A frequent argument from those who oppose lockdowns is that such and such an example (Sweden, South Dakota, insert as appropriate) did not lockdown and yet the virus was no worse than others (Rest of Europe, North Dakota, insert as appropriate) who did lockdown. This leads to much discussion – e.g. Sweden’s citizens behaved as though there was a lockdown and it suffered much more than its immediate neighbours (Norway, Denmark. Finland) with similar culture and climate. That’s all interesting stuff but I want to make a different point.
The argument is based on a scientific model which you might call the lockdown hypothesis. The hypothesis is something on the lines of “the level of lockdown is inversely proportional to the frequency of virus cases given a constant culture and climate”. It is somewhat analogous to Boyle’s Law which could be paraphrased as “the pressure on a gas is inversely proportional to its volume given a constant temperature and number of molecules of gas”. For laws like this a single counterexample is enough to force us to revise the law. If you can demonstrate an example of a gas that does not conform then Boyle’s law needs changing and you pick up a Nobel prize. However, lockdowns aren’t like that. They are interventions into highly complex systems (societies) which sometimes work as expected and sometimes don’t. This is altogether different.
An analogy which seems to work well is a medical treatment and I believe I have an example from my own experience which works particularly well. A stem cell transplant is a very disruptive intervention into a complex system (my body) to address a problem of uncontrolled growth of something bad (my blood cancer). Stem cell transplants are a proven and standard intervention which make a massive difference most of the time. There are also many examples of stem cell transplants with disappointing results and a few examples of patients that go into remission without a stem cell transplant. That doesn’t mean stem cell transplants don’t work. There is a compelling account of how they work – just as there is a compelling account of how lockdowns work. There are countless cases of patients who had cancer and after the stem cell transplant their cancer was much improved – just as there are many, many cases of countries (or states or provinces or whatever) that had the virus badly and after a lockdown the virus was much improved.
With this model individual failures and individual successes without lockdowns do not prove that lockdowns don’t work. It also means that comparing different countries (or states or provinces or whatever) is not very useful – just as there is limited evidence for stem cell transplants comparing the experience of one patient with another. It is much more compelling to look at what tends to happen to a country before and after a lockdown.
There are very few (any?) examples of countries (or states or provinces or whatever) that have implemented a strong lockdown and the virus has not been brought down. The treatment seems to work!
Note that this is about whether lockdowns work. It does not address the different question – are lockdowns a good idea?
In Moderation 
One thought on “Do Lockdowns Work? A personal analogy.”