Well, I still haven’t finished it, but so far I’m impressed by the quality of the debate and Weinstein’s expository skill. He must have been a very good lecturer. I’d just like to pick up on his comments about COVID (which I think JP didn’t agree with, but the debate moved on). Around 53:39, he basically says that the vaccines probably aren’t going to work well and we “should have” done a six-week hard lockdown at the beginning. This surprised me given his intellect (which is probably plus-three-sigma) and it made me ponder on the intersection between raw intelligence and experience.
What I would have said in response is something like this:
In theory that might have worked. It sounds plausible enough that it would have been worth a try [and given Weinstein’s academic background, I’m sure he knows exactly how plausible, so I’ll take his word for it]. But how would we have actually done that?
- While people were locked in their homes, how would they get food and water (for drinking and hygiene)? Because a “hard lockdown” means shutting down the food infrastructure.
- How would waste be disposed of, including sewage? Because you’d have to shut down the water supply/disposal systems.
- People might have been able to forego heating and cooling in March, but what about cooking? Because you’d have to shut down the power plants.
- What would you do about people who became ill? Because you’d have to shut down all healthcare and associated support services.
- How would people communicate (particularly in the case of emergencies)? Because the comms network would go down with the power system.
- Who would go around and slaughter all the chickens, pigs and cows that nobody would feed or monitor? How would we dispose of the corpses? And how would we restock at the end of six weeks?
- What would we do about the crop failures following six weeks of neglect, and the accompanying food shortages?
The obvious response, of course, is: oh, but all of those essential things would be kept running.
And the response to that is: well, you don’t have a hard lockdown then, do you?
And perhaps it would go on: we’d have those people isolated in a ‘bubble economy’, away from others, sleeping in their offices, control rooms, and barns.
And I’d respond: really? We could re-jig the entire economy to work in this way in the required timeframe, ie., a week or two, and not bugger it up?
In short, it could not have been done in practice even if it sounds alluring in theory. Which is why it was not done.
A big problem with modern society is that people don’t realise that there’s no such thing as a “non-essential business”. People aren’t getting up in the morning and scooting around for no good reason. Everything is interconnected, and rather fragile. Shut down enough stuff, for long enough, and you’ve wiped out civilisation. You cannot do six-week “hard lockdowns” in countries like the USA. It is impossible.