THE EFFICACY OF LOCKDOWN
In my first article in this series I gave an outline of my object with this series of articles and discussed the origin of COVID-19. If the source or origin is contentious at all, the issue of Lockdown is more so. This is quite understandable because the origin is ultimately of academic importance or nice to know, but Lockdown is completely subjective, having a direct and very real impact on the lives of each and every inhabitant on the planet!
As with the origin, there are many voices but there are only two real options to Lockdown: to do it (to some extent) or not (with precautions). Strangely, both philosophies profess to be set on saving lives.
Pro Lockdown Philosophy
For those in favour of Lockdown the scenario is rather simple: the world is faced with a potential natural catastrophe, not seen in the last century, and the first and ultimate goal is to avoid loss of life as a result of the disease.
Pro Lockdowners do not deny the very real and prejudicial consequences of Lockdown or its knock-on effect on the economy, but seem to be of the opinion that these are issues to address, after the imminent threat of the disease has been met and negated.
Pro Lockdowners enjoy the philosophical higher ground: if casualties are equal to or less than seasonal flu, Lockdown obviously worked, but if they are substantially higher they can argue that it would have been even worse in the absence of Lockdown. Technically pro Lockdowners cannot lose this argument, whichever way the pandemic turns out!
Anti-Lockdown Philosophy
Those opposing Lockdown have a very different view. Firstly they view the pandemic as totally blown out of proportion and less or equally threatening than seasonal flu. Put simply: they might acknowledge Lockdown as a first solution but not as the best or even an applicable solution.
They do not deny that there will be an immediate loss of life from the disease but their argument is that the loss of life from the ensuing economic havoc will be far greater than from COVID-19. Where pro Lockdowners see the main threat in the pandemic, anti-Lockdowners see it in the aftermath and imply that pandemic casualties should be regarded as collateral damage for the greater good of sustaining the economy.
It seems as if the main difference between these groups is their orientation towards narratives.
The Narratives and Orientations
Contemporary life is surreal in many respects and often rests on narratives rather than common sense: stories and, in some instances, fairy tales. Narratives are developed for almost everything and we find an official narrative, spun by governments and the mainstream media, unofficial narratives, coming from so-called independents, and the ever present conspiracy theories, with the truth concealed somewhere in between.
Initially we had the Chinese narrative which the World Health Organization (WHO) seems to have subscribed to in order to compile theirs. This narrative has increasingly been shown to be false and lacking in almost every respect, from the source of the disease to prevention!
In contemporary society we encounter what I shall call Identity Cultists, people who identify with a person or institution so closely, that their following is comparable to religious discipleship. They are sometimes referred to as sheeple, people who, despite their supposed intellect and education or lack thereof, are very willing to discard common sense for hypothesis. These followed WHO advice, directives and protocols diligently and apparently to their extreme prejudice, as is shown in the case of some European countries like Italy, Spain and France.
In the opposite corner we encounter Individualistic Pragmatists, people who might take cognizance of cult views, but measure these against common sense practicality, before deciding to develop an original strategy for their own unique circumstances. Most notable in this group are South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Despite assurances from the WHO that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, that face masks were useless and should only be worn by the sick, these territories actually applied their minds to the matter, closed down travel between China, implemented social distancing, the wearing of face masks and initiated very wide scale testing to ensure timely and focused preventative action. They saw no need for a Lockdown and except for South Korea, that experienced a sudden but brief spike in cases which was effectively brought under control by a focused Lockdown, these territories’ statistics are enviable to any other nations of the world!
Sweden also followed a similar route trusting in the social responsibility of their citizens in adhering to preventative protocols. Initially their data didn’t look too bad, compared to their Nordic neighbours. But of late their statistics are showing a higher prevalence ratio for infections and fatalities than their neighbours’, even after adjustments for their bigger population! That being said, in the absence of Lockdown they did not experience an uncontrollable explosion of infections or fatalities! But compared to South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, Swedish results are extremely disappointing.
From my personal observations it would seem that the difference between Sweden and these others is popular discipline. Whilst Sweden is relying solely on social responsibility these Asian territories appear to have the advantage of a more structured popular discipline (integrity and less liberalism), which includes social responsibility, and hence the difference in result.
The UK and the USA tried Individualistic Pragmatism in their approach of essentially doing nothing and opting for herd immunity, might have been original if their initial response actually comprised a response at all! But what fascinates me personally, is the sudden turnabout of Messrs. Trump and Johnson?
A lot of pragmatic individualists have been blaming the Lockdown on the unsubstantiated furor created by the mainstream media. But in constantly regurgitating this narrative they inadvertently reveal a hint of identity cultism in that they are following a narrative created by someone within their sphere, who obviously hasn’t considered all the ingredients required for a credible narrative.
Pragmatic individualists almost always criticize the mainstream media and often brand it a propaganda tool for globalists and liberal governments. If this is true then it is the globalists and liberal governments of the world that are dictating to the media and are intentionally imploding their economies, and it is they and not the media, who are ultimately responsible for Lockdown?
But this narrative weakens further in the light of the contradictions highlighted by Messrs. Trump and Johnson. One might argue that Boris Johnson is a copycat, but Donald Trump really isn’t unnerved by a contrary or critical media, and that is a fact. He actually appears to enjoy contention and controversy? Yet he changed his approach completely which obviously wasn’t caused by the media?
So, with respect, as much as I have personal reservations toward the mainstream media, attributing Lockdown to it, gives it much more credibility than it actually deserves!
Mr. Trump’s response in cutting funding to the WHO and reports that USA projection models have constantly been revised downwards, logically suggests that he succumbed to persuasion from identity cultists. Firstly that he had to acknowledge the status of the WHO and secondly that he could not ignore the preferred statistical bishops’ prophecies. This contention is carried out by the following. Given Mr. Trump’s personality and seeing that the WHO and statistical prophecies were notoriously wrong, it’s rather logical that the WHO has to pay, by forfeiting support payments from the USA? I also believe a few statistical bishops have been quietly relegated to the rank of priest, if not excommunicated completely!
In any event a Lockdown on international or cross border travel is a common denominator and would generally be quite sensible as one might be certain of one’s own domestic measures, but not so as to preventative protocols applied by others.
Lockdown – Yay or Nay
The first problem with COVID-19 is the novelty aspect – it being new and unknown.
Although Mr. Trump seems to have subscribed to a very individualistic approach his failure, in my opinion and contrary to mainstream criticism, was not in failing to follow WHO protocols earlier, but in not attaching sufficient value to the response options presented and applied by South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan timeously!
Due to an incredible mode of application, probably copied exactly or largely from the WHO playbook, the approach to Lockdown in South Africa is extremely contentious. At the risk of being repetitive, please allow me to reiterate: South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan used their common sense, reacted immediately and avoided a Lockdown leaving more drastic options available should conditions require, as in the case of South Korea - a bottom up approach.
Due to their initial and misguided nonchalance, European countries were denied this luxury and had to start from the top down – maximum Lockdown with a gradual easing of restrictive measures.
When reality suggested error, the WHO also climbed onto the Lockdown wagon but apparently pushing the top down approach.
At first glance South African data, yes that confounded religion, definitely did not warrant a top down European approach but the country was an ideal candidate for the bottom up response.
That being said, unless we are completely cognitively impaired, we have to acknowledge that our country largely exhibits little to no social responsibility and consequently even less popular discipline? If you don’t agree, I shall merely mention the prevalence of HIV, teenage pregnancies, institutionalized looting and corruption, gender related and general violent crime and rest my case.
Consequently I personally doubt that a bottom up approach would be practical in South Africa, which contention is proven by the fact that, despite the top down approach being applied, infections and fatalities have increased during Lockdown! If Lockdown was a necessity at its start, and our data is worth anything at all, then logic seems to dictate that it is equally or more so at its end, on the numbers!
Being a novel virus I am reluctant to speculate, especially as to COVID-19’s long term prognosis: will immunity ensue, will it be of limited duration, will an insignificant infection now, present as some other serious complication or condition later, etc.? But Sweden, and the Asian territories referred to, do seem to suggest an enormous miscalculation in both infection and fatal potentials, in the presence of basic preventative protocols.
The Object of Lockdown
The unanimous object of Lockdown is to limit and spread infections over an extended period and by so doing, avoid overwhelming medical capacity at any given time and NOTHING ELSE. The latest cliché added to the tragic linguistic-patchwork-field of phraseology is flatten the curve, a result equally applicable to and achieved by any mother after birthing. Flattening the curve is seen as a commendable achievement, but celebrating it at unsustainably high levels is clearly irrational?
The actual question is: how efficient is Lockdown, logically? In answering this question I shall start my illustration with the strongest and easiest example, but first I must ask my readers to keep two words in mind: potential and chance.
Let’s imagine a farmer and his family, all COVID-19 negative, in some remote part of the country on a farm where no one, except friends and relatives ever go. They practice home schooling, grow their own vegetables, have their own milk and meat and due to the distance to the nearest town, have a reasonable supply of necessities not produced on the farm. Theoretically there is zero potential and chance of them contracting COVID-19 as long as they stay on the farm and don’t receive any visitors?
Now take their local town. Tests have shown zero infections in the town and except for visitors, tourists and travelers passing through, which isn’t happening during Lockdown, the only foreign entrants would be people, goods and vehicles entering the town to deliver supplies that have to be sourced externally. In the absence of strangers there is zero potential and chance of infection. With efficient preventative protocols in place to deal with strangers delivering goods, potential rises sporadically but chances of a sustained, increase in potential and transmission are almost non-existent thanks to protocol. So both potential and chance remain negligible, although higher than the family on the farm?
Restricting the farmer’s movement on the farm would be senseless and so too prohibiting any form social or economic engagement within this town, as long as the viral wall (the human variant of a computer’s firewall) was efficient?
When we consider bigger towns and cities this preventative theory must obviously change somewhat but the principles remain the same. Statistics suggest that the prevalence of the virus differs from area to area and consequently the potential to spread the virus differs, geographically. Put differently: people from certain severely affected geographical locations bear more potential to spread the virus than others from a different location where prevalence is minimal to zero.
Every time we drive a car the potential exists for a collision and the more cars on the road the higher that potential is. But the more we drive and the more unknown roads we travel, the more the chances of a collision increase? Thus potential is an inherent risk or fact, whilst chance is subjective and more relative to personal choice and actions.
In the COVID-19 scenario the higher the amount of people and goods traveling between geographic areas, the higher the possibility of them importing and exporting viral potential to increase the spread of the virus. Unless absolutely no cross boundary commuting is permitted the potential spread from one geographic location to another obviously exists. But the actual chance of contracting and spreading it in the new location is dependent on two factors: the amount of people and objects we come into contact with, having transferal potential, and adherence to preventative protocols.
From all of the available narratives it would seem that even if we come into contact with objects and people with transferal potential, if we are wearing a mask and sanitize hands, potentially contaminated and foreign objects, potential is negated and our chances of contracting the virus are apparently minimal to zero. Obviously the more people we come into contact with and the more objects we bring into our homes from different sources, the greater the presence of potential and the chance that our application of protocols may slip!
The Practical Efficacy of Lockdown
In the city scenario we would firstly want to replicate the geographic isolation of the country town, as closely as possible, by way of Lockdown. As an added advantage we would want to minimize the chance of infection by limiting contact exposure to people and goods with a higher transfer potential.
That seems to be the theory, but is it practical in a South African context?
Let us say we have several areas in a city with varying average statistics as to new positives reported on a daily basis: A 50 cases, B 30, C 30, D 10, E 2 and F 0.7. For the purposes of our example let us refer to these numbers as potential.
I live in area E with a comparatively low potential and due to geographic self-isolation I don’t ever leave my area. At home potential is 0 and going out I am exposed to a level 2 potential right? Wrong. The essential item supply store I visit for supplies has employees from all six areas meaning that real potential in that shop could actually be as high as 50! For the poor employee from area F my presence and that of their co-workers in the shop raises their work potential high above their residential potential of 0.7 to 0?
This example quite clearly illustrates the positive capacity of geographic isolation but if that isolation is essentially non-existent or relaxed at all, the potential could turn negative, depending on which location you are located in. This example also shows how easily the virus can be imported and exported, despite Lockdown!
In other words, despite applying the current bottom down or hard Lockdown, your actual success at replicating a small-town-type geographical isolation in a South African city is close to zero! Despite your imagined isolation, the real potential remains very close to conditions without Lockdown and reducing chance is the only way of negating or limiting spread, especially by way of our personal sanitization regimen.
These very real circumstances apply to any area exposed to a daily back and forth of commuters or the cross boundary delivery of goods and services, regardless of location or socio-economic classification. Our simplistic example seems to effectively illustrate the logic why the countries and territories discussed previously, opted not to apply a Lockdown as first response.
But the ultimate question is: if potential essentially remains unchanged and we have to rely on a personal sanitization regimen to reduce or negate chance, in any case, is the current South African style Lockdown of any use at all?
Logically it would seem not!
Conclusion
After evaluating all the information at my disposal it would seem that the only real game changer in the South African COVID-19 scenario is an efficient personal sanitization regimen and that the current form of Lockdown is logically flawed in that it does not substantially reduce spread potential, only chance. As chance can be reduced and even completely expelled by an efficient sanitization regimen, Lockdown is ultimately and logically superfluous!
As to a lack of popular discipline and social responsibility these are essentially culturally based and cannot be instilled overnight. This is something which needs to be addressed from an educational perspective over time and needs to include elements such as national and community based self-respect and pride. This deficiency currently exists, regardless of Lockdown or not, and therefore it cannot serve as a rational motivation for a Lockdown at all.
Where will COVID-19 go with us? Quite frankly we don’t have a clue, no one does yet!
As irrational, uncomfortable and prejudicial as any Lockdown might be, it is here and we need to deal with it and its aftermath. On the current data and from what I hear supposed experts anticipating, this Lockdown was just an expensive practice lap for what is yet to come!
We shall have to see whether they are right and can only hope for the WHO to about face on the virus and our identity cultists in charge, to remain true to form, and follow their changed recommendations? But for the WHO to do this would require an unambiguous, tacit admission as to having messed up, big time, so I won’t be holding my breath.
That being said and having firsthand experience of a Lockdown, South African style, we all should have ample proficiency to ascertain what we need to do to ensure less disorientation the next time round? In the light of the above, only a fool will not re-evaluate existing operations and essentials and implement futuristic strategies accordingly, as soon as Lockdown is lifted sufficiently. The pleasure derived by some from authoritarian governance during this Lockdown, might suggest that the next time round, we might not be so lucky as to receive any prior warning or indication and that it might be even harsher!
Keep safe, plan and execute wisely!
- The Influentcer
www.influentcer.com