Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I think pool testing is very good when levels of infection within the population are very low as they have been in Uruguay. There is clearly a trade off between clearing a whole group in one go and having to retest to find the needle in the haystack.
Uruguay is yet another example of the benefits of acting hard and fast.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Close to end of day records for 12 November within the worldometer website. And some horrible figures for the day.
Global: 641k new cases (new high), 9628 deaths
Europe: 290k new cases, 4404 deaths
USA: 160k new cases (new high), 1152 deaths
The growth in new cases demonstrates that this wave is accelerating. The impact on hospital capacity in many countries and USA States is becoming critical. The death count will inevitably rise despite improved treatments. Horrid.
Here in the NW, the case rate is still very high, but (for the moment) falling slowly. The ONS map now allows one to look at cases over time - zoomed in to MSOA resolution, the outbreak seems to start in Liverpool 5 or 6 weeks ago and to be slowly sweeping from west to east.
University students coming back was the thing which really messed it up locally, here. It's odd that university outbreaks did not kick off in the same way in London.
It's odd that university outbreaks did not kick off in the same way in London.
Smaller student populations, especially relative to the total local population, plus quite possibly a higher percentage of their UK students are from the area anyway so haven't moved that far to get there.
Five or more jumbo jets falling out of the sky every day wouldn’t be seen as ‘just numbers’. People are dying alone and away from our view, that way we can dismiss them as mere numbers.
As soon as one of your dear friends becomes one of them, your perspective changes.
Not for me they aren’t, I still have the after effects of my covid infection 8 months later.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
There’s a story behind every number. Evidence is emerging that some 10% of all those who develop symptoms, even if only mild ones, are suffering for months with the long term effects. Both of my sons have had the virus, both had relatively mild symptoms. The eldest is just emerging from longer term and very debilitating side effects. Both were in excellent health before they contracted the virus. Both are around 50 years old.
Another knock on story behind the statistics. I have skin cancer on my face. This was first diagnosed in January, scheduled for treatment in April. Then came the virus and the diversion of resources. Recently an NHS consultant told me that I should not expect to be treated until next year and could not give me a date. The condition has been assessed as not currently life threatening which is why I’m lower down the priority queue. I can tell you that those reassurances and apologies do not make for peace of mind.
Of course Marvin is right that on the surface they are only numbers. Underneath them are many tragedies and debilities. And the numbers are growing at an alarming rate. It does not require a lot of imagination to have sympathy and empathy for what these numbers imply.
Of course there is. But as Stalin is quoted as saying, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Every day you post these big numbers of cases and deaths, but what point are you trying to make? I already know the virus is bad. I already know lots of people are getting it, and some of them are dying.
Are you expecting me to grieve for them all? If I did I'd never do anything else.
I guess I just don't see the point of this constant repetition of a bunch of big numbers as if they're supposed to make me feel something any more. We're so far into the realm of statistics that the realm of tragedy has long since receded over the horizon.
I don’t think the numbers are posted to affect our feelings @Marvin the Martian but maybe they are posted to, hopefully, affect our behaviour.
The behaviour of each one of us has a knock on effect for everyone when in the grip of a pandemic.
Hopefully media and social media will help to remind us.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Surely the size of the challenge is relevant to any serious discussion of how it is to be met? I think that’s called a facts based approach to serious discussion.
Or do you not see this as a massive national and international challenge to us as individuals. In medical terms there has been nothing remotely like this for a hundred years.
Neither you nor anyone else is required to engage emotionally with the information. I engage with it on a personal level and also when giving serious consideration to appropriate remedial responses.
When I created the thread I intended it as both a separate vehicle for discussion of global and national trends and their significance in policy making. That’s part of current Admin policy; to separate coronavirus discussions, like any other discussions, into distinct threads.
I don’t think the numbers are posted to affect our feelings @Marvin the Martian but maybe they are posted to, hopefully, affect our behaviour.
It is a Catch-22. The numbers need to be reported to maintain awareness, but the reporting numbs people and it does not have the impact. This is one of the reasons we have spikes.
IMO, a better tactic would be to mention the numbers and occasionally feature a story of horrific suffering, death and familial pain.
This won't happen, because it would rightly be considered manipulation. But it would be more affective, because MtM is correct. Numbness from repetition is a noted phenomenon.
The thing that reminds me best is seeing people in masks. You can’t forget there’s a virus about then.
Here in Germany masks are mandated in every public indoor place and certain busy streets and squares. The signage is very clear.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
OK. I'll let the regular reporting slide. Anyone else is free to add numerical information if they want. I was doing it as a presumed service to Shipmates, but I appreciate the numbness argument. They don't numb me. They both inform and horrify me. But maybe that's just me.
OK. I'll let the regular reporting slide. Anyone else is free to add numerical information if they want. I was doing it as a presumed service to Shipmates, but I appreciate the numbness argument. They don't numb me. They both inform and horrify me. But maybe that's just me.
I was not speaking about your reporting on the Ship,* but that in the news.
*One one hand, your reportage is another set loaded on, but on the other, reading the Ship is not the same as reading the paper or watching the telly. It is a more intimate and voluntary act.
OK. I'll let the regular reporting slide. Anyone else is free to add numerical information if they want. I was doing it as a presumed service to Shipmates, but I appreciate the numbness argument. They don't numb me. They both inform and horrify me. But maybe that's just me.
I don't understand why you would stop. I don't feel numb.
Five or more jumbo jets falling out of the sky every day wouldn’t be seen as ‘just numbers’.
It would after it had been happening for more than six months.
If jumbo jets fell out of the sky on a regular basis like this (and assuming that they were Western jumbo jets, rather than those owned by the flag carrier of an African nation (which would be dismissed as bad maintenance)), I'm pretty confident that most people wouldn't fly any more.
But flying isn't really seen as part of everyday life. People are much more resistant to the idea that they shouldn't gather with their friends and family for an indeterminate time, particularly when there's a competing narrative about how everybody has to keep going out and spending money to keep the bars and restaurants in business.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Or do you not see this as a massive national and international challenge to us as individuals.
Not as individuals, no.
That genuinely puzzles me. The challenge as individuals is to accept unprecedented restrictions to our normal freedoms in the cause of the common good.
Or am I missing something? At almost 78 and suffering from health conditions which put me in the high risk zone, it helps me a lot if others honour the personal restrictions. I’m at much more risk than for example the supermarket delivery drivers or those who pack the vans. Their carelessness might cost me my life. But their job is made a lot more difficult by observing the restrictions. I’m grateful for their help.
You could multiply that example a million fold. The massive challenge is for the less vulnerable to act in the interests of the more vulnerable for an indefinite period.
Or do you not see this as a massive national and international challenge to us as individuals.
Not as individuals, no.
That genuinely puzzles me. The challenge as individuals is to accept unprecedented restrictions to our normal freedoms in the cause of the common good.
Or am I missing something? At almost 78 and suffering from health conditions which put me in the high risk zone, it helps me a lot if others honour the personal restrictions. I’m at much more risk than for example the supermarket delivery drivers or those who pack the vans. Their carelessness might cost me my life. But their job is made a lot more difficult by observing the restrictions. I’m grateful for their help.
You could multiply that example a million fold. The massive challenge is for the less vulnerable to act in the interests of the more vulnerable for an indefinite period.
"Unprecedented" is a slippery fish. I'm sure the people during WW2 who were given blackout restrictions, rationing, mandatory displacement to the countryside, etc., thought they were unprecedented too.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Fair enough. I should have said ‘peacetime restrictions’.
OK. I'll let the regular reporting slide. Anyone else is free to add numerical information if they want. I was doing it as a presumed service to Shipmates, but I appreciate the numbness argument. They don't numb me. They both inform and horrify me. But maybe that's just me.
I think it's fine, as lb say's above, clicking on this thread is a conscious choice, and some are genuinely informed.
[And as an aside, I appreciate - as always - your very gracious way of dealing with things]
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Personally, I've appreciated the reporting of the numbers. It doesn't numb me but I feel part of a community to read them here rather than on Worldometer.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Thanks Helix.
What I’ll do to avoid the numbing effect is produce a weekly summary at the weekend and maybe mention in addition any highlights in between.
For tonight I note simply that the global new case total is a new high (656k) and the USA new case total is also a new high (183k).
Taiwan has gone some 200 days without a community based case. All cases have been people coming to the country. This was talked about when the pandemic first started, that they knew how to handle things. Source: family member who teaches there. Search with "Taiwan 200 days covid" turns up rafts of links which I'm not reading.
Wish to hell we had decent leadership. We've been watching incomprehensible incompetent provincial management this fall. Prediction is 3 weeks from now, we're out of hospital beds. My general understanding is that much of the world is similarly screwed. Wish we were managed like Taiwan. The conservative gov'ts do it worse don't they?
@Barnabas62 I have really appreciated your daily figures. Don’t stop, you are doing a real service. I like that they are posted without polemic too.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Thanks, Cathscat. I've recognised that there is truth in the numbing effect argument and also that there are folks who value the regular summaries. I'm not going to be able to satisfy everyone! You may have used the key phrase; post without polemic. That will be my aim. There seems value in posting data separately from reactions to the data.
Let folks make their up their own minds about meaning - or numbing - or just scrolling past. We're a self-selecting community, and I'm sure we're able to tolerate different opinions about the value of this.
I do think short macro-level summaries are useful and informative. I'm finding them so myself. Worldometer and Johns Hopkins both provide pretty dense sets of information and it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees. The current and historical details are always there are there if folks want to look at them in detail. In worldometer for example, the graphs preserve totals, changes, averages, globally and country by country.
Anyway, I've taken on board the various views and will make some personal choices about the shape and frequency of my future personal posts. Thanks to all for your views.
They have different priorities, for sure. “Better” and “worse” are matters of opinion.
There are a whole host of potential priorities (some more achievable than others). In what I consider the order of most achievable first, the main priorities are:
Protecting health services, such that there's capacity for all medical emergencies and that specialist equipment for respiratory diseases are not overwhelmed, so that doctors aren't running triage and needing to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. Whatever your views on the UK government, they have largely achieved this.
Controlling the spread of the virus, to reach the point where community transmission is diminishing to the point of non-existence. Taiwan is not the only country to achieve this, so it's achievable.
Protect the economy, keeping as many businesses as possible open, or at least protect them so that they can restart business as soon as possible. Largely unachievable, especially without significant support from the government (which, of course, then carries a long-term effect in terms of government borrowing, though fortunately this pandemic hit at a time when interest rates are at a historic low so that even without the virus the last 5-10 years have been perfect times for governments to borrow to invest). Even if you don't impose any restrictions on hospitality, retail, number of people in offices etc you'd still have to deal with the economic impact of large scale absence from work due to illness (not to mention the cost to business of needing to hire new staff to replace those who die) and self-isolation meaning people don't go to the pub etc.
Protect civil liberties, having no (or minimal) restrictions on what people can do. This is absolutely impossible, for a start because we've always had restrictions of some form anyway because there's always a balance between personal liberty and society - we don't, for example, allow people the liberty to drink as much as they want and then drive home.
To me, it looks like the problems most nations have had in achieving the first two of those priorities, which are achievable, has been because they've tried to achieve the third and fourth of those - protecting economy and personal liberty, and especially personal liberty. The countries that have done best at controlling the virus have generally been those with a very strong sense of society, where the requirement to make personal sacrifices for the good of all is largely ingrained within the way people think naturally. Of course, that more society-focussed mindset isn't enough - Sweden is more socially-minded than many European countries, but without a legally enforced lockdown there has till been a heavy toll on the nation which might have been avoided had things been more effectively shutdown. In the UK an effective shutdown was wrecked by individuals putting their desires to have fun on the beach or visit mummy in Durham above the good of society, and deliberately breaking the rules ... and, even more so to do that without facing any consequences (I'm looking at you Mr Cummings).
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Nicely put, Alan.
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.
What I liked about Alan's post is that it points out so clearly that these are not simplistic issues.
Even if you don't impose any restrictions on hospitality, retail, number of people in offices etc you'd still have to deal with the economic impact of large scale absence from work due to illness (not to mention the cost to business of needing to hire new staff to replace those who die) and self-isolation meaning people don't go to the pub etc.
Surely it would be easier for any given business to cope with a reduction in their economic activity than to cope with a complete cessation of their economic activity?
And for the government it would be a smaller economic hit as well. I agree that there’s a cost either way, but that doesn’t mean they’re equal costs.
As for replacing people who die, firstly the majority of those who’ve died are retired (or will be very soon) anyway and secondly it would mean a reduction in unemployment, meaning less spending on welfare.
Of course, that more society-focussed mindset isn't enough - Sweden is more socially-minded than many European countries, but without a legally enforced lockdown there has till been a heavy toll on the nation which might have been avoided had things been more effectively shutdown.
It seems increasingly likely that to the extent Sweden did well early on it was down to the Swedes willingly enacting a form of lockdown voluntarily, driven by higher trust in the government and the support of a more generous welfare state.
As you point out, there are limits to that approach, both in Sweden and elsewhere.
As for replacing people who die, firstly the majority of those who’ve died are retired (or will be very soon) anyway and secondly it would mean a reduction in unemployment, meaning less spending on welfare.
Retirees are consumers too (on a fairly massive scale), and the long term health effects on the people of working age also has a cost.
If the people who die are preferentially in their 50s and older, then for a business you're talking about not only the loss of a member of staff but also the loss of a lot of experience and expertise (which in most cases would be passed on through some process prior to retirement), and often a long term member of the team which is going to be hard on everyone else. You can't replace someone like that with a kid straight from school.
For other businesses, a significant reduction in activity is a cessation of activity. Most (probably all) hotels, restaurants, pubs and the like operate on the margin between meeting their costs and bankruptcy at the best of times - take away even 10% of their customers and many will be out of business in weeks.
Surely it would be easier for any given business to cope with a reduction in their economic activity than to cope with a complete cessation of their economic activity
Not necessarily. A bistro of which we are fond tried staying open for takeaway at the start of lockdown. They've now closed completely. Husband en rouge ran into the owner the other day, and he told him he was losing less money closing and furloughing the staff than he was staying open for takeaway only.
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?
How many of the people whose lives we went into lockdown to save back in March have since died anyway?
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?
How many of the people whose lives we went into lockdown to save back in March have since died anyway?
Given that deaths had reached a thousand a day before lockdown started bringing them down again, we'd have been potentially looking at tens of thousands of deaths every week.
I suspect the answer to your question is therefore "a minority of them".
Do you have any calculations and figures to say otherwise?
Looking at the data for deaths in England and Wales, and ignoring people over 74, there have been just under 14,500 deaths involving Coronavirus in the first ten months of the year. Over 600 in the 15-44 age band, over 5000 in the 45-64 age band (here I declare an interest), and nearly 8500 in the 65-74 age band. That’s the level of deaths with lockdown.
Without lockdown the level would almost certainly have been higher, and there would probably have been a greater increase in non-Covid deaths as hospitals became overwhelmed. As it is there was a noticeable increase in non-Covid deaths in April and early May coinciding with the peak in Covid deaths.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
That’s where the idea of excess deaths comes from, Marvin. As time progresses we will get more age related information about the numbers and distribution of excess deaths. We will be able to inspect that cost.
Similarly, for economic cost. What impact has the virus and our response to it had on the economy of the country? There are already multiple measures available to monitor that.
But I think there is a moral issue here. It has been said that one of the tests of a good society is the care and protection it provides for its vulnerable minorities. No man is an island entire of itself.
Alan has already spelled out the potentially conflicting priorities. My view is that both extreme laissez faire and extreme protectionism are just at opposite ends of the spectrum of choices governments and individuals face.
The evidence such as it is from different countries is that very early and tough restrictions, coupled with effective monitoring, actually enables a better control of the spread of the virus and an earlier return to greater economic activity. On the other hand, a greater focus on economic activity and less concern over the health consequences leads to a lot more sickness and death.
Marvin, do you actually have a figure in mind? What level of extra culling of the retired and the vulnerable is acceptable? Do you believe in just letting things rip? A kind of survival of the fittest approach. Or do you believe in a level of intervention but not too much?
I think the present policy is to restrict the impact of the virus to the level that the NHS can contain. I don’t quarrel with that as an aim. The real issue is identifying the trigger for restrictions. I think that in both March and October the government in England would have done better to act earlier. But it’s a matter of judgment. Just how much strain will the NHS have to cope with over the next few weeks before the hospitalisation pressure eases off.
Or looking at it the other way, does it matter if the overwhelming of the NHS is a reasonable price to pay for keeping the economy going at a higher level? Leaving morality out of it, politicians know that 12 hour queues for admission to A&E are not politically acceptable. Nor is pressurising doctors to prioritise who gets to live and who to die.
These issues are not easily resolved by simplistic arguments.
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?
How many of the people whose lives we went into lockdown to save back in March have since died anyway?
The idea of letting things rip is usually very vague. I actually made this point on Toby Young's Twitter, when he was extolling the Great Barrington blah blah, I just asked, how many cases do you predict under this regime, how many people in hospital, how many deaths. Curiously enough, nobody replied. The skeptics are keen to knock official stats, but loath to provide their own. Are 500 000 deaths acceptable, UK? As B62 said, is it OK to have people camping outside A and E? Mind you, the affluent will be OK.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Arguments without quantification don’t really work for me in this pandemic. You have Trump saying “This administration will never lock down again.” Apparently without giving any consideration to the fact that far too many of the States have health services near collapse because of the explosion of cases. And thereby transferring blame and responsibility to the State governors. Gross generalisations are just no way to make policy, regardless of their dog whistle appeal.
We need the numbers and a proper appreciation of their significance.
As has been pointed out, a short severe timely lockdown is less damaging economically than a longer later partial lockdown. Johnson dithering about with tiered partial lockdowns was pretty much the worst of both worlds.
(I think Sturgeon's tiered lockdown in Scotland has been working better - I believe R is back below 1 - partly because she's been acting quicker and partly because she has more credibility in the parts of Scotland that are locking down.)
It doesn't really apply to the people on the ship, but one thing that's really come out is that so many hard headed business/finance/economic minded people simply haven't had the training or experiences to deal with understanding something that inflates with a compounding factor of growth, which is rather interesting.
In my jurisdiction the Rt is 1.30 (10 people will infect 13). The rate is 1.1 in 3 cities with mandatory mask rules. Yesterday the gov't ruled that communities over 5000 will have mandatory masks, extending it. They are are a conservative gov't with more rural support than urban. Their decision is based solely on their rural farmer and oil/gas base. The Rt in the premier's own riding exceeds the provincial average. But they are living in a culture of denial where they can't see the past of some idyllic Eden in their fields running to the horizon. It's actually about votes. Policy-wise having public health officers and the chief medical health officer having to obey politicians is plain wrong. Politicians are not medical experts.
@Marvin the Martian - do you define no room for sick patients in hospital and death as worse? People do talk of acceptable death rates. How about if it's your parent, spouse or child?
As has been pointed out, a short severe timely lockdown is less damaging economically than a longer later partial lockdown. Johnson dithering about with tiered partial lockdowns was pretty much the worst of both worlds.
(I think Sturgeon's tiered lockdown in Scotland has been working better - I believe R is back below 1 - partly because she's been acting quicker and partly because she has more credibility in the parts of Scotland that are locking down.)
This. Business can weather short complete lockdowns better than long, partial and vague ones. You cannot plan for vague. Banks won't continue loans for vague. Workers cannot wait for vague.
Comments
Uruguay is yet another example of the benefits of acting hard and fast.
Global: 641k new cases (new high), 9628 deaths
Europe: 290k new cases, 4404 deaths
USA: 160k new cases (new high), 1152 deaths
The growth in new cases demonstrates that this wave is accelerating. The impact on hospital capacity in many countries and USA States is becoming critical. The death count will inevitably rise despite improved treatments. Horrid.
University students coming back was the thing which really messed it up locally, here. It's odd that university outbreaks did not kick off in the same way in London.
Meh. At this point they're just numbers.
Smaller student populations, especially relative to the total local population, plus quite possibly a higher percentage of their UK students are from the area anyway so haven't moved that far to get there.
Five or more jumbo jets falling out of the sky every day wouldn’t be seen as ‘just numbers’. People are dying alone and away from our view, that way we can dismiss them as mere numbers.
As soon as one of your dear friends becomes one of them, your perspective changes.
Not for me they aren’t, I still have the after effects of my covid infection 8 months later.
Another knock on story behind the statistics. I have skin cancer on my face. This was first diagnosed in January, scheduled for treatment in April. Then came the virus and the diversion of resources. Recently an NHS consultant told me that I should not expect to be treated until next year and could not give me a date. The condition has been assessed as not currently life threatening which is why I’m lower down the priority queue. I can tell you that those reassurances and apologies do not make for peace of mind.
Of course Marvin is right that on the surface they are only numbers. Underneath them are many tragedies and debilities. And the numbers are growing at an alarming rate. It does not require a lot of imagination to have sympathy and empathy for what these numbers imply.
It would after it had been happening for more than six months.
Of course there is. But as Stalin is quoted as saying, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Every day you post these big numbers of cases and deaths, but what point are you trying to make? I already know the virus is bad. I already know lots of people are getting it, and some of them are dying.
Are you expecting me to grieve for them all? If I did I'd never do anything else.
I guess I just don't see the point of this constant repetition of a bunch of big numbers as if they're supposed to make me feel something any more. We're so far into the realm of statistics that the realm of tragedy has long since receded over the horizon.
The behaviour of each one of us has a knock on effect for everyone when in the grip of a pandemic.
Hopefully media and social media will help to remind us.
Or do you not see this as a massive national and international challenge to us as individuals. In medical terms there has been nothing remotely like this for a hundred years.
Neither you nor anyone else is required to engage emotionally with the information. I engage with it on a personal level and also when giving serious consideration to appropriate remedial responses.
When I created the thread I intended it as both a separate vehicle for discussion of global and national trends and their significance in policy making. That’s part of current Admin policy; to separate coronavirus discussions, like any other discussions, into distinct threads.
IMO, a better tactic would be to mention the numbers and occasionally feature a story of horrific suffering, death and familial pain.
This won't happen, because it would rightly be considered manipulation. But it would be more affective, because MtM is correct. Numbness from repetition is a noted phenomenon.
Here in Germany masks are mandated in every public indoor place and certain busy streets and squares. The signage is very clear.
*One one hand, your reportage is another set loaded on, but on the other, reading the Ship is not the same as reading the paper or watching the telly. It is a more intimate and voluntary act.
Not as individuals, no.
I don't understand why you would stop. I don't feel numb.
If jumbo jets fell out of the sky on a regular basis like this (and assuming that they were Western jumbo jets, rather than those owned by the flag carrier of an African nation (which would be dismissed as bad maintenance)), I'm pretty confident that most people wouldn't fly any more.
But flying isn't really seen as part of everyday life. People are much more resistant to the idea that they shouldn't gather with their friends and family for an indeterminate time, particularly when there's a competing narrative about how everybody has to keep going out and spending money to keep the bars and restaurants in business.
Or am I missing something? At almost 78 and suffering from health conditions which put me in the high risk zone, it helps me a lot if others honour the personal restrictions. I’m at much more risk than for example the supermarket delivery drivers or those who pack the vans. Their carelessness might cost me my life. But their job is made a lot more difficult by observing the restrictions. I’m grateful for their help.
You could multiply that example a million fold. The massive challenge is for the less vulnerable to act in the interests of the more vulnerable for an indefinite period.
"Unprecedented" is a slippery fish. I'm sure the people during WW2 who were given blackout restrictions, rationing, mandatory displacement to the countryside, etc., thought they were unprecedented too.
I think it's fine, as lb say's above, clicking on this thread is a conscious choice, and some are genuinely informed.
[And as an aside, I appreciate - as always - your very gracious way of dealing with things]
What I’ll do to avoid the numbing effect is produce a weekly summary at the weekend and maybe mention in addition any highlights in between.
For tonight I note simply that the global new case total is a new high (656k) and the USA new case total is also a new high (183k).
Wish to hell we had decent leadership. We've been watching incomprehensible incompetent provincial management this fall. Prediction is 3 weeks from now, we're out of hospital beds. My general understanding is that much of the world is similarly screwed. Wish we were managed like Taiwan. The conservative gov'ts do it worse don't they?
They have different priorities, for sure. “Better” and “worse” are matters of opinion.
Let folks make their up their own minds about meaning - or numbing - or just scrolling past. We're a self-selecting community, and I'm sure we're able to tolerate different opinions about the value of this.
I do think short macro-level summaries are useful and informative. I'm finding them so myself. Worldometer and Johns Hopkins both provide pretty dense sets of information and it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees. The current and historical details are always there are there if folks want to look at them in detail. In worldometer for example, the graphs preserve totals, changes, averages, globally and country by country.
Anyway, I've taken on board the various views and will make some personal choices about the shape and frequency of my future personal posts. Thanks to all for your views.
To me, it looks like the problems most nations have had in achieving the first two of those priorities, which are achievable, has been because they've tried to achieve the third and fourth of those - protecting economy and personal liberty, and especially personal liberty. The countries that have done best at controlling the virus have generally been those with a very strong sense of society, where the requirement to make personal sacrifices for the good of all is largely ingrained within the way people think naturally. Of course, that more society-focussed mindset isn't enough - Sweden is more socially-minded than many European countries, but without a legally enforced lockdown there has till been a heavy toll on the nation which might have been avoided had things been more effectively shutdown. In the UK an effective shutdown was wrecked by individuals putting their desires to have fun on the beach or visit mummy in Durham above the good of society, and deliberately breaking the rules ... and, even more so to do that without facing any consequences (I'm looking at you Mr Cummings).
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.
What I liked about Alan's post is that it points out so clearly that these are not simplistic issues.
Surely it would be easier for any given business to cope with a reduction in their economic activity than to cope with a complete cessation of their economic activity?
And for the government it would be a smaller economic hit as well. I agree that there’s a cost either way, but that doesn’t mean they’re equal costs.
As for replacing people who die, firstly the majority of those who’ve died are retired (or will be very soon) anyway and secondly it would mean a reduction in unemployment, meaning less spending on welfare.
It seems increasingly likely that to the extent Sweden did well early on it was down to the Swedes willingly enacting a form of lockdown voluntarily, driven by higher trust in the government and the support of a more generous welfare state.
As you point out, there are limits to that approach, both in Sweden and elsewhere.
Retirees are consumers too (on a fairly massive scale), and the long term health effects on the people of working age also has a cost.
For other businesses, a significant reduction in activity is a cessation of activity. Most (probably all) hotels, restaurants, pubs and the like operate on the margin between meeting their costs and bankruptcy at the best of times - take away even 10% of their customers and many will be out of business in weeks.
Not necessarily. A bistro of which we are fond tried staying open for takeaway at the start of lockdown. They've now closed completely. Husband en rouge ran into the owner the other day, and he told him he was losing less money closing and furloughing the staff than he was staying open for takeaway only.
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 many of the people whose lives we went into lockdown to save back in March have since died anyway?
Given that deaths had reached a thousand a day before lockdown started bringing them down again, we'd have been potentially looking at tens of thousands of deaths every week.
I suspect the answer to your question is therefore "a minority of them".
Do you have any calculations and figures to say otherwise?
Without lockdown the level would almost certainly have been higher, and there would probably have been a greater increase in non-Covid deaths as hospitals became overwhelmed. As it is there was a noticeable increase in non-Covid deaths in April and early May coinciding with the peak in Covid deaths.
Similarly, for economic cost. What impact has the virus and our response to it had on the economy of the country? There are already multiple measures available to monitor that.
But I think there is a moral issue here. It has been said that one of the tests of a good society is the care and protection it provides for its vulnerable minorities. No man is an island entire of itself.
Alan has already spelled out the potentially conflicting priorities. My view is that both extreme laissez faire and extreme protectionism are just at opposite ends of the spectrum of choices governments and individuals face.
The evidence such as it is from different countries is that very early and tough restrictions, coupled with effective monitoring, actually enables a better control of the spread of the virus and an earlier return to greater economic activity. On the other hand, a greater focus on economic activity and less concern over the health consequences leads to a lot more sickness and death.
Marvin, do you actually have a figure in mind? What level of extra culling of the retired and the vulnerable is acceptable? Do you believe in just letting things rip? A kind of survival of the fittest approach. Or do you believe in a level of intervention but not too much?
I think the present policy is to restrict the impact of the virus to the level that the NHS can contain. I don’t quarrel with that as an aim. The real issue is identifying the trigger for restrictions. I think that in both March and October the government in England would have done better to act earlier. But it’s a matter of judgment. Just how much strain will the NHS have to cope with over the next few weeks before the hospitalisation pressure eases off.
Or looking at it the other way, does it matter if the overwhelming of the NHS is a reasonable price to pay for keeping the economy going at a higher level? Leaving morality out of it, politicians know that 12 hour queues for admission to A&E are not politically acceptable. Nor is pressurising doctors to prioritise who gets to live and who to die.
These issues are not easily resolved by simplistic arguments.
Probably not these people https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54924121
We need the numbers and a proper appreciation of their significance.
Ethne Alba, noted with thanks.
(I think Sturgeon's tiered lockdown in Scotland has been working better - I believe R is back below 1 - partly because she's been acting quicker and partly because she has more credibility in the parts of Scotland that are locking down.)
@Marvin the Martian - do you define no room for sick patients in hospital and death as worse? People do talk of acceptable death rates. How about if it's your parent, spouse or child?