So here's the deal on this virus

[Chief Arrowhead]

Maybe this consensus has already been vetted here and if so I apologize. Unfortunately due to my career I've researched much more than I have wanted to. As a result I am highly confident of the following:

1) At the time when we really didn't know anything (allegedly) it seems reasonable in hindsight to have curtailed or 'locked down' human activity. The concern was our health care system being overrun. I'll let that slide

2) The scary part for the masses is the Death Ratio. The IMHE modeling uses CFR which is simply Deaths divided by Cases. Early on it was assumed that this Death Ratio was up to 5%.

3) Since then improved testing and experiential data has shown that rate to be lower, much lower. Many acquired the virus and had no symptoms. For others the symptoms were mild and toughed it out. They were never tested which resulted in an inaccurate, much lower divisor. I believe that I am in the second group, a week in March was a rough one.

4) a deep dive into the data shows that the Death Ratio is most likely lower than .5%.

Meaning: Let's use .5% as the actual ratio. That means that for every 1000 people that contract the virus 5 die. Dat is also showing that of those 5 deaths FOUR are either over 70 and/or have co-morbidities that the virus really attacks hard like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, lung disease, blood disorders like anemia, etc.

5) the End Game : Out of 1000 that contract the virus 1 person under 70 without co-morbidities dies.


So we've wrecked the economy and willfully wreaked havoc on peoples' livelihoods, life's work and societal gathering (concerts. football, church, etc.). Traditionally a quarantine is meant to isolate the sick and vulnerable as others go about their lives. This little experiment done by 'experts' will most likely be much worse to human society for years and years. It won't go back to being the same. Ever. This is not to discount the pain and agony of those that succumb and their loved ones. Not at all this thing is hideous to die from. But at the end of the day we have to reckon with the 'worth' of all this for pretty much 1 in a 1000.

The real failure is not what was done when the virus was novel, the true damage is being done right now when we know what it is all about.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Sir C]

Too right Chief. Those in power have **** themselves and listened to frauds masquerading as scientists, as a result of which the world as we know it has disappeared. How many will die as a result of the enormous drop in living standards we will all experience?

It’s a tragedy and there’s **** all we can do about it.

[barrybueno]

Maybe this consensus has already been vetted here and if so I apologize. Unfortunately due to my career I've researched much more than I have wanted to. As a result I am highly confident of the following:

1) At the time when we really didn't know anything (allegedly) it seems reasonable in hindsight to have curtailed or 'locked down' human activity. The concern was our health care system being overrun. I'll let that slide

2) The scary part for the masses is the Death Ratio. The IMHE modeling uses CFR which is simply Deaths divided by Cases. Early on it was assumed that this Death Ratio was up to 5%.

3) Since then improved testing and experiential data has shown that rate to be lower, much lower. Many acquired the virus and had no symptoms. For others the symptoms were mild and toughed it out. They were never tested which resulted in an inaccurate, much lower divisor. I believe that I am in the second group, a week in March was a rough one.

4) a deep dive into the data shows that the Death Ratio is most likely lower than .5%.

Meaning: Let's use .5% as the actual ratio. That means that for every 1000 people that contract the virus 5 die. Dat is also showing that of those 5 deaths FOUR are either over 70 and/or have co-morbidities that the virus really attacks hard like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, lung disease, blood disorders like anemia, etc.

5) the End Game : Out of 1000 that contract the virus 1 person under 70 without co-morbidities dies.


So we've wrecked the economy and willfully wreaked havoc on peoples' livelihoods, life's work and societal gathering (concerts. football, church, etc.). Traditionally a quarantine is meant to isolate the sick and vulnerable as others go about their lives. This little experiment done by 'experts' will most likely be much worse to human society for years and years. It won't go back to being the same. Ever. This is not to discount the pain and agony of those that succumb and their loved ones. Not at all this thing is hideous to die from. But at the end of the day we have to reckon with the 'worth' of all this for pretty much 1 in a 1000.

The real failure is not what was done when the virus was novel, the true damage is being done right now when we know what it is all about.

Enjoy your weekend.

In summary we're all being screwed over. I guess we'll find out soon enough why the government have fúcked us like this and what their motives really are.

[Monty92]

You conclude by calculating the "cost" as being 1 in 1,000 infected people under 70 without co-morbidities dying. So a 71-year-old with diabetes who falls victim isn't part of your cost?





Maybe this consensus has already been vetted here and if so I apologize. Unfortunately due to my career I've researched much more than I have wanted to. As a result I am highly confident of the following:

1) At the time when we really didn't know anything (allegedly) it seems reasonable in hindsight to have curtailed or 'locked down' human activity. The concern was our health care system being overrun. I'll let that slide

2) The scary part for the masses is the Death Ratio. The IMHE modeling uses CFR which is simply Deaths divided by Cases. Early on it was assumed that this Death Ratio was up to 5%.

3) Since then improved testing and experiential data has shown that rate to be lower, much lower. Many acquired the virus and had no symptoms. For others the symptoms were mild and toughed it out. They were never tested which resulted in an inaccurate, much lower divisor. I believe that I am in the second group, a week in March was a rough one.

4) a deep dive into the data shows that the Death Ratio is most likely lower than .5%.

Meaning: Let's use .5% as the actual ratio. That means that for every 1000 people that contract the virus 5 die. Dat is also showing that of those 5 deaths FOUR are either over 70 and/or have co-morbidities that the virus really attacks hard like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, lung disease, blood disorders like anemia, etc.

5) the End Game : Out of 1000 that contract the virus 1 person under 70 without co-morbidities dies.


So we've wrecked the economy and willfully wreaked havoc on peoples' livelihoods, life's work and societal gathering (concerts. football, church, etc.). Traditionally a quarantine is meant to isolate the sick and vulnerable as others go about their lives. This little experiment done by 'experts' will most likely be much worse to human society for years and years. It won't go back to being the same. Ever. This is not to discount the pain and agony of those that succumb and their loved ones. Not at all this thing is hideous to die from. But at the end of the day we have to reckon with the 'worth' of all this for pretty much 1 in a 1000.

The real failure is not what was done when the virus was novel, the true damage is being done right now when we know what it is all about.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Too right Chief. Those in power have **** themselves and listened to frauds masquerading as scientists, as a result of which the world as we know it has disappeared. How many will die as a result of the enormous drop in living standards we will all experience?

It’s a tragedy and there’s **** all we can do about it.

from our societies. We are democracies and we appointed them and elected them having educated them in the first place to pursue their vocations on our behalf. Many of them knew this was coming and did warn us but we, as is the wont of our freedom, chose to ignore them.

This not something that was done to us by them. There is only us. They are the phantoms we blame for our own failings. We deserve this.

[WES]

You conclude by calculating the "cost" as being 1 in 1,000 infected people under 70 without co-morbidities dying. So a 71-year-old with diabetes who falls victim isn't part of your cost?

Yes, that’s right. Chief is saying that people over 70 and those with underlying health conditions can be sacrificed so that we avoid a global recession. His president seem to agree.

Problem for Donald is that being over 70 and/or having a health condition doesn’t prevent you from voting.

Welcome aboard President Biden. :thumbup:

[barrybueno]

You conclude by calculating the "cost" as being 1 in 1,000 infected people under 70 without co-morbidities dying. So a 71-year-old with diabetes who falls victim isn't part of your cost?

Fúck the over 70's M, they had their go, time to shuffle off and let others have a turn. The Chinks have created someting amazing here, a virus that culls the aged and the weak. Then our díckhead experts come along and decide to punish everyone. ****s I tell thee, ****s!

Disclaimer: The view expressed in the content above are those of my mate and do not necessarily reflect the views of bb.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Too right Chief. Those in power have **** themselves and listened to frauds masquerading as scientists, as a result of which the world as we know it has disappeared. How many will die as a result of the enormous drop in living standards we will all experience?

It’s a tragedy and there’s **** all we can do about it.

Who’d have thought it would be a crazy Swedish lefty doctor keeping a clear head and showing others the right path. Went to get my haircut last Friday :cloud9:

[barrybueno]

Who’d have thought it would be a crazy Swedish lefty doctor keeping a clear head and showing others the right path. Went to get my haircut last Friday :cloud9:

'kin ell Goats, pic!

wd Sweden btw :thumbup:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I'm not good at stats etc but in our population I'd say we have, out of a population of 60 million about 30 million are between 20 and 50 which, in anyone's book is an age range that death would be considered extremely untimely.

Are we saying that 1% of that age range in the UK would have perished in herd immunity? Is that not 300,000? I'm not sure how that would have played with the electorate.

[Chief Arrowhead]

I'm not good at stats etc but in our population I'd say we have, out of a population of 60 million about 30 million are between 20 and 50 which, in anyone's book is an age range that death would be considered extremely untimely.

Are we saying that 1% of that age range in the UK would have perished in herd immunity? Is that not 300,000? I'm not sure how that would have played with the electorate.

Just to clarify my thought, the CFR (Case Fatality Ratio is 0.5%, although I've seen 0.13% - 0.2% from credible sources. I'm going with 0.5%. That's 5 out of 1,000 with 4 either over the age of 70 and/or have a co-morbidity So the remaining 1 out of 1000 is outside that data set This is 0.1%, not 1%, which puts your example with a death rate of 30,000, not 300,000. Also, using your examples assumes 100% contract the virus, which in this medical field of communicable disease is way, way too high if not impossible. Also, that 30,000 is over a life span, not in the next few months. I wonder how many in that 30 million die is the regular old flu or any communicable diseases?

This is still something to be of utmost concern, it's no picnic to deal with and you can die. However, there are plenty of scary bugs out there and any one can get you. This is one of them, but it appears that it's not more than the rest. It is highly contagious, but not all that deadly in the grand scheme.

So the move, it seems to me, is to greatly restrict who the old folks come into contact with. Retirement homes should have visiting procedures in place. Those at risk with preconditions should be educated and THEY are the ones who should restrict where they go so they aren't in crowds and THEY should wear masks. We also need 1) preventatives that build our immune system like zinc. 2) Safe sanitary practices and 3) Develop a protocol that lessens the severity and length once contracted. Maybe hydroxychloroquine is 3), maybe not. But that's the route to take, imo.

[Chief Arrowhead]

You conclude by calculating the "cost" as being 1 in 1,000 infected people under 70 without co-morbidities dying. So a 71-year-old with diabetes who falls victim isn't part of your cost?

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.

[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"

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Too right Chief. Those in power have **** themselves and listened to frauds masquerading as scientists, as a result of which the world as we know it has disappeared. How many will die as a result of the enormous drop in living standards we will all experience?

It’s a tragedy and there’s **** all we can do about it.

While I may agree with you from a stoic perspective, C - and I speak as someone who, because of all the drugs in my lungs over decades is dead the second I get it - you have to accept that the Great British Voter {GBV} wanted to close down the economy to save their grannies.

You think it fine that the GBV chose by 52% to fück the economy just cos granny banged on about the war. What's the difference?

Democracy in action, init?

{And with any luck you lot will not only be blamed for the CV deaths, but for the deaths that occure cos BJ did what the plebs wanted and shut down the econ. Win-win. You'll be out of power for a generation and we can build a social-democratic utopia while nuking the Chinks, Septics and 'Stanis.}

[barrybueno]

'nuking the Chinks' Almost shot my load there GG :bow:, will never happen but hopefully they'll be a collective effort in to not buying their cheap electrical crap for 20 years. That'll learn 'em*

*Of course if it's cheap we'll buy it, ****s that we are:-|

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Seen Chief ...:thumbup:

[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.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

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

Why are you comparing anything? When did this turn into a “our dead count is better than yours” contest? If Sweden were trying to have as little deaths as possible I’m pretty sure they’d be in lockdown as well.

[Burney]

Why are you comparing anything? When did this turn into a “our dead count is better than yours” contest? If Sweden were trying to have as little deaths as possible I’m pretty sure they’d be in lockdown as well.

Most of these comparisons are - as you say - meaningless. However, they are useful in terms of trying to discern the possible reasons for the discrepancies later on. Now Sweden's calculation - which so far appears to be correct - is that their demographics and geography allowed them to trade a few thousand deaths more than their neighbours for keeping the economy going.
Perfectly reasonable and rational thing to do, but the point is that to extrapolate from that to the UK, where a similar strategy would certainly have resulted in a much sharper spike in deaths (possibly 100,000-ish by now), hospitals overwhelmed and pictures of bodies stacked in hospital corridors is unhelpful an ignores the wider factors.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Most of these comparisons are - as you say - meaningless. However, they are useful in terms of trying to discern the possible reasons for the discrepancies later on. Now Sweden's calculation - which so far appears to be correct - is that their demographics and geography allowed them to trade a few thousand deaths more than their neighbours for keeping the economy going.
Perfectly reasonable and rational thing to do, but to compare that with the UK, where a similar strategy would certainly resulted in a much sharper spike in deaths (possibly 100,000-ish by now), hospitals overwhelmed and pictures of bodies stacked in hospital corridors is unhelpful an ignores the wider factors.

I agree. As you say some countries needed to respond with what they thought was best for their own demographics etc. Some countries I feel have looked at the outcomes in Italy and Spain and thought they’d see the same things in their hospitals so took a similar approach when it probably wasn’t necessary (thinking of the other Nordic countries). They’re now put up as success stories when the truth is they probably overreacted a little bit. People keep comparing Sweden to Norway in terms of deaths per million as though Norway has won a competition, when they’d probably wish they got to have another crack at it if it only meant an increase in unemployment by 1% instead of 5% (among other things) with only a thousand or so deaths.

Comparing New Zealand to other countries is properly taking the piss.

[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. As you say some countries needed to respond with what they thought was best for their own demographics etc. Some countries I feel have looked at the outcomes in Italy and Spain and thought they’d see the same things in their hospitals so took a similar approach when it probably wasn’t necessary (thinking of the other Nordic countries). They’re now put up as success stories when the truth is they probably overreacted a little bit. People keep comparing Sweden to Norway in terms of deaths per million as though Norway has won a competition, when they’d probably wish they got to have another crack at it if it only meant an increase in unemployment by 1% instead of 5% (among other things) with only a thousand or so deaths.

Comparing New Zealand to other countries is properly taking the piss.

It's not just demographic, of course, it's political. Our politics and media at the moment are so polarised that the government will get - attacked whatever it does. And while it's possible to reason and be rational when - as in Sweden's case - you're talking about a few hundred or thousand dead more or less, it's impossible to do that when the numbers are in the tens of thousands. Put simply, no UK government could have made that call and stayed in office.

[AFC East]

4) a deep dive into the data shows that the Death Ratio is most likely lower than .5%.


This is the problem with data and why people who get it are paid a lot of money. There are so many variables at play, any such conclusion is ridiculous. Even if we accept the conclusion, would the rates be the same if ICU capacity was insufficient?

[Billy Goat Sverige]

It's not just demographic, of course, it's political. Our politics and media at the moment are so polarised that the government will get - attacked whatever it does. And while it's possible to reason and be rational when - as in Sweden's case - you're talking about a few hundred or thousand dead more or less, it's impossible to do that when the numbers are in the tens of thousands. Put simply, no UK government could have made that call and stayed in office.

The Prime Minister here has been quite clever really. He just pops up every now and then but for the most part the whole thing is being taken care of by the Public Health Agency and they’re making all the big decisions. Half the dead have come from care homes so even though that’s more a failure of government the Public Health Agency have been getting all the grief.

[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.

[Burney]

This is the problem with data and why people who get it are paid a lot of money. There are so many variables at play, any such conclusion is ridiculous. Even if we accept the conclusion, would the rates be the same if ICU capacity was insufficient?

The numbers the Chief quotes are meaningless, I'm afraid. Nobody has a clue what the mortality rates of this are because there is such a variation in how infections and deaths are being reported. mortality rates could be significantly higher or lower than we currently think. It's simply too early to draw any conclusions.

[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.

[AFC East]

The numbers the Chief quotes are meaningless, I'm afraid. Nobody has a clue what the mortality rates of this are because there is such a variation in how infections and deaths are being reported. mortality rates could be significantly higher or lower than we currently think. It's simply too early to draw any conclusions.

I suspect your first statement is the closest to a universal truth that we may see in this thread.

[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]

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.

[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

[Burney]

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

I don't think such judgements are necessarily helpful. The world hasn't faced anything like this since 1919, so it was impossible for most governments to know bad from good and I wouldn't judge any of them too harshly.
Although I think we can all agree that China suppressing the data; bullying the WHO into compliance; lying about human-to-human transmission; and allowing it to spread worldwide is probably the exception to that rule.

[Chief Arrowhead]

I suspect your first statement is the closest to a universal truth that we may see in this thread.

Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.

Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.

Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/lokin-20-the-lockdown-regime-causes-increasing-health-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

[Burney]

Hi AFC East. How is it meaningless to use the current data, not what existed a month ago, to become more knowledgeable as how this particular virus works? What I've been looking at is current analysis and studies like the one Stanford did in Santa Clara county. There have been other anecdotal occurrences where a whole population was tested, like the Boston homeless testing, not just who took themselves to a hospital or testing site. It reveals many who acquired the virus and didn't know it. It also uncludes those who felt sick for a time but did not get tested and then got better. Those are not included in the CFR ratio that is widely quoted and is being used to determine societal restrictions and behavior. Simply, the numerator (deaths) is known. The denominator, number of people who acquired it, is UNKNOWN and is many many times higher. the Santa Clara study indicates the denominator could be 55 times higher.

Second, who is dying? Look at the data, AFC East. About 80% of the deaths are in this subset: Over 70 and/or those with co-morbidities. Nobody knows the true CFR, granted, but using this data we have now (again, not a month ago or longer) it looks like around 0.5%. I think it's actually lower but let's use that. that means 5 out of 1000 that acquire it die. 4 out of those 5 are in the HIGH RISK subset described. the high risk subset population should be restricted. They should be wearing masks, avoiding crowds, etc. That is the way a quarantine used to work.

Please explain to me and other readers why this is meaningless. I do not want to be wrong. We already did the lockdown and there will be many analyses done as to whether that was appropriate. I'm concerned about the present and what we advise from here.

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/lokin-20-the-lockdown-regime-causes-increasing-health-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

Firstou're operating on a false premise - namely that all the deaths attributed to Covid are all the deaths there are that were caused or occasioned by it. Since we don't even know when it started, that is not a valid conclusion to draw. Also, what were the criteria for attributing a death to Covid? Having it or dying from it? How many deaths were misattributed either way? The point is, the numbers are screwed before you even begin. That's not anyone's fault - it's simply that there isn't the quality of data at this point to start drawing any serious conclusions here.
What you've got there is raw, local data - not something you can undertake a serious public health initiative with.

[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.

[AFC East]

This article is helpful and with many embedded links showing the appropriate data.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/lokin-20-the-lockdown-regime-causes-increasing-health-concerns/

This was sent to me after I posted Friday, in case anyone was wondering.

The article you shared is written by someone who either doesn't understand or is wilfully ignoring the principles of science.

"All the science indicated that existing measures, encouraging the public to observe basic hygiene and limit interactions with vulnerable people, was working, as C19 followed the normal bell curve of any viral disease in a population."

Utter cobblers, I am afraid. I can't think of a single scientific domain where all 'science' (whatever that means) has ever totally agreed on something. It's just a series of hyperbolic/completely ungrounded statements that no data analyst would ever make.

As Burney has repeatedly said, the data is a mess. Science relies on data. Anybody drawing conclusions is a fraud. By all means, share a hypothesis that you can start to support with some data, but don't draw conclusions. It's silly.

[Chief Arrowhead]

Firstou're operating on a false premise - namely that all the deaths attributed to Covid are all the deaths there are that were caused or occasioned by it. Since we don't even know when it started, that is not a valid conclusion to draw. Also, what were the criteria for attributing a death to Covid? Having it or dying from it? How many deaths were misattributed either way? The point is, the numbers are screwed before you even begin. That's not anyone's fault - it's simply that there isn't the quality of data at this point to start drawing any serious conclusions here.
What you've got there is raw, local data - not something you can undertake a serious public health initiative with.

Hi Burney. Don't get me started on the numerator! I fully expect to see the headline "Chute fails to open, Skydiver killed by Covid-19." I deliberately omitted that to focus on the denominator. Did you know that hospitals here receive more federal compensation if the cause of death is listed as Covid-19?

Data is always raw, it's how you apply it to determine policy and action. So we now have more data, raw data, that indicates the the denominator (# of cases) is way way low. Some anecdotal, yes, but the Stanford study is clinical. I'll spare you the report and link a news article:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/17/santa-clara-county-covid-19-cases-could-be-50-to-85-times-higher-than-reported-stanford-study-finds/

Even Gov. Cuomo is finding out that NYC has many times more "cases" than he has used to lockdown the whole state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html

There are several admittedly anecdotal occurrences like the Boston Homeless one.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/boston-homeless-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html


Our decision to lockdown the whole country was based on raw data, but was imperfect as you said. WE have better data now. Let's base our policy and action on what we know now, not what we had a month ago. Open it up. Tightly restrict who goes in Senior retirement villages or any plce with over 70's. Raise awareness of high risk folks who have co-morbidities and let them know what precautions to take. That's my opinion based on what we know on May 4th.

[Chief Arrowhead]

The article you shared is written by someone who either doesn't understand or is wilfully ignoring the principles of science.

"All the science indicated that existing measures, encouraging the public to observe basic hygiene and limit interactions with vulnerable people, was working, as C19 followed the normal bell curve of any viral disease in a population."

Utter cobblers, I am afraid. I can't think of a single scientific domain where all 'science' (whatever that means) has ever totally agreed on something. It's just a series of hyperbolic/completely ungrounded statements that no data analyst would ever make.

As Burney has repeatedly said, the data is a mess. Science relies on data. Anybody drawing conclusions is a fraud. By all means, share a hypothesis that you can start to support with some data, but don't draw conclusions. It's silly.

that's fine. I stated my opinion and certainly don't expect everyone to agree. I would say that I believe that as much as a layperson can I am relying on as much current data as I can reach. I have also spoken with friends "in the field" so to speak. Epidemiologist, ER doctor, a biologist who does research. Several more. As indicated at the beginning, what I do for a living has necessitated (unfortunately!) that I know way more about this than I wish. My opinion is measured and well considered -- so I thought I'd share on good ol' AWIMB.

Cheers.

[Burney]

Hi Burney. Don't get me started on the numerator! I fully expect to see the headline "Chute fails to open, Skydiver killed by Covid-19." I deliberately omitted that to focus on the denominator. Did you know that hospitals here receive more federal compensation if the cause of death is listed as Covid-19?

Data is always raw, it's how you apply it to determine policy and action. So we now have more data, raw data, that indicates the the denominator (# of cases) is way way low. Some anecdotal, yes, but the Stanford study is clinical. I'll spare you the report and link a news article:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/17/santa-clara-county-covid-19-cases-could-be-50-to-85-times-higher-than-reported-stanford-study-finds/

Even Gov. Cuomo is finding out that NYC has many times more "cases" than he has used to lockdown the whole state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html

There are several admittedly anecdotal occurrences like the Boston Homeless one.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/boston-homeless-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html


Our decision to lockdown the whole country was based on raw data, but was imperfect as you said. WE have better data now. Let's base our policy and action on what we know now, not what we had a month ago. Open it up. Tightly restrict who goes in Senior retirement villages or any plce with over 70's. Raise awareness of high risk folks who have co-morbidities and let them know what precautions to take. That's my opinion based on what we know on May 4th.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but governments can be forgiven for exercising the precautionary principle when faced with raw data of a pandemic that undeniably has caused a serious spike in mortality in other countries. And the flipside of that, of course, is that it's a brave government that then abandons that precautionary principle in the face of other raw data.
It's not an easy call and anyone who is required to make it has my sympathy.

[dismalswamp]

from skeptics:
“I have always wondered how the German nation adapted to the hideous excesses of Hitler and his regime since Germans by and large are sympathetic and stoic and caring people. I happen to be married to a German and have been for 35 years. Now I have a more perfect understanding. If you accept something without questioning authority, then that authority takes ever more advantage of the situation and soon you have a population that is denied the opportunity to question. This is what is happening here and I am concerned that the nation is on the wrong track.”

[redgunamo]

Nonsense, I'm afraid. It was just Germans being German. Nothing to do with H.


from skeptics:
“I have always wondered how the German nation adapted to the hideous excesses of Hitler and his regime since Germans by and large are sympathetic and stoic and caring people. I happen to be married to a German and have been for 35 years. Now I have a more perfect understanding. If you accept something without questioning authority, then that authority takes ever more advantage of the situation and soon you have a population that is denied the opportunity to question. This is what is happening here and I am concerned that the nation is on the wrong track.”

[redgunamo]

Not to mention that for mismanaged authorities everywhere (which is practically all of them), this whole situation has been a surprise bonanza, an unexpected jackpot. Good luck getting any sense of of them right now.

Maybe after they've all banked their money?



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.