Common sense trumps “expert” advice
The embedded interview is the kind of discussion we should have been having 3 years ago. Because the data they are discussing was only recently released you can argue that the discussion could not have happened 3 years ago but that is not true. The study may have just been recently published but the results surprise no one. Every sane person knew lockdowns would fail from the moment they were introduced.
Lockdown supporters will no doubt point out that the researchers estimate 1700 COVID deaths were avoided so the lockdowns were successful. After all every life is precious right? If we can save one life shouldn’t we do it? Yes but we were not saving lives we were trading lives.
I have no doubt that you can slice the data finely enough to show some COVID deaths were avoided by using lockdowns. The problem with that assessment is that it avoids the question of cost and I am not talking about economic impact. The data also shows that the countries with the harshest lockdowns had the highest number of excess deaths. That means every person saved from COVID came at the cost of more than one lockdown death.
Put another way, to prolong the life of a senior we forfeited decades of productive life from more than one younger person. Lockdowns dramatically increased the years of life lost due to COVID. I don’t mean to say that the lives of those seniors had no value but killing a young person to protect a senior was an incredibly stupid way to handle a pandemic. Proper nutrition (vitamin D), HCQ or Ivermectin, and improved building ventilation would have saved far more than 1700 seniors without killing any young people. We had better options but chose not to use them.
That brings me to what I think is the most important part of the interview. At one point Peter Hitchens notes that the lockdowns are an argument for caution before making decisions of such magnitude. I agree with him completely but this important lesson has not been learned by government or the public for that matter. If we had learned anything we would be having more rational discussions about climate change.
Just as lockdowns killed more than they saved, restricting energy use will undoubtedly kill more people than will ever be saved from climate change. Cold weather kills more than hot weather and even the argument about storm severity does not hold water. Storm severity is far less impactful than poverty. Weak storms in poor countries always kill more than strong storms in wealthy countries. Saving lives is a matter of wealth and high energy costs destroy wealth.
The wealth generated from affordable reliable energy does not just reduce storm fatalities. It is what makes better nutrition and health care possible. That results in lower child mortality and higher life expectancy. Quite simply affordable reliable energy saves millions of lives each year. Why would any sane society not want that?
It was evident that lockdowns would kill and they did. Climate change policies will also kill. Do we really need to count the bodies before we acknowledge that this was always self-evident? How many people must die before we stop listening to the experts and re-discover common sense?
