What Bergstrom and Dean Don't Say About the COVID-19 Lockdown

Dr. Carl T. Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington, and Dr. Natalie Dean, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, have an op-ed out in The New York Times, titled, What the Proponents of ‘Natural’ Herd Immunity Don’t Say.

They argue that "there would be nothing quick or painless about reaching herd immunity without a vaccine."

Although they do not come out and say it in a straightforward fashion, they appear to be clearly in the camp that suggests the world should be on lockdown until a vaccine is developed.

But there are a few problems here with regard to "what they don't say."

First, they provide no time frame as to when a vaccine will be developed, so there is no way to determine what the lockdown burden will be.

They don't say what the human costs of the lockdown will be in terms of suicides, domestic abuse, child abuse, child molestation and deaths caused by serious diseases gone undiagnosed.

Bergstrom and Dean seem to focus on the COVID-19 problem as an absolute, absent the fundamental fact that all human action is based on choices where risk can never be eliminated and that each individual has his own risk profile.

Many skydive, hang glide, fly in planes, and drive or ride in automobiles. Many cross streets. None of these activities are without risk. And the willingness to take different risks are individual in nature.

Bergstrom and Dean appear to adopt a one-size-fits-all perspective on risk which aims at eliminating risk of death from COVID-19 for all by way of lockdown until a vaccine is discovered. Though they never discuss the risks of what taking such a vaccine will be.

This is all very odd positioning since those who fear COVID-19 for any reason can simply isolate themselves until a vaccine becomes available (if one ever does) and those who are willing to risk getting infected or who want to "live before they die" can go on with their choices.

What is it with this draconian desire to make everyone obey in lockstep with a risk profile that can't possibly fit everyone in the entire world?

There is really nothing scientific about suggesting policy prescriptions that don't take into account that all individuals have different risk profiles---and where the tradeoffs with the dangers of different policy directions are not presented to understand the true nature of the risks and reward tradeoffs.

  -RW