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

[nightowl]

 

I think the governments biggest mistake was not realizing that moving elderly people from hospitals to the nursing homes wasn't moving one vulnerable person to safety: it was carrying the virus to more vulnerable people. It was far more prevalent in the population (particularly in hospitals) at an earlier stage than they thought.

That will probably go down as the single biggest mistake but was it avoidable?

If you're in the ministers position and your told there thousands of vulnerable people in hospitals that are a) in the way b) at risk anyway so shall we move them out to care homes?   Even if you ask "could they be infected?" the answer is "we dont know as we dont have tests or time" then what?

 

A lot of furlough and business grants were unnecessary in the first place. How much could have been saved by means testing furlough payments?

  One big idea behind such things was to ensure businesses could just pick up again where they left off speeding up recovery and by keeping it simple it could be brought it as fast as such things can be.

[Warlord]

 

Indeed. This is one of the most vile and disgusting threads to have been started since @Warlord's 'blood on hands' one. The mods stepped in there and pulled that one so hopefully they'll do the same here. 

Perhaps you should take these sort of threads of a barometer of people's frustration with lockdowns which do not work and are counter-productive. It is no coincidence some of us feel that way.  To call for censorship for one side or the other makes you look like a petty tyrant

 

[A17]

 

Yes, shocking how caught out much of Europe was by this.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic....

But its a disease that

1. Was allowed to spread fairly unchecked in/from China, originating in a major international transport hub, for several months (conspiracy theories aside)
2. Was unknown/unrevealed to the outside world initially (again, conspiracy theories aside). The chance to stop it was missed.
3. Spreads at just the right rate. Not too fast, not too slow. If it spread faster, it would have been more noticeable earlier on. If it spread slower, it could have been easily stopped. By the time it was known, it had already spread.
4. In the vast majority of cases, people are fine. Symptoms are fairly common to other winter diseases, so it isn't easily noticeable. I think that people in the UK were dying of it in January, but it was attributed to other causes - regular winter pneumonia. Meanwhile more and more people are spreading it until it reaches a critical mass. 

 

 

[A17]

 

That will probably go down as the single biggest mistake but was it avoidable?

If you're in the ministers position and your told there thousands of vulnerable people in hospitals that are a) in the way b) at risk anyway so shall we move them out to care homes?   Even if you ask "could they be infected?" the answer is "we dont know as we dont have tests or time" then what?

No, I don't entirely blame the ministers. I think it was an awful situation, and a different decision may have been worse. Ultimately, they had to rely on the advice and information available at the time. However, I think that Johnson, Hancock et al were woefully out of their depth.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

 

Perhaps you should take these sort of threads of a barometer of people's frustration with lockdowns which do not work and are counter-productive. It is no coincidence some of us feel that way.  To call for censorship for one side or the other makes you look like a petty tyrant

 

No ones is calling for any form of censorship but this is a house price forum not a bloodletting, and we have civil standards and decency towards our fellow beings. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by MonsieurCopperCrutch

[Young Turk]

 

One big idea behind such things was to ensure businesses could just pick up again where they left off speeding up recovery and by keeping it simple it could be brought it as fast as such things can be.

What about furlough payments? How many people received 80% who could have lived off their savings, or survived on the income of others in their household? How many who were receiving furlough payments needed the full 80% (maybe some on low incomes who used to walk to work etc. did, but many were making big savings, not commuting and going out, perhaps getting a booked holiday refunded - why not give them the minimum they need instead?). 

I think it would have been possible to ensure everyone was well-fed, could pay utility bills, and have a little extra to pay for luxuries at much lower cost than just giving everyone 80%.

If it was too difficult to means test at the time, the government could have announced they would be clawing back furlough payments.

I'm not sure about grants and bounce back loans. Could there be no accountability there?

[Si1]

 

1. By the time it was known, it had already spread

That's not completely true. Compare the swift responses of far Eastern countries like Japan and Taiwan with Europe. I do agree that the virus seems ideally evolved to bypass our defences.

[nightowl]

 

No, I don't entirely blame the ministers. I think it was an awful situation, and a different decision may have been worse. Ultimately, they had to rely on the advice and information available at the time. However, I think that Johnson, Hancock et al were woefully out of their depth.

Although it was a bad mistake leaving those same people in hospital would have produced the same result in the end so I agree its one thing (presumably) Hancock cant be blamed for.  The 3rd option maybe was only take covid patients to the Nightinggale hospitals but again it was assume they would be full anyway.

I have a lot less criticism of Hancock if only because he isnt the PM who takes ultimate responsibility of balancing out all the issues.

[nightowl]

 

If it was too difficult to means test at the time, the government could have announced they would be clawing back furlough payments.

They might yet via some sort of NI or income tax rise directed at the furlough people as those who stayed working or ended up on JSA might feel aggrieved if they have to pay in more tax.  I repeat "might" here as how to pay for all this isn't discussed much yet and isn't the priority debate for 2020,  All to come....

[Young Turk]

 

Perhaps you should take these sort of threads of a barometer of people's frustration with lockdowns which do not work and are counter-productive. It is no coincidence some of us feel that way.  

Public opinion forced the government to lockdown. It didn't go as well as hoped, but there is still a lot of support for it. I don't think many people have changed their mind.

[iamnumerate]

 

That's not completely true. Compare the swift responses of far Eastern countries like Japan and Taiwan with Europe. I do agree that the virus seems ideally evolved to bypass our defences.

Wasn't that because they had been more worried by SARS etc in the past?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

 

No ones is calling for any form of censorship but this is a house price forum not a bloodletting, and we have civil standards and decency towards our fellow beings. 

You mean you don't agree with my proposal to decide vaccine priority through hand to hand combat? Or perhaps a game show?

[Si1]

 

Wasn't that because they had been more worried by SARS etc in the past?

Oh for sure. I suspect they felt their population would go with them for such a rapid and massive lockdown whereas I suspect European govts didn't think they would get popular support for it.

[Si1]

 

You mean you don't agree with my proposal to decide vaccine priority through hand to hand combat? Or perhaps a game show?

No. Twister, obviously. 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

 

You mean you don't agree with my proposal to decide vaccine priority through hand to hand combat? Or perhaps a game show?

Are you going soft lad? Why not both, a battle royal? 

[A17]

 

That's not completely true. Compare the swift responses of far Eastern countries like Japan and Taiwan with Europe. I do agree that the virus seems ideally evolved to bypass our defences.

Japan and Taiwan are both islands, and South Korea is a peninsula with one of the most fortified borders in the world with its neighbor. Japan and Taiwan both closed their borders to foreigners when the shit hit the fan, and South Korea has also heavily restricted entry. Also see Australia and New Zealand. The UK still has an open border, with half-arsed quarantine rules introduced way too late to make a difference. Bearing in mind in early March the general consensus in vocal parts of the media was that closing borders was racist/medieval/ineffective, and this was barely a month after leaving the EU. Boris Johnson would have been torn to shreds if he had suggested closing borders to stop the virus.

[CityLAD88888]

 

Indeed. This is one of the most vile and disgusting threads to have been started since @Warlord's 'blood on hands' one. The mods stepped in there and pulled that one so hopefully they'll do the same here. 

Vile? It's called an honest, open debate about our, and many other nations, poor response which cost lives AND destroyed livelihoods. You do realise that voting no on this poll is in agreement with your precious zero-covid don't you? Read the question and the actual response options.

Lockdown forever was only largely a feature of nations who performed poorly benchmarked against the Taiwans, NZs etc. (their geographic/population/migration stats making zero-covid FAR easier to achieve, another debate). https://www.endcoronavirus.org/ short harsh lockdown then yer' good.

This thread about economic cost-benefit, something we have to start honestly talking about now that the bills are landing for this debacle. If you don't like it, don't post or read. Let's not turn this thread into lockdowns vs herd immunity, there's the other thread for that.

 

We've spent hundreds of billions saving the NHS from being over-run. Obviously the bill would have been a fraction of that had we followed the science of Zero Covid like Taiwan or New Zealand.

Agreed, our govt didn't have the balls to do this right at the start for fear of looking authoritarian/right-wing/racist (immigration clampdown, borders closed, strict swift lockdown, no BLM protests etc.), nor the balls to 'let rip' as the OP is suggesting, whilst of course shielding the elderly as best they could to prevent NHS meltdown.

So in summary I voted no, per above, there were (at least 2) other ways and we've ended up with the worst of all worlds (unless you're honestly telling me all this tier 1,2,3 b*llocks works).

What annoys me is now you hear people (many of whom cried for endless lockdowns, calling anyone who warned of costs a monster) crying about public sector pay freezes and the like, they had ample time and chance to proactively think about the economic side of all this but now they're stuck with pay cuts and tax hikes in part due to an abject failure to even engage brain on economics.

Edited December 11, 2020 by CityLAD88888

[A17]

 

Vile? It's called an honest, open debate about our, and many other nations, poor response which cost lives AND destroyed livelihoods. You do realise that voting no on this poll is in agreement with your precious zero-covid don't you? Read the question and the actual response options.

Lockdown forever was only largely a feature of nations who performed poorly benchmarked against the Taiwans, NZs etc. (their geographic/population/migration stats making zero-covid FAR easier to achieve, another debate). https://www.endcoronavirus.org/ short harsh lockdown then yer' good.

This thread about economic cost-benefit, something we have to start honestly talking about now that the bills are landing for this debacle. If you don't like it, don't post or read. Let's not turn this thread into lockdowns vs herd immunity, there's the other thread for that.

Agreed, our govt didn't have the balls to do this right at the start for fear of looking authoritarian/right-wing/racist (immigration clampdown, borders closed, strict swift lockdown, no BLM protests etc.), nor the balls to 'let rip' as the OP is suggesting, whilst of course shielding the elderly as best they could to prevent NHS meltdown.

So in summary I voted no, per above, there were (at least 2) other ways and we've ended up with the worst of all worlds (unless you're honestly telling me all this tier 1,2,3 b*llocks works).

What annoys me is now you hear people (many of whom cried for endless lockdowns, calling anyone who warned of costs a monster) crying about public sector pay freezes and the like, they had ample time and chance to proactively think about the economic side of all this but now they're stuck with pay cuts and tax hikes in part due to an abject failure to even engage brain on economics.

The rather inappropriately named NICE gives a value of £20k-£30k for a quality-adjusted-life-year. Maybe that should be a starting point for assessing the costs vs benefits of lockdown?

[NobodyInParticular]

 

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?

Sweden didn't lockdown earlier in the year and had a sharper, deeper recession than Norway and Finland. In other words, your premise is wrong, that the recession here was due to lockdowns imposed on the government as opposed to reduction of activity due to the pandemic. You might have an argument that late and ineffective lockdowns were responsible. 

You are also concentrating purely on deaths, rather than also long term effects of those who don't die. I gave friends who have had COVID and recovered with no apparent I'll-effects, but others who had it months ago but still cannot return to work and at this point don't know if they ever will, although I hope they do. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

Japan and Taiwan are both islands, and South Korea is a peninsula with one of the most fortified borders in the world with its neighbor. Japan and Taiwan both closed their borders to foreigners when the shit hit the fan, and South Korea has also heavily restricted entry. Also see Australia and New Zealand. The UK still has an open border, with half-arsed quarantine rules introduced way too late to make a difference. Bearing in mind in early March the general consensus in vocal parts of the media was that closing borders was racist/medieval/ineffective, and this was barely a month after leaving the EU. Boris Johnson would have been torn to shreds if he had suggested closing borders to stop the virus.

Counties in Europe managed to close theirs. Not all countries that have done well have been Islands, although it probably helps at some points in time. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

Oh for sure. I suspect they felt their population would go with them for such a rapid and massive lockdown whereas I suspect European govts didn't think they would get popular support for it.

Germany, Austria, maybe others, locked down borders at various points. Italy didn't as it was too late. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

What about furlough payments? How many people received 80% who could have lived off their savings, or survived on the income of others in their household? How many who were receiving furlough payments needed the full 80% (maybe some on low incomes who used to walk to work etc. did, but many were making big savings, not commuting and going out, perhaps getting a booked holiday refunded - why not give them the minimum they need instead?). 

I think it would have been possible to ensure everyone was well-fed, could pay utility bills, and have a little extra to pay for luxuries at much lower cost than just giving everyone 80%.

If it was too difficult to means test at the time, the government could have announced they would be clawing back furlough payments.

I'm not sure about grants and bounce back loans. Could there be no accountability there?

We've done experiments before, e. G. 1930s Depression, and forcing people to live off savings would have immediately curtailed spending and the effect would have lasted for years. You'd then have others losing their jobs as a result in a spiral leading to a depression. As it is it won't be until around 2022 that the economy will be back to what it was and back to where is might have been in around 2025. Without the stimulus, it would have been longer. 

In the USA government stimulus meant the Great Depression was almost over by the time FDR got into power in 1933, apart from a blip in 1937. The UK used austerity and (GDP figures aren't 100% reliable) took several years longer, and if measured by pay neither the UK or Germany recovered before WW2. It's been much the same experience after the 2008 crash, except Germany did fine in the end. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

Not sure if you are being sarcastic....

But its a disease that

1. Was allowed to spread fairly unchecked in/from China, originating in a major international transport hub, for several months (conspiracy theories aside)
2. Was unknown/unrevealed to the outside world initially (again, conspiracy theories aside). The chance to stop it was missed.
3. Spreads at just the right rate. Not too fast, not too slow. If it spread faster, it would have been more noticeable earlier on. If it spread slower, it could have been easily stopped. By the time it was known, it had already spread.
4. In the vast majority of cases, people are fine. Symptoms are fairly common to other winter diseases, so it isn't easily noticeable. I think that people in the UK were dying of it in January, but it was attributed to other causes - regular winter pneumonia. Meanwhile more and more people are spreading it until it reaches a critical mass. 

 

 

There's no evidence of it being endemic months earlier in China. Good estimates of mutation rates are available and don't suggest this.

UK infections appear to have been multiple, via Europe, again by tracking genetic lineage 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

What would the fatality rate be if hospitals were unable to treat people?

Case fatality rates were around 20%, and anything up to 50% in initial phases, but even then the estimates of infection fatality rates that would be eventually observed in a controlled situation overlapped with current estimates. Initially testing was poor, but early infection fatality rates when it was also unclear how to treat it were 5%. It's not impossible that if the NHS was overwhelmed then infection fatality rates would be much higher than 0.5%, hence the wide margins on deaths suggested (e.g. 300000). Here flattening the curve also means reducing the area under it. For example, experience hints at the serious case fatality rate easily doubling without access to medical treatment. But then you get into debates about how many infections will progress to that stage, plus how many that survive will be crippled. 

On that latter point, even if it 'only' killed 10% of the over 75s that got it, if most got it and another 10% then required long term care, that would be financially very difficult for the country. Random figures for illustrative purposes. 

[captainb]

 

Case fatality rates were around 20%, and anything up to 50% in initial phases, but even then the estimates of infection fatality rates that would be eventually observed in a controlled situation overlapped with current estimates. Initially testing was poor, but early infection fatality rates when it was also unclear how to treat it were 5%. It's not impossible that if the NHS was overwhelmed then infection fatality rates would be much higher than 0.5%, hence the wide margins on deaths suggested (e.g. 300000). Here flattening the curve also means reducing the area under it. For example, experience hints at the serious case fatality rate easily doubling without access to medical treatment. But then you get into debates about how many infections will progress to that stage, plus how many that survive will be crippled. 

On that latter point, even if it 'only' killed 10% of the over 75s that got it, if most got it and another 10% then required long term care, that would be financially very difficult for the country. Random figures for illustrative purposes. 

Case fatality rates are meaningless in the initial stages given they were only actually testing in hospitals. 

Its a measure of how likely am I to die once I'm sick enough to enter hospital. Given we know the vast majority don't need to goto hospital its distortive in the extreme. 

 

As for the "everyone would die" if we didn't do lockdown line, which has been dragged out in various forms since April there is plenty of evidence of countries that didn't do a lockdown and no they are not some mass morgue. 

Que, demographics are different.. Well yes that would reduce the expected death rate in the developing world but old are much more likely to live with the young that would increase etc etc. 

It is clear that its not as bad as feared and sold in April, reasonable chance it could have been SARS with a 10% death rather not the 0.5% observed even in countries with poor healthcare. 

 

Which brings us back to the what has this "treatment" actually achieved? We have still had 60,000 deaths and its still ongoing? Then there's the enormous resource allocation that could have gone elsewhere... On Nice guidelines its orders of magnitude more expensive than drugs that are habitually rejected. 

Yes the it's just flu brigade lost the argument pretty quick but those clamouring for lockdown after lockdown after lockdown, seemingly blithering unaware that if they actually worked we wouldn't need them anymore , particularly when you consider for the next couple of decades we will be discussing funding issues for heatlh, education etc etc due to them.. Are starting to sound as ridiculous if not more. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by captainb