Lockdown
Apr 21st 2020, 4:26 pm
#137
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,520
Re: Lockdown
Here's a chart showing your chance of dying (from any cause) vs the chance of dying if you catch covid19...from the age of 40 onwards, the chances are roughly equal. In other words, if you catch covid19 your chances of dying in the year roughly double. Put another way, a 14 day case of covid19 is roughly as deadly as all the other things that might kill you, over the course of a year, added together.
Notice how it very cleverly shows the same spacing between .001 and .005 on the Y axis as it does for 10-50, greatly skewing perspectives of percentages and grossly exaggerating, graphically, the odds.
The graph also applies a one size fits all model to everyone equally. Which is not true IRL. A healthy 40 year old man or woman has a drastically different odds than a similarly aged person who's suffering from diabetes or other underlying health problems. My odds of dying hasn't doubled due to COVID-19, for the simple reason I'd survive it (assuming I didn't already have it as an asymptomatic carrier or that very mild bout of not feeling 100% fit back in February wasn't the virus). The COVID-19 data is based on existing deaths and testing data, which we all know is heavily skewed to the unhealthy seeking hospital care and deaths, as those are the people getting tested rather than a general population sample testing pool.
Apr 22nd 2020, 4:54 am
#138
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 1,171
Re: Lockdown
These are population statistics; they are not plotting your own personal chances of dying. This is self-evident, as for the people that do die every year, their personal probability of dying is 100% and for everyone else its 0. The more different you think you are from the cohort of people your age, the less these population statistics apply. However, on average and by definition, we are all similar to the cohort.
The scale is chosen so that you can actually read off the numbers. If you prefer a linear scale, here you go. The message is just the same (albeit now with the risk of misinterpreting that the chances of dying between the ages of 10 and 40 are zero, because of the scale): the chances of dying from covid-19 are roughly the same as the chances of dying from everything else over a year. No-one is arguing that the chances of dying if you're young are relatively low, with covid19 or not. The fact that people under the age of 60 have low mortality has been established for a couple of millenia now.
I'll admit that my wording was misleading in the earlier post, using "you" implies you personally, not you the average person of your age.
The scale is chosen so that you can actually read off the numbers. If you prefer a linear scale, here you go. The message is just the same (albeit now with the risk of misinterpreting that the chances of dying between the ages of 10 and 40 are zero, because of the scale): the chances of dying from covid-19 are roughly the same as the chances of dying from everything else over a year. No-one is arguing that the chances of dying if you're young are relatively low, with covid19 or not. The fact that people under the age of 60 have low mortality has been established for a couple of millenia now.
I'll admit that my wording was misleading in the earlier post, using "you" implies you personally, not you the average person of your age.
Apr 22nd 2020, 5:23 am
#139
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: Lockdown
These are population statistics; they are not plotting your own personal chances of dying. This is self-evident, as for the people that do die every year, their personal probability of dying is 100% and for everyone else its 0. The more different you think you are from the cohort of people your age, the less these population statistics apply. However, on average and by definition, we are all similar to the cohort.
The scale is chosen so that you can actually read off the numbers. If you prefer a linear scale, here you go. The message is just the same (albeit now with the risk of misinterpreting that the chances of dying between the ages of 10 and 40 are zero, because of the scale): the chances of dying from covid-19 are roughly the same as the chances of dying from everything else over a year. No-one is arguing that the chances of dying if you're young are relatively low, with covid19 or not. The fact that people under the age of 60 have low mortality has been established for a couple of millenia now.
I'll admit that my wording was misleading in the earlier post, using "you" implies you personally, not you the average person of your age.
The scale is chosen so that you can actually read off the numbers. If you prefer a linear scale, here you go. The message is just the same (albeit now with the risk of misinterpreting that the chances of dying between the ages of 10 and 40 are zero, because of the scale): the chances of dying from covid-19 are roughly the same as the chances of dying from everything else over a year. No-one is arguing that the chances of dying if you're young are relatively low, with covid19 or not. The fact that people under the age of 60 have low mortality has been established for a couple of millenia now.
I'll admit that my wording was misleading in the earlier post, using "you" implies you personally, not you the average person of your age.
Apr 22nd 2020, 6:23 am
#140
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Lockdown
So basically the conclusion is that if you catch a potentially deadly infectious disease, your chance of dying increases. Would be good to see how the lines move if you say caught the flu, pneumonia, malaria, typhoid, cholera etc. at various ages.
Apr 22nd 2020, 6:25 am
#141
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: Lockdown
I wouldn't bother looking, let alone sharing. You'll just be told it's manipulation of statistics to serve an 'agenda'. Not sure what anyone's 'agenda' is with this disease but there we go.
Apr 22nd 2020, 7:29 am
#142
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 1,171
Re: Lockdown
I mean, if we are going to be reductionist, then yes, we're all going to die anyway so why all the fuss?
Apr 22nd 2020, 8:52 am
#143
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Lockdown
Great chart on the BBC today... total weekly deaths this week, 18k (including covid and not). Record high of weekly deaths, 22k in 2000, and 20k in 1977 - both due to flu outbreaks. We think we may have peaked.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
Apr 22nd 2020, 9:07 am
#144
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: Lockdown
Great chart on the BBC today... total weekly deaths this week, 18k (including covid and not). Record high of weekly deaths, 22k in 2000, and 20k in 1977 - both due to flu outbreaks. We think we may have peaked.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
This also assumes that opening back up means there's no second, third, fourth and so on 'peaks' of any size?
I wonder what the stats around flu and similar are for other countries, particularly in less flu-affected nations (I'm making a blunt assumption that warmer countries suffer less from this).
Apr 22nd 2020, 10:26 am
#145
Big Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,889
Re: Lockdown
I really do not think people are understanding the economic shit storm headed our way.
The impact of that on peoples health is difficult to gauge, but it is going to affect everyone for years to come. With the focus on mental health in recent years, this would be a huge concern for me if I was running the country.
I'm now reluctant to read the news, initially it was more of a 'we are all in this together, stay at home etc...' as now its turning more into finger pointing, 'this should have been done' etc...
The fact is, nobody really knows how to control this, once its over it should become clearer and the knives will come out.
The impact of that on peoples health is difficult to gauge, but it is going to affect everyone for years to come. With the focus on mental health in recent years, this would be a huge concern for me if I was running the country.
I'm now reluctant to read the news, initially it was more of a 'we are all in this together, stay at home etc...' as now its turning more into finger pointing, 'this should have been done' etc...
The fact is, nobody really knows how to control this, once its over it should become clearer and the knives will come out.
Apr 22nd 2020, 10:41 am
#146
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Lockdown
The public has effectively allowed (and supported) governments in nationalising most of their economies while granting them unprecedented powers of control. Governments rarely give up new powers, as evidenced by many emergency powers introduced during 9/11 there were ultimately written into law. The developed world has walked into a new form of economic and political control that would not have otherwise had broad-based support.
The cost of all this free support is totally unknown, but one thing that can be assured is that it will not be cheap.
Apr 22nd 2020, 10:50 am
#147
Knee deep and rising
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,007
Re: Lockdown
Great chart on the BBC today... total weekly deaths this week, 18k (including covid and not). Record high of weekly deaths, 22k in 2000, and 20k in 1977 - both due to flu outbreaks. We think we may have peaked.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
If it has peaked, then it peaked at less than the 2000 and 1977 death rates. There were less people, less hospitals and a smaller economy in 2000 and 1977. In both previous cases, we didn't shut the whole country down.
Yes - ok, if we hadn't shut the economy down the number of deaths might be higher (although there is no real evidence for that, especially as 50% of deaths are in care homes) but as a % of the total population, it is would still probably lower than 2000/1977.
It's really hard for me to see how this is not an over-reaction.
Apr 22nd 2020, 11:01 am
#148
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Lockdown
I think the analysis will only be clear very much in hindsight. The arguments that wind me up the most are these kind of whattabouttery comparisons, we never shut down when we had the great plague etc. ok point noted but so what? Is the point that any current actions should only be relative or constrained to the limits of previous historic actions.
Apr 22nd 2020, 11:07 am
#149
Knee deep and rising
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,007
Re: Lockdown
Has anybody ran the numbers on the economics of letting everything run wild, no lockdowns and assume maximum deaths - how that would look as a counterpoint to the economics of a lock down?
Apr 22nd 2020, 11:09 am
#150
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Disneyland, Dubai
Posts: 15,887
Re: Lockdown
Realistically, yes they have, but no one in charge can listen or acknowledge this type of analysis if they ever want to stay in power again. It's just politically not acceptable to say that some loss of life is acceptable. Remember, the curve is only being flattened, not eradicated - the area under it is expected to be the same.
