US COVID-19 Infection Rate Still not Peaked

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 2:21:19 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:56:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:19:23 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 23:24:45 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

<snip>

“whoever controls the people’s fears becomes master of their souls.”
-- Machiavelli


"Few great movements were created by appealing to peoples' reason."

- Larkin

How would John Larkin know? He sees people who throw reason at him as churning out tedious insults.

> >> Nobody wants to discuss that. They just yell "But people are dying!!!"

They do, but John Larkin doesn't find enough flattery in the discussion to pay any attention to it.

Panic is in fashion, hysteria's the rage, the moon is full; fear has
gone viral.

I never would have suspected that so many of my neighbors would be so
terrified. In the 1989 earthquake, they weren't.

An earthquake doesn't give you much time to get terrified, and the after-shocks are rarely bad enough to make it a useful response.

The public response to the Covid-19 epidemic looks more like realistic caution to me.

John Larkin claims to be physiologically incapable of feeling fear, and seems to have rather too poor a grasp of reality to be able to manage realistic caution, so he probably doesn't count as a reliable observer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:56:44 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 6:19:23 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 23:24:45 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

I don't find the flu question particularly interesting -- it's obvious
that everyone hiding will at least delay infections, possibly until
the next favorable propagation season.

But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.

Exactly. My question was and is, why don't we lock down for colds and
flu every winter? Or all the time for safety margin? Why did we pick
C19 to panic over? (Actually, I know why.)

“whoever controls the people’s fears becomes master of their souls.”
-- Machiavelli

Nobody wants to discuss that. They just yell "But people are dying!!!"

That's not actually the way people respond to John Larkin's ill-informed Pollyanna posts, but that's all John Larkin can be bothered to read.

Panic is in fashion, hysteria's the rage, the moon is full; fear has
gone viral.

Or so it seems to James Arthur, whose investments aren't going to pay him the sort of dividends he was hoping for.

Less bloody-mindedly avaricious commentators see the public response as ranging from not careful enough to reasonably careful, but they aren't as fixated on their dividends, and have a more responsible attitude to people ending up very sick or dead.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:38:52 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:27:35 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
My words, to which JL responded, are still above:

<snip>

But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu..

Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.

I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.

I get the flu vaccine every year because my doctor thinks that it is a good idea. I don't having flu when I do catch it, but I'm not yet of age when it is likely to kill me, so I really don't count as a "fearful" person.

It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally as to
influenza. The vast majority of people can expect to recover,
and our hospitals in the US aren't anywhere close to capacity
(with a few outlier exceptions).

New York State has now got to 13,368 infected people per million. On the international league table, only San Marino has done worse.

It's not surprising that it's hospitals have been overwhelmed. Until the US gets the epidemic under control there's no guarantee that other places won't go on to get the same level of infection. Like John Larkin, you seem to be incapable of understanding what exponential growth implies when you are in the middle of an epidemic.

The main difference seems to be
not the comparative virulence, but the disproportionate public
attention spent on one disease rather than the other.

You do seem to want to believe that.

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better. That's not just about
co-morbidities and age, but we don't know what it is. As it is, it's
like the boogie-man - it engenders extreme fear because it's unknown.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.

Monday's USC pre-prints haven't made it through peer-review yet. Their conclusions don't match Australia's contact tracing data, and the antibody test they rely isn't well-characterised or all that reliable.

It's hard to be excessively cautious about taking their results seriously. Even if you like what they are telling you - and you clearly do - it's bit early to take them seriously.

If anything, the lofty question of 'quarantine's flu-spread suppressing
efficacy' highlights the fact that we don't find it necessary to stop
the world and hide annually from the flu, despite flu being approximately
as deadly as China's Gift.

I believe your evaluation is wrong.

Well of course I could be wrong, it's a new virus and we're not fully
sure. I'm not against reasonable caution. But I don't think we need
unreasonable caution.

There are quire a few dead people who are no longer in a position to share your fatuous optimism.

I find the German and Californian serological studies -- three studies
in different parts of the world -- persuasive, consistent evidence
that a vast reservoir of silent cases for each and every officially
recorded case is highly likely. Which, naturally, totally changes
the case fatality rate.

It doesn't chance the number who have already died, which should be attention getting.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/germany-covid-19-antibody-testing-nationwide-2020-4?r=US&IR=T

doesn't suggest that the German serological testing has produced any results yet, so James Arthur is being a little misleading in suggesting that their results support the California pre-prints.

"Science surrounding antibody testing is still developing, too, and concerns have emerged around the tests being inaccurate, rushed, and improperly marketed. More than 100 organisations are selling such tests in the US, but the US Food and Drug Administration has only approved a few."

I find the immensely useful graphic from your government's Dept. of
Health to be reasonably good empirical confirmation that China's Gift
is opportunistic, killing mostly the elderly and infirm, just like flu.

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert

It is certainly more likely to kill you if you are elderly or infirm. but it is is much more likely to kill you than seasonal flu and it is killing appreciable numbers of younger, fitter people who would be most unlikely to die of seasonal flu.

James Arhtur is mis-representing his "evidence" with his usual enthusiasm.

Which is no cause for celebration, but it's another indication that
the general public need not be paralyzed with fear, that President
Xi Jinping's Wu-Ping cough is roughly as destructive as something we
already tolerate, manage, and live with every year.

That's not remotely true, and the suggestion that the general public is paralysed with fear isn't remotely accurate. James Arthur might prefer to see them out there working to generate income from his investments, but less bloodly-mindedly avaricious commentators don't see it that way.

I'm simply gob-smacked that all the terrified people don't understand
whole nations *can not* hunker down week after week, and still magically
expect food, machines, energy, etc.

Food and energy are still being produced in Australia, despite a lock-down (and some vigorous contact-tracing) which has reduced the new case per day rate by a factor ten in about a month.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

No amount of debt, or paper-printing
prevents that, or fixes the truly dire destruction. It's madness.

The madness is all James Arthur's. His rhetoric is entirely irresponsible exaggeration.

It seems likely to me that covid19
is much worse. The few places where it is not severe have sufficient
educational and health standards that folk quickly took steps to protect
themselves, regardless of any lock-down orders. I certainly did.


In addition, I think this experience will make a lot more people
maintain reduced flu risk in subsequent years, by learned hygiene
behaviour. In other words, a lot of people will "hide annually from the
flu" even if covid19 is not an ongoing risk.

I agree with that part. I, for one, hadn't realized that flu is as
lethal as it is. If the U.S. started testing pneumonia decedents (the
U.S.' 8th leading cause of death) for influenza the same way we're
attributing deaths to SARS-CoV2, our flu-deaths stat would soar.

But not to anything like Covid-19 levels.

"Gift" huh. That's the German word for "poison"...

Genau.

Of course the Chinese didn't create Covid-19. Their relaxed attitude to selling wild animals for food did give it more access to human victims than was wise, but zoonoses make the jump to human beings in lots of other environments.

One good thing that might come of this is that we'll know a lot more
about corona viruses, and might even be able to vaccinate against the
common cold as a result. That would be nice.

We might have got the same result out of SARS, if the epidemic - and the prospect pf paying customers - hadn't gone away quite as fast as it did.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:27:06 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:38 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.
Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.
I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.
It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally

There is a problem with (a) and (b) applying to this disease...

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.


The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly. That's an *immune*
dysfunction, which is also what kills in ebola. You simply don't get
that with the flu. There is a particular inflammatory marker that
indicates it's more likely...

The cytokine storm effect killed a lot of people quickly and violently
in 1818, and it was influenza.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/4/20 1:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:27:06 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:38 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.
Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.
I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.
It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally

There is a problem with (a) and (b) applying to this disease...

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.


The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly. That's an *immune*
dysfunction, which is also what kills in ebola. You simply don't get
that with the flu. There is a particular inflammatory marker that
indicates it's more likely...

The cytokine storm effect killed a lot of people quickly and violently
in 1818, and it was influenza.

Cytokines were unknown in 1918, and certainly unknown in 1818.
We don't know what precise biological effect killed people of the
Spanish Flu.

Inventing facts to suit yourself again, John?

CH

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 2:19:33 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:27:06 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:38 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.
Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.
I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.
It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally

There is a problem with (a) and (b) applying to this disease...

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.


The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly. That's an *immune*
dysfunction, which is also what kills in ebola. You simply don't get
that with the flu. There is a particular inflammatory marker that
indicates it's more likely...

The cytokine storm effect killed a lot of people quickly and violently
in 1818, and it was influenza.

Cytokines were unknown in 1918, and certainly unknown in 1818.
We don't know what precise biological effect killed people of the
Spanish Flu.

Inventing facts to suit yourself again, John?

We may not have known about cytokine storms in 1918, but the the doctors' case notes from the period were detailed enough to let other people make the diagnosis much later. The fact that the Spanish flu did kill young and relatively healthy people was surprising at the time, and a cytokine storm is a plausible explanation.

We have dug up victims bodies from graves in permafrost, so there may be more direct evidence around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:19:29 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:27:06 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:38 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.
Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.
I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.
It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally

There is a problem with (a) and (b) applying to this disease...

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.


The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly. That's an *immune*
dysfunction, which is also what kills in ebola. You simply don't get
that with the flu. There is a particular inflammatory marker that
indicates it's more likely...

The cytokine storm effect killed a lot of people quickly and violently
in 1818, and it was influenza.

Cytokines were unknown in 1918, and certainly unknown in 1818.
We don't know what precise biological effect killed people of the
Spanish Flu.

Inventing facts to suit yourself again, John?

CH

No, I googled cytokine storm 1918

and read some books.

You might try doing those things too.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Ricky C]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 10:27:13 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly.

I wanted to mention that when you talk about the virus progressing through most of the body, that's not really true. SARS-CoV-2 does not infect all cells types in the human body. It is a respiratory infection. I believe it attacks most epithelial cells which you also have in your gut, but this would not apply to the skin since that is covered by a thick layer of dead cells. As far as I've found the virus does not invade the bloodstream.

I was looking for information that would indicate how similar SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses might be. Seems the taxonomy is a bit odd. There is only one top level realm Riboviria which does not include all viruses, rather all "RNA viruses and viroids that replicate by means of RNA-dependent RNA polymerases."

Influenza is then in Phylum: Negarnaviricota, Class: Insthoviricetes, Order: Articulavirales while the coronaviruses are in Phylum: incertae sedis which means "of uncertain placement" or "we don't know what to do with this" and Order: Nidovirales. In other words, they seem to have influenza mapped out in taxonomy at least while coronaviruses are in a much grayer area. Not certain what that means. This may simply be a result of the way that viruses are at the extreme r end of the r/K selection spectrum. So they mutate very rapidly and explore all manner of niches in the chaotically viable Mandelbrot set of life without regard to our taxonomy.

What I was surprised at is the fact that they look so much alike! All along we've been told coronaviruses got their name from their shape and the spikes making them resemble a crown (at least in profile). Turns out while they may have similar morphology, otherwise they are not so similar with different proteins in the envelope. The real difference for taxonomy is in the RNA which is negative-sense single-stranded RNA for the Influenza viruses and positive-sense single-stranded RNA for the coronavirus. The negative sense RNA must be converted to positive sense before it can produce viral proteins in the infected cell.

So the bodies of the cars look a lot alike, but the engines are totally different.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[piglet]

On 23/04/2020 3:29 am, Clifford Heath wrote:

That's not what's happening in England. There, you can die of COVID, all
the doctors agree it's what killed you, it goes on your death
certificate... and you're still not included in the tally because you
didn't have a positive confirmed test.

That's just cooking the books, not science.

CH

That's not what I heard, UK Office of National Statistics count it if
Covid is merely mentioned on the death certificate even if not tested or
not the primary cause of death.

piglet

 

[David Brown]

On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient, it
is now becoming apparent that the death rate has been
grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for a number
of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week collating
death reports from outside hospitals - GP reluctance to put
covid on the death certificate unless that is unequivocally
the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause of
death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not the
immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human frailty,
etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their heart
stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of death.
If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they have
Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".

Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that sometimes
it is not.

There may also be the fact that GP's are humans too - and if
writing Covid-19 is going to bring in a great deal of extra work,
quarantines, requirements for masks that they don't have, etc.,
then it will be tempting to write "pneumonia" even if there is some
suspicion that it was Covid-19.

I don't follow. How does filling in that form "bring in"
anything??? I think the disease is here and widespread enough
everyone is already suiting up for medical work.

It was not always the case. I don't know about the US, but in some
countries the Covid-19 death numbers have been increased because of
older misclassified deaths. This is especially the case in old folks'
homes, where the cause of death (both real and recorded) is often little
more than "died of old age".

If you are talking about the issue of quarantining medical personnel
because of exposure, you would be negligent and exposing others by
not filling in the form appropriately.

Where are you again? How is your country doing in this battle?

Norway. We are doing fine (relatively speaking). We had quite high
numbers early on, mostly as a result of travellers coming back from
holidays in Italy and Austria. But we have few people infected, low "R"
(below 1 even in the worst hit city areas), low and decreasing numbers
in hospitals, and a low mortality rate since hospitals have not been
close to overloaded. The economy has suffered, with some sectors more
than others, but most are doing okay and we have a strong welfare state
to help people out.

And we have a political leadership that give consistent information
based on good medical advice, backed (for the most part) across the
spectrum of political parties, and trusted by the solid majority of the
populace - partly because they are happy to admit when they don't know
something.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:02 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:19:29 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:27:06 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 23/4/20 1:38 am, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/4/20 4:24 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
But we don't do that. We don't all hide every year, avoiding the flu.
Because (a) we expect to recover from it and (b) we expect to get
intensive care if we do get it badly and (c) we have a vaccine if we're
still worried enough about it.
I don't think those are the real reasons, mostly. Maybe c), for
fearful people.
It's still being quantified, but I see every empirical reason to
believe that (a) and (b) apply to WuFlu, roughly equally

There is a problem with (a) and (b) applying to this disease...

We need to know why 20% of hospital cases progress to the
intensive-care, and others just get better.

I agree that the main reason we're panicked over Chinese Red Death,
ISTM, is that up until Monday's USC report, it was largely unquantified
and unknown. Excessive caution was reasonable.


The problem is that unlike almost any other disease, it progresses
through most of the body without causing symptoms, but after that when
it goes to the lungs, it either dies out there and you recover, or
triggers a cytokine storm that kills you slowly. That's an *immune*
dysfunction, which is also what kills in ebola. You simply don't get
that with the flu. There is a particular inflammatory marker that
indicates it's more likely...

The cytokine storm effect killed a lot of people quickly and violently
in 1818, and it was influenza.

Cytokines were unknown in 1918, and certainly unknown in 1818.
We don't know what precise biological effect killed people of the
Spanish Flu.

Inventing facts to suit yourself again, John?

No, I googled cytokine storm 1918

and read some books.

You might try doing those things too.

But you abused Clifford Heath for blaming the Spanish Flu deaths on the cytokine storm effect - which was just as lethal back before they knew what to call it.

You may claim to read books, but you aren't great at understanding what they tell you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient, it
is now becoming apparent that the death rate has been
grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for a number
of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week collating
death reports from outside hospitals - GP reluctance to put
covid on the death certificate unless that is unequivocally
the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause of
death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not the
immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human frailty,
etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their heart
stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of death.
If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they have
Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".


Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that sometimes
it is not.

"Sometimes not" doesn't have much impact on the numbers though, does it? If someone didn't get sick enough to go to the hospital and dies in their bed I don't think it is so urgent to count them as a COVID death or not. If COVID killed them in that case they probably would have died the next time they got a cold too.

I read Trump recommended people get injections of Lysol! That will kill you for sure. Would that be a COVID death or a Lysol death or a Trump death? I say a Trump death if they die in Times Square.

There may also be the fact that GP's are humans too - and if
writing Covid-19 is going to bring in a great deal of extra work,
quarantines, requirements for masks that they don't have, etc.,
then it will be tempting to write "pneumonia" even if there is some
suspicion that it was Covid-19.

I don't follow. How does filling in that form "bring in"
anything??? I think the disease is here and widespread enough
everyone is already suiting up for medical work.


It was not always the case. I don't know about the US, but in some
countries the Covid-19 death numbers have been increased because of
older misclassified deaths. This is especially the case in old folks'
homes, where the cause of death (both real and recorded) is often little
more than "died of old age".

What does that have to do with your previous statement about filling in the form "a great deal of extra work", etc.?

If you are talking about the issue of quarantining medical personnel
because of exposure, you would be negligent and exposing others by
not filling in the form appropriately.

Where are you again? How is your country doing in this battle?


Norway. We are doing fine (relatively speaking).

Better than "fine" you seem to actually be getting rid of the thing unlike most of the world. Your new infection rates are the lowest they've been since before March 9. Not many countries can say that. Certainly not the US.. Our half lock down is just prolonging the infection. Out of 7,000+ cases you are only reporting 32 recoveries. Interesting. Any idea why? Are the requirements for reporting recoveries extremely difficult to meet?

We had quite high
numbers early on, mostly as a result of travellers coming back from
holidays in Italy and Austria. But we have few people infected, low "R"
(below 1 even in the worst hit city areas), low and decreasing numbers
in hospitals, and a low mortality rate since hospitals have not been
close to overloaded. The economy has suffered, with some sectors more
than others, but most are doing okay and we have a strong welfare state
to help people out.

I think this is a perfect case of why national healthcare is good. But those opposed will say it is a case of why we should NOT have national healthcare.

And we have a political leadership that give consistent information
based on good medical advice, backed (for the most part) across the
spectrum of political parties, and trusted by the solid majority of the
populace - partly because they are happy to admit when they don't know
something.

Sounds too good. You must be a plant. Did the CIA put you up to this??? ;-)

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/04/20 19:04, Ricky C wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient, it
is now becoming apparent that the death rate has been
grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for a number
of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week collating
death reports from outside hospitals - GP reluctance to put
covid on the death certificate unless that is unequivocally
the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause of
death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not the
immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human frailty,
etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their heart
stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of death.
If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they have
Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".


Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that sometimes
it is not.

"Sometimes not" doesn't have much impact on the numbers though, does it? If someone didn't get sick enough to go to the hospital and dies in their bed I don't think it is so urgent to count them as a COVID death or not. If COVID killed them in that case they probably would have died the next time they got a cold too.

Stop inventing presumptions; read, think and understand.

Someone who does think, understand, and understand what
they don't understand is David Spiegelhalter. See his blog,
particularly
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/covid-and-excess-deaths-in-the-week-ending-april-10th-20ca7d355ec4

I regret that you probably won't be able to read so many words,
but here are a few.... (Don't bother to ask questions or make
strawman arguments until you have read the article)


What is causing all these non-COVID excess deaths?

There are three broad categories, which I shall label A B C, that could be
contributing to excess deaths that did not get recognised as having COVID-19 as
a confirmed or suspected cause.

A. Highly vulnerable people, who had a mild infection, but which was sufficient
to lead to their death without any obvious symptoms of COVID-19.

B. Those in which some symptoms had been apparent, but the certifying doctor was
reluctant to put COVID-19 on the certificate without further evidence — few
patients outside hospital will have been tested, and new regulations mean the
certifying doctor does not have to have seen the patient recently. But there has
been recent encouragement to put ‘suspected COVID-19’ on the death certificate,
and this could have led to a reduction in the number in this category.

C. Deaths of people who have not been infected, but whose normal medical
treatment has been disrupted, for example by reluctance to attend hospital in
spite of illness that would normally warrant a referral or attendance at A&E.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:49:12 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 24/04/20 19:04, Ricky C wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient, it
is now becoming apparent that the death rate has been
grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for a number
of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week collating
death reports from outside hospitals - GP reluctance to put
covid on the death certificate unless that is unequivocally
the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause of
death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not the
immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human frailty,
etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their heart
stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of death.
If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they have
Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".


Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that sometimes
it is not.

"Sometimes not" doesn't have much impact on the numbers though, does it? If someone didn't get sick enough to go to the hospital and dies in their bed I don't think it is so urgent to count them as a COVID death or not. If COVID killed them in that case they probably would have died the next time they got a cold too.

<<< a bunch of Tom's blathering trimmed >>>

What is causing all these non-COVID excess deaths?

There are three broad categories, which I shall label A B C, that could be
contributing to excess deaths that did not get recognised as having COVID-19 as
a confirmed or suspected cause.

A. Highly vulnerable people, who had a mild infection, but which was sufficient
to lead to their death without any obvious symptoms of COVID-19.

B. Those in which some symptoms had been apparent, but the certifying doctor was
reluctant to put COVID-19 on the certificate without further evidence — few
patients outside hospital will have been tested, and new regulations mean the
certifying doctor does not have to have seen the patient recently. But there has
been recent encouragement to put ‘suspected COVID-19’ on the death certificate,
and this could have led to a reduction in the number in this category.

C. Deaths of people who have not been infected, but whose normal medical
treatment has been disrupted, for example by reluctance to attend hospital in
spite of illness that would normally warrant a referral or attendance at A&E.

You don't seem to make a point about any of this. The numbers of these three groups are not likely to be very large compared to the directly attributable deaths that are easy to count.

If a person is not symptomatic of a COVID-19 infection and died from that disease, they likely would have died from a slight breeze. It is hard for me to imagine someone dying of COVID-19 and it not being visible in any manner. Do you know of any such cases?

If someone dies of COVID-19 and the doctor can't figure out they had it without a test, then it sounds like it is more in the first category. The diagnosis of having the disease only takes a simple test. If the doctor was just to lazy to figure out what the death was from, then you have bigger problems than worrying about the COVID-19 numbers. In this country doctors are a bit more particular than just saying someone died because they stopped breathing.

The medical system being swamped by the needs of COVID-19 patients is real in a few locations. Deaths of non-COVID-19 patients are not counted as due to COVID-19 since they didn't actually die of that disease. But doctors perform triage for lifesaving treatments in short supply. COVID-19 patients appear to have a low chance of survival when they need extreme care such as ventilators. So any patient who has a higher chance of surviving will take precedence when competing for that resource. This again greatly reduces the numbers of deaths attributable to this competition.

Here is a relationship that is addressed by the article that you fail to mention. While there is an excess of non-COVID deaths in the care home and home, there is a deficiency in hospitals. The article even mentions that it is likely most of these people would have died in the hospitals had they been moved there. It also says there is a huge drop in total hospital admissions. This isn't really an issue of the disease. This is about an inappropriate response to the disease. There is no reason to deny healthcare to anyone if the resources are not overburdened.

So you have "categories" without numbers and the overall number is highly suspect.

Here is the part I find most informative...

"Conclusion

It is impossible from the currently available data to determine the reasons for the substantial spike in excess deaths that do not have COVID on the death certificate."

So I assume you dispute this part???


All in all your arguments are weak and not substantiated by the facts.

Your insults are pretty lame as well. You should give up on that idea.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:49:46 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:49:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/04/20 19:04, Ricky C wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:

<snip>

I wonder how many deaths have resulted from the lockdowns. People
aren't getting cancer or kidney or heart surgeries or tests.

Elective surgery is being deferred. Urgent surgery isn't. There will be people who would have survived if the hospital system were under less stress, but not all that many.

> Kids aren't getting vaccinated.

It isn't usually all that urgent. If lock-down is done properly, it doesn't to be done for long. If it isn't done properly it lets Covid-19 kill a lot more people directly than all the incidental problems put together.

> People are in desperate financial shape, drinking and fighting and maybe suicide.

In places where "socialism" isn't a dirty word, the administration can use short term welfare payments to tide people over. That's what's happening right now in Australia, There's more drinking going on here, but not a lot of fighting so far. There were worries that lock-down might provoke more domestic violence, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Some economists should have figured this out in advance. Why do we
have economists?

Mostly to tell rich people what they want to hear. Predicting unexpected pandemics isn't art of their job description.

> Cancer kills about 50K people a month in the USA.

Stupidity kills a whole lot more, and it's let Covid-19 kill about 50,000 in the US in the last month. Australia has had 3 deaths per million so far, and the US 157.

It would be nice if you thought before posting, but I'm beginning to doubt if you know how.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:49:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/04/20 19:04, Ricky C wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient, it
is now becoming apparent that the death rate has been
grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for a number
of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week collating
death reports from outside hospitals - GP reluctance to put
covid on the death certificate unless that is unequivocally
the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause of
death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not the
immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human frailty,
etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their heart
stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of death.
If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they have
Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".


Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that sometimes
it is not.

"Sometimes not" doesn't have much impact on the numbers though, does it? If someone didn't get sick enough to go to the hospital and dies in their bed I don't think it is so urgent to count them as a COVID death or not. If COVID killed them in that case they probably would have died the next time they got a cold too.

Stop inventing presumptions; read, think and understand.

Someone who does think, understand, and understand what
they don't understand is David Spiegelhalter. See his blog,
particularly
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/covid-and-excess-deaths-in-the-week-ending-april-10th-20ca7d355ec4

I regret that you probably won't be able to read so many words,
but here are a few.... (Don't bother to ask questions or make
strawman arguments until you have read the article)


What is causing all these non-COVID excess deaths?

There are three broad categories, which I shall label A B C, that could be
contributing to excess deaths that did not get recognised as having COVID-19 as
a confirmed or suspected cause.

A. Highly vulnerable people, who had a mild infection, but which was sufficient
to lead to their death without any obvious symptoms of COVID-19.

B. Those in which some symptoms had been apparent, but the certifying doctor was
reluctant to put COVID-19 on the certificate without further evidence — few
patients outside hospital will have been tested, and new regulations mean the
certifying doctor does not have to have seen the patient recently. But there has
been recent encouragement to put ‘suspected COVID-19’ on the death certificate,
and this could have led to a reduction in the number in this category.

C. Deaths of people who have not been infected, but whose normal medical
treatment has been disrupted, for example by reluctance to attend hospital in
spite of illness that would normally warrant a referral or attendance at A&E.

I wonder how many deaths have resulted from the lockdowns. People
aren't getting cancer or kidney or heart surgeries or tests. Kids
aren't getting vaccinated. People are in desperate financial shape,
drinking and fighting and maybe suicide.

Some economists should have figured this out in advance. Why do we
have economists?

Cancer kills about 50K people a month in the USA.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[David Brown]

On 24/04/2020 20:04, Ricky C wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 20:51, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:29:22 PM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 22/04/2020 19:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:46:58 PM UTC-4, Tom
Gardner wrote:
On 22/04/20 17:56, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 8:15:53 AM UTC-4, Tom
Gardner wrote:
As an example of how the stats in the UK are deficient,
it is now becoming apparent that the death rate has
been grossly under-reported (by a factor of *two*) for
a number of reasons.

Principal reasons are - delays of up to a week
collating death reports from outside hospitals - GP
reluctance to put covid on the death certificate unless
that is unequivocally the cause

Why would a GP be reluctant to report the proper cause
of death?

The key is, I'm told, in the second line: "unequivocal".

New disease, unfamiliar disease, ambiguous symptoms, not
the immediate cause but possibly an indirect cause, human
frailty, etc.

All those are transitory, of course.

So what do they report? That the person died because their
heart stopped beating or because they stopped breathing???

This doesn't make any sense.


It can be very difficult to determine the "real" cause of
death. If someone has a bad heart, and it gives out while they
have Covid-19, did they die of heart disease or Covid-19?

If they were on a respirator for a day or two I'd say it was the
COVID-19. Seems like what they call a "clue".


Sure, sometimes the answer is clear. All I am saying is that
sometimes it is not.

"Sometimes not" doesn't have much impact on the numbers though, does
it? If someone didn't get sick enough to go to the hospital and dies
in their bed I don't think it is so urgent to count them as a COVID
death or not. If COVID killed them in that case they probably would
have died the next time they got a cold too.

Half or more of Corona deaths are in old folks homes and other
non-hospital settings in most countries.

<https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52403772>

Look about half way down at the graphs showing excess deaths beyond the
average for the time of year. Twice as many people are dying in care
homes in England and Wales (Scotland's figures are, I believe, a bit
less). Only about 40% of the excess have been reported as "Covid-19
deaths". The other 60% of the excess is almost certainly /also/ due to
Covid-19.

I read Trump recommended people get injections of Lysol! That will
kill you for sure. Would that be a COVID death or a Lysol death or a
Trump death? I say a Trump death if they die in Times Square.

He also suggested shine ultraviolet or a "tremendous amount" of normal
light /inside/ people's bodies - and said this is something the medical
establishment should test and research.

Every time you think the man has said the stupidest thing possible, he
beats his own record.

Where are you again? How is your country doing in this battle?


Norway. We are doing fine (relatively speaking).

Better than "fine" you seem to actually be getting rid of the thing
unlike most of the world. Your new infection rates are the lowest
they've been since before March 9. Not many countries can say that.

Not only that, but we can say it with confidence - we have done a good
many tests. Not as many tests as we'd like, but many. And we have
recently developed a new test with reagents produced in Norway so that
we can increase capacity significantly. We are also one of the most
open countries in the world - when our government leaders and national
health institute give the numbers, we know they are as accurate as they
can be (and they are not afraid to say "I don't know" when they don't know).

Certainly not the US. Our half lock down is just prolonging the
infection. Out of 7,000+ cases you are only reporting 32 recoveries.
Interesting. Any idea why? Are the requirements for reporting
recoveries extremely difficult to meet?

I'm not sure - I can think of some of the reasons, but maybe not all.
You are right that it's difficult to be /sure/ that people have fully
recovered. But I think a lot of it is that people who have been tested
and found to have the virus, but have milder symptoms, self-isolate at
home. There hasn't been much follow-up of people who have contracted
the virus but not needed medical treatment (I think this is a weak point
in our handling of the virus). And for those that /do/ need medical
treatment and hospitalisation, it takes a long time to recover properly.

We had quite high numbers early on, mostly as a result of
travellers coming back from holidays in Italy and Austria. But we
have few people infected, low "R" (below 1 even in the worst hit
city areas), low and decreasing numbers in hospitals, and a low
mortality rate since hospitals have not been close to overloaded.
The economy has suffered, with some sectors more than others, but
most are doing okay and we have a strong welfare state to help
people out.

I think this is a perfect case of why national healthcare is good.
But those opposed will say it is a case of why we should NOT have
national healthcare.

And we have a political leadership that give consistent
information based on good medical advice, backed (for the most
part) across the spectrum of political parties, and trusted by the
solid majority of the populace - partly because they are happy to
admit when they don't know something.

Sounds too good. You must be a plant. Did the CIA put you up to
this??? ;-)

Social democracies like Norway work on the basis that the government
doesn't do much. The /state/ - the civil service and authorities - do a
lot. We have "big state", not "big government". But the prime purposes
of the government is to map out long-term directions, keep things
running smoothly, and help get things under control when there is a
crisis. If there is a change in government at an election, they
continue what the previous government was working on and /slowly/ move
towards their own preferred policies. The path of government in Norway
is one of smooth, slow curves and general agreement - we simply don't
have the kind of hatred and division that you see in the USA. (There
are occasional outliers everywhere, and the odd fanatic group or
individual, but they are a tiny minority.) That leads to greater trust.
And because we have a prime minister, not a president, the country is
run by a cabinet of ministers with a chairperson, rather than on the
whims of a particular individual.

So while I am not a fan of the current government, especially some of
their economic policies, I believe them and trust that they are honestly
trying to do what they think is best for the country. (Of course we
also have some politicians and political parties that have a greater
emphasis on picking policies they think will get them votes, but
fortunately they are not in the government at the moment.)

An interesting comparison is the UK. The British government is also run
by a prime minister rather than a president, but he has far more
political power than a Scandinavian prime minister. And the confidence
people have in the British government is at an all-time low as a result
of continued scandals and screw-ups, especially around Brexit. (To be
fair, there is no way it could ever have been anything /but/ a
screw-up.) In the UK, you have a prime minister who wants to be
president - in the USA, you have a president who wants to be King.

Even odder is that Scotland is still part of the UK, and under the
British government for many purposes, but has its own government with
devolved powers. The Scottish first minister is a much better leader,
and Scots mostly listen to her instead of Bojo the clown. The result is
that Scotland is doing far better in this crisis than England and Wales.
Not good, but not nearly as bad.

 

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:r83k1j$75o$1@dont-
email.me:

> Not good, but not nearly as bad.

Located a nice plot over time for many diseases, so folks can get an
idea of just how bad this one is and is going to be yet. And with the
timeline of growth shown, it should be clear to anyone with an IQ over
20 that we need to remain distant and out of closed space gatherings.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnQcbAKWkPE>

 

[David Brown]

On 25/04/2020 00:49, John Larkin wrote:

I wonder how many deaths have resulted from the lockdowns. People
aren't getting cancer or kidney or heart surgeries or tests. Kids
aren't getting vaccinated. People are in desperate financial shape,
drinking and fighting and maybe suicide.

Such extra deaths are also caused by Covid-19 - they are a result of the
pandemic, even if they were not infected. (And if there were no
lockdowns, the deaths due to Covid-19 infections would more than cover
that difference - and you'd /still/ have the financial disasters and
limits on other medical care because people would be sick or dead.)

Some economists should have figured this out in advance. Why do we
have economists?

Good question, but that's another topic.

Cancer kills about 50K people a month in the USA.

Places that are severely hit, such as London and New York, have at least
twice as many people dying as usual. Without a lockdown, that would be
the case in /every/ city.

Do you understand the basic concept of "cause and effect"? You seem to
think that because there is relatively little Corona in some places,
lockdown is not necessary there - in reality, it is because there are
lockdowns that there is relatively little Corona in those places.

 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:34:46 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 25/04/2020 00:49, John Larkin wrote:


I wonder how many deaths have resulted from the lockdowns. People
aren't getting cancer or kidney or heart surgeries or tests. Kids
aren't getting vaccinated. People are in desperate financial shape,
drinking and fighting and maybe suicide.

Such extra deaths are also caused by Covid-19 - they are a result of the
pandemic, even if they were not infected. (And if there were no
lockdowns, the deaths due to Covid-19 infections would more than cover
that difference - and you'd /still/ have the financial disasters and
limits on other medical care because people would be sick or dead.)


Some economists should have figured this out in advance. Why do we
have economists?


Good question, but that's another topic.

It's fundamental, hardly another topic when the world is being shaken
by public policy decisions. What do the lockdowns really cost, in
dollars and lives?

Cancer kills about 50K people a month in the USA.


Places that are severely hit, such as London and New York, have at least
twice as many people dying as usual. Without a lockdown, that would be
the case in /every/ city.

I don't understand that reasoning.

Do you understand the basic concept of "cause and effect"?

I understand how hard it is to quantify it, especially with very bad
data. And how hard it is to be fooled if you want to be fooled.

One could imagine that subways caused coronavirus infections, in NYC
and London. That one is probably true. There aren't many subways in
Wyoming.


You seem to

think that because there is relatively little Corona in some places,
lockdown is not necessary there - in reality, it is because there are
lockdowns that there is relatively little Corona in those places.

Places with low population density are already, naturally locked down.
North Dakota is not much like New York City.

Voluntary measures would be effective in most places, and wouldn't
destroy the economy or shut down empty hospitals. People are plenty
scared.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard