Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "UnHerd"
channel.
-
8
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
The numbers are deaths because of Co-Vid-19 per million residents. The countries with shutdown (handled in a cooordianated manner, not the half baked approach of U.K. and U.S.) fared better. The Swedish government seemed to be more competent. BUT: according to Dr. John Campbell, they do not even give simple treatments like oxygen to the people in care homes (which is low tech).
Doctors have allegedly resorted to prescribing a lot of "end of life cocktails" (with morphine - Dr. Campell says he gladly will use that in certain cases knowing it can end the life of a person faster, but if the person is going to die anyway soon it can help to relief anxiety and pain. BUT: he was incensed about the idea they would give that to older (maybe dement or not healthy) pesons who might have a fighting chance.
His words: I would not give a person in a certain state and age the full interventions like I would do with a young person, but I would certainly use oxygen, they should be able to handle that even in care homes. (orantibiotics for other diseases. Not even using low tech medicine borders on euthanasia).
He aslso said that they have fewer old people in the intense care units in Sweden (as share of the number of patients) than they had in 2019. considering old people are more sesceptible to being infected, tend to have the complications that would require a hospital stay, and get it with stronger symptoms, that does not rhyme
- except if they do not send the old people to the hospital / ICU and instead keep them in the care homes, and give them the morphine cocktail so they will not die a terrible death (which would also be very stressful for the staff and there would be more talk about it within the population).
Plus the staff in care homes did not always have protective equipment and some of them work in several homes (bad idea - better chances to spread the infection).
The Swedish approach seemed to be following a plan. But also not excuted consistently (no PPE in care homes ?)
Even though they had better conditions than France *, they are faring worse than France, Italy, their neighbour countries and most wealthy European countries.
* not a neighbour country of Italy, got hit LATER and not by surprise. Many single househoulds, a few larger cities - but nothing like the French cities, and the rest of Sweden is not densely populated.
Sweden also has less international travel and tourism at that time of the year than Italy or France (sightseeing in Paris, early spring in the warmer regions, stil winter tourism in the Alps, affluent skiers spread it from winter region in one nation to the next: Italy / Austria / France / Switzerland, ..... Plus business travellers).
2
-
Germany had a lax lockdwon compared to austria ?? Where does he get his information from - they handled it pretty much the same (except that Austria had a cluster and dragged their feet, and dragged their feet some more. Until they finally closed down that skiing region that had sent a lot of infected affluent people out to the wealthy regions of Europe. Their luck was that skiiers are often younger and healthy persons. So less dead people.
general lockdown in Austria was later, on march 15th, and they jUST reopened retail, restaurants following the next days. Germany had the same general timeline - people still cannot travel much between the nations (visiting relatives. for biz, if you have a home, ...)
Btw now they have smaller clusters in Germany and Austria (meat packing postal centers, interestingly in both cases gig workers were included, temps that are subcontracted an have less protection from being fired. - but of course NOW they have used the time to have the tests in place. 1000 tests done in a migrant center, all people tested in that postal center, all people normally working there are in quarantine, the army helps out with the letters and parcels.
It is quite infectious - they estimated that it has R0 of 3,5 it it runs it course (that is explosive growth) then 2,5 when the lockdown started (at that time big events were already cancelled, people wahsed hands, so some improvement), it took 3 weeks to bring it down to R0 (with a strict lockdown. people wee allowed to take a walk, but only with family (people that live in the same household nearby). Else it was social distancing.
Schools, universities, most shops, and childcare closed down (with offers for parents, that still worked, and had not one to help out).
In Italy and France they were stricter, you were not even allowed to take a walk, unless you did necessary shopping or went to work.
With all of that - Austria needed 3 weeks to get at R0 1 and from there another week to get a 0,63 - 0,68, stuck there - now there is a partial loosening - and R0 immediately went up (0,8 now).
A quite steep increase and a slow fade out (all under unprecedented measures).
that screams CONTAGIOUS.
2
-
+DanJ They do mass testing for instance in Iceland. I guess if it is easy, everywhere available and of course free you also "catch" many of the citizens that are: "Probably it's a cold, or I am just tired ...". - You have to nib it in the bud and with mass testing you have much better chances to contain it.
The damn virus started out being more infecious than the flu - was before, and since beginning of March a new mutation is around (even more infectious).
In Iceland only 1 % tested positive (I read that maybe 1 week ago), but of those 0,5 % had no symptoms (or not yet). Those tests look for the virus. - The antibody test may deliver a high number of false positives.
In other words: you eliminate some of the spreaders that have no clue that they are infectious. There is certainly a self selection going on in Iceland, participating in testing (if there are no symptoms) is voluntary and I guess most people that suspect it could, maybe ... and indeed have been infected are found that way.
Usually the symptoms should appear after approx. 5 days. So with testing anyone with even the mildest symptoms they find the few (1 %) where they have to chase the contacts. After 5 days people usually still remember where they have been.
With alerting those people, and testing them too, to be on the side of safety, clusters can be avoided.
And then there should be mass testing for the staff in care homes and hospitals.
2
-
No the epidemic did not "just" spike for a short time and than reach a plateau (my phrasing). In China they used the militiary to enforce a lockdown, in Italy they finally implemented a strict lockdown. And the example of Italy shook other European countries into action, late but then they did what experts had advised, but they did not like to do because of the economic implications.
Travel, schools, retail, was locked down in Europe.
That is NOT a NATURAL way of a an infectious disease running its course. These were unprecedented measures.
I have the numbers of Austria. estimated initial R0 3,5 (calculated by experts mind you).
2,5 at the time of the lockdown (March 15).
Took them 3 weeks to get at a R0 of ONE. And one more week to get a a R0 of 0,63 - 0,68. It stagnated at that level even though the UNPRECEDENTED measures continued to be applied.
It takes 5 days on average for symptoms to develop. There WERE enough tests, they were free and there are rules to get SICK LEAVE (with 100 % pay). In other words: in case a CoVid-19 infections was suspected it was being tested.
Now with the first measures to loosen lockdown they have a R0 of 0,8. Still good - there are clusters (postal centes, and meat packing in Germany). But NOW they have the testing capabilities to nib it in the bud.
And the virus is contagious enough that you have to watch it like a hawk. Nibbing it in the bud was not possible in early and mid March. They did not have the necessary testing capabilites then.
it is not like the Austrain government willingly took those measures. Actually the local (state) government of Tyrol (criminally) neglected to act in late Feburary, and early March. They had a cluster, and from that skiing region they spread it to the centers of europe, as wealthy tourists were allowed to return instead of being quarantined.
Hotels and bars were allowed to stay open, when Austrian law (for infectious diseases) would have dictated to close them (that has nothing to do with corona virus, could be any contagious disease).
Now there are criminal investigations. In order to protect the hospitality and tourism industry in that region and to "save" the end of the winter tourism season, state authorities and business people and mayors ignored safety laws regarding infectious diseases.
But at some point the example of Italy (a neighbour country to Austria, France, Switzerland, and quasi neighbour to Germany) hit home.
Italian hospitals (in the wealthy ! region of Italy) at breaking point ? They are discussing TRIAGE ? !
That is serious.
At some point - mid March or a week before - the European countries jumped into action (late, but they did).
Lockdown in China - enforced by the military - was one thing. It is far away. In former epidemics / pandemics Asian countries were hit harder, the information policy of the dictatorship was questionable, who knows what is really going on .....
But a neighbour country being (almost) brought to its knees - that was another thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Excellent outcomes: countries that were set up to do MASS TESTING, were serious about quarantine AND the population CAN afford that (because they have universal healthcare, get the testing for free, quarantine is either done in a hospital OR they have all sick leave and can afford to stay home.
Can afford to take the test. In the U.S. a young healthy person with no insurance can take the gamble. They cannot afford the doctor, they cannot afford the test and THEY are not likely to die of it even if it is not a cold but really the new corona virus infection.
Plus in 2019 under the "booming economy" Fed St. Louis did a survey: 40 % of the participants could not come up with the money for a 400 USD emergency (within a month), they would have to borrow !
so in the beginning a test cost a few thousand USD, and people could not afford to lose the wage (because no sick leave). THAT WILL lead to spreading.
Because a young person with no savings, no sick leave and no insurance (or more often an insurance that will only kick in when your yearly expenditures are over 5,000 or 10,000 USD - so in reality NO insurance that deserves that name) - has a STRONG INCENTIVE to take a gamble. They almost MUST. And they likely will survive it (if they are young and healthy). It is just bad for society (and if they are in the chain of spreading it WILL reach more vulnerable persons.
Each on their own. And why would a working poor care about the greater good of society ? Society has not cared for them in decades.
it took the U.S. VERY long to finally, finally declare that the tests will be free.
And still longer to declare that the corona virus related treatments will be for free and will be paid.
But you will go bankrupt if it is cancer or something else (that is not contagious and not a hassle for the rich of the country that canot completely protect themselves from THAT disease of the unwashed masses.
They could get a grip on the spreading (acutally they did one better they nibbed it in the bud, which is the only good scenario which you have if R0 is somewhat between 2 and 3,5 if you let it spread.
1
-
1
-
641,7 deaths per million residents in the UK, curve less steep - maybe there is a plateau possible in the next weeks
494,9 Sweden steadily rising curve (UK and Sweden have the steepest curve, closely followed by the U.S.)
441,4 France - high numbers but solid plateau, so harldy any new deaths since Mid May
366,7 US (I do not trust those numbers though), still rising graph, but the rise in Sweden is higher (but then I think the Swedish numbers are correct)
107,3 Germany
78 Austria
5,4 South Korea
The last three nations had a plateau for longer. numbers as per June 23, 2020 John Hopkins university, the Austrian numbers from an official Austrian site (they report to John Hopkins and get the numbers of other nations for comparsion).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDVG601 you get that wrong. France, Spain HAPPENED to be hit earlier / more severe than Sweden (one week behind can make all the difference in the trajectory if you use that time right), so that is why they had a "stricter" or at least an EARLIER lockdown. They felt compelled to. I would argue that the "strictness" compared among the European nations (except for Sweden) was only related to things that did not really make an impact :
Forbidding all outdoor activities if they were not absolutely necessary
and time (shutdown one week earlier)
As for strictness of rules: At some point the Italian government ordered that people were not even allowed to leave the home unless they had a very good reason to (only going to work, shopping for food and essentials, and walking your dog or getting medical services). THAT was a little over the top.
Well they were discussing TRIAGE (and sent out the letters with the criteria to hospitals - about whom to let die), the situation was desperate AND at that time there was less SCIENTIFIC insight HOW the damn virus spreads (no; it is not only droplets, also aerosols).
At some poinf of desperation they erred on the side of caution in Italy (and I think also in Spain and France). France and Italy (finally, belatedly !) got offers from Austria and Germany who took in some of their Co-Vid-19 patients.
Austria and Germany
both were shutting down schools and child care (but with provisions for parents who still work) - the kids missing out on 2 months regular school will not ruin them (they had online programs anyway).
March 12: in Germany shutdown can come (Merkel). Some STATES had already enacted that.
March 14th: Schools and childcare shut down in ALL 16 states of Germany.
Now May 19th, 20th, they plan the reopening. Same in Austria.
In hindsight: allowing people to take walks IF THEY ARE CAUTIOUS is a good thing, also for morale and it did not promote the spreading of the virus. Those aerosols are the most dangerous in closed rooms. As for the large droplets. usual hygience works outdoors as well as indoors. There keeping the distance (and washing your hands when you touched the door knobs etc helps)
In Austria people were allowed to jog, walk. BUT: social distancing rules (keep your distance) were and are mandatory OR only people from the same household could stick together. And no group gatherings !
U.K. had an idiotic strategy first - I do not think that their measures difffered MUCH from Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany ONCE they finally changed course. It was not more strict than in Germany, but since they allowed it to get out of control they had to battle with the high number of existing (spreading) cases.
The elderly in (underfunded) care homes paid the price (read: lower income and regular people, I am sure the private care homes for the affluent fared better).
Italy was the first unlucky country to be the warning example. you have to compare Sweden with Austria, Netherlands - or Denmark, Finland, Norway (you know the other Nordic countries).
Never mind Iceland, the A+ student. (they have some conditions that help them - but well done Iceland, well done).
All these countries were hit about the same time.
They are wealthy countries with well funded hospital systems.
Young adults not living with parents, young couples and their kids do not live in the SAME house with the grandparents. children are excellent spreaders and THEY CONNECT differnt age groups. (That is why closing the schools and child care makes a lot of sense).
They CAN afford to have their own place as young adults.
Interestingly also Greece did a good job to contain it.
1
-
@MorganHayes_Composer.Pianist Iceland too. BUT - they were later (Taiwan jumped into action on Dec. 31st, excellent job - but that wisdom came from being burned in former years, epidemics that never hit Europe or the U.S. much but severly harmed Asian countries) - Iceland had a chance to learn from italy, they had time to learn. For them was easier to listen to the scientists (experts not busybodies like levett) because they did not have to lock down their tourism (their tourists come later in the season, and they can let the fishing industry continue).
so doing the right and cautious thing did not come with such a high economic and societal price tag.
They have a population that holds government to account (the only nation so solve the banking crisis in the interest of the population AND to prosecute their banksters). They forced the government, that had looked the other way while their 3 banks run amock, to step down and voted in a new government - which settled affairs in the interest of citizens.
The other side of the medal: citizens are wiilling to COOPERATE with THEIR government - and government can ask for sacrifices while explaining their position.
It is impossible to get it right when you deal with a NEW infectious disease. If anything you want to err on the side of caution. The example of Italy did help, to explain that to the population.
The population is only 360,000 people, so that is a major difference, the culture in Iceland is different (you can leave your car unlocked at the parking lot at the airport).
It does help to be a remote island. Naturally they will have fewer visitors outside of the touristic season, so no harm if they impose restrictions.
For instance Trump resticted travel with China (good idea), BUT did not include people returning from China (via other countries) that had an U.S. passport. As if that would matter with a virus. And he was later advised to shut down traffic with Europe - but did not do that for economic reasons. (So Chinese tourists, students, business travellers brought it to Italy and THEN it could be imported to the U.S.).
So the travel restriction were more a hostile maneuvre (and signaling to his base, he wants the trade war with China to be an issue in the election messaging) - a strategy in the game he plays with China and not a WISE measure based on a consistent strategy to ensure the safety of the U.S. population. The Chinese travel ban did not go far enough, and was not applied to other nations later.
In Iceland they quarantined skiing tourists returning from an upscale Austrian region. Did not matter if the people entering the country were citizens or not. ALL were tested, they probably banned travel alltogether except returning citizens and residents. Tested positive = 14 days quarantine.
The negative tested were released into the wild. Maybe some mandatory repeated testing later. The stopped the infection at the airport.
Good job, a few of the returning skiers (end of February) tested positive. And they alerted the Austrian government. That notification is now part of a criminal investigation in Austria (gross negligence in dealing with and reporting an infectious disease.)
In Icealand they put everyone from (late) Feb into 14 days of quarantine if they entered the country and tested positive. And everyone was tested (which is easier to handle if you do not have a lot of business travellers, etc)
End of.
So they nibbed it in the bud. And THEN you can have a more relaxed approach regarding keeping all shops and restaurants open.
handwashing, keeping the distance, wearing masks and transparent shields, and no large gatherings allowed will suffice.
They test a LOT and also randomly. Only 1 % test positive but of those HALF have no symptoms (not at all, or not yet). It is not completely random: Citizens will self select and err on the side of caution (likely it is only a cold), but they get tested.
If someone they had contact with is positive, they all will show up. Because testing is easy, and of course free. hospital treatments and doctor visits are free (free at the point of service), and they have sick leave and do not live from paycheque to paycheque. so potentially infected persons have no reason to not get tested (hoping for the best).
if they catch the infected person (or many of them) early on, they can contain the spread, and people remember better where they were the last 3 days.
Also: likely it becomes MORE infectious as the infected person starts to show symptoms. So while people who do not (yet) have symptoms may spread it - they do not spread it as well and if the healthcare system finds them before their symptoms manifest .... all of that keeps the infection numbers under a certain threshold.
where they are able to CONTAIN it while keeping (most of) the businesses and the schools (partially) open.
I also assume that Iceland does not have a major club scene.
I guess the only thing they avoid are large gatherings. Think church, or sports events. But the impact on the economy of that is small.
As for school: you can keep the teenagers at home and have online learning. And you can have emergency supervision / school for smaller children if no adult can supervise them at home and monitor their online learning. Or other kind of homework that is communicated online.
Shutting down the schools and childcare can be done with little harm to the economy, if there are provisions for working parents.
Unlike the U.S. ALL of these wealthy European nations have quality, public, non-profit, low-cost childcare and good, free public schools everywhere. (with well paid teachers).
so they CAN build on that foundation to navigate the situation.
1
-
1
-
@hvmetalwarmonger178 that Hill article is interesting, thanks for the link - and has not aged well. it is from March 25th - 10 days after Austria, Germany went into lockdown (France, Spain was maybe a week earlier - max !, Switzerland likey the same they got quite a high number of cases from clusters in winter tourism regions. Italy in the middle of a catastrophe.
Mind you Italy is a neighbour country to most of these nations, the Germans have to drive through Austria to their vacations - so as good as.
So Levitt analysed the data of 78 countries that must have been mid March (if they have a reliable healthcare system and infrastructure, so the data is reliable - so not Iran or Syria, or many developing countries.
Most developed countries with reliable date have shut down their businesses, but typically not before early or mid March. So WHAT did he analyze ??
I can give you the data from Austria. Dragged their feet in mid / end February, did not want to end skiing season earlier (now criminal investigations going on). A touristic region in one state was shut off and quarantined. March 15th they finally shut down, before R0 was estimated to be 3,5. On March 15th 2,5 (that is exponential growth). It took them 3 weeks to get R0 to 1 - mind you with unprecedented measures.
Household members were allowed to be together in public places w/o social distancing. Small groups, one household. So unlike Italy (in the final stage) people could leave the house and take a walk w/o justification.
Most shops, restaurants, schools closed, teenagers had no school (but I think online progams were offered - the idea was that you can leave teenagers at home until the parents come home if they work outside the home)
Emergency programs for childcare and students under 14.
if their parents had not solution. Or "parental paid leave" if their community could not offer that. Which was the easier solution in rural areas with many stay at home mums. they shut down regular childcare alltogether. With that program one parent can stay at home if they cannot get help from a relative, grandparent, neighbour, alter the schedule. And they get at least 80 % of the wage. Germany just extended such a program.
Companies that could, organized working from home.
1
-
@filminginportland1654 the WHO (over decades !) has been pressured by the U.S. into supporting a certain view or cause. The U.S. is / was a major financier. (In theory the WHO should be independent, but the U.S. has always tried to politicize and USE these institutions, also the U.N., the weapons inspectors - more than any other nation.
The other wealthy nations (for the most part NATO allies of the U.S.) always let them - the alternative would be them contributing more to the budgets.
And they did not seek to establish themselves as superpower.
The Soviet Union / now Russia also had no interest to paying more or to leveraging the WHO (in their quest o establish themselves as superpower or now major player).
In the past China did not want to / could not afford that either. THAT has changed. Now they are more than willing to take on the role of the U.S. as financier and want to reap the benefits - being an influencer.
Recently the WHO has encountered hostility by the U.S. government - under Trump, but I am not so sure the Obama or Bush admin was keen on giving them the required funding either. The WHO budget is NOT high in the large scheme of things btw.
So NOW the WHO is playing nice with China - another potential BIG financier. (and they did regarding this epidemic no doubt about it). Trump stopping to finance the WHO only gives China even more room.
Go figure !
A recent example of U.S bullying the WHO (I think it was 2019 or maybe 2018):
The WHO wanted to recommend breast feeding in developing and emerging countries. The Trump admin forced them to give up that project.
Without a doubt a VERY sensible, science and data based, and helpful policy. In poorer countries being able to buy formula is often associated with giving your baby the best: feeding it, like they do it in the first world nations. Meanwhile the first world nations return to breastfeeding (and have official campaigns to encourage pregnant women - think Germany, Austria, ... - to plan for that. Unless the young mother has to work outside the home, but these countries also have paternal leave.
Breastfeeding is cheaper, it is more hygienic, and that can be a life saver for the infant, if the tap water quality is questionable (always assuming they have tap water), or the mothers are not well versed in hygiene (you have to boil the water and then patiently wait until it has cooled down. IF the waters is suited = not poisoned ONLY germs, parasite eggs etc, and then let it cool down.
True in some cases it would also be better if the mother would drink bottle water (chemicals can show up in the milk, although she acts as a "filter" to a degree).
Plus the hassle ! to keep the bottles very clean. Formula is expensive (compartively) but the rule is even in the moderate climate zone that you discard what the baby did not drink right away (if they are not that hungry). There is a tempation to use it later (that is a germ / infection disaster waiting to happen).
In these countries often temperature / humidtiy are high, so there will be more germs around and they multiply faster, than let's say in Sweden or Germany or A/C cooled households in the U.S. or Australia. Plus there are fewer germs in the water to begin with.
Breastfeeding boosts the immune system of the child, and is a protection against allergies.
Plus it is god for the jaw and teeth development, and there might be a helpful effect with sudden infant death.
It provides some protection from getting pregant soon. A mother must fully nurse (no other food added when the infant is 6 months or older) with only a few hours inbetween, and also during night to have the same protection as taking the pill.
In other words: toddlers of 1 year can survive without breastfeeding, but nature made sure, that the mother of a newborn/ a baby of only a few months could produce the milk and no new pregnancy would drain her reserves (even more) during that time. And that there would be some time between pregnancies and ending nursing during which her body could rebuild reserves.
Feeding the mother well (not necessarily meat, but eggs, or plenty of lentils, milk if that is possible, and fruit and veggies) is cheaper than buying formula and you get two for one (the money goes towards the nutrition of the mother, homegrown or locally produced - and not towards the likes of Nestlé for formula and bottled water. If they have a farm or garden they can produce food themselves.
Even only delaying new pregnancies can help (with redued fertility due to breastfeeding for 2 or 3 years), in countries that should try to control the numbers. And where birth control may be culturally not acceptable, not available, not affordable. (imagine condomes, but they were not stored properly and are less reliable because they were standing in the heat, or are too old, etc.)
The donors of the Republican party / the Trump campaign were against a campaign to promote breastfeeding.
The likes of Nestlé.
They sell baby formula and they sell bottled water. If the mothers know if it is safe to use tap water for the preparation of formula (not all even know about that trap or know their water quality) - they would buy bottled water.
The less obvious problem with tap water with many germs:
Cleaning the bottles, and even worse the sucking piece made from rubber and the plastic lid with the grooves (for screwing it on). There are ways to handle that but you have to use boiling hot water, the glass bottle might break (heat shock), it wears down the rubber, and the lid (usually plastic).
Then the damn thing is too hot to hold for a while.
With tap water in first world quality you give if a hot water wash, rinse, and let it sit on the counter rack to dry (the next problem in the tropics). Or you use a FRESH towel to dry bottle, the rubber / lid piece. Completely dry !
In a first world country with A/C or temperate climate you can let it sit and dry by itself, I am not so sure about India or poor African countries. Everything can land on it.
Breastfeeding: you pick up the child and are ready to go. No hassle. Also during night !
If you are picky: take a clean tissue, add a little bit of cooked water you prepared (in a clean glaass bottle) or you have bought water. Then you clean the area around the nipple and are ready to start.
Breastfeeding is MUCH easier in countries with a problematic germ / water situation. And much safer to protect the child from diarrhea (which can be very dangerous for an infant, even though the regular kind does not kill larger children and adults) - and other preventable diseases.
These multinationals do not care. the number of children go down in the rich countries and they cannot undermine the efforts to return to breastfeeding there - it would be a shitstorm. Like big tobacco they target now the poorer nations.
Sure they can try to exapnd in the prepared baby food market.
Methinks that market is easier to enter for smaller and local companies. Puree from apples, carrots, peaches, spinach, ... is a less tricky and less regulated market than baby formula for smaller infants. Plus you can sell that to adults as well as snack.
Think campers w/o fridge, or as lifestyle food (typically it can comply with organic standards).
Baby formula is dominated by a few large players (never mind brand names, only very few mulinationals dominate the food market they have bought up most competitors), and in the first world nations the market for formula is shrinking - and they cannot expand it with a new angle.
1
-
1
-
The reason to have an economy is not that the "economy is doing well" (whatever your metric for that claim may be).It is to produce, develop, distribute goods to the population, so they can live. With or without holding a job. People do not necessarily need a "job" - they need to have an income.
That rule (people need a job, we must "let" people work) does not apply to retired, to minors, young adults in higher education, to the spouses of affluent breadwinners, to trustfund babies, or people who live off capital gains (unearned income).
And there are a lot of jobs that produce dysfunction and do not produce anything of value.
Think the bureaucraZy in the U.S. healthcare insurance system. A lot of jobs are needed (in the current framework) to maximize profits. They do not produce better allocation of resources, better services for the insured, better condidtions for the providers.
Or big finance: most of what they produce is SPECULATION.
That needs jobs (well trained people being busy all day long) - but nothing worthwhile is being created.
Regular people need MONEY. An income.
And a healthy humans needs worthwhile occupation.
They do not need a boss to tell them what to do, so they know how to spend their time.
Most people can make use of their time in a meaningful manner, thank you very much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
If there is an underestimated number of asymptomatic cases, that means the virus is less deadly yes, but it also means the damn virus is more contagious even WHILE we implement unprecedented measures (lockdown, social distancing). The good thing in that scenario would be that we are closer to herd immunity. (always assuming that ONE infections provides some, temporary ? protection - that is also not sure and EXPERTS are just trying to figure out IF they can make that assumption. They certainly do not want to get THAT wrong. It is likely the case, but you want to be sure - else you risk a LOT of preventable deaths).
The bad thing in that scenario (it is more contagious and there are a LOT of harmless undetected infection cases):
the moment you reopen the economy and return to normal life, the infection WILL spread like a wildfire (like it did in the beginning before the countries started to shut down, see italy and China. the MILITARY locked down Wuhan. they had severe lockdown in Italy. It was too late, but at some point they meant business. and STILL it took a LOOOONG time for them to get a grip on the situation. Italy is just trying now Mid of May a loosening of the measures).
Even if the complication rates and mortality rates are smaller than we estimate NOW - Have enough people infected (40 - 70 % of the population) - and the hospitals WILL be overwhelmed.
And with the mass spreading there are even better chances it will mutate. A less contagious mutation will not prevail (so we are not going to be lucky). A more lethal mutation that is equally ! contagious or more than the current strain ....
The ideal scenario for a future mutation would be more contagious but also more harmless (complication and mortality rate), AND that it gives some kind of immunity against the former strain as well.
But it is not likely we will be that lucky.
Herd immunity is only working IF there is some immunity regarding re-infection, and that the protection lasts some time - ideally 6 months to one year at least. And that the protection lasts even as the virus mutates AGAIN:
1
-
If you let CoVid-19 (the current mutationa !) run its course there will be a CULLING - sure at some time it will STOP. - Even the Spanish Flu after some time ( 1,5 - 2 years) run its course. After a MASSIVE and GLOBAL CULLING (it hit the young not the eldery !).
If you are willing ! to accept those sacrifices ....
The good nobel prize laureate (in an unrelated field, chemistry) is already in a higher risk group. If he his lucky, his parents or other relatives are still alive (he is 73, they would be in their 80s and 90s).
Which ones would he sacrifice ?
(To be sure they are all likely to die in the next 10 - 20 years - but he could still have 10 - 20 fairly good years. Think Noam Chomsky, I just saw Jane Goodall in an interview, she is 86 years. Impressive.
A 80 year old relative still might do well for 5 - 10 years.
So can we adjust our HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE economic system to SUSTAIN our elederly - even is said system is somewhat stiffled right now ? The correct question is: we have made massive increases in productivity. WHY are
The innuit had a cultural "norm" - if they were on the brink of starvation (typcially in winter), the old ones sacrificed themselves. They left (voluntarily): these were very close, very SMALL groups, who was going to send out old Grandma or Grandpa ?
So they died of hypothermia (usually that was in winter, and those traumatic events did not happen often). I read that the customs was that their name could not be mentioned until the next child was born (maybe the child got the name of that relative who shouldered death so that the tribe might survive).
1
-
What is the point of having the richest, most technologically ADVANCED civilization in the history of mankind if WE have to sacrifice our elders because of a little adversitiy.- We did have a flu pandemic in 2009, estimates 700 million to 1,4 billion people were infected, but there was NO lockdown ?
Actually at that time I was blissfully unaware that this was more than the usual flu season, did not pay a lot of attention to the news then.
What is the difference between 2009 and 2020 ?
Cynically said: with the flu after 1 week you are usually on your way to getting better. Some (a few) people die (the elderly and those with existing conditions more), but if they do so, they die within short time and w/o a hassle.
Not many (compared to CoVid-19) land in the hospital, let alone need the ICU.
Or the way the disease plays out. After 1 week they START getting severe respiratory problems and THEN they land in the hospital / ICU for 2 - 3 weeks.
With the flu they either would be already dead (in rare cases) OR on the way to being better, while NOT putting a lot of strain on the healthcare system (one doctor visit, needing a few medical drugs maybe, and home care).
1
-
When calculating R0 (base reproduction number) they look at the CASE numbers - and those numbers increased while lockdown happened. More people were correctly identified as having CoVid-19, when before that might have passed as: "I had a cold" or "I had the influenza" - if they could get well at home but suffered a lot. (real influence manifests with severe symptoms, you really feel very bad it is nothing like a cold.).
meanwhile R0 which is variable, went down - because human behavior changed the contact numbers, infectious persons were better identified and their behavior and that of people around the infected changed also (quarantine).
R0 is ESTIMATED to be 2 - 3,5 when it is left to run it's course, and R0 of the Spanish Flu is estimated to have been in that area. By Experts. With that reproduction number, even some cases of complications will make heavy impact - if you have enough infected persons.
and co-Vid-19 (unlike the flu also in the pandemic 2009) puts MORE strain on the healthcare system. To be sure hospitals were full in 2009, but first world countries (not the U.K. with the intentionally defunded NHS) could cope well.
if a disease is not deadly in most cases - but just contagious enough - the mortality rates, long term health damage, and the overwhelming of the hospitals, will manifest anyway, it is just a matter of the LARGE NUMBERS.
1
-
641,7 UK curve less steep - maybe there is a plateau possible in the next weeks
494,9 Sweden steadily rising curve (UK and Sweden have the steepes curve, closely followed by the U.S.)
441,4 France - high numbers but solid plateau, so harldy any new deaths since Mid May
366,7 US (I do not trust those numbers though), still rising graph, but the rise in Sweden is higher (but then I think the Swedish numbers are correct)
107,3 Germany
78 Austria
5,4 South Korea
The last three had a plateau for longer.
1
-
The numbers are deaths because of Co-Vid-19 per million residents. The countries with shutdown (handled in a cooordianated manner, not the half baked approach of U.K. and U.S.) fared better. The Swedish government seemed to be more competent. BUT: according to Dr. John Campbell, they do not even give simple treatments like oxygen to the people in care homes (which is low tech), and they have less old people in the intense care units (as share of the number of patients) than they had in 2019.
Plus the staff in care homes did not always have protective equipment and they work in several homes (bad better chances to spread it).
The Swedish approach seemed to be following a plan. But also not excuted consistently (no PPE in care homes ?)
Even though they had better conditions than France (not a neighbour country of Italy, got hit LATER and not by surprise, many single househould, a few larger cities - but nothing like the French cities, and the rest is no densely populated) they are faring worse than France, Italy, their neighbour countries and most wealthy European countries. Sweden also has less international travel and tourism at that time of the year than Italy or France (sightseeing in Paris, commerce).
1
-
He is wrong, he brazenly makes claims outside the area of his expertise, gets basic facts wrong (no Austria and Germany did not have a different kind of lockdown). - there is an article in The Hill https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/489415-nobel-laureate-predicts-us-will-experience from March 25th.
To give perspective: shutdown Germany, Austria March 15, 16
France, Spain a few days earlier.
Mass deaths in UK care homes, they updated the numbers much later than the casualties happened (check out the graph), so he could not possibly have done the modelling for the U.K. right.
Nor could he have ANY significant reliable numbers to work with on or before March 25th.
Only mid March many nations felt compelled to do a shutdown (or a week earlier or later). Meaning if they had cases, they went under the radar, and of course it can take 5 days - or longer - for symptoms to manifest. And 1 week from then to land the person in the hospital.
Persons can be fairly sick at home for 1 week, with the flu you would be on your way to recovery after 1 week.
CoVid-19 can land you in the hospital then, when the infection reaches the lungs, you are getting worse not better.
Then 2 - 3 weeks in the ICU, then you slowly recover (still in hospital) or you die. But I saw a video of a nurse 30 - 40 years (very athletic, healthy, the type that eats well - all of that probably saved his life).
He was 4 weeks in an induced coma and on the ventilator. He lost 50 pounds. Was incredibly weak after he woke up. Could walk a short distance after 1 week (think going to the toilet and back - still in the hospital).
Levitt refers to the modelling in the Hill article of March 25th. In other words he crunched the numbers March 24 th or likely much earlier.
With WHAT reliable relevant data did he do the modelling to brazenly contradict the experts ???
The numbers in Austria and Germany for sure did not go down FAST.
Yes because of a fairly strict lockdown the INCREASE rates went down.
R0 was estimated to be 3,5, then estimated to be 2,5 on day of lockdown (by then wash your hands, no large events showed some effect) and it took 3 weeks to get it down to 1. R0 3,5 was estimated for the time when a whole touristic region (skiing) was under quarantine. so the reproduction rate of THAT mutation might be even higher, if you let it run its course.
And he could only work with numbers of first world countries (or emerging nations like Thailand with a relatively good healthcare system. Mexican numbers ?? - who says they are correct, that they do not massively undercount people dying at home).
he mentions 78 nations - that must include a lot of nations with a questionable record.
Most of the wealthy nations (and they better be democracies so they have it harder to massage the numbers) were not dealing with the pandemic before mid March 2020 (The exception: Taiwan, South Korea, Iceland, maybe Singapore. - plus Italy and China because they had to).
it is very likely that before that death and hospital cases were wrongly classified (pneumonia). Actually they are now looking at cases from January, and indeed there was a case in Paris in January already (proven).
The wide range of delay also does not help to get a realitistic picture when the pandemic just STARTS
Recovery 1- 2 weeks, but up to 6 weeks. Incubation time 5 days on average, but can be 14 days too. Asymptomatic cases, or very mild cases (more like a cold) to muddy the picture even more.
U.K. tried the Sweden route - for cheap, w/o the typical characteristics and after having defunded care homes and the NHS for over 10 years.
The elderly that are not affluent paid the price. There is a reason even BoJo felt forced to change course.
1
-
I agree with the hollowing out of the NHS. BUT: the lockdown also happened in nations with well funded systems - earlier, and these nations fared better ! - the yearly winter crisis is a thing in the NHS, if the Tories with help of a right wing rabid tabloid press can pull that off - they do not need the pandemic to cover up their intentional defunding of the NHS.
The U.K. btw spends significantly less per person than other comparable nations.
I know the numbers by heart - as comparsion with the overpriced U.S system.
U.S. spending per person in 2017 USD 10,260 per person (the average for every resident, even if if they are underinsured, go bankrupt over medical bills, do not need treatment that year, ... The number means: all that is spent in the country divided by all people).
The overwhelming majority of wealthy ! nations is in the range of 49 - 55 %. Germany for instance 56 %, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands 54 - 55 %.
Canada, Australia, Iceland, Japan, ... 49 - 50 %.
And then there is the U.K. with only 42 %. And of course most of the services in the U.K. are delivered by the NHS (especially the BIG stuff where you need expensive, longer care in hospitals). The 42 % indicate the severe and ongoing defunding of the NHS.
A first world nation can pull if off with 50 % of the U.S. spending if they are good (and have a younger population on average). 42 % is just not enough for first world medicine for a country with the age structure of the U.K. France has around 50 %, they scrape by.
The Tories have defunded the NHS for 10 years - and the NHS had a lean, but just sufficient budget to begin with. So they had no lard that could be eliminated to cope with reduced budgets.
(Reduced PER person. if a government lets a lot of people migrate into the country at least they must adjust the budgets of public services accordingly. The absolute budget numbers may not have been reduced that much, but you have to factor in inflation, and also that MORE people USE the services).
Interestingly May and BoJo promised better funding when elections were imminent.
You can thank Labour under Corbyn for that, they called a spade a spade and the right wing (nothing "conservative" about it) government felt compelled to throw a bone to the NHS and to placate the voters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am shocked by the level of wrong information, he won a Nobel Prize for crying out loud - related to works with "statistics". he claims that Austria had a more severe lockdwon than Germany - wrong. How does a SCIENTIST make claims that can easily be verified (hint: google translate, both nations have the policies online). He worked with the Chinese numbers from early of the year. HOW does he know these numbers are correct ?
Government cover up (they wouldn't advertise their death numbers if they want to hide it, and of course different LOCAL governments might have different approaches regarding honesty.
AND the difficulty to get the numbers right, especialy in a poor or more rural setting.
Garbage in, garbage out. The varying number of deaths in China (or for instance in Italy compared to Germany) can be explained. But for that you have to qualify the data and KNOW MORE about the very specific situations. Just take social customs: in Italy they hug and kiss each other.
Because of austerity many young people are forced to live with their parents.
Multigenerational housholds and hugs for greeting = terrible during the beginning of a pandemic especially if many cases are not obvious and there might be asymptomatic spreaders or people that mistake it for a cold or the flu. The same applies to Spain (multigenerational households, kissing when you meet). And in both countries the care homes for the eldery and the hospitals suffered from austerity. (they found abandoned elderly in care homes !)
Greece did surprisingly well, so it begs the question what they did right (or what lucky circumstances helped them).
You cannot find that by only crunching (limited !) data. Soft knowledge about cultural and economic factors have to be considered.
Germany and Austria are wealthier than Italy. so they have excellent healthcare systems and many more hospital and ICU beds per 1000 residents than Italy. Plus they just had luck, it was Italy that was hit first (they have more Chinese workers, students and visitors which was their bad luck, they all came back after the Chinese New Year festivities and imported the virus. Likely then some wealthy skiers from Northern Italy spread it to the upscale skiing regions of Switzerland, France, Austria
Initially they had a lot of cases in Switzerland (that was the skiing clusters).
It matters WHO was infected: Young skiing tourists in Austria ? - they helped spread it throughout the affluent ! regions of Europe, but THEY did not die, and the Austrians that got infected and returned home, had good chances to survive. Skiiers in those upscale destinations (which they were !), tend to be young to middle age, affluent and healthy.
The foreign tourists of late February may not even have reported their cases, if they could avoid it, because they could recover at home.
Especially since some / many did not drive home directly (as they had promised to authorities, with a signed document ! - when allowed to leave the already shut off regions of Tyrol). It is reported that some tourists just drove to the skiing areas that were not yet closed down (neglect of the government, the state Tyrol and the federal government of Austria, they did not want to end the skiing seasan prematurely).
OR:
Elderly farmers in China ? City folks in Wuhan ? The young people in China flock to the cities to work there, they often leave their children with the grandparents (children = good spreaders), the older the infected, the higher the mortality rate.
Add to that that likely in the rural setting, medical care is not as good, or people go 1 - 2 days later. I guess not every household in rural China has a car (they are poor), that they use mopeds for transportation, ambulance might cost or not easy to come by. So city folks might check in more easily . Which can make all the difference.
I saw a video of a widow in the U.S.: the late husband a healthy 30 year old male, checked into ER afer a few days (2 or 3) he was feeling very bad, but everyone expected he would have a bad week and then recover. They gave him some oxigeny and he was sent home (no bed for such a regular case, we can do nothing for you that you cannot have at home), the wife found him dead the next morning. He had died during night.
If they had kept him under watch in the hospital, if by some chance he would have been able to alarm the wife during night - he could be alive.
Hint: the hospital did not have the CAPACITY to keep him there for a night or two, just to err on the safe side.
1
-
Unprecedented measures like lockdown, closing schools, retail, restaurants .. he is not sure if that made a difference in flattening the curve ? Well, in Sweden they haven't flattened the curve so far. And in Italy they took the kind of "mild" approach in the beginning (they did not want to lock down, and when they did they shut down one region, so the citizens, especially the affluent left for Rome).
Well they had the letters sent to the hospitals and doctors whom they should let die and who would get treatment. It is possible that triage never was officially used, but they were 2 days to using it officially. At that point neither austria, nor Switzerland or Germany dared to take in patients (Germany and austria did later, and Germany also got patients from france). I guess at that time they did not fill up their hospital beds, not knowing WHAT the situation be like.
They got the less dramatic cases - so I guess they could have taken the risk to support a neighbour state. You can calculate that the less severe cases will be a certain time on the ventilator, so they should be in recovery or dead until you get the influx of domestic patients.
Not sure if they had the PPE for medical staff (full stations) available then, they dragged their feet to offer help when it was needed the most.
The death rates were higher than necessary in Italy because the hospitals were overwhelmed. And I guess some "inofficial triage" was already being practiced.
Triage is a strategy you use during war (with limited capacities - who gets a chance and who not).
let that sink in. And the most severly hit region was the wealthy region of Italy.
Triage in a first world country during peace time.
The countries that had another (relaxed or mild is not the right work, it is a quite discplined an decisive strategy, with less impact on the economy though) like South Korea or Iceland or Taiwan never let the infection spread, they kept infection numbers down right away ! (and made the companies produce testing and PPE).
and THEN they had mass testing in place and a strategy to track infections and spreaders. Not sure what they do with the children. Because you can organize online learning for teenagers and children where on adult is at home, and ermergency childcare / school for all others.
That is what they did in Austria. all pupils over 14 - no school. Under 14: the parents can keep them at home OR there were offers.
In Germany: parents get "corona childcare leave" and get paid (80 % or full, not sure about the extent of the compensation) they just extended that program.
In Sweden (or was it Iceland - I am almost sure Sweden) they have reduced school. Only 2 - 3 days
per week. Likely so that they can seat the children with more distance. I saw a video with a mother mentioning how much her children like school and that they are sad they can't go the full week. The girls were maybe 7 - 9 years old.
1
-
He also made a weird comment about R0: that metric is expected to change, it applies only for a population with no immunity, and ONE factor in the formula is the number of SOCIAL CONTACTS. (In Austria they especially and early on locked down the homes for the elderly, no visitors allowed except in few cases, now they do a cautious reopening.
If memory serves visitors were already discouraged before the federal government had a nation wide lockdown (which started in Austria on March 15, and about the same time, or 1 or 2 days later in Germany).
The care home set up rules indivicually and did not even wait for the government. They had the warning example of neighbour country Italy - and while the government still dragged their feet until the first decisive measures, they got that half way right).
R0 is also expected to change, if people change their behavior, like washing hands or keeping a distance, or wearing masks.
That metric was not invented for corona virus, and many infectious diseases have a much higher distribution number than even the high estimates of the novel corona virus. 3,5 (no measures) is pretty high, and plenty enough for it to spread like a wildfire - but that is nothing compared to measels (where we have a vaccine). Tuberculosis also beats it (but for that we have treatment). Ebola might be the same, but there you do not have asymptomatic spreaders. So the people that catch it are unlucky (much higher mortality and complication rate), but from a systemic standpoint: the can FIND the contacts.
so the number of social contacts were seriously reduced - of course you would expect infection numbers to go down. Slowly - again see the example of Austria or Germany, with a pretty severe lockdown. (people could leave the homes and did, but no gatherings of people that did not live together in households - not in the public sphere. Since people could leave the house (even without the excuse of the need to shop, walk the dog or going to work) there was no way to stop private meetings. I think by and large the population was reasonable. The police was called to some private parties. They had no legal grounds to bust them - but I guess usually the folks ended the event anyway when the police showed up at the doorstep.
The citizens are not standoffish with the police in Austria and Germany, it does not look good if the police visits you at home.
Most people consider themselves to be part of the middle class even if they only rent out a flat - so being an orderly citizen comes with the territory. You do not want the side glance because you are the one in the house or the neighbourhood that must have a party in that situation and it can't wait for 1 - 2 months !
Likewise the police does not shoot the citizens during traffick stops or interventions because of domestic violence, a quarrel among neighbours, or mental illness.
REDUCED SOCIAL CONTACTS
(children as excellent asymptomatic spreaders stay home, people shop much less, those who can work from home, or stay home because their employer shop, restaurant is closed). You could see it with traffic in the cities, that obviously fewer people were around (even when folks were allowed to leave the home, for instance for talking a walk. or taking a drive to a relative, which was not forbidden, but it was discouraged).
R0 factors in how many persons one infected person on average infects WHILE they are infectious. That depends on the nature of the virus (as long as the damn thing does not mutate, of course the more infectious strain will prevail - if we would be very lucky such a strain would replace the other, give at least some immunity AND have lower death and complication numbers.
Then we would get herd immunity for cheap so to speak: BUT no responsible EXPERT can bet on that lucky coincidence. (the damn thing could as easily be more lethal ! - or then infect the younger population).
And SARS-CoV-2 did mutatate and become more infectious, likely most people that had symptoms got that strain, it is around since the beginning of March. With mass infections (due to global spread) the chance there will be mutations is of course higher.
In the beginning even the experts (so not Levitt) had to estimate the numbers they put into the models.
(Numbers of China: Garbage in, garbage out. Not only if you even trust the government, and if that government has a chance to get the numbers right (people dying on their farms w/o ever going to the hospital. The relatives may avoid to report those deaths, and just handle the half quarantine on their own. MANY have died in the UK in care homes, and much later those numbers were added to the statistics (you see the spike in the graphs). Many have died at home, alone in Spain and Italy.
How infectious is it per se (capacity of the virus) and for how long, the number of asymptomatic spreaders, does that differ for age groups (so children sneak it in, because they tend to not even get sick, but the bring the virus home to parents, grandparents, and spread it to the teachers and shops), how long infectious on average.
The number of days of being an asymptomatic spreader (and how many such spreaders there are) are especially important (that helps the virus spread unnoticed).
NO ONE KNEW that for sure, in the beginning.Nor did they know how much wriggle room they would have before hospitals would be overwhelmed - if they did not nib it in the bud.
What they did know was, that neither China and Italy wanted to take extreme measures, AND that the virus - unlike many others since 1997 (there have been many warning shots, but before we always dodged the bullet) - started to spread globally. Even when some measures (like travel restrictions, or people urged to wash the hands) were imposed.
1
-
1