Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

A cuckoo COVID coincidence?

James D. Chalmers, Mike Lonergan
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2003236; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03236-2020
James D. Chalmers
Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Lonergan
Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

There are limitations to inferring causality from observational data, but lockdowns have almost certainly saved lives worldwide https://bit.ly/2YWAhhl

From the authors:

We are grateful to A.H. Morice for his reminder of the limits of observational data, and the need for caution in its interpretation. And we accept that it is unlikely to ever be proved conclusively that the dramatic restrictions imposed as countries locked down caused the dramatic changes in epidemic trajectories, even though the epidemiological changes seemed to follow the behavioural changes. However, there is also a large logical leap from observing the Swedish data to inferring that social distancing “measures can only have had a minor effect”.

The decisions of the Swedish government certainly differed from those of other countries. The Swedish decline in daily mortalities was also slower than in the rest of Europe, including the UK. It is true that that those extra deaths cannot be conclusively proved to be the responsibility of the public health policy of the Swedish government. However, Sweden is not isolated. The natural comparators for the Swedish experience are its neighbours: Denmark, Norway and Finland. All of them experienced far lower, and more rapidly declining, mortality rates. Many Swedish people modified their behaviour substantially, following and even exceeding governmental recommendations that resembled many of the restrictions imposed in other countries [1].

The USA is another western country that did not follow the pattern of locking down tightly. And its patchwork of decisions and timings may be the nearest data we will have to trials of the effects of different measures. But even they cannot prove causation.

So there remain at least four possibilities: the lockdowns changed the course of the epidemic; the epidemic was halted by behavioural changes that would have occurred without the governmental lockdown (effectively a people's lockdown); spring reduced transmission sufficiently to stop the virus around the time of each European country's lockdown; or, in each country, changes occurred in the virus around the time of lockdown. Until next winter, choosing between them will largely be a matter of belief, though it is unclear how an argument for the centrality of seasonality would explain the apparent successes of autumnal control measures in Australia and New Zealand.

One response to this uncertainty would be to give up on statistical analysis and modelling, and fall back on common sense to deal with this unprecedented situation. Some instincts, such as those to avoid crowds of strangers and individuals who show signs of sickness, are certainly appropriate for personal safety within a pandemic, but it is not obvious how they would inform decisions on purchasing ventilators or creating extra hospital capacity. And, while the Nightingale Hospitals may feel like wasted money now, they were an insurance policy. Regretting the purchase of insurance because we didn't need to make a claim rather misses its point.

While we agree with A.H. Morice about the importance of assumptions, we do believe models can extract useful information from, even limited, data. We failed if our models [2] were “indecipherable”. They were very simple in concept: as directly transmissible diseases spread exponentially while they are rare and other conditions are constant. The proportion of the population that caught coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was relatively small, and the main methodological novelty in our paper was estimating exponential rates of decline after each country's peak as well as exponential growth rates before it. Separate models were fitted for each country, partly because, as A.H. Morice says, their “surety of data collection varies”.

And we also agree that all, certainly including our, model results need to be treated with caution: they are simplified representations rather than reality. It wasn't hubris that led us to say our “estimates are incompatible with a return to previous activities post ‘lockdown’”, but a recognition that they were estimates rather than definitive truth.

There is one issue that we clearly missed: while the change from rapid increases to slow declines does suggest that the behavioural changes were only just sufficient, as we stated, we did not acknowledge that some of the restrictions might have absolutely no effect. So, if banning sunbathing in parks, or restricting people to one 1-h period of exercise per day, made no difference to disease transmission they were irrelevant. We should have clearly stated that it was a majority out of those behavioural changes that affected disease transmission that required continuation. Working out which these were effective will be difficult, especially as people are responding in very different ways to the easing of restrictions. Without data, statistical analysis, and, probably, modelling we are unlikely to be able to untangle those effects. And the argument as to whether it is better to do too much or too little about a public health crisis is unanswerable in the abstract: gradually, as information becomes available and is analysed, we can hope to tune the distribution of resources between COVID-19 and other priorities. But, whatever happens, we will remain grateful to A.H. Morice for his contribution to keeping us honest.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-03236-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: J.D. Chalmers reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Insmed; personal fees from Chiesi, Novartis and Zambon; and grants from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Lonergan has nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: Funding was received from the British Lung Foundation (BLF Chair of Respiratory Research to J.D. Chalmers).

  • Received August 23, 2020.
  • Accepted August 27, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Le Page M
    . Is Sweden's coronavirus strategy a cautionary tale or a success story? New Scientist. Available from: www.newscientist.com/article/2251615-is-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-a-cautionary-tale-or-a-success-story/ Date last updated: 13 August 2020.
  2. ↵
    1. Lonergan M,
    2. Chalmers JD
    . Estimates of the ongoing need for social distancing and control measures post-“lockdown” from trajectories of COVID-19 cases and mortality. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2001483. doi:10.1183/13993003.01483-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 4 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A cuckoo COVID coincidence?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
A cuckoo COVID coincidence?
James D. Chalmers, Mike Lonergan
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2020, 56 (4) 2003236; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03236-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A cuckoo COVID coincidence?
James D. Chalmers, Mike Lonergan
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2020, 56 (4) 2003236; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03236-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Efficacy of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis
  • Ethical obligations for supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Reversible pulmonary hypertension with multivisceral Whipple's disease
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Efficacy of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis
  • Ethical obligations for supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Reversible pulmonary hypertension with multivisceral Whipple's disease
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society