I don't understand the Lockdown/shut down exit strategy?

[CaptainQuintero]

3 hours ago, SigmundChurchill said:

I have given this a lot of thought.  I want to believe that the mild cold I had back in February was COIVID-19, and now my body has antibodies to the virus.  I think it is natural for anybody who had cold or flu symptoms in the last 4 or 5 months to ponder that, and we all want it to be true.  But there is one question that always snaps me out of it.  

If “the herd” was infected months ago, how come the onslaught of serious, deadly cases came on so fast and furiously, just 3 weeks ago?  How come we didn’t have enough people on ventilators to raise an eyebrow, back in January or February?

In a normal flu season, at any given time, we may have 3 or 4 patients on ventilators with flu-related pneumonia (vs 100 people on ventilators with COVID-19). And I think most other large medical centers experience similar.  So if that 3 or 4 turned into 8 or 9, that would have us wondering why.  Our immediate thought would be, “Wow, this flu season is really, really bad.”  But this didn’t happen.  At least it didn’t here on the East Coast.  I don't know for sure if it did on the West Coast, but I have never heard any West Coast doctors claiming this, even in retrospect, which I think would be big news if they were.

Your article points at a few random cases of COVID-19 just a couple of weeks prior to the outbreak, which to me, does not point to herd immunity, but rather the natural progression of the pandemic.

And believe me when I say that I don’t discount this theory completely.  This disease is so puzzling, that I don’t discount anything completely at this point.  We are seeing things that we have never seen before, and the doctors that are a little older than myself, are saying that this reminds them of when the AIDS epidemic began, and they had a whole bunch of puzzle pieces that they were having a hard time fitting together.

Now, we have puzzle pieces like:

Why is the incubation period so long?

How come we are seeing some people still testing positive a month after their symptoms subside?  Is this wide scale?  We dont really know because we are not testing people after they seemingly get better.

How come South Korea is reporting people getting sick, recovering completely, and getting sick again?  Are they getting reinfected, or did the virus never leave their bodies and it is getting reactivated?

Why are people walking around, having rational conversations, with blood oxygen levels that are typically reserved for people who are unconscious with blue faces, near death?  

Under normal circumstances, when we see blood oxygen levels that low (like 35%), we immediately intubate and put the person on a ventilator.  Hell, under normal circumstances, we would intubate somebody at 85%.  But given that almost all of the people on ventilators are dying, is that the right approach for these particular patients?

Other than the bizarre, functional low oxygen saturation, the lungs of these patients present like people with ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), so we have been treating the disease like ARDS, including the ventilator settings.  But the ventilator mortality rate for ARDS, considered “bad” at 40% is still a lot better than the ventilator mortality rate for these patients at 80%-90%.  Why is that?

So no, I dont discount the “California herd immunity” theory completely, but it doesn’t fit normal patterns.  So there are a few more puzzle pieces that have to found, before I will believe the theory to be fact, 

 A lot of what your experiences have been are running true with what my wife has been seeing in A&E this past month or so. There hasn't been any set pathway which each patient/suspected patient is following. Most patients going into the hot resus are having to be stabilised in different ways.

  I started a month ago with a dry sore throat but no cough, didn't bother me in fact I played a full field hockey game that week with no issues. 4/5 days later as social distancing was introduced I developed extreme lethargy and shortness of breath, but temperature didn't go above 37.3 nor any cough. Two weeks of that and I started to come round, energy levels rising very slowly, still shortness of breath but never once did my oxygen saturation drop below 98, and peak flow was still 750.

  4 days ago, I started with a productive chest, not any real coughs and then one night my chest got tighter and tighter, ended up in the shower at 3am for an hour trying to clear my lungs, this thing accelerated very quickly. Luckily I was able to get things under control, perks of the nurse wife, and got on to a nurse practitioner who got me straight in for the antigen test and for antibiotics for the pneumonia. 

  She was saying at our local trust it was showing that as the weeks pass and antigen levels decrease and antibody levels increase, sometimes the body seams to react badly to that rise in antibodies and the resulting inflammatory response brings on pneumonia. Time scales seems to differ for no discernible reason. Also antigen testing seems to be giving false readings as the virus looks like it can still be present in fecal matter and mucus after it has left the nasal cavity, so the nose/throat swabs are not picking it up: testing as negative there but still positive when testing sputum/fecal.

  Still throughout it, oxygen sats never dropped below 97, respiratory rate with was spiking between 18-20 when the pneumonia started, peak flow was still way into the above normal level. Now a few days on antibiotics it's just the extreme lethargy left. Antigen tests came back negative but that was expected after it being a month from suspected first symptoms.

  But worth mentioning that the symptoms never got into the 'suspected COVID' category until the pneumonia kicked in. It seems the scale for symptoms isn't following any standard model. Based on the local trust I had a very mild dose, it was the secondary pneumonia which caused issues. But prior to the infection, my sats were fine but respiratory rate didn't point to that.

  If that is pointing towards multiple strains, it could explain the way patients are reacting.

[SigmundChurchill]

3 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

 A lot of what your experiences have been are running true with what my wife has been seeing in A&E this past month or so. There hasn't been any set pathway which each patient/suspected patient is following. Most patients going into the hot resus are having to be stabilised in different ways.

  I started a month ago with a dry sore throat but no cough, didn't bother me in fact I played a full field hockey game that week with no issues. 4/5 days later as social distancing was introduced I developed extreme lethargy and shortness of breath, but temperature didn't go above 37.3 nor any cough. Two weeks of that and I started to come round, energy levels rising very slowly, still shortness of breath but never once did my oxygen saturation drop below 98, and peak flow was still 750.

  4 days ago, I started with a productive chest, not any real coughs and then one night my chest got tighter and tighter, ended up in the shower at 3am for an hour trying to clear my lungs, this thing accelerated very quickly. Luckily I was able to get things under control, perks of the nurse wife, and got on to a nurse practitioner who got me straight in for the antigen test and for antibiotics for the pneumonia. 

  She was saying at our local trust it was showing that as the weeks pass and antigen levels decrease and antibody levels increase, sometimes the body seams to react badly to that rise in antibodies and the resulting inflammatory response brings on pneumonia. Time scales seems to differ for no discernible reason. Also antigen testing seems to be giving false readings as the virus looks like it can still be present in fecal matter and mucus after it has left the nasal cavity, so the nose/throat swabs are not picking it up: testing as negative there but still positive when testing sputum/fecal.

  Still throughout it, oxygen sats never dropped below 97, respiratory rate with was spiking between 18-20 when the pneumonia started, peak flow was still way into the above normal level. Now a few days on antibiotics it's just the extreme lethargy left. Antigen tests came back negative but that was expected after it being a month from suspected first symptoms.

  But worth mentioning that the symptoms never got into the 'suspected COVID' category until the pneumonia kicked in. It seems the scale for symptoms isn't following any standard model. Based on the local trust I had a very mild dose, it was the secondary pneumonia which caused issues. But prior to the infection, my sats were fine but respiratory rate didn't point to that.

  If that is pointing towards multiple strains, it could explain the way patients are reacting.

Actually, we already know that the virus has mutated twice.  There are now 3 strains.  Type A, B and C.  Type A is the same as the one found in bats, and was the original Wuhan virus, though now, Wuhan is predominantly type B.  

America and Australia are predominantly type A.  We are still unsure as to if there is difference in severity between the strains.

 

3 hours ago, joey rockets said:

Without need of copying the post, may I concur with Sigmund above?  I also had my only cold with a minor fever in February. There is too little known about this crazy virus but I am old enough to be scared.  Tomorrow morning, I have a gastro procedure I had been putting off because of this virus but can't do it any longer.  On the plus side, I will be tested.

Good luck with the procedure tomorrow.

[NSXCIGAR]

8 hours ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

The CA herd immunity has 3 sources debunking it as fact for every source that claims it to be correct.

Not sure how one can debunk something that's currently being investigated. Many top experts are on both sides of the theory. We're just going to have to let this all play out and see what the data shows.

 

[TheGipper]

25 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Not sure how one can debunk something that's currently being investigated. 

Yes, 'tis dissatisfying to see the increase in misuse of the word "debunk" to essentially mean: "Someone else offered up a differing opinion that I agree with, and that's that."

I try to push back against these things, but here we are in a English speaking world that has many adopting the the word "literally" to mean it's antonym ("figuratively").

Unfortunately, we lost the battle with "begs the question" long ago.  But I'm digging in against "literally" and "debunked".

[Jaesian]

23 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Seems like the CA herd immunity theory is gaining steam:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-signs-suggest-coronavirus-was-in-california-far-earlier-than-anyone-knew/ar-BB12umOy

Interesting theory. As I said before, I will say again: test the theory with serology (antibody) data. 

[JamesKPolkEsq]

On 4/13/2020 at 2:39 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

Not sure how one can debunk something that's currently being investigated. Many top experts are on both sides of the theory. We're just going to have to let this all play out and see what the data shows.

 

Herd immunity hypothesis officially debunked.

2.5% to 4.3% is far below herd immunity levels, typically 80% to 90% for a virus with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2.

[Hammer Smokin']

don't use the term debunked.

 

some folks don't like to read that (but are ok grasping to straw theories)

most critical thinkers could see the her immunity theory, or the "California had it in fall 2019, that's why the rates are lower" theory.

 

[Nino]

Pipe dreams ....

The desperation being seen by countries trying to return to normal is worrying.

It all started with one individual and we've now reached over 2 million infected.

What's to say it can't start again ?.
Between a rock and a hard place.

But what I've realized is that the more extreme restrictions on movement of people has been the right call.

Taking it easy has led to disaster.

Restarting International Travel in Time of COVID-19

Published on April 16 2020

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/restarting-international-travel-time-covid-19-jakub-p-hlávka/?published=t

Research Professor in Health Policy and Management, University of Southern California in Los Angeles

As many governments start to lift their domestic pandemic mitigation measures, greater attention will turn to restrictions on international travel. How quickly should we want and expect those restrictions to be lifted? Published literature seems to agree: international travel restrictions have limited benefits once a country has experienced widespread community-based transmission, and a gradual relaxation of international travel restrictions may be in order.

In a 2007 article, Joshua Epstein and colleagues modeled sequential (city-specific) and simultaneous (world-wide) travel restrictions and found very small difference between the two (5% difference in the total worldwide case numbers). A Nature Medicine article found the benefits of travel bans to be relatively low unless travel was completely halted (travel restrictions with >99% effectiveness) but “even at this level, travel restrictions only slow the exportation of cases rather than halting spread”. According to authors, “containment of a pandemic influenza strain is probably only feasible when there are less than 50 cases” – this level has been far exceeded in most developed regions of the world. Similar conclusions were made by Neil Ferguson and others in their 2006 Nature letter discussing the value of border closures relative to other strategies and find that “restrictions on travel will be of limited benefit in slowing global spread of a pandemic influenza outbreak that is not contained at its source”. Consistent conclusions were reached by Cooper et al. (2006) and Atti et al. (2008) who suggested that restrictions in travel can buy time, but not restrict community spread in meaningful way. Virtually identical conclusions were reached by Germann et al. (2006) about the impact of travel restrictions in the United States: “restricting travel after an outbreak is detected is likely to delay slightly the time course of the outbreak without impacting the eventual number ill”. Finally, a Hong Kong-based study by Chong and Zee (2012) found that other measures, such as targeted quarantines, were much more effective than travel restrictions.

What does this leave us with?

First, blanket restrictions to international travel may be justified in early stages of a pandemic during which a virus is contained and an assessment is conducted about the severity of the disease, its transmissibility and the level of exposure by region and country. Given the availability of data indicating the per-capita infection and death rates available at the national, regional and often city-level, we are now well-equipped to gradually lift restrictions on travel between specific regions.

With the strongest global economic bloc – the European Union and the United States – representing about 44% of the world’s GDP, it is vital that travel restrictions between these two regions are gradually relaxed with the highest priority. This should first apply to destinations that are not in existing outbreak areas (Lombardy in Italy, London in the U.K., New York City in the U.S.) but those that have kept the disease under control (e.g. California, Illinois and Colorado, Washington, Texas in the U.S., and Germany, Austria, Denmark and Finland in Europe). This is mostly to limit spread at airports in outbreak areas as travelers from at-risk regions could still connect via other hubs.

Reducing transmission risk during travel

Clearly, the reopening of international travel will require additional health screenings and risk reduction procedures. These may range from temperature checks at various stages of the journey to providing isolation and wellness areas onboard aircraft for travelers who get worse during a trip, providing medical-grade protective gear to onboard and airport personnel, reducing the risk of transmission during meal service, to maximizing onboard hygiene measures by reducing occupancy density and ensuring highest possible air filtration. Yet, the risk of transmission during travel is likely to stay higher than average due to sustained exposure over longer time periods. Travel operators (airports, airlines etc.) may need to consider providing hazard pay and expanded sick benefits to staff volunteering to work, and report sickness rates to the CDC regularly. Moreover, passengers may be required to sign waivers absolving operators from responsibility for exposure to transmission. Customs and Border Protection and the TSA will need to develop robust protocols that prevent crowding, such as by decreasing wait times, as well as increase availability of protective gear to staff and reduce the risk of unjust discrimination to travelers with specific backgrounds. Public officials should continue to discourage travel for non-essential purposes.

Parity-based travel restrictions

Connections between U.S. states with countries of comparable or lower case rates is likely to help revive international traffic without putting Americans at a higher risk of infection relative to community-based transmission.

As of writing, these countries and regions are experiencing comparable per-capita infection rates:

• Over 2,500 confirmed cases per million: Iceland, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, France

• Between 1,500 and 2,500 confirmed cases per million: USA, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, United Kingdom

• Under 1,500 cases per million: Mexico, Israel, Qatar, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Iran, Turkey, Panama, Canada, Singapore, Finland, Czech Republic, UAE, Ecuador, Chile, Croatia, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica (and many others)

These U.S. states are experiencing comparable per-capita infection rates:

• Over 2,500 confirmed cases per million: New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, D.C., Michigan

• Between 1,500 and 2,500 confirmed cases per million: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Georgia

• Under 1,500 cases per million: Colorado, Washington, Indiana, Nevada, Florida, Utah, South Carolina, Ohio, California, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina and others

The utility of using total cases per capita (as shown above) will diminish over time as many people recover, and the number of active infections per capita will be more important to compare. This will, of course, require reliable and robust testing strategies by states and countries.

Special attention should be given to areas with very low per-capita infection rates such as Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico which are at a higher risk of traveler-induced transmission given their lower per-capita infection rates. A 2009 study of the susceptibility of remote islands to a pandemic suggested that travel restrictions could not shield remote communities alone, and strategies such as screenings and quarantines were needed to successfully contain a pandemic. U.S. states with lower infection rates may opt for a slower relaxation of travel restrictions or even stricter risk mitigation strategies, such as mandatory contact tracing and post-travel quarantines, but are unlikely to benefit from full travel bans either.

Moving forward

Relaxing international travel between select regions and with additional risk mitigation protocols in place will help restart essential flows between nations and allow millions with urgent family and business needs to see each other. However, significant precautionary measures must be put in place to protect travelers as well as airport, security and airline staff from unnecessary risks in these challenging times.

 

[bpm32]

3 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Herd immunity hypothesis officially debunked.

2.5% to 4.3% is far below herd immunity levels, typically 80% to 90% for a virus with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2.

2.5% to 4.3% is actually way higher than I would have expected for the San Jose area. To me it’s good news that it could be that high.

[JamesKPolkEsq]

37 minutes ago, bpm32 said:

2.5% to 4.3% is actually way higher than I would have expected for the San Jose area. To me it’s good news that it could be that high.

Absolutely it's good news! 

By hook or crook, endgame at this point appears to require that magic number of 85% (+/- 5%) of folks that are seropositive. We need to get there as smartly as possible. 

The challenge at this point is : How?

My guess is a combination of effective therapies and risk Mitigation. After the first wave has crested, we will have a much better understanding of the disease cycle for folks, especially the severe and critical cases. 

We can leverage that information to make an informed plan about how best to proceed. We're definitely not there yet, but we are moving in the right direction, Covidiots excepted. 

[Deeg]

8 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Herd immunity hypothesis officially debunked.

2.5% to 4.3% is far below herd immunity levels, typically 80% to 90% for a virus with a R0 similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Has anyone crunched the numbers and calculated what that makes the approximate morality rate?

[Kitchen]

Interesting article in Bloomberg News.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective?fbclid=IwAR27jbMi7qIJFt48sh7eCfex2XypFnKCg0ke6xgShOgPWLOJEdNJeMTLefM

Given the situation, I have felt Sweden have taken the right strategy for a while.  We’ll see in a year I guess.  

[Ken Gargett]

30 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

Interesting article in Bloomberg News.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective?fbclid=IwAR27jbMi7qIJFt48sh7eCfex2XypFnKCg0ke6xgShOgPWLOJEdNJeMTLefM

Given the situation, I have felt Sweden have taken the right strategy for a while.  We’ll see in a year I guess.  

so government officials are declaring that the strategy they implemented has been a success? sound familiar? 

a week or so ago, i saw a piece on pbs, i think (apols, there is so much on this virus i might have the wrong source), on the very different strategies adopted by sweden and their neighbours, denmark. denmark was much stricter in the lockdown. sweden obviously much less so. 

the figures this morning (ignore the second line for both - world totals, obviously same for both) are below - 

if the top priority is the economy, then perhaps sweden took the right path. as you say, we'll know in a year. if the priority is the health of your citizens, then i'd say sweden is a massive fail. 

if you look at other scandinavian countries for comparison, it gets worse. sweden has a death rate five times that of norway and about 8 times that of finland. all this may look very different in two months but at the moment, any swedish government official claiming they got it right looks like an idiot. 

if you don't consider countries like the vatican, where a couple of cases give them a silly figure per capita, sweden sits around 7th in the world for deaths per capita. very hard to see that as getting it right. 

 

Country, Other	Total Cases	New Cases	Total Deaths	New Deaths	Total Recovered	Active Cases	Serious, Critical	Tot Cases/ 1M pop	Deaths/ 1M pop	Total Tests	Tests/ 1M pop
Denmark	7,384	+142	355	+9	4,141	2,888	84	1,275	61	94,277	16,277
Total:	2,404,234	+73,468	164,891	+4,844	624,713	1,614,630	54,225	308.4	21.2

  

Country, Other	Total Cases	New Cases	Total Deaths	New Deaths	Total Recovered	Active Cases	Serious, Critical	Tot Cases/ 1M pop	Deaths/ 1M pop	Total Tests	Tests/ 1M pop
Sweden	14,385	+563	1,540	+29	550	12,295	450	1,424	152	74,600	7,387
Total:	2,404,234	+73,468	164,891	+4,844	624,713	1,614,630	54,225	308.4	21.2

 

[Kitchen]

32 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

so government officials are declaring that the strategy they implemented has been a success? sound familiar? 

a week or so ago, i saw a piece on pbs, i think (apols, there is so much on this virus i might have the wrong source), on the very different strategies adopted by sweden and their neighbours, denmark. denmark was much stricter in the lockdown. sweden obviously much less so. 

the figures this morning (ignore the second line for both - world totals, obviously same for both) are below - 

if the top priority is the economy, then perhaps sweden took the right path. as you say, we'll know in a year. if the priority is the health of your citizens, then i'd say sweden is a massive fail. 

if you look at other scandinavian countries for comparison, it gets worse. sweden has a death rate five times that of norway and about 8 times that of finland. all this may look very different in two months but at the moment, any swedish government official claiming they got it right looks like an idiot. 

if you don't consider countries like the vatican, where a couple of cases give them a silly figure per capita, sweden sits around 7th in the world for deaths per capita. very hard to see that as getting it right. 

 

Country, Other	Total Cases	New Cases	Total Deaths	New Deaths	Total Recovered	Active Cases	Serious, Critical	Tot Cases/ 1M pop	Deaths/ 1M pop	Total Tests	Tests/ 1M pop
Denmark	7,384	+142	355	+9	4,141	2,888	84	1,275	61	94,277	16,277
Total:	2,404,234	+73,468	164,891	+4,844	624,713	1,614,630	54,225	308.4	21.2

  

Country, Other	Total Cases	New Cases	Total Deaths	New Deaths	Total Recovered	Active Cases	Serious, Critical	Tot Cases/ 1M pop	Deaths/ 1M pop	Total Tests	Tests/ 1M pop
Sweden	14,385	+563	1,540	+29	550	12,295	450	1,424	152	74,600	7,387
Total:	2,404,234	+73,468	164,891	+4,844	624,713	1,614,630	54,225	308.4	21.2

 

Massive fail to health if we do not take into account the inevitable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, and other death brought on by a massive recession, not to mention deaths from preventable diseases that we would have avoided if the healthcare system was not primarily looking at C-19 cases by do not comparing Sweden with other Scandinavian countries after a year or two.  

All the deaths everyone seems to keep on forgetting about.  

If we do count these possible discrepancies in certain types of deaths between countries, it could very well be the case that the death count in Sweden compared to others is a net 0, but Sweden will not have a total economic collapse.  

Like I said, we will see in a year if the Sweden path was a health failure, but we certainly cant tell now unless you are okay with ignoring those other types of deaths I list above.  

[Ken Gargett]

5 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

Massive fail to health if we do not take into account the inevitable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, and other death brought on by a massive recession, not to mention deaths from preventable diseases that we would have avoided if the healthcare system was not primarily looking at C-19 cases.  

All the deaths everyone seems to keep on forgetting about.  

If we do count these, it could very well be the case that the death count in Sweden compared to others is a net 0, but Sweden will not have a total economic collapse.  

Like I said, we will see in a year if Sweden path was a health failure, but we certainly cant tell now unless you are okay with ignoring those deaths I list above.  

i don't think anyone is forgetting those potential deaths (and it is seriously offensive to suggest that i or anyone is ignoring them) but we are talking deaths from this virus and stopping them, or as many as possible. hopefully, everything that is possible will be done to help those with further problems once this is under control. 

if you want to extrapolate, the lockdown has reduced car accidents and resulting deaths. should we factor in that sweden is likely to have a higher rate than its neighbours, increasing their overall rate? how far do we go? to do so is as ludicrous as suggesting that deaths will be a net 0. any evidence for that? i'm sure that those on all sides will be twisting the figures to try and suit their view, including those more concerned about their share portfolio than their fellow citizens, but that is about as extreme as i could imagine. 

we can see now that the swedish path has been a 'health failure'. we don't have to wait a year. 

[El Presidente]

7 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

Massive fail to health if we do not take into account the inevitable increase in suicides, drug overdoses, and other death brought on by a massive recession, not to mention deaths from preventable diseases that we would have avoided if the healthcare system was not primarily looking at C-19 cases.  

All the deaths everyone seems to keep on forgetting about.  

Common enough  argument which I understand.  Almost impossible to account for however until a full review is completed (year on year increase in suicides/overdoses for that period).  Unless we have those numbers, we have only  assumptions. The only real health numbers we have right now are CV-19 infections, hospitalisations and dead people. Those numbers are grim in many parts of the world. 

You would have to assume that governments will learn a lot when they review  the experience of all countries during this period.  Who did what when, what were the results, what is now considered best practice etc. 

It will help  determine what they do when/if they get hit by future waves. 

I find it hard to blame governments for whatever direction they have taken over the past 6 weeks. 

 

 

[Kitchen]

20 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i don't think anyone is forgetting those potential deaths (and it is seriously offensive to suggest that i or anyone is ignoring them) but we are talking deaths from this virus and stopping them, or as many as possible. hopefully, everything that is possible will be done to help those with further problems once this is under control. 

if you want to extrapolate, the lockdown has reduced car accidents and resulting deaths. should we factor in that sweden is likely to have a higher rate than its neighbours, increasing their overall rate? how far do we go? to do so is as ludicrous as suggesting that deaths will be a net 0. any evidence for that? i'm sure that those on all sides will be twisting the figures to try and suit their view, including those more concerned about their share portfolio than their fellow citizens, but that is about as extreme as i could imagine. 

we can see now that the swedish path has been a 'health failure'. we don't have to wait a year. 

No offense meant btw.  Given th  lack of evidence though, it is just not possible to tell if the Swedish path is a health failure.  It could turn out to be the most reasonable path.  

Given that all countries opening up are getting a 2nd wave, it may very well be the case that regardless if you have a lock down or nor, you will end up with the same number of dead. It is just not possible to wait a year or more for a vaccine with government footing the bill.  (If so, Venezuela would be a paradise.)  I cant speak for other countries, but the governor of NY keeps on saying there has not been a single death due to lack of care.  If this is true and if a 2nd wave is inevitable, then this could very have been all for not, but we just destroyed the economy.  

 

20 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Common enough  argument which I understand.  Almost impossible to account for however until a full review is completed (year on year increase in suicides/overdoses for that period).  Unless we have those numbers, we have only  assumptions. The only real health numbers we have right now are CV-19 infections, hospitalisations and dead people. Those numbers are grim in many parts of the world. 

You would have to assume that governments will learn a lot when they review  the experience of all countries during this period.  Who did what when, what were the results, what is now considered best practice etc. 

It will help  determine what they do when/if they get hit by future waves. 

I find it hard to blame governments for whatever direction they have taken over the past 6 weeks. 

 

 

I agree with the blame game being pointless, and think it is more of people giving into the hindsight fallacy to assign political blame based on their side.  

With that said, I feel you are giving too much credit to government, or at least much more then I would, to assess and learn especially if the true facts point to this being a worse idea that the Sweden path.  After all, that would invite a loosing election for them if they admitted it.  Everyone is about self-preservation when it comes down to it.  

[helix]

If everybody could remain properly quarantined for a month this virus would be done.

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, Kitchen said:

 If this is true and if a 2nd wave is inevitable, then this could very have been all for not, but we just destroyed the economy.  

You are a tough marker to blame the instrument of the people (government) for trying to save the very people who put them in there. 

 

 

[Kitchen]

14 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

You are a tough marker to blame the instrument of the people (government) for trying to save the very people who put them in there. 

Incompetence, it's found every where, even in government.  

BTW I assume those in government are using the best of intentions in this scenario, and will use the best of intentions when it comes to getting re-elected too.  ?

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, Kitchen said:

BTW I assume those in government are using the best of intentions in this scenario, and will use the best of intentions when it comes to getting re-elected too.  ?

One eye on saving the populace.....and the other eye on saving themselves 

You wouldn't expect anything less 

[Ken Gargett]

23 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

No offense meant btw.  Given th  lack of evidence though, it is just not possible to tell if the Swedish path is a health failure.  It could turn out to be the most reasonable path.  

Given that all countries opening up are getting a 2nd wave, it may very well be the case that regardless if you have a lock down or nor, you will end up with the same number of dead. It is just not possible to wait a year or more for a vaccine with government footing the bill.  (If so, Venezuela would be a paradise.)  I cant speak for other countries, but the governor of NY keeps on saying there has not been a single death due to lack of care.  If this is true and if a 2nd wave is inevitable, then this could very have been all for not, but we just destroyed the economy.  

 

I agree with the blame game being pointless, and think it is more of people giving into the hindsight fallacy to assign political blame based on their side.  

With that said, I feel you are giving too much credit to government, or at least much more then I would, to assess and learn especially if the true facts point to this being a worse idea that the Sweden path.  After all, that would invite a loosing election for them if they admitted it.  Everyone is about self-preservation when it comes down to it.  

we definitely agree on the 2nd wave. we are all hoping that the curve flattening and we are finally seeing light, but it may get worse again. i have mates down here who are convinced we avoided the worst of it with the lockdown; others who think we are yet to see anything here as we hard to winter. we will all be a lot wiser (and most of us a lot poorer, self included) in a year. 

[helix]

On a positive note the natural world is getting one hell of a break from us.

[El Presidente]

42 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

You say there is not enough evidence but then push the agenda that the three other neighboring countries made a better decision.  

Purely based on scorecard at this stage of the game.  

Come back at full time for the wrap up but what happens in the final half is supposition right now.

[El Presidente]

...and cut the US political crap