Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Lockdowns have cost us over a million per 82 year old life saved. Money well spent?


Do you think lockdowns were a good idea when they cost over a million per life saved? Cost analysis included.  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Were lockdowns worth it?

    • Yes, the massive cost incurred per life saved was money well spent.
      13
    • No, we should have found a less costly way of protecting the elderly and vulnerable
      43


Recommended Posts

Maybe nearly 80,000 have died BECAUSE OF COVID, not necessarily with COVID, as some of those excess deaths are due to people dying of heart attacks etc because they didn’t seek medical attention. However, let’s use that number as it is relevant to the calculation.
 
Let’s assume COVID has an overall infection fatality rate of 0.5% in the UK, which is in the middle of a range of estimates from recent literature.
 
If we had done the bare minimum and allowed COVID to run wild, just over double the number who have died would have died – 169,000 to be precise. How do scientists arrive at that number (this was published recently too)?
 
UK population is about 65 million. To reach herd immunity it is reckoned that 65% would need to catch COVID. That is 42,250,000. However, according to well established science, a minimum of 20% of people have pre-existing T-cell immunity to COVID, so in fact only 33,800,000 would need to catch COVID for the country to reach herd immunity and for it to have just died out. 0.5% of that number is 169,000. However, 80,000 have already died because of COVID, so in fact lockdowns have only saved about 90,000 lives.
 
The official government figures prior to the November lockdown, showed that the UK government had borrowed an extra £280,000,000,000 to pay for COVID measures such as furlough and business grants. Do the maths.
 
$280,000,000,000/90,000=£3,111,111. This does not include spending since the beginning of November, nor does it take into account that more people will die because of COVID and Government measures and therefore the number of lives saved will go down, and so the cost per life saved increase. Nor does it include the costs to individuals who have lost their businesses, their jobs or their mental health because of the lockdowns.
 
Anyway, using these well established and accepted numbers we have spent over 3 million pounds (so far) to save each life. The average age of death from COVID is 82. The average life expectancy in the UK is 82. Now of course, even if we had not had lockdowns, the government would have needed to borrow money as the economy would have got in trouble due to people locking themselves down and the rest of the world doing this, but even if the government had only spent a third less than it has done by implementing lockdowns, that would still mean that lockdowns cost over £1 million per 82 year old life saved so far.
 
Do you think this was a wise decision? Do you think this was a good way to invest resources that could have been otherwise spent on treatments for Leukemia, dementia research, better schools, renewable energy research etc etc. Or do you believe that all lives are equal…an 82 year olds life is equal to a baby’s? Or do you believe that we have unlimited money to spend? Or do you think that our government, supported by a media focused on extremes and exceptions, and encouraged by an emotional public who were incapable of understanding facts, have made one of the biggest acts of collective economic and social self harm in the history our Nation?
Edited by HovelinHove
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 
The average age of death from COVID is 82. The average life expectancy in the UK is 82.

Assuming this is true (you don't provide evidence to support it) then one does not need anything more to understand COVID.  If the first sentence relates to the UK, then COVID does not cause deaths.  If the first sentence is global - then COVID enhances lifespans (because the UK has an above-average life expectancy).

Edited by A.steve
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Assuming this is true (you don't provide evidence to support it) then one does not need anything more to understand COVID.  If the first sentence relates to the UK, then COVID does not cause deaths.  If the first sentence is global - then COVID enhances lifespans (because the UK has an above-average life expectancy).

I do apologise, I got my facts wrong, it is actually 83...so you are right, COVID enhances life! Of course, it doesn’t, since these people probably died sooner than they might have, although arguably if they hadn’t caught COVID, then no doubt something else would have got them pretty soon. I think what we will see is a slight lowering in life expectancy due to slightly earlier deaths in the next year or so, but then an increase after that, so over the course of the 2020s COVID will have zero impact on life expectancy.

ONS data on average age of COVID death

 

 

11863C75-D32D-41F6-B701-7DB67FA79081.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I do apologise, I got my facts wrong, it is actually 83...so you are right, COVID enhances life! Of

course, it doesn’t, since these people probably died sooner than they might have, although arguably if they hadn’t caught COVID, then no doubt something else would have got them pretty soon.

Everyone eventually dies.  Your data suggests that those who did not test positive for COVID tended to die younger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
If we had done the bare minimum and allowed COVID to run wild, just over double the number who have died would have died – 169,000 to be precise. How do scientists arrive at that number (this was published recently too)?

except they didn't know that at the time

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Assuming this is true (you don't provide evidence to support it) then one does not need anything more to understand COVID.  If the first sentence relates to the UK, then COVID does not cause deaths.  If the first sentence is global - then COVID enhances lifespans (because the UK has an above-average life expectancy).

This is twisting my melon, but it is fundamentally not true. COVID is a disease that particularly affects the elderly. I have read, but can’t remember the source, that the IFR for COVID is considerably higher than the flu for those over 65, but considerably lower than the flu for those under 20. Virtually no one under 20 without some other serious risk factor, has died of COVID in the UK. So the increased infection fatality rate of COVID vs the flu, is not evenly distributed. That is why countries with poor healthcare systems but young populations have lower IFRs than wealthy countries with ageing populations.

Because COVID disproportionately affects the elderly, and 90% of the excess deaths in the UK have been in the over 70s, it means that people who might have lived beyond the averge age of death in the UK, have not done so. this will bring down life expectancy slightly this year and next, but probably result it in increasing in subsequent years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

except they didn't know that at the time

They knew it from the end of march. That is when the IFR by age was first published from Wuhan, and it has ben confirmed ever since.

The first few weeks of lockdown were maybe justified to allow the NHS to catch its breath, but everything after that has been disproportionate and driven by irrational behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

They knew it from the end of march. That is when the IFR by age was first published from Wuhan, 

 

nonsense, it was nowhere near that certain. still isn't, as the transmission dynamics are still surprising people (notice they're locking down in Sweden now)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

nonsense, it was nowhere near that certain. still isn't, as the transmission dynamics are still surprising people (notice they're locking down in Sweden now)

Even if you take Ferguson’s 250-500k deaths, we have still spent too much money per life saved. We needed to accept we had a pandemic that would have ended a large number of very elderly lives early, do our best to protect, but get on with life otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This is twisting my melon, but it is fundamentally not true. COVID is a disease that particularly affects the elderly. I have read, but can’t remember the source, that the IFR for COVID is considerably higher than the flu for those over 65, but considerably lower than the flu for those under 20. Virtually no one under 20 without some other serious risk factor, has died of COVID in the UK. So the increased infection fatality rate of COVID vs the flu, is not evenly distributed. That is why countries with poor healthcare systems but young populations have lower IFRs than wealthy countries with ageing populations.

 

I'm sorry dude but with your level of presumption and simplification, I've got to start ignoring this.

There is certainly merit in considering that the covid response may have been too much, it is a necessary debate, and doctors can not assume the mantle of economists which they seem to have done.

However, the real debate, not yours, is deeper and wider than anything you are saying here, and backed up. For example your statement as to why poorer countries have lower IFRs appears to be cr8p - they've already adjusted for age and the pattern seems to persist. I don't know why, but at least I'm not pretending to know stuff I clearly can't and nobody else does, unlike you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankenmath

Saw the weather report today. Says it should be in the 40s tonight. Good, love a nice chill. Did some grocery shopping. Bought 6 oranges. That means 6 * 40 = 240 orange chills tonight. Can you believe that? Oh wait, no I need Celsius, so that's only 4.4 degrees * 6 oranges = about 26, but tomorrow it's supposed to be just as cold, so that's 52..

Shoot me in the face.

This is precisely the batshit insane Frankenmath I see all over the place making associations of shit to shovels and running wild with the results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Frankenmath

Saw the weather report today. Says it should be in the 40s tonight. Good, love a nice chill. Did some grocery shopping. Bought 6 oranges. That means 6 * 40 = 240 orange chills tonight. Can you believe that? Oh wait, no I need Celsius, so that's only 4.4 degrees * 6 oranges = about 26, but tomorrow it's supposed to be just as cold, so that's 52..

Shoot me in the face.

This is precisely the batshit insane Frankenmath I see all over the place making associations of shit to shovels and running wild with the results. 

Hilarious post! I'm lost, but that was funny 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Covid should be taken seriously, especially to those in a vulnerable group, but because this problem is affecting the Western world, it feels all encompassing, the media has driven everyone to fear, and the scientists and politicians are taking a sledge hammer to the problem.
Remember, globally nearly 1.6 million die from diarrhea each year , and about 6.5 million from air pollution. By rights these problems should take greater precedent and should be reflected much more by the media, but they're not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

They knew it from the end of march. That is when the IFR by age was first published from Wuhan, and it has ben confirmed ever since.

The first few weeks of lockdown were maybe justified to allow the NHS to catch its breath, but everything after that has been disproportionate and driven by irrational behaviour.

Well put

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Frankenmath

Saw the weather report today. Says it should be in the 40s tonight. Good, love a nice chill. Did some grocery shopping. Bought 6 oranges. That means 6 * 40 = 240 orange chills tonight. Can you believe that? Oh wait, no I need Celsius, so that's only 4.4 degrees * 6 oranges = about 26, but tomorrow it's supposed to be just as cold, so that's 52..

Shoot me in the face.

This is precisely the batshit insane Frankenmath I see all over the place making associations of shit to shovels and running wild with the results. 

HAHAHAHA

If you call it out you are labelled part of the 'orange deep state' and being a 'temperature sheep'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.