3 ms·

> all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy This is not true. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and UK [1] had thei

by sampo 3y ago

> all the other so-called experts were loudly and vocally demanding lockdowns as a strategy This is not true. Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and UK [1] had their own versions of "Tegnell". That is, epidemiologists who recommended the let-it-rip, "herd immunity" strategy. In these countries, politicians finally decided to follow the majority consensus among countries, and ignore those epidemiologists who were among the "herd immunity" school of thought. Even in New Zealand it was a somewhat close call, would the government listen to Michael Baker [2] as they eventually did, or Simon Thornley [3]. > Great Barrington meanwhile was viciously attacked, described as fringe, non-consensus, would kill millions etc. Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? [1] "For a time, he advocated a herd immunity approach." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance#COVID-19_pand... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)#COVID-19_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baker_(epidemiologist)... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Thornley#Covid_Plan_B_gr...

revelio 3y ago
Vallance is in no way comparable to Tegnell. Valance and the other UK/SAGE "experts" were quite happy to invert their advice overnight on the basis of nothing. Like all the others they were making decisions based on politics and ideology, not a mature of understanding of science. Tegnell picked one position and stuck with it because there was no reason to change it, in that he was virtually alone. > Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. This isn't even up for debate anymore, the data is openly available and has been analyzed to death. These interventions simply did not work, and it was known from the start that they wouldn't work. Heck the idea they wouldn't work was the consensus right before 2020, which is why a "consensus" of these idiots is worth less than the electrons used to transmit it.
- cygx 3y ago
  It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. Do you have a source for that? It's been a while since I've looked at Covid numbers, so the only research I know off the top of my head that claims there was no effect is a meta-analysis by some economists, which originally claimed lockdowns only prevented 0.2% of deaths. After criticism, they had to re-evaluate their approach and arrived at 3.2%. However, not all objections were addressed, so who knows if there isn't another order of magnitude hiding somewhere. Personally, I've been leaning towards lockdowns having the potential to be effective based on excess mortality in the nordics: Sweden was the only nordic country that did not lock down in March 2020, and it's also the only one of these countries that saw significant excess mortality in April 2020. There could of course be another reason for that, but until someone offers such, the lockdowns seem to be the obvious factor...
  - gmarx 3y ago
    Perhaps your April 2020 number is correct but I think it's irrelevant because it is too time-boxed. I did an analysis (matching those by others) using the OECD excess deaths data and if you extend the time period through last fall, Sweden did either best (according to other's analysis) or second best (according to mine). Excess deaths actually continued after the pandemic has subsided in many countries (US and UK at least I recall) and I think it reasonable to assume the pandemic and pandemic policy had something to do with it. To judge overall success of policies you need to look at the whole time of the pandemic and its aftermath and the Swedes did better than almost everyone
    - cygx 3y ago
      I haven't run the numbers, but it seems hard to believe just visually comparing excess mortalities for, say, Sweden and Denmark: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?country=~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?country=~DNK https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... April 2020 did a real number on that country...

by sampo 3y ago

revelio 3y ago

Vallance is in no way comparable to Tegnell. Valance and the other UK/SAGE "experts" were quite happy to invert their advice overnight on the basis of nothing. Like all the others they were making decisions based on politics and ideology, not a mature of understanding of science. Tegnell picked one position and stuck with it because there was no reason to change it, in that he was virtually alone. > Maybe because it was somewhat fringe, definitely non-consensus, and would kill millions? It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. This isn't even up for debate anymore, the data is openly available and has been analyzed to death. These interventions simply did not work, and it was known from the start that they wouldn't work. Heck the idea they wouldn't work was the consensus right before 2020, which is why a "consensus" of these idiots is worth less than the electrons used to transmit it.

cygx 3y ago
It's amazing how many people still never got the memo that lockdowns and masks had no effect whatsoever. Do you have a source for that? It's been a while since I've looked at Covid numbers, so the only research I know off the top of my head that claims there was no effect is a meta-analysis by some economists, which originally claimed lockdowns only prevented 0.2% of deaths. After criticism, they had to re-evaluate their approach and arrived at 3.2%. However, not all objections were addressed, so who knows if there isn't another order of magnitude hiding somewhere. Personally, I've been leaning towards lockdowns having the potential to be effective based on excess mortality in the nordics: Sweden was the only nordic country that did not lock down in March 2020, and it's also the only one of these countries that saw significant excess mortality in April 2020. There could of course be another reason for that, but until someone offers such, the lockdowns seem to be the obvious factor...
- gmarx 3y ago
  Perhaps your April 2020 number is correct but I think it's irrelevant because it is too time-boxed. I did an analysis (matching those by others) using the OECD excess deaths data and if you extend the time period through last fall, Sweden did either best (according to other's analysis) or second best (according to mine). Excess deaths actually continued after the pandemic has subsided in many countries (US and UK at least I recall) and I think it reasonable to assume the pandemic and pandemic policy had something to do with it. To judge overall success of policies you need to look at the whole time of the pandemic and its aftermath and the Swedes did better than almost everyone
  - cygx 3y ago
    I haven't run the numbers, but it seems hard to believe just visually comparing excess mortalities for, say, Sweden and Denmark: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?country=~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?country=~DNK https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... April 2020 did a real number on that country...