Q&A: Coronavirus
Coronavirus
Question
I want to take advantage of the site owner’s kindness and openness (without any sarcasm) to spread a little of my propaganda about coronavirus. I won’t be offended if Michi deletes what I wrote—it’s entirely his right. Still, the discussion touches on the methodology behind the debate and on rationality, and those are actually closely connected to this platform.
Before we begin, let me emphasize: in my opinion there is a coronavirus disease, and it is indeed dangerous for certain populations. All the talk about a “conspiracy” in this context (and usually in other contexts too) is, in my opinion, complete nonsense.
In my view, there are enough weighty claims that are not getting sufficient attention in the public discussion, and in any case it seems that policymakers are ignoring most of them. I am referring mainly to coronavirus and the way it is being dealt with in Israel (though I assume this is partly true abroad as well).
As far as I know, the following claims are based on facts:
- The total number of deaths is not significantly greater than in previous years (maybe even smaller). This is against the backdrop of the claim at the beginning of the crisis that there was a realistic possibility of many thousands of deaths. That did not happen, and we’re not even close.
- Influenza “disappeared” from the mortality records, and in its place “coronavirus” appeared.
- The hospitals, contrary to the initial forecasts, were not even close to collapse. This reminds me of the panic over obtaining ventilators and the Mossad’s daring operations to “snatch” such machines…
- Many people who died “with coronavirus” are recorded as having died “from coronavirus.” In any case, the definition of an epidemic, as I and many others understand it, should be based on seriously ill patients and those on ventilators—not on patients in general, and certainly not on the “confirmed” cases (some of whom are not even sick at all).
- Even if coronavirus were as dangerous as claimed, there would still be no justification for draconian restrictions like those in force: for example, masks in open areas, closing certain sports facilities (pools, gyms). In general, the lockdowns mostly do not bring health benefits. Most transmission happens at home. Even so, morbidity keeps rising…
- The economic, social, and even health damage resulting from this strict policy is greater than the benefit: as for the collapse of the economy, there isn’t much to add. Mental distress for tens of thousands of people (in my opinion hundreds of thousands), increased domestic violence when people are shut in together, and health-wise: the weakening of the immune system in those under extreme stress (more because of the policy and less because of the disease itself), people with other illnesses being afraid to come to hospitals, and the resulting harm.
- In general, I believe the manipulation of the statistics is especially great this time. Of course, there is always some manipulation, and of course the claims of critics of the policy (like me, for example) should also be examined critically. Still, it seems to me that this time the measure has overflowed.
- Another consideration that gets too little attention—and even when it gets attention, people still do not act enough in light of it—is our human rights. Unlike radical crackpots and the like, I do not think human rights always take precedence over public health. On the contrary. But even so, in the current reality the restriction—and some would say trampling—of our rights is significant and wildly disproportionate. For example, the right to make a living or the right to freedom of movement (a person cannot visit his family even if they live within the 1,000-meter limit). One should also seriously discuss the legal and moral status of violating those rights. Does anyone see a meaningful and broad discussion of these questions? If so, I’d be happy for references.
On the margins of the discussion there is also a lot to say about the status of “expertise” in intellectual discourse. Let’s leave that aside for now.
That’s it for the moment.
Answer
All this is certainly worth examining, but it seems to me that there are a few points here that are at least not certain.
- It seems to me that in the U.S. the number of deaths is much higher than in ordinary years. Here, measures were taken, so the numbers could be the result of those measures and do not indicate that they were unnecessary.
- You assume this is only a matter of record-keeping. But the published statistics say otherwise. If you have better information sources, then maybe you’re right. One should remember that infection-prevention measures also prevent influenza.
- The hospitals definitely were close to collapse at certain times (including now). Mocking the panic over obtaining ventilators and the Mossad’s daring operations to “snatch” such machines is wisdom after the fact. Nobody could know in advance what to expect from an unfamiliar germ. Whoever bears responsibility thinks in terms of worst case; others can allow themselves to be rational and relaxed.
- As for the first point, see my remark in 2. As for the definition of an epidemic, I agree.
- You assume lockdowns do not bring benefit. But here you are simply mistaken. The lockdowns proved to be very effective and drastically reduced morbidity. True, if you close and then reopen it comes back, but a lockdown is a measure whose effectiveness is completely clear empirically.
- As for the economic, social, and even health damage resulting from this strict policy as against the benefit, maybe you are right, but the burden of proof is on you. Have you done a precise calculation?
- Indeed, the manipulations in the data and the statistics are very large, in all directions, including among the critics.
- You yourself answered that this is a consideration raised by hysterical rights advocates. Everything depends on whether it is effective. The rights consideration is not important here.
Discussion on Answer
Quote: “All this is certainly worth examining”
Glad to see there’s been some movement, even if only minor 🙂
Hello Alex 🙂
At first I thought this question had been raised by you. I was surprised that the questioner was Doron.
In any case, I must admit, to my embarrassment, that I do not detect any movement in my position. This is the stance I have always expressed.
1. If I remember correctly, the authorities spoke of mortality in the thousands or even tens of thousands as a reasonable forecast—whether measures were taken or not. They were allowed to make a mistake—if it was indeed a mistake—but once the evidence accumulated, it would have been proper to declare openly that this was not an epidemic that had spun out of control, and to derive a different policy from that.
You bring data from the U.S. I would first of all look at Sweden and the mortality data there in recent years. Sweden, as we remember, has not done lockdowns at all. And indeed the number of deaths there is greater than in other places, but compare it to the severe estimates that had been predicted (the Israeli estimates; I don’t know about the Swedish ones), and you’ll see that it pales in comparison. And again, a qualification: demographic and other differences between countries make a fair comparison difficult.
2. To the best of my knowledge, this is only a matter of record-keeping. By the way, I hear that the “correct” registration has economic and other implications, and that there are incentives for health institutions that document coronavirus morbidity. If that isn’t true, one would expect the authorities to deny it explicitly. I don’t know whether they did. I tend not to believe most of them.
3. I don’t know where you get that information. I heard from a number of cross-checked sources that this is not the case. As for mocking “our finest young men”… well, that really is not the main point of my argument. The criticism is not aimed at them, and not even at the working assumption—rational at the time—that we should prepare for the worst. The heart of my claim is this: once it became clear after the fact that there was no danger of a flood of ventilated patients, there was, in my opinion, an obligation to redefine the overall risk level. In the end, even according to the authorities’ own view, most patients will not die from the disease and their condition will not deteriorate very much (and that is without any protective measures).
4. As stated, I know this is purely a matter of registration. I have seen a lot of cross-checked testimony to that effect. Check your data again (I know I’ll do the same).
5. I think you are factually mistaken. The lockdowns were of almost no help, especially the unnecessary restrictions layered onto them. I of course think it is very hard to assess or measure in real time the effect of a lockdown on lowering morbidity.
6. Do you really assume that a precise calculation is needed in order to reach a conclusion on the economic issue? A decisive number? Expert estimates based on facts are enough (and of course there are contrary estimates). As for the health damage, there are data. As for the social, mental, and “moral” harms, etc.—if you have a way to “calculate” them, more power to you. Most of us can only estimate (using intuitions, life experience, and common sense).
8. Since my basic assumption is that the risks are far smaller than they are presented as being, it naturally follows that I would reach the conclusion I reached.
9. I return again to what may be the most important point: one must count the seriously ill, those on ventilators, and of course the dead. As I understand it, the official framework of action today is based mainly on a different database—confirmed cases (which are not even sick people).
Bottom line: there are too many question marks, and when they all accumulate together one can conclude, with a fairly reasonable degree of confidence, that the Israeli conduct in this crisis is exceptionally flawed.
And I haven’t even said anything yet about the prime minister’s credibility in general, and especially in the context of this crisis.