Category: Mike Swadling

On October 5^th the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society debated the motion “Lockdown does/did more harm than good”.

Mike Swadling proposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society.  As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.

‘Lockdown does/did more harm than good’ – Proposing the motion

Lockdown, all of the lockdowns, were a challenging time for all of us, I’m sure.  As we thankfully move out of them, we need to be careful not to look back with rose-tinted glasses, for the price of lockdown is a cost we now are all forced to bear. 

“We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.”

What surprised you most about your lockdown?

What did you do / stop doing that surprised you?  I would like to tell you about the great skill I learnt, or hobby I engaged in, but for me and this may sound a little odd, it was that I used aftershave more.  Now to avoid confusion this was not eau de toilette, perfume, or eau de Cologne.  This was cheap aftershave. 

Going into an office since I was a teenager I would shave ever day, or at worst every other day.  In lockdown, suddenly shaving a was much less common event and I needed some cheap aftershave to somewhat painfully help my face recover after a weekly shave.

I don’t doubt you have better surprise experiences from lockdown, but whatever they are, we should avoid confusing the revelation from adversity with a positive experience.  We didn’t see our friends and families for a long time. Many lost their jobs, and their businesses in lockdown, many lost hope. 

We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.  This being our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

And Lockdowns costs, way outstripped Lockdowns benefits.

I want to for a moment separate lockdown from the pandemic and endemic problem of Covid.  Many people lost their lives to this terrible virus.  But the virus is quite separate from the actions we take to manage or deal with it.

We have seen around the globe a mixture of measures to handle Covid.  Some countries have in effect locked Covid out of their land, this has worked for Australia and until recently New Zealand, some have staid in almost permanent lockdowns, some taken a very limited response like Sweden, and some like the UK, US and Switzerland with more federal systems have adopted different approaches across their countries. 

All of these counties took different approaches, to fight the same virus.  I will argue we should have taken a very different approach to fight lockdowns, and that Lockdown did more harm than good.

The idea of a Lockdown was such an anathema.  Government ministers telling you how long you were allowed out of your home, and police forces flying drones to check who is visiting beauty spots. The burden must lie with on those in favor of lockdowns to prove they had an invaluable and undeniable contribution to make in fighting covid. 

If the last 18 months have taught us anything it’s that lockdowns didn’t stop the virus, didn’t control the virus, but did cause untold damage to our society.

For lockdowns to be justified they must in my opinion pass the following 3 tests:

1. That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
2. That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
3. That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.

I will demonstrate lockdowns have failed all 3.

Did “comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stop or slow the spread of the virus in the community and save lives”?

The original plan for dealing with a virus was messaging to increase hygiene, some voluntary social distancing, and protecting the most vulnerable until heard immunity had built up to protect them naturally.  Indeed you will remember that we originally ‘locked-down’ for just 3 weeks to ‘bend the curve’, to protect the NHS.  This would flatten the peak number needing medical treatment for Covid, and ensure hospitals didn’t run out of capacity.  It was never expected that the total number who would need hospitalization, or who would die would significantly change as a result of lockdown.

We have now had 18 month of those ‘3 weeks’ and we can compare those countries who followed their original plans more closely with those who undertook severe lockdowns.  The comparison suggests frankly as a result of lockdowns, not much changed.

Now I am going to talk about deaths.  Death has so far proved to be 100% unavoidable.  People will die, and will die at a higher rate when a new virus is doing the rounds.  An individuals death is tragic, but for policy purposes, we need to look at which policy saw the least deaths, and ideally the least years of a fulfilled life lost.

“What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot.  Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown”

The Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker, collects systematic information on policy measures that governments have taken to tackle COVID-19. The different policy responses are tracked since January 2020, cover more than 180 countries and are coded into 23 indicators, such as school closures, travel restrictions, and vaccination policy.  They rank countries on how strict their lockdown policy was from 0 to 100, with 100 being the strictest.

The UK sits at 80 out of 100, France at 88, Spain 82 and Italy 69.  Germany comes in at just 64 and all the Scandinavian countries are in the 60s, with Sweden the lowest at 65.  How does this compare to the Covid death rate?

At over 2000 per million, the UK and Italy had the most death, with France and Spain not far behind.  Germany and Sweden had similar numbers of deaths at about 1300 and 1450 per million respectively, and limited lockdown Norway and Finland we’re bottom with both less than 200 deaths per million.

Incidentally Bosnia at the high rate of 90 in severity of lockdown and Hungry at a lenient 66, were the two countries in with the highest death rates from Covid in Europe.  Iceland with the least lockdown, ranked at just 50 out of 100, and had the least deaths per million, with just 33 deaths in total.

What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot.  Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.

If you don’t believe the data from Europe or have some reason to dismiss it.  Let’s look at the US, a society, where different legal jurisdictions are more comparable.

It’s been widely reported the New York and California have had serve lockdowns, and generally high compliance rates among the population, yet they come in 5^th and 33^rd among the 50 states for death rates.

Texas at 20^th and Florida ranked 9^th by death rate, have had some of the least restrictive and shortest lockdowns.  Arkansas 10^th, Iowa 25^th, Nebraska 42^nd, North Dakota 23^rd, South Dakota 12^th, Utah 45^th, and Wyoming 35^th, by rates of deaths, are the only states that did not issue stay at home orders in early 2020.

The very scattered nature of death rates shows once again that whatever the ingredient was that lead to higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.

In the first lockdown rates were falling before the lockdown was brought in, in the autumn rates continued to rise as lockdown came in and death rates peaked in the middle of the winter lockdown.  As we have opened up society we’ve not seen any increase in death rates as pubs, stadiums, theater’s opened and schools returned.

There is simply no evidence that ‘comparted to our society being free, lockdowns stopped or slowed the spread of the virus in the community or saved lives’.

Now to address the second test. 

Was the impact of the lockdown sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs are still outweighed by the original benefit?

Now I believe I have demonstrated there was no benefit from the original lockdown, but even if you believe there was, does it outweigh lockdowns undeniable costs? 

I have said this before to this grand society, but it bears repeating.  The Great Frost of 1709 was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years.  It caused widespread crop failure and economic devastation.  2020 was the worst economic contraction since 1709.  Let’s just put that into some perspective.

In the intervening years we have faced, Jacobite revolution, a global 7 Year war with Louis XV’s France, fought in and lost the Americas, seen off Napoleon, fought two World Wars against Germany, seen massive economic changes with agricultural and industrial revolutions, introduced and repealed The Corn Laws, seen global economic depression in the 1930’s, formed a Union with and given independence to Ireland.  Gained and lost the world’s largest ever Empire,  Yet none of these created as big a fall in GDP as we faced last year. 

To remind you, Lockdown caused more damage than the Luftwaffe.

“Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live.  We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300.  How can that not have serious ramifications?”

The UK has an average life expectancy of 81, Uganda 63.  Canada is 82, Chad 54.  France 82, Fiji 67.  Germans with their love for beer and bratwurst, outlive Gambians by 19 years. 

Having spent some time working in Belgium, a country of endless rain.  I know it’s almost not possible to eat a meal there without a large helping of potatoes, yet even they live 20 more years on average than the people of tropical Burkina Faso.  Singaporeans, live on average 11 more years than neighboring Malaysians.

What separates these countries?  One word, wealth.

Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live.  We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300.  How can that not have serious ramifications?

“during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care. We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020”

But it’s not just an economic cost, it’s a societal one. 

• We know for instance that during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care.
• We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020.
• We know the number of children in need of urgent or emergency care, rose by 18%, compared with 2019.
• We know in the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score for children aged between 3 months and 3 years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78.
• We are taught to socialize puppies but for a year we didn’t socialize baby children, who were at basically no risk from Covid.
• We know as of June, there were 10,000 fewer patients in England starting treatment for breast cancer, than in the year before.  Either we believe breast cancer has disappeared or this will have long term consequences to their health.
• We know rates of depression in early 2021 were more than double those observed before lockdown.
• We know studies of school pupils show a consistent impact of the first lockdown with pupils making around 2 months less progress than similar pupils in previous years.

We saw people die alone in care homes, and hospitals.  We have given out two years of frankly guessed GCSE and A Level results.  We have supply chain problems globally and we have printed money like it’s confetti and inflation is once again rearing its ugly head. 

All of this was for lockdowns, that we can see when compared to the countries that didn’t lockdown,  made not a blind bit of difference to the spread of the virus.  Do the ‘ongoing costs, outweigh any original benefit’.  Absolutely not. The third and final test I passionately believe is the most important. 

‘In the free society are the benefits of lockdown so significant that they justify a transfer of our freedom to government, and does the government prove it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives?’

If I may again repeat my words from a previous debate.  The income tax was first introduced in the Napoleonic Wars as a temporary measure and is still with us today.  Blanket restrictions were applied to pub opening times during World War One, and left largely unchanged until 1988 and rationing stayed in place for 9 years after the end of the second world war.

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” to quote Milton Friedman.

Since 1215 with Magna Carta, through the 1689 Bill of Rights, to universal suffrage, freedoms have been hard won.  Those in power always want more, and by necessity will sacrifice your liberty to take it.  Any didn’t they just do that.

Lockdown broke articles 3, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 27, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

This is not a partisan point, as our supposed opposition parties were just as enthusiastic about granting politicians, civil servants, medical chiefs and the police ever more power over our lives.

Did the governing class justify this power grab?  Let’s look at a few cases.

• Prof Neil Ferguson who’s alarmist and thoroughly disproven predictions sparked the first locked had to resign when it was reported that a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home in lockdown.
• At the time, then Health Secretary Matt Hancock, yes that Matt Hancock said it was that it was “just not possible” for Prof Ferguson to continue advising the government.
• Matt Hancock of course was having a secret affair with his closest aide whilst couples, if living in separate households were not allowed to meet under rules his department was responsible for.  In his hypocritical case, ‘Hands. Face. Space’, were both health instructions and almost unbelievably a seductive technique!
• The Welsh Tory leader resigned after he was seen drinking in the Senedd during a pub alcohol ban in Wales.
• Scotland’s chief medical officer resigned after making two trips to her second home during their lockdown.
• And of course Dominic Cummings drove 264 miles, and popped to Barnard Castle, whilst the rest of us were in lockdown.

Rules for thee and not for me, has been the mantra of those in power.

“Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good”

We saw earlier this year staged photos of world leaders in masks during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, next to photos of them all unmasked enjoying normal conversations.  Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good.

We saw the same at Wimbledon in the Royal Box, where only staff need to were a face covering, and again recently at the Met Gala in New York. 

Rules for thee and not for me, shows the moral bankruptcy of those who govern us, and show how ‘the government has proved it does not have the moral authority to exercise control over our lives’.

“The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them.  They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports”

Freedoms are returning, lockdowns have in large part lifted.  But we must be ever vigilant.  The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them.  They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports. 

We must free from the zero covid strategy being implemented in much of Australia which is seeing in, Melbourne of all cities Police use rubber bullets on people protesting lockdowns and coerced vaccination.

Lockdowns didn’t work, they did more hard than good, their harm is sadly enduring.  As frustrating as it is to know we wasted a good year in lockdown, we must acknowledge that due to their immense harm lockdowns must not be allowed to happen again.

Summary

I set 3 tests for Lockdown                

1. That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
2. That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
3. That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.

When we compare countries, who took different measures, lockdowns in no way demonstrate they worked stem the spread of Covid.

We know the impact of lockdown on the economy, on society, on children’s education, and on all our health in the long term.  In no case will it be good.

We have lost freedoms, that are proving slow to return.  The government and those more broadly in power have not demonstrated they are fit to govern, and take our freedoms.

Lockdown did more harm than good, and I urge you to support the motion.

Image from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/soil-health-mask-protection-corona-5935148/

To find out more about the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/CoulsdonPurleyDebatingSociety/ or email them at [email protected].