Coronavirus

[GboroRam]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've listened to arguments from both sides and reached my conclusion. This is unlike other posters who dismiss opposing views because they dont like the people saying them. Theres a big difference.

I didn't imply the poster was supporting deaths. I just don't see how posting a laughing emoji to a serious post about people losing their jobs can be construed as anything other than them finding it funny? Unless the emoji is just being used because of the person posting, and I know personal attacks are not welcome on this forum so it must be the former. 

If you've not seen any counter arguments it just reinforces my view that you dont read any replies and just set about posting your pre conceived responses.

You said the economy is being trashed because of the virus not being under control, I'm just pointing out that business that are clearly not a part of the virus spreading are being closed down and it is things like this unnecessarily trashing the economy.

I see, you've listened to the arguments and come to the right conclusion. Everyone who disagrees with you has ignored the arguments and picked their favourite speaker to support. Gotcha.

And of course whenever you use the laughing emoji it is because the poster has genuinely left you laughing, and never as a sarcastic attempt to downplay a person's view. Gotcha.

Anyone who is using the sarcastic laughing emoji on your posts is of course callous and heartless, and doesn't care about the economic arguments about the damage that the virus is causing. When you use the laughing emoji you are doing it fully in understanding of the effects of a dangerous virus that kills, and it's done with full empathy of people in fear of their health and wellbeing. Gotcha.

You've responded accurately and fully to all the counter-arguments, and the discussion is dealt with. Anyone who has more questions must not have read your full responses and is just posting the same, tired responses. Gotcha.

Glad that's cleared up then.

[Albert]

22 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I've listened to arguments from both sides and reached my conclusion. This is unlike other posters who dismiss opposing views because they dont like the people saying them. Theres a big difference.

No, you've seemingly been dismissing and ignoring points you don't like. 

Quote

I didn't imply the poster was supporting deaths. I just don't see how posting a laughing emoji to a serious post about people losing their jobs can be construed as anything other than them finding it funny? Unless the emoji is just being used because of the person posting, and I know personal attacks are not welcome on this forum so it must be the former. 

The same reason some have been putting them on my posts, they take it to say that your position is so silly that it's a joke. I agree that it's not in good taste, but I understand why some have used it. 

Quote

If you've not seen any counter arguments it just reinforces my view that you dont read any replies and just set about posting your pre conceived responses.

I've seen attempts, but nothing with any kind of substantiation. It's all just the same ad hoc 'ah yes, but Australia is big' stuff, ignoring 99% of the information to pick on some quick one liner which has already been dealt with. 

Quote

You said the economy is being trashed because of the virus not being under control, I'm just pointing out that business that are clearly not a part of the virus spreading are being closed down and it is things like this unnecessarily trashing the economy.

You're conflating two very different points here, however. My position is that a properly managed response will have better economic outcomes. I have also taken the position that the UK's response has been inconsistent, ignored expert advice, and is basically seeing the worse of both Worlds. At no point have I suggested that the current course of action is being done correctly. 

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Well we're ducked financially;

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/uk-borrowing-exceeds-forecasts-debt-highest-since-1960-2020-10-21

Our national debt has risen again to 103.5% of GDP as a result of Government spending and less taxes being collected - and thats been over the summer months, when the country has been largely open.

Assuming we're in and out of lockdowns all through winter with people either losing jobs or being put on the new (lower paying) furlough scheme, not only is Christmas going to be joyless but its going to be extremely frugal.

A lot of businesses rely on Christmas to make a good chunk of their yearly sales, if people are simply struggling to exist or scared to spend you can only begin to imagine what our finances will look like in March and catastrophic effect it will begin to have on us all.

It's a dire situation, but unfortunately, this is where the mismanagement has left the UK. Hopefully some control of the situation can be gained before next year, but it's looking increasingly unlikely. 

[maxjam]

Right then... some have asked for data, so here is some data;

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes from The Lancett;

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government's action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes.

Long story short - many factors go into a countries ability to cope with a pandemic and lockdowns don't effect the overall number of deaths

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Right then... some have asked for data, so here is some data;

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes from The Lancett;

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government's action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes.

Long story short - many factors go into a countries ability to cope with a pandemic and lockdowns don't effect the overall number of deaths

Cheers. The findings section is interesting:

Quote

Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

So, speed of response and demographic factors were important, but simply doing lockdowns isn't associated on its own with reduced mortality, ie without other factors is just kicking the can down the road. In essence, exactly as has been discussed for the last few weeks. 

Bizarrely, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand were not included in the analysis. 

This is also quite out of date, having been published in July, using data only relevant up to 1 May 2020. 

In essence, this is an interesting snapshot of what the data was showing us 5 months ago. This was, even in the authors statements, more of an exploratory piece. Given how much has changed in the outlook, including multiple countries (some of which were not on this list) managing to push community transmission to effectively zero, it seems a bit much to take a 5 month old paper and state that 'lockdowns don't reduce deaths'. This is particularly important to note as the big question around this is what the long term outlook is going to look like, and this paper doesn't not answer that, nor even seek to answer that. 

[Andicis]

So I'm going under tier 3 lockdown in Sheffield, despite cases already going down, time to kill yet another Northern City. I hope these clowns don't get into power for another 50 years after this.

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Long story short - many factors go into a countries ability to cope with a pandemic and lockdowns don't effect the overall number of deaths

I tend to agree with this point, at least in the short to medium term (the Lancet analysis covered the early part of the pandemic only, I believe), although the 'excess deaths' figures from ONS were astronomical from the same time period.

"This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."

Which was the initial aim in the first place - ensure that the NHS was not overwhelmed.

[GboroRam]

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Right then... some have asked for data, so here is some data;

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes from The Lancett;

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government's action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes.

Long story short - many factors go into a countries ability to cope with a pandemic and lockdowns don't effect the overall number of deaths

Why did you remove the last sentence from that paragraph?

However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

I see Albert has responded to the rest of the context, but I found it interesting that you cherry-picked what you presented.

[Stive Pesley]

19 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Right then... some have asked for data, so here is some data;

A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes from The Lancett;

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government's action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes.

Long story short - many factors go into a countries ability to cope with a pandemic and lockdowns don't effect the overall number of deaths

I don't know how you can jump to that conclusion without hearing what the muppet on TalkSport has to say on the matter ?

 

Joking aside though - that's an interesting article. Abridging the findings a little to remove all the detailed stats

Quote

Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with :

• higher obesity
• median population age
• longer time to border closures from the first reported case
• per capita gross domestic product
• Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality
• the number of critical cases

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

However, full lockdowns  and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

No real surprises there, - although the border closures one is interesting as we seem to have made very little effort there.

And the last bit about full lockdowns increasing recovery rates - is that because lockdowns allow the health services to respond better?

 

 

[maxjam]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

Cheers. The findings section is interesting:

So, speed of response and demographic factors were important, but simply doing lockdowns isn't associated on its own with reduced mortality, ie without other factors is just kicking the can down the road. In essence, exactly as has been discussed for the last few weeks. 

Bizarrely, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand were not included in the analysis. 

This is also quite out of date, having been published in July, using data only relevant up to 1 May 2020. 

In essence, this is an interesting snapshot of what the data was showing us 5 months ago. This was, even in the authors statements, more of an exploratory piece. Given how much has changed in the outlook, including multiple countries (some of which were not on this list) managing to push community transmission to effectively zero, it seems a bit much to take a 5 month old paper and state that 'lockdowns don't reduce deaths'. This is particularly important to note as the big question around this is what the long term outlook is going to look like, and this paper doesn't not answer that, nor even seek to answer that. 

Yup, it only really covers the initial lockdowns in the top 50 countries by numbers of covid deaths, but an interesting snapshot non-the-less.  I'd assume that future studies will be undertaken to study newer data in due course.

We really need further studies into the economic and non-covid fatalities to form a more complete picture though.  My argument has always been that following the science to save potential covid victims in the short term will do untold damage in the long run.

Scholars will be studying the findings and drawing different conclusions for decades.

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

So I'm going under tier 3 lockdown in Sheffield, despite cases already going down, time to kill yet another Northern City. I hope these clowns don't get into power for another 50 years after this.

Pretty well all the areas in or going into Tier 3 are areas with large universities, and the massive surges in infection rate was entirely predicted. As the penny began to drop, perhaps people started to modify their behaviour, because, as you say, infection rates are falling (or at least levelling off).

I think that those currently in power have shot themselves mightily in the foot over the way they seemingly selectively have singled out certain towns and cities.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I don't know how you can jump to that conclusion without hearing what the muppet on TalkSport has to say on the matter ?

 

Joking aside though - that's an interesting article. Abridging the findings a little to remove all the detailed stats

No real surprises there, - although the border closures one is interesting as we seem to have made very little effort there.

And the last bit about full lockdowns increasing recovery rates - is that because lockdowns allow the health services to respond better?

 

 

Again, the paper is working on old data at this point, so I wouldn't be putting too much stock into it's take on the longer term, but you'd expect it was the reduced case loads that lead to better outcomes for patients. 

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Why did you remove the last sentence from that paragraph?

However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

I see Albert has responded to the rest of the context, but I found it interesting that you cherry-picked what you presented.

Because it obvious that lockdowns immediately cut the threat of a pandemic because you're hiding from it.

It doesn't stop people dying from it eventually though, nor does it help people dying from non-covid illnesses during the lockdown. 

A lockdown is only a temporary pause in pandemic deaths.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Yup, it only really covers the initial lockdowns in the top 50 countries by numbers of covid deaths, but an interesting snapshot non-the-less.  I'd assume that future studies will be undertaken to study newer data in due course.

Hopefully. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

We really need further studies into the economic and non-covid fatalities to form a more complete picture though.  My argument has always been that following the science to save potential covid victims in the short term will do untold damage in the long run.

This is indeed your argument, but there are two points you consistently brush over:

1. It's not a one or the other thing, the countries that are recovering economically are also the ones that have virtually no cases. 

2. High case load and mortality will also lead to long term economic damage by virtually the same mechanisms. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Scholars will be studying the findings and drawing different conclusions for decades.

Potentially, but the overall consensus has actually been remarkably stable for such a volatile situation. There are some fringe views on the matter, but you get that for everything. This is likely because the countries that listened to best practice at the start are the ones that have successfully controlled the virus though, and you're right, after the fact may be a time where more of the other views have a chance to flourish. 

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Pretty well all the areas in or going into Tier 3 are areas with large universities, and the massive surges in infection rate was entirely predicted. As the penny began to drop, perhaps people started to modify their behaviour, because, as you say, infection rates are falling (or at least levelling off).

I think that those currently in power have shot themselves mightily in the foot over the way they seemingly selectively have singled out certain towns and cities.

Nottingham is still tier 2 isn't it? Despite having one of the highest rates of infection, though one member of cabinet's constituency is in Nottinghamshire, funny how that works isn't it? 

If they were going to go for these measures, they should have done them when unis first came back, now the cases are going down it seems utterly pointless and just spiteful. 

[G STAR RAM]

55 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I see, you've listened to the arguments and come to the right conclusion. Everyone who disagrees with you has ignored the arguments and picked their favourite speaker to support. Gotcha.

Where have I said that mine is the right conclusion? If you actually bothered to read my posts, rather than sitting there wetting yourself ready to post a laughing emoji and some witty response, you would swe that I have said that the full effects of this pandemic will not be known for years to come, and all we are left at the moment with are predictions of what may or may not happen.

And of course whenever you use the laughing emoji it is because the poster has genuinely left you laughing, and never as a sarcastic attempt to downplay a person's view. Gotcha.

I dont tend to laugh at serious posts about deaths and peoples lives being destroyed I dont think.

Anyone who is using the sarcastic laughing emoji on your posts is of course callous and heartless, and doesn't care about the economic arguments about the damage that the virus is causing. When you use the laughing emoji you are doing it fully in understanding of the effects of a dangerous virus that kills, and it's done with full empathy of people in fear of their health and wellbeing. Gotcha.

2 paragraphs to make the same point? Seemed a bit of a pointless second paragraph.

You've responded accurately and fully to all the counter-arguments, and the discussion is dealt with. Anyone who has more questions must not have read your full responses and is just posting the same, tired responses. Gotcha.

Nope there are plenty of points that I cannot disagree with so don't see the need to respond to.

Glad that's cleared up then.

Didnt realise there was anything to clear up but well done if you have done so.

 

[maxjam]

Just now, Albert said:

This is indeed your argument, but there are two points you consistently brush over:

1. It's not a one or the other thing, the countries that are recovering economically are also the ones that have virtually no cases.

2. High case load and mortality will also lead to long term economic damage by virtually the same mechanisms. 

Although I have discussed these in the points I've raised, so not particularly keen on going over them again.

1.  Never said it was, I said it needed a more balanced approach.  Some countries, the UK being one will never be infection free because amongst other things our locality and economy relies to heavily on the movement of people.

2. Alternatively low case load and mortality requires significant economic hardships, leading to financial and health consequences further down the line.

Not going over it again, just thought the Lancett article was worth sharing.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Because it obvious that lockdowns immediately cut the threat of a pandemic because you're hiding from it.

It doesn't stop people dying from it eventually though, nor does it help people dying from non-covid illnesses during the lockdown. 

A lockdown is only a temporary pause in pandemic deaths.

Lockdowns don't on their own, but as part of a coherent strategy they most certainly do. The countries with it under control are seeing virtually no deaths. Only 25 people have died in New Zealand, only 4 have died in South Australia. Scaling those to the size of the UK would be and 342 and 160 respectively. Taiwan has had 7 deaths, which in the UK scale would be 20. 

Equally, it's not a pause, it's a brake. During a lockdown, the case load does indeed come down, as well demonstrated in the past. Imagine a runaway train. It's one thing getting it slow enough to get people off safely, it's another to actually bother to get them off. The UK got it slowed down, went 'whew, that's over then', and let off the brake with everyone still on board. 

[Albert]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Although I have discussed these in the points I've raised, so not particularly keen on going over them again.

1.  Never said it was, I said it needed a more balanced approach.  Some countries, the UK being one will never be infection free because amongst other things our locality and economy relies to heavily on the movement of people.

Again, we fundamentally disagree on whether it's possible for the UK. I believe that the UK is capable of more than what this current government has managed, but I guess we'll just have to leave it. 

It's funny though, Australia's economy actually relied more on airtravel than the UK, but readily shut borders, including internal ones. As noted in the paper you posted, that kind of action was associated with better outcomes. Sadly, that sector of the economy was apparently more important than the long term economic health of the nation, and that's before even considering the health of the people themselves. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

2. Alternatively low case load and mortality requires significant economic hardships, leading to financial and health consequences further down the line.

Again, this simply isn't true. Australia and New Zealand were hit hard by the first wave, as most were, but are recovering as we speak. They were not, however, hit harder than elsewhere in the World, but are now reaping the benefits. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Not going over it again, just thought the Lancett article was worth sharing.

Fair enough. 

[Andicis]

This is not normal in a democracy. It's quite sinister.

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, Albert said:

Lockdowns don't on their own, but as part of a coherent strategy they most certainly do. The countries with it under control are seeing virtually no deaths. Only 25 people have died in New Zealand, only 4 have died in South Australia. Scaling those to the size of the UK would be and 342 and 160 respectively. Taiwan has had 7 deaths, which in the UK scale would be 20. 

Equally, it's not a pause, it's a brake. During a lockdown, the case load does indeed come down, as well demonstrated in the past. Imagine a runaway train. It's one thing getting it slow enough to get people off safely, it's another to actually bother to get them off. The UK got it slowed down, went 'whew, that's over then', and let off the brake with everyone still on board. 

You can't compare New Zealand with the UK though, different economies etc. 

The UK had to reopen for business whilst New Zealand is still under harsh restrictions.  As soon as it opens up again, covid will return.  Given the UKs dire financial report over the summer months, and bleak winter outlook how sustainable would it be for the UK for follow New Zealand?

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/quarantined-fishermen-drive-new-zealand-virus-spike