So here's the deal on this virus

[Pokster]

This is the truth of it. No government in the UK now would be able to survive a situation in which it was perceived to be acting against scientific advice in order to sacrifice lives for the economy - no matter how rational or logical that position is in the long term. And those, unfortunately, were the terms in which this crisis was framed. The government was damned either way. If we want someone to blame for that, we should look in the mirror.

Oh, and Sweden's situation is simply not comparable. Sweden has a tiny and sparse population and its biggest city has fewer than a million people in it. Saying the UK - with its dense population and teeming megacity - could have done a Sweden is retarded.

Compare Sweden with New Zealand, and the hard line early lock down wins easily...it's the late half hearted approach that we took that has caused issues

[Burney]

Compare Sweden with New Zealand, and the hard line early lock down wins easily...it's the late half hearted approach that we took that has caused issues

No. It almost certainly isn't. In terms of deaths per million, we currently compare similarly or better with countries where the lockdown was earlier and much more severe.

The fact is that it is way, way too early to start drawing conclusions about the numbers of deaths or why they did or didn't occur. Reporting criteria vary, as does methodology.

And comparing NZ - an incredibly sparsely-populated country thousands of miles from anywhere - with pretty much anywhere else on earth is totally meaningless.

[AFC East]

No. It almost certainly isn't. In terms of deaths per million, we currently compare similarly or better with countries where the lockdown was earlier and much more severe.

The fact is that it is way, way too early to start drawing conclusions about the numbers of deaths or why they did or didn't occur. Reporting criteria vary, as does methodology.

I agree with your point re: methodology and drawing conclusions.

What countries had an 'earlier' and more severe lockdown that we're comparing similarly to?

[Burney]

I agree with your point re: methodology and drawing conclusions.

What countries had an 'earlier' and more severe lockdown that we're comparing similarly to?

France tracks similarly to us and went into a much more severe lockdown a week before us.
Italy and Spain are obviously worse and went into strict lockdown even earlier.
Belgium went into lockdown a week before us and is the worst of the lot.

So this is not about when or how you went into lockdown.

[AFC East]

France tracks similarly to us and went into a much more severe lockdown a week before us.
Italy and Spain are obviously worse and went into strict lockdown even earlier.
Belgium went into lockdown a week before us and is the worst of the lot.

So this is not about when or how you went into lockdown.

The point of lockdown has to be related to the curve of cases, rather than the date. You've just broken your own good advice about not jumping to conclusions. Epidemiology suggests that how and when is important, but it's way too early to make conclusions. The data is far too messy.

[Burney]

The point of lockdown has to be related to the curve of cases, rather than the date. You've just broken your own good advice about not jumping to conclusions. Epidemiology suggests that how and when is important, but it's way too early to make conclusions. The data is far too messy.

No, the only thing I'm saying is that pointing to the death rates of other countries who locked down earlier as proof that we ought to have done similar just doesn't work. There are too many other factors at work to draw that conclusion.
Equally, there has been a fundamental failure to understand what lockdown is for. As you say, all lockdown can do is flatten the curve to avoid preventable deaths due to overwhelmed health services. In and of itself, it cannot protect those who are likely to die from this from doing so. Without a vaccine or effective treatments, the majority of those people are going to contract it and die sooner or later. All lockdown can affect is when and how well the health service can cope.

[AFC East]

No, the only thing I'm saying is that pointing to the death rates of other countries who locked down earlier as proof that we ought to have done similar just doesn't work. There are too many other factors at work to draw that conclusion.
Equally, there has been a fundamental failure to understand what lockdown is for. As you say, all lockdown can do is flatten the curve to avoid preventable deaths due to overwhelmed health services. In and of itself, it cannot protect those who are likely to die from this from doing so. Without a vaccine or effective treatments, the majority of those people are going to contract it and die sooner or later. All lockdown can affect is when and how well the health service can cope.

Delaying infection gives you more time to create a vaccine or a treatment. It can also provide data to inform a future relaxing of the lockdown. A strict enough lockdown, over a suitable period of time could eradicate the disease, but I doubt there is appetite for that.

It may also give time to improve the clinical guidance, which leads to more effective treatment (e.g. ventilators were the big thing, evidence now suggests they aren't). It could also give time to ramp up PPE production.

[Pokster]

No. It almost certainly isn't. In terms of deaths per million, we currently compare similarly or better with countries where the lockdown was earlier and much more severe.

The fact is that it is way, way too early to start drawing conclusions about the numbers of deaths or why they did or didn't occur. Reporting criteria vary, as does methodology.

And comparing NZ - an incredibly sparsely-populated country thousands of miles from anywhere - with pretty much anywhere else on earth is totally meaningless.

depends how you also compare how each country decides what a covid death is or isn't..... look at Belgium who have included deaths in hospital and outside and also included deaths that they think are likely to be covid even if they weren't tested.

you can't compare any country with another country accurately unless they have identical reporting methods etc

[Burney]

depends how you also compare how each country decides what a covid death is or isn't..... look at Belgium who have included deaths in hospital and outside and also included deaths that they think are likely to be covid even if they weren't tested.

you can't compare any country with another country accurately unless they have identical reporting methods etc

Yes, but equally, there's strong evidence that deaths from Covid-19 here are being over-reported among the elderly. As things stand, the numbers are nothing but a guide to the reality - and not a terribly good one at that. All of which should make anyone sensible shy away from concluding that one country has done 'well' or another 'badly' based on those numbers.

[Pokster]

Yes, but equally, there's strong evidence that deaths from Covid-19 here are being over-reported among the elderly. As things stand, the numbers are nothing but a guide to the reality - and not a terribly good one at that. All of which should make anyone sensible shy away from concluding that one country has done 'well' or another 'badly' based on those numbers.

every country will have done some things badly...not that they will admit it. It's learning lessons for next time, and there will be a next time