective examination of the data and evidence suggests that delaying the March 25 lockdown decision by a week or so would have saved lives.
Here’s why …
…
We know from deaths data, NHS Triage and React that infections were almost certainly decreasing well before 25 March (and the rise in infections was levelling off even earlier). But those data were not available by the 25th.
...
...
It remains possible lockdown caused an even faster reduction in infections, preventing some Covid-related deaths in the short run but …
The Scottish Covid Inquiry commissioned an independent expert (Dr Ashley Croft) to report on “the accepted scientific & medical understanding” of Covid-19.
This is his conclusion on the evidence of interventions aimed at limiting spread:
…
…
For face mask mandates outside of healthcare settings, lockdowns, social distancing, test, trace and isolate measures:
"there was either insufficient evidence in 2020 to support their use – or alternatively, no evidence”
...
And:
“the evidence base has not changed materially in the intervening three years.”
Dr Croft on the evidence for vaccines having saved lives:
"It remains unclear as to whether or not COVID-19 vaccination has resulted in fewer deaths from COVID-19."
…
@BPAS1968 & pro-abortion MPs campaigned successfully to be able to to send out abortion pills without any in-person consultation.
@BPAS1968 then sent out pills w/o doing any checks to ensure the mother was within the 10-week limit.
…
…
Carla Foster took the pills & Lily (nearly 8 months after conception) died.
The mother was distraught, deeply regretting the death of her baby & has been imprisoned.
i.e. @BPAS1968 actions led to the death of an innocent baby girl & the devastation of a woman’s life.
…
…
Instead of apologising for their disastrous negligence & promising to change, @BPAS1968 are now campaigning to extend the law so it would be legal for them to kill babies right up to the moment of birth for any reason.
This organisation is not only shameful but shameless.
…
The reaction to @DrAseemMalhotra measured questions about risks of Covid-19 vaccines is telling.
Instead of looking at the evidence & debating, prominent scientists plus media like @Guardian & @theTimes have focused on complaining about Dr Malhotra being given a voice at all.
…
…
These scientists & journalists are repeating the same mistakes of past 2 years and which have contributed to a huge loss of public trust in vaccination & broader public health messaging.
...
...
It is obvious there are valid questions to be asked about both the benefits of Covid-19 vaccination for different groups (for healthy, previously infected young people, surely close to zero) but also the risks:
…