COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink

被引:77
作者
Joffe, Ari R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Stollery Childrens Hosp, Dept Pediat, Div Crit Care Med, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, John Dossetor Hlth Eth Ctr, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
COVID-19; lockdowns; public health; cost-benefit analysis; groupthink; HERD-IMMUNITY; MORTALITY; HEALTH; SARS-COV-2; IMPACT; ALLOCATION; VACCINES; HISTORY; DEATHS; STRESS;
D O I
10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to "flatten the curve" of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20-40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5-10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.
引用
收藏
页数:25
相关论文
共 271 条
[81]  
Faustini Sian E, 2020, medRxiv, DOI 10.1101/2020.06.16.20133025
[82]  
Fernes N., 2020, IESE BUSINESS SCH SP
[83]   Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggests epidemic control with digital contact tracing [J].
Ferretti, Luca ;
Wymant, Chris ;
Kendall, Michelle ;
Zhao, Lele ;
Nurtay, Anel ;
Abeler-Dorner, Lucie ;
Parker, Michael ;
Bonsall, David ;
Fraser, Christophe .
SCIENCE, 2020, 368 (6491) :619-+
[84]  
Fine P, 2011, CLIN INFECT DIS, V52, P911, DOI 10.1093/cid/cir007
[85]   Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe [J].
Flaxman, Seth ;
Mishra, Swapnil ;
Gandy, Axel ;
Unwin, H. Juliette T. ;
Mellan, Thomas A. ;
Coupland, Helen ;
Whittaker, Charles ;
Zhu, Harrison ;
Berah, Tresnia ;
Eaton, Jeffrey W. ;
Monod, Melodie ;
Ghani, Azra C. ;
Donnelly, Christl A. ;
Riley, Steven ;
Vollmer, Michaela A. C. ;
Ferguson, Neil M. ;
Okell, Lucy C. ;
Bhatt, Samir .
NATURE, 2020, 584 (7820) :257-+
[86]  
Foster G., 2020, MAT FURTHER ADDRESSE
[87]  
Foster G., 2020, COST BENEFIT ANAL EX
[88]  
Foster G., 2020, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, V23, P129
[89]  
Frijters P., 2020, Club Troppo
[90]  
Frijters P., 2000, HAS CORONAVIRUS PANI