Would an earlier lockdown really have saved tens of thousands of lives?

A thread summarising the main points of my article earlier today. (References at the end.)
Many people have claimed that if only the government had ‘followed the science’ last year and locked down a week earlier and closed our borders - as other countries did - we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
I have tried to look at whether an earlier lockdown really would have reduced our eventual death toll over both waves. I have relied not on the models on which these claims are made, but looked at what has actually happened in Europe over both waves to date.
Cross-country comparisons have many limitations so I restricted analysis to Europe as they are closest to the UK in terms of their populations age structures, climate/seasons and healthcare systems - and these are they key factors in determining the number of deaths from COVID
It is true that two countries - Norway and Finland - who locked down a week before the UK (and closed their borders) have been remarkably successful in having both small first and second waves and no excess mortality to date.
But they are the exceptions – what happened in most other countries in Europe who also locked down (and closed their borders) at the same time is that they did have very small first waves in Spring 2020 but this was followed by much larger second waves in Autumn / Winter 2021
And this happened despite second and third lockdowns as people struggled to maintain compliance with restrictions for months. Such an outcome was predictable as lockdowns in the absence of vaccines could only postpone - not prevent - infections, hospital admissions and deaths.
And by effectively delaying part of the first wave from the Spring until the second wave in the Winter, this meant that many countries had a higher proportion of the population still susceptible to infection and so led to even higher death tolls as health systems struggle to cope
And this would have been even worse in the UK with one of the lowest numbers of hospital & ICU beds per head in Europe – which would have led to even higher excess deaths – both from COVID and other causes as capacity was overwhelmed.
Of course, looking at just COVID mortality doesn’t give the full picture as different countries code deaths differently and so we need to look at excess mortality which is the best comparative measure but that will have to wait until the end of the second/third wave in the summer
But based on current trends, it seems likely that many of these countries that we thought were doing well due to their early lockdowns and small first waves will end up having higher excess mortality than the UK including Czechia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Hungary, etc.
To be clear, I am not arguing that we should not have had lockdowns. Despite my major concerns about their adverse health impacts, ultimately I did support them because there was no doubt that the NHS would have been overwhelmed in both waves without them
which in many ways it was as many elective services had to be stopped) and so lockdowns are likely to have saved more lives than they cost and produced more overall health benefit than harm - as per the most recent and comprehensive analyses done - and especially with vaccines
But the point I am making is that getting timing of lockdowns right is not straightforward – especially when you have to balance their significant harms against their benefits- and there really is not good evidence that an earlier lockdown would have saved lives over both waves
The truth is that ‘the science’ in February and March 2020 was very uncertain and the evidence base was very poor (and still is in many ways) and it is far too simplistic to say, as many do, that, ‘if we had done this, this would have happened.’
Both those advising and deciding had to make recommendations and decisions based on the evidence available at the time which no doubt would have been different with the benefit of hindsight.
Of course, we must learn the lessons from last year and have an inquiry so we are better prepared next time – but for now the priority must be to complete the vaccine roll-out ASAP which will save lives now, enable restrictions to be lifted, and ensure this is our last lockdown.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Raghib Ali FRCP(UK)

Dr Raghib Ali FRCP(UK) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drraghibali

24 Dec 20
My final thread of the year - a brief review of the current situation and why I think the govt. is right to resist calls for another national lockdown.

Throughout this pandemic I have tried to stress the twin dangers of fear and complacency -
– excessive fear harms our mental (and overall) health and led to the deaths of thousands in the first wave who were too scared to seek medical help when they needed it. And complacency about the real risks of COVID leads to riskier behavior and increased spread of the virus.
Many recent headlines highlight record numbers of cases and increasing deaths with calls for another national lockdown. And of course it is true that the situation is getting worse but it is important not to panic people by exaggerating the threat but to give the true picture.
Read 12 tweets
24 Dec 20
A thread on some early evidence on the impact of the new COVID variant - increasing cases, increasing hospital admissions but not yet the expected increase in deaths.

Is the new variant less deadly?
Generally, over the course of the second wave, we have seen a pattern of cases rising overall and then in the over 60s - which is then followed by hospital admissions rising with a 1-2 week lag, and then deaths with a 1-2 week lag.
However, as shown in the figure below, that pattern seems to have changed since cases linked to the new variant started increasing rapidly at the end of November with admissions increasing as expected, but not deaths.
Read 8 tweets
30 Oct 20
Plan B:
Why Sweden provides a potential model for us to follow - but not for the reasons most people think - and only if we learn from their mistakes.

And why - whichever plan is chosen - we need to build consensus. And how that could be done.
No country has received more attention for its approach to dealing with COVID than Sweden but there continue to be widespread misunderstandings of its strategy - with many thinking they followed the approach outlined in the Great Barrington Declaration.
However, the actual, official Swedish government strategy is ‘to limit the spread of infection in the country and by doing so, to relieve pressure on the health care system and protect people’s lives, health and jobs.’

And as its Chief Epidemiologist, Dr Tegnell has said,
Read 18 tweets
29 Oct 20
A brief review of where we are - & why we need a plan B.

In general, I think the current government strategy of suppression to keep cases low enough to maintain NHS services and minimise non-COVID health harms while protecting education and jobs is a reasonable compromise.
Furthermore, if virus levels get too high, fear increases and people don’t come to hospital, don’t go out and the economy suffers, etc. I also understand the governments rationale of not wanting to reintroduce shielding due to the mental (and other) health harms it would cause.
I also support the targeting of restrictions based on the local level of cases as opposed to blanket national ones. I find it hard to understand how it can be possibly be fairer to destroy jobs and businesses all over the country including in areas where hospitalisations are low
Read 12 tweets
29 Oct 20
Why I haven't signed the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) or John Snow memorandum (JSM):

Having consistently highlighted the health harms of lockdown, I did of course welcome the GBD’s emphasis on the many harms of lockdown – particularly in countries without welfare states
– where lockdowns are even more likely to cause overall health harm. However, a declaration is not a policy and there are still too many unanswered questions. Although I fully agree on the need to focus protection on care homes & hospitals, I am not convinced that it is
feasible to shield the very large numbers of vulnerable people in the community when COVID transmission is high (esp. for those who live in multigenerational households). Also, the number of ‘non-vulnerable’ who would be symptomatic and hospitalised in the coming 3 to 6 months
Read 18 tweets
14 Oct 20
This series on COVID tries to analyse data objectively and aims to avoid the twin dangers of fear & complacency; prevent a large second wave & a second lockdown.

No 7. Is the NHS in the same position now as it was on March 23rd? And does that mean we need another lockdown?
Over the last few days, much has been said and written about the fact that there are now more patients in hospital with COVID than there were on ‘lockdown day,’ March 23rd, and some are claiming this justifies a second national lockdown to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. .
While it is true that that there are more patients in hospital with COVID now (3332) than there were on March 23 (3160), the trajectory is very different (as I explained it would be 4 weeks ago - due to social distancing, isolation, masks, etc.)
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!