By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Some good news: more than a million people have now recovered from the Chinese virus.
And some more good news: lockdowns are being unwound by little and little. Even HM Government, which has moved with all the vim, dash and rapidity of a glacier flowing uphill over a vat of superglue, is talking of setting out an unlocking plan sometime next week. Maybe. Once it has had a nice cup of tea. Here are the dates on which various territories locked down, and the dates on which some began to unlock:
Georgia, one of the last states to go into a strictish lockdown, is among the first to unlock. The Governor, Brian Kemp (Republican) has issued a down-to-earth, practical, quite detailed and very clearly-explained unlock strategy. Here are a couple of slides encapsulating some aspects of that strategy. More at his website:
It is not only the “Democrats” who are beside themselves with fury, on the ground that there may be a second peak if the state is unlocked. Health professionals are also muttering into their beards. But the Governor is banking on people following the rules he has set out, and using their common sense. Georgia, then, will join Sweden as one of the places to watch.
Some more good news (h/t Mosher, who has kindly been supplying first-class information on the pandemic). Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine shows that lockdowns have discernibly halted the infection’s exponential spread in some countries, though not in all. Take the United States:
Mr Trump declared a state of emergency on March 13. Four key states – New York, California, Illinois and New Jersey – locked down between March 19 and March 22. About a week later, a peak in new infections (which the School estimates occur a couple of week before the cases were reported) was reached in the U.S.A.
Looking at six populous states, the lockdown had no apparent effect in California, Illinois or Massachusetts, and the peak in Pennsylvania was ten days after the lockdown, but in densely-populated New York and New Jersey the peak was reached within a week of the lockdown.
In the UK the lockdown came into full effect on March 24 and the peak in new infections was on April 4, 11 days later. However, the half-dozen most-affected regions all showed near-immediate peaks following the UK-wide lockdown:
One notable feature of all these curves of daily cases is that, though the approach to the peak is steep the decline from it is slower. The reason is that lockdowns delay the acquisition of “herd immunity” and, therefore, the symmetrical shape of the curve either side of the peak that, as my good friend Willis Eschenbach has rightly pointed out, is characteristic of a pandemic following the logistic curve does not arise.
For contrast, here is Sweden, which has not locked down at all. The School thinks a peak has been reached nonetheless:
One more piece of good news: our daily graphs show that in the United States estimated active cases (on the cautious, weekly-averaged basis) are at last declining.
Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in estimated active cases of COVID-19 for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 1 to April 30, 2020.
Fig. 2. Mean compound daily growth rates in cumulative COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from April 8 to April 30, 2020.
Ø High-definition Figures 1 and 2 are here.
Sweden now has the highest growth-rate in estimated weekly-averaged active cases among all the countries we are following, and the third highest death-rate. Its Public Health Authority is no longer holding daily press conferences, and the director of the Authority is currently preparing a report on why so many people have died in care homes (a problem that has afflicted Britain and many other European countries, with the notable exception of Germany).
Finally, I apologize for having mangled yesterday’s equation (1). I explained that once the deaths are falling by one-nth per day, on the assumption that deaths will continue to decline at that rate, one can estimate the total deaths T from any day d simply as the product of n and that day’s deaths m. The corrected equation for the sum of the relevant infinite series is:
Ø A growing number of commenters here are providing valuable information about best practice in public policy and in approaches to treatment of the virus. Keep this information coming and I shall feature the best information here from time to time, as I have today.
Swedish R-number as of April 25: 0.85
EU + UK: Reported deaths per 100 000 population
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/EuropeCV.htm
A very interesting plot , Vuk. One might almost think that there were 2 variants of the virus active in Europe, one more fatal than the other. However the difference in mortality between Portugal and the adjacent Spain surely quashes that idea.
Hi MW
I have thought that might be the case too, unless these countries entered covid pandemic some weeks later, or their lock-down measures were much more effective. I noticed that all of ex-East Block have a score less than 10/100k together with Germany, Austria, Denmark and Greece. Medical science and the health authorities in the UK, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium will have to find out and learn why they are so badly hit.
Excess deaths as proxy for COVID-19 fatality.
There will be a balance between deaths prevented by measures taken by people (and their governments) as we see in Finland, Norway, Hungary, Greece and parts of Germany, and reinforced fatality by shortcomings of a health system under pressure. If these two aspects are balanced, excess deaths will be a good proxy.
People are doing that:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3567093
Doesn’t make one not feel too comfortable.
CMofB
March 24th was a Tuesday. The UK lockdown was announced on March 20th and effectively began on that day. Schools officially closed on Monday 23rd.
My daughter had been working from home at least a week earlier. Social distancing guidelines for the elderly had already been introduced. Bear in mind also, that the WHO didn’t declare a pandemic until March 12th.
However, the half-dozen most-affected regions all showed near-immediate peaks following the UK-wide lockdown:
So lockdown was not necessary. UK cases were from hospital tests. Incuubation = ~5 days ; Symptoms (mild to severe) = ~ 7days. Conclusion: Infections happened before lockdown.
PS I think you’ve still got the equation wrong.
Mr Finn has repeatedly declared his prejudice against the lockdowns that brought the rapid exponential growth in the infection to an end. He does not need to go on whining like a stuck gramophone record about it. He is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion did not prevail among responsible governments with high population densities and fast exponential rates of growth in confirmed cases.
And what is wrong with the equation?
Mr Finn has repeatedly declared his prejudice against the lockdowns that brought the rapid exponential growth in the infection to an end.
I’m not against the lockdowns. On balance, I support them – just. However, while we’re on the subject of ‘stuck gramophones’ I don’t agree with your constant criticism that the UK was particularly slow in taking measures. You’ve even argued we should have acted a month before we did. It’s quite possible that the initial light touch measures were working well enough but I accept we couldn’t afford to take the chance.
And what is wrong with the equation?
It depends on whether or not m is included in the cumulative total M.
If not then the summation should go from 0 (not 1) to infinity , i.e.
m(1 + x + x^2 + x^3 ……. ) where x =(n-1)/n
This does lead to the product m * n.
However, I think the summation from 1 to infinity gives m * (n-1) which would be ok if m was included in M. I’ve checked it in a spreadsheet using n=5 to give 0.8 + 0.64 + 0.512 ……
I’ll chime in on both sides here.
I’ll support Christopher on the date of the UK lockdown. It was announced to the public on the evening of March 23rd. Ergo, it took effect on March 24th.
But I’ll support John Finn over the issue with Christopher’s equation. I’ll try to explicate it as simply as I can without using complicated mathematical notation. If z is a real number between 0 and 1:
SUM from k=0 to infinity (z to power k) = 1/(1-z). E.G. 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…=2. Or 1+1/3+1/9+1/27+…=3/2.
Taking the n out of the brackets in Christopher’s equation, and setting z=(1-1/n), he’s OK so far for n=2. Because SUM from k=1 to infinity (z to power k) = z/(1-z) for 0<z<1. And for z=1/2, that ratio is 1.
Now, let n=10/9, shall we? Or z=0.1. A super-optimistic scenario, in which we beat the virus so hard that new cases each day are down to 10% of the previous day. Then if we had m deaths today, we’d have m/10+m/100+m/1000+… in total from now on in. That is, m/9. But Christopher’s formula gives m*n=m*10/9. Ten times too high!
John Finn is right: Christopher seems to have confused the total deaths from now with the total deaths from the start of the epidemic.
I’ll support Christopher on the date of the UK lockdown. It was announced to the public on the evening of March 23rd. Ergo, it took effect on March 24th.
The schools closed on Friday 21st March. Pubs and restaurants closed on the Friday night. We were in lockdown that week-end.
Mr Finn has not, perhaps, read the head posting. It is there stated that the calculation is done from day d. Do the multiplication as shown, include day d and Bob’s your uncle.
As for Mr Lock, he quibbles about n=1.1. However, by that time it will be clear even to him that there will not be many deaths to come.
The equation, as stated above, is wrong
If you sum [(n-1)/n]^d for d = 1 to infinity the result is (n-1) * m
If you sum [(n-1)/n]^d for d = 0 to infinity the result is n * m
For the equation to be correct you need to either change the summation to start at d=0 or change the result to (n-1) * m
Don’t quibble.
Monckton of Brenchley May 3, 2020 at 4:02 am
Don’t quibble.
I realise we’re not doing strict peer review on WUWT but don’t you think it gives a more professional look if errors or mistakes are acknowledged and corrected. You could accuse me of pedantry, I suppose, but I’m not doing this to score points. While not agreeing with everything you write, I recognise that you have a published a number of interesting & technically accurate WUWT posts. A minor error hasn’t changed that.
I think it is necessary to look at the disaggregated picture locality by locality to understand where lockdowns may have been more or less useful. It is quite notable that early centres of epidemic spread such as Islington had high case rates but also an early date for the local peak in cases. Yet we have also seen late post lockdown surges in cases in places like Hull and Blackpool, where the lockdown hasn’t prevented spread. There are doubtless a variety of local factors that are important to understanding the facts, which are not that simple in the first place.
In order to know how many people recovered, you have to know how many people actually had the ailment, which we do NOT.
We might have some idea of how many people have recovered from detected “cases”, where a “case” is suspiciously defined in some instances (is it really a case or what?). But we do not know how many people ever had the virus, with no or minimal symptoms, … where “recovery” would be either not an issue or an issue so trivial that the person sought out neither testing nor treatment.
The continuing hoopla over ill-defined “cases” and suspect “deaths”, then, seems like overblown showmanship, using the current crisis-fabrication as source material.
The graphs, as always, are pretty to look at, of course, but what they represent is the graphic art of deception rather than the science of what we really know.
It’s probably good that someone can use those numbers to offer some semblance of hope, but it’s a shallow good, lacking in rational depth.
Bad data leads to bad decisions. Unfortunately we are a ways a way from having good data.
– Inconsistent qualification of what is a COVID-19 death
– Unknown false positive and false negative rate on tests
– Too few initial and follow up tests
– Poor characterization of virus transmission – surface vs air
– Poor understanding of virus transmission from symptomless carriers
– Inconsistent lockdown rules
– Behavior changes somewhat independent of timing of government lockdown decisions
– Significant data lag on impact of lessening lockdown restrictions
Over the long run the data will get better and we will learn more. However I expect for the interim we will make far less than optimum decisions for deaths vs economic impact based on the poor quality of the data.
Mr Norris is right. The statisticians were shockingly unprepared. During the early stages of a pandemic, knowing how many have recovered is every bit as important as knowing how many have died, so that one can work out a reasonable first stab at a case fatality rate: died / (recovered + died). But the UK does not even count those who have recovered.
It is also important, right from the outset, to distinguish between confirmed cases hospitalized and confirmed cases not requiring hospitalization. Even that vital distinction has not been drawn in most countries.
And from looking at the recovery reports from different countries it seems inescapable to me that Germany is using different criteria to count someone as recovered than say Spain and Italy. Maybe it’s just they do a better job of following up, or maybe the criteria really are inconsistent.
Regarding point #2: BINGO! It also seems that reports on “serious/critical” cases can’t be taken too seriously (S. Korea has been stuck at 55 every time I’ve looked the past two or three weeks).
Since there is not even a remotely reasonable hope of maintaining the lockdown until a vaccine is developed, the best we can do is put reasonable measures in place to reduce the rate of transmission and investigate better treatment options while getting as many people back to work as possible. The virus is not going to be eradicated and because it is capable of both airborne and casual contact transmission, the odds are high we will all be exposed to it sooner or later. If it is seasonal it will fade with summer but come back (possibly mutated) next winter.
Even if we get a vaccine it is likely to be about as effective as flu vaccines, which over the past 10 years in the US have seldom been even 50% effective and one season (2014-2015) only 19%. Are we going to go into a 50% lockdown once we have a vaccine?
If we shut down the industries and activities necessary to keep modern urban civilization going, a whole lot more people are going to die than even the worst-case COVID-19 projections. The economic cost to the US so far exceeds 9/11 and all the hurricanes this century put together and we’re by no means done yet.
As an aside, I appreciate your favorable review of our Georgia Governor’s plan. He’s been getting a whole lot of heat over it, and not just from Democrats. He is I believe relying heavily on counsel from State Public Health commissioner Dr. Kathleen Toomey, formerly with the CDC. We will see what happens, knowing full well that anything bad or anything that can be made to appear bad will be blamed on Governor Kemp.
Even though over 65 I went out with my wife and son today to watch the combined Blue Angels / Thunderbirds flyover of Atlanta from a shopping center parking lot. There were quite a few other people there for the same purpose. Then we stopped at a market and wine shop on the way home to stock up on essentials. I’m happy to report there were no drones scolding us for being outside our homes or snitching neighbors to turn us in.
I’m in agreement with your points. I’m in Atlanta too and did pretty much the same for the flyover. I’m 4 months short of 60, so at the edge of statistical vulnerability.
One question, how do I achieve Level 7?
yep, we need to have faith in the data. We will never know how many died “with” or “of” . It has become political and all about the optics now.
So we are entering the new age of madness and wearing face masks.
Have to keep up the government was correct and you are safe in our hands and do as we say.
Sanity went out the window when Neil Ferguson opened his mouth.
John N sums it up nicely, I agree.
More model madness:
“Imperial College Model Applied to Sweden Yields Preposterous Results”
https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-to-sweden-yields-preposterous-results/amp/
“Although only time will tell how the comparative strategies continue to hold up, these early results do not speak well of the accuracy of predictions built around the ICL model. Assuming the Swedish modelers correctly adapted the ICL approach (and their accompanying data appendix appears to do so, drawing its stated parameters directly from Ferguson’s work), the failure of its predictions would seem to suggest that its underlying assumptions about the effectiveness of specific lockdown policies are completely unfounded.”
In response to PaulH, in an earlier piece in this series I pointed out that during the early stages of the pandemic some models – notably that from Imperial College – predicted very large numbers of infections and fatalities provided that lockdowns were not introduced. Since lockdowns were introduced, in most countries we shall not be able to put the Imperial College model to the test.
That model takes population density into account. Stockholm has about a fifth of central London’s population density: therefore, the control measures it was able to adopt were less severe than those that were necessarily adopted in London.
The death rate per head of population in Sweden is noticeably higher than in any other Scandinavian country.
and Japan?
If only richard would read more and shout less. Let him read about Hokkaido and then, for once, think rather than merely rebarbatively spouting his childish prejudice.
and your shouting the same childish nonsense?
every other day- sheesh – enough.
Why don’t you fess up and just say the numbers are based on guess work, it’s become political . The 92% of deaths in 11, mainly 1st world countries illustrates this.
Do some investigation and stop pushing the lock down meme. Stop being a baggage carrier for these inept governments.
some more data.
You need to remember. LOCKDOWN has no units well unless its 0 or 1, where 0 means nobody
leaves their home ever.
Lockdowns vary and the important things are:
1. Are people ACTUALLY moving about
2. Where are they going?
3. How many others do they encounter?
So, how are they moving about?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/05/01/apple-data-shows-shelter-in-place-is-ending-whether-governments-want-it-to-or-not/#234d1ba16fb5
so basically anybody who looks at lockdowns versus “cases” or deaths is in danger of fooling themselves.
More deaths in the U.S. than expected:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/us-reports-66000-more-deaths-than-expected-so-far-this-year/2020/04/29/b6833548-8a68-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html
In my State of Oklahoma folks have been moving around for about a week and this morning it is reported Oklahoma has had the third-largest two-day increase in cases since the Wuhan virus showed up in Oklahoma. I don’t know if the two things are connected. It bears watching.
The rules list the obese as those who should isolate
Isn’t that most of them? I’ve been to Georgia
So, Sweden, which has not locked down has reached peak and their medical system is still up and running?
$10,000,000,000,000 to save 0 people. What a bargain. I am sure that loss of wealth will cost absolutely the same 0 lives?
Mr Stoner has made his blind prejudice repeatedly known here. If he were to read more and scream less, he would discover that Sweden has various control measures in place, though they fall well short of the tighter restrictions that were found necessary in countries with greater urban population densities and larger mean household sizes. And Sweden has by far the highest death rate per head of population in Scandinavia. On the other side of the account, if the Swedish experiment proves to have been successful we can learn from it, after making appropriate adjustments for urban population density, mean household size, intensive-care capacity and other factors which tend to differ from nation to nation. It is a shame that Mr Stoner is incapable of raising his game and conducting this discussion in a less blinkered, less discourteous and more balanced and polite fashion.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/16/coronavirus-six-bay-area-counties-to-shelter-in-place/
A minor point, but a good chunk of CA counties lockeddown 3/16 prior to State order on 19th.
Mission accomplished, curve flattened, now what? Delaying exposure doesn’t equal avoidance forever.
Just a longer fatter tail in the year of the rat.
Contolled random testing would be useful.
Cliff Mass pointed out the terrible quality of data.
Note the difference on Worldometer for US active military v. Veterans Affairs. Fairly similar groups seperated in time that have very different morbidities.
This is a disease that culls the herd of the sick and aged. Even in NYC where it’s been 20x more devastating, 99% of the entire population have not and likely will not require hospitalization.
Covid substitutes one kind of death for another, the primary statistical effect might be average life expectancy drops a tiny amount. Roy Spencer pointed to the inverse malarial exposed v. not exposed countries correlations hinting at an unknown immunity mechanism, bug maybe the third world just has really young populations and a much lower life expectancy baseline.
Just looking at covid death counts without subtracting all the heart and cancer and lung and obesity and diabetes and alzheimers and accident and kidney disease deaths that did not occur in the same time frame overstates the urgency.
We dislike disorder so much, and are so scared, so unused to the competitive nastiness of the natural world, naively believing we are owed a certain lifestyle, a certain retirement, an easy happy luxurious life that we have lost the humility or gratitude or respect for the immensly complicated interconnected economy that makes it possible.
Let’s see, massive immune system protection for months for millions of people, now released into the path of germs they were always exposed to, before the Lockdownocene, suddenly taking ill en mass to the previously ordinary pathogens that challenged the immune systems, now needing doctors at an astonishingly high rate, but doctors who furloughed because of the Lockdownocene and, thus, unavailable, creating a demand for doctors that cannot be accommodated, hence, another lock down, hence another crisis, more stimulus packages based on money that does not exist, perpetuating the fantasy of solving a problem at a further level of absurdity, as the universe laughs in our information-over-stimulated faces.
Too pessimistic?
Mr Kernodle can be forgiven in present circumstances for exhibiting signs of combined prejudice, petulance and panic, but responsible governments have to keep their heads and make decisions based on such data as are available, and on the ancient principle that the health, safety and well-being of the people should be the highest law.
MB,
No panic here. (^_^) Nice consonance, however, in your scholarly, yet off-the-mark, characterization of my response. Let me suggest the sequence, “perceptive, pejorative and prescient”, to more accurately capture my compositional disposition.
I agree that RESPONSIBLE governments have to keep their heads [I can hardly keep from laughing at your implication that they are]. Making decisions based on data about economic collapse would seem more in line with kept heads, rather than the shaky data upon which current actions seem to be based.
The tier of evidence supporting the current global apocalyptic reaction seems inferior to the tier of evidence supporting the possibility of global apocalyptic economic collapse.
Which is more certain? — excessive millions of lives being lost because of COVID-19 (inconsistently defined, tabulated, assessed), or excessive millions of livelihoods being lost and excessive millions of LIVING people loosing life-quality from shutting down society (ascertained within well-known parameters of economic well-being)?
Supposed kept heads are not looking at the scales properly. THEY are the ones in a panic, as I see it, from where I stand in the Pandemic Reich.
RK – We dont need a vaccine to use the summer for mandatory pro-infection immersion camps for the under thirties. By Christmas 99.9999% of grandkids could get Grandma’s unwanted cheek pinch without posing a threat to her health.
The UK data trumpeted in a new
WUWT article confirms what was obvious 5 weeks ago in the NYC hospitalization data. Surprise! Old sick people presenting with covid are at serious, lethal risk, and the rest of us kinda aren’t.
Did Mr. Brenchely’s beseeching “forgiveness” on your behalf bring you comfort?
I think a very important point in the Sweden data is being overlooked. Simply looking at total deaths is misleading, because some deaths are simply being deferred.
The original purpose of the lockdowns was to prevent health services from being overrun by exponential growth. Now we are seeing mission creep and the lockdown are being justified on the grounds of minimizing deaths.
This mission creep is misplaced because of the problems with differed deaths.
For the past month the daily new cases and deaths in Sweden are flat. The average length of infection is about 2 weeks. As a result, the number of active cases in Sweden must be relatively constant, or the data is wrong.
And if the number of active cases is constant in Sweden, then they have achieved the objective of the lockdown, without having done a lockdown.
The problem is that mission creep is obscuring why we had a lockdown in the first place, which makes it impossible to evaluate the lockdown.
ferdberple complains of mission creep: but the truth is that, once the initial danger of overwhelming the healthcare system has been averted, lockdowns have to be cautiously eased or that danger may re-emerge.
The Sweden data argues that the need is more imagined than observed.
For example, looking at worldview I eyeball that 400 new cases and 100 deaths are happening each day in Sweden. These numbers have been flat for the past 30 days..
If you now assume that on average a case lasts 15 days, then 400 new cases today, in 15 days 300 will recover and 100 will die. But on average those 400 cases are now gone.
So you only need on average 15 days times 400 cases capacity. And this is a constant. It is not increasing. Otherwise, the average time before recovery must be increasing, which means treatment has changed.
Now of course averages are not peaks, but there are rules of thumb to go from average to peak.
BAD NEWS! 60,000+ have died in the US
#sad
Every day 200000 people mostly old people die 56000000 per year! Seems Mockton thinks no one must die what a joke cheers. WE ARE BORN AND WE DIE GET OVER IT enjoy life while you can. Think of it the minute you were born you start to die! I predict that all the lockdowns will end up as distasters look at Sweden it has the same mortality as Ireland with complete lockdown https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/how-sweden-faced-the-virus-without-a-lockdown-1.4240944. the countries that will really suffer long term are New Zealand and maybe Australia because they have no immunity
Eliza
Fascinating how our government continues believe in lockdowns. California’s government believes as do New Zealand and Australia. Quite a record and as we know the virus is indifferent to the politicians.
In response to the semi-literate and entirely-uninformed and unsatisfactorily-identified “Eliza”, being childish is not a good response to this pandemic. Responsible governments owe their citizens a general duty of care, whether “Eliza” likes it or not, which is why her hysterical viewpoint has not prevailed among them.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/how-sweden-faced-the-virus-without-a-lockdown-1.4240944 Mockton get a life You no nothing about viruses stick to climate change as I said millions will die NOT FROM THE VIRUS but lockdowns people will be chasing you stay away from things you no nothing about especially viruses have you any degrees in virology?? dont think so or prove it
Eliza,
Degrees often do not help, but rather make a person stupider (more stupid?) on a higher level.
The furtively unidentied “Eliza” says I “no nothing about viruses”. Well, I know how to spell “know”, which is more than the semi-literate and hysterical “Eliza” does. I wrote one of the earliest models of the transmission of the HIV virus at the request of one of Britain’s hospitals, using matrix addition, which proved to be a most effective way of modeling the spread of that type of infection, with its long period of asymptomatic latency. I also wrote in January 1986 that it would kill tens of millions worldwide, because Western susceptibilities would not allow sensible control measures at the outset. Since then, 30-50 million have died.
As to attributions of excess mortality, the statisticians are currently of the view that the great majority of the excess deaths now evident in Europe and, more recently, in some parts of the United States are attributable to the infection. If “Eliza” disagrees with that analysis on any ground other than that of the petulant and rebarbatively-repeated prejudice that she has demonstrated so tediously here, let her take it up with them. She is wasting her time here.
I actually liked mockton because after his exhaustive 1.5C warming analysis which in my view was meaningless he assumed re climate change do nothing. I wish he would see have seen the same for this coronavirus (like the Swedes did) cheeeers and enjoy your lives and stop watching coronavirus stuff my advice
And yet another malevolent but unenlightening and meaningless posting from “Eliza”. One wonders who is paying her to attempt so inelegantly and ignorantly to disrupt this thread. Rather poor value for money. For she cannot be writing these comments unpaid. Otherwise, what would be the point of being so childishly repetitive, so relentlessly unconstructive, so helplessly uninformed, so irremediably semi-literate?
“Everybody follows the same shaped curve, no matter what approach they take. Countries which did a better job isolating seniors have lower death counts. Spain, Italy, France and the UK have draconian lockdowns. Sweden has schools, restaurants and bars open, and the result there is exactly the same”
richard has declared his prejudice over and over and over again, like a small child shrieking from his stroller. The truth is that Spain has begun lifting its lockdown, and Sweden’s result is not “exactly the same”: despite its low urban population density, it has by far the highest death rate per head of population in Scandinavia. A more balanced approach to the data is needed.
and of course the results are being fudged. Some novices blindly believe these results which leads to really skewed thinking.
richard is indeed a novice and has believed only those results that suited his blind prejudice. In these columns, though, we are giving information from all sides, and discussing the extent to which the data are reliable. One day, perhaps, richard may learn to be similarly dispassionate. In the meantime, it is not at all surprising that the profoundly prejudiced and irrational, such as he, have lost the argument comprehensively. Responsible governments have rightly paid no heed to the extremists and are being far more nuanced and careful in their approach. And no amount of spoiled-brat shrieking from the furtively unidentified “richard” will make the slightest difference.
says the novice without a blind bit of evidence that the numbers dying are ‘with” or “of ” Corona- makes me speechless that you can be so gullible, once a baggage handler always a baggage handler.
92% of deaths in 11 countries, mainly 1st world countries says how political it has become. They have to illustrate a pile of deaths to con us into thinking they knew what they are doing.
They listened to one man with a terrible track record.
And yet , Mr Monckton, shrieking it was the right thing to do, without a blind bit of evidence about the numbers, is in the same camp as nonsense from the climate change brigade.
Stop now , please, Mr Mockton.
All known species of Corona tail off into April , May and June.
For most countries it was never a problem as out of 195 with Corona, 92% of deaths happened in 11 countries.
The numbers are being manipulated but even if you believe them as Mr Monckton obviously does-
It is mostly the old and ill that are dying.
CDC report-
“The overall cumulative COVID-19 associated hospitalization rate is 40.4 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years and older…
…for people 65 years and older, current COVID-19 hospitalization rates are similar to those observed during comparable time points* during recent high severity influenza seasons.
For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates during recent influenza seasons.
Hey Ron,
I said I don’t believe Sweden has its peak. That includes if they are staying constant. Because the peak would be in the middle of the constant area when it finally declines and I don’t see that there is convincing data to talk about a decline.
I reckon we are talking about not allowing uncontrollable rise in cases what would overwhelmed healthcare system? Now, you’re talking about the decline what is rather different kettle of fish. So far Sweden, by means of softer lockdown, seems to be avoiding sharp peak predicted by models – they are able to flatten and spread the peak and keep some schools, restaurants and coffee shops open.
Sure, to see longer term effects we need to wait. Maybe they’re doing terrible mistake which manifests itself in few weeks or months time. But equally well they may be showing that in their situation they can manage without strict lockdowns.
If you define success as not overwhelming the health care system than Sweden succeeded so far.
If you count success in death toll by society than not as much.
“all five ‘no lockdown’ nations are shown to have performed substantially better than a leading first world nation (UK) which boasts one of the best health services in the world’
“Johnson’s wholesale house arrest not only has crippled Britain’s economy, it has not permitted the British public the opportunity to acquire the natural herd immunity already developed in those non-lockdown countries. This may be why there are fears of a second wave of infections when the Johnson lock down is lifted’
Britain’s Legacy of Pandemic Panic and Pain
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s key error appears to be in relying on the very same ‘expert’ blamed for past medical national travesties – Professor Ferguson of Imperial College, London.
Ferguson had a history of wildly overestimating death rates – his 2001 disease model was criticized as “not fit for purpose” after it predicted that up to 150,000 people could die in the U.K. from mad cow disease (just 177 deaths to date).
How could any competent PM once again follow the advice of Ferguson, who failed so ineptly in the past?
“UK Ministers claimed, as they did with climate change, that they were being ‘led by the science.’ But their chosen ‘experts’ relied on the same kind of junk computer models that projected wholly exaggerated scenarios for man-made global warming”
I am sure “baggage handler” will wish to respond.
“Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University, who also serves on the research and development advisory board for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, warned weeks ago that lockdowns were not working. ”
https://townhall.com/columnists/marinamedvin/2020/04/15/israeli-professor-shows-virus-follows-fixed-pattern-n2566915