Saturday , July 11 2020
Home / FT Alphaville / Is the “science” behind the lockdown any good?

Is the “science” behind the lockdown any good?

We should all be pretty familiar with the narrative by now. An arrogant, exceptionalist British government was until mid-March pursuing a reckless strategy of herd immunity that would have callously allowed a huge number of old and vulnerable people to die and the health system to be overwhelmed. Then came a “bombshell” from Imperial College London: a “doomsday report” predicting there would be 500,000 deaths if we were to carry on down that road, prompting a sudden government U-turn, and ultimately the decision to lock the country down. Gone was the Machiavellian Dominic Cummings plan of “letting old people die”; in was STAY AT HOME; PROTECT THE NHS; SAVE LIVES. (The notion that it was Cummings who was pushing for the herd immunity idea has since been disputed, while the notion that

FT Alphaville considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Bradford DeLong writes Black: Cracking—Noted

Bradford DeLong writes Campos: The Trump Delusion—Noted

Bradford DeLong writes Higgins & Klitgaard: Japan’s Experience with Yield Curve Control—Noted

Bradford DeLong writes Time for Another Ethics Panel: Keyvan—Noted

FT Alphaville
FT Alphaville is a free daily news and commentary service giving finance professionals the information they need, when they need it. In a world where market professionals are inundated with information there is a pressing need to edit and filter, and hopefully sow a few ideas along the way. That’s where the FT Alphaville team comes in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *