Read on Twitter
There are two questions I would like to ask lockdown sceptics such as Toby Young, beautifully taken down by @NeilDotObrien (who does nothing more than quote Toby Young's tweets back at him). Both concern the assertion that lockdowns don't in fact work. 1/ https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1349701110588710916
The first question is whether they are even slightly troubled by the fact that the numbers of cases and deaths seem to have a weird habit of stopping their remorseless growth and going into a decline after lockdowns are imposed -- with a (completely predictable) lag. 2/
It happened in March and November, and the cases appear to be coming down again now (and at the very least the rapid growth appears to have been halted). What is the explanation for this? A coincidence that has played out in many countries and even regions within countries? 3/
The second is whether they entertain even for a second the possibility that they might be wrong, and whether, if so, that troubles them. I'll grant that there are a few scientists who agree with them. They are very much in the minority, and often their expertise ... 4/
is in areas other than epidemiology, but let's be generous and take "Lockdowns don't work" as a serious position that has not been ruled out. Do lockdown sceptics want to go even further and say that that position is actually almost certainly correct? 5/
That would seem an odd view to hold for a non-expert. That would not be arguing that the science is not settled. It would be arguing that the science is settled, but on a conclusion that most scientists disagree with. 6/
This is important, because the nature of exponential growth is such that the penalty for getting this wrong is very large, so even a 30% chance that they are wrong should be taken very seriously. (Of course I think it's actually nearer 100%.) 7/
PS The parallels with climate change denial are too obvious to be worth elaborating on. 8/8
