Or, to paraphrase, would you be able to do a better job of it than Johnson & Co?
Many scribes (not to mention Pharisees) answer this question in the resounding affirmative, displaying a most enviable self-confidence. I have only one word to say to them: Sweden.
Standing proudly alone among the high-rent European countries, Sweden refused to commit the crimes Johnson et al. are charged with. The Swedes didn’t countenance lockdowns, escaping their dire consequences for the economy and basic liberties.
Instead they declared business as usual, hoping to be protected by herd immunity. Hence they joyously filled cafés and bars, with their exorbitant booze prices. They attended sporting events and parties. And in between they continued to go to work, keeping the economy ticking along nicely.
Alas, one problem with emulating herds is that they tend to end up in the abattoir. So it has proved in this case.
At first, Sweden was doing better than the rest of Europe, or at least not worse. But then the abattoir got open for business.
The infection rate began to climb up, and so did the death count. At some point, the death rate in Sweden got to be ten times higher than in the adjacent and demographically similar Norway.
Then Sweden again began to do as well as other major European countries. But that was fool’s gold: the other countries had relaxed their restrictions, which made their infection and death rates go up to Sweden’s levels – not Sweden’s levels go down to theirs.
In response, the others tightened up again, and now Sweden’s infection rate is more than twice that of Britain, Germany and Spain. This doesn’t mean that smug smiles are wiped off the faces of our self-righteous scribes – nothing can have such an emollient effect. But the rest of us ought to ponder the related moral issues.
So far there have been some 40,000 Covid deaths in Britain, despite the lockdowns, social distancing, facial masks and what have you. Now suppose, in the absence of such iniquities, this number would have been multiplied by 10?
This isn’t a hard supposition to make. After all, our population density is 11 times that of Sweden. If Sweden at some point managed to outscore Norway 10 to 1, why couldn’t we? No reason at all.
Suddenly we leave the area of economic fluctuations and libertarian principles, entering instead a terrain densely strewn with tombstones. It’s possible, nay probable, that, had we followed Sweden’s lead, Covid would have claimed 400,000 British lives, rather than 40,000.
Numbers are of course even more impervious to the subjunctive mood than history is. So let’s keep it less precise and just say that the draconian measures adopted by HMG have saved thousands of lives.
This isn’t to say that HMG has handled the crisis impeccably – far from it. It could have been more efficient about testing, for example. Yet it has redeemed itself to a large extent by pushing the Pfizer vaccine through the regulatory process at what in the context of state bureaucracy can only be described as lightning speed.
Incidentally, such rapid action would have been impossible had Britain stayed in the straitjacket of EU red tape. So, if anyone still needs arguments in favour of leaving, he can add this one to the tally.
Yet the moral questions remain, even though libertarians tend to pose them in arithmetical terms. After all, they say, we don’t really know how many lives those Covid restrictions have saved. What we do know is that the economy has been dealt a mighty blow from which it may not recover for a generation, if ever.
Since libertarians tend to think along the lines of economy über alles, they regard the economic debacle as more catastrophic than any, especially hypothetical, loss of life. Economic freedom is a god on their Olympus of liberties, and it’s perhaps superior to other deities for being more tangible and measurable.
Yet liberties, economic or any other, are always suppressed at dangerous times. Since Covid could have conceivably claimed as many British lives as did the Second World War (about 450,000), our times are dangerous enough. They therefore call for desperate measures.
Admittedly, this argument isn’t watertight. Much of it is too speculative to dispel all doubts. Some are bound to persist.
And this is where the argument becomes moral. For it’s my contention that any doubts should be resolved in favour of preserving human lives. Hence if it’s highly possible, or even likely, that the Swedish way would have cost thousands of lives, then it fails on morality even if it succeeds on economics.
I use a similar logic when arguing, on purely secular grounds, against abortion. My point is that allowing abortions in the first trimester or up to any other point is based on an arbitrary decision of when during gestation human life begins.
The only indisputable moment is that of conception – any other is open to reasonable doubt. And even our system of criminal justice doesn’t require a tighter standard of proof than that. Hence, since it’s at least possible that a foetus is actually a human being at any stage in its development, abortion constitutes manslaughter.
So, as it turns out, does Sweden’s insouciance in handling Covid. Witness the fact that, faced with a steeply climbing death rate, the Swedes are now introducing lockdowns all over the place, tacitly acknowledging that their laissez-faire approach was wrong.
As to HMG, I’d give it a B- for its handling of the pandemic (as opposed to its economic aftermath). Which brings to mind a professor of some recondite discipline at Moscow University. When marking exam papers, he always said: “Only God rates an A, I rate a B, meaning that you, young man, rate a C at best.”
I maintain that only God Almighty could have tackled this crisis perfectly. So HMG has done rather well.
I’m genuinely astonished at this piece and read it through expecting some sort of punchline.
It only serves to confirm, in my mind, that one’s position on Covid-19, or more accurately the political folly in attempting to ‘control’ a seasonal respiratory virus has been elevated to religious status.
Some empiricism please (we are dealing with a scientific phenomenon after all).
Our population density is not ’11 times’ that of Sweden. Sweden is comprised of an awful lot of frozen tundra and is one of the most urbanised countries in Europe – 87% of the population lives on 1.5% of its landmass. Stockholm’s population density is on a par with London’s.
Dry tinder theory time…A country which experiences a ‘mild’ respiratory season, in terms of deaths, leaves a lot of ‘dry tinder’, or ‘low hanging fruit’ and other unfortunate euphemisms for susceptible people, for next year’s respiratory season to carry off. 2018/2019 was an exceptionally mild year for Sweden, alone amongst the Scandinavian countries (as it was also for the UK). Sweden’s care homes typically cater for around 200 residents – in Norway it is 20.
Sweden’s overall mortality rate remains below a ten year average and September recorded the lowest mortality month since records began. It is currently experiencing a below average respiratory season – as is the UK.
Your last paragraph should have read: ‘Only God Almighty can control respiratory viruses – much like only he can control the cyclical changes in climate that the planet has been undergoing for billions of years. King Canute knew this all too well – versed as he was in the teachings of Christianity and not the secular worship of X factor.’
Very disappointing.
Sorry to disappoint. I’m not sure what the global warming hoax has to do with this, but as to the rest – thanks for those statistics. However, they don’t change the basic facts: 1) Sweden’s Covid infection rate is now more than twice that of Britain, Germany and Spain; 2) this is directly attributable to the Swedes’ laissez-faire approach; 3) they are abandoning it in favour of a lockdown, having recognised their mistake. Nor does the statistic game undermine the logical inference that, had Britain adopted the same approach, our casualties would have been much greater, possibly by an order of magnitude. How to assess this is of course a matter of moral convictions, and my article is based on mine. I know people who feel differently, as is their privilege.
I think you’re buying into the ‘casedemic’ somewhat.
Quite apart from the change in definition as to what constitutes a ‘case’ (formerly an individual presenting symptoms to a health professional who is legally responsible for the diagnosis and the subsequent consequences of that diagnosis. Now, it would seem, a positive return from a test which was never designed as a diagnostic tool and returns false positives in 8 out of every 9 ‘positive results), respiratory viruses attenuate amongst the fit and healthy cohorts of populations until herd immunity is reached, whereupon the virus retires, mutates and comes back for another go. So actually, an increase in infections of one particular virus is very good news. Humans and respiratory viruses have been dancing to this particular tune for thousands of years. Which is precisely why there has never been an effective vaccine against the little buggers. They are what virologists call ‘slippery’ – they constantly mutate – making vaccine production a fools errand. Along the way to herd immunity, these viruses (rhino, corona or influenza) also infect people coming to the end of their lives and with compromised immune systems. It is these viruses that ‘stop the clock’ in the majority of people with degenerative diseases, like cancer – the ‘death rattle’ exists! The more fit and healthy people get infected, the less likely a susceptible person is going to die from the same virus.
My allusion to the climate hoax and the tie in with King Canute is because this ‘pandemic’ is very similar; in that we have a political class who are all massively displaying the Dunning Kruger effect and illusion of control bias in thinking that they can effect an outcome. The Canute story teaches that there are limits to the power of kings.
‘Disappointing’ is perhaps a little strong…’Baffled’, ‘perplexed’ maybe…You’re not the first person who I consider to have a razor sharp mind who thinks this way…perhaps it’s me!
I suppose I’m just a weak-kneed liberal at heart. I hate to see people die unnecessarily, although for all I know you may well be right.
40,000 deaths in the UK with a population of around 50,000,000 equals 800 death per miliion. There are now 7,000 death registered
covid death in Sweden on a population of 10,000,000. That is 700 per milion. Hardly any difference Mr Boot. As Fin states, the covid-19 crisis has reached religious proportions. I would place it in the same category as the anthropogenic climate change. Recommended reading : Corona, False Alarm. Written by two Germain epidemiologists, Dr Karina Reiss and Dr Sucharit Bhakdi. Just one example of many epidemiologists who debunks the corona craze.
Yes, but our infection rate is going down while theirs is going up. As to the articles, I’ve seen dozens of them, split roughly down the middle in their analysis and recommendations. Push come to shove, we really don’t know, do we? My point is that any doubt should be resolved in favour of protecting human lives.
This virus and the response to same is going to be studied for decades to come from a whole bunch of different perspectives.
I guess the best I can say that when faced with imprecise data as was the case when the virus became an epidemic all those decision makers in the loop acted on assumptions found to be wrong [and continue to be wrong] with hindsight. That would include the professional medical authority and the political authority.
The plan is the base from all change is made. False or incorrect assumptions result in an initial plan that must be constantly corrected.
I would also say that from my observations all concerned parties seem to have fallen down on the virus and response to same.
What is bad about crisis is that it has become totally politicized. We have men like California governor Gavin Newsom, the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of Austin, Texas breaking their own rules with no consequences. Churches are unable to deliver the sacraments and bone headed moves like closing the gyms come from sheer panic.
I am with you somewhat on the economic perspective, but even here small businesses are being told to close while stores like Walmart are able to conduct business with no hindrance. A sorry mess this is.
In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths and about 18,000 hospitalisations. This so-called pandemic has claimed 908 lives, compare this to the 2017 flu season 1,255 deaths (recorded by Gov.stats) or 4,151 (recorded by the WHO…the vast difference is supposedly hospital records compared to Dr. and hospital records). Typically, now as then an individual dying from influenza in 2017 was most likely to be aged over 75 years, have multiple co-morbidities. The Australian government initially projected between 50,000 and 150,000 deaths from COVID-19. This was the justification for the lockdowns. Now we know that COVID-19 has not significantly increased the nation’s overall death rate.
CV19 appears to be ‘somewhat’ more vigorous than some flu virus, however, the figures seem murky. The Italian crises for example, affected about double of normal, but 99% had other forms of sickness. According to the Italian study, the most common of these problems include high blood pressure and heart disease. Debate has surged across the world in recent months as to what degree coronavirus has been labelled in place of existing conditions that would normally be recorded as the cause of death. This is evident by the HUGE decrease in all other forms of recorded deaths. The authorities in Victoria had to admit that the youngest COVID death, a man in his early 20’s, actually had a drug-over-dose at the time as well!
Death certificates can be signed by a physician who was responsible for a patient who died in a hospital, which accounts for many COVID-19 deaths. They can also be signed by medical examiners or coroners, who are independent officials who work for individual counties or cities. The key point here: The statistics have been centralised and thus are subject to being distorted, inflated, or forged completely. The Australian Bureau of Statistics have admitted to inflating COVID-19 deaths by labelling patients with pre-existing conditions, which has also been seen occur in America.
This world ‘shutdown’ is all about the ‘Great Reset’ discussed by the World Economical Forum. The main aim is the concept of a “digital certificate” to store information and to grant access to rights or services. This massive project is propelled by a powerful group called ID2020 (check their website where they promote this), which is backed by the United Nations, the Rockefeller Foundation and Bill Gates’ Microsoft. Gates envisages that “Digital certificates” will be used to determine who had COVID-19, who recovered from it, who was recently tested for it and who received the vaccine. However, these are to be imbedded ‘certificates’ that also provide additional information, similar to the chips that Veterinarians imbed in horses and pets.
An article published by ID2020 in 2018 stated that vaccines are the perfect way to introduce digital identity to the world …. The “digital health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or ease the process of obtaining alternative credentials”.
And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark— the name of the beast or the number of its name. (Revelation 13:16-17)
Have you read Ivor Cummins? If you have do you find him in error? If not I commend him to you. In addition. what do you make of the Great Barrington Declaration. Thank you for outlining your views on this critical topic.
The moral calculus seems to me to be complicated for a number of reasons. The lockdowns slow the rate of deaths, but to what extent do they actually reduce the absolute number of deaths? So far as I can tell, they reduce the absolute number only to the extent of ensuring that hospitals are not filled beyond capacity (and thereby ensuring that every infected person who needs treatment gets it), and by buying time for a vaccine that will vitiate the deadly effects of the virus. Also of importance to the moral calculus is that deaths from the virus are concentrated heavily in people who are at or even beyond average life expectancy. Further, while the human costs of not using lockdowns are easily measured in deaths (mostly of elderly people) that could have been avoided or at least delayed, the human costs of lockdowns are real but not easily measured. And surely there are serious human costs (and not merely economic costs of the kind that are measured by reductions in GNP) when those raising families lose their jobs because of lockdowns.
Have you read Ivor Cummins? If you have, do you find him in error? If you have not, I commend him to you.
In addition. what do you make of the Great Barrington Declaration.