Covid-19 lockdown check-in

[Valmy]

"If airbags work so well why do we need seatbelts?

If seatbelts and airbags are so awesome why do we need brakes?"

"Since over a million are killed on roadways every year, we should shut them down."

But if we could make them permanently safer by shutting them down temporarily?

[alfred russel]

But if we could make them permanently safer by shutting them down temporarily?

If you did a vigorous cost/benefit analysis, inclusive of all the negatives created (such as economic impacts, the lost recreation opportunities of the general public, lost educational opportunities of children unable to get to school, health impacts -- mental and physical, as well as those unable to get to the hospital to receive care, cultural damage from people unable to gather and institutions unable to support themselves), and the benefits exceeded the costs, I'd be open to it.

[viper37]

and the benefits exceeded the costs, I'd be open to it.

but you don't know either because you are operating in the unknown.
One option is extremely risky and delivers a certain result: hospitals are overwhelmed.
The other option is less risky, delivers an uncertain result but let hospitals cope with it.

You disagree with the 2nd but agree to the 1st in the absence of evidence.  Yet, you are asking for absolute evidence for the 2nd.

[alfred russel]

and the benefits exceeded the costs, I'd be open to it.

but you don't know either because you are operating in the unknown.
One option is extremely risky and delivers a certain result: hospitals are overwhelmed.
The other option is less risky, delivers an uncertain result but let hospitals cope with it.

You disagree with the 2nd but agree to the 1st in the absence of evidence.  Yet, you are asking for absolute evidence for the 2nd.

I think the burden of proof should be on the side of the argument wanting to legally confine people to their homes.

In either case you can use best estimates.

I don't think it is at all clear that a shutdown was needed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed in most communities. Certain very urban locations with major outbreaks in the early days before much public awareness -- north italy and NYC - arguably had hospitals get overwhelmed. Areas like Stockholm never shutdown so severely and were never overwhelmed, and I think almost everywhere has reopened without hospitals getting overwhelmed.

[Sheilbh]

So my boiler's broken down and I have no hot water or heating. This has happened a few times with this flat

What's particularly annoying is that apparently all the home-owners (and none of the landlords ) have used their reduced costs from lockdown on getting new bathrooms fitted. So it is impossible to get any of the normal plumbers to do a half hour visit to me because it's just not worth their time.

I've managed to get someone who can do it in about a week - so here's hoping we have unseasonably warm weather 

[viper37]

I think the burden of proof should be on the side of the argument wanting to legally confine people to their homes.

There no proofs, only evidence based on statistical analysis, which happen to be only valid for the date you submit to your model.  As it turns out, we had flawed and inconsistant data the first time.  But we did not know that.  That explains why elementary and high schools remain open now, unlike what happenned this spring.  Besides, when the govt wanted to re-open schools in some places this spring, the medias and the population were dead set against it.  Not easy to do this.

In either case you can use best estimates.

Which is what most governments did.  Except for the US of course, which did nothing, and has the worst results of all occidental countries.

I don't think it is at all clear that a shutdown was needed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed in most communities.

We knew what happenned elsewhere with no confinement.  We also knew what happenned when they were confined: slightly less worst results.

It ain't perfect, but it was the least worst option on the table.

Certain very urban locations with major outbreaks in the early days before much public awareness -- north italy and NYC - arguably had hospitals get overwhelmed. Areas like Stockholm never shutdown so severely and were never overwhelmed, and I think almost everywhere has reopened without hospitals getting overwhelmed.

Stockholm did not need to shutdown because people stayed at home by themselves, and practice distanciation by themselves without the need for cohersive orders by their government.  And yet, they had 2x the number of deaths than their neighbours.

If you want to compare the US, you should compare with a country who has a dysfunctional health care system like yours, a country like Canada.  Sweden should be compared to other scandinavian countries, France should be compared to Italy, Spain, Germany and Austria.  They fared better than Italy and France, worst than Germany and Austria.  Apparently, the German healthcare system is highly decentralized and that allowed local health authorities to react quickly to what was going on in the field, rather than wait on a bloated bureaucracy to decide after multiple studies what it should do.

Quebec and France both are fans of an highly inefficient and bloated bureacracy and we both struggle through this crisis.

As to the US, I hardly think it can be qualified as a success.  Confinement early on would have prevented the spread of the disease, and contact tracing is essential to isolate the sick individuals when there's a superspreading event.  You lacked and still lack in both.

To avoid mandatory confinement, you'd need a population willing to obey directives by public health authorities like in Sweden and a population willing to isolate on its own to avoid spreading the disease. And even then, if you can't protect your vulnerable population, you suffer multiple casualties.

We all went into this like the Titanic speeding through a sea of icebergs but some of us decided to at least slow down a little, and we avoided the fatalaties you are experiencing.  I think it's evidence enough.

[alfred russel]

There no proofs, only evidence based on statistical analysis, which happen to be only valid for the date you submit to your model.  As it turns out, we had flawed and inconsistant data the first time.  But we did not know that.  That explains why elementary and high schools remain open now, unlike what happenned this spring.  Besides, when the govt wanted to re-open schools in some places this spring, the medias and the population were dead set against it.  Not easy to do this.

Bullshit.

There were extensive studies in mid March that showed the estimated fatality ratio is trivial for thus under 20 (less than 0.006%) and didn't get over 0.1% until reaching 40. The overall fatality rate in actual literature was known to be under 1%. The second waves was also anticipated if a lockdown approach was taken.

This was actually linked to on this website but you dumbasses were in full panic mode and assuming there was a 4% or greater fatality rate because our media outlets have gone full Tim on us.

[derspiess]

Yeah, the fatality rate panic did get a bit ridiculous.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Are there any economic costs associated with catching the disease, or is everyone either dead or perfectly fine?

[alfred russel]

Are there any economic costs associated with catching the disease

Of course there are.

[merithyn]

Yeah, the fatality rate panic did get a bit ridiculous.

I mean... look at Brazil. They did nothing, and their death rate is 7.5%. I'm glad the fatality rate panic got ridiculous. It probably saved lives.

[Maladict]

Are there any economic costs associated with catching the disease, or is everyone either dead or perfectly fine?

I believe most patients who were on a ventilator and survived have some level of permanent damage, usually around the heart.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, the fatality rate panic did get a bit ridiculous.

Yeah I mean I think it's always been estimate to be around 0.75%-1% infection fatality rate. There was a lot of talk about case fatality rate which seems to me a really useful metric unless everywhere is testing at a similar level - then it could tell you differences about treatment or healthcare or whatever. So I understand the CFR varied a lot between different hospitals here and that's probably super-relevant and iinteresting. But outside of that sort of context it's a useless stat.

Edit: Although thinking about it I'm not sure how IFR works either because presumably that's just on a sort of average age profile, but actually it may be higher in, say, Italy (who had a bad outbreak) or Japan (who didn't) because the population is higher. Similarly the IFR is likely to be lower in sub-Saharan Africa because they have a younger population - I've got a friend who works in South Sudan and the Ministry of Health is doing relatively well and there are lots of risk factors like multi-generation households, cramped conditions in refugee camps etc. But because they have far fewer people in the most at risk age group (70-75+) they are seeing far fewer bad cases or deaths. Which is good because I understand nationwide they have 20 ventilators

[merithyn]

I had dinner with my son and his fiancé last night. She was telling me this story about her uncle's family.

Last month, he, his wife, their two children, and his mother-in-law all decided to go on vacation to Los Angeles. (They live in Colorado Springs.) They flew there, had a "lovely" vacation, and then headed to the airport to fly home. At the airport, however, when he showed the desk his ID, the counter clerk typed in his name, and immediately went white in the face and hit some button on the counter. He asked why they were there, at the airport, and backed away slowly. Jeff, Jordyn's uncle, was perplexed, and than panicked when they were surrounded by a crowd of people in hazmat suits.

Jeff and his family (including their now terrified 5 and 7 year old children) were ushered to a quarantine room in the basement of the airport and left there. That's when Jeff's mother-in-law said, "I didn't think they meant it." He looked at her and asked what she meant.

Apparently, the day before they were meant to fly out of Colorado Springs, she found out that she'd tested positive for COVID through her regular testing at work. She told no one. While on vacation in LA, the CDC contacted her and asked why she'd left the state with a positive test. They informed her that they were halting all flights for her and her family, and they were to remain in place for 14 days. She completely disregarded this directive, continued on with the vacation, and didn't bother to tell her daughter or Jeff what had happened.

When they were finally released at the airport, they were told that the family was banned from flying for two years per the federal restrictions list, and that they were to remain in quarantine for 14 days. Jeff rented a car (entirely online and without seeing or speaking to anyone), drove the family home (letting the rental agency know that they were COVID-positive when he dropped the car off), and ushered the family into the home to quarantine for two weeks. He told his mother-in-law in no uncertain terms that she was not to go home, as her husband was severely immuno-compromised. She argued, he refused to relent, and even when his wife tried to argue, put his foot down, taking her keys.

The next morning, his mother-in-law was gone, his wife having given her the car keys. Two days later, when Jeff was asleep, his wife went out and taught a Yoga class to 10 students with their 7-year-old daughter, prior to receiving their own COVID results.

Jordyn said that he's right now considering divorce because of how stupid his wife is being/has been about this whole thing.

I don't know that I blame the man.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, the fatality rate panic did get a bit ridiculous.

I mean... look at Brazil. They did nothing, and their death rate is 7.5%. I'm glad the fatality rate panic got ridiculous. It probably saved lives.

What are you talking about?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

According to the data here, 0.072% of Brazilians have died, and the deaths per cases detected is .0295 - not 7.5%. They have also only conducted about 1/7th of the tests the US has despite having about 60% of the population--so they are probably missing more cases than we are and we are missing a bunch.

I don't see any reason to assume they have a fatality rate for those infected much different than we do, and the deaths as a percent of the population is almost identical to ours.

If doing nothing like Brazil results in no discernable advantage, why should we bother?