So here's the deal on this virus

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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?

[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

[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.