Generic Virus Thread

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Lockdown causes deaths. Economy collapses cause deaths. Sheer amounts of money being spent mean that investment in the NHS in future will be cut causing deaths. We could be in a situation where the lockdown causes more deaths than coronavirus.

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

However in the long term there is a significant chance our overly cautious approach will end up killing more people than the virus would have.

On 'the cure could be worse than the disease' stuff, it is being relayed as though it was based on indisputable fact/empirical evidence (that's not to say that, in this instance, perhaps, circumstances and future policy decisions could mean that the overall outcome of this situation is economically apocalyptic, long-term and deliterious in a way not really seen before to mortality rates - just to say that it is far from inevitable and it doesn't necessarily follow in the way required in order to be making the case that 'lockdown causes more deaths than coronavirus').

Here's a Portes article in response to similar claims (and I've highlighted a particular point in there that it's about our responses to economic crises that matter for things like life-expectancy):

Quote

Is the cure worse than the disease? The Times claimed today: “If the coronavirus lockdown leads to a fall in GDP of more than 6.4% more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus.” It’s hard to know where to start with this nonsense. It’s based on a paper currently under review at a journal entitled Nanotechnology Perceptions, which simply assumes that a fall in GDP translates mechanically and directly into a fall in life expectancy.

It’s this sort of reasoning that appears to be leading President Trump to call for an early end to restrictions in the US, claiming that far more people would die of suicide from a “terrible economy” than from the virus.

But the premise is simply wrong. A recession – a short-term, temporary fall in GDP – need not, and indeed normally does not, reduce life expectancy. Indeed, counterintuitively, the weight of the evidence is that recessions actually lead to people living longer. Suicides do indeed go up, but other causes of death, such as road accidents and alcohol-related disease, fall.

...

It is entirely reasonable to point out that serious damage to the economy, if it persists over the longer term, will reduce our welfare and maybe even – as austerity and its aftermath have done – life expectancy. The last 10 days have seen universal credit cllaims rise more than five-fold, to half a million, while YouGov data suggests that 2 million people may have lost their job. The recession is already here.

But this need not, and should not, be permanent. The risk here is that we allow the inevitable fall in GDP that results from shutting down the economy to drive firms out of business and workers into long-term unemployment. And there is nothing inevitable at all about this.

...

It wasn’t the sharp fall in GDP in 2008-9 that reduced, over the course of the next decade, life expectancy for the poorest in our society. It was how the government chose to address the economic fallout of the global financial crisis – by underfunding and understaffing the NHS and social care, and by eroding the basic welfare safety net that people depend on when times are hard. As we are now discovering, these were false economies that left us less, not more, prepared for this crisis.

Similarly, if we allow Covid-19 to permanently damage our economic and social fabric, it will be our own fault, not that of the virus. This time we can, and must, do better.

...more on link

And for more, there's the stuff referred to in this tweet:

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by snowychap

[DCJonah]

7 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I don't think a full lockdown is necessary personally based on what I know. However I also, as anybody of any intelligence should, don't think I am definitely right! But questioning it is an important part of scientific thinking. Hospitals are at 80% capacity, private hospitals far more, Nightingale in London apparently has fewer than 20 people in it and the others aren't currently in use. The death rate seems to be around 1-2% in countries that have tested large numbers and quite possibly even lower. Most countries (and certainly the UK) have a biased selection of testing aimed at those who are clearly risk categories or already significantly ill.

Doesn't this show that the lockdown is necessary. Surely the fact hospitals aren't at full capacity and the nightingale barely has any people in, shows us that currently the lockdown is helping control this thing.  

[snowychap]

6 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

For example, most experts (which I am definitely not) can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates - this has been proven historically and makes sense, a unemployed, poorer country can not maintain healthy individuals

Would you like to give examples of these experts and their work, please?

I've been reading a number of academics commentating on this as per my post above (so not just Portes...) and though I've seen a few (including the person who did some of them) say that there are studies showing a correlation in eartern European countries after the fall of the USSR and increasing mortality rates, the consensus appears to be that these were rather particular circumstances.

The consensus also appears to be that causation here (i.e. the relationship between life expectancy and incomes) is a very complex subject: two way effects, differing consequences for richer countries v poorer ones, life expectancy increases are driven mainly by factors other than economic ones, & so on.

Edited April 19, 2020 by snowychap

[LondonLax]

37 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Doesn't this show that the lockdown is necessary. Surely the fact hospitals aren't at full capacity and the nightingale barely has any people in, shows us that currently the lockdown is helping control this thing.  

It is clear that the only way to slow the spread of a contagious virus we have no vaccine for is by limiting its opportunity to transmit from one person to another by reducing contact with people, particularly in vulnerable groups. However it’s not clear that it takes a ‘lockdown’ to achieve enough of a slowing of the spread that the medical system can cope.

Only a small portion of society has had contact with the virus, the majority still have not contracted it. Over the next year or two societies are going to be relaxing their restrictions to find the point at which allows the maximum amount of freedom whilst still enabling the medical system to cope whilst the virus runs its course.  

It’s going to take a bit of trial and error, but we’re not going to stay locked down until a vaccine is found. The whole economic system would collapse before that happens. 

[Seat68]

I wonder what would it take for the economy over lockdown people to change their mind. Someone they know dying? A distant relative dying? A grandparent? A parent? Maybe a spouse or are they all collateral damage up to a child? What is the degree of seperation before the economy just isn't that important. 

[blandy]

9 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I think it is wrong to shut down anyone who questions the path. Nothing improves without challenge. The lockdown is killing people and the longer it goes on the more people it will kill directly and indirectly. This isn't a direct economic discussion, this is balancing x lives vs x lives and is a calculation that needs openly discussing.

I don't think a full lockdown is necessary personally based on what I know. However I also, as anybody of any intelligence should, don't think I am definitely right!

I liked your post for the principles you mention. Not so much for the opinion on lockdown. Lockdown is absolutely essential right now. It started too late. But the point about lives lost in lockdown against lives lost if lockdown is ended is right. There are 2 utterly key factors here. Firstly the virus’s rate of infection and second testing. If the rate of infection is >1 then it’s rapidly going to kill more people. The rate needs to be reduced below 1 and kept there. Long term a vaccine can do that, but it’ll be years before you get vaccinated.  Shorter term, the only way to reduce the spread are restrictions. Without testing outside of hospital admissions we don’t have any data or knowledge as to who has had it, who has got it and who is at risk of catching it (and therefore at risk of becoming seriously ill). If we did have that knowledge then we could do as you say and weigh up the “which is worse between lockdown and no lockdown”. Right now they simply have to continue lockdown because the stats on rates of deaths and admissions are still rising, indicating it is not contained to the level where without restrictions our system can cope.

The danger imo is the govt bowing to ideological pressure to remove restrictions, rather than using evidence to determine the point at which it is safe to do so. Trouble is, poor decisions before it caught hold have left them in the position where testing kits ( like with PPE etc)  are not there and, so the evidence can’t be gathered and they’re blundering about in the dark.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is the whole article available anywhere?

You can sign up for free access to limited articles per week.

[bickster]

8 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I'm not going to get into an argument as no one knows any definitive figures but what I can guarantee is that there has NOT been 20,000 extra deaths in this country.

You are quite wrong, the official figure is 15,500, the lowest estimate in care homes is 4,000. Do the maths

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

The only way to ever look at this properly will be after the event. The only thing that worries me is people's unwillingness to really think about uncomfortable calculations. And each calculation is somebody's life. I'm not of this view point because I worry of money, I have a question because I currently believe this will result in more deaths. But I'm also more than happy for someone to suggest valid reasons for why I could be wrong. The most dangerous person in any situation is the one who is steadfast in the belief their viewpoint is beyond reproach. 

But I know I'm in a minority because it's not in people's nature to question or look at data and evidence anymore - otherwise we wouldn't have a Tory party leading us out of Europe! People have become sheep. To question is a good thing, even if you're completely wrong.

Addition; My view as regards lockdown is in relation to full lockdown. I think, based on the data, some actions are required that are not required in a normal situation. In this instance, schools should be open, shops should reopen following same guidelines as supermarkets but mass events should still remain off the agenda til even more data is available. Clearly there should be extra protection around vulnerable (primarily older) groups. I don't think a full lockdown is beneficial and think it may cause more problems and deaths both short and long term.

You’re right about not having all the data and not knowing until after the event. But isn’t that precisely what would make it an unacceptable risk not to have locked down? Imagine if we’d decided to just hope for this snake oil herd immunity another couple of weeks, a few more Cheltenham’s and a few more Sterephonics concerts. 

New Zealand locked down and tested early. Of their population of 4 million, they had 11 deaths. Wales, locked down late, doesn’t test. Of it’s population of 3 million, 354 deaths.

I’m not an expert and I’m not a statistician, but I’d guess postponing or abandoning or loosening the lockdown would not have a good impact on that death figure.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

I don't think a full lockdown is beneficial and think it may cause more problems and deaths both short and long term.

You are falling into the trap of what you complain about, aren’t you?  Without evidence, only speculation, you’re suggesting the lockdown is wrong. The extra deaths are occurring during lockdown and with around 3 weeks being the time from catching it to death, the current daily stats on deaths are only just those including lockdown restrictions. Those from last week are for people confirmed to have virus, caught before lockdown, dying from or with it.

You’re right that extended lockdown will have all kinds of adverse effects. Short term lockdown far fewer, with good government mitigation.

[Stevo985]

4 hours ago, LondonLax said:

That number isn’t scientific fact. It’s one modelling scenario developed based on very limited data and a lot of assumptions.

It’s right to act on it as we don’t have very much else to go on but it’s also right to question our actions taken as a result of it, as the original poster was doing. 

 

But there’s more science behind that than “the lockdown will kill more people than the virus”. 
 

Is there any science behind that claim? Why is pretty much every country in the world facing this pandemic doing the same thing in locking down?

It’s fine to question data, but you can’t oppose it with a claim that has even less science behind it. 

[sne]

 

[markavfc40]

Gove has just said that the Times story about Johnson not attending 5 cobra meetings about coronavirus in February is true but has played it right down by saying there was no need for him to. You couldn't make it up could you. Facing the biggest crisis since Word War 2 and no need for the PM to attend cobra meetings around it. We are being led by dangerous fools.

Edited April 19, 2020 by markavfc40

[Stevo985]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

Gove has just said that the Times story about Johnson not attending 5 cobra meetings about coronavirus in February is true but has played it right down by saying their was no need for him to. You couldn't make it up could you. Facing the biggest crisis since Word War 2 and no need for the PM to attend cobra meetings around it. We are being led by dangerous fools.

Proper Churchill stuff isn’t it. Skipping Cobra meetings because they weren’t important. Sounds just like Churchill that!

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

It is clear that the only way to slow the spread of a contagious virus we have no vaccine for is by limiting its opportunity to transmit from one person to another by reducing contact with people, particularly in vulnerable groups. However it’s not clear that it takes a ‘lockdown’ to achieve enough of a slowing of the spread that the medical system can cope.

Only a small portion of society has had contact with the virus, the majority still have not contracted it. Over the next year or two societies are going to be relaxing their restrictions to find the point at which allows the maximum amount of freedom whilst still enabling the medical system to cope whilst the virus runs its course.  

It’s going to take a bit of trial and error, but we’re not going to stay locked down until a vaccine is found. The whole economic system would collapse before that happens. 

Agreed that we will have to find a point that works. But surely you don't piss about trying to find that point at the start. Getting a grip of it and ensuring the health care system will not be overrun is priority and then you can start thinking about how to ease it. 

I think the idea that this lockdown wasn't needed is madness.

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

I wonder what would it take for the economy over lockdown people to change their mind. Someone they know dying? A distant relative dying? A grandparent? A parent? Maybe a spouse or are they all collateral damage up to a child? What is the degree of seperation before the economy just isn't that important. 

I've been thinking the same. 

I saw someone talking about it on twitter. Basically said would you lose a family member to keep 100% of your wages. And of course every person would say no. I can only assume people who are happy to risk lives to keep the economy strong haven't been affected by the virus or aren't scared of it affecting them. 

 

[markavfc40]

The 84 tonnes of PPE, including much needed gowns, that the government announced yesterday would be to be arriving into UK from Turkey today is not now going to get here today. Parts of the NHS are hours away from running out of gowns.

Edited April 19, 2020 by markavfc40

[Enda]

We don’t need so many policemen because crime is so low.

[Jareth]

I fully understand anyone who supports their team - if you are a Tory I get it. But get real, the Times, who according to Yes Minister (thanks @Awol I really enjoyed that clip) are the people who run the country - have just said that Boris is incompetent. I don't respect them, I don't read them, but they have just and finally about time, killed him. Get the CU*T out now.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Jareth

[jackbauer24]

44 minutes ago, bickster said:

You are quite wrong, the official figure is 15,500, the lowest estimate in care homes is 4,000. Do the maths

I'm not going to keep debating this as I know I'm either not making myself clear or there is a lack of understanding from either side.

15,000 + 4,000 people = 19,500 who have died WITH Coronavirus. My argument is neither you or I actually know how many died BECAUSE of Coronavirus. Is that a statement I am not making clear? I am not suggesting the deaths are lies, I am suggesting the means of recording are deeply flawed. Clearly, if 1 person had died because of Covid out of those numbers, this whole situation would be a spectacular over-reaction. If 19,000 died because of it then the argument would be this is up there with plague in terms of death rate! The only way to try and get an inkling of the real deaths from Covid is to look at excess deaths which has only upturned in the last week or two. Even then you've got to ask are those deaths due to Coronvirus or lockdown (fear of hospitals not getting treatment etc).

I've read replies with a mixture of, 'ok, I didn't know that' to 'that's a complete misunderstanding of statistics' but what I don't see from all the people who think this full lockdown is needed is the possibility they don't know all the answers. No-one does.