6 ms·

>Elimination strategy works If the strategy is 'everybody stay at home' then it work in the same way shot gun works in eliminating cancer. It works but the cur

by matz1 6y ago

>Elimination strategy works If the strategy is 'everybody stay at home' then it work in the same way shot gun works in eliminating cancer. It works but the cure is worse than the disease.

lostlogin 6y ago
It’s normal here in NZ and with the exception of borders, restrictions were removed a fair while ago. The economy is considerably better off than most expected too. https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/123696832/gdp-jump-of-14-per-cent-completes-nzs-vshaped-recovery https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/123696832/gdp-jump-of-14-per-...
- matz1 6y ago
  Didn't nz had strict lockdown? Also from the article: However, Stats NZ national accounts manager Paul Pascoe said the effects of Covid-19 on different industries had varied “and for some industries these may persist for some time”. The rebound was not enough to make up for the lost activity during the lockdown period, with GDP in the 12 months ended on September 30 down 2.2 per cent on the prior year.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > Didn't nz had strict lockdown? Yes, and more than one. Community transmission was eliminated several times. The point is to compare the strategy to others.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      The entire country only locked down once, starting March, reducing to milder conditions in April and totally ending (going to "Alert Level 1" which isn't the same as before COVID but it's pretty much normality in everyday life) on June 9th. But Auckland (their biggest city), locked back down after another cluster of unknown origin was detected, perhaps related to an import business, for several weeks from August, and the rest of the country was at "Alert Level 2" in that period until the first week of October. Subsequent small outbreaks have not triggered a lockdown because their government remained confident it understood the scope of the infection although one leak got close, they asked people not to travel into central Auckland for a day or two at one point and sealed off a residential building while they tested everybody who lives there. They anticipate continuing to have occasional small outbreaks detected, e.g. a border worker gets infected, infects a family member before a test spots it - and their plans assume they will either quickly achieve confidence they've contained the outbreak or they'll lock a region or if necessary the entire country back down to eliminate. For example at a press conference the press basically wanted to know if the government was imagining people should prepare to pay for an extra week's accommodation on vacation in case they can't return home (obviously unaffordable to many families) but the government seemed to be more thinking about if you've left a week's cat food and instructions for a neighbour, do you have a way to tell them they need to feed your cat for an extra week? So, personal anxieties rather than population scale ones, the government can pick up a hotel bill but it can't bring your pets back to life.
  - andylynch 6y ago
    I am certain GDP has been nobody’s primary concern in NZ during this time, but -2.2 % is not bad considering how international NZ’s economy is. For comparison, UK is at -9.6 for the same period US -2.9 with a far higher human cost.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      There are many who argue against lockdowns, but I haven’t yet seen an argument for that approach with an example of how it could look (for death toll and the economy). Has any country managed both those things without a lockdown? A hand waving “that approach could never work in X country because it’s so different there” seems the standard response to any strategy that has been proven to work.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Sweeden is one example, the death toll is still manageable and the life is pretty much still normal. Not a country: florida, it is one of the state in the usa that has the least covid related restriction. They are doing very well. Went there myself to visit recently. Its not hard to see why lockdown is not worth it. According to cdc, covid has very very low ifr : 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
        lostlogin 6y ago
        It gets real dark real fast. The Post link suggests that their approach has worked, as long as you value a human life at no more than $1.1m. They are approaching 8k deaths and their approach is suggested to have added 5k to that. “ Assume that the differential Swedish approach dampens the GDP fall this year by 1 percentage point. This represents a gain of approximately $5.6 billion. Also suppose that the approach has caused 5,000 extra deaths — a reasonable guess from comparisons with other Nordic countries. How could one estimate that loss of life in economic terms? The value of a statistical life, used by the Swedish Transport Administration in its cost-benefit analyses of investment in traffic security, is approximately $4.6 million. Using this number, the economic cost of lost lives would be as high as $22.9 billion — clearly outweighing the benefits from the smaller GDP fall. One might argue that the value of lost lives should be set much lower, as the vast majority of deaths have been among elderly people, with fewer years left to enjoy life: 89 percent of the dead in Sweden have been above 70 years of age, and 67 percent above 80. One reaches the break-even point in my calculation if one lowers the value of an average life lost to $1.12 million. For the Swedish approach to be “profitable,” the average life lost must be valued lower than that.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-economy-pandemic-strategy https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-eco... https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
  - nullsense 6y ago
    Just last night on the news they announced we were actually out of recession. The bounce back has been pretty good. Tourism is still fairly impacted. Most everything else feels pretty normal. The lockdowns were worth it IMO. Especially now we see it ravaging the rest of the world becoming more and more severe. That just feels totally foreign to me since we only experienced a very mild outbreak initially, followed by a tiny one a bit later on. NZ is a good place to be.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I disagree but I still respect your choice, at very least you acknowledge that in the end lockdown or not lockdown is subjective preference.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        Can you explain your preference for no-lockdown? NZ is covid free, the economy is rebounding fast and we have had very few deaths and (relative to others) short lockdowns. Unemployment is considerably less than expected. Christmas is shaping up to be normal. The results in NZ are only subjective if you pull some elaborate contortions, NZ has done well.
        matz1 6y ago
        Few months lockdown is not short at all. Even then they still not allowing international visitor. My preference is simply based on cost/benefit analysis. I'm not opposed of covid free at all, as long as whatever method you choose doesn't cause problem that outweight the risk. Here is some example that is not a lockdown: Increasing health care capacity Developing better treatment Use more accurate test Sweeden, florida has done very well too without lockdown. Although there is still possibility that their politician succumb to pressure and enact lockdown in the future. Downside of lockdown: unemployment, bankruptcy, mental health issue, delayed treatment of other illness, kids can't attend in person school, etc. You can say that all of these is not big deal. I still respect you while I disagree with you, after all its subjective preference. >elaborate contortions Please don't use these words just because we have different value.

by matz1 6y ago

>Elimination strategy works If the strategy is 'everybody stay at home' then it work in the same way shot gun works in eliminating cancer. It works but the cure is worse than the disease.

lostlogin 6y ago

It’s normal here in NZ and with the exception of borders, restrictions were removed a fair while ago. The economy is considerably better off than most expected too. https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/123696832/gdp-jump-of-14-per-cent-completes-nzs-vshaped-recovery https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/123696832/gdp-jump-of-14-per-...

matz1 6y ago
Didn't nz had strict lockdown? Also from the article: However, Stats NZ national accounts manager Paul Pascoe said the effects of Covid-19 on different industries had varied “and for some industries these may persist for some time”. The rebound was not enough to make up for the lost activity during the lockdown period, with GDP in the 12 months ended on September 30 down 2.2 per cent on the prior year.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > Didn't nz had strict lockdown? Yes, and more than one. Community transmission was eliminated several times. The point is to compare the strategy to others.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The entire country only locked down once, starting March, reducing to milder conditions in April and totally ending (going to "Alert Level 1" which isn't the same as before COVID but it's pretty much normality in everyday life) on June 9th. But Auckland (their biggest city), locked back down after another cluster of unknown origin was detected, perhaps related to an import business, for several weeks from August, and the rest of the country was at "Alert Level 2" in that period until the first week of October. Subsequent small outbreaks have not triggered a lockdown because their government remained confident it understood the scope of the infection although one leak got close, they asked people not to travel into central Auckland for a day or two at one point and sealed off a residential building while they tested everybody who lives there. They anticipate continuing to have occasional small outbreaks detected, e.g. a border worker gets infected, infects a family member before a test spots it - and their plans assume they will either quickly achieve confidence they've contained the outbreak or they'll lock a region or if necessary the entire country back down to eliminate. For example at a press conference the press basically wanted to know if the government was imagining people should prepare to pay for an extra week's accommodation on vacation in case they can't return home (obviously unaffordable to many families) but the government seemed to be more thinking about if you've left a week's cat food and instructions for a neighbour, do you have a way to tell them they need to feed your cat for an extra week? So, personal anxieties rather than population scale ones, the government can pick up a hotel bill but it can't bring your pets back to life.
- andylynch 6y ago
  I am certain GDP has been nobody’s primary concern in NZ during this time, but -2.2 % is not bad considering how international NZ’s economy is. For comparison, UK is at -9.6 for the same period US -2.9 with a far higher human cost.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    There are many who argue against lockdowns, but I haven’t yet seen an argument for that approach with an example of how it could look (for death toll and the economy). Has any country managed both those things without a lockdown? A hand waving “that approach could never work in X country because it’s so different there” seems the standard response to any strategy that has been proven to work.
    - matz1 6y ago
      Sweeden is one example, the death toll is still manageable and the life is pretty much still normal. Not a country: florida, it is one of the state in the usa that has the least covid related restriction. They are doing very well. Went there myself to visit recently. Its not hard to see why lockdown is not worth it. According to cdc, covid has very very low ifr : 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        It gets real dark real fast. The Post link suggests that their approach has worked, as long as you value a human life at no more than $1.1m. They are approaching 8k deaths and their approach is suggested to have added 5k to that. “ Assume that the differential Swedish approach dampens the GDP fall this year by 1 percentage point. This represents a gain of approximately $5.6 billion. Also suppose that the approach has caused 5,000 extra deaths — a reasonable guess from comparisons with other Nordic countries. How could one estimate that loss of life in economic terms? The value of a statistical life, used by the Swedish Transport Administration in its cost-benefit analyses of investment in traffic security, is approximately $4.6 million. Using this number, the economic cost of lost lives would be as high as $22.9 billion — clearly outweighing the benefits from the smaller GDP fall. One might argue that the value of lost lives should be set much lower, as the vast majority of deaths have been among elderly people, with fewer years left to enjoy life: 89 percent of the dead in Sweden have been above 70 years of age, and 67 percent above 80. One reaches the break-even point in my calculation if one lowers the value of an average life lost to $1.12 million. For the Swedish approach to be “profitable,” the average life lost must be valued lower than that.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-economy-pandemic-strategy https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/20/sweden-eco... https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
- nullsense 6y ago
  Just last night on the news they announced we were actually out of recession. The bounce back has been pretty good. Tourism is still fairly impacted. Most everything else feels pretty normal. The lockdowns were worth it IMO. Especially now we see it ravaging the rest of the world becoming more and more severe. That just feels totally foreign to me since we only experienced a very mild outbreak initially, followed by a tiny one a bit later on. NZ is a good place to be.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I disagree but I still respect your choice, at very least you acknowledge that in the end lockdown or not lockdown is subjective preference.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      Can you explain your preference for no-lockdown? NZ is covid free, the economy is rebounding fast and we have had very few deaths and (relative to others) short lockdowns. Unemployment is considerably less than expected. Christmas is shaping up to be normal. The results in NZ are only subjective if you pull some elaborate contortions, NZ has done well.
      - matz1 6y ago
        Few months lockdown is not short at all. Even then they still not allowing international visitor. My preference is simply based on cost/benefit analysis. I'm not opposed of covid free at all, as long as whatever method you choose doesn't cause problem that outweight the risk. Here is some example that is not a lockdown: Increasing health care capacity Developing better treatment Use more accurate test Sweeden, florida has done very well too without lockdown. Although there is still possibility that their politician succumb to pressure and enact lockdown in the future. Downside of lockdown: unemployment, bankruptcy, mental health issue, delayed treatment of other illness, kids can't attend in person school, etc. You can say that all of these is not big deal. I still respect you while I disagree with you, after all its subjective preference. >elaborate contortions Please don't use these words just because we have different value.