It's proven.... lockdown does not work!

[ThLT]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

But the point of the linked opinion piece is that the total deaths will be the same, regardless of whether you have 30,000 a month dying for 6 months or 15,000 a month dying for 12 months.  The lockdown just spreads them out over a slightly longer period.  While decimating the economy.

Without a lockdown, health systems would probably have been overburdened (some countries were overburdened even with a lockdown), which would have resulted in a higher number of deaths. The US and the UK are good examples of this (and they both eventually did do a lockdown, with the UK initially aiming for herd immunity and the US because Trump, now with 109,000 deaths). Also, health procedures, the manufacturing of equipment (such as ventilators), medications (and after some time a vaccine), can be put into effect, which reduces the number of deaths.

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent the author is as a scientist.

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by ThLT

[yuyiinthesky]

29 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Well, if there are lockdowns, this helps to not have health systems be overburdened. Had there been no lockdowns at all, many countries would probably have had overburdened hospitals/systems.

You can't ask me to prove something based on something that didn't happen.
 

Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

 

[impulse]

19 minutes ago, ThLT said:

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent he is as a scientist.

 

Do a little diligence on the author and on Lancet.  He's a lot more qualified than you or I will ever be (co-authored 183 papers listed on pubmed.gov), and the article wouldn't have made it into Lancet without some serious vetting.

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by impulse

[tribalfusion001]

3 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

 

Correct it didn't happen, but what is happening is mass unemployment, civil unrest, mental health issues and people wanting this to end quickly.

 

I know these protests are about George Floyd, but something was going to happen anyway and this is the spark for it. I might even go and join them.

[ThLT]

19 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Thanks, that's the point, it "didn't happen".

The big dying, the millions of dead bodies piled up, the exponential growth, the overloaded ICUs, the lack of ventilators, it "didn't happen", no matter what the countries did, lockdown or not.

There were lockdowns. You can't predict what would have happened if there hadn't been any lockdowns. 

 

You're just making stuff up. 

 

19 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Instead, the infections start, go up, reach a peak, and decline again. With or without lockdown, the curves are quite similar everywhere.

So you're an expert epidemiologist, and you can predict the outcome of events that never happened? ...is what I'm saying.
 

Edited June 3, 2020 by ThLT

[ThLT]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Do a little diligence on the author and on Lancet.  He's a lot more qualified than you or I will ever be, and the article wouldn't have made it into Lancet without some vetting.

 

Credentials don't make something to be true. Speculating that a worldwide event would have turned out the same in 12 months is just pure non-sense, even more so for a scientist.

[ThLT]

12 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

Correct it didn't happen, but what is happening is mass unemployment, civil unrest, mental health issues and people wanting this to end quickly.

It was botched (no country was correctly prepared for this). Some countries were far too lax about it, other countries too excessive (the US/Trump did both).

Still, zero lockdown would have been completely stupid (which is what the author of the paper is partly suggesting).
 

Edited June 3, 2020 by ThLT

[Monomial]

23 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Without a lockdown, health systems would probably have been overburdened (some countries were overburdened even with a lockdown), which would have resulted in a higher number of deaths. The US and the UK are good examples of this (and they both eventually did do a lockdown, with the UK initially aiming for herd immunity and the US because Trump, now with 109,000 deaths). Also, health procedures, the manufacturing of equipment (such as ventilators), medications (and after some time a vaccine), can be put into effect, which reduces the number of deaths.

And just stating that the deaths would be the same in the end is complete speculation on the part of the author. Not even a group of the world's best experts could predict that. If anything, it just proves how incompetent the author is as a scientist.

 

 

Total deaths is equivalent to the area under the curve. It doesn't matter whether you have a big early peak with a quick decline to zero, or a squashed out flatter curve with a long tail. Only the total area under the curve is relevant. Thus you can't know until the very end how things turn out.

 

And scientists don't predict things. They set up models using assumptions. In this case, without good assumptions, all "experts" are simply voicing their opinions. Which is why I have been trying to explain to everyone from the beginning this is cargo cult science and not genuine science. Expert opinion does not mean correct opinion.

 

We won't know the answer for a decade when we have had a chance to study the data in minute detail. For now, *EVERYONE* is guessing.  It is time we admit that these lockdowns are nothing but a very risky gamble taken on the personal opinion and value choices of a few people.

 

What is certain however, is that these choices have decimated the economy and are going to lead to millions of collateral deaths due to extreme poverty and psychological issues that would not have occurred without lockdowns.

 

Whether the direct death total, also known as area under the curve, is changed or not is simply a matter of opinion and guesswork at this point. In my expert opinion, nothing justifies what has been done to our global economy, and the people who have supported impoverishing billions through these lockdowns have much to answer for,.

 

 

[ThLT]

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by ThLT

[Chelseafan]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

But where's the balance?  Health care resources aren't overburdened.  Of course, they couldn't predict that when the lockdowns were implemented.  So the lockdowns were probably prudent.  But no longer, given the data we have today that we didn't have in January.

 

In the meantime, factories, restaurants, airlines, hotels and theaters are closing down, companies are going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs and their homes.  Millions are going hungry.  The effects of the depression are getting worse by the day and will far exceed the damage done by the Covid itself

 

Sweden at 404 deaths per 100,000 is 0.4% of the population.  Most of them in bad health to start with.  If a tiny percentage of the population needs protecting, by all means... let them stay home.  Restrict their contact with others.  

 

The other 99% of us need to go to work and live our lives.

 

You don't do Sweden justice. They are running at 450 per 1million of the population, 0.045%

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si%23countries

They adopted the approach of closing certain sectors down bit by bit rather than go total lockdown

Time will tell if their strategy works or not but where countries are starting to open up again, Sweden is going the other way.

 

 

 

[tribalfusion001]

6 minutes ago, ThLT said:

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

It's only disastrous in the UK if you are one of the 40,000 dead, for the other 66.65 million it's disastrous in other ways having the lockdown.

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

You don't do Sweden justice. They are running at 450 per 1million of the population, 0.045%

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si%23countries

They adopted the approach of closing certain sectors down bit by bit rather than go total lockdown

Time will tell if their strategy works or not but where countries are starting to open up again, Sweden is going the other way.

 

You are correct.  Looks like the number I was quoting was total cases, not deaths...  My bad.

 

[ThLT]

26 minutes ago, tribalfusion001 said:

It's only disastrous in the UK if you are one of the 40,000 dead, for the other 66.65 million it's disastrous in other ways having the lockdown.

For sure. But the dead can't present their case. 

Lockdown was also implemented way too late, since UK was initially aiming for herd immunity. We'll never know for sure, but maybe there would have been 10,000, instead of 40,000 deaths (585/1M) if their lockdown would have been implemented correctly.

South Korea has 273 deaths total—5 deaths/1M citizens in comparison...

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by ThLT

[Chelseafan]

21 minutes ago, ThLT said:

It's clear for many countries, the lockdowns were poorly conducted (especially implemented too late). I also fully agree that the negative effects must be taken into consideration, making a lockdown devastating up to a certain point.

Still, it's far from the truth that "It's proven.... lockdown does not work!" (like this thread was titled). A lockdown, well implemented (as early as possible) and for not too long of a duration is different from say a lockdown implemented months after (like the disastrous results of the US or the UK at the moment).

 

You say "disastrous" based on hindsight and with a lot more data than was available in Feb/March.

Should we have locked down earlier? Perhaps. But with death-rates at that stage relatively low, that would have been a huge call by the Government.

 

 

 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

3 hours ago, spiekerjozef said:

Where in the UK? No it doesn't work there.

Everywhere else it works fine.

It works at killing the economies yes. Mass unemployment. No way they will repeat lockdowns in the future just too costly

[Chelseafan]

4 minutes ago, ThLT said:

For sure. But the dead can't present their case. 

Lockdown was also implemented way too late, since UK was initially aiming for herd immunity. We'll never know for sure, but maybe there would have been 10,000 or 20,000 deaths, instead of 40,000 if their lockdown would have been implemented correctly.

South Korea has 273 deaths total—5 deaths/1 million citizens in comparison...

 

You cannot compare South Korea to other countries such as the UK.

They have had experience dealing with viral contagions particualry MERS in 2015 and so were way ahead of the game.

 

 

 

[tribalfusion001]

17 minutes ago, ThLT said:

For sure. But the dead can't present their case. 

Lockdown was also implemented way too late, since UK was initially aiming for herd immunity. We'll never know for sure, but maybe there would have been 10,000, instead of 40,000 deaths (585/1M) if their lockdown would have been implemented correctly.

South Korea has 273 deaths total—5 deaths/1M citizens in comparison...

 

The demographics must be play a big part in the discrepancy between Asian countries and western countries, plus throw in Brazil. From what I see is that the people are generally unhealthier in the west with obesity being a major factor. The weather in South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong was cold when the pandemic hit and SE Asia hot as usual. People will say masks, but I think it would not have made much difference.

[ThLT]

15 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

You cannot compare South Korea to other countries such as the UK.

They have had experience dealing with viral contagions particualry MERS in 2015 and so were way ahead of the game.

So lockdowns and pandemic measures work, when implemented correctly?

That's exactly the comparison we have to make—countries that did these correctly (such as South Korea) and countries that didn't (such as the US and the UK).

[Chelseafan]

4 minutes ago, ThLT said:

So lockdowns and pandemic measures work, when implemented correctly?

That's exactly the comparison we have to make—countries that did these correctly (such as South Korea) and countries that didn't (such as the US and the UK).

 

You're comparing apples with pears.

I suspect that had the UK been hit hard with MERS then we would have better systems in place to cope with Covid.

Hopefully when this is all over we will be in a better position to deal with another potential outbreak but then again we didn't seem to learn anything from the 1968 pandemic!

 

[richard_smith237]

18 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

 

You're comparing apples with pears.

I suspect that had the UK been hit hard with MERS then we would have better systems in place to cope with Covid.

Hopefully when this is all over we will be in a better position to deal with another potential outbreak but then again we didn't seem to learn anything from the 1968 pandemic!

 

Absolutely agree: <Hopefully when this is all over we will be in a better position to deal with another potential outbreak> and hopefully get a better handle on the facts and not make political decisions out of fear of criticism.

 

MERS-CoV had (has) a 34.4% fatality rate, fortunately a far lower transmission rate.

[*2494 cases / 858 deaths]

 

SARS-CoV-1 had (has) a 9.6% fatality rate, fortunately again a far lower transmission rate.

[*8098 cases / 774 deaths]

 

[*WHO & CDC figures]

 

 

IF the UK had been hit with MERS or SARS the spread transmission rates would not have been significant enough to cause such alarm. The 'Novel Coronavirus' (a new corona virus) appears to have a rapid transmission rate - this is what frightened the experts, yet the governments (of some countries) were indeed too late in instigating lock down and protecting the world from a virus we knew nothing about. China must at least be partly to blame for this in their delay in releasing the news until the end of 2019 (an estimated 2 months into their epidemic), yet countries still had time to react and lock down, they didn't, it seems they didn't believe the figures until it was too late.

 

Fast forwarding a month we knew a lot more of this disease and its fatality rates (IFR / CFR - IFR being the predicted values assuming asymptomatic and unconfirmed positive cases / CFR being the proven case fatality rate) which could be much lower than anticipated (note: the final IFR of 2009 H1N1 outbreak was 0.02% and significantly lower than initial lowest estimates) - the IFR of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak could be as low, current lowest estimates are 0.1 to 0.4% (based on numbers tested). Also, comorbidity is a significant factor the number of Covid-19 deaths (i.e someone died because of Covid-19 and not someone died with it - along the lines of a man was eaten by an alligator and died of Covid-19 - the reporting of Covid-19 deaths in the UK particularly is highly questionable), this also distorts the figures and would significantly lower the IFR.

 

S.Korea was correct to lock down so quickly - what really helped them was their test and track methods.

S.Korea has a higher population density (nearly double) of the UK yet they handled the disease much more successfully.

 

I see some limited conclusions:

1) Early lock down worked for S.Korea, delayed lock-down hurt the UK, EU and US. 

2) The possibility of different strains of SARS-CoV-2 with the South Asian strain being less virulent.

3) Genetic variation between Asians and Caucasians impacting the tolerance to SARS-CoV-2 or how the body fights Covid-19 once contracted. There has been a discussion of T-Cells, the body's most important weapon in fighting off the SARS-CoV-2 virus - is it possible there is a subtle variation in the T-Cells of Asians and Caucasians?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chessman]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

and the article wouldn't have made it into Lancet without some serious vetting.

It's a letter written to the Lancet that they published. To then suggest that that makes it an irrefutable fact is absurd.

[chessman]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

But the point of the linked opinion piece is that the total deaths will be the same, regardless of whether you have 30,000 a month dying for 6 months or 15,000 a month dying for 12 months.  The lockdown just spreads them out over a slightly longer period.

So the letter writer suggests... but do you honestly think that Norway's mortality will ever approach Sweden's? Norway that were able to manage the spread when they were most vulnerable, when very little was known about the virus? 

 

[chessman]

5 hours ago, Monomial said:

What is certain however, is that these choices have decimated the economy and are going to lead to millions of collateral deaths due to extreme poverty and psychological issues that would not have occurred without lockdowns

People constantly write things like this... but go and look what happened to mortality in the US from 1929-1933, the years of the great depression. 

[impulse]

26 minutes ago, chessman said:

So the letter writer suggests... but do you honestly think that Norway's mortality will ever approach Sweden's? Norway that were able to manage the spread when they were most vulnerable, when very little was known about the virus? 

 

Starting with a sample population of 10,000 (to make the math easy), with an average lifespan of 75 years, you’d expect 133 of them to die in any given year (10,000/75).  That’s 11 deaths a month (133/12).  If (as the OP link indicates) 20-25% of them are infected, even without symptoms, you’d expect 2-3 of those people who die every month to test positive for Covid, even if that’s not what killed them.

 

Sweden’s death rate from Covid is just 4.5 out of 10,000 over a period of 3 or 4 months.  That’s even less than you’d expect if Covid had a 0% fatality rate.  Are they dying from Covid, or dying with Covid?

 

The difference between Sweden and Norway may simply be that Swedish autopsies look harder for Covid.  Maybe they test 100% of their bodies while Norway only tests symptomatic deaths.  The truth is, I don't know.  But I'd trust the judgment of a guy with his name on 183 epidemiology research papers before I'd trust someone posting on TVF.

[Chelseafan]

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I see some limited conclusions:

1) Early lock down worked for S.Korea, delayed lock-down hurt the UK, EU and US. 

2) The possibility of different strains of SARS-CoV-2 with the South Asian strain being less virulent.

3) Genetic variation between Asians and Caucasians impacting the tolerance to SARS-CoV-2 or how the body fights Covid-19 once contracted. There has been a discussion of T-Cells, the body's most important weapon in fighting off the SARS-CoV-2 virus - is it possible there is a subtle variation in the T-Cells of Asians and Caucasians?

 

 

I would add

4) Masks! Whilst not foolproof they must have some effect on reducing the transmission of the virus. For Some Asian countries with high pollution (including South Korea), masks are part of daily life

 

 

[nauseus]

Latest from Worldometer:

 

 

Nasty kick up at right.

 

[Tropicalevo]

An interview reported in The Times today quotes the top scientist who made the flawed policy to stay open "has conceded that it led to too many deaths".

[Logosone]

Interestingly Professor Lockdown himself, Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College in the UK and one of the most extreme proponents of lockdown has now said the world needs to learn from Sweden:

 

"Neil Ferguson whose grim warnings prompted Boris Johnson to order TOTAL LOCKDOWN admits Sweden may have suppressed Covid-19 to the same level but WITHOUT draconian measures

 

The professor whose grim warning that 500,000 Brits may die from Covid-19 without action triggered lockdown has admitted Sweden may have suppressed its outbreak as well as Britain - without imposing the draconian measures. 

 

Professor Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College London, revealed he had the 'greatest respect' for the Scandinavian nation, which has managed to suffer fewer deaths per capita than the UK. 

 

Professor Ferguson appeared to praise Sweden for keeping infections low without the economically crippling curbs and said 'they have gone quite a long way to [achieving] the same effect'.

 

The UK has a death rate of 575 people per million, while Sweden's is significantly lower at 436 per million. As well as fewer deaths, Sweden's GDP actually grew in the first quarter of 2020, suggesting it might avoid the worst of the economic fallout from the crisis."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8379769/Professor-Lockdown-Neil-Ferguson-admits-greatest-respect-Sweden.html

 

[yuyiinthesky]

7 hours ago, ThLT said:

So lockdowns and pandemic measures work, when implemented correctly?

That's exactly the comparison we have to make—countries that did these correctly (such as South Korea) and countries that didn't (such as the US and the UK).

Actually, South Korea is more of an example that a draconian lockdown is not needed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/we-never-considered-a-full-lockdown-south-korea-s-health-minister-on-the-country-s-fight-against-coronavirus/ar-BB13rX2d

 

I think we talk about different lockdowns. For me a lockdown includes forcing the population to stay at home, locking them in, for you apparently not?

[yuyiinthesky]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Latest from Worldometer:

 

 

Nasty kick up at right.

 

Counting total cases always goes up, per design it cannot go down. Quite misleading, but the perfect tool for scaremongering.