Sacrificing our health to save our health

Are there unintended consequences to our covid-19 response?

We’re told to stay home and stay safe, or stay home and save lives. But is it that simple? Are there unintended consequences arising from our efforts to ‘stay safe’?

We heard this from a reader named David:

My health has gone way down because of these lockdowns. Besides that I’m not able to see my doctor, I am suffering from pain on my feet with no real diagnosis. Phone diagnostics is a joke. Doctors don’t care about their patients anymore. My anxiety levels are skyrocketing. I’ve lost millions in my business which took many years to build up. I have not seen my children and grandchildren for over a year. The governments are trying to kill us.

David brings up telephone doctor visits as one particular problem (not to mention the devastating economic and social tolls of lockdowns). Can doctors properly diagnose ailments based on a series of questions and answers over the phone? Does a phone call replace the efficiency of an in-person visit?

Here’s something else to ponder. Why is it illegal to operate or visit a gym when obesity (along with old age) is a primary risk factor for covid-19?

Another factor to consider is sunshine and vitamin D. The subject is still debated, but can anyone argue against the health benefits of fresh air, sunshine, and exercise? Especially since the outdoors is a great place to exercise, are the constant messages to “stay home, save lives” discouraging people from taking measures to protect their own health?

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Another reader, Tyler, tells us:

I am a lifelong resident of Windsor, ON and have seen the devastating toll of the lockdown fiasco in my city. Businesses I've known my whole life are starting to close up and cut their losses. Family and social structures are breaking down in my immediate circle…

The ‘law of unintended consequences’ states that the “actions of people, and especially of governments, always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.”

Here’s an example for our present situation: What do peanuts have to do with lockdowns?

Unintended consequences.

Peanut allergies were rare among American children up until the mid-1990s, when only four out of a thousand children under the age of eight had such an allergy. But by 2008, the rate had more than tripled, to fourteen out of a thousand.

No one knew why kids were becoming more allergic to peanuts. But the response was natural and seemingly rational: kids are vulnerable so keep them away from peanuts, peanut products, and anything that has been in contact with nuts of any kind.

But there was a severe and negative unintended consequence of this action, which was guided by the best intentions.

Researchers behind the authoritative LEAP study published in 2015 told half of participating parents to follow the standard advice for high-risk kids, which was to avoid all exposure to peanuts and peanut products.

The other half were given a supply of a snack made from peanut butter and puffed corn and were told to give some to their child at least three times a week.

Among the children who had been “protected” from peanuts, 17% had developed a peanut allergy. In the group that had been deliberately exposed to peanut products, only 3% had developed an allergy.

One of the researchers noted that: “For decades allergists have been recommending that young infants avoid consuming allergenic foods such as peanut to prevent food allergies. ... this advice was incorrect and may have contributed to the rise in the peanut and other food allergies.”

So what does this have to do with lockdowns?

Unintended consequences.

Destroying ourselves to save ourselves

Dr. John Lee, a former professor of pathology and NHS consultant pathologist, belives that "if lockdown is working, and stopping the spread of the virus, it might be reducing the circulation of milder versions among the population, while at the same time concentrating people with the most severe disease in hospital wards."

He adds: "might the lockdown be causing more harm than good — in this way as well as many others? Are our actions really helping overall? Or are they opposing a helpful evolutionary tendency of the virus, as well as economically hindering our ability to deal with it?"

The mental health implications of lockdown are obvious but not fully appreciated. They should be.

By enacting lockdowns we are sacrificing the young in a vain and misguided attempt to save the elderly. We could do both but are doing neither. Our children are also suffering.

Furthermore, suicides and overdose deaths are positively correlated with lockdown.

It's okay to change your mind.

Lockdown may have seemed like the ethical option months ago, but the data doesn't back it up. Consider Dr. Ari Joffe, who has written a paper that finds the harms of lockdowns are 10 times greater than their benefits.

Isolating ourselves from each other is much like isolating children from peanuts. It may feel like the right thing to do but that doesn't mean it is. Sometimes the wisest thing to do is change your mind.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University states that "...not only is it a good thing for young people to go out there and become immune, but that is almost their duty. It’s a way of living with this virus. It’s how we live with other viruses.”

We need to re-examine the way in which we are living.

Full credit to Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt for the peanut allergy story.