4 ms·

> I feel it's significant but didn't warrant the response it got. Worth keeping in mind that this would have been significantly worse had we not had the respon

by dom96 3y ago

> I feel it's significant but didn't warrant the response it got. Worth keeping in mind that this would have been significantly worse had we not had the response we had (primarily because the NHS would not have been able to cope). Plus if our response was faster we likely would have saved even more lives.

version_five 3y ago
Covid reactions have likely destroyed or ended more lives than were saved. There's no evidence that an even bigger overreaction would have been anything but even more destructive, if it was even possible. I'd like to think, despite what pushovers people turned out to be, that governments were very close to the maximum of what people would tolerate without open revolt, so there's not much more theatre they could have put on anyway. If you meant some sort of sane triage, where old folks homes got extra attention and kids going to the park were left alone, then I agree. For context, I live in Quebec, where the government let thousands of our elderlies die due to poor institutional infection controls, while instead focusing their efforts of violating ordinary people's civil rights however they could.
throwaway22032 3y ago
Do you have an upper bound on this? Something like - how many excess deaths as a percentage of population did we see in countries without functioning healthcare systems? I'd probably have agreed with a year of lockdown/restrictions if we could avoid approx. 2% mortality with it. It has to be at least more than one year of ordinary mortality to be worth significantly curtailing our daily lives for. Obviously that's just my opinion but it feels like a basic cost-benefit analysis.
- shagie 3y ago
  Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21 - https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/full... > The table provides summary statistics for each country and territory, including reported deaths due to COVID-19, estimated excess deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ratio of the two, and reported and excess all-age COVID-19 mortality rates. The magnitude of the excess mortality burden has varied substantially between countries. The highest estimated excess mortality rate due to COVID-19 was 734·9 deaths (95% UI 594·1–879·2) per 100 000 of the population in Bolivia (compared with the global rate of 120·3 [113·1–129·3]), whereas negative excess mortality rates were estimated in Iceland, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Taiwan (province of China), representing a large range. Excess mortality rates exceeded 300 deaths per 100 000 in 21 countries. At the regional level, the highest estimated excess mortality rates were in Andean Latin America, eastern Europe, central Europe, southern sub-Saharan Africa, and central Latin America, with several locations outside these regions having similarly high rates, particularly Lebanon, Armenia, Tunisia, Libya, several regions in Italy, and several states in southern USA (figure 2, table). Rates varied substantially in western Europe; some countries had rates nearly as high as the locations listed previously, while others, such as Iceland, Norway, Ireland, and Cyprus, had some of the lowest rates in the world, at less than 50 deaths per 100 000. Mortality rates varied across north Africa and the Middle East, with high rates in Lebanon (416·2 deaths [347·4–515·5] per 100 000), Tunisia (324·2 [265·4–376·4] per 100 000), Libya (292·1 [232·2–358·8] per 100 000), and Iraq (280·1 [216·7–362·5] per 100 000). Low excess mortality rates were estimated across sub-Saharan Africa, with the notable exception of four nations in southern sub-Saharan Africa: Eswatini (634·9 [491·8–775·4] per 100 000), Lesotho (562·9 [460·8–691·4] per 100 000), Botswana (399·5 [329·1–482·1] per 100 000), and Namibia (395·6 [340·2–448·8] per 100 000). In south Asia, some states in India had excess mortality rates due to COVID-19 similar to those of some high-income countries in the northern hemisphere. > In terms of cumulative number of excess deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021, the highest numbers of deaths were estimated in India (4·07 million [95% UI 3·71–4·36]) and the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18]; --- For the morality within the United States https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm and https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm On average, about 3 million people die each year. In 2019, there were 2,854,838 deaths. 2020 had 3,383,729 and 2021 had 3,464,231 deaths. I would be very concerned with the proposal that we need 12x the rate before curtailing various activities in daily life especially considering that increase was with mitigating efforts in place.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    So if we take Bolivia as an upper bound, we can assume that approximately 0.7% of the population would die to coronavirus in the absence of restrictions and with a fairly poor healthcare system. (Of course there will still be some level of individual change, e.g. those at risk are definitely not going to be going about as usual - they're still not in many places). My feeling then is that if we have a course of action that could have completely eliminated that 0.7%, e.g. it would result in zero covid or a perfect vaccine by the end of the course of action, assuming that it significantly curtails normal life (e.g. lockdown, no socialising, forced remote learning for schools, forced home working etc) we should spend approximately 0.7% of the average human lifespan doing it. So, a lockdown of 6-7 months could be justified to completely eliminate the virus. It was fairly quickly obvious that eliminating the virus was not possible, so we clearly shouldn't go for that long, but that's our starting point. The UK suffered approx 0.3% mortality that's about 0.4% better than Bolivia. The UK spent 24 months in various states of restrictions, and perhaps 12 months in fairly severe lockdowns to the extent that normal socialization (for example, going to a group or class to meet new people) was legally prohibited. Depending on how you define it, we spent 1.25-2.5% of the average lifespan in lockdowns for the sake of avoiding the deaths of 0.4% of the population. That's a horrendous trade off.
    - shagie 3y ago
      I believe that you are missing a number of dimensions involved with the transmissibility when comparing the population and the population density which also factor in. It would be akin to comparing the mortality rate for Vermont and New York (which hold the economic level relatively constant). Vermont was 15.8/100,000 people while New York was 18.5/100,000. Things like how much international travel and how much intra-region travel? How many cases were there before vaccination was possible? Changing this to other units and using New York City in March of 2020 - living in NYC was 50 micromorts / day based on the excess deaths. So, each day have everyone in NYC go skydiving (8 micromorts per jump) 6 times and you'll have some people die from that... about 24,000 over the course of a month (data from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-risk-of-covid-19-in-perspective.html?unlocked_article_code=iTwCMboaK-EuZZ-Fvy58QyazipwCDaBdUniHUKVKsO8E3Wup0D9uDiH1rXg3iTQ7KcWxiaNMabI_DyZTXKOEw6JZdLZD7HOP-GiAOvvOAJ3pwgiNJ1tevIOLxbnXuySiSLH-B_SFqyo0I0KZyDlFnxD8lZrXtnDNhxTY-jx3OL7DCl-2moLhW7g6KBn4DG-eylIb9LsUBIJI3_tEPUN5CgUbxHAmp7iS2UMsQNoK0XMPqI2N3JwHY1ujqsIDmYY0S0xszeP99DEXmQZHm3zV5oFYCBxqCqcKaY9Wbn72afiYkGjLiq55QOlp8gU66Yg08jxbHtdybRq6ngPoiDICBUFMJhuclrc5WRTcCdjo-1xIiAUOhC2u&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-ris... ). And that was with mitigation efforts in place. I am not sure that it is fair to do a one dimensional "Bolivia was 0.7% mortality and UK was 0.3% mortality" because Covid hit at different times and had different amounts of transmissibility because of the different population densities which in turn impacted the amount that hospitals were able to care for people.

by dom96 3y ago

version_five 3y ago

Covid reactions have likely destroyed or ended more lives than were saved. There's no evidence that an even bigger overreaction would have been anything but even more destructive, if it was even possible. I'd like to think, despite what pushovers people turned out to be, that governments were very close to the maximum of what people would tolerate without open revolt, so there's not much more theatre they could have put on anyway. If you meant some sort of sane triage, where old folks homes got extra attention and kids going to the park were left alone, then I agree. For context, I live in Quebec, where the government let thousands of our elderlies die due to poor institutional infection controls, while instead focusing their efforts of violating ordinary people's civil rights however they could.

throwaway22032 3y ago

Do you have an upper bound on this? Something like - how many excess deaths as a percentage of population did we see in countries without functioning healthcare systems? I'd probably have agreed with a year of lockdown/restrictions if we could avoid approx. 2% mortality with it. It has to be at least more than one year of ordinary mortality to be worth significantly curtailing our daily lives for. Obviously that's just my opinion but it feels like a basic cost-benefit analysis.

shagie 3y ago
Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21 - https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02796-3/full... > The table provides summary statistics for each country and territory, including reported deaths due to COVID-19, estimated excess deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ratio of the two, and reported and excess all-age COVID-19 mortality rates. The magnitude of the excess mortality burden has varied substantially between countries. The highest estimated excess mortality rate due to COVID-19 was 734·9 deaths (95% UI 594·1–879·2) per 100 000 of the population in Bolivia (compared with the global rate of 120·3 [113·1–129·3]), whereas negative excess mortality rates were estimated in Iceland, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Taiwan (province of China), representing a large range. Excess mortality rates exceeded 300 deaths per 100 000 in 21 countries. At the regional level, the highest estimated excess mortality rates were in Andean Latin America, eastern Europe, central Europe, southern sub-Saharan Africa, and central Latin America, with several locations outside these regions having similarly high rates, particularly Lebanon, Armenia, Tunisia, Libya, several regions in Italy, and several states in southern USA (figure 2, table). Rates varied substantially in western Europe; some countries had rates nearly as high as the locations listed previously, while others, such as Iceland, Norway, Ireland, and Cyprus, had some of the lowest rates in the world, at less than 50 deaths per 100 000. Mortality rates varied across north Africa and the Middle East, with high rates in Lebanon (416·2 deaths [347·4–515·5] per 100 000), Tunisia (324·2 [265·4–376·4] per 100 000), Libya (292·1 [232·2–358·8] per 100 000), and Iraq (280·1 [216·7–362·5] per 100 000). Low excess mortality rates were estimated across sub-Saharan Africa, with the notable exception of four nations in southern sub-Saharan Africa: Eswatini (634·9 [491·8–775·4] per 100 000), Lesotho (562·9 [460·8–691·4] per 100 000), Botswana (399·5 [329·1–482·1] per 100 000), and Namibia (395·6 [340·2–448·8] per 100 000). In south Asia, some states in India had excess mortality rates due to COVID-19 similar to those of some high-income countries in the northern hemisphere. > In terms of cumulative number of excess deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021, the highest numbers of deaths were estimated in India (4·07 million [95% UI 3·71–4·36]) and the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18]; --- For the morality within the United States https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm and https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm On average, about 3 million people die each year. In 2019, there were 2,854,838 deaths. 2020 had 3,383,729 and 2021 had 3,464,231 deaths. I would be very concerned with the proposal that we need 12x the rate before curtailing various activities in daily life especially considering that increase was with mitigating efforts in place.
- throwaway22032 3y ago
  So if we take Bolivia as an upper bound, we can assume that approximately 0.7% of the population would die to coronavirus in the absence of restrictions and with a fairly poor healthcare system. (Of course there will still be some level of individual change, e.g. those at risk are definitely not going to be going about as usual - they're still not in many places). My feeling then is that if we have a course of action that could have completely eliminated that 0.7%, e.g. it would result in zero covid or a perfect vaccine by the end of the course of action, assuming that it significantly curtails normal life (e.g. lockdown, no socialising, forced remote learning for schools, forced home working etc) we should spend approximately 0.7% of the average human lifespan doing it. So, a lockdown of 6-7 months could be justified to completely eliminate the virus. It was fairly quickly obvious that eliminating the virus was not possible, so we clearly shouldn't go for that long, but that's our starting point. The UK suffered approx 0.3% mortality that's about 0.4% better than Bolivia. The UK spent 24 months in various states of restrictions, and perhaps 12 months in fairly severe lockdowns to the extent that normal socialization (for example, going to a group or class to meet new people) was legally prohibited. Depending on how you define it, we spent 1.25-2.5% of the average lifespan in lockdowns for the sake of avoiding the deaths of 0.4% of the population. That's a horrendous trade off.
  - shagie 3y ago
    I believe that you are missing a number of dimensions involved with the transmissibility when comparing the population and the population density which also factor in. It would be akin to comparing the mortality rate for Vermont and New York (which hold the economic level relatively constant). Vermont was 15.8/100,000 people while New York was 18.5/100,000. Things like how much international travel and how much intra-region travel? How many cases were there before vaccination was possible? Changing this to other units and using New York City in March of 2020 - living in NYC was 50 micromorts / day based on the excess deaths. So, each day have everyone in NYC go skydiving (8 micromorts per jump) 6 times and you'll have some people die from that... about 24,000 over the course of a month (data from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-risk-of-covid-19-in-perspective.html?unlocked_article_code=iTwCMboaK-EuZZ-Fvy58QyazipwCDaBdUniHUKVKsO8E3Wup0D9uDiH1rXg3iTQ7KcWxiaNMabI_DyZTXKOEw6JZdLZD7HOP-GiAOvvOAJ3pwgiNJ1tevIOLxbnXuySiSLH-B_SFqyo0I0KZyDlFnxD8lZrXtnDNhxTY-jx3OL7DCl-2moLhW7g6KBn4DG-eylIb9LsUBIJI3_tEPUN5CgUbxHAmp7iS2UMsQNoK0XMPqI2N3JwHY1ujqsIDmYY0S0xszeP99DEXmQZHm3zV5oFYCBxqCqcKaY9Wbn72afiYkGjLiq55QOlp8gU66Yg08jxbHtdybRq6ngPoiDICBUFMJhuclrc5WRTcCdjo-1xIiAUOhC2u&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-ris... ). And that was with mitigation efforts in place. I am not sure that it is fair to do a one dimensional "Bolivia was 0.7% mortality and UK was 0.3% mortality" because Covid hit at different times and had different amounts of transmissibility because of the different population densities which in turn impacted the amount that hospitals were able to care for people.