So here's the deal on this virus

[Monty92]

Hi Monty. don't think I referred to this as a cost, but in my "high risk" data set yes, he is in there. He is over 70 and has diabetes so he's definitely in there!

Keep in mind I'm looking strictly at deaths, not the likelihood of who can get it. I don't know that but I'd guess it depends on your level of exposure regardless of age or health condition. As to your 71 year old straw man keep in mind that I am talking about everyone. I have no idea if your Dad, sorry, person will die. Out of this set 996 of 1000 who contract the virus survive. So his odds are still good, but not a 999 out of 1000 survival rate like the 'lucky' ones outside that group. It's like Life Insurance companies. If they have a large sample they can be pretty accurate as to how many of their 71 year old policyholders will die... they just don't know which ones specifically.

You could get more granular in the data if you want to scare the **** out of folks. I'll bet a set of 95 year old folks with diabetes, lung cancer and COPD have a much higher Death Rate, but those are the parameters I set to make my point.

It's a horrific, lonely death. Something your 71 year old should consider as he lives his daily life. Maybe he doesn't go to that stuffy concert hall to see the Fleetwood Mac tribute band. We'll know more about seasonal effects but I'll bet you should be more on your guard in autumn/winter. Maybe he doesn't hug friends at the Temple. Maybe he takes to wearing a mask everywhere. At least it's his choice, not the government or the Corona Police.

The problem is, the people who you claim to be speaking up for (the general public at large) would very quickly vote their Government out of office if they allowed a situation to develop that even remotely resembled what we've seen in, say, Italy.

Presumably you think this would be irrational behaviour too. But you then have to explain what a Government should say to its people to convince them that overwhelming your health service is for the "greater good"

[Burney]

The problem is, the people who you claim to be speaking up for (the general public at large) would very quickly vote their Government out of office if they allowed a situation to develop that even remotely resembled what we've seen in, say, Italy.

Presumably you think this would be irrational behaviour too. But you then have to explain what a Government should say to its people to convince them that overwhelming your health service is for the "greater good"

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.

[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.

[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