Important new peer-reviewed paper on lockdown cost-benefits by Professor Douglas W Allen of @SFU published in the International Journal of the Economics of Business (I am a co-editor) @Routledge_Econ
…
Using the "mid-point estimates", Prof Allen finds a cost-benefit ratio of about 140 (i.e. costs of lockdown were 140 times greater than benefits).
Even with the most extreme & unrealistic assumption about deaths averted by lockdowns, costs still outweigh benefits …
…
Note the mid-point estimate assumes lockdowns reduced Covid deaths by 20%.
In fact, Prof Allen concludes we cannot rule out that lockdowns had zero effect on mortality, in which case, the cost-benefit conclusion would be much worse …
…
e.g. although “a small reduction (benefit) cannot be ruled out for early and light levels of lockdown restrictions. There is almost no consistent evidence that strong levels of lockdown have a beneficial effect, and … a zero (or even negative) effect cannot be ruled out.” …
…
Professor Allen’s overall conclusion:
“Lockdowns are not just an inefficient policy, they must rank as one of the greatest peacetime policy disasters of all time.”
Apparently article currently behind the pay wall but it will be free to access (for a limited period) in the near future.
Just checked with the publisher and apparently the article will be free to access from some time next week.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Data from Scotland provides enough evidence to delay enforcement of high-cost low-benefit vaccine passport not just for 17 days but indefinitely … news.sky.com/story/covid-19…
…
On 6 Sep, daily positive test rate was 117 /100k, 2.7 times the Jan peak.
Despite that, deaths peaked on 16 Sep at 20.4 /day, just 30% that in Jan & now dropping.
i.e. despite an unprecedented peak in cases, Scotland didn’t come close to Jan death numbers.…
…
Note, there were record positive test rates (but not deaths) even for over 60s despite close to 100% vaccination rate.
Vaccination of vulnerable reduces deaths but higher vaccination rates are clearly not the magic bullet for preventing big infection outbreaks …
Let's not dismiss concerns that PHE report some vaccinated groups getting infected at higher rates than unvaccinated.
First, even if vaccines significantly reduce chance of infection (high vaccine effectiveness), real world data may not reflect this for several reasons ...
…
Vaccinated may behave differently to unvaccinated, e.g. taking more risks &/or ignoring low level symptoms.
Also, there may be population differences, e.g. previously infected with very high levels of immunity could be less likely to get vaccinated ...
…
Irrespective of the reasons, if real world infection rates among vaxed are higher (or not much lower) than unvaxed, vaccines may still be helpful in reducing hospitalisations & deaths but there should be serious questions about vaccine passports, sacking carers etc. ...
Update to various Covid-19 indicators for England:
• Deaths up again (data to 9 Sept) but looks like will turn back down from tomorrow.
• Admissions coming down faster now.
• Positive tests also falling quite fast, both school age & others.
• Triage & Zoe steady.
What is particularly encouraging for future hospitalisation and deaths data is that positive tests are at long last falling steadily in the 60+ and 90+ groups ...
...
Encouraging also that school age rates are decreasing *despite* (!) no masks.
Mass school testing makes interpreting trends a little tricky, but no obvious signal from the positive tests data of any significant increase in infections after schools opened in England ...
The Govt seem to have authorised vaccinating 12-15 year olds on the basis of modelling suggesting the programme will avoid the loss of about 15 minutes schooling per pupil over a 6 months period.
... 1. No vaccinated children have been previously infected.
But we know a high % of children have been infected & hence already have high immunity. Allowing for this wd mean estimated schooling saved is much lower even than 15 mins /pupil.
As far as I can see and quite remarkably, the modelling uses vaccine effectiveness estimates vs unvaccinated but not previously infected.
Their mid-point VE is 55%, close to 57% in the Oxford study which definitely has not previously infected as the reference group ...
... those previously infected have a high level of immunity. There may be an additional effect from vaccines, but it will much, much smaller for this group ...
.. the higher the % of children previously infected, the lower will be potential school absences prevented. Knowing this % is essential to the modelling but I can't find any reference to their estimate of this ...
We know vaccine passports:
• are unethical & discriminatory.
• are unlikely to have any beneficial effect on infections.
• will create huge costs to firms & individuals.
• will entrench anti-vax sentiment.
but how bad is the problem they are actually trying to solve?
...
…
The Govt says they want to introduce vaccine passports for nightclubs, football matches & other crowded events as they think, otherwise, those will cause big rises in infections …
…
Well, since 19 July, we have been running an experiment:
England opened all these events in full & with no legal obligation for vaccine passports/tests.
We've had full sports stadia for #100, T20, Tests, Premier league etc, packed nightclubs & loads of festivals …