3 ms·

Since Sweden is acting as a control group we know that the lock downs have very little meaningful effect; if they do, they are certainly not worth the cost. So

by DiffEq 6y ago

Since Sweden is acting as a control group we know that the lock downs have very little meaningful effect; if they do, they are certainly not worth the cost. So we need to protect the most vulnerable by isolating them (the old and sick) and the rest of us need to get back to work. The total death toll will be whatever the total death toll will be at this point. Focusing on it doesn't help anything right now.

hyko 6y ago
I can’t stress this enough: Sweden is not acting as a control group. Every nation on Earth is restricting freedoms in some way, on a continuum, including Sweden. Even if Sweden is used in a future study, we wouldn’t know the cost benefit outcome of a lockdown for years anyway. A true control group would enact no policy changes and be a size and composition that matches the country you’re interested in.
- DiffEq 6y ago
  So...what you are saying is that we don't know if the lock down is working...so then, if science is our guide, why are we doing it? Also - no matter, who will die from this will die. Our hospitals are not overwhelmed so those needing help will get it. We should take our wallops up front instead of this way - it will be cheaper in the long run in every way (this includes preventing the depression related suicides that will inevitable come from a full on economic depression).
  - hyko 6y ago
    Why are we doing it? The same reason we don’t try to eat a year’s worth of meals in one day: we simply couldn’t handle it. The modelling and current experience indicate that hospitals would be overwhelmed relatively quickly. The only real argument against that is if natural herd immunity has already been achieved; seems unlikely at this stage, but we’ll know either way once credible seroprevalence studies are completed. A “lockdown” is a Fabian (or “rope-a-dope”) strategy: we avoid getting our assess kicked until the balance of power shifts in our favor, at which point we stage a massively devastating counterattack. In the context of COVID-19, that means safe and effective treatments, and/or universal vaccination. “Getting our wallops” upfront would likely involve a severe economic contraction, as millions of people are removed from economic activity by illness, death, and ultimately fear of the two. Even Sweden is projected to suffer a severe economic contraction, partly due to the global trading conditions and the openness of their economy, but also partly because fear of COVID-19 is sapping domestic demand.
    - DiffEq 6y ago
      You act as if risk is the same for all groups and we know for a fact that it is not. Covid-19 by in large kills the already sick and the old. They are the ones at risk and their death, though unfortunate, would not as a whole impact the economy in a negative way since most of them are currently not producing anything anyway. And waiting for a vaccine is ridiculous - there has not been a single Covid-19 vaccine ever developed; it is has been too hard to do. Maybe with all the current efforts there might be some breakthrough but relying on that nebulous hope in making our policy decisions seems foolish.
      - hyko 6y ago
        I’m afraid I have to disagree with all your points in the strongest possible terms :) The idea that “the sick and the old” would not as a whole impact the economy if they went missing because “most of them are not currently producing anything” is nonsense. The sick and the old are not some economically inert material that we can just dispense with; they are workers, business owners, investors, and consumers. Many people in good health are also laid low by the virus (either through a bad bout at home, a hospital stay, or death) for reasons we don’t yet understand. It’s not like the “young and healthy” portion of the economy would get through the pandemic free of impact. Waiting for a vaccine is not ridiculous, but nor does the entire strategy hinge upon it. Of course there’s no vaccine for COVID-19 yet because the disease only emerged at the end of 2019; that’s nothing to do with difficulty. The economic incentives for a safe and effective vaccine are now astronomical, and many candidates are now in development. We are also doing clinical trials for potential treatments that are already approved for medical use, so that could change the dynamics in our favour relatively quickly. The policy moves to keep r0 below 1 are a bridge to a better world; they are an entirely rational strategy if you care about people and the economy they create together. As for the claim that recessions cause an upturn in deaths, this is not supported by research of previous recessions. It sounds plausible, but it’s not true: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 There are many reasons for us to want to avoid recessions, but mortality is not one of them.
        6y ago
pinkfoot 6y ago
> So we need to protect … the old and sick … and the rest of us need to get back to work. Since you are quoting Sweden as a benchmark for wherever you may be, allow me to add another: in Africa (well South Africa at least) 40% of the fatalities are under 60. [1] https://corona-stats.mobi/en/ZA/national.php https://corona-stats.mobi/en/ZA/national.php

by DiffEq 6y ago

hyko 6y ago

I can’t stress this enough: Sweden is not acting as a control group. Every nation on Earth is restricting freedoms in some way, on a continuum, including Sweden. Even if Sweden is used in a future study, we wouldn’t know the cost benefit outcome of a lockdown for years anyway. A true control group would enact no policy changes and be a size and composition that matches the country you’re interested in.

DiffEq 6y ago
So...what you are saying is that we don't know if the lock down is working...so then, if science is our guide, why are we doing it? Also - no matter, who will die from this will die. Our hospitals are not overwhelmed so those needing help will get it. We should take our wallops up front instead of this way - it will be cheaper in the long run in every way (this includes preventing the depression related suicides that will inevitable come from a full on economic depression).
- hyko 6y ago
  Why are we doing it? The same reason we don’t try to eat a year’s worth of meals in one day: we simply couldn’t handle it. The modelling and current experience indicate that hospitals would be overwhelmed relatively quickly. The only real argument against that is if natural herd immunity has already been achieved; seems unlikely at this stage, but we’ll know either way once credible seroprevalence studies are completed. A “lockdown” is a Fabian (or “rope-a-dope”) strategy: we avoid getting our assess kicked until the balance of power shifts in our favor, at which point we stage a massively devastating counterattack. In the context of COVID-19, that means safe and effective treatments, and/or universal vaccination. “Getting our wallops” upfront would likely involve a severe economic contraction, as millions of people are removed from economic activity by illness, death, and ultimately fear of the two. Even Sweden is projected to suffer a severe economic contraction, partly due to the global trading conditions and the openness of their economy, but also partly because fear of COVID-19 is sapping domestic demand.
  - DiffEq 6y ago
    You act as if risk is the same for all groups and we know for a fact that it is not. Covid-19 by in large kills the already sick and the old. They are the ones at risk and their death, though unfortunate, would not as a whole impact the economy in a negative way since most of them are currently not producing anything anyway. And waiting for a vaccine is ridiculous - there has not been a single Covid-19 vaccine ever developed; it is has been too hard to do. Maybe with all the current efforts there might be some breakthrough but relying on that nebulous hope in making our policy decisions seems foolish.
    - hyko 6y ago
      I’m afraid I have to disagree with all your points in the strongest possible terms :) The idea that “the sick and the old” would not as a whole impact the economy if they went missing because “most of them are not currently producing anything” is nonsense. The sick and the old are not some economically inert material that we can just dispense with; they are workers, business owners, investors, and consumers. Many people in good health are also laid low by the virus (either through a bad bout at home, a hospital stay, or death) for reasons we don’t yet understand. It’s not like the “young and healthy” portion of the economy would get through the pandemic free of impact. Waiting for a vaccine is not ridiculous, but nor does the entire strategy hinge upon it. Of course there’s no vaccine for COVID-19 yet because the disease only emerged at the end of 2019; that’s nothing to do with difficulty. The economic incentives for a safe and effective vaccine are now astronomical, and many candidates are now in development. We are also doing clinical trials for potential treatments that are already approved for medical use, so that could change the dynamics in our favour relatively quickly. The policy moves to keep r0 below 1 are a bridge to a better world; they are an entirely rational strategy if you care about people and the economy they create together. As for the claim that recessions cause an upturn in deaths, this is not supported by research of previous recessions. It sounds plausible, but it’s not true: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 There are many reasons for us to want to avoid recessions, but mortality is not one of them.
      - 6y ago

pinkfoot 6y ago

> So we need to protect … the old and sick … and the rest of us need to get back to work. Since you are quoting Sweden as a benchmark for wherever you may be, allow me to add another: in Africa (well South Africa at least) 40% of the fatalities are under 60. [1] https://corona-stats.mobi/en/ZA/national.php https://corona-stats.mobi/en/ZA/national.php