Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
John Dossetor Health Ethics Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 26;9:625778. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778. eCollection 2021.
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.
严重急性呼吸系统综合症冠状病毒 2 型(SARS-CoV-2)在 2020 年引发了全球大流行的 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)。作为回应,世界上大多数国家都实施了封锁,限制其人口的流动、工作、教育、聚会和一般活动,试图“拉平 COVID-19 病例的曲线”。封锁的公共卫生目标是使人口免受 COVID-19 病例和死亡的影响,并防止 COVID-19 患者使医疗保健系统不堪重负。在这篇叙述性评论中,我解释了为什么我改变了对支持封锁的看法。最初的建模预测引发了恐惧和群体效应(即群体思维)。随着时间的推移,出现了与建模相关的重要信息,包括较低的感染病死率(中位数 0.23%)、明确的高风险群体(特别是 70 岁及以上的人群)、较低的群体免疫阈值(可能是 20-40%的人口免疫)以及困难的退出策略。此外,由于对大流行的反应,出现了大量的附带损害信息,使数以百万计的人陷入贫困、粮食不安全、孤独、失业、学校关闭和医疗保健中断的困境。COVID-19 病例和死亡的原始数字难以解释,并且可能会受到有关将 COVID-19 死亡人数置于适当背景和透视的信息的影响。考虑到这些信息,对 COVID-19 反应的成本效益分析发现,封锁对公共卫生的危害要大得多(就福祉年而言,至少要大 5-10 倍),而 COVID-19 本身可能造成的危害。对提出的主要观点的争议和反对意见进行了审议和处理。COVID-19 应对工作的进展取决于考虑这里讨论的权衡,这些权衡决定了人口的福祉。我最后提出了一些前进的建议,包括对真正处于高风险的人群进行有针对性的保护、重新开放学校以及在经济上更好地恢复发展。