Evidence please
just looked at the numbers for india, ouch.
and not their furlough payments vs predicted tax rises numbers.
Definitely. It’ll paid for by those who gained little benefit from the lockdowns. Those who did benefit won’t pay a thing.
Such is life. I, for one, have no problem with this.
Actually they’ll pay too through the taxes from their employment that was preserved through lockdown. Had they no work to return to things would have been still worse.
Through work I'm hearing some horrifying stories from India - really upsetting, and reminiscent of the accounts I has hearing from Doctors/Nurses in Northern Italy - and from accounts in Tukey/Egypt (I can't remember where) when a hospital ran out of oxygen a few months ago.
There are two covid death-rates: the one where the health care system is coping, and the one where it isn't. The UK have experienced the first of these - with about 130,000 dead at this point, and having a peak of about 1,250 deaths a day. The second one looks like what would happen if people in the UK who needed hospitalisation/ventilation/oxygen, didn't get it.
Thank god, this has been avoided in the UK - but most countries were sailing pretty close to their absolute maximum healthcare capacity. India's healthcare capacity is exceptionally low per capita about 1 bed per 1,900 people, compared to the UK's 1 per 400ish - meaning that the threshold for succumbing to the second, higher death rate, is much lower, and the "area under the curve" much greater.
The situation in India is going to get very much worse, very quickly. Can't believe that there are people bleating-on about not being able to go on holiday, and having their kid out of school for a few weeks.
Also: Lockdowns are not the reason for the socioeconomic impact of covid in the UK. The fact that lockdowns were necessary were. The question to ask is: "why were lockdowns necessary?" and "why were lockdowns of that length/severity necessary?".
Would you have accepted closed borders/mandatory quarantine - if it would mean that you didn't have to lockdown? I would.... In fact we have over here. I lost about 2k (gbp) on a cancelled Fiji holiday, but thats a small price to pay for not being in/out of quarantine, schools being shut etc.
It’ll paid for by those who gained little benefit from the lockdowns. Those who did benefit won’t pay a thing.
Plenty of my teenage sons friends have benefitted from furlough this last year. As have their parents who still have a roof over their heads. Among our social circle only a couple of "the young" have lost a grandparent to Covid, and I don't know any who would have sacrificed a relative in order to avoid a lockdown. And among our middle class circle, plenty of retirees will help pay some of it back if the government has the balls to raise taxes for those who can afford it.
I see and hear a lot of thoughts and attitudes projected on to "the young" by critics of the lockdowns on here that I don't actually hear from "the young" I speak to. Maybe "the young" are a bit more resilient than we give them credit for.
I'm fast becoming a batfink fanboi though, always well argued barely controlled rage.
Reports seem to indicate the actual death rates in India could be 10xhigher than official reports.
Healthcare access is intrinsically linked to money in India. Having spent lots of time there over the years it makes me shudder to think what is going on in those cities.
TiRed wrote:
For those who want to read it, the publication on transmission is here. Figure 2 is the moneyplot. Note that the x-axis is reversed. Very pleasing result for those in close contact in households.
Nice dataset! Nice results too, I mean, not entirely surprising but it's great to have it out there in a very open and digestible form.
I found it (pleasingly) surprising. If the vaccines not only give you a large degree of protection from illness, not only give you a large degree of protection from infection, but also protect those around you from infection if you do get infected… well, the message that you should be vaccinated to protect others not just yourself becomes that bit stronger. And with the trials for the Pfizer vaccine with school age teens going almost unbelievably well, we have the tools to be far more protected as a population going into next winter than I dared hope for. Really welcome news.
Just had a team meeting on Teams including a colleague who's situated just outside New Delhi. We asked him how he and his family was, and the emotion was clear to see. They are safe for the moment, but he said they are very scared to leave the house as the streets are crowded with people panicking for food and water, but also panicking for fear of infection.
He effectively said they are almost getting to a mental survival mode, pretty much juggling with the fact that going outside is a potential death sentence.
It must be awful.
Well said Batfink.
Our version of the Indian situation would have still been pretty ugly. Once you no longer have access to healthcare because your healthcare system is overwhelmed, people here are no different to those lying in the back of their cars outside the hospitals there.
And yet those arguing against lockdowns cannot see what we were trying to avoid, and the consequences of that, both in terms of lives, and the knock-on to the economy, which would have been worse. It's not an either/or situation.
A look at the likely curve in India and the implications for surrounding countries is horrifying stuff.
I see and hear a lot of thoughts and attitudes projected on to “the young” by critics of the lockdowns on here that I don’t actually hear from “the young” I speak to.
My two turned 18 earlier this year. They've lost their grandma during this, weren't even able to hug their granddad at the funeral. Obviously there has been little to no social life, their schooling is in tatters. And yet, they have accepted what needed to be done with little complaint, because they understand the likely alternative. I'm very proud of their resilience.
Surely the situation in India now puts a line under any bleating about Lockdown being "so unfair" doesn't it? Want to see what an unchecked pandemic would've looked like...well, here it is, live on your tellybox.
Surely the situation in India now puts a line under any bleating about Lockdown being “so unfair” doesn’t it? Want to see what an unchecked pandemic would’ve looked like…well, here it is, live on your tellybox.
you’d think so! But no - read the page previous to this one
I’m fast becoming a batfink fanboi though, always well argued barely controlled rage.
It’s long distance rage! We’d like to move “home” at some point - and so would rather the place wasn’t a smouldering **** ing wreck when we do!
you’d think so! But no – read the page previous to this one
I cant remember which of the proponents it was. But going by the OBR forecast for the future unemployment rate it worked out as 1 life sacrificed for 5 jobs saved.
A thought experiment. Herd immunity implies an R sufficiently low that infections continue to reduce until the epidemic fades out. A lower R is obtained by reducing contact or by reducing transmissibility (or both). Those who have been vaccinated appear to have a lower risk of transmitting the virus. The more of the population that are vaccinated, the lower R will be and the closer we are to herd immunity. If those who are vaccinated were encouraged to mix, so that the ratio of vaccinated people mixing is enhanced compared to the ratio in the general population, do we get to herd immunity sooner?
If the answer is yes, there are still some issues before suggesting it as a policy. Even those who are vaccinated are still at some risk of infection, and were vaccinated because they were most vulnerable to serious illness. So it would only be ethical if infection rates were low enough to make that risk reasonable. There might also be a social fairness aspect - "we vaccinated them because they were vulnerable but now they're getting more freedom then we are"
More issues? Daft idea?
If those who are vaccinated were encouraged to mix, so that the ratio of vaccinated people mixing is enhanced compared to the ratio in the general population, do we get to herd immunity sooner?
Daft idea?
Not so much daft, as logically flawed.
and I don’t know any who would have sacrificed a relative in order to avoid a lockdown
That's a rather emotional way of framing it but I see your point. OTOH we drive cars and implicitly choose to sacrifice ~2,000 people per year on UK roads for that privilege.
So a couple of orders of magnitude road deaths fewer than Covid deaths with confinements, masks, pubs shut, schools shut... .
Vaccination will result in an order of magnitude fewer deaths than road deaths.
And yet it's the same people minimising the risks of Covid itself who are anti-vax because of the risk. I didn't even try to explain to my anti-vax friend, there really wasn't anything to be gained.
we drive cars and implicitly choose to sacrifice ~2,000 people per year on UK roads for that privilege.
2000 a year is unacceptable to me, but its a bit different to the 120,000 a year we lost during Covid DESPITE lockdown and all the other restrictions.
If 2,000 lives is a sacrifice, then what would we have called the 200,000+ extra lives we'd likely have lost in the last year if we hadn't made intermittent use of lockdowns?
808 billion passenger kilometres per year, and it's not 2000 its 1750 deaths per year.
That is in no way comparable in scale to what has already happened with CV19
And theres some really significant efforts to reduce those deaths too.
So a couple of orders of magnitude road deaths fewer than Covid deaths with confinements, masks, pubs shut, schools shut… .
Vaccination will result in an order of magnitude fewer deaths than road deaths.
It's the principle I'm arguing: that we already choose to sacrifice many people to lead a 'normal' life. Not all driving-related deaths are due to accidents anyway. What about - more indirectly - cancers, respiratory illnesses, micro-plastics, etc?
Suddenly with covid it's all framed personally and emotionally as choosing to sacrifice an elderly relative!? That's a disconnect.
Suddenly with covid it’s all framed personally and emotionally as choosing to sacrifice an elderly relative!?
This is odd. When it comes to speeding on country roads, or dangerous driving, or passing too closely... anything that knowingly increases the risk of causing death to others on the roads... then yes, we will frame that personally and emotionally. Especially on this forum. You are in the wrong place to argue that people are just accepting of the risk of deaths on the roads, rather than seeking to reduce them.
Looking at excess deaths versus recorded Covid deaths it's clear that the methods of recording result in significaqnt under-recording almost everywhere with the possible exception of Germany. Many deaths in care homes during the first wave were'nt recorded as Covid deaths. People died without a test and weren't recorded as such (and still may be). The 28 day limit flies in the face of average times in French ICUs before death or discharge (In April 2020: there were 11 days average from contamination to entry in ICU and 25% of patients spending more than 28 days in ICU before death or discharge - treatments have improved to reduce survival and time in ICU I realise)).
Does TiRed have an up-to-date excess death graph with a total number for us?
Not so much daft, as logically flawed
OK, but please tell me what the flaw is?
@Edukator - I recall raising this as an issue last year. In the early days, when we had little experience/testing, we were asking GPs to make a judgement call on whether or not Covid was a contributory factor in death and, if so, to add it to the death certificate. So, some cases will have been missed, but also some cases will have been incorrectly added. Things should have improved as testing became available and as GPs became more aware of the symptoms and presentation. As you say, I think only the Excess Death statistics will give us a better picture.
Edit: Scottish figures.
Within 28 days - 7,654 "This is the number of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. This figure comes from ScotGov, and is released on a daily basis. It is the main figure referred to when people discuss deaths from the virus."
NRS Death Certificate - 10,078 "This is the number of people who have died with COVID-19 being mentioned on their death certificate as an underlying or contributory cause of death, even if no test was conducted. This figure comes from NRS, and is released on a weekly basis."
Excess Deaths - 8,017 "This is how many more deaths we've seen since March 16th 2020, (the week of the first coronavirus death in Scotland), from all causes, than we would have expected to see in a normal year during the same period."
OK, but please tell me what the flaw is?
You’re not decreasing contact with/for the unvaccinated.
we already choose to sacrifice many people
That’s incorrect. I don’t choose to sacrifice anyone to drive my car. I take many precautions to avoid anyone dying when I do. What you are talking about is an incidental outcome not a sacrificial choice which is a very different thing.
Herd immunity implies an R sufficiently low that infections continue to reduce until the epidemic fades out
There will not be herd immunity. Unfortunately, one cannot rule out the effects of waning immunity (natural and vaccine induced) and reinfections (already noted). Endemic seasonal transmission at low levels, with absence of significant morbidity and mortality is the likely outcome (like RSV). For those clinically vulnerable, some protection will therefore still be required on a continuous basis. Maintaining community protection will keep the levels of transmission low (but not zero).
Sorry 🙁
That’s a disconnect.
Because it's not the same. Normally, deaths (through accidents, illness, whatever) are largely linear, and our healthcare systems are not overwhelmed. Pandemics are different, because they're logarithmic; the scale of death keeps on increasing beyond a certain point at which healthcare just collapses. We "just about" managed this winter largely thanks to the lock-down.
Does TiRed have an up-to-date excess death graph with a total number for us?
Currently there is no excess mortality in UK. ONS now publish this information so I have chosen not to do so
That’s incorrect. I don’t choose to sacrifice anyone to drive my car. I take many precautions to avoid anyone dying when I do. What you are talking about is an incidental outcome not a sacrificial choice which is a very different thing.
You might not like to think about it but you do. Air pollution caused by road traffic is estimated to kill 5000 people a year in the UK. For air pollution overall that's somewhere around 30k deaths.
Well, that's why I always get the train into cities/towns, rather than drive, even if driving is more convenient. We all take measures, some voluntary, but some backed by laws, that are there to try and reduce deaths, including from air pollution. That's akin to what we've been doing during the pandemic. We haven't stopped our lives completely, we have had restrictions. Think of the low emissions zone in London... is it enough? No. Does it place restrictions on driving to try and save lives? Yes.
You’re not decreasing contact with/for the unvaccinated.
Thanks. As I see it, an unvaccinated person will have a reasonably fixed number of contacts, and the more of them who won't transmit infection, the better. If the number of contacts increases, I take your point. In pre-covid days, I don't think I met more people just because there were more around, I'd have the same number of passengers in my car, or people on a bike ride, or on public transport. But a more crowded pub would have more contacts. I think you're right, it's flawed. I'm actually having trouble thinking of examples, I'm so used to thinking in lockdown, minimise contact mode.
So far this year reported Covid deaths significantly exceed reported Excess Deaths.
Greybead, it's something the government are getting very right... they aren't encouraging vaccinated people to get out and mix more too early (even though arguably it is much safer for them to do so)... they are waiting for more people to be vaccinated first, and watching the levels of infection. They are doing 2021 right (well, apart from the initial one day of school in January). Perhaps if Johnson can be kept distracted they'll keep on getting this year right...
So far this year reported Covid deaths significantly exceed reported Excess Deaths.
Absolutely. But then that's all the "quick" deaths in the post xmas wave recorded. That doesn't discount that some people dying outside the 28 days are being missed. Not that it hugely matters... as long as the way of measuring the impact is kept broadly the same now, it is useful for monitoring what is happening with the UK part of the pandemic. And, currently, like all other metrics, it's going the right way for us.
That’s incorrect. I don’t choose to sacrifice anyone to drive my car. I take many precautions to avoid anyone dying when I do. What you are talking about is an incidental outcome not a sacrificial choice which is a very different thing.
By the same token, we don't choose to directly sacrifice anyone by not adhering to lockdown, the deaths are remote, indirect and statistical. Netherthlkess through, they are a consequence, just like the roughly 5,000 deaths per year from respiratory illnesses are a consequence of us all choosing to use motor vehicles.
If you are choosing to break rules/laws as regards driving that are aimed at saving lives, then that is analogous to "not adhering to lockdown". And you'd get much the same "personal" response on this forum.
That’s incorrect. I don’t choose to sacrifice anyone to drive my car
we as a population do. yes you could sell your car, cut up your licence and claim they are no longer your problem but as a nation the ability to travel in private motor vehicles, or to use the roads in general come with a risk.
Even if you never left your home, you assume your ocado delivery is not going to run over your neighbours kid. because 99.9999999% of the time, they wont. but probably, it will happen somewhere, some time. And everyone that relies on the road network to exist has to share that responsibility.
If we go on with the car analogy, since private motoring for the masses began in the 60s/70s, we've gone from hoping to be thrown clear through the windscreen as it meant you didn't get the steering column through your sternum, or die in the inevitible subsequent fire; to cars that brake themselves, have 25 airbags, etc. Rules and laws now mandate additional protections to the most vuneralble - child passengers and pedestrians.
So despite more cars, busier roads, and so on, the road deaths continue to decline, due to measures put in place by government and a general acceptance of (most) the population to follow reasonable guidance.
So despite more cars, busier roads, and so on, the road deaths continue to decline, due to measures put in place by government and a general acceptance of (most) the population to follow reasonable guidance.
As I said, there are many indirect deaths from driving due to respiratory illnesses, cancer, etc., plus the legacy of lead in petrol which is ongoing. This all adds up to several thousand deaths every year.
As I said, there are many indirect deaths from driving due to respiratory illnesses, cancer, etc., plus the legacy of lead in petrol which is ongoing. This all adds up to several thousand deaths every year.
Which are also better than they would be without rules on emissions and so on. No car manufacturer would voluntarily hinder themselves, rather they try to skirt the rules (ahem, VAG) to increase their profit.
With no rules or regs, we'd all be driving black smoking, 400hp cars with the safety standards of an austin allegro, with netflix streaming on the dashboard, while pissed.
I'm convinced. I was wrong. Because I drive a car we should never have had a lockdown, and I would have been fine with the predicted 400,000 deaths.
Not sure if thats for me, but I'm not saying that.
I'm saying lockdown and other measures = car safety.
We accept that the consequences of our actions result in some people dying, but there is some balance between saving absolutely everyone, and the practicalities of everyones continuing existence.
We could could go a bit further in either direction, and you'll find proponents of both. But some people cleverer than me; relying on research, not "feel"; have arrived at our current balance.
