Why do I believe my scepticism of the Covid response measures has been vindicated?

It is genuinely surprising to me that anyone can still hold the belief that the Covid response measures (i.e. mandatory restrictions) were the correct strategy. We now have objective real world observations which make it easy to look back and conclude that this strategy was the wrong approach. In particular I would cite just three points:

1. The absence of any exceptional excess mortality in the territories which did not impose mandatory restrictions (i.e. there was heavy mortality, but they do not stand out as anomalous).

2. A likely example of irrational “optimism bias” when reviewing the mortality experience of territories which experienced lighter mortality during Covid.

3. The immense scale of the opportunity cost incurred and the economic legacy left in the wake of the response.

The absence of any exceptional excess mortality in the territories which avoided mandatory restrictions

Analyses of the mortality experience during the Covid pandemic show that there was no exceptional level of excess mortality in the territories which avoided mandatory restrictions. Three examples would be:

• Sweden

• South Dakota

• Florida

We now have quantitative studies which allow anyone to see how the mortality experience of these territories compares with regions which did not impose restrictions. The mortality experience of Sweden relative to other countries can be seen in CMI Working Paper 180:

Meanwhile the mortality experience of South Dakota and Florida relative to other States of the USA can be seen from this analysis of excess age-standardised mortality available on the Mortality Watch website (https://www.mortality.watch/ranking?df=2020&dt=2022&j=usa):

All three territories endured excess mortality but none of them experienced exceptional levels of excess mortality: their mortality experience is all comparable to their peers and they are not even the worst performers (South Dakota and Florida are hovering just above the median position of the 50 States, whilst Sweden emerges as the best of the European nations!). It should be acknowledged that the vaccines may have assisted from 2021 and beyond, but we can see from the 2020 experience that none of these regions experienced an exceptional level of excess mortality in the absence of the vaccines.

It is conceivable that restrictions might have resulted in lighter mortality experience during this period (though please note this is a hypothesis, it is debatable whether interventionist measures achieve the results which some claim). However the absence of restrictions has not triggered anomalously high mortality. This real world data leads me to conclude that the restrictions did not avert any significant excess mortality beyond what was already experienced.

The New Zealand non sequitur as an example of irrational “optimism bias”

One argument put forwards by apologists for the Covid response is that some nations which introduced strong restrictions experienced very light mortality. This is presented as evidence that response measures can work if they are implemented correctly. In particular New Zealand is often flagged as an example, as it experienced light mortality over the period 2020 to 2022 as a whole (indeed, CMI Working Paper 180 shows that its overall mortality experience during this three year period was lighter than might have been expected in normal circumstances).

Opportunity costs amounting to one thousand Boris Brexit buses

One of the most memorable stunts of the Brexit campaign was the famous bus emblazoned with the promise that leaving the EU would theoretically allow the UK to redirect £350m to the NHS every single week.

I won’t stray into the merits of that claim, I don’t need to debate how valid it was. What is unarguable is the amount of money spent by the UK Government on the Covid response: the UK paid vast sums amounting to ~£350bn (billion, not million) and this expenditure definitely did occur. This spending corresponds to one thousand times the weekly amount promised by the bus slogan: enough to make good on that promise for nearly 20 years!

Twenty years!

I trust this conveys the scale of the opportunity cost which the Covid response represented. Could we not have invested this massive sum more productively, such as upgrading hospitals, building nuclear power plants or regenerating neglected areas of our country?

Unfortunately it demonstrates an issue which I argue elsewhere. In particular we have lost the “Civilisational Attitude” which recognises that for our country to flourish we need to prioritise improving the lot of the upcoming generations. The Covid response was the antithesis of this Civilisational Attitude: diverting vast resources (>10% of total national debt) for one-off activity skewed to benefit society’s older members whilst simultaneously burdening the younger generations with the bill. Do you believe that elderly grandparents (i.e. those at highest risk from Covid) would have wanted to bequeath such a destructive economic legacy to their children and grandchildren?

A parting comment

Do I really need to justify further why the measures taken were clearly the wrong approach?

It is worth remembering that the justification for the Covid response was simple: We must act or people will die!

Unfortunately this highly emotional argument was effective at influencing the decision makers, producing the ill-judged mono-focus on Covid which carried exorbitant costs for little gain. My view is that the Covid response is yet another example of a vulnerability in the human psyche, specifically a weakness for being seduced by the promises of large scale Utopian projects (which usually deliver dystopian outcomes). Indeed, some argue that the main takeaway from the history of the 20th Century is to beware the advocates of Utopian initiatives – if so, the response to Covid is proof that we have yet to learn this lesson.

For what it’s worth, I tried to offer some pushback during the crisis through rational arguments. However this was to no avail. Perhaps I should have tried humour instead. The two minute video below does a very effective job of lampooning the emotional argument which proved so powerful during Covid. If only it had gone viral during the early days of the pandemic…