Norway leads the way out of lockdown

Norway has become the first country to break ranks with the lockdown zealot consensus, releasing an official government report declaring lockdown to be unnecessary to end the coronavirus epidemic. Here’s a key excerpt:

‘It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on March 12, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1 . . . We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down.’

The director of the country’s public health agency, Camilla Stoltenberg, has been admirably candid about what this means: ‘Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect – and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions – by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread.’

She adds this is important so that lockdowns are not used in future if infections rise again or there is a second wave in the winter.

Fraser Nelson of the Spectator calls on the UK government to follow suit and ‘produce an estimate of the R number dating back to February or March’ using ‘observed data – rather than assumptions and models – to measure the lockdown effect.’

The report is all the more remarkable because Norway has fared much better than neighbouring Sweden, which eschewed a hardline lockdown, and many had decided Sweden had got it wrong (despite Sweden doing better than Italy, Spain and the UK, all of which locked down). Yet here is Norway essentially admitting that Sweden took the better, more evidence-based route.

Regrettably, the report still recommends voluntary social distancing to control the virus. I have written before about how there is no evidence that social distancing makes any difference, but the report does not examine the evidence for this.

So here’s some more.

In mid-March, Stanford University professor of structural biology Michael Levitt analysed the trends in the data from China and correctly predicted the course of the virus first in China and then in the US. Here’s what he had to say on March 14: ‘By 30 January there were already 10,000 cases and 170 deaths in China and the number of cases and deaths was growing at 30 per cent a day. It seemed like a doomsday scenario. Looking closely showed that the rate of growth was not fixed as it would be for exponential growth, instead it was decreasing from 29 per cent to 25 per cent to 22 per cent for numbers of deaths on 30th, 31st January and 1st February . . . These decreasing numbers seemed to give hope as it is obvious that when the daily growth in deaths drops to 0 per cent, the infection is over . . .

‘The numbers behaved well: new cases in China peaked on 7th February and new deaths peaked on 16th February, nine days later. This allowed me to quite accurately predict the eventual number of cases in China as 80,000 and eventual number of deaths as 3,500 . . .

‘It is still unclear why the increase in cases and deaths got slower. It could be due to immunity of others who were sick and recovered or who were infected but never showed symptoms while still developing antibodies. It could be social distancing. It could be washing hands well and using a mask if sick. It could be all these things together. Key is that these factors reduced the number of people a sick person infects from 2.2 to below 1.0, which will stop the exponential growth and the epidemic.’

So let’s see what happens when we apply Levitt’s analysis to Spain. I’ve taken the official death data and applied a rolling seven-day average to smooth it, then plotted the ratio between one day and the next to show the daily growth rate in deaths.

Source: Spanish government death data.

Notice that the daily growth rate is steadily declining until it is below 1 (when infections start to go down). Importantly, it is declining from before any social distancing begins, from at least March 20, which corresponds to March 4 for new infections (if infections are assumed to occur on average 16 days before death, as data from Italy indicates). Madrid, for example, began social distancing on March 11, when its public transport use began to plummet.

Thus Spain conforms to the pattern Levitt found in China and elsewhere, and in Spain’s case social distancing can be ruled out as a cause as it is declining too soon.

Yet more evidence, then, that not only are lockdowns not necessary to tame Covid, neither is social distancing. The epidemic dies down of its own accord as collective immunity is approached, much sooner than has been assumed. The lack of impact from social distancing may be because the virus primarily spreads in hospitals, care homes and private homes rather than in the community.

Norway is leading the way on changing the world’s mind on lockdown fanaticism. Who now will do the same on social distancing, so the ‘new normal’ can simply be a return to the old, and without further costly delay?

First published on Conservative Woman.

One thought on “Norway leads the way out of lockdown

Add yours

  1. The original explanation for ‘lockdown’ in the UK was to reduce infection spread in order to spare hospitals being overwhelmed by an expected surge in Covid-19 patients – to ‘flatten the curve.’ It subsequently transpired that the curve had started to flatten even before lockdown started, although the time lag between infection and the growing need of sufferers for hospital treatment only made it clear to people who looked at the figures with an open mind.

    And here we discover just how strong are the forces of political momentum, media misinformation, and institutional (medical and scientific) groupthink. Because that toxic combination has ensured (here in the UK at least) that there has been no public admittance that lockdown was almost certainly a mistake which unleashed a set of consequences which would be far from simple to reverse, and that its immense economic cost demanded it be ended just as soon as the facts became clear. (Far more urgent was attendance to testing, ensuring full supply of all necessary PPE, and particular effort to put a fire wall around our care homes – none of which happened anywhere near what was needed.)

    So much personal reputation has been invested in a well-meaning but flawed understanding – both of the death implications of Covid and also the way it spreads – that rowing back on the hype and panic has been extremely hard to contemplate. And so the urgent need to return things to as normal a situation as possible has been endlessly delayed. Saving the NHS ceased long ago to be a valid reason for lockdown: we’re now into the incoherence of not enough reliable testing driving a guesswork assessment of the R number which is the magic determiner of when it is ‘safe’ to unwind restrictions. There is of course no such thing as ‘safe’ in life, but how do you tell that to a population which you’ve just spent months feeding with irrational fear? Meanwhile the economy grows ever more fragile by the day.

    The overall cost in lives – directly due to Covid and indirectly due to the misplaced action taken – is likely to outweigh by far the marginal number of lives which may have been temporarily saved by lockdown (‘marginal’ because a certain number of lives were destined to be lost whatever we did at that point). The catalogue of mistakes made, and incompetence revealed, (to be fair, some of it only made clear in retrospect) must surely have been and continues to be a cause for far too much avoidable loss of life. The degree to which the government has been solely responsible for this may be debatable, but we can be pretty certain it is the government that will take the great majority of the blame.

    We are still in the middle of this because there remain so many uncertainties, notably concerning immunity, possible life saving therapies that will become available for patients, and the likely effectiveness of any vaccine which may or may not be developed. But there’s little uncertainty about the human cost of economic chaos.

    Lest some people think that concern for the economy is a morally repugnant interest in monetary wealth at the expense of human life, they really do need to start thinking clearly. The economy means water in our taps, warmth in our houses, electricity at our power sockets, clothes on our backs, food in our shops, energy to power our transport, hospitals with doctors and nurses in them, medicines at the dispensary, armed forces to protect us, law and order on our streets – and many more essentials before we get anywhere near self indulgence or unnecessary trivia.

    These things are not easily divisible: they all depend on a cohesive framework of monetary exchange which is the essential lubricant of human organisation. The collapse or even partial damage of the economy has real life and death implications for citizens; and it certainly has enormous implications for the life chances of our children. And that’s why it is the duty of government to avoid any unnecessary economic damage. Surely that duty extends to making clear such realities to a general public which seems under the misapprehension that lockdown can continue until every last Covid risk is eliminated. Thus far the government has been reckless with the economy; however well intentioned, they have been wrong; and very soon the people whom they have ill-advisedly tried to protect from all harm will turn on them with neither gratitude nor mercy.

    Our national leaders need our prayers like never before. Is it too much to hope that our national church will wake up and lead the nation in a cry to God for discernment, wisdom and courage?

    Like

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑