Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Every year of life saved by lockdowns has cost at least 282 years of life


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

53 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Who are 'they'?

 

Communist China, the WHO, the EU, the Greens, Jeremy Corbyn's Venezuela, George Soros, Bill Gates, Sleepy Joe Biden's Hard Marxist Congress of Satanic Paedophiles to name but a few.

Emphatically not the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker or Viscount Rothermere, a man who loves this country so much he files his taxes in Bermuda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Who are 'they'?

The incompetents retaining unnecessary lockdowns to save a few old people,

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Young Turk said:

More weak ones weeded out?

 

6 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Beat me to it! 😆

 

Anti-Spartan propaganda by the ancient Greeks:

https://greekreporter.com/2021/05/05/ancient-greece-growing-up-in-athens-and-sparta/

 

Quote

When a Spartan baby was born, soldiers came to the house and examined it carefully to determine its strength. They bathed the baby in wine rather than water, to see its reaction.

If a baby was weak, the Spartans would throw it off a cliff (the Kaiadas) or take it away to become a slave (helot).

The city-state — not parents — decided the fate of children, and nurses, who provided their primary care, did not coddle the babies at all.

 

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Every year of life saved by lockdowns has cost at least 282 years of life'

Big claim. At the moment COVID-19 takes an average of three years off a person's life. 

In the US 550,000 have died, making 1,650,000 years saved. 

Times by 282 makes 465,000,000 million years lost. I haven't got round to looking at the document, but I wonder how he evidences that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Your statement has the same veracity and truth as the paper article 'Curse of the Mummy Strikes Again' when the last Carter excavation team member died decades later peacefully in his sleep having led a full life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Precisely - so Mikheil’s point that you “can’t duck nature” is only half the story.

He just wants us to let COVID kill as many people as possible to ‘clear the dead wood’ because to not do so is counter productive.

I disagree because history shows we can and have stopped young people dying and allowed them to live longer lives.

Like alcohol, COVID has definitely brought out some people's worst traits. 

In others, it brings out their better traits. 

In COVID veritas

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2021 at 19:02, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I'm with you on this.

Certainly the UK Birth rate is down from around 16 per thousand to 11 per thousand in 2020 and likely this year.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/birth-rate

So on say 67,000,000, that equates to 335,000 babies (future people) in 2020 that now will never be born, And we can probably add another 175,000 for 2021.

So all in all, the maskies and their clan have snuffed out probably 1/2 million babies just to save a 100,000 dribbling, incontinents who pay no tax and cost £50-100k a year to nurse and medicate.

The world definitely needs fewer babies. 

You could make the same argument about contraception - how many babies have not been born because of condoms?

It is an absurd position. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Riedquat said:

They've mostly come from doing better at dealing with things that kill us off before our bodies fall apart from age. Ageing itself isn't something we've had any success with dealing with.

We have actually done pretty well at helping people live longer and more active healthy lives. The point at which people become geriatric has definitely been pushed out. 

Once you would have been lucky to be alive at 80 and probably enfeebled. You now have many people in their 80s living active lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Once you would have been lucky to be alive at 80 and probably enfeebled. You now have many people in their 80s living active lives.

You think the population as a whole has become healthier? What are you smoking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

You think the population as a whole has become healthier? What are you smoking?

Depends on the timescales you look at. Ah-so's got a good point, even if you were lucky enough to escape illness and injury 100 years ago you'd probably be physically worn out and knackered quite some time before 70. But we've started going downhill again, for different reasons (predominantly from being overweight). I'd hazard a guess best overall health would've been maybe 1980s (plucking a number out of thin air to a degree though), most of the most common ways of bumping people off had been dealt with and you don't see too many fat people in pictures or film from the time. Mind you there was still a lot of smoking going on.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Depends on the timescales you look at. Ah-so's got a good point, even if you were lucky enough to escape illness and injury 100 years ago you'd probably be physically worn out and knackered quite some time before 70. But we've started going downhill again, for different reasons (predominantly from being overweight). I'd hazard a guess best overall health would've been maybe 1980s (plucking a number out of thin air to a degree though), most of the most common ways of bumping people off had been dealt with and you don't see too many fat people in pictures or film from the time. Mind you there was still a lot of smoking going on.

If people are so fit and healthy in their old age, why

Are there so many nursing homes

did CCPV, which hits the unhealthy the hardest, kill 5% of fogies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Locke said:

If people are so fit and healthy in their old age, why

Are there so many nursing homes

did CCPV, which hits the unhealthy the hardest, kill 5% of fogies?

Most of the ones in nursing homes would've been dead 50 years ago.

Nursing home numbers don't, I think, tell you anything one way or another. The likelihood of the last few years being in poor health is very high no matter what improvements are made after all (accident or sudden serious illness aside people don't go from healthy to dead in an instant), and nursing homes are keeping people alive longer than in the past when they reach that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Once you would have been lucky to be alive at 80 and probably enfeebled. You now have many people in their 80s living active lives.

 

22 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The likelihood of the last few years being in poor health is very high no matter what improvements are made after all

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Are you trying to suggest there's a contradiction in those two posts?

I think he is...

Of course in reality amongst people in their 80s you have people in great health, moderate health and poor health.

But as you often point out, people don't like shades of grey.  It must be the case that 80-year-olds are either ALL dribbling in a nursing home, or ALL out on the tennis courts.  Sigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. The reality is that the situation now compared to say 100 years ago is that we've increased both the years of good health and the years of poor health following on from them.

Problems with obesity are present but haven't been for long enough to yet be having a significant impact at nursing home ages.

And of course that's all still just on average, there are always numerous exceptions.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/05/2021 at 11:17, Sprrite said:

I wouldn't believe the 'official' Indian statistics, the death toll is much higher. News Reporters are only showing what's happening in the big cities, there will be similar scenes of chaos and anarchy in the rural areas too.

Another issue is now that the virus has mutated in India to what looks likely to be more spreadable and deadly virus - lockdown may have prevented that.

Granted India is not as developed as the UK, they were woefully unprepared of this kind of COVID wave and it's a huge lesson to other countries in the region and around the world. 

It’s more spreadable but not more deadly. Lockdowns potentially breed more deadly strains as it increases the ratio of hospital transmission to community transmission, and thereby may cause the dominance of a more harmful strain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ah-so said:

'Every year of life saved by lockdowns has cost at least 282 years of life'

Big claim. At the moment COVID-19 takes an average of three years off a person's life. 

In the US 550,000 have died, making 1,650,000 years saved. 

Times by 282 makes 465,000,000 million years lost. I haven't got round to looking at the document, but I wonder how he evidences that. 

It's on pages 41-43.

He assumes in the absence of lockdown there would be 10% more deaths and he assumes people would be willing to sacrifice two months of 2020 to avoid lockdown.

"As of March 2021 the pandemic has lasted one year. That means that the average Canadian has lost two months of normal life. The population of Canada is about 37.7 million people, which means that 6.3 million years of life have been lost due to lockdown.

The average age of reported Covid-19 deaths in Canada is about 80.47 In Canada an average 80 year old has a life expectancy of 9.79 years. This means that the 6.3 million years of lost life is equivalent to the deaths of 643,513 80 year olds. As of March 22, 2021 Canada has had a total of 22,716 deaths due to Covid-19. That amounts to 222,389 lost years of life.

Assume that the number of Covid-19 deaths would have been 10% higher had there been no lockdown. Then Canada would have experienced an additional 2,271 deaths, which means there would have been an additional 22,333 years of lost life due to Covid-19 deaths. The benefit of lockdown, therefore, was the avoidance of this extra 22,333 years of lost life. However, the cost of lockdown, as noted, was 6,300,000 years of lost life. The cost/benefit ratio of lockdown is 282 = 6, 300, 000/22, 333."

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ah-so said:

We have actually done pretty well at helping people live longer and more active healthy lives. The point at which people become geriatric has definitely been pushed out. 

Once you would have been lucky to be alive at 80 and probably enfeebled. You now have many people in their 80s living active lives.

Once your body died before your brain, now the chances are your mind will fail before your body.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HovelinHove said:

It’s more spreadable but not more deadly. Lockdowns potentially breed more deadly strains as it increases the ratio of hospital transmission to community transmission, and thereby may cause the dominance of a more harmful strain.

Lockdown has helped flatten the curve in the UK and in other countries/ 

Hospital Transmission to the community will be negligible under lockdown - I'm not sure how this causes the dominance of a more harmful strain? 

If you look at India, the amount of political/religious events that took place were breeding grounds for spreading the virus 🦠  and given this there's more transmission, there's more likelihood of different and more harmful strains emerging in order to survive and thrive.  

We may not like it, but lockdown does seem to work to flatten the curve.

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.