Letters | Coronavirus fatality rate does not justify strong lockdowns

Those who oppose lockdowns do not place the economy above the health of the elderly, but recognise that these measures cause public health problems unrelated to Covid-19

Reading Time:2 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

A waitress walks through a restaurant in which tables and chairs have been taped to comply with social distancing regulations in Admiralty, Hong Kong, on March 29. Photo: Nora Tam

Letters

Published: 6:55am, 20 Nov 2020Updated: 6:55am, 20 Nov 2020

I refer to your editorial “We must all soldier on together if coronavirus battle is to be won” (November 17).

Coming so soon after Remembrance Day, the headline conjures up unfortunate images of soldiers hauling themselves out of the trenches only to be mowed down by machine guns.

The coronavirus, thank goodness, is not that deadly. We now know from a Stanford University peer-reviewed analysis of 61 studies worldwide, that the median Covid-19 infection fatality rate is 0.27 per cent. To be sure, that is two to three times higher than for influenza, but still means that on average 99.7 per cent of people with Covid-19 recover from it.

Your editorial criticises the “many who put business and dining above public health”. This is a false dichotomy. Those of us who oppose strong lockdowns do not put money above grandma’s health. Instead, we recognise that the lockdowns themselves cause public health problems unrelated to Covid-19.

There is ample evidence of this worldwide – an increase in mental health problems and suicides, more heart attacks and cancer deaths, and most tragically, starvation for those thrown out of work by lockdowns in countries unable to provide proper support. These are also public health issues, quite aside from the lives ruined by crushed businesses. Even the World Health Organization recognises this.

03:04

More children forced to work as coronavirus batters India’s economy

For Hong Kong, unless we plan to permanently close our airport, we have to learn to live with some level of the virus in our community and to handle it. Balance is key, not “zero-virus” absolutism.