April is the deadliest month

T.S. Eliot prophetically described April as “the cruellest month” – and he had never heard of coronavirus.

“April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of the dead land…”

Compared to April, 2019, 44,000 more people died last month, making it the deadliest month on record. Could many of those people have been saved had the government acted earlier? Were many more indeed saved by the lockdown?

Probably, on both counts. In any case, those numbers provide a sombre illustration to the argument I had the other day with a friend, who tends to see the world mainly in economic terms.

Actually, I wouldn’t call it an argument because everything I said was couched in doubts, whereas his position was chiselled in stone. Destroying the economy, according to him, was too steep a price to pay for saving a few wrinklies.

Now, regular readers of this space know that I’m not usually short of a strong view or two. Yet ever since Covid arrived “I don’t know and nobody knows” has been the leitmotif of my writings on the subject.

I don’t know what would have been the right course of action. Perhaps the government went too far with the lockdown. It’s possible that isolating the most vulnerable groups while letting others roam free would have been wiser. It would certainly have been less economically ruinous.

But what if tens of thousands more still had died? Libertarian arguments would have been compromised, wouldn’t they? Or would they? I just don’t know.

My friend does. He hit me with a rhetorical device called reductio ad absurdum, pushing an argument to its grotesque extreme to show how ludicrous it is.

“You’d be willing to pay a trillion pounds to save a few lives,” he said. Actually I didn’t recall putting a precise number on it and, not being a financial man like my friend, I couldn’t even imagine a trillion pounds.

But yes, I said, I’d be willing to pay quite a lot of money to save quite a few lives. My friend immediately did what I would have done upon observing vacillation on my interlocutor’s part. He demanded that I define ‘quite a lot’ and ‘quite a few’.

That I couldn’t do. As a matter of historical observation, however, good countries, including Britain, have been known to accept economic ruin for the sake of upholding certain values and, yes, saving lives in the long run.

Turning the rhetorical tables on my friend, I could have said that, to him, no number of human lives is worth a large amount of money. This argument probably would have been as powerful as his – and as unsound.

I wish I had been as certain as some people, those who don’t care how many die defending abstract libertarian principles. All I can do at the moment is grieve for those 44,000 excess deaths we’ve suffered during that cruellest month. Putting this in perspective, the Luftwaffe only managed to kill 32,000 British civilians during the 10 months of the Blitz.

I am certain, however, that a human life is valuable throughout its duration, from conception to death. The argument that most of those people would have died anyway, what with their existing conditions, of which age is the deadliest, is immoral to the point of being monstrous.

The underlying assumption is that a 25-year-old is worth saving, while a 65-year-old is not, or at least less so. Perhaps in God’s eyes both lives are equally precious, though I wouldn’t like to second-guess the deity.

But regarded through human eyes that proposition isn’t just horrific morally but also unsound empirically. I’d suggest that the last year of J.S. Bach’s life, during which he composed The B Minor Mass and The Art of Fugue was of greater value to mankind than the whole life expectancy of a 25-year-old pusher at King’s Cross.

Bach died at 65 and I can’t begin to imagine the sublime revelations he would have bequeathed us had he lived another year – or ten. Actually, I find it easier to imagine a trillion pounds.

4 thoughts on “April is the deadliest month”

  1. There are experts arguing that the unprecedented lockdowns introduced will cause many more deaths due to suicide and absence of other medical treatment (kemo therapy for example) than the virus.. And that to an order of magnitude. Isolate the sick not the healthy is the norm otherwise. Why not now?

    1. The norm doesn’t necessarily apply because Covid isn’t normal; there’s no precedent for it in our lifetime. And are these the same experts who predicted 500,000 deaths? The whole point is that the pandemic has caught the world unawares and unprepared. During the Black Death, incidentally, healthy people self-isolated if they could, as they did, more recently, during the Spanish fly epidemic. I’m not saying I agree with everything the government has done. Only that I don’t know what the best course of action would have been — and neither, I’m afraid, does anyone else.

  2. All they had to do was quarantine those persons age fifty or older. The rest of the society could function as normal. Those beyond the age of fifty could take their chances if they wished to do so.

    And DON’T SEND SICK PATIENTS TO THE NURSING HOME WITH THE VIRUS. That is how and where all the preponderance of the deaths have occurred.

    Put me in charge boss.

  3. According to Professor David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, only a third of those 44,000 excess deaths can be explained by Covid-19.

    There is still zero evidence that confining the entire population has saved a single life from this disease – whilst there is now growing evidence that the policy is killing people on a daily basis. We can’t even be sure of the true mortality rate as our government ensured that death notifications and statistics have descended to a status befitting the new dictatorships we now all live under – disastrous for pathologists who wish to gain an understanding of this disease. We should all now snort with derision if some wonk says ‘…well, you can’t trust the figures from China.’

    I think history will record these measures, imposed on the citizens of so many countries, as a crime against humanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.