Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

We just need a more balanced approach as we also need to survive the social and economic impact post-Coronavirus.

The failed experiment of COVID-19 lockdowns

I don't think the evidence coming out of the States supports what he is saying at times here. Putting words on paper doesn't make them true. They haven't had a second wave because they totally failed to stop the first one in pretty much every State and are now paying the price - their 'lockdown' simply didn't work and they came out of it way too early - overall cost will be higher long term than what a proper lockdown would have cost. Look at their economy right now - they have 4.2% of the worlds population but over 40% of the worlds covid infections and it is a shambles - a shrinking of over 5% in the last 3 months - why is that any better than tolerating a lockdown and working through the fallout from that, rather than a decimated economy and all the dead people to go with it - I'm glad we chose what they didn't have the courage to.

They have over 20% of the worlds deaths from covid so far - over 186,000 and over 1,000 yesterday. If you translate that to Australia based on our population that would have seen over 14,000 deaths here rather than the 663 so far - 20 times more - and that's far from over for them. I know which way I'd prefer to have this situation managed.

The USA is forging ahead with a pretty steady 40,000 cases and 1000+ deaths per day - you can't have a second wave until the first wave ends!. This is thanks to an almost total lack of competent leadership except on a local basis in a few places, and active undermining of any action by the Republican party and their fascist allies. And despite this, they are still managing a far worse economic and social outcome than those countries that did have an effective response, including a lockdown.

What people who want to put the economy first invariably fail to take into account is that as the body count mounts, most people stop spending. This has been repeatedly documented in past pandemics, at least as far back as the Plague of Justinian.

Some new stats out which appear ligitimate. While they are not great I think we can all take a moment for a big pat on the back for our health workers and everyone who has helped themselves by not only thinking ME ME ME.
We are much better than the death rates blow due to taking the hard steps to avoid 1000s more deaths. Well done all.


Coronavirus death rate may be as bad – or worse – than for Spanish flu pandemic

• Chinese and US researchers have come up with an estimate of 4.54 per cent using new data and modelling based on the initial outbreak in Wuhan
• That compares to estimates ranging from 1.61 to 1.98 per cent for the influenza virus over a century ago

Coronavirus death rate may be as bad – or worse – than for Spanish flu pandemic | South China Morning Post

Testing and followup programs have been overwhelmed in the US and the virus is basically out of control in some areas.

Sweden has had about 5800 deaths in 10 million people. Australia has had just over 600 deaths in 26 million. So I think it's clear Australia has done much better than Sweden.

Re. people who die having other conditions, that does not mean their death is not a true result of Covid. Covid finished them off. For example, I am recovering from a mild heart attack. If I got Covid now, it could kill me because my ability to fight it off has been reduced. That would be a Covid death, not a heart disease death.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The USA is forging ahead with a pretty steady 40,000 cases and 1000+ deaths per day - you can't have a second wave until the first wave ends!. This is thanks to an almost total lack of competent leadership except on a local basis in a few places, and active undermining of any action by the Republican party and their fascist allies. And despite this, they are still managing a far worse economic and social outcome than those countries that did have an effective response, including a lockdown.

What people who want to put the economy first invariably fail to take into account is that as the body count mounts, most people stop spending. This has been repeatedly documented in past pandemics, at least as far back as the Plague of Justinian.

A good point John. Seems to me the only persons who should be making a "living" these days are the Funeral Directors & associated trades & professions. Not a bad Guaranteed Customer base 1,000 a day. In my previous business, I certainly could not have handled that.

What needs to be managed carefully is the impact on mental health that the response is having, and this will be amplified due to the way social media now plays a bigger part in spreading the narrative.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

So let’s call it 1000 x 30 that’s 30,000. But with less restrictive measures like wearing of masks and practicing good hygiene and social distancing, it could be better without the social and economic impact.

So, at least 30,000 dead vs under 600? That's a pretty easy choice isn't it.

Economic impact?

Australia - lockdown, social distancing: ~ 600 deaths & (-)7% GDP

Japan - no lockdown, no social distancing: 1296 deaths (at least, probably wildly undercounted) & (-)7.8% GDP (27.5% annualised)

Sweden - no lockdown, little social distancing: 5,820 deaths (also a clear undercount) & (-)8.6% GDP


So .... Sweden's economy did worse than ours and had 10 times the deaths in raw numbers, and a death rate per million that is 21.5 times higher than ours (570.84 per million vs 26.53 per million for Australia - and ours has shot up due to the crisis in Victoria) or, if you like, 2,151% higher than ours.

Sweden really isn't an alternative model. If you suggested Germany, Taiwan or Hong Kong I might agree with you, but never Sweden.

The best that they can offer in defence of Sweden is that other countries in Europe either had more deaths or did worse economically.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

These results can be - and were - predicted pretty accurately back in February and March, simply by going back to the history of the "Spanish Flu". The places that took "a more balanced approach" as you are recommending ended up with a far higher death rate - and a far worse economic outcome. Those who forget or ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

Agreed, this turn of the thread is deja vu all over again.

As discussed about 600 pages ago the evidence from the Spanish Flu is that social distancing and other restrictions assisted the economies, not harmed them:

Spanish flu: How social distancing helped the economy in 1918 - Vox

What can the Spanish Flu teach us about the COVID-19 pandemic? | World Economic Forum