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

[Si1]

 

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

Quite. In fact Germany seemed to have one on the best responses, if I recall. Merkel was very on the ball. Being a scientist herself must have helped her to liaise with the medical experts and tease out the useful info.

[Locke]

 

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

Are we fighting to be injected, or not to be injected?

[Locke]

 

In the USA government stimulus meant the Great Depression was almost over by the time FDR got into power in 1933

Total nonsense.

[msi]

 

Quite. In fact Germany seemed to have one on the best responses, if I recall. Merkel was very on the ball. Being a scientist herself must have helped her to liaise with the medical experts and tease out the useful info.

We, on the other hand, voted for a party that was 'tired' of experts.  We get what we deserve.

[Unmoderated]

 

The 500k projection was made in March before we had a good understanding of IFR, and the populations where death was focused. By mid April this was becoming much clearer. I was totally in agreement with the first lockdown for 3 weeks, but once it went beyond that and there wasn't a shift in strategy, I stopped supporting it. We should have always focused on hospital capacity, and I have spoken to numerous physicians who have spent most of the year doing Faff all. The virus should have been allowed to run at higher levels, thereby allowing more economic activity, and the severe restrictions and high quality PPE (e.g. FFP2 masks) reserved for the elderly and vulnerable.

I don't disagree with you, but 500K lives saved or lost is (really) a false argument since it's all modelled. The point I'm making is that deaths would have been higher letting it run. Then, as other posters have mentioned you'd get the Facebotards and twitards screaming the government killed their granny (despite the fact it's likely the government has kept granny alive, fed, housed and healthy well beyond the natural life expectancy.

[Unmoderated]

 

IIRC British government models predicted far more deaths in Sweden that happened.  I think when this didn't come to pass they should have checked their models.

 

 

That all maybe true but the models did predict far more deaths in Sweden that happened, so they were wrong to some extent.

have you got a link to the said model, or perhaps a report on it?

[HovelinHove]

 

I don't disagree with you, but 500K lives saved or lost is (really) a false argument since it's all modelled. The point I'm making is that deaths would have been higher letting it run. Then, as other posters have mentioned you'd get the Facebotards and twitards screaming the government killed their granny (despite the fact it's likely the government has kept granny alive, fed, housed and healthy well beyond the natural life expectancy.

I agree, I don't think Boris had much of a choice...at least to start with. I don't dismiss the severity of the virus at all. I wear an FFP3 mask when I shop. I don't want to get it, I really don't, but having worked in virology for 15 years, I can assure you there are many viruses much much worse than this, and the response should have been different once we knew that. Anyway, it is all by the by now, except we need to adopt a much better approach once the elderly have been vaccinated (my Mum is getting the first jab next Thursday!). Once those who constitute 90% of deaths have been vaccinated, all restrictions can and should be lifted. 

[iamnumerate]

 

 

have you got a link to the said model, or perhaps a report on it?

See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden

[byron78]

I'm 81. So yes

[A17]

 

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 

A couple of months, November 2019 to January 2020. I didn't mean 6 months+

[A17]

 

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. 

I've tried to find the data, but no luck.

There are basically four outcomes if you are infected. We'd need to find the percentage of COVID sufferers who:

1. Didn't go to hospital and recovered
2. Didn't go to hospital and died
3. Went to hospital and recovered
4. Went to hospital and died.

Group number 3 is the key one. If the hospitals were full, they would either end up being group 1 or group 2. How would the split be? What percentage of people with COVID in hospital are being "monitored as a precaution", and what percentage are in the ICU?

 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

Quite. In fact Germany seemed to have one on the best responses, if I recall. Merkel was very on the ball. Being a scientist herself must have helped her to liaise with the medical experts and tease out the useful info.

Italy did lock down internal borders, I suppose. 

Other European countries may have locked borders too, but those are the ones I remember, plus I know people in various parts of Germany so got a worms-eye view. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

I've tried to find the data, but no luck.

There are basically four outcomes if you are infected. We'd need to find the percentage of COVID sufferers who:

1. Didn't go to hospital and recovered
2. Didn't go to hospital and died
3. Went to hospital and recovered
4. Went to hospital and died.

Group number 3 is the key one. If the hospitals were full, they would either end up being group 1 or group 2. How would the split be? What percentage of people with COVID in hospital are being "monitored as a precaution", and what percentage are in the ICU?

 

There's 5 - went to hospital, didn't die, but still ill on some level and 6 - didn't go to hospital and ditto. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

A couple of months, November 2019 to January 2020. I didn't mean 6 months+

It's more infectious than flu, so it would have showed up pretty rapidly, and the reports from Wuhan (autocorrect says Wigan) of asymptomatic pneumonia tends to support it being picked up reasonably quickly. 

[NobodyInParticular]

 

I agree, I don't think Boris had much of a choice...at least to start with. I don't dismiss the severity of the virus at all. I wear an FFP3 mask when I shop. I don't want to get it, I really don't, but having worked in virology for 15 years, I can assure you there are many viruses much much worse than this, and the response should have been different once we knew that. Anyway, it is all by the by now, except we need to adopt a much better approach once the elderly have been vaccinated (my Mum is getting the first jab next Thursday!). Once those who constitute 90% of deaths have been vaccinated, all restrictions can and should be lifted. 

You aren't an epidemiologist or virologist. I'll see what the people I know and trust who are say first. 

Edit: Oh, you say you are a virologist. I'll still trust the person I know with 600+ publications first... 

Edited December 11, 2020 by NobodyInParticular

[NobodyInParticular]

 

I'm 81. So yes

You don't look a day over 78.

[NobodyInParticular]

 

See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden

 

 

I don't disagree with you, but 500K lives saved or lost is (really) a false argument since it's all modelled. The point I'm making is that deaths would have been higher letting it run. Then, as other posters have mentioned you'd get the Facebotards and twitards screaming the government killed their granny (despite the fact it's likely the government has kept granny alive, fed, housed and healthy well beyond the natural life expectancy.

In a democracy we are the government in a sense, so it's complex. 

Modelling is difficult, but also science reporting of ensemble modelling is dire. But a government faced with a pandemic tends to change policy, invalidating the initial modelling!

[Unmoderated]

 

See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/can-we-trust-covid-modelling-more-evidence-from-sweden

Thanks - that is interesting but it also sort of supports what I was saying:

"One reason why the models failed is that they – just like most countries’ politicians – underestimated how millions of people spontaneously adapt to new circumstances. They only thought in terms of lockdowns vs business as usual, but failed to consider a third option: that people engage in social distancing voluntarily when they realise lives are at stake and when authorities recommend them to do so."

I actually have team members in Sweden and they've all been working from home pretty much from March. What I would say is that although the laws didn't force people to change their behaviour it was changed regardless. Socially it has become unacceptable to not wear a mask or get too close in shops (certainly in Lund/Malmö  region). There's not a real control for what no restrictions and no change in behaviour looked like. 

Nobody would ever know the total number and there's a big question around the cost/benefit. Shutting down has probably cost (in the UK) about 35 million lost years (in terms of basically being imprisoned). If you take a look even at 500K people dying at an average age of 82 they'd have to live a jolly long time to make it even close to considering worthwhile on that basis right? I do think those numbers were worst case scenario too. There were many other models putting ICU admissions  and deaths at lower levels. 

I had hoped that the numbers in the UK would lag others like Germany in the second wave showing that herd immunity could be acquired. I'm not sure if the numbers and studies support any of this but Germany is sadly seeing deaths level with UK now despite having for more living space and a greater propensity to follow the rules. 

[zugzwang]

 

 

In a democracy we are the government in a sense, so it's complex. 

Modelling is difficult, but also science reporting of ensemble modelling is dire. But a government faced with a pandemic tends to change policy, invalidating the initial modelling!

+1

Whatever you're modelling the dynamics of it have to be such that they can be modelled. If the dynamics of your subject are full of jump discontinuities, singularities, or noise then you're probably wasting your time.

Which unfortunately is the case with the Covid epidemic. The rate of infection changes unforeseeably on a daily basis due to distancing, lockdown and other social interventions. Thus the comprehensive failure of SIR and SEIR, where the misapplication of chemical kinetic equations has failed to generate meaningful forecasts. Equations cannot be iterated into the future because tomorrow's rate is unknowable until it happens.

Other than averaging out the last two or three data points locally there are no useful models, and certainly no models capable of forecasting peaks or plateaus.

Very much like macroeconomics.

[reddog]

I don't think we can give an answer as to how the situation was managed until a few years have passed.

 

But my feeling is,  I don't think lockdown will be seen as a good idea in 3 to 5 years time, because:

 

-people will be removed from the danger, and be seeing it more as an academic discussion

-people will be feeling the financial burden caused by Covid, which will really have kicked in (I would say now we are more like Willey E Coyote running off a cliff, without gravity catching up)

[HovelinHove]

 

You aren't an epidemiologist or virologist. I'll see what the people I know and trust who are say first. 

Edit: Oh, you say you are a virologist. I'll still trust the person I know with 600+ publications first... 

I didn’t say I was a virologist, I said I worked in virology for 15 years. My Ph.D. was in the design of antivirals. I really don’t care if you trust me or not. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by HovelinHove

[Arpeggio]

 

Are we fighting to be injected, or not to be injected?

For the former, it would have to be a socially distanced stare out in masks.

 

 

I'm 81. So yes

Aren't you some rich bloke in a big mansion who goes pheasant shooting or something?

[Arpeggio]

 

But my feeling is,  I don't think lockdown will be seen as a good idea in 3 to 5 years time, because:

lol you think we wont be in lockdown in 3 to 5 years time?! cute.

[Bruce Banner]

Let's look at it another way. If I were to spend £1M of my own money to save my own life, it would be worth it (assuming it was successful). However, if the government were to spent £1M to save my life, it would not be a good use of taxpayers money.

[Locke]

 

Let's look at it another way. If I were to spend £1M of my own money to save my own life, it would be worth it (assuming it was successful). However, if the government were to spent £1M to save my life, it would not be a good use of taxpayers money.

Uh. If I were 80 and had £1m of capital, I would be disbursing that among my kids and nephews/nieces with strict instructions to pull the plug if I go under.