When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes
The world has two fairly polarised views on COVID-19. The popular view is that the virus is extremely dangerous and we need to take whatever actions are necessary to suppress (or eliminate it) until we come up with a miracle vaccine.
The alternative (Sweden and Trump) view is that the virus itself isn’t that bad, and the actions taken to curb it have led to far more damage.
The problem, it seems, is we are looking at the wrong metrics. Because of what happened in northern Italy, New York and the UK, we assumed that COVID-19 was not only highly contagious but also concerningly lethal.
In northern Italy by the end of March, more than 60 doctors had died of COVID-19-related illnesses. Then came New York, where horrific management of aged-care facilities led to more than 30,000 deaths.
These facts led most people, your author included, to advocate for hard lockdowns — with the dual purpose of saving lives but also being able to reboot the economy quickly.
But in the last month something strange has happened that has made the popular view seem less sensible.
While there has been a significant acceleration in the number of reported COVID-19 cases globally, the number of people actually dying has dropped significantly. Not just in percentage terms, but in raw numbers as well.
That leads to two possibilities (or likely a combination of both): either doctors around the world have suddenly become far better at treating the virus, or increased testing has revealed people have it without even realising.
Johns Hopkins University found that in the past 30 days to July 11 there was an increase of 5,225,548 cases. During that time there have been 142,988 deaths. The reported fatality rate in the past 30 days: 2.73%. (In reality, the fatality rate is significantly less and upwards of a third of people with COVID-19 have no symptoms).
By contrast, Johns Hopkins data stated that in April there were 2,319,739 reported cases, and 184,661 reported deaths — a reported fatality rate of 7.18%.
Closer to home, on June 24, Victoria had conducted 696,263 tests and recorded 1884 confirmed cases — a positive test rate of 0.3%. As of July 11, Victoria’s number of active cases leapt to 3560, but it had conducted 1,095,219 tests. The positive test rate, almost identical, 0.3%.
Victoria has had a lot more cases lately, but it has also been conducting a lot more tests. The more testing that has happened, the more cases have mysteriously appeared, at what appears to be a linear rate. It is entirely feasible that if all of Victoria were tested tomorrow, the 0.3% rate would remain, and overnight, there would be 20,000 active cases.
In hindsight, authorities were likely correct in locking down Australia in late March. The imperfect information and, more critically, lack of testing and tracing infrastructure, meant that we needed to learn more about the virus and buy time.
But now, as subsequent waves occur, the decision to lockdown a second time is far less clear.
“That leads to two possibilities (or likely a combination of both): either doctors around the world have suddenly become far better at treating the virus, or increased testing has revealed people have it without even realising.”
There is a third possibility: the virus is now infecting a younger cohort – people who tend to die less. Its spread through regional USA and “young” countries like Brazil (ie. countries with a low median age) suggest that its lethality is not what it was in northern Italy.
Authorities did the right thing by locking down hard in March. If you cannot predict the virus’s response (a situation that existed at that time) you have no choice. It is only when you can calibrate the damage (to health, the economy is irrelevant) that easing of restrictions can be considered.
CoVid 19 is an ugly way to die. Think of the last time you went fishing and watched a caught fish slowly expiring in the bottom of the fish bucket: mouth gaping trying to take in oxygen that isn’t accessible and in terrified incomprehension of what is happening to it; alone in the bucket without its fishy friends nearby. CoVid 19 is like that, only it can take hours or days, instead of just minutes.
And even if you do manage to survive, you can be looking at a lifetime of badly scarred lungs and emphysema, or other organ or neurological damage. Years of illness and suffering followed, most probably, by premature death.
Or you can just keep your distance from everyone and not get it in the first place.
It’s easy to be sanguine about CoVid 19 when you don’t have it. I suspect that changes drastically when you do.
I enjoyed the bit about the little fishies. The rest of it was was pure unadulterated and exaggerated fear mongering. Stop reading the NYT, Age and W/Post.
And read (if that is the right word) whatever it is that gives you your “information”?
Lotsa piccies & emojis one assumes.
I think you have omitted a few more key facts here. Overwhelmed hospitals due to the increased number of required hospitalisations (obv due to high infection rates) likely contributed to increased death rates. The US is now again facing the same issue on this.
Also, I think it needs pointing out that the US is reporting an increased number of “younger” people getting sick and have more severe symptoms as well, likely result of their cavalier behaviour where they have become infected with a much larger dose of pathogens requiring more hospitalisations again.
The victorian lockdown should serve as a warning to the rest of Australia that we’re really not out of the woods and that our governments need to be much better prepared for outbreaks and our fellow citizens need to stay vigilant with social distancing and hygiene. This should prevent the need for further lockdowns.
You’re right Adam. No doubt the lockdown was the right call. Allowed the opportunity to increase capacity in ICU as well as digest effective treatment methods for those hospitalised.
Higher testing has no doubt led to higher detection. The spike in infections have occurred amongst younger teenagers and adults. No surprise that the death rates/infections have reduced therefore.
As for Sweden, they’ve suffered poorly with their death rates and their economy has not been immune to a downturn. While they are more reliant upon trade with their near neighbours, who have also higher infection rates than Australia, it’s hard to conclude that the Swedish approach as being successful on any front.
A moderation of the method of lockdowns may be justified, but the current prognosis for the hospitalised remains pretty grim and probably warrants a vigilance against going ‘open slather’ again on tourism/travel and hospitality, as the main pain points of the lockdown. There also remains a reasonable prospect for elimination in Australia relative to most other countries. For the sake of another quarter of economic disruption, closing the borders entirely and having the military monitoring quarantine stations, that prospect may be well worth pursuing.
Was the second half of this article – the bit that gets from the information presented at the start to the conclusion about a second lockdown being ‘less clear’ – deleted? There seems to be a massive jump in the middle from an interesting but meaningless discussion of testing rates to a conclusion apparently drawn from thin air.
I’m glad you said it first. I had the same thoughts, after reading through twice.
Not so much truncated as eviscerated – of meaning or import.