By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Early in the Chinese-virus pandemic, Boris Johnson, the colorful British Prime Minister with the haystack-in-a-hurricane hairdon’t, talked of “squashing the sombrero”: for the curve of a pandemic that is allowed to progress until population-wide immunity is reached is approximately symmetrical about its peak, just as a sombrero is about its crown.
The UK’s chief medical officer showing the Press the difference between a sombrero graph and a Gibraltar graph, March 12, 2020
If, however, the progress of the pandemic is interfered with by a lockdown, the very large number of fatalities at the peak of the sombrero will never be reached.
Instead, the initial exponential growth will be interfered with, the pandemic will reach a far lower peak, and the curve will no longer be symmetrical. Instead, it will resemble the shapely profile of the rock of Gibraltar (British) as seen from across Algeciras Bay. The objective of a lockdown is to head for Gibraltar town by the fastest route, for once one is there one can lift the lockdown.
Late though the British lockdown was (if it had been just two weeks earlier, at least 50,000 of the 70,000 excess British deaths attributable to the virus would have been prevented), it was effective when at last it was introduced. In Britain, both daily new cases and daily deaths are heading not for the crown of the sombrero but for Gibraltar town:
In the United States, deaths are heading for Gibraltar town, though a little more slowly than in Britain. But there may be trouble ahead, because following the lifting of lockdown measures and the mass breaches of lockdown by far-Left demonstrators the number of daily new cases is heading not for Gibraltar town but for the sky. Two or three weeks from now, daily deaths are likely to rise too.
It is worth contrasting countries such as Britain, with a fierce lockdown, the United States, with a less fierce lockdown, and Sweden, with no lockdown at all. Increasingly, there is soul-searching in Sweden about the no-lockdown policy, for Sweden now has just about the highest daily number of new cases and of new deaths per head of population in the world.
Finally, the notion – advocated by many vexatious trolls here – that the coronavirus pandemic is “no worse than the annual flu” must now be dismissed out of hand. If one compares the daily incremental counts of flu and of the Chinese virus in the United States, by June 10 the latter was about six times the former.
Even if one compares apples with oranges – the daily incremental count of the Chinese virus against the estimated total for the entire flu season – the Chinese virus is twice as bad as the worst annual flu in the U.S., and the deaths are still increasing at about 1000 a day, and the daily incremental count is known to be a considerable underestimate.
Incremental daily coronavirus death count in the U.S.A. (cyan) compared with incremental daily counts for various recent flu seasons (solid curves) and with estimated final death counts for flu seasons (dashed curves).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The real problem in this case (and it is something that pervades climate science) is the shortcomings and unreliability of the data, and the way it is being manipulated, and the failure to look at the big picture. It has also become c0rrupted by politics, and politicians are in CYA mode desperate to justify their failed policies.
Without full autopsies, we have no proper understanding of the cause of death, and what role the virus played. Don’t forget that in early March, the Italians conducted autopsies on 355 patients who had died of CV19 (this was about 10% of the then death toll), and found that only 12 of those patients, had actually died exclusively of the virus. Co-morbidity was the cause of death, in the other 343 patients, and most of these had several serious pre-existing medical conditions. The CV19 virus might have been the final straw that broke the camel’s back, but they concluded that the CV19 merely advanced the date of death by about a week or so, or in some cases the patient would in any event almost certainly died within the year. This no doubt explains why the average age of the patients at death was 81, which is about the usual age at death in Italy.
Since we do not have autopsies so do not know who has died with the virus as opposed to those dying of the virus, we need to look at the total number of deaths to get a better understanding. So what is the position with regard to total deaths this year? According to the US CDC, through to week 34 there were some 1,918,750 deaths in 2018, and this year there have been some 1,978,995 deaths.
Thus 2020, has seen some 60,000 more deaths (through to week 34) compared to that seen in 2018. That would suggest that the CV19 virus has caused about 60,000 deaths in the US, not 110,000, and, this is largely accounted for by the disastrous policy, in Democrat run cities, with respect to failing to isolate care homes, and returning to back care home infected patients.
It is noteworthy that these figures are unadjusted figures. If the population of the US has grown by about 2% since 2018 (that is just a guess, I have not researched), then population increase alone would account for nearly 40,000 of those 60,000 excess deaths. Thus on a population adjusted basis, the number of excess deaths over 2018 maybe much nearer the 20,000 mark. That is well less than is being claimed.
Of course, the flu outbreak in 2018 was higher than usual, but what we are seeing in 2020 is nothing particularly exceptional; a bad flu season for sure, but not one that warrants the locking down of society.
There is no hard evidence that lockdowns do anything of significance to reduce the total number of deaths, and you can see that by comparing countries and States that imposed different lockdowns.
The problem with lockdowns is that they are by necessity far too porous which prevents containment and allows the virus to spread, albeit at a slower rate. You therefore end up with less deaths per day, but running over a longer period of time, such that the end result is not much different. You also end up with all the consequential deaths that follow from the lockdown policy (eg., cancer deaths due to lack of timely treatment) and the deaths of despair that follow the economic fallout from the lockdown policy (alcoholism and people taking their own lives, increase in poverty due to austerity etc). Overall, it is likely that the lockdowns will result in more deaths over the coming years than were saved by the lockdown. None of this was taken into account when modelling and when forming policy.
No proper science was performed when forming policy. It was all hunch based and pervaded by Group think. What a shambles.
“The problem with lockdowns is that they are by necessity far too porous which prevents containment and allows the virus to spread, albeit at a slower rate. You therefore end up with less deaths per day, but running over a longer period of time, such that the end result is not much different. You also end up with all the consequential deaths that follow from the lockdown policy (eg., cancer deaths due to lack of timely treatment) and the deaths of despair that follow the economic fallout from the lockdown policy (alcoholism and people taking their own lives, increase in poverty due to austerity etc). Overall, it is likely that the lockdowns will result in more deaths over the coming years than were saved by the lockdown. None of this was taken into account when modelling and when forming policy.”
and that is the real issue, it is not secondary care that is likely to have to pick up the pieces but GPs and other primary care organisations both NHS and charities. Alcoholics Anonymous reported a significant increase in the number of people accessing their web site in the first few weeks of lock down. Mental health services in the UK have been stripped to the bone and beyond, therefore there are very few services available for all of those adversely affected by this event including the healthcare professionals working in ITU/A&E as well as those caught up in isolation.
We will have to look at the whole year statistics on excess deaths to see if there were any additional deaths to a typical year. People who have already died, with Covid-19, will not be able to die again. There will likely be fewer excess deaths through the balance of the year. There may end up being no excess deaths from Covid-19 in the long run.
Definitely over the long run there will be no excess deaths as you point out we only die once. It all comes down to timing.
https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/ may shed some light on the Swedish experience
“(if it had been just two weeks earlier, at least 50,000 of the 70,000 excess British deaths attributable to the virus would have been prevented)”
Man you people hold onto your lies.
Where is Sweden’s Sombrero peak?
Mr Stoner is characteristically intemperate, malevolent and ill-informed. He should ask his kindergarten mistress to explain the properties of exponential curves to him. Early action to prevent exponential increase very greatly reduces the impact of any new epidemic. Indeed, my estimate of the lives that would have been saved by less dithering and more promptitude on the part of HM Government is almost certainly an understatement: since it was published, an academic epidemiologist has published his own estimate, which indicates that more than 60,000 of the 70,000 excess British deaths would have been avoided if the lockdown had been introduced two weeks earlier.
With lockdowns lifting and people returning to work, it seems unlikely there will be nearly as much increase in deaths compared to increases in confirmed cases, because the age profile of new cases is very different compared to two months ago. In Florida, new cases are occurring among people with an average age of 37, instead of the ~55 from two months back. The criticality of age among the infected can’t be overstated. Many countries (I think there are about 15) with median ages under 20 simply do not have and will likely never have a significant number of deaths; the virus appears unable to spread in those populations. Which strongly suggests that people under 20 are both more resistant and less likely to spread the virus to others if they do become infected.
There are numerous comments referring to the Swedish experience, with mortality sometime in April on a par with Germany and currently between France and Italy.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/EuropeCV.htm
Lock-down was a huge experiment where medical and economic balancing was attempted with a final judgement of success or failure result still beyond horizon
Monckton of Brenchley “One understands that people have strong prejudices, but they should not allow those prejudices to stand in the way of rational analysis.”
Sorry, I still believe your figure of 50,000 saved souls is exaggerated, and not fully substantiated in the real world.
Italy shut down on the 9th, the UK exactly 15 days later on the 23rd.
Deaths as a percentage of total cases is at 14% in both countries.
If you look at deaths per million it’s 571 and 623 respectively. There’s effectively no difference.
What you’re saying is Italy, by shutting down earlier, should theoretically be much better off than Blighty.
It’s clearly not, by any metric. Those bonus 15 days haven’t worked for Italy, why?
Germany on the other hand shutdown on the same date as the UK, and as of now are on the top of this particular podium with only 4.7% of their total number of cases dying. That’s a whacking 10% better, with the same start date, why?
Here’s my, probably faulty rationale, in a nutshell.
Being the first to give it a go the Italians lockdown the loosest, and even with a 15 day window of opportunity fail to take advantage.
Germans lockdown the tightest, and with the most popular compliance, even though they’re late. Unbelievable as that may seem.
The Brits lockdown somewhere in the middle of those two, the country’s split on just about everything anyway. Boris tried bravado, then lost his bottle to an intimidating computer model, and the rest is history.
I don’t want to labour the point, but you are a political personnage and an accusation of this nature against the UK government insinuating they have “blood on their hands” is worthy of an op-ed in the wokest of your country’s media. Btw, I’m neither Tory or a woketard.
Your assertion is simply not true, I’ll give you 15-20,000 max and I think that’s generous.
You aptly show that lockdown, like CO2, is not an overriding control knob.
Climate Believer, parroted by the unthinking Scissor, appears not to understand the properties of an exponential curve. To compare the exponential curves for different countries, one must first normalize the curves so that each starts on the date when at least ten cases have been reported. He has failed to carry out that normalization, wherefore his analysis and conclusion are without merit.
Since I published my estimate that some 50,000 of the 70,000 lives lost as a result of the pandemic could have been saved in the UK by introducing lockdowns two weeks earlier, an academic epidemiologist has published his own estimate indicating that more than 60,000 of the 70,000 lives lost could have been spared. For he, of course, had correctly normalized the data.
I submit that this virus is not more deadly than the 1957 or 1968 viruses, but that the vulnerable populations are much higher now. In 1957, the U.S. had 4 million type 2 diabetics. In 2015, it had 80 million.
(and don’t forget demographic changes)…
Thomas
In the uk the number of over 85’s has doubled in 15 Years. The population has also grown by some 5 million since then. General health such as with diabetes virtually did not exist 50 years ago and Comparing the very bad flu season in the 1950’s and 1960’s should bear in mind the number of The very vulnerable and the larger population today.
There is far more likelihood of much greater death toll today than 50 years ago and that there wasn’t suggests we need to get the current event in context, also let us not forget we were not put into house detention or the economy devastated back then.
Tonyb
Definitely true.
I am very confused by your last graph. Starting with your flu death numbers. The graph suggests the 2017-18 flu season, widely accepted as having lead to over 300,000 deaths in the USA as having caused only 15,486 deaths. Similar, frankly silly, low numbers are associated with other flu seasons. Meanwhile 104,000 deaths are presented as a huge spike on this same graph where a realistic graph would in fact show coronavirus as similar to flu season deaths.
I’m not saying there aren’t differences, covid-19 isn’t fading out like flu with warmer weather for instance, still I find this graph at best confusing.
I’m not sure the lockdown and its end is near as big a deal as you suggest either. 2/3 of US deaths are in only 6 states containing only 18% of US population. These high rate states have more to do with incredibly foolish decisions by Democrat governors than they have to do with isolation or a lack thereof. Last time I went through the numbers the 6 states with the highest death rates all had governors that ordered nursing homes to take infected patients regardless of whether they had PPE available. The result was tens of thousands of additional deaths. The rise in cases in the US has a lot to do with the rise in number of tests. The death rate seems to be going down fairly sharply as the majority of cases move out of the nursing homes and into the general public. My Immediate area now has about 220 confirmed cases 3 hospitalized 190 listed as recovered and so far no deaths in a population a little over 200,000. I’m not expecting a huge surge in the death toll. Though I expect the media will claim one is occurring.
One nearby county had a panic because of a 50% fatality rate… 2 cases 1 death.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchly, I appreciate your contributions. I doubt you can make a real case about the number of lives that could have been saved by an earlier adoption of a strategy.
This study from Germany that shows a benefit from facemasks illustrates an approach to the difficulty of comparing “what did happen” to “what we might have expected to happen”:
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach
You need a really solid approach to modeling what would have happened absent the policy change, and for UK as a whole I don’t think you can make such a case.
Interesting study, thanks.
Yes Slovakia was first in western world to wear face masks, and from that time – March 13th I’m just observing other countries, how they are first stubbornly rejecting masks, then they give up and adopt them – Czech Republic, Austria, France, Germany, now California. And in 2 weeks followed by steep decline of new cases.
I’m not necessary disagreeing, but I think there are four important aspects not deep enough incorporated in this article. As a Dutchman living in the US, I’ve been following both sides of the response. While the initial response of the Dutch compare to the US was dangerously naïve and slow (like the government having no issues going skiing in Northern Italy when caseload was exploding already, and people not having to quarantine when coming back from such a trip), I think they had the more rational approach compared to the average US response, once inevitability sunk in. But that is kind of my first aspect: you cannot compare the US as one country, as the responses in states have been widely different.
Some states had no lockdowns. Not just Sweden style, really no lockdown. Others went almost full China-style doing much more stricter things than Monckton’s UK. But there has been no clear pattern. Some states that were lightly hit, did strong lockdowns, while other medium hit stayed open. My own state had on paper a fairly strong lockdown, but no strict enforcement occurred making any much more a paper weight. Also case loads seem to no correlate strongly here. States with heavy lockdowns did not see much different curves. In part obviously as states are not the same in terms of population and climate and hence outdoor vs indoor ratios of movement. TDS prevalence in local leaders seems to be somewhat a correlator in terms of measures taken, but otherwise no real pattern can be seen. But either way, the US really is not uniform enough to look at it as a country.
Second is that testing matters. Florida sees for instance a rise in case now, due to increased testing. Average age of cases also plummets. Not just drops, but plummets, making it unlikely a hospitalization or death wave will follow. The Dutch however at some point earlier on, just gave up. They did not have enough tests and the Swiss company providing the test did not want to license it so it could be produced locally, even though they could not meet demand. That does not affect hospitalization and actual death, but does affect cases. In my own state for weeks while cases exploded testing capacity stayed stable, making it questionable whether they did not miss massive amounts. And then when cases started to flatten, literally over a weekend they added 40% capacity. So testing is so different per country and also within countries so wildly variable I don’t think ‘confirmed cases’ is really a meaningful number.
But, third, even death numbers are problematic. The Dutch at least in early stages undercounted deaths, as many nursing home deaths were not tested as explained they had no tests. So they were not listed as COVID, even though people suspected they did have it. On the other end both WHO and US numbers are death’s with COVID and not ‘due to’. Many states do not have estimates of the ‘due to’. The ones that do show typically a 10-15% estimate of cases where a patient died with and not ‘due to’. But even ‘due to’ is hard to estimate. Did the patient die of COVID or an existing cancer? Without the cancer an otherwise healthy patient would normally have not died due to COVID, but in reverse, without COVID the patient may have lived for months or longer.
Also in the early stages many hospitals over the world did flu tests on patients with symptoms. If the patient had flu, it was assumed it was not COVID. As there was no COVID test, this seems reasonable. Later we learned this was a dangerous assumption and co-existence is not rare. Best estimate is 20% of COVID patients have another co-infection. This combination making it more dangerous. Bacterial infections flaring up, seem to be a significant factor in deaths. That gives hope as these can be treated if detected early enough.
This is key I think: We really don’t know the excess deaths until a few months after this is all over, as statistically many of the COVID deaths would have died within a few months anyway.
I also think that death counts are more affected by how one handled nursing homes. New York and Sweden are famous examples of bad policy. Florida seems to do much better. But also just look a that one Life Care Center home in Kirkland, WA near US’s ground zero that got hit early and saw ~85% of patients infected an roughly 1/3 die within a month. Last number I saw was that about 40% o deaths in the US were in nursing homes. I think history will show that that is the single most important factor in dealing with this virus. Michigan still forces COVID patients back into these homes and openly defends that policy. Unsurprisingly more than 80% of their deaths are from these homes.
Last and fourth, we keep comparing with flu, but COVID is in many ways different than flue. Just a raw numbers game (CDC 0.26% vs flu 0.14%) hides important aspects. For young children flu is more infectious and more lethal than COVID. For healthy people below 50 both essential equal as in both rarely lethal, but for elderly it seems to be a bit more dangerous. But for people with inflammatory sensitive diseases like diabetes it is much more dangerous.
So all in all I think that just looking at high level graphs is too soon and too much an average as it paints over important aspects of this disease.
Very thoughtful comment.
If more people had your understanding, especially policy makers, there would be fewer nursing home deaths and there would be less fear regarding opening schools in the fall.
I highly respect Lord Monckton’s analysis and clear writing style in the many articles he has authored for WUWT.
However, I believe that in the above article he was remiss in his summary comparison of the seasonal (originally “Spanish”) flu to COVID-19’s currently pandemic pattern. To wit, he stated in his last two paragraphs:
“Finally, the notion – advocated by many vexatious trolls here – that the coronavirus pandemic is ‘no worse than the annual flu’ must now be dismissed out of hand. If one compares the daily incremental counts of flu and of the Chinese virus in the United States, by June 10 the latter was about six times the former. . . . Even if one compares apples with oranges – the daily incremental count of the Chinese virus against the estimated total for the entire flu season – the Chinese virus is twice as bad as the worst annual flu in the U.S.”
Lord Monckton neglected to point out that humanity has lived with the flu (existing essentially as a pandemic) for more than 100 years . . . in comparison humanity has lived with the COVID-19 pandemic for less than one year.
According to the World Health Organization worldwide estimates (see: https://www.medscape.com/answers/219557-3459/what-is-the-global-incidence-of-influenza ), annual influenza epidemics presently result in about 3-5 million cases of severe illness and about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths. And this is after about 100 years of human physiology trying to develop some sort of “herd immunity” to the multiple strains of that particular family of viruses.
It is certainly arguable that if the seasonal flu first became a pandemic in 2020, we would see much higher worldwide incidents of the spread and lethality of the flu than we experience 100 years later after its first appearance (circa 1918).
It is a little know fact that in the single month of October 1918, 195,000 Americans died of the flu outbreak, despite cities being gripped with fear, school programs being canceled and theaters, places of worship, and other places of “public amusement” being shuttered (source: https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-deaths-october-1918 ). Keep in mind that 1918 was well before the advent of affordable-to-the-masses, rapid air and sea travel throughout the world, which would have made the pandemic much worse than it was then. N.B., the total COVID-19 death toll in the US has not yet come close to 195,000!
And, no, I am not a vexatious troll. Just pointing out facts for all to see and ponder.
Gordon
I understand that the population of the US has virtually doubled in that period so by that criteria that is the equivalent of nearly 400,000 deaths today
tonyb
tonyb, you make a very good point.
Offsetting that somewhat is the fact that medicines to treat the symptoms of COVID-19—and, perhaps more importantly, the underlying medical conditions that COVID-19 clearly exacerbates— are much better today that what existed in 1918 to treat the flu and similar underlying medical conditions.
Nevertheless, the October 1918 flu death toll in the US stands head-and-sholders to be much more lethal than COVID-19 has been over the accumulated period of January to mid-June 2020.
Virtually no one under 50 has died of this Chinese virus, people under 50 should never have been in lock down.
Easy enough to check on what you assert:
From the period of January 22–May 30, 2020, in just the USA the CDC reports 3,254 deaths of persons under the age of 50 among all patients having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection. —source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm
Maybe you consider 3,254 as virtually nothing . . . I, however, do not.
As many commentators have observed: the deaths from this “incredibly different corona virus” are , in terms of numbers, impossible to follow. We have spoken To,doctors from hospitals, who say that nearly always, deaths involving this virus are just an adjunct cause to another conditions.
Until a verified account of deaths from and because of covid19 alone, I will,never believe the hiaetis over the need for lockdown, distancing, fear and near destruction of the economic health of the UK.
I am 80 and have shopped and circulated as normally as I can. No mask!
Please be sceptical of all politicians, and beware anyone claiming to be an expert and used by our politicians!
I wear a mask while shopping as a courtesy to others wearing masks.
I have been saying from the start of this that isolating people will only delay how individuals react to the virus, whether exposed at the start or months later ain’t going to change the result. Some will have no symptoms some will get ill even die but the result will be the same.
I’m not fussed as I know where I’m going but as many have nothing they are frightened.
James Bull
1. <65 go back to work
2. HCQ-Zn-Zpac widely available for initial symptoms
3. Take extra vitC and vitD also for initial symptoms.
Depending on the source, Gibraltar is ranked the 3rd, 5th or 6th most densely-populated territory in the world, and it has exactly zero Covid19 deaths.
Most densely-populated with their Cases and Deaths:
1st Monaco 99 / 4
2nd Macao (China) 45 / 0
3rd Singapore 41615 / 26
4th Hong Kong (China) 1128 / 4
5th Gibraltar 176 / 0
I would be interested to know what other factors account for those perhaps-surprising statistics.
At first glance, they all seem to be beside the sea. Onshore/offshore winds carrying something ?
Sources:
http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/gibraltar
That’s an intriguing observation Bob-in-UK.
Perhaps Ozone or Chlorine gas, which in small amounts permeates the atmosphere in seaside areas. Visitors to seaside recreation towns, of times will remark about the “smell of the sea”, and there could well be something in that. Probably this is worthy of a serious research project. I think it is a given, that both Chlorine and Ozone are deadly to both bacteria and viruses in trace amounts that do not affect Humans in a deleterious way. Again it is interesting perhaps that some of the highest concentrations of essential Zinc are those contained in seafoods. Even the Roman soldiers who came to Britain two thousand years ago, long before people knew about viruses and bacteria, would fortify their constitution by eating a few raw oysters daily. Oysters as we now know, do contain one of the most concentrated sources of ionic Zinc. We now know that Zinc is absolutely vital in fighting viral infections, as it’s consumed by the immune system.
“Big Pharma” looks for a technical solution based upon complex patentable drug and immunotherapeutics. “Big Gov” looks for a political solution based upon improving electoral prospects, and shading opponents.
What is not even looked at are the simple solutions, because principally there’s no money or advantage to be had by those in power and authority, who pretend to be in control of society and public at large. Hmm.
Jack, thanks for the comments.
Ozone, chlorine, … how about iodine ?
Iodine in solution (Tincture of Iodine) has been routinely used against bacteria and viruses.
A vague recollection about iodine in sea air prompted a bit of searching.
The Ocean as a source of atmospheric iodine:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0004698184903366
Health benefits of iodine in combination with, or proximity to, seaweed:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/breathing-seaweed-fumes-good-for-health-research-shows-1.2709362
Breathing iodine in sea air especially near seaweed:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21431377/
UK iodine deficiency:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13034582
Iodine deficiency in Australia and NZ, but with a remedy – adding iodine to bread flour:
https://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2008/11/06/2399550.htm
Japan and S.Korea are near the top for eating seaweed. Covid-19 Cases and Deaths:
Japan 17740 / 935
S.Korea 12373 / 280
Australia 7436 / 102 – uses supplemental iodine ?
New Zealand 1509 / 22 – uses supplemental iodine ?
Plenty of iodine and zinc in seaweed … Stay safe and eat Sushi ?
As a native of the Rock I can attest to it’s seasideyness 🙂
Just a thought, quickly looking at the demographics, Gibraltar and Singapore share similar low over 65’s populations (16% and 11%) compared to mainland countries such as the UK or Italy (26% and 21%).
Looking at Monaco though, over 65’s make up 27% of the population.
{shrug}
How can you trust stats when New York hospitals were receiving money to report deaths as covid?
UK evidence ( and other world evidence) show it is a disease that affects older people. So protect those people. There are interesting analyses by people like Michael Levitt (Stanford, Nobel prize ) prof Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University). Karl Friston, Johan Giesecke, Prof Karol Sikora. Anders Tegnell and more all available online. They are all worth checking out. Fatality rates are still falling all over Europe and (so far) since those countries have started opening up from lockdown, no big spikes in cases or fatalities. The US is still going through the epidemic as it spreads into the rest of the country. South America has the same thing happening. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52807376
Fatality rates are bound to fall in any epidemic of viral diseases like this, aren’t they though? Ultimately everyone in social societies will be exposed to the virus. Those who are susceptible will become ill to some degree, but most will recover. Sadly a few will succumb and die. Those people cannot die again, as someone else already pointed out in here. So death rates will logically dwindle away to near zero, even if no actions were taken at all in mitigation of this epidemic. This is nothing new. What’s new is the politically driven panicked response. There will need to be a searching and worldwide public inquiry into these events, and culprits identified and castigated, so that this isn’t allowed to happen again.
Mr Black, in saying that the fatality rate will eventually dwindle even if no action is taken to prevent transmission of a new pathogen, is merely describing the sombrero curve of any infection that is not controlled.
However, as the graph shown by HM Chief Medical Officer of Health demonstrates, the peak of the sombrero curve is a great deal higher than the peak of the Gibraltar curve. It is that very high peak that has to be avoided: otherwise, a really bad pandemic can collapse a civilization.
He calls for a public inquiry. There will be many such: but those inquiries will all conclude that no responsible government – once it had failed to track and trace and isolate from the outset – should have stood aside and allowed the new pathogen to spread more or less unchecked.
By the same token, lockdowns should not be left in place for a moment longer than necessary. For all under 50, and for all under 65 with no comorbidities, there is no reason why complete resumption of business as usual should not be permitted at once. It is up to those of us who are old and infirm to take our own precautions. Lockdowns have largely achieved their purpose, and can now be prudently dismantled by taking due account of the extreme differences in risk between young and old, fit and infirm that apply in the presence of this particular pathogen.
‘However, the economic cost is still heavy, and nations will soon have to take much more careful account of the economic cost of allowing no-longer-necessary lockdowns to persist.’
m’lord. still heavy – you ain’t seen nuth’n yet
What’s the use of any “reported cases” graphic comparison while not being able to normalize on:
– major differences in overall testing policy and frequency
– major differences in selected test methods and quality
– geographical distribution of testing inside a country.
The moment this is fully realized, the article stops having worth. Although the good Lord is always wonderful and insightful to read, whatever the topic or overall use value of the conclusion.
In response to Mr Downer, any application of applied mathematics – such as the probabilistic combinatorics of which epidemiology is a rather inexpert subset – has the task of constraining uncertainties such as those which he mentions.
For instance, one can study the shapes of the curves of different pandemics – for all pandemics that are uncontrolled will follow the sombrero curve, while all pandemics that are sufficiently controlled, by whatever means, will follow the Gibraltar curve.
The head posting merely demonstrates the Gibraltar curve, and shows that the daily case-counts in the United States are beginning to depart dangerously from that curve. You can disregard that warning if you like, and cross your fingers and screw your eyes tight shut and go “la-la-la” if you want, but a responsible federal administration would be keeping a close eye on the case-counts, and would be taking all reasonable steps to bring them back down into conformity with the Gibraltar curve.
That is the value of the head posting. Take it or leave it.
This author has been debunked so many times we must very much hope, for the sake of his health, that he does not reside on the top bunk.
As so many have remarked, so often, with such perspicacity, the only data to be relied upon is/are all cause mortality:
‘The Basic Research Question. “Did countries show an alarming excess in total deaths during the ‘Corona’ period of March to May 2020?“
The Answer: Alarming excess? No. Nowhere. Any excess? Some places. In a review of twenty-four countries in Europe, we see no mortality-excess outside the normal range in six countries; mild excess in eleven countries; and significant spikes in seven countries. In only two or three (of the latter seven) will the full magnitude of the mortality-excess double that of their own late-2010s flu spikes, with the impact softer on a longer time horizon (see the final summary section for list of countries by how much the Corona-associated excess compares to their own 2010s flu spike excesses).
Of those countries with mortality excesses, many have entered below-average mortality following the end of their spikes. I expect this will continue and will be seen in every country that showed a spike, given the age-condition profiles of those who died in this flu wave (over 80 and in poor health). I will update this post July 2 and would expect to see countries that had significant excess-mortality (especially Sweden) to show below-average mortality for June.’
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/against-the-corona-panic-part-xiv-total-mortality-data-in-europe-now-confirms-the-wuhan-coronavirus-was-comparable-in-magnitude-to-flu-waves-of-the-2010s-the-panic-and-lockdowns-are-fully-discredit/#more-7151