Sunk Cost Fallacy, Jonathan Sumption in The Telegraph
Lockdown proponents assumed the worst when they had no evidence
JONATHAN
SUMPTION
22 March
2021
It is next
to impossible for those involved in the decision to change their minds. No one
wants to admit that it might all have been for nothing, even if that is the
truth. They have invested too much in the decision to reverse out of the
cul-de-sac. So they press on, more to avoid blame than to serve the public
interest. This is what has happened to governments across Europe and to the
dug-in body of specialists who advise them. Their recipe is simple: if
lockdowns haven't worked, there is nothing wrong with the concept. We just need
more of them.
What we
really need is a fresh look at the evidence by people who are not committed to
their own past positions. This is what the Health Advisory and Recovery Team
(HART), a group of more than 40 highly qualified scientists, psychologists,
statisticians and health practitioners have provided in an "Overview of
the Evidence" published last week. It is addressed to non-specialists, but
is scrupulously referenced to specialist research. It will not change the minds
of ministers or their advisers. But it should provoke thought among the rest of
us. We cannot contribute to the science, but we can at least understand it.
Those who are unwilling to do even that much have no moral right to demand
coercive measures against their fellow citizens.
The HART
overview concludes that lockdowns "must never be repeated". They
"serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic
harms". It calls for a return to the pandemic plans prepared over a decade
for just this sort of event by the UK and other governments and endorsed by the
WHO. They were based on two principles. Avoid coercion and don't go for one
size-fits-all measures like lockdowns when the risks affect different groups
differently. They recommended balanced public health guidance, no border
closures and targeted action to assist those who are most vulnerable. These
principles were abruptly jettisoned a year ago. They were replaced by an
untried experiment, which there was neither time nor research to consider
properly.
Not
everything that HART says is convincing. But three core points in this study
have never been answered by the proponents of lockdowns.
First,
international comparisons are now available which show no correlation between
the severity of a lockdown and the level of infections or deaths. Sweden, whose
conditions are broadly comparable to ours, has fared better, with no lockdown,
no school closures and only minimal legal restrictions. Comparable US states
like North Dakota (lockdown) and South Dakota (no lockdown) show no significant
difference in outcomes.
Secondly,
the collateral costs of lockdowns are staggeringly high but governments have
obstinately refused to confront them.
Our own
government's studies suggest that the long-term death toll will be about
220,000, about half of which will be due to factors ranging from undiagnosed
cancer to increased poverty, which are attributable to the lockdown rather than
to Covid. Even that takes no account of the rapid rise in mental illness and
dementia, itself a big killer. Looking at the non-health effects, we have so
far suffered a 10 per cent fall in GDP whereas the equivalent figure for Sweden
is just 2.6 per cent. The consequences will be with us for decades.
Thirdly,
the burden of the lockdown has fallen mainly on those least at risk of serious
illness or death. The extreme example is the closure of schools, which has had
exceptionally serious effects on the current mental health and future prospects
of the young. Yet not a single previously healthy child has died of Covid. The
evidence of significant transmission of Covid by children is exceptionally
thin.
We have
been addled by the so-called precautionary principle, which holds that if we
have no evidence of something, we should assume the worst. This marks the
extreme point of our risk-averse world. The alternative view is that you must
have good reasons backed by evidence if you are going to stop people satisfying
the basic human need for social contact, destroy their businesses and jobs and
wreck their children's lives. If you don't know, don't do
it.
Lord
Sumption sat on the UK's Supreme Court between 2012-18
Comments
Post a Comment