'Asinine' Spec editors deny the science on lockdowns

Vincent J. Curtis

4 Mar 21

RE: Lockdowns work.  Spectator editorial of 04 Mar 21

Whenever Arts majors spout off their alleged knowledge of science, the results are never good.  And for sheer 27 year old know-nothing arrogance, the editorial claiming that lockdowns work cum hit-piece on Conservative MP David Sweet is a glowing example.  The editors were reduced to marshalling their own inexpert observations to support their conclusions.  You’d think by now there’d be a scientific study or two proving not just that lockdowns work, but which measures are the most effective.

Alas!  Real scientific analysis concludes that lockdowns don’t work.  For example, the paper entitled, “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19” whose lead authors are Dr. Eran Bendavid and Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University - released in January - concluded “While same benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs [i.e. Non-pharmaceutical Interventions = lockdown measures.].  Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.”

The respectable scientific analysis is that lockdowns don’t work.  So, if it is “flat out untrue and insulting to argue that they do not work,” it must be because it is embarrassing to have one’s ignorance of science exposed.   The argument: “It took a long time, but eventually the spread began to slow” is an obvious case of the post hoc, ergo, propter hoc fallacy.

If it is asinine to maintain that lockdowns don’t work, how much more asinine is it to maintain that they do in the face of the science?

-30-