We’re fucking up the lives and futures of everyone in the the entire country in order to postpone the deaths of a relative handful of already sick or old people. And there’s still no realistic end in sight. How much longer can - or should - this go on? How long before the costs outweigh the benefits?
How long before the UK has exponential virus growth?
We already are, (though with a lower growth rate than March).
It went from 20/day Sept to 100/day Oct to 500 Nov (although I think it is stabilising as we took things a step tighter.)
We’re fucking up the lives and futures of everyone in the the entire country in order to postpone the deaths of a relative handful of already sick or old people. And there’s still no realistic end in sight. How much longer can - or should - this go on? How long before the costs outweigh the benefits?
How long before the UK has exponential virus growth?
We had it in March and through October. It's how we got to 20-30,000 new cases a day.
I was reflecting on one of the slogans being used on the freedom front within the USA re mandatory mask-wearing. "My body, my choice".
There is a certain irony in that, since it gets very close to the Roe v Wade abortion decision. Given that most of those who support Trump re mask wearing also want to see the reversal of "my body, my choice" in Roe v Wade, it demonstrates just how selective people can be when it comes to issues of personal choice and freedom.
I think what they want is entirely consistent - "My body, my choice, your body, also my choice"
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Ah yes, NEQ. I forgot about entitlement! And your encouragement is noted.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Close of day, 14 November. Some summary figures and milestones.
Global:
Total cases: 54, 312,776
New cases: 575,717
Total deaths: 1,317,393
New deaths: 8,802
Europe:
Total cases: 13,727,387
New cases: 242,777
Total deaths: 319,418
New deaths: 3,764
USA:
Total cases: 11,226,218
New cases: 157,253
Total deaths: 251,256
New deaths: 1,260
USA milestones of a quarter of a million deaths in total and more than a million new cases in the last 7 days.
UK milestone of fifty thousand deaths reached in the last two or three days. UK now recording more deaths per million (761) than USA (757)
Following discussions in the thread I’ll record weekly summaries like this and include a few specific significant reports during the week as and when they occur. And of course other Shipmates are free to report anything that strikes them, or scroll past.
Has anyone any idea why thee is such a discrepancy in the Liverpool mass testing and the testing which has been done to date?
The latest figure I have for total infections, from official stats is 1,317,496 for the UK giving a prevalence of 1,941 cases per 100k of population taking the total UK population as the denominator.
The Liverpool test, as reported in the Liverpool Echo, was a test population of 64,278 with 373 positives giving a prevalence of 580 per 100k, or about 30% of the prevalence figure given out by the Government. And the test was done in an area of high infection compared to the rest of the UK.
Should there not be some research into this, as it looks like one or the other method is questionable. A ratio of nearly 3:1 is definitely statistically significant.
I believe that hospitals are starting to get worried about the picture in the new year as that is when the flu season normally really hits respiratory admissions. Everyone will have to be treated as potentially Covid positive until proven otherwise, and beds will already be occupied. It would be interesting to hear what the Australian experience is vis a vis the physical effects of people having both.
If a Norovirus outbreak also occurs that would be a problem in terms of closing wards to new admissions, although visitors wouldn't be.
Has anyone any idea why thee is such a discrepancy in the Liverpool mass testing and the testing which has been done to date?t.
Would need to look but three possibilities:
If you are already tested and known positive you it makes sense that you don't take the test again.
Liverpool's past peak and so new cases are going down.
The national figure you cite for total infections is probably cumulative (current daily new cases are 24k), Liverpool's is over two weeks. (Which then makes the 3:1 ratio reverse, which makes sense as they are hopefully picking up next week's cases now and those we never know of)
Has anyone any idea why thee is such a discrepancy in the Liverpool mass testing and the testing which has been done to date?
The latest figure I have for total infections, from official stats is 1,317,496 for the UK giving a prevalence of 1,941 cases per 100k of population taking the total UK population as the denominator.
The Liverpool test, as reported in the Liverpool Echo, was a test population of 64,278 with 373 positives giving a prevalence of 580 per 100k, or about 30% of the prevalence figure given out by the Government. And the test was done in an area of high infection compared to the rest of the UK.
Should there not be some research into this, as it looks like one or the other method is questionable. A ratio of nearly 3:1 is definitely statistically significant.
It looks like you're comparing two completely different things. Your "total infections" for the UK is the total number of people who have ever had the disease since it was first detected, including current cases, recovered cases, and deaths; the Liverpool test is only meant to measure the current incidence of infection.
According to Worldometer, Belgium now has the fourth highest numbers of cases-per-million, and highest death-rate per million, in the world. The BBC are reporting that a quarter of Belgium's medical staff are off work ill with Covid, adding to the pressure.
Further to some of the comment previously, there is an article at the guardian that summarises a number of the emerging studies on the long term effects of covid:
I believe that hospitals are starting to get worried about the picture in the new year as that is when the flu season normally really hits respiratory admissions. Everyone will have to be treated as potentially Covid positive until proven otherwise, and beds will already be occupied. It would be interesting to hear what the Australian experience is vis a vis the physical effects of people having both.
If a Norovirus outbreak also occurs that would be a problem in terms of closing wards to new admissions, although visitors wouldn't be.
I'm not sure the Australian experience will be of much help, since our Covid cases have been so low. At the beginning of the winter (about May) there was a big push to get as many as possible, especially the elderly, vaccinated against flu. This was pretty successful (used pharmacies as well as doctors) and flu cases were much lower than usual (helped by the isolation too). So very few people had both at once. I think the same would be true of NZ.
But it would indeed be a worry in places where Covid is rampant, especially if flu vaccination is low as well. Has there been a campaign to get flu shots?
We are being encouraged to get flu shots. However demand has outstripped supply and the elderly and vulnerable are, quite rightly, being prioritised. I would usually have had mine by now (I pay for mine) but I'm still on the waiting list. I was surprised to get a letter telling me that I'd also been placed on the NHS waiting list so who knows? I might get mine for free this year.
Being both Aged and Feeble, I qualify for a flu jab, and duly received same about a month ago. If they're unavailable for any reason, that is a matter of grave concern IMHO.
Being both Aged and Feeble, I qualify for a flu jab, and duly received same about a month ago. If they're unavailable for any reason, that is a matter of grave concern IMHO.
They don't, and maybe cannot, have enough on hand for everyone at all times. And there will be a lead time between order and receipt. One can argue that more foresight should have led to better planning, but this year there is unprecedented demand. Or at least very uncommon.
It’s amazing that some people will accept or ignore nearly any cost that results from lockdown, but even the tiniest cost of not locking down is treated as unacceptable.
We’re fucking up the lives and futures of everyone in the the entire country in order to postpone the deaths of a relative handful of already sick or old people. And there’s still no realistic end in sight. How much longer can - or should - this go on? How long before the costs outweigh the benefits?
Do you have studies/figures/extrapolations on the costs vs the benefits of the various scenarios so that we can discuss them? Because I've seen a number of people making this argument, but not actually providing any data to back up their viewpoint.
It’s amazing that some people will accept or ignore nearly any cost that results from lockdown, but even the tiniest cost of not locking down is treated as unacceptable.
We’re fucking up the lives and futures of everyone in the the entire country in order to postpone the deaths of a relative handful of already sick or old people. And there’s still no realistic end in sight. How much longer can - or should - this go on? How long before the costs outweigh the benefits?
Do you have studies/figures/extrapolations on the costs vs the benefits of the various scenarios so that we can discuss them? Because I've seen a number of people making this argument, but not actually providing any data to back up their viewpoint.
As part of a lack of analysis of costs/benefits, the skeptics fight shy of predicting deaths. Marvin talks about a "relative handful", but what is a decent sized handful? 250 000? 500 000?
Our record (brief!) of discussion on this topic has not produced much mutual understanding, but at least you could add to my understanding of slang to explain cucks.
I'm in sympathy with what Marvin believes but the comparison will never be made in such a way as to be at all helpful in the debate. However, I disagree that lockdown advocates obsess over the tiniest cost of not locking down, and in the YouTube debate I recommended for/against Great Barrington, the GB opponent showed a lot of sensitivity to the bad effects of lockdown. As do Whitty and Vallance.
Until data can be developed which is respected on all sides, there will never be any reasoned debate. I wish the UK Government would have a committee doing the calculations about the cost of lockdown, and Whitty and Vallance have voiced strong support for the idea. But there's no sign we are going to get it because that would require open access to the data on which models are built. You can't ridicule Ferguson's prediction of 200,000 deaths whilst at the same time swallowing whole the ONS prediction of 200,000 deaths due to lockdown.
And then there is the problem of comparing now with the future. Many have made the point that the effects of lockdown is to reduce wealth which will lower the resources available for the NHS which will result in deaths. But this entirely ignores the possibility that a decision could be made to vastly increase the proportion of GDP allocated to the NHS specifically because of the effect of COVID. So it's all a bit uncertain.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
My guess is that there are comprehensive cost benefit figures available but I haven't seen them. They must be based on predictive models and that in itself is a huge area of uncertainty. There is still a good deal of fumbling around in model design and I'm guessing that morbidity factors are pretty difficult to work out. What percentage of survivors of the virus (the great majority) will have medium to long term effects, hindering their ability to work and increasing health service costs? That's anything but a trivial factor, based on what I have read so far. In my own family, the rate is 50% for 6 months.
I'm not sure, even with hard statistics, that you have commensurable figures. Suppose you can demonstrate that there is a choice between 500 000 jobs, and 250 000 lives. I assume some right wing people will vote for jobs, and lefties for lives. Then what?
Our record (brief!) of discussion on this topic has not produced much mutual understanding, but at least you could add to my understanding of slang to explain cucks.
It is shorthand for cuckhold. Currently, it is a dismissive term used primarily by the alt-right to attack anyone whose POV actually shows a semblance of humanity.
To be clear, my use was sarcastic. Neither calling any here that. I was making what I thought would be a recognisable reference to the type of thinking.
Until data can be developed which is respected on all sides, there will never be any reasoned debate.
Reasoned debate assumes that reason is the goal and it most clearly is not.
There will be no perfect data until this is all over. What we do have is examples across several countries that suggest strict lockdowns are better overall. However, the UK government have cocked this up to the point that the data will never be clean.
It is shorthand for cuckhold. Currently, it is a dismissive term used primarily by the alt-right to attack anyone whose POV actually shows a semblance of humanity.
The implication, of course, being that any effeminate girly-man who shows empathy, sympathy, or anything other than hardcore Darwinistic chest-beating is an inferior specimen who is unable to satisfy his woman, and so is subject to having her seek out a "real man" for her pleasure.
There's quite a lot of ugliness packed in to that one word.
It is shorthand for cuckhold. Currently, it is a dismissive term used primarily by the alt-right to attack anyone whose POV actually shows a semblance of humanity.
The implication, of course, being that any effeminate girly-man who shows empathy, sympathy, or anything other than hardcore Darwinistic chest-beating is an inferior specimen who is unable to satisfy his woman, and so is subject to having her seek out a "real man" for her pleasure.
There's quite a lot of ugliness packed in to that one word.
Actually even worse: he's unable to defend his woman from the attentions of other men - women are passive in this mindset, remember, the idea that they have valid needs and desires independent of those of their partner is deviant cultural marxist feminazism.
Reasoned debate assumes that reason is the goal and it most clearly is not.
You are right if what you mean is that people advocating the application of reason to the COVID debate have an agenda. That's true of me.
My agenda as it affects UK Government policy is for decision making to be based on information which is published and thereby subject to criticism. This implies certain changes, including making the condition that models used to guide policy are not kept secret, as they currently are: I suspect for IPR reasons.
But I do believe reason is important, as well as data, whatever that makes me. It's true you won't dislodge many mindsets by reason but it works for some. It was, in fact, pure unadulterated reason that led me out of the JWs, not any bad experience I had with them. But it works for very view despite the overwhelming rational arguments against their position. Maybe that's why I rely on it a lot.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I'm not sure, even with hard statistics, that you have commensurable figures. Suppose you can demonstrate that there is a choice between 500 000 jobs, and 250 000 lives. I assume some right wing people will vote for jobs, and lefties for lives. Then what?
“When I were a lad” I saw a lot of models which did have within them the financial cost of a human life.
Notoriously, the example which springs to mind was associated with smoking. In the late 60s early 70s, governments were in favour of a relatively ineffective anti-smoking policy. Wisdom was that the Treasury thought the proceeds from tobacco tax outweighed the cost of health care and loss of productive labour. That wasn’t what was going on primarily in the models. Demographic studies showed that the peak of cancer deaths occurred towards the end of a productive work life. Yes, there were additional medical costs but they were far outweighed by the savings on paying out state and occupational pensions. So government sponsored anti smoking programmes were basically for political show.
It was a well known public sector study in the UK. I don’t know how the model evolved in the 1980s and 90s but I guess the original ones actually underestimated the real health care costs for those directly and indirectly affected. At any rate, the policy changed.
So far as COVID-19 is concerned however, the real issue is not the cost reduction caused by the deaths of the aged but the risk that laissez faire will kill the NHS. It would be nice to think that the government policy is all heart but I’m sure it isn’t.
I don’t know how the model evolved in the 1980s and 90s but I guess the original ones actually underestimated the real health care costs for those directly and indirectly affected. At any rate, the policy changed.
My understanding was that there were three changes, two of them linked to an extent.
First, treatments for smoking related illnesses became available. Often quite expensive, but also relatively effective. It's no longer the case that if you get cancer you've a few months to say good bye to family and friends before the inevitable. Compared to no-one lives, 30% survival rates (depends on the cancer, so that's a number out of thin air) are very good. That means that you now have both additional treatment costs not included in the earlier models, and also have to factor in a larger number of people living longer (and, even if the cancer is cured there are still other health conditions with extra costs).
The second links to that, which is a growing expectation that because there's a treatment it must be made available. Regardless of the cost. We're seeing that across the board, how many campaigns are there out there to make very expensive treatments available for rare illnesses? There's a demand to be treated ... which, of course, also relates to Covid with news stories of prominent individuals receiving expensive or experimental treatments and surviving, then everyone else considering this to be a survivable disease which just takes the government to authorise those treatments for everyone - even though we don't see the stories of those for whom the treatment didn't work, because no treatment cures everyone.
Finally, there was the growing realisation that smoking was making people ill who didn't themselves smoke.
I agree with that last point, probably
the most famous case was Roy Castle, who blamed his lung cancer firmly on playing in smokey jazz clubs, and died in 1994.
Reasoned debate assumes that reason is the goal and it most clearly is not.
You are right if what you mean is that people advocating the application of reason to the COVID debate have an agenda. That's true of me.
I was referring to the common practice of coming to a conclusion and then building a case to support it, ignoring contrary information.
Such as lauding Sweden's approach to the corona virus even in light of more and more results indicating that it is a failed model.
Although the example is based on your posting, the charge is not aimed at you only. People do not reason as a first approach to a position. We do not apply consistent reasoning in evaluating said positions or across positions. Reason is, at best, a secondary consideration. This is part of our evolution. Stepping outside our instinctive and reactionary behaviour is difficult even when we are aware because it is literally hard coded in our brains.
I'm not sure, even with hard statistics, that you have commensurable figures. Suppose you can demonstrate that there is a choice between 500 000 jobs, and 250 000 lives. I assume some right wing people will vote for jobs, and lefties for lives. Then what?
“When I were a lad” I saw a lot of models which did have within them the financial cost of a human life.
Any model of anything which connects to the possibility of death includes the cost of human life. Everything is a balance of convenience, economics and health. It is both necessary for modern life and part of our nature. We will take these risks for this goal. The tolerance of risk is a constant variable, of course, but laws, standards and policies will have a codified compromise.
We sometimes like to pretend otherwise, that human life is paramount, but it is just another factor in the equation.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Week ending 21 November.
Global:
Total cases: 58,480,604 ( prev. 54, 312,776)
New cases during the week: 4,167,828
Daily Average: 595,504
Total deaths: 1,385, 778 (prev. 1,317,393)
New deaths during the week: 68,385
Daily Average: 9,769
Europe:
Total cases: 15,451,636 (prev. 13,727,387)
New cases during the week: 1,724,249
Daily Average: 246,321
Total deaths: 351,916 (prev. 319,418)
New deaths during the week: 32,498
Daily average: 4,642
USA:
Total cases: 12,450,666 (prev. 11,226,218)
New cases during the week: 1,224,448
Daily Average: 174,921
Total deaths: 261,790 (prev. 251,256)
New deaths during the week: 10,534
Daily Average: 1,505
Europe, with about a tenth of the global population. accounted for 41% of the global new cases and 48% of the global deaths during the week.
The USA, with less than 5% of the global population, accounted for 29% of the global new cases and 15% of the global deaths during the week. Unlike the first wave which had relatively few hotspot States, the pandemic is now much more widespread.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Week ending 28 November.
Global:
Total cases: 62,554,862 (prev. 58,480,604)
New cases during the week: 4,074,258 (prev. 4,167,828)
Daily Average: 581,682 (prev. 595,504)
Total deaths: 1,457,538 (prev.1,385, 778)
New deaths during the week: 71,760 (prev. 68,385)
Daily Average: 10,247 (prev. 9,769)
Europe:
Total cases: 16,920,777 (prev. 15,451,636)
New cases during the week: 1,469,141 (prev. 1,724,249)
Daily Average: 209,877 (prev. 246,321)
Total deaths: 386,694 (prev. 351,916)
New deaths during the week: 34,778 (prev. 32,498)
Daily average: 4,968 (prev. 4,642)
USA:
Total cases: 13,610,357 (prev. 12,450,666)
New cases during the week: 1,159,691 (prev. 1,224,448)
Daily Average: 165,670 (prev. 174,921)
Total deaths: 272,254 (prev. 261,790)
New deaths during the week: 10,464 (prev. 10,534)
Daily Average: 1,495 (prev. 1,505)
Europe, with about a tenth of the global population, accounted for 36% of the global new cases and 48% of the global deaths during the week.
The USA, with less than 5% of the global population, accounted for 28% of the global new cases and 15% of the global deaths during the week.
Some good news from Australia - cases in the state of Victoria have been zero fro the past two weeks, though in South Australia, a case spread from faulty quarantine of a returned traveller formoverseasto cause a small cluster of about 20 confirmed infections. The State government went immediately to a strict lockdown (including all bars etc closed and no-one allowed to exercise outdoors) ; that lasted 4 days and seems to have done the trick.
They reasoned that partial measures for a couple of weeks, as Victoria had done in similar circumstances had proved not good enough: they had a 'second wave' , maxing at about 700 cases.
I'm usually pretty numerate but sometimes scanning lists of figures, I find it hard to extract some 'story' from it. I prefer graphs or at least tables of data but we're limited to text here so no criticism B62, you're doing a good job.
What I do notice is that this past week's US death toll is about 50% higher than the previous week's figure, while Europe is about level and the world is higher by a number which seems to be accounted for by the US rise in deaths; have I read that right?
US cases rose by a smaller percentage, as are those for Europe and the world, nowhere near 50%.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Though there are exceptions, I think the evidence is that on a State by State basis, things are generally getting significantly worse in the USA.
I don’t normally record hospitalisations but over 100,000 people in the USA are in hospital with COVID-19 and these are record numbers. Hospital provision is reaching crisis point in a number of States and there is increasing concern about the exhausting effects of their work on doctors, nurses and support staff. Running out of fit staff may be a bigger problem than running out of beds.
Europe overall looks a little better in that new case levels are coming down. But personally I’m not sure what the impacts will be of gradual relaxations in constraints. It’s a delicate balance, not made any easier by increasing impatience with constraints. Christmas behaviour could easily kick off another surge.
The vaccines are good news but I can’t see USA or Europe getting to herd immunity level (about 60% to 79% vaccinated) before end June at the earliest.
What I do notice is that this past week's US death toll is about 50% higher than the previous week's figure, while Europe is about level and the world is higher by a number which seems to be accounted for by the US rise in deaths; have I read that right?
US cases rose by a smaller percentage, as are those for Europe and the world, nowhere near 50%.
When you're starting from a higher 'floor' the percentage increase is going to be smaller. The number of daily deaths in the U.S. is about where it was during the high point of the first wave. In fact, three of the top five most lethal COVID-19 days (according to the COVID Tracking Project) in the U.S. have happened in the past week.
May 7: 2,752
December 2: 2,733
December 3: 2,706
April 29: 2,685
December 4: 2,563
The big difference is that the first wave in the U.S. was localized in the northeast and a few west coast areas. Now it's everywhere. I expect new records to be set soon.
When you're starting from a higher 'floor' the percentage increase is going to be smaller. .
That won't be the case for exponential growth. If R is constant the percentage increase will be constant (The percentage increase being off the top of my head roughly ((R-1)*100), on the assumption for simplicity that generations of the disease don't overlap). The pattern will deviate from that once one starts getting significant levels of herd immunity.
Comments
How long before the UK has exponential virus growth?
It went from 20/day Sept to 100/day Oct to 500 Nov (although I think it is stabilising as we took things a step tighter.)
We had it in March and through October. It's how we got to 20-30,000 new cases a day.
Indeed. It's inevitable that it will work that way, given a constant R.
I think what they want is entirely consistent - "My body, my choice, your body, also my choice"
I too have appreciated your posts @Barnabas62 .
Global:
Total cases: 54, 312,776
New cases: 575,717
Total deaths: 1,317,393
New deaths: 8,802
Europe:
Total cases: 13,727,387
New cases: 242,777
Total deaths: 319,418
New deaths: 3,764
USA:
Total cases: 11,226,218
New cases: 157,253
Total deaths: 251,256
New deaths: 1,260
USA milestones of a quarter of a million deaths in total and more than a million new cases in the last 7 days.
UK milestone of fifty thousand deaths reached in the last two or three days. UK now recording more deaths per million (761) than USA (757)
Following discussions in the thread I’ll record weekly summaries like this and include a few specific significant reports during the week as and when they occur. And of course other Shipmates are free to report anything that strikes them, or scroll past.
The latest figure I have for total infections, from official stats is 1,317,496 for the UK giving a prevalence of 1,941 cases per 100k of population taking the total UK population as the denominator.
The Liverpool test, as reported in the Liverpool Echo, was a test population of 64,278 with 373 positives giving a prevalence of 580 per 100k, or about 30% of the prevalence figure given out by the Government. And the test was done in an area of high infection compared to the rest of the UK.
Should there not be some research into this, as it looks like one or the other method is questionable. A ratio of nearly 3:1 is definitely statistically significant.
If a Norovirus outbreak also occurs that would be a problem in terms of closing wards to new admissions, although visitors wouldn't be.
Would need to look but three possibilities:
If you are already tested and known positive you it makes sense that you don't take the test again.
Liverpool's past peak and so new cases are going down.
The national figure you cite for total infections is probably cumulative (current daily new cases are 24k), Liverpool's is over two weeks. (Which then makes the 3:1 ratio reverse, which makes sense as they are hopefully picking up next week's cases now and those we never know of)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/damage-to-multiple-organs-recorded-in-long-covid-cases
I'm not sure the Australian experience will be of much help, since our Covid cases have been so low. At the beginning of the winter (about May) there was a big push to get as many as possible, especially the elderly, vaccinated against flu. This was pretty successful (used pharmacies as well as doctors) and flu cases were much lower than usual (helped by the isolation too). So very few people had both at once. I think the same would be true of NZ.
But it would indeed be a worry in places where Covid is rampant, especially if flu vaccination is low as well. Has there been a campaign to get flu shots?
Do you have studies/figures/extrapolations on the costs vs the benefits of the various scenarios so that we can discuss them? Because I've seen a number of people making this argument, but not actually providing any data to back up their viewpoint.
Data is for cucks
I'm in sympathy with what Marvin believes but the comparison will never be made in such a way as to be at all helpful in the debate. However, I disagree that lockdown advocates obsess over the tiniest cost of not locking down, and in the YouTube debate I recommended for/against Great Barrington, the GB opponent showed a lot of sensitivity to the bad effects of lockdown. As do Whitty and Vallance.
Until data can be developed which is respected on all sides, there will never be any reasoned debate. I wish the UK Government would have a committee doing the calculations about the cost of lockdown, and Whitty and Vallance have voiced strong support for the idea. But there's no sign we are going to get it because that would require open access to the data on which models are built. You can't ridicule Ferguson's prediction of 200,000 deaths whilst at the same time swallowing whole the ONS prediction of 200,000 deaths due to lockdown.
And then there is the problem of comparing now with the future. Many have made the point that the effects of lockdown is to reduce wealth which will lower the resources available for the NHS which will result in deaths. But this entirely ignores the possibility that a decision could be made to vastly increase the proportion of GDP allocated to the NHS specifically because of the effect of COVID. So it's all a bit uncertain.
To be clear, my use was sarcastic. Neither calling any here that. I was making what I thought would be a recognisable reference to the type of thinking. Reasoned debate assumes that reason is the goal and it most clearly is not.
There will be no perfect data until this is all over. What we do have is examples across several countries that suggest strict lockdowns are better overall. However, the UK government have cocked this up to the point that the data will never be clean.
The implication, of course, being that any effeminate girly-man who shows empathy, sympathy, or anything other than hardcore Darwinistic chest-beating is an inferior specimen who is unable to satisfy his woman, and so is subject to having her seek out a "real man" for her pleasure.
There's quite a lot of ugliness packed in to that one word.
Actually even worse: he's unable to defend his woman from the attentions of other men - women are passive in this mindset, remember, the idea that they have valid needs and desires independent of those of their partner is deviant cultural marxist feminazism.
It is used to shut down a POV without actually addressing the issue at hand.
My agenda as it affects UK Government policy is for decision making to be based on information which is published and thereby subject to criticism. This implies certain changes, including making the condition that models used to guide policy are not kept secret, as they currently are: I suspect for IPR reasons.
But I do believe reason is important, as well as data, whatever that makes me. It's true you won't dislodge many mindsets by reason but it works for some. It was, in fact, pure unadulterated reason that led me out of the JWs, not any bad experience I had with them. But it works for very view despite the overwhelming rational arguments against their position. Maybe that's why I rely on it a lot.
Notoriously, the example which springs to mind was associated with smoking. In the late 60s early 70s, governments were in favour of a relatively ineffective anti-smoking policy. Wisdom was that the Treasury thought the proceeds from tobacco tax outweighed the cost of health care and loss of productive labour. That wasn’t what was going on primarily in the models. Demographic studies showed that the peak of cancer deaths occurred towards the end of a productive work life. Yes, there were additional medical costs but they were far outweighed by the savings on paying out state and occupational pensions. So government sponsored anti smoking programmes were basically for political show.
It was a well known public sector study in the UK. I don’t know how the model evolved in the 1980s and 90s but I guess the original ones actually underestimated the real health care costs for those directly and indirectly affected. At any rate, the policy changed.
So far as COVID-19 is concerned however, the real issue is not the cost reduction caused by the deaths of the aged but the risk that laissez faire will kill the NHS. It would be nice to think that the government policy is all heart but I’m sure it isn’t.
First, treatments for smoking related illnesses became available. Often quite expensive, but also relatively effective. It's no longer the case that if you get cancer you've a few months to say good bye to family and friends before the inevitable. Compared to no-one lives, 30% survival rates (depends on the cancer, so that's a number out of thin air) are very good. That means that you now have both additional treatment costs not included in the earlier models, and also have to factor in a larger number of people living longer (and, even if the cancer is cured there are still other health conditions with extra costs).
The second links to that, which is a growing expectation that because there's a treatment it must be made available. Regardless of the cost. We're seeing that across the board, how many campaigns are there out there to make very expensive treatments available for rare illnesses? There's a demand to be treated ... which, of course, also relates to Covid with news stories of prominent individuals receiving expensive or experimental treatments and surviving, then everyone else considering this to be a survivable disease which just takes the government to authorise those treatments for everyone - even though we don't see the stories of those for whom the treatment didn't work, because no treatment cures everyone.
Finally, there was the growing realisation that smoking was making people ill who didn't themselves smoke.
the most famous case was Roy Castle, who blamed his lung cancer firmly on playing in smokey jazz clubs, and died in 1994.
Such as lauding Sweden's approach to the corona virus even in light of more and more results indicating that it is a failed model.
Although the example is based on your posting, the charge is not aimed at you only. People do not reason as a first approach to a position. We do not apply consistent reasoning in evaluating said positions or across positions. Reason is, at best, a secondary consideration. This is part of our evolution. Stepping outside our instinctive and reactionary behaviour is difficult even when we are aware because it is literally hard coded in our brains.
We sometimes like to pretend otherwise, that human life is paramount, but it is just another factor in the equation.
Global:
Total cases: 58,480,604 ( prev. 54, 312,776)
New cases during the week: 4,167,828
Daily Average: 595,504
Total deaths: 1,385, 778 (prev. 1,317,393)
New deaths during the week: 68,385
Daily Average: 9,769
Europe:
Total cases: 15,451,636 (prev. 13,727,387)
New cases during the week: 1,724,249
Daily Average: 246,321
Total deaths: 351,916 (prev. 319,418)
New deaths during the week: 32,498
Daily average: 4,642
USA:
Total cases: 12,450,666 (prev. 11,226,218)
New cases during the week: 1,224,448
Daily Average: 174,921
Total deaths: 261,790 (prev. 251,256)
New deaths during the week: 10,534
Daily Average: 1,505
Europe, with about a tenth of the global population. accounted for 41% of the global new cases and 48% of the global deaths during the week.
The USA, with less than 5% of the global population, accounted for 29% of the global new cases and 15% of the global deaths during the week. Unlike the first wave which had relatively few hotspot States, the pandemic is now much more widespread.
Global:
Total cases: 62,554,862 (prev. 58,480,604)
New cases during the week: 4,074,258 (prev. 4,167,828)
Daily Average: 581,682 (prev. 595,504)
Total deaths: 1,457,538 (prev.1,385, 778)
New deaths during the week: 71,760 (prev. 68,385)
Daily Average: 10,247 (prev. 9,769)
Europe:
Total cases: 16,920,777 (prev. 15,451,636)
New cases during the week: 1,469,141 (prev. 1,724,249)
Daily Average: 209,877 (prev. 246,321)
Total deaths: 386,694 (prev. 351,916)
New deaths during the week: 34,778 (prev. 32,498)
Daily average: 4,968 (prev. 4,642)
USA:
Total cases: 13,610,357 (prev. 12,450,666)
New cases during the week: 1,159,691 (prev. 1,224,448)
Daily Average: 165,670 (prev. 174,921)
Total deaths: 272,254 (prev. 261,790)
New deaths during the week: 10,464 (prev. 10,534)
Daily Average: 1,495 (prev. 1,505)
Europe, with about a tenth of the global population, accounted for 36% of the global new cases and 48% of the global deaths during the week.
The USA, with less than 5% of the global population, accounted for 28% of the global new cases and 15% of the global deaths during the week.
They reasoned that partial measures for a couple of weeks, as Victoria had done in similar circumstances had proved not good enough: they had a 'second wave' , maxing at about 700 cases.
Moral: go hard and go quickly on such matters.
However, it does seem as though Lockdown the Second has achieved a drop in the rate of infections, so that's some good news, too.
Global:
Total cases: 66,834,593 (prev. 62,554,862)
New cases during the week: 4,279,731 (prev. 4,074,258)
Daily Average: 611,390 (prev. 581,682)
Total deaths: 1,533,741 (prev 1,457,538)
New deaths during the week: 76,203 (prev. 71,760)
Daily Average: 10,886 (prev. 10,247)
Europe:
Total cases: 18,273,687 (prev. 16,920,777)
New cases during the week: 1,352,910 (prev. 1,469,141)
Daily Average: 193,273 (prev. 209,877)
Total deaths: 420,846 (prev. 386,694)
New deaths during the week: 34,152 (prev. 34,778)
Daily average: 4,879 (prev. 4,968)
USA:
Total cases: 14,983,425 (prev. 13,610,357)
New cases during the week: 1,373,068 (prev. 1,159,691)
Daily Average: 196,153 (prev. 165,670)
Total deaths: 287,825 (prev. 272,254)
New deaths during the week: 15,571 (prev. 10,464)
Daily Average: 2,224 (prev. 1,495)
Europe, with about a tenth of the global population, accounted for 32% of the global new cases and 45% of the global deaths during the week.
The USA, with less than 5% of the global population, accounted for 32% of the global new cases and 20% of the global deaths during the week.
What I do notice is that this past week's US death toll is about 50% higher than the previous week's figure, while Europe is about level and the world is higher by a number which seems to be accounted for by the US rise in deaths; have I read that right?
US cases rose by a smaller percentage, as are those for Europe and the world, nowhere near 50%.
I don’t normally record hospitalisations but over 100,000 people in the USA are in hospital with COVID-19 and these are record numbers. Hospital provision is reaching crisis point in a number of States and there is increasing concern about the exhausting effects of their work on doctors, nurses and support staff. Running out of fit staff may be a bigger problem than running out of beds.
Europe overall looks a little better in that new case levels are coming down. But personally I’m not sure what the impacts will be of gradual relaxations in constraints. It’s a delicate balance, not made any easier by increasing impatience with constraints. Christmas behaviour could easily kick off another surge.
The vaccines are good news but I can’t see USA or Europe getting to herd immunity level (about 60% to 79% vaccinated) before end June at the earliest.
Any vaccination will start to pull R down though, which will allow more wiggle room with restrictions as the % vaccinated increases.
Speaking of which, there seems to be some evidence that COVID-19 may cause (or contribute to) long-term erectile dysfunction in men. Understandable given the amount of vascular damage associated with this disease. Yet another reason to avoid this thing.
When you're starting from a higher 'floor' the percentage increase is going to be smaller. The number of daily deaths in the U.S. is about where it was during the high point of the first wave. In fact, three of the top five most lethal COVID-19 days (according to the COVID Tracking Project) in the U.S. have happened in the past week.
The big difference is that the first wave in the U.S. was localized in the northeast and a few west coast areas. Now it's everywhere. I expect new records to be set soon.