The big Coronavirus thread

morstar

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.

More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.

But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.

Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/

I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.

Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.

The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.

I hardly said that.

At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.

You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.

.

So the calculus there is how many extra people die for people to feel less repressed vs doing the optimum process re low deaths?

Care to put a number on that?

I have consistently explained why you are completely missing half the argument whilst professing openly to not knowing the answers myself.

Finally you respond but only wanting a simple answer to a complex problem. Wake up, there isn't one!

There is a human cost to lockdown. I have posted some stuff explaining that as have others. Don't expect me to keep explaining it when you have so far ignored it all.

Not sure you're getting my point.

Let me turn the question around.

Imagine if we killed the 1000 wealthiest people and nicked all their wealth. That's around £750bn. Kill the next 2000 and we get to around £1trillion which is around 50% of GDP per annum, right?

We then use that money to prop up the economy whilst we keep the lockdown going untill R is basically zero. We then spend all the money we're not using to prop the economy up on overpaying for PPE and testing.

It would save deaths overall, and the economy would be saved.

Now, obviously there are some serious moral problems with that and it's not a viable option (I get that all of the wealth would be tied up in stuff blah blah, but it's not a real example, investors would literally sh!t the bed in case the authorities came for them next, wealth flight blah blah blah).

But you get my point right? The idea of specifically killing certain people to save the economy seems a bit much. But if it's random people dying it's somehow better?

Your logic boils down to what value a life is. So I'm asking what that value is.

And again you prove the point that you simply have not read or don’t understand the points being made.

If you want to debate Coopsters argument, do it with him.

I share a number of common arguments with Coopster in this but not all by any stretch.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp

This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.

Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.

Thoughts?

He's basically saying that without testing we don't know and it could well be that the lockdown is more costly than not.

But then without testing you don't know that. Nor is anyone in a position to predict a) the cost of a depression and b) how much the economy will return to normal or not if the virus is still out there killing people.

So it's a finger in the air jobbie.

And either way, testing is really helpful in shielding the most vulnerable.

if only the excess death stats were accurate and we knew what proportion of them were corona, eh?


Given most swedes are in lockdown even if the rules say it isn't, I wouldn't expect removing a lockdown to be the panacea some think it might be.

I certainly won't be heading into the office tomorrow if it was lifted today, and plenty of people would do the same.

I still maintain that fewer deaths and a better grip on the virus will likely mean less economic cost.

Ideally you want the osculations between higher deaths and tighter lock downs to be really small, rather than the *massive spike massive lockdown* approach.

In an ideal world you get R down to basically zero, wait 3 weeks, then test and trace the sh!t out of it.

Funnily how preconceptions can colour how we read things.

He isn't talking about track and trace testing at all. He is talking about the "opinion poll" approach that came up on here a couple of days ago, over a "couple of days". He also isn't talking about the economic impact at all.

rick_chasey

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

tailwindhome

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

56

Jeremy.89

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

How many deaths from missed cancer treatment are worth a coronavirus death?

morstar

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?

Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.

It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.

It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.

A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.

It's your graph, you simplified it.

I simplified one aspect to make the one point that is being completely ignored by Rick.

I never pretended it was a complex model for the entire situation.

But whatever, this is just pointless now. I've learnt loads from informed debate on this forum over the years. It is becoming increasingly absent in this thread.

Ok.

The point you were making is that the death toll would be same in the end?

Yes?

Well I suggest your graph also show the additional years of life gained by the German approach as the area between the 2 lines

No?

Go back to where I posted the graph and see why your use of the word “would” is completely wrong.

Go back to all my other posts you’ve replied to and engaged with and tell me where I disagree that time can be bought.

Now tell me how buying time has no negative consequences.

Now tell me how to net the two conflicting sets of negative consequences against each other?

I can’t, the UK government was praised for an expert led approach in the early days though so I assume they took an informed approach.

Only time will tell who got it right. My point remains simply that I don’t accept they categorically got it wrong based solely on short term metrics.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

There is no easy answer.

And that should be an end to the debate. But it won’t be.
I do find the huge debate funny. As if it’ll make a difference.

pblakeney

tailwindhome said:

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

56

I thought the answer was 42.

rick_chasey

Jeremy.89 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

How many deaths from missed cancer treatment are worth a coronavirus death?

How does removing the lockdown change that? Hospitals will still be chokablock with corona people and they will still be stretched.

First.Aspect

Jeremy.89 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

How many deaths from missed cancer treatment are worth a coronavirus death?

And this is what no one knows. It takes literally years to build up the statistics for flu, so you can tell how many extra flu deaths there are each year, as opposed to deaths of people who had flu.

Herd immunity is a red herring. It will take too long, so the approach of suppressing the infection rate looks exactly the same as the alleged "natural" herd immunity strategy for as long as this drags on without a vaccine.

john80

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp

This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.

Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.

Thoughts?

He's basically saying that without testing we don't know and it could well be that the lockdown is more costly than not.

But then without testing you don't know that. Nor is anyone in a position to predict a) the cost of a depression and b) how much the economy will return to normal or not if the virus is still out there killing people.

So it's a finger in the air jobbie.

And either way, testing is really helpful in shielding the most vulnerable.

if only the excess death stats were accurate and we knew what proportion of them were corona, eh?


Given most swedes are in lockdown even if the rules say it isn't, I wouldn't expect removing a lockdown to be the panacea some think it might be.

I certainly won't be heading into the office tomorrow if it was lifted today, and plenty of people would do the same.

I still maintain that fewer deaths and a better grip on the virus will likely mean less economic cost.

Ideally you want the osculations between higher deaths and tighter lock downs to be really small, rather than the *massive spike massive lockdown* approach.

In an ideal world you get R down to basically zero, wait 3 weeks, then test and trace the sh!t out of it.

Your last paragraph will not be attainable for the next 12 months till a vaccine is introduced for any sort of normal uk economy. Many posters have given you the reasons for this but yet you still bang on about this solution. If lockdown amd social distancing is lifted then good luck with you tracking in any built up area.

tailwindhome

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?

Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.

It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.

It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.

A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.

It's your graph, you simplified it.

I simplified one aspect to make the one point that is being completely ignored by Rick.

I never pretended it was a complex model for the entire situation.

But whatever, this is just pointless now. I've learnt loads from informed debate on this forum over the years. It is becoming increasingly absent in this thread.

Ok.

The point you were making is that the death toll would be same in the end?

Yes?

Well I suggest your graph also show the additional years of life gained by the German approach as the area between the 2 lines

No?

Go back to where I posted the graph and see why your use of the word “would” is completely wrong.

Go back to all my other posts you’ve replied to and engaged with and tell me where I disagree that time can be bought.

Now tell me how buying time has no negative consequences.

Now tell me how to net the two conflicting sets of negative consequences against each other?

I can’t, the UK government was praised for an expert led approach in the early days though so I assume they took an informed approach.

Only time will tell who got it right. My point remains simply that I don’t accept they categorically got it wrong based solely on short term metrics.

You posted this

"If no vaccine comes and no material changes in mortality rates occur, Germany will experience as many deaths as UK by the time herd immunity is reached. (Caveats for demographics)"

Then posted the graph in support of it



By all means bring other factors into the discussion, but let's at least agree on what your graph shows first

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp

This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.

Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.

Thoughts?

If as has been suggested there are a large number of asymptomatic infectious carriers then I'm not sure it follows that a sample of 1000 people in London who thought they might have had it would tell you how many really had had it. That would just tell you the symptomatic prevalence. It's also a big assumption and almost certainly wrong that the disease is evenly distributed throughout the country so sampling would need to be done in a wide variety of places to build up a 'heat map'.

Otherwise I agree that we are just guessing where to balance the harms of lockdown/not-lockdown at the moment. Even the government's 5 tests seem to recognise this.

bompington

Jeremy.89 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

How many deaths from missed cancer treatment are worth a coronavirus death?

I find it intriguing that, for quite a while, trolley problems have been the subject of a lot of discussion - starting to break out of academic circles a bit.

Now we find ourselves with the the biggest, real-est trolley problem you could possibly wish for, and no-one's talking about them at all.

But it is exactly what we've got here:
Pull this lever and thousands die.
Pull that lever and - well, thousands die as well: just in slightly less obvious ways.

Or perhaps it's more like "pull any lever and watch the trolley disappear into a mass of junctions and sidings that make it totally impossible to see where it's going to come out".

I suspect that we all have some psychological coping mechanism that, once we have seen one danger, fixates us on that one - it's just too much for our brains to cope with trying to fully grasp all the possible consequences.

I don't have any simple solutions and I suspect that anyone who is saying "we must do this! It's the only way!" just doesn't fully understand the complexity and uncertainty of it all.

One thing I can confidently predict: when it's all over, there'll be an awful lot of stopped clocks going "you see! I was right!"

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.

More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.

But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.

Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/

I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.

Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.

The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.

I hardly said that.

At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.

You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.

Also, Germany releasing their lockdown involves more people dying.

No, I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication of the let's-go-for-hetd-immunity-asap cheerleaders.

I agree with that.

Conversely, I think some people have their head in the sand about the fact this virus is going to people in significant numbers in all countries and mitigation <> cure. Even those with lock downs that started early.

Not a reason to give up the fight for as many of them as possible.

morstar

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

morstar said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?

Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.

It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.

It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.

A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.

It's your graph, you simplified it.

I simplified one aspect to make the one point that is being completely ignored by Rick.

I never pretended it was a complex model for the entire situation.

But whatever, this is just pointless now. I've learnt loads from informed debate on this forum over the years. It is becoming increasingly absent in this thread.

Ok.

The point you were making is that the death toll would be same in the end?

Yes?

Well I suggest your graph also show the additional years of life gained by the German approach as the area between the 2 lines

No?

Go back to where I posted the graph and see why your use of the word “would” is completely wrong.

Go back to all my other posts you’ve replied to and engaged with and tell me where I disagree that time can be bought.

Now tell me how buying time has no negative consequences.

Now tell me how to net the two conflicting sets of negative consequences against each other?

I can’t, the UK government was praised for an expert led approach in the early days though so I assume they took an informed approach.

Only time will tell who got it right. My point remains simply that I don’t accept they categorically got it wrong based solely on short term metrics.

You posted this

"If no vaccine comes and no material changes in mortality rates occur, Germany will experience as many deaths as UK by the time herd immunity is reached. (Caveats for demographics)"

Then posted the graph in support of it



By all means bring other factors into the discussion, but let's at least agree on what your graph shows first

FFS, selective quoting. I put the word COULD in block capitals.

rick_chasey

bompington said:

Jeremy.89 said:

rick_chasey said:

How many extra corona deaths are worth an opening of the lockdown?

How many deaths from missed cancer treatment are worth a coronavirus death?

I find it intriguing that, for quite a while, trolley problems have been the subject of a lot of discussion - starting to break out of academic circles a bit.

Now we find ourselves with the the biggest, real-est trolley problem you could possibly wish for, and no-one's talking about them at all.

But it is exactly what we've got here:
Pull this lever and thousands die.
Pull that lever and - well, thousands die as well: just in slightly less obvious ways.

Or perhaps it's more like "pull any lever and watch the trolley disappear into a mass of junctions and sidings that make it totally impossible to see where it's going to come out".

I suspect that we all have some psychological coping mechanism that, once we have seen one danger, fixates us on that one - it's just too much for our brains to cope with trying to fully grasp all the possible consequences.

I don't have any simple solutions and I suspect that anyone who is saying "we must do this! It's the only way!" just doesn't fully understand the complexity and uncertainty of it all.

One thing I can confidently predict: when it's all over, there'll be an awful lot of stopped clocks going "you see! I was right!"

It does annoy me that the exit strategy everyone asked me to put up turns out to be very similar the German exit strategy which Merkel outlined in that video everyone shared and I get no credit for it on here, and instead i get brandished as some pig-headed extremist.

Just because a debate is between x and y, doesn't mean the optimum solution sits exactly half-way between x and y.

How long is the emperor's nose?

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

rjsterry said:

And it appears we have now got to the point of fake NHS twitter accounts pushing the go-for-herd-immunity idea. Who would come up with such an idea, I wonder?

Yeah, not sure that isn't one for the conspiracy thread.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-51805311

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

This what the mortality rates COULD look like.

Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.

Does that help?

Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.

Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.

Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.

We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?

In the long run? That is the point that is being made.

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

There is no easy answer.

And that should be an end to the debate. But it won’t be.
I do find the huge debate funny. As if it’ll make a difference.

I guess we all share a degree of frustration that we as individuals are powerless in the face of something that affects our lives to such an extent. Engaging in internet debate probably fills some kind of psychological need to at least feel in control - if any of us were actually in Cabinet I doubt we'd spend our spre time debating on Cake Stop.

Democracy requires an informed public anyway so in thenscheme of things it's contributes.

pblakeney

So in summary, we are bored. 😉

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

It does annoy me that the exit strategy everyone asked me to put up turns out to be very similar the German exit strategy which Merkel outlined in that video everyone shared and I get no credit for it on here, and instead i get brandished as some pig-headed extremist.

Really?

DeVlaeminck

Re. sweden I wouldn't be so sure they are effectively in self imposed lock down. Schools are open even for children of parents with symptoms for starters so quite different to here even if not business as usual . A friend of a friend on facebook (and you can't get more reliable a source than that) who lives over there has been very critical about their approach and sees it as a failing experiment with people's lives.

rick_chasey

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

It does annoy me that the exit strategy everyone asked me to put up turns out to be very similar the German exit strategy which Merkel outlined in that video everyone shared and I get no credit for it on here, and instead i get brandished as some pig-headed extremist.

Really?

More than happy for people to pick out where it is so different.

TheBigBean

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.

More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.

But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.

More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.

But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.

I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.

If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?

tailwindhome

The ONS links

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1252518098047041536/photo/1

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

It does annoy me that the exit strategy everyone asked me to put up turns out to be very similar the German exit strategy which Merkel outlined in that video everyone shared and I get no credit for it on here, and instead i get brandished as some pig-headed extremist.

Really?

More than happy for people to pick out where it is so different.

No, you missed my point, unsurprisingly. I thought your post was quite telling.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.

More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.

But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.

I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.

It doesn’t. It is a shit sandwich.

It means there is a need to consider the duration of the lockdown as having its own negative (non-Covid) effects.

As a society, we have a severe illness which has changed our world. A few weeks of isolation does not make the problem go away.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.

More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.

But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.

I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.

If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?

I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.

The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.