It was worth it? From society and from the political world there are more and more frequent signs ofimpatience, if not actual anger, against physical distancing policies introduced to stop the epidemic. In Italy and abroad.
Le psychological suffering and economic damages – it is difficult to establish which ones are greater, but we know that they are intertwined – make these feelings understandable. However, are at risk of being exploited by those who, for electoral or productive interests, argue that in the end there were few infections and also deaths, albeit painful. And if these sentiments mount, the outcome for society could not be auspicious. Mass anger is never a good advisor.
So we need to ask the question again: was it worth it? Two and a half months ago, in the middle of the lockdown, it was answered in the affirmative. An answer that was based on estimates of how many deaths there would have been if the epidemic had been allowed to run. Estimates adapted to the Italian case on the basis of appropriate analyzes and explanations by Tomàs Pueyo (Why You Must Act Now).
They were, actually, predictions about what could have happened in Italy without those costly containment measures. Fragile forecasts. So anyone today could argue the opposite and say that, in light of the much lower numbers of infections and deaths, those predictions were wrong and the lockdown an unfortunate answer. So it wouldn't have been worth it.
But that is a spectacularly wrong conclusion. A study recently appeared on Nature it shows that in Italy we have avoided about 2,1 million confirmed patients, against the current 235 thousand. And it does so on the basis of a meticulous verification of the effectiveness of all the measures adopted, at national and local level, in containing the epidemic.
In all, there are 1.717 physical distancing measures taken in six countries: the USA, China, France, Iran, South Korea and Italy, in fact. For each measure, the impacts on the contagion were assessed, finding that, for example, the closure of schools was not very useful (while, we add, it caused enormous damage to pupils, especially the younger ones).
With some econometric techniques, the authors then evaluated what would have happened if those measures had not been taken. The balance is as follows: 2,1 million cases ascertained with swabs in Italy; 37 million cases in China, against the 83 thousand declared; 11,5 in South Korea (less than 12 thousand today); 4,9 in Iran (174 thousand); 280 thousand in France (154 thousand); and 4,8 in the USA (2 million). Estimates refer to late March, early April.
The dead are not counted. But if we apply the mortality rate estimated in China (just under 1% of the entire sick population), in Italy there are half a million deaths, compared to the 34 thousand declared so far and the real 40-50 thousand. The 1% must be applied to all patients, not just those confirmed, and according to the authors of the study in Italy, without closure, there would have been 49,4 million. A huge gap: nine out of ten lives were saved.
Does this mean that we should go on like this? With high physical distancing? With the risk of new closures? No. As argued on FIRSToline, now we know the enemy, we have developed some therapies, we know how to treat cases, we intervene sooner and in a more targeted way. We can live more serenely with the virus and regain confidence in the future. A trust that would not come if we continued to fan the flames of anger against the sacrosanct measures taken by this and other governments in other countries.
Those who haven't, like Sweden, are experiencing dramatic moments with a surge in cases; and it stands today as we do in February.
