Re: Lockdown
 

I just can't see a good outcome from getting caught doing that. A fine is probably the best result, but why? What's the point? I love golf with all my heart but jeeze. It's 5-6 weeks or so since I've played, it's not the end of the world.

Re: Lockdown
 

The America data is skewed because it's a much bigger country so the individual numbers seem high. Combine the data of Italy, France and Spain because then you get a comparable population. And the Americans are two weeks behind the curve of Italy and Spain and France. On a per capita basis the Americans have far fewer cases. And if you look at America outside NYC, it's drastically even lower.

Everyone across the world seems to be following the same rapid rise then peak and then gradual decline regardless of the severity of the shutdowns. That's what the Swedish epidemiologist is saying to justify Sweden's lack of a shutdown.

Re: Lockdown
 

It's not really about the absolute numbers, it's about the doubling rates as a measure of how effective the infection is being controlled. The US is 47 days in since its 100th case (3rd Feb). In that time, cases have grown 7,470 times (3.9 days doubling rate). If we add Spain, France and Italy together, then their combined cases have grown by 1,430 times over the same period (about 4.6 days doubling rate). Going back to the US, let's look at America outside NYC: continental US rates excluding NYC have increased by 5,930 times, so still pretty terrible, with a doubling rate still below 4 days.

Incidentally, the US is not two weeks behind: the 100th case in the US was on the 2nd March The 100th case in France was 29th Feb and Spain around the 3rd of March, like the US. Italy's 100th case was around 23rd March, so at best the US is one week "behind" Italy. UK 100th case was around 4th March, so most countries started off on the same trajectory; it's just how effectively things were put in place in those early days that has caused the big differences we see today. For an example of the other extreme, Singapore is 49 days in from its 100th case (29th Feb, like France) and cases have grown by ~60 times.

Re: Lockdown
 

What's the infamous saying? Lies, lies and d*mned statistics. In other words you're manipulating figures to tell you a story that suits your biases.

The US is already talking about lifting their lockdowns. The governor of New York is saying they've peaked and now seem to going back down, and that's the worst hit state with half the deaths and cases in the entire nation. They wouldn't be saying those things if the pandemic was still escalating.

Every western nation is following the same curve regardless of what they did. All this talk about number of days is just politicking. Which gives Sweden much credit.

Re: Lockdown
 

I mean, I picked the figures that you specifically asked for. You said "Combine the data of Italy, France and Spain because then you get a comparable population". I did that, and showed that the US is still accelerating faster. You said "And the Americans are two weeks behind the curve of Italy and Spain and France. " The data shows that they all hit 100 cases at roughly the same time, with the exception of Italy which was a week earlier. You said "And if you look at America outside NYC, it's drastically even lower.". I took out NYC from the US figures and the result is that the US is still accelerating drastically faster than Europe.

I honestly don't mind a debate, but it's not right to make statements that are completely at odds with the data.

Incidentally, "Which gives Sweden much credit.". Sweden has 20% more deaths per capita than the US, with a 40% lower infection rate. Scandinavian efficiency at its finest.

Re: Lockdown
 

Credit to Sweden for being top-10 in the world for most deaths per million population.

Kudos. Huge prizes for that performance. Credit where it's due.

Re: Lockdown
 

Just now I came up with 100,000 more cases in the European Union than in the US, and that of course excludes the UK, Switzerland (which has the highest per-capita number of cases), Norway etc. US-EU is the appropriate comparison with a similar population, not US-France/Italy/Spain. France/Italy/Spain present a combined similar number of cases to the US but only with about 60% of the population. The European Union also has more than double the deaths.

There has been a significant flattening in the US, not an acceleration. I would far rather be there riding it out than anywhere in the European Union.

Re: Lockdown
 

Statistics is fascinating, isn't it? The different stories you can tell with the same data. Numbers as of this morning:

US (#1 #1 #1 #1 yee haw!), with 40,565 deaths (124 deaths per million)
Italy: 23,660 deaths, 391 deaths per million
Spain: 20,852 deaths, 446 deaths per million
France: 19,718 deaths, 294 deaths per million.
UK: 16,060 deaths, 241.5 deaths per million
Belgium: 5,828 deaths, 510 deaths per million
Iran: 5,209, 63.7 per million* (suspect data)
Germany: 4,642, 56 per million * (still not fully clear if Germany counts deaths differently and excludes many)
Netherlands: 3,684 deaths, 213.8 per million
Sweden: 1,540 deaths, 151.2 per million.

Sure, Sweden falls into the top 10 countries but only because the numbers enormously drops after UK, and for a nation that didn't shut down they have very few deaths relatively speaking. 1,540 unfortunate deaths. As a comparison point, about 1,500 people also die of the regular flu in Sweden in a given year.

Re: Lockdown
 

So 1,540 in let's say, a month, would be 18,000+ in a year, if nothing changes either way. Could get worse, could get better.
Also, look by cases and deaths ratio, even if that data is not the right way to predict death (I am not opening that can), doing so compared to all the others....Sweden is no paradise.
Maybe it's a cultural thing in Sweden not to get close to others? Maybe they're more socially responsible? Maybe those elements have helped their spread be slower than others?
'Lockdown' means so many different things. We're permit based and only one allowed per 3 days, so that's different to being allowed out for exercise. Nothing is constant so I think the praise for some positive news is great but again just based on playing with stats that can't contain the qualitative information.
Looking at the unrest in the US and France it becomes clear that people can't be contained for too long (again, depends on lockdowns and severity) before they just have enough of it. Maybe we'll end up in a shift in attitudes in the UK for example where people moderate themselves sensibly for a while before things return to any sort of new / old normality.

Re: Lockdown
 

You're on to a losing argument if you try and argue corona deaths against baseline / flu deaths. For some reason, people don't want to recognise that people die in the usual course of life. My mum really struggles hearing how many people are dying as she cannot visualize the number of people - the reality is that it's peaking at only a 50% increase over the normal run rate - and that peak is only for a few weeks. It's not like we all know of a death in our network each day, which is why most (if not all) don't know anyone who has died from corona.

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.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...bb7094253e.png

Re: Lockdown
 

True, but a friend recently lost his boss to it. 41yrs old I think, asthmatic. I only met him once, maybe twice, I'm sure lots of people know him locally here, especially through the wife and sons. It won't take long before lots of people know someone who has died.

It's a weirdly realistic, slightly horrible but accurate measure, I suppose.

Re: Lockdown
 

41 and asthmatic... hummm, that's me.

Re: Lockdown
 

Obviously let's hope you don't get it.

I know a few family friends who've had it and recovered, not pleasant but not the extremes we get in the news.

Re: Lockdown
 

I think asthmatics generally are under-represented in the casualties, to the surprise (and relief) of lots of people. Seems that cardiovascular ailments (heart disease etc) are much worse in terms of predisposing you to severe illness.

Re: Lockdown
 

No Ramadan tents allowed this year or food at the mosques. I guess that answers the question of will lockdown be released for Ramadan.

Re: Lockdown
 

Your graph is a perfect example of lies, lies and d*mned statistics.

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.

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.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...e59fc97a40.png

Re: Lockdown
 

The fact this needed explaining is the worrying part.

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.

Re: Lockdown
 

If you say so.
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.

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?

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.

Re: Lockdown
 

If it has peaked and it's done then yes, you can arrive at that conclusion. If we've peaked and can expect a similar trajectory down then the number basically doubles, right?
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).

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.

Re: Lockdown
 

The upcoming shit storm is greater than just economic. It's also going to be a political and social shit storm.

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.

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.

Re: Lockdown
 

Not at all, but we must also question any action we do take. Like it or not, we are setting a precedent for the future.

Re: Lockdown
 

The precedent could just as easily be not to do this.

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?

Re: Lockdown
 

Let's ask csfd

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.

Re: Lockdown
 

I'm sure they have but my point is more directed at you than them. If you think this is an overreaction what are you comparing it against on the other side of the coin? This is the current scenario and this the possible scenario if we don't have a lock down. Surely that's the choice we are making - not what we did during the Spanish flu or last outbreak of winter flu.

Re: Lockdown
 

I wonder what other global events gave the government the right to do these sorts of things and what happened after - world wars?

Re: Lockdown
 

9-11 and the powers of surveillance come to mind.
2008-2009 and the government manipulation of money supply; rates, austerity and inflation.

general expansion of state is what happened... then populism creeps in, which is a disaster.

Re: Lockdown
 

I’ve not run the numbers or seen the numbers in either scenario. Have you? Has anyone?

Re: Lockdown
 

Could you argue the manipulation of money supply was to stop more risky alternatives in letting the world just collapse? The subsequent austerity and managing inflation the same?
Guess you could say I'm arguing your point but I'm sure we could find good arguments both ways on all of these events to be fair.

I don't think the UK will turn into North Korea after this though.

Re: Lockdown
 

That's my point really, how do you judge this as an overreaction?

Re: Lockdown
 

Kim is dead apparently

Re: Lockdown
 

World GDP is around $85,000 billion
World population is around 8 billion
GDP/ person = $10,000

Cost of COVID - estimated between 2,000 and 4,000 billion
Worst case number of estimated deaths is between 2 and 50 million
2,000-4000 billion cost / 2-50 million = between 40,000 - 2,000,000 per life saved
So somewhere between 4 and 200 times the GDP per person.

Now if it's mostly the old and ill dying, then maybe we should have used a lower GDP/person as these people could be economically inactive.

Worth it? That's the political decision that no one wants to make.

What we do know is that the economic destruction we are doing will drive millions into poverty and expose them to all sorts of illnesses and premature deaths that won't get accounted for.

Re: Lockdown
 

What I do find fascinating is that we already know a great deal about COVID-19. Despite the media obsession with every young death, in reality it kills old people, and not just old people but old people with significant health problems. It's why the average age of death is quite high, hovering around 80. We do know it kills a small number of younger people with substantial existing health problems. We know the fatality rate overall for young people regardless of health is well below 1% (meaning for healthy young people it's inconsequential and just as rare as the healthy young man who drops dead of a heart attack at age 40).

This notion that some people have that we're at war with a virus is silly. The virus cannot be vanquished. It's not an enemy that can be humbled and reformed into obedience. It's here. We have to deal with it. A vaccine in due time (if one is found) will help, but it won't end the virus no more than the regular flu vaccine defeated the flu. Herd immunity is the most likely long term outlook. The one size fits all mass shutdown was an attempt to declare war on the virus and we have seen the obscene economic toll paid so far, and when all's said and done, didn't really save lives. This one size fits all mass shutdown did have the advantage of buying some time but that time has also showed us the virus is far less deadly for the larger population than earlier believed. It has always been obvious to me from the early days the pragmatic approach was to quarantine the care homes and identified high-risk people still living in their own homes. Instead of devoting so much resources to mass testing of general populations, test everyone who works for a care home, and test them daily to prevent asymptomatic people from transferring the virus to the care homes or hospitals. And let everyone else get on with life.

Re: Lockdown
 

I've been in touch with my Nepali tea boys, concerned about them and whst they are living in. As said before - if I hadn't actually been there, I'd think he was exaggerating how bad it is.

Genuinely would rather be in prison here in the UK, than a labour camp during Covid.