Calls for a circuit breaker are out of date, misguided, and not grounded in science
The politicians supporting a circuit breaker lockdown, like the one due to come into effect in Wales on Friday, say they are “following the science”.
They appear to be referring to a Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) document dated 21 September. If so, it’s science, Jim, but not as hard as we know it.
Instead, it is science without many numbers — and that, by its own admission, lacks much firm evidence.
It is also a month out of date. That is not SAGE’s fault, of course, but it is relevant to the way these proposals are being discussed, as if they can be implemented now without modifications to allow for changes in infection rates since September. Obviously, that is far from the case.
Despite the way advocates are now describing it, the SAGE document offered little hope that a “circuit breaker” would be a single short, sharp shock. On the contrary, it warned that “multiple circuit breaks might be necessary”. That might mean periods of disruptions every few months, possibly for years, until either a vaccine has been found or a sufficient level of herd immunity has been achieved. Politicians in favour have not exactly been forthcoming about this point.
And even after the end of the first circuit break, SAGE’s list of measures that should remain in place until prevalence has fallen (to some unspecified level) included banning contact between households in the home (except support bubbles) and ongoing closures of restaurants, bars, cafes, hair and beauty salons, and indoor gyms and exercise venues.
In terms of the tier system, it would be Tier 3+ on an indefinite basis. Again, this is not how the pro-lockdown politicians are describing it. Indeed, when announcing the new restrictions today, the Wales First Minister notably avoided saying what would happen at the end of his 16-day “fire break”.
Another massive consideration for any new lockdown, which was “out of scope” of the SAGE document and not addressed by the First Minister, must be a serious attempt to quantify the damage to jobs, incomes, businesses, mental health, physical health, social life and civil liberties.
We need scientific advisors and politicians to articulate a serious long-term strategy, supported by up-to-date numbers and clear statements of the relative values placed on the benefits and costs involved.
A method for judging whether the health benefits justify the economic and social costs already exists in the UK Treasury’s Green Book. Indeed, it has been used by government bodies for many years when considering public health policy interventions.
But no one seems willing to state whether these or any other values are behind current Covid measures. In fact, there is virtually no talk (at least in public) of how the costs and benefits of lockdown are being measured against other factors.
So if our leaders really want to follow the science, they have a way to go. Being clear, consistent, and open about the true scale of the trade-offs involved in lockdown measures would bring us closer to a sustainable, evidence-based, scientific policy.
Main image credit: Getty