Thread by @garwboy

Is the cure really worse than the disease? The health impacts of lockdowns during COVID-19

gh.bmj.com/content/6/8/e0…

This study, published today, helped crystalize something I've thought for ages

Which is, most anti-lockdown arguments are based on a false premise

/1

The majority of lockdown-sceptic arguments I've seen seem to assume that we have a simple choice; restricted life under lockdown, or normal life with the pandemic

This is actually balls; our options are, pandemic with lockdown, or pandemic without lockdown

That's it

/2

This is a key difference. It seems that lockdown sceptics assume that the lockdown rules are the only thing making people behave differently.

In some cases, this may be true. But for most people, the PANDEMIC ITSELF will be driving their (economically unproductive) behaviour

/3

The study made this point very clear

Yes, during lockdowns we've seen a lot of (mental) health problems. They're not fun by any means. But confirming whether lockdown or pandemic is the root cause is extremely difficult

/4

The flawed assumption, IMHO, is that lockdown is the cause of so many problems, because without lockdown rules, we wouldn't be doing these unpleasant things

But the study, and countless other observations, show that people aren't passive lumps who only do what they're told

/5

There are many reports of people staying off work, cancelling events, parents keeping kids off school etc. *before* the introduction of lockdown

In the UK, Johnson was essentially forced into it, remember? Because everyone was ignoring him and restricting themselves anyway

/6

And this is the issue I think lockdown sceptics don't get

Yes, people want personal freedom, the ability to do what they want

But you know what's an even more fundamental human drive?

The desire to not get sick and/or die!

The latter pretty much always trumps the former

/7

Assuming that people only deny themselves things because the governments making them do it, rather than out of concern for their (and others') health is to fundamentally misunderstand people.

It doesn't even need to be rational or well-thought-out

/8

When the swine flu epidemic hit the news in 2009, I knew people who immediately cancelled a planned meal at a Cardiff branch of Chiquito's

A virus in a country on another continent meant people here avoided a restaurant chain, because of it's *theme*.

Over cautious, yes

/9

So the idea that the majority of people, knowing that there's a literal killer virus right outside their door, would just behave normally, purely because they're allowed to? That's ludicrous. The human self-preservation instinct is way too strong for that.

/10

My point is, even if lockdowns never happened, as long as the pandemic's still happening, you'd still get plenty of people isolating, work/school absences, cancelled events etc.

You'd basically get many of the consequences of lockdown, with none of the benefits

/11

Indeed, people taking measures into their own hands would mean less unity/coordination, more uncertainty, more financial stress due to lack of official support, and so on. All things which ramp up stress, and make mental health a lot worse.

/12

Basically, to insist that lockdowns are the sole cause of all the problems we're currently enduring is to do a massive disservice to people, to their ability to think for themselves, and their sense of self-preservation.

/13

Ironic when you think that lockdown sceptics are often the ones accusing people of being 'sheep' or 'compliant' and all that jazz. But that's usually how it goes. Logic and reason tend to play only minor roles when it comes to understanding human thinking.

/end