Do the numbers equate to locking down the whole world?

[Crazy Alex]

21 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

What would happen without lock downs?  

 

You use numbers after many countries locked down, and you use these numbers to prove that a lockdown is not useful?

 

There are few road deaths, which shows that speed limits are not necessary and that nobody has to use seat belts ????

 

 

 

Legit question. Let's quadruple the already inflated number and say 1% of people die from the virus. Is that reason to shut down the economy and cause serious harm and consequences for most of the remaining 99%? And what about the people who will no doubt die as a result of the shutdown, i.e. people starving or not getting medical care?

[steelepulse]

22 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

What would happen without lock downs?  

 

You use numbers after many countries locked down, and you use these numbers to prove that a lockdown is not useful?

 

There are few road deaths, which shows that speed limits are not necessary and that nobody has to use seat belts ????

 

 

 

FYI, I used numbers that would indicate 10X more deaths then we currently have.  Maybe you didn't see that.  All numbers indicate an IFR of between .1-.4% regardless of lockdowns.

 

Also I don't think you saw that in New York, 60% of all new cases were from people that were in complete lockdown, so there goes the lockdown theory.

[NorthernRyland]

Just now, Crazy Alex said:

Legit question. Let's quadruple the already inflated number and say 1% of people die from the virus. Is that reason to shut down the economy and cause serious harm and consequences for most of the remaining 99%? And what about the people who will no doubt die as a result of the shutdown, i.e. people starving or not getting medical care?

aren't we just having the same debate about general safety that we've always had? Normally people assume the risk calculation for themselves and act accordingly. If the virus was really that dangerous the government wouldn't need to be telling people to stay at home because the people themselves would be too scared to leave their homes.

 

There's something extremely strange and maternal emerging in regards to this virus. Not sure what to make of it but time will tell.

[otherstuff1957]

Certainly Thailand, and other low casualty countries should be phasing out the lockdown.  The hardest hit countries - US and UK should probably be a bit more cautious. 

 

With single digit new cases and declining numbers of deaths, it is just ridiculous to continue lockdown here.  However, they should be careful about opening the borders again.

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Certainly Thailand, and other low casualty countries should be phasing out the lockdown.  The hardest hit countries - US and UK should probably be a bit more cautious. 

 

With single digit new cases and declining numbers of deaths, it is just ridiculous to continue lockdown here.  However, they should be careful about opening the borders again.

I would only argue that even within the US, there should be different solutions for different areas. Example: Texas has a 50% higher population than New York, yet New York has over 20 times the virus deaths. I maintain the solutions for each will be different. I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just adding some additional clarity.

[otherstuff1957]

Although it is very difficult to model the behavior of C19, as it seems to act very differently in different countries (although some of those differences are due to variations in testing and reporting) I do think that low population density areas (about 1/2 of the US) could come out of lockdown right now.

[chessman]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Let's quadruple the already inflated number and say 1% of people die from the virus. Is that reason to shut down the economy and cause serious harm and consequences for most of the remaining 99%? And what about the people who will no doubt die as a result of the shutdown, i.e. people starving or not getting medical care?

Lots of very strong evidence that the numbers dying are a large underestimation. Look at excess mortality data and errors in counting during previous pandemics.

 

this is not a simple question of saving lives versus the economy... the economy will be struggling a lot whatever governments do. It’s an incredibly difficult balancing act between public health and the economy. It might well be that governments have been too cautious during this time (my opinion would lean in that direction) but it’s just not a serious answer to act like everything is straightforward.

[chessman]

11 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Certainly Thailand, and other low casualty countries should be phasing out the lockdown. 

And they are.

[Crazy Alex]

2 minutes ago, chessman said:

Lots of very strong evidence that the numbers dying are a large underestimation. Look at excess mortality data and errors in counting during previous pandemics.

 

this is not a simple question of saving lives versus the economy... the economy will be struggling a lot whatever governments do. It’s an incredibly difficult balancing act between public health and the economy. It might well be that governments have been too cautious during this time (my opinion would lean in that direction) but it’s just not a serious answer to act like everything is straightforward.

Dr. Birx says the CDC is cooking the books, exaggerating deaths by up to 25%.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/deborah-birx-cdc-comments-coronavirus-task-force-meeting-2020-5

 

Given the motives of money and sensationalism, deaths being underestimated does not seem likely.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

Flattening the curve really means delaying immunity - and if immunity is short lived, this means many more secondary cases.

The plan was to slow the rate of hospitalizations so demand did not outstrip supply.  But, as the virus was highly contagious, and sterile food packages were not delivered to every home, so someone from the home had to go out and buy food - they brought the virus home with them.  Viruses spread well indoors, so the "food getter" then spread it to everyone. 

 

"Inside" was the last place we should have been.  Closing Crowded Concerts and Sporting Events - ok, makes sense.  But closing Parks and beaches?  No.

 

  

16 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

...  I don't think you saw that in New York, 60% of all new cases were from people that were in complete lockdown, so there goes the lockdown theory.

Exactly:

Quote

A majority of the New Yorkers hospitalized in recent days for the novel coronavirus weren’t working and had been living in their homes, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday, offering new insights into who is getting infected with the virus.

That's from May 6 - wsj

 

14 minutes ago, genericptr said:

aren't we just having the same debate about general safety that we've always had? Normally people assume the risk calculation for themselves and act accordingly. If the virus was really that dangerous the government wouldn't need to be telling people to stay at home because the people themselves would be too scared to leave their homes.

 

There's something extremely strange and maternal emerging in regards to this virus. Not sure what to make of it but time will tell.

There were "models" - which turned out to be garbage (as in garbage-code, PLUS bad input-data) and a "plan" worked out by the WHO, US-CDC, Bill Gates, etc of "what to do" when a "pandemic virus" hit.  They "executed" that plan - is what this lockdown was.  They had just done a big conference on it, a few months before this started.

 

I am not saying "it's all a conspiracy" - I am saying they (World Health / Pharma Inc) made up this model/plan system for a "pandemic virus," then this virus gave them an excuse/reason (depending on your POV) to realize that plan.  Those same players have a vested-interest in the vaccine, also, which is only needed if we don't develop herd-immunity first.

[tlock]

26 minutes ago, genericptr said:

aren't we just having the same debate about general safety that we've always had? Normally people assume the risk calculation for themselves and act accordingly. If the virus was really that dangerous the government wouldn't need to be telling people to stay at home because the people themselves would be too scared to leave their homes.

 

There's something extremely strange and maternal emerging in regards to this virus. Not sure what to make of it but time will tell.

I'm Pro-Choice (about locking yourself down).

[chessman]

13 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Given the motives of money and sensationalism, deaths being underestimated does not seem likely.

Then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

remember - just because you disagree with the lockdown, that doesn’t automatically mean that people are inflating the deaths.

 

read this

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c

 

This one has a coherent argument rather than the conjecture from the newspaper link you provided.

 

 

 

 

[vermin on arrival]

20 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Dr. Birx says the CDC is cooking the books, exaggerating deaths by up to 25%.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/deborah-birx-cdc-comments-coronavirus-task-force-meeting-2020-5

 

Given the motives of money and sensationalism, deaths being underestimated does not seem likely.

interesting though in that business insider article none of the 4 forecasts agreed...birx said way too high, one said stable going at 2k, one said under counted and one model said it would go way up. There is no consensus, and it's like people are confused and just feeling their way around

Edited May 14, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[vermin on arrival]

8 minutes ago, chessman said:

Then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

remember - just because you disagree with the lockdown, that doesn’t automatically mean that people are inflating the deaths.

 

read this

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c

 

This one has a coherent argument rather than the conjecture from the newspaper link you provided.

 

Interesting article. You wonder what percentage is covid and what percentage is people hiding from hospital as so many are doing. I could see both possible results for my aged parents as they seclude themselves in NJ.

 

I think in the end they are going to have real problems figuring out the actual numbers of what happened.

Edited May 14, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[dimitriv]

58 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Legit question. Let's quadruple the already inflated number 

 

You cannot. There are no reliable numbers.

[chessman]

17 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

Interesting article. You wonder what percentage is covid and what percentage is people hiding from hospital as so many are doing. I could see both possible results for my aged parents as they seclude themselves in NJ.

 

I think in the end they are going to have real problems figuring out the actual numbers of what happened.

You are right, it's difficult. But I think it's almost impossible to attribute all those 'excess' deaths to people avoiding hospitals. Especially as some common killers (such as road accidents) are actually down due to lock downs.

 

It's also interesting to note that during the Swine flu the running total of deaths was 18,000 by the end. Now, most experts believe the real number was more than 10 times that. Deaths are difficult to count accurately during a pandemic, especially people who die at home or in care homes. The same thing will be happening with Covid 19.

Edited May 14, 2020 by chessman

[dimitriv]

59 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

Also I don't think you saw that in New York, 60% of all new cases were from people that were in complete lockdown, so there goes the lockdown theory.

 

It seems you do not believe that people cannot get infected in a complete lockdown?  I mean, really a complete lockdown...  It's impossible.

 

And where did you get that 60% ?  Till now all numbers that came from the US were unreliable, they used unreliable ways of testing, unreliable ways to choose people to test, unreliable tests giving a lot of false positives etc. I have no doubts the number you mention was made in a similar way. 

 

 

[Skallywag]

5 hours ago, steelepulse said:

How do these numbers compare with other preventable causes of death such as smoking, diabetes, car accidents, cardio vascular disease etc.?

Smoking , diabetes, and cardiovascular are chronic diseases, takes years to kill you.

 

the Covid19 virus is acute threat that kills within days or weeks.

 

We do not like threats ????????

 

 

[vermin on arrival]

11 minutes ago, chessman said:

You are right, it's difficult. But I think it's almost impossible to attribute all those 'excess' deaths to people avoiding hospitals. Especially as some common killers (such as road accidents) are actually down due to lock downs.

I definitely wouldn't, but it could be a significant number with the unhealthiness of American society in general. The financial incentive for hospitals to skew the data up is also a really big/bad issue. Not saying that the result would be overall inflated numbers, but it really fudges the data through a kind of medical corruption.

[vermin on arrival]

18 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

It seems you do not believe that people cannot get infected in a complete lockdown?  I mean, really a complete lockdown...  It's impossible.

 

And where did you get that 60% ?  Till now all numbers that came from the US were unreliable, they used unreliable ways of testing, unreliable ways to choose people to test, unreliable tests giving a lot of false positives etc. I have no doubts the number you mention was made in a similar way. 

 

 

Yeah my homeland's response has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I'm ashamed in so many ways.

[tlock]

33 minutes ago, chessman said:

You are right, it's difficult. But I think it's almost impossible to attribute all those 'excess' deaths to people avoiding hospitals. Especially as some common killers (such as road accidents) are actually down due to lock downs.

 

It's also interesting to note that during the Swine flu the running total of deaths was 18,000 by the end. Now, most experts believe the real number was more than 10 times that. Deaths are difficult to count accurately during a pandemic, especially people who die at home or in care homes. The same thing will be happening with Covid 19.

 

If that's the case, I think the same thing will happen to the number of infections as well no?  Estimates are 700 million to 1.6 billion people worldwide had swine flu, and we barely noticed it.

 

[connda]

6 hours ago, steelepulse said:

Does this make sense to lock down the whole world?

No.

[frantick]

1 hour ago, genericptr said:

aren't we just having the same debate about general safety that we've always had? Normally people assume the risk calculation for themselves and act accordingly. If the virus was really that dangerous the government wouldn't need to be telling people to stay at home because the people themselves would be too scared to leave their homes.

 

There's something extremely strange and maternal emerging in regards to this virus. Not sure what to make of it but time will tell.

What's emerging is virtue signaling of regard for fellow man when in fact they are afraid for their own lives.

[chessman]

16 minutes ago, tlock said:

If that's the case, I think the same thing will happen to the number of infections as well no?  Estimates are 700 million to 1.6 billion people worldwide had swine flu, and we barely noticed it.

Yes, but the number of deaths is much higher with COVID, that is why there is a different policy. Comparing the numbers calculated in the same way. 18,000 confirmed deaths after a year of Swine flu... 300,000 in a couple of months for COVID

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Also depends on if you're getting ruined financially, which I would bet 1k baht that people who make snide comments like this don't have to worry about money - at least not yet. 

While you,'re lieing there drowning in your own body fluids,would imagine your bank balance would be the last of your worries.

[Crazy Alex]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

While you,'re lieing there drowning in your own body fluids,would imagine your bank balance would be the last of your worries.

Very minute chance of that happening.

[Mama Noodle]

8 minutes ago, kingdong said:

While you,'re lieing there drowning in your own body fluids,would imagine your bank balance would be the last of your worries.

 

Nothing like a late-night drunken appeal to emotion ????

[kingdong]

11 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Nothing like a late-night drunken appeal to emotion ????

It's 18.46 where I am,you must be in the land of smiles,perhaps you should be directing your vitriolic posts at the Thai government who's draconian lockdown was far in excess of the uks,despite the latter's far higher body count (that is if the los figures are to be believed) well hope you sell your bar,but in the meantime calm yourself dear,whatever will be will be.

[tlock]

1 hour ago, chessman said:

Yes, but the number of deaths is much higher with COVID, that is why there is a different policy. Comparing the numbers calculated in the same way. 18,000 confirmed deaths after a year of Swine flu... 300,000 in a couple of months for COVID

Ah I understand- so you estimate there are actually 3 million covid deaths in the last 3 months?  I'd be scared too if I thought that.

 

[Monomial]

3 hours ago, chessman said:

Then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

remember - just because you disagree with the lockdown, that doesn’t automatically mean that people are inflating the deaths.

 

read this

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-3386-4543-b2e9-0d5c6fac846c

 

This one has a coherent argument rather than the conjecture from the newspaper link you provided.

 

 

 

 

 

Why does everyone keep worrying about the death toll? It is going to be whatever it is going to be. The only thing that matters is whether or not the hospital services are overwhelmed. If they are not, then we need to keep opening up. Open the stores, open the borders.  Everyone needs to get this virus to reach herd immunity. We can not lock down and avoid it.  Some people continue to think that is a realistic policy. It's not.

 

The virus is here. We won't have a vaccine in a realistic timeframe. Everyone of working age needs to catch this thing to develop immunity or nobody will be working. Some people will die, and that sucks. But the only variable we have control over is the amount of health services available. Since that is all we can control, that is what we need to concentrate on.

 

Impose restrictions only if the hospitals are overwhelmed. Beyond that, let everyone do whatever they are going to do. If you want to stay inside and cower, do it. Nobody is stopping you. But I want to work to feed my family. And when I get the disease, I will either pull through or I won't. That is all that is important to me. I don't care what the ultimate death toll is. It is totally irrelevant to everything in my life.  I can die even if the death toll is exactly 1, assuming I'm that unlucky one. Statistics don't matter. The virus is simply an integral part of life that needs to be accepted at this point.

 

I know I need to catch this thing. I can't wish it away, and I don't accept that a lockdown is morally acceptable as long as we have free hospital beds. You are, of course, free to have your own opinion and try to avoid the disease by becoming a hermit. Eventually, there will be enough of us immune that your strategy may work. But you will be hiding away for at least a year.  I don't have that luxury.