By Neil Lock
Preface
Charles has asked me to clarify the Blavatnik stringency index I use in this paper. Here’s where you can find its definition: in Chapter 4 of https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-11/BSG-WP-2020-032-v9.pdf. I share Charles’s concerns about the way the index is put together. My own criticisms are: One, they weight their 9 factors equally, without justification. My main objective in this paper is to try to put together some evidence to test that equal weighting! Two, they do not rightly weight regional lockdowns in comparison with national ones. In my view, any regional lockdown should be weighted according to the population affected by it. A lockdown measure in England (84% of the UK population), for example, ought to carry almost 17 times as much weight in the index as the same measure in Wales (5% of the population). All that said, if the Blavatnik data has been put together honestly (and I don’t have any evidence to lead me to doubt that), my inclination is to use it to get the best picture I can.

A month ago, I compared the histories of the COVID-19 epidemic in fourteen Western European countries. At that point, the “second wave” of the virus, which had been building throughout the region for three or four months, was giving governments an excuse to start re-introducing lockdowns. So, I said that I would review the situation in a month or so. That month has now elapsed, so here’s the review. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll now have enough data to form some idea of which lockdown measures have been effective, and which haven’t.
Once again, here is the list of countries:
| Austria |
| Belgium |
| Denmark |
| France |
| Germany |
| Ireland |
| Italy |
| Luxembourg |
| Netherlands |
| Portugal |
| Spain |
| Sweden |
| Switzerland |
| UK |
The data sources are the same as before: Our World in Data and the Blavatnik School of Government, both at Oxford University. The data I used was taken on December 3rd, and it included figures up to and including December 2nd.
In the last week or so, the Our World in Data feed has changed quite substantially. Most data before the third week of January has been deleted. Some countries – France, Germany and Sweden at least – have taken the opportunity to wipe and re-write a lot of their data, some of it right back to the beginning of the epidemic. And the data for UK dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Gibraltar) and Danish dependencies (Faeroe Islands, Greenland) has disappeared entirely. I would have expected that this data might have been consolidated into the parent country’s; but for the UK at least, I don’t see any evidence of this.
Every so often, the Our World in Data feed adds new data columns. One of these recently added is the reproduction rate (Rt). This is the average number of new infections passed on (as at a given day) by a single infected person. It is usually expressed as a fraction. Rt bigger than 1 means the infection numbers are generally rising, and less than 1 means they are generally falling. In the UK at least, this is modelled data rather than measured data. And, as we’ll see, some countries’ figures are smoother than others, so it looks as if different countries are calculating it differently. But it’s still of interest to compare even a modelled Rt with the observed rate of growth of new cases.
Also, in November the Swedes have also completely re-written their lockdown stringency data, and it now looks as if for months their lockdown hasn’t been nearly as light as we had been led to believe. All this said, I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times before: It’s the best data I have, so I’ll use it.
Cases
I’ll begin with cases. Here are the total (cumulative) cases per million population over the whole period of the epidemic, up to December 2nd.

Here is a daily cases per million population comparison. The data shown are centrally averaged over a 7-day period. That is, the date against which a count is plotted is the 4th (central) day of the period.

In the great majority of the 14 countries, the new case counts have peaked since late October, and in many have since fallen significantly. So, the recent lockdowns must have had an effect. Which measures have had the most effect, is a moot point at this stage.
Here is the list of daily cases per million as at the end of the month:

To put this in perspective, only Spain, Ireland and France are currently below the 200 new cases per million population per day, at which the WHO considers the virus to be endemic, and no unlocks should be considered. However, four more countries, including the UK, are now only slightly above it.
Another way to look at the cases figures is in terms of weekly new case growth. This is the percentage growth in the (weekly averaged) new cases from a particular day to the same day of the week a week later. This requires the weekly averaged new cases up to 3 days after the current date, meaning there must be at least 6 days of case data after the current date. That is why the graph stops before the end of November.

It’s obvious that, over the last four weeks, the trends in weekly case growth have almost all been downward. So much so, that only three of the countries are now showing positive growth in new cases:

Another way to look at infection rates is to plot the reproduction rate, Rt. This is based on numbers of infections, not cases, so it may show a slightly different picture to the weekly case growth. Later, when I come to plot the two on the same axis, it will become plain that while the two are clearly related, they don’t always move together in perfect sync.
Here are the Rt values supplied by each country over the course of the epidemic. With the exception of Sweden, the Rt rates have been trending down throughout November:


The UK is one of only four of the countries with an Rt rate below 1 at the end of November.
In contrast, the trends in lockdown stringency have almost all been upward since late October:

The UK (pink line) appears to be bucking this trend; but, like most things political, that is a deceit. The apparent drop around November 10th was caused by the release of “circuit-breaker” lockdowns in Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet people in England are (were?) far harder locked down at the end of November than at the end of October. At the moment at least, the figure pulled through to Our World in Data only reports measures which are in place UK wide; it seems to miss additional measures in the individual constituent countries. On top of the currently reported figure of about 64%, these additional measures account as of November 30th for around 5% extra stringency in England, 3% in Northern Ireland and Wales, and around 1% in Scotland.
Tests
The number of cases which get found depends, in part at least, on the testing capacity available. Here are the cumulative tests carried out per 100,000 population in each country (except Sweden and France, which do not report cumulative test counts):

Luxembourg and Denmark are well ahead of the rest. In fact, the number of tests done in Luxembourg since the start of the epidemic is more than twice the population!
Another interesting statistic is the cumulative percentage of positives among the tests done since the very beginning of the epidemic:

In many of the countries, the cases per test percentage has climbed significantly in the second wave of the epidemic. I’d guess this is simply because infections have been climbing faster than any increase in the number of tests available. This is consistent with the observation that, in most of the countries, this ratio now seems to be nearing a second peak.
Deaths
Here are four spaghetti graphs of deaths from the virus. The first is total deaths per million population. The second shows the daily deaths per million, over the course of the epidemic; and I have appended to it a histogram of the deaths per million rates as at November 30th. You can see here which countries have started to “get on top” of the second wave, and which haven’t. The third shows deaths per case, with the cases offset 21 days back from the deaths (21 days being the mean length of the course of the disease, in the UK at least). The fourth and final graph shows the cumulative totals of deaths per case over the whole course of the epidemic.





The UK (pink line) is not doing well in the deaths-per-case stakes. It is second only to Italy in current daily deaths per case. And the UK is now top of the list in terms of deaths per case over the whole epidemic, at about 3.6%. Deaths per case is, I think, a fair indicator of lack of quality in a country’s health care system; for lack of testing capacity, and less effective treatment of those who need hospitalization, will both tend to increase it.
Lockdowns
I come now to the meat of this review. For each country, I have plotted weekly case growth percentage (blue line), lockdown stringency percentage (brown line) and Rt rate multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage (grey line), all on the same graph. Both the weekly case growth and Rt are capped at a maximum of 200%. If a particular lockdown measure is effectual, then I would expect the grey and blue lines to move in the opposite direction to the brown, at or shortly after the day the measure comes into effect. A newly introduced lockdown measure, if successful, ought to visibly slow Rt rate, or weekly case growth, or both, within the incubation period of the virus (maximum 12 days).
This is complicated by the fact that, as you will see from the graphs, the virus has a rhythm of its own. Under conditions of constant stringency, the weekly case growth tends to oscillate periodically. The period can be different in different countries, and sometimes varies from time to time within a country; but 2 to 6 weeks from peak to peak or trough to trough is typical. Left to itself, over the course of many cycles, the weekly case growth will tend to rise. But if a lockdown measure is effective, it may change the overall trend between peaks or troughs from upwards to downwards, and may also start to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
As to the reproduction rate, it too tends to oscillate periodically, in the same direction as the weekly case growth. Peaks and troughs in weekly case growth often show a few days ahead of peaks and troughs in the Rt rate. However, as some of the examples below will show, it is now quite common to have Rt above 1 and case growth negative at the same time.
The other component of my review is the detailed data, which the Blavatnik School of Government provide on the status of 12 lockdown indicators (9 of which contribute to the stringency index) for each country for each day. I have converted these to a list of measures which have been imposed (or unlocked) in each country, with dates, since August 1st. I have also included a summary of the currently active lockdown measures in each country.
Austria

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200906 | 36.11 | Schools: Recommended closed (Regional) International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20200914 | 36.11 | Face covering: Required when with others |
| 20200917 | 37.04 | Workplaces: Recommended closed (Regional) Gatherings: Up to 11-100 |
| 20200929 | 40.74 | Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20201013 | 44.91 | Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional) Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional) |
| 20201017 | 58.8 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20201023 | 60.19 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20201027 | 64.81 | Schools: Recommended closed Events: Mandatory cancelled |
| 20201102 | 75 | Schools: Some closed Workplaces: Some closed Public transport: Recommended closed Stay at home: Required with exceptions Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201117 | 82.41 | Schools: Mandatory closed Workplaces: Mandatory closed |
Current (20201127): Schools: Mandatory closed, Workplaces: Mandatory closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, Travel: Recommended not to travel, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: Open, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: Given the high peaks in both Rt and case growth near the end of October, I don’t think the lockdown measures introduced during September and early October had a whole lot of effect. However, the September 29th “Stay at home: Recommended” did appear to produce an all but immediate downturn in weekly case growth and in reproduction rate. The October 23rd reduced limit on the size of gatherings also seems to have had an immediate beneficial effect. The November 2nd measures also had some positive effect, though it’s not possible to tell which of them were responsible for it. The November 17th measures have continued the drop in weekly case growth, but I don’t yet have the Rt figures to cross-check with.
There’s something else curious about this graph. Look at the peaks in Rt and in the weekly case growth. They seem to be getting vertically further apart from each other. As time goes on, it looks as if it takes a higher Rt to produce a given growth in cases. I wonder, perhaps, if the proportion of infections which do not lead to confirmed cases (for example, because they are asymptomatic) is rising? If so, that’s good news.
Belgium

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200729 | 62.96 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) Gatherings: Up to <=10 Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) |
| 20200807 | 59.26 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) |
| 20200809 | 64.81 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200812 | 58.33 | Workplaces: Some closed Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: No restrictions |
| 20200827 | 52.78 | Stay at home: No measures |
| 20200930 | 47.22 | Events: Recommended cancelled Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20201001 | 47.22 | Face covering: Required when with others |
| 20201009 | 45.37 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20201019 | 54.63 | Workplaces: Some closed Stay at home: Required with exceptions |
| 20201029 | 56.48 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20201102 | 65.74 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed Events: Mandatory cancelled |
| 20201116 | 63.89 | Schools: Recommended closed |
Current (20201123): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Mandatory closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: I added the July 29th measures to the list above, because they do seem to have had an immediate and significant effect. The only national measure in that group was the restriction of gathering size to 10 or below, so that may have been what “did the trick” at that stage. The precipitate fall in weekly case growth around October 22nd, and in the reproduction rate a little later, looks likely to be due to the October 19th “Stay at home: Required with exceptions.” The November 2nd mandatory closure of workplaces and cancellation of events have in fact been followed by an increase in weekly case growth, though it is still (just) negative. Rt has continued to drop, but there is no “knee” to suggest that these measures on their own made a significant difference.
I will, however, note that the stringent October 1st “Face covering: Required when with others” mandate seems to have done nothing at all to prevent the huge peak in new cases in mid to late October. And it seems to have sent the reproduction rate up, not down! I think that gives us some evidence that mandating face coverings brings little or no benefits.
Denmark

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200801 | 50.93 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200822 | 50.93 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20200909 | 47.69 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) Gatherings: Up to 11-100 (Regional) Public info: Co-ordinated (Regional) |
| 20200919 | 50.93 | Workplaces: Some closed Gatherings: Up to 11-100 |
| 20201010 | 41.67 | Workplaces: Recommended closed Gatherings: Up to 101-1000 Public transport: Open Public info: Co-ordinated Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20201021 | 37.04 | Schools: Open Gatherings: Up to 11-100 Stay at home: No measures Contact tracing: Comprehensive |
| 20201026 | 39.81 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20201109 | 54.63 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) Stay at home: Recommended Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201116 | 50 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) Travel: Recommended not to travel (Regional) |
| 20201119 | 43.52 | Schools: Recommended closed Stay at home: No measures Travel: No restrictions |
| 20201123 | 45.37 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) |
Current (20201130): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Recommended closed, Events: Recommended cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Recommended (Regional), International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: Open, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required in some places.
Notes: Denmark’s Rt rate looks smoother than either Austria’s or Belgium’s, and it doesn’t show all the peaks and troughs in weekly case growth. It looks as if they may be calculating it a different way from the others.
The last three troughs in Rt (the final one is only just visible) look to have all bottomed out at similar values around 120%, and all at stringency levels near 50%, too. The October 26th reduction of maximum group size, combined with the stay at home and not-to-travel recommendations in force from November 9th to 19th, have brought the Rt down somewhat, but not as much as I would have expected. They may also have contributed to the small size of the following case growth peak; but I can’t be sure. We’ll have to wait a bit longer to draw any conclusions from Denmark.
France

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200803 | 46.3 | Face covering: Required outside the home (Regional) |
| 20200814 | 48.15 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20200901 | 46.76 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional) |
| 20200903 | 48.61 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20200922 | 46.76 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200926 | 49.54 | Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional) |
| 20201010 | 43.98 | Events: Recommended cancelled Travel: No restrictions |
| 20201017 | 49.54 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) |
| 20201030 | 78.7 | Schools: Some closed Workplaces: Mandatory closed Events: Mandatory cancelled Gatherings: Up to <=10 Stay at home: Required with exceptions Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
| 20201128 | 75 | Workplaces: Some closed |
Current (20201128): Schools: Some closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, Travel: Mandatory restrictions, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated. Testing: Open. Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: To help make sense of the French data, I’ll also show the daily cases graph:

What seems to have happened is that the French waited until the last possible moment, then on October 30th threw in just about every lockdown idea they could think of, all at the same time. It seems to have “worked,” after a fashion; but it’s been almost as harsh as the first lockdown. Moreover, the French have had “Face covering: Required when with others” nationally since July 20th. So, that rush up to the peak from July to October, I think, is fairly good evidence that face mask wearing by the public doesn’t hamper the spread of the virus.
Note also that, as of mid-November and under stringent lockdown, Rt was still above 100%, and yet new cases were dropping.
Germany

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200807 | 59.72 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20200808 | 56.94 | Gatherings: Up to 11-100 (Regional) |
| 20200824 | 59.72 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional) |
| 20200903 | 57.87 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200904 | 49.54 | Travel: No restrictions |
| 20201001 | 46.76 | International: Quarantine high-risk |
| 20201015 | 56.02 | Stay at home: Recommended Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201022 | 57.87 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) |
| 20201102 | 59.26 | Workplaces: Some closed Gatherings: Up to <=10 Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20201110 | 62.04 | International: Ban some arrivals |
Current (20201129): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Recommended, Travel: Recommended not to travel, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: Open, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required in some places.
Notes: German cases have recently all but stabilized. Here’s the new cases graph:

The most likely causes of this recent stabilization would seem to be the October 15th “Stay at home: Recommended” and “Travel: Recommended not to travel.” Germans will usually do what they are told to! The November 2nd restriction on group size, and the closure of some workplaces, have reduced Rt, but they don’t seem to have had much effect so far on case growth. And for much of November, Rt was well above 100%, but the new case counts weren’t consistently growing.
Ireland

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200808 | 59.72 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) Gatherings: Up to 11-100 (Regional) Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200818 | 63.43 | Events: Mandatory cancelled |
| 20200921 | 52.31 | Schools: Recommended closed Workplaces: Some closed Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional) Gatherings: Up to 11-100 (Regional) Public transport: Recommended closed (Regional) Travel: Recommended not to travel (Regional) |
| 20201007 | 61.57 | Schools: Recommended closed (Regional) Events: Mandatory cancelled Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
| 20201021 | 81.48 | Schools: Some closed Workplaces: Mandatory closed Gatherings: Up to <=10 Public transport: Recommended closed Stay at home: Required with exceptions |
Current (20201123): Schools: Some closed, Workplaces: Mandatory closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, Travel: Mandatory restrictions, International: Quarantine high-risk, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required in some places.
Notes: The regional measures of August 8th seem to have brought the immediate problem under control. After that, nothing seemed to have much effect until October 7th. It was probably the national measures, “Travel: Mandatory restrictions” and/or the “Events: mandatory cancelled” that did the trick. And the (over?) draconian measures of October 21st have certainly brought Rt down, and to well below 100%.
Italy

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200808 | 50.93 | International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20200817 | 54.63 | Workplaces: Some closed |
| 20200914 | 47.22 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20201006 | 55.56 | Gatherings: Up to 11-100 Public transport: Recommended closed Contact tracing: Limited Face covering: Required when with others |
| 20201014 | 50 | Public transport: Open |
| 20201023 | 66.67 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) Gatherings: Up to <=10 Public transport: Recommended closed (Regional) Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) International: Quarantine high-risk Contact tracing: Comprehensive |
| 20201106 | 76.85 | Schools: Some closed Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) Stay at home: Required with exceptions International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20201110 | 79.63 | Public transport: Recommended closed Contact tracing: Limited |
Current (20201125): Schools: Some closed, Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional), Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional), International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Limited, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: The August 17th closure of some workplaces did seem to have an effect. The package of measures on October 6th did have an immediate effect, but not as strong as the Italians might have hoped. October 23rd, for me, looks like the key date; and on that date, the only national measure was the restriction of gatherings to 10 or less. This looks like more evidence that restricting gathering sizes works.
Whether the strong restrictions added on November 6th have made a difference, or are simply “over the top,” I – once again – cannot tell; and it doesn’t help that the Italians haven’t reported any Rt figures since November 20th. But once again, an Rt consistently above 100% has nevertheless allowed case growth to drop significantly.
Luxembourg

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200807 | 31.48 | Events: Recommended cancelled Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20200812 | 34.26 | International: Screening |
| 20200821 | 39.1 | International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20200825 | 43.52 | Workplaces: Recommended closed |
| 20200913 | 40.74 | Gatherings: Up to 11-100 |
| 20200926 | 43.52 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20201006 | 43.52 | Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20201020 | 52.78 | Schools: Recommended closed Events: Mandatory cancelled |
| 20201030 | 56.48 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions Face covering: Required when with others |
| 20201126 | 60.19 | Workplaces: Some closed |
Current (20201123): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: Open, Contact tracing: Limited, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: Because Luxembourg is a small country, its weekly case growth will tend to be more volatile than in larger countries. There were also significant adjustments to the numbers of cases in late August. Since then, a significant drop in weekly case growth seems to have started since the October 20th measures. I’m a little surprised by that, as school closures were only recommended, not mandated; perhaps the mandatory cancellation of events was a bigger factor.
The October 31st “Stay at home: Required with exceptions” also produced a drop in Rt, as you can see by the “knee” on the graph. But since then, case growth hasn’t come down much, even though Rt has continued to drop. As to the November 26th closure of some workplaces, we’ll have to wait and see.
Netherlands

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200818 | 50.93 | Events: Recommended cancelled Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20200920 | 48.15 | Events: Recommended cancelled (Regional) |
| 20200929 | 62.04 | Events: Mandatory cancelled Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201104 | 65.74 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed |
| 20201122 | 56.48 | Workplaces: Some closed Travel: No restrictions |
Current (20201122): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Recommended, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required in some places.
Notes: The August 18th restriction on gathering size did seem to pull down the size of the next peak in case growth. How significant the recommendation to cancel events was, I don’t know. But Rt started to increase shortly afterwards, not to decrease!
The September 29th measures, events cancellation and recommendation not to travel, did seem to get the cases coming down at last. Rt also started to drop significantly, a week or so afterwards.
All was well for a while; and by the middle of November, Rt had dropped well below 100%. But the November 4th closure of workplaces seems to have had no beneficial effect at all. In fact, since the middle of November, Dutch cases have been dropping, but more slowly than before.
Portugal

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200801 | 65.28 | Face covering: Required outside the home (Regional) |
| 20200810 | 66.2 | Events: Mandatory cancelled Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) |
| 20200825 | 55.09 | Schools: Recommended closed Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) Stay at home: No measures |
| 20200904 | 56.94 | Workplaces: Some closed |
| 20200915 | 58.8 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) |
| 20201002 | 56.94 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20201023 | 60.65 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) |
| 20201024 | 66.2 | Schools: Mandatory closed (Regional) |
| 20201030 | 74.54 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20201104 | 66.2 | Travel: No restrictions |
| 20201106 | 60.65 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20201114 | 69.91 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) |
| 20201116 | 66.2 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20201121 | 69.91 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) |
| 20201123 | 66.2 | Workplaces: Some closed (Regional) |
Current (20201123): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed (Regional), Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional), Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional), International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: Open, Contact tracing: Limited, Face covering: Required outside the home.
Notes: Since early September, all the lockdowns have been regional. They have been quite stringent. And they do seem to be getting on top of the virus, albeit slowly.
The peaks and troughs in Rt in Portugal don’t seem to correspond to any particular lockdown measures being introduced or released at the time. Rt did, however, drop during September, a period when some workplaces were closed nationally. And, though Rt is still well above 100%, new cases have started to drop significantly. The Portuguese must be doing something right; but I have no idea what it is!
Spain

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200810 | 60.65 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) |
| 20200814 | 62.5 | Workplaces: Some closed |
| 20200907 | 60.65 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20201007 | 64.35 | Schools: Mandatory closed (Regional) |
| 20201013 | 64.35 | Contact tracing: Comprehensive Face covering: Required outside the home |
| 20201022 | 58.8 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20201025 | 71.3 | Events: Mandatory cancelled Gatherings: Up to <=10 Stay at home: Required with exceptions Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
Current (20201129): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Stay at home: Required with exceptions, Travel: Mandatory restrictions, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required outside the home.
Notes: The two sets of lockdowns during July do seem to have had an effect on both Rt and weekly case growth, but they were regional only. Another “sea change” seems to have taken place around October 25th. The measures introduced then were event cancellations, reduced gathering size, stay at home, and travel restrictions. All four of these have been seen to be effective elsewhere, so the Spaniards are probably on the right track as far as dealing with the virus is concerned. Here, too, we see Rt consistently above 100% during November, and yet a significant drop in new cases.
The face covering requirement introduced on October 13th – the most stringent in all the 14 countries – does not appear to have had any effect on Rt. And any effects it might have had on case growth will have been eclipsed by the measures of October 25th.
Sweden

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200817 | 55.56 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20201110 | 58.33 | Travel: Recommended not to travel (Regional) |
| 20201111 | 50 | Gatherings: No restrictions |
| 20201124 | 53.7 | Workplaces: Some closed |
Current (20201124): Schools: Recommended closed, Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Recommended, Travel: Recommended not to travel (Regional), International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Limited.
Notes: The weekly case growth has come down since the end of October, with no particular lockdown measure being an obvious cause. However, Rt – which is unusually smooth, like Denmark’s – has been rising since July, and now seems to have just about peaked. The November 24th closure of some workplaces hasn’t been in force long enough yet to draw any conclusions.
Switzerland

| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200917 | 43.06 | Face covering: Required when with others |
| 20200918 | 43.06 | Testing: If symptoms |
| 20201010 | 33.8 | Schools: Recommended closed (Regional) Events: Recommended cancelled (Regional) International: Quarantine high-risk |
| 20201019 | 35.19 | Gatherings: Up to 11-100 |
| 20201020 | 40.74 | Events: Recommended cancelled International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20201029 | 45.37 | Workplaces: Some closed Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional) |
| 20201102 | 49.07 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
Current (20201123): Schools: Some closed (Regional), Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional), Gatherings: Up to 11-100, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Comprehensive, Face covering: Required when with others.
Notes: This is an odd one. Rt went up enormously during September and early October, perhaps due to the re-opening of schools after the summer break. (There was a similar rise back in May, when schools re-opened after the first lockdown). Weekly case growth and Rt have been coming down almost continuously since then, and Rt is now down almost to 100%. Yet there was no national lockdown measure in early October to trigger that!
New cases peaked and started coming down around the time of the October 29th closure of some workplaces. Looking at Rt, there is a “knee” at precisely that time; so perhaps this measure added to the already existing downward trends in Rt and weekly case growth.
UK

UK wide measures
| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200801 | 69.91 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200813 | 66.2 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20200830 | 66.2 | Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20200901 | 64.35 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200914 | 65.74 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20200924 | 67.59 | Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20201012 | 60.19 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) Travel: Recommended not to travel (Regional) |
| 20201019 | 65.74 | Schools: Mandatory closed (Regional) |
| 20201022 | 67.59 | Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20201023 | 75 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20201106 | 75 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed (Regional) Stay at home: Recommended Travel: Recommended not to travel International: Ban some arrivals |
| 20201110 | 63.89 | Schools: Open Workplaces: Some closed |
Current (20201116): Workplaces: Some closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled, Gatherings: Up to <=10, Public transport: Recommended closed, Stay at home: Recommended, Travel: Recommended not to travel, International: Ban some arrivals, Public info: Co-ordinated, Testing: If symptoms, Contact tracing: Limited, Face covering: Required in some places.
Notes: The UK seems to have the best correlation between Rt and weekly case growth of all the countries. There was a sea-change from a rising to a falling Rt trend some time in September, only broken by the huge spike in early October. “Gatherings: Up to <=10” and “Stay at home: Recommended” may have helped with this.
Here is the new cases graph for the UK as a whole:

The “tiered” local lockdowns in place in the second half of October seemed to have just about stabilized the new cases. When a new national lockdown was introduced in early November, cases suddenly went up again! But they peaked around November 13th, and have been going down ever since.
The UK data is particularly difficult to analyze, not only because of the tiers system (a version of which comes back into force on December 2nd), but also because England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own separate additional lockdown rules.
England (84% of UK population)
| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200801 | 66.2 | Stay at home: No measures Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200827 | 66.2 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20200901 | 62.5 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200914 | 63.89 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20200925 | 63.89 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20201012 | 65.74 | Stay at home: Recommended (Regional) |
| 20201105 | 74.07 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
| 20201117 | 66.67 | Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional) Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201130 | 68.52 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
Differences from UK wide measures (20201130): Schools: Some closed (Regional), Stay at home: Required with exceptions (Regional), International: Quarantine high-risk.
Notes: The August 27th “Face covering: Required in some places” almost exactly coincided with the start of the second wave. And after the September 25th tightening, cases went soaring! Not good evidence for the efficacy of face coverings. And despite “Schools: Recommended closed,” most schools did in fact re-open, and the results are visible in the cases graph.
Of the November measures, the most likely to have brought about the drop in cases were the stay-at-home requirement and the travel restrictions.
Northern Ireland (3% of UK population)
| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200810 | 62.96 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20200824 | 57.41 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
| 20200831 | 55.56 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200911 | 54.17 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional) |
| 20200922 | 55.56 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20200925 | 55.56 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20201014 | 77.78 | Schools: Mandatory closed Stay at home: Recommended Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
| 20201102 | 68.52 | Schools: Some closed Travel: Recommended not to travel Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20201110 | 66.67 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
Differences from UK wide measures (20201123): Schools: Some closed (Regional), International: Quarantine high-risk.
Notes: Due to the low proportion of the population, these measures are unlikely to have contributed much to the UK wide picture.
Scotland (8% of UK population)
| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200805 | 71.3 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200817 | 67.59 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200821 | 73.15 | Stay at home: Required, minimal exceptions (Regional) |
| 20200824 | 70.37 | Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20200831 | 64.81 | Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20200923 | 64.81 | Contact tracing: Comprehensive |
| 20200925 | 64.81 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20201004 | 64.81 | Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20201102 | 67.59 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20201117 | 64.81 | Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional) |
Differences from UK wide measures (20201123): Schools: Recommended closed, Events: Mandatory cancelled (Regional), Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional), International: Quarantine high-risk.
Notes: Due to the low proportion of the population, these measures are unlikely to have contributed much to the UK wide picture.
Wales (5% of UK population)
| Date | Stringency | Measures |
| 20200816 | 59.26 | Stay at home: No measures |
| 20200901 | 55.56 | Schools: Recommended closed |
| 20200908 | 62.5 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 (Regional) Travel: Mandatory restrictions (Regional) |
| 20200914 | 62.5 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20200925 | 62.5 | Face covering: Required in some places |
| 20200928 | 66.2 | Stay at home: Recommended |
| 20201013 | 67.59 | Gatherings: Up to <=10 |
| 20201016 | 70.37 | Travel: Mandatory restrictions |
| 20201023 | 77.78 | Workplaces: Mandatory closed Stay at home: Required with exceptions |
| 20201109 | 64.81 | Workplaces: Some closed Stay at home: Recommended Travel: Recommended not to travel |
| 20201117 | 64.81 | Contact tracing: Limited |
| 20201123 | 66.67 | Schools: Some closed (Regional) |
Differences from UK wide measures (20201123): Schools: Some closed (Regional), International: Quarantine high-risk.
Notes: Due to the low proportion of the population, these measures are unlikely to have contributed much to the UK wide picture.
Some tentative conclusions
In many cases, it’s hard to establish a strong correlation between success against the virus and any one particular lockdown measure. Part of the reason is that governments like to make lots of different regulations all starting on the same date, so it’s hard to determine which worked and which didn’t. The following conclusions, therefore, can only be tentative.
While schools are well known to be a breeding ground for the virus, I couldn’t find any evidence that school closures, either recommended or mandated, have on their own caused a significant drop in case growth anywhere during the second wave.
Workplace closures appear not to have been beneficial in Belgium or the Netherlands, and their effectiveness in Germany is doubtful. There is, however, some evidence that they did make a difference in Italy; and perhaps in Portugal and Switzerland too.
In most of the countries, large scale events have been (and still are) cancelled. But when a country has relaxed this measure, re-imposing it often seems to have had a beneficial effect on new case counts; at least in Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain. But there seems to have been no clear benefit from re-imposing this measure in Belgium.
The reduction in maximum gathering size to 10 or less seems to have been effective in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain and the UK. The only country where it doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference is the Netherlands.
Public transport closures do not appear to have been a significant factor during the second wave of the epidemic.
Stay at home requirements look to have had a significant effect. Even just recommending stay-at-home has produced effects in Austria, Germany and the UK. Mandating stay-at-home seems to have made a difference in Belgium and Spain, and perhaps in Luxembourg.
Travel restrictions, too, do make a difference. Even a recommendation not to travel has had beneficial effects in Germany and the Netherlands. Mandatory restrictions on travel have been effective in Ireland, and arguably in Spain. And a mixture of the two has, probably, had some effect in the UK.
The only countries which changed their international travel rules in October or November are Germany, Switzerland and Italy. I would expect that the effects of these changes will have been negligible; since international travel bans and quarantines would have far more effect in times when the virus is at a low level in a country, than when – as now – it is higher than in the rest of the world.
As to face masks for the general public, evidence from Belgium, France, Spain and the UK suggests that they have no beneficial effects. Indeed, it’s not implausible, given the data, that requiring the public to wear face coverings actually helps to spread the virus.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone any idea what has happened in Germany?
Their case numbers have stabilised as of the beginning of November but the number of deaths did not stabilise around November 20-25. The number of deaths continue to rise. It is like people reduced the amount of tests they did or they stopped getting tested when they felt ill. Or there is a new strain with a higher % of symptom-less people but is equally fatal to the old and weak.
This is weird.
Andy
PS- the peak number of cases/deaths tends to be 2.75 times the number at the inflexion point on the upward rise. This is pretty consistent- so it is possible to predict the maximum number of cases or deaths once the relevant inflection point is clear. If you do this for the number of cases and then apply the ratio of cases to deaths 18 days later (UK is 63:1) then you get a rough estimate of the peak death rate a month before it happens. No computer models needed- just look at the graphs!
If you follow the numbers, you realise, they increase with the beginnig with the new, partial lockdown since Nov. 2.
Construct a line diagramm of the following numbers Nov.1 – Dec. 5 of the new deceased:
41
110
149
145
162
174
71
70
152
203
222
194
227
116
73
199
357
244
296
288
163
104
240
382
416
386
405
205
156
329
497
453
448
431
284
You will see a verry interesting alignment.
Odd isn’t it. The death figures should have been baked in 3 weeks earlier which would be a bit before the German recommendation not to travel happened on the 15th. Also linear increases are not really what viruses do.
I understand that these are European Statistics, but here are official Canadian Statistics from Statistics Canada, a federal government department.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2020017-eng.htm
You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the death rate from all causes in 2020 is greater than all deaths in previous years.
I think that is too simplistic to draw any real conclusion.
This was in reply to Joe – the non epidemiologist December 6, 2020 at 5:20 am above.
Tom – I will reply here since you responded at the wrong comment
I agree the data is too fluid/simplistic to draw any definitive conclusion.
A) The Delta was only 13% between the mask mandated counties vs the non mask mandated counties
B) The non masked counties had several counties with abnormally high infection rates. This would indicate a few super spreaders, unrelated to wearing masks or not wearing masks
C) in the mask mandated counties, there is always some level of non compliance while at the same time, the non mask mandated counties will have had some level of mask wearing.
One point that was made by the advocates of mask wearing is they promoted a 50+% delta – but failed to note that the 50+% delta was only for the month October and not for the entire period of the study.
They also failed to note that the delta dropped to approx 16 % for the first two weeks of Nov – A little dishonest presentation of the study results
Here is a simply test everyone can do to see just how psychological masks are.
Go to your local supermarket. Stand in an area that has shoppers. Have your mask on and take two deep breathes. Now remove your mask and take two more deep breathes.
Without the mask, do you feel like you did something to expose yourself to becoming ill? Do you feel that you were unsafe without the mask? Will you worry that you have to wait up to 10 days to see if you caught something?
I would love to hear the results.
I’d love to see people going to supermarkets and doing the face mask challenge. Namely, exhale vape “smoke” while masked and declare to observers that masks don’t filter aerosols.
in a mask blow your vape smoke and see how far you can get it. now try that without the mask.
Is there any difference?
It doesn’t matter. People don’t live in cartoon world where everyone’s a static figure that doesn’t move. As you walk down the store aisle you’re walking into what the person(s) who previously occupied that space breathed out. The smaller the aerosols, the longer the hang time.
WRT climate then I’m as skeptical as any on here.
But it is often posted that posters should know what they are posting about and not give alarmists the means to demonstrate that we dont.
The reason for wearing a mask is not to stop you from getting infected. It is to stop you from infecting others. You may be infected and not know because you are asymptomatic, but may still be a spreader.
Whether the mask stops you from spreading is another question, but know what the question is before asking for an answer.
So I f everyone else is wearing a mask and that keeps them from supposedly spreading it to you, then my test still applies.
But again, if you have access to a dental mask it will help protect you because they have a droplet barrier on the outside to protect the wearing from splash coming out of the patients mouth as they work on them. And again, it must be worn correctly and changed often.
“The reason for wearing a mask is not to stop you from getting infected. It is to stop you from infecting others. ”
For which the kind of masks most people are wearing don’t work, and may well spread it more effectively.
“You may be infected and not know because you are asymptomatic, but may still be a spreader.”
For which there’s very little evidence. Asymptomatic carriers have been pretty much debunked at this point… in actual science.
Nice work overall. I was interested to note that a voluntary lockdown recommendation seemed to lower infection rate. The Israelis just published data suggesting that asthmatics are 30% less likely to die to COVID-19. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221321982031240X) The researchers have not yet teased out if that is because asthmatics are presumed to be at higher risk of dying and so asthmatics are voluntarily and effectively self isolating and locking down because they are assuming they are more vulnerable or if there is something protective about being asthmatic. The protective aspect runs counter to the Chinese data according to the researchers. So that fact that voluntary recommendations have a positive effect would seem to indicate the former.
It might be the inhalers. Nebulized steroids (e.g., budesonide) are reportedly effective against covid (see Dr. Richard Bartlett).
This is a really good effort which has thrown more light on the situation.
Adding to the data, here is my summary:
1. Antibody testing proved that only 0.03% of people are extremely vulnerable to covid-19. The maximum infection rate has been calculated at 0.5%, which is half the rate of seasonal flu. Declaring “everyone” is susceptible to covid-19 (which some politicians would like you to believe) is just laughable.
2. Herd immunity is achieved, according to the latest calculations, at around 20%. This is the point at which everyone who is vulnerable has been exposed and either survived and become immune themselves or died and those who are not vulnerable have been cross-infecting the vulnerable while their own immunity has been updated with the new virus.
These figures are not set in stone and have been argued over by scientists and other interested parties and are still being disputed. None of this alters the fundamental truth that every version of the flu (rhinovirus, influenza and coronavirus) appears every year in “waves” and proves lethal to a tiny minority of the public then fades away. This is exactly what has happened this year. The “flu season” came and went, the only difference being the coronavirus made a slightly later appearance before burning itself out in mid-May. The politicians had to pretend the virus was still potent so they came up with all the mask mandates and their highly destructive lockdowns in order to keep the covid fear going in the six months’ gap until the next wave of flu appeared, which it now has.
Here is my completely untested theory supported by no data whatsoever.
Proposition: Some strains of the SARS-CoViD-2 virus are harder on a given person than others.
(If there is no truth to that, then nothing further matters)
The more deadly version killed, hospitalized or isolated its host, reducing the spread of that particular strain.
The less potent strains show little to no symptoms of those infected so the infected, and those around them take no additional precautions and the weak strain proliferates.
Looking at a phylogeny chart It appears that the L and V strains died out pretty quick about the time mortality rates dropped.
Also at this time, those with poor metabolic health (e.g. in nursing homes) were in bad shape, and the course of treatment was still being sorted out, so mortality rates are distorted by those factors. To what degree, I don’t know, and the various reporting agencies have done their part to ensure that we really won’t ever know.
Sasha sez
“1. Antibody testing proved that only 0.03% of people are extremely vulnerable to covid-19. The maximum infection rate has been calculated at 0.5%, which is half the rate of seasonal flu.”
BALONEY
Does “extremely vulnerable” refer to deaths? If so, deaths are now very low, perhaps 1 in 1000, for people outside of nursing homes who are already sick and in the last year or two of their lives.
” Declaring “everyone” is susceptible to covid-19 (which some politicians would like you to believe) is just laughable.”
BALONEY
“2. Herd immunity is achieved, according to the latest calculations, at around 20%.”
BALONEY, not even close to 20 percent.
That’s three balonies = you strike out
You have no idea what you are talking about and should not be spreading your ridiculous numbers to other people.
1) declaring something baloney when you didn’t understand what was meant (you asked several questions, that answers of which might not be what you assumed when making your baloney assessment) is rather poor debating.
2) whether “Declaring “everyone” is susceptible to covid-19 …. is just laughable” is baloney rather depends on what is meant by “susceptible”. if Sasha meant “susceptible” as is “could catch it”, as you appear to assume, then yeah what Sasha said is baloney, but if Sasha meant “susceptible” as is will die from it, than no, it’s not Sasha’s statement that is baloney but rather the sentiment Sasha is talking about. Not recognizing that important distinction is another debate fail.
3) Sasha appears to have gotten the 20% number from the work, from a few months back, of Sweden-based epidemiology professors Paul W. Franks of Lund University and Joacim Rocklov of Umea University based on the observations of the Diamond Princess cruise ship in which only 20% of passengers and crew were infected And in similar outbreaks on military ships and in London, Stockholm and New York where the 20% ceiling on infections had also been seen.
Whether or not it’s baloney is something you should take up with Franks and Rocklov (and the media outlets that reported it), Sasha’s just repeating it. But than you didn’t even know what Sasha was referring to, another debate fail for you.
3 debating fails = you strike out, Mr Greene. Par for the course for you, it seems. Pity your business school didn’t cover debating 101.
There goes John Endirott again, the self proclaimed expert on everything, a legend in his own mind, character attacking me once again!
I have to assume when Sasha wrote “susceptible” , it meant what most people would assume it meant — susceptible to being infected with COVID-19. Everyone without antibodies is susceptible. Their “symptoms” can have a wide range, from none to death.
Sasha’s claim that “antibody testing proved that only 0.03% of people are extremely vulnerable to covid-19” is BALONEY TOO.
I have to assume “extremely susceptible” meant death. Outside of nursing homes, where people are in the last year or two of their lives, the death rate was down to about 1 in 1,000, or 0.1%, at leaest temporarily, way above 0.03%.
People have argued with me that my claim of one death in 1,000 is understated, because 1 of 100, or even 2 of 100, were dying in April 2020.
It’s hard to know how many people are COVID-infected because so many have no obvious flu symptoms and will never ne tested.
Also, there are so few deaths claimed from ordinary flu strains that it appears deaths being blamed on flu (which is always a CDC guess) are way understated, with COVID deaths way overstated. There are financial incentives for hospitals to call deaths with failed lungs “COVID deaths.”
It was not entirely clear what Sasha was trying to say. So he gets one more BALONEY for not writing clearly. That’s four. And another baloney for allowing you to defend him with your BALONEY. That’s a lot of BALONEY.
“Sasha’s” 20% herd immunity claim is nonsense for any flu strain in history, and I doubt if Sasha (or you) even know what herd immunity means.
“Your” 20 percent number from a cruise ship has nothing to do with herd immunity in any nation.
A nonsense claim of herd immunity at 20% does not become real science because someone wrote a study, and some media source reported the study. Modern ‘environmentalism’ consists mainly of a huge number of “studies” predicting a coming climate/environmental catastrophe that we have been reading about in the media since the 1960s. Yet the actual climate gets better and better! And the catastrophes never happen.
Isn’t the internet fun?
Bwahahaha. pointing out where you are wrong is “character attacking” Bwahahahahahahaha. Mr Greene, get a life.
“Your” 20 percent number
Not mine, I told you where Sasha got the number from. Take it up with professors Paul W. Franks of Lund University and Joacim Rocklov of Umea University, it’s their number. Publish your own scientific study that debunks them. Since you seem to know it all about how science works that should be easy peasy for you, so why haven’t you done so? Oh that’s right, you are too busy being a hypocrite on the internet. How’s that working out for you?
There is no other example in the history of the flu where 20 percent was claimed to be a herd immunity level. It is the job of the person making the 20 percent claim to prove his theory, not my job to disprove every wild claim I read. Especially a conclusion about a SARS2 pandemic that is still in progress, that has never happened before.
For some reason your comments remind me of Robin Hood. Perhaps it is because I get the feeling that you may take from the rich and give to the poor. Or of course it could just be my mind playing tricks.
Oh, and “It was not entirely clear what Sasha was trying to say” then the proper response is to ask for clarification, not make strawman assumptions so you can call “baloney”. The former is how normal people react, the later is how trolls react. It’s clear from your behavior which of the two you are.
A “proper response” on the internet ?
That’s against the rules !
Internet Rule 3b, to be precise.
“It was not entirely clear” meant Sasha’s claim in his comment was so bizarre, it could have been a typo.
My day would not be complete with a scolding from you,
Mr. Endirott. Or your ghostwriter.
Sweden
Approximate number of people tested are 2.2 million. See bottom of page six
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/globalassets/statistik-uppfoljning/smittsamma-sjukdomar/veckorapporter-covid-19/2020/veckorapport-covid-19-v48-final_2.pdf (light colour=individuals, dark color=tests performed). More links and details here: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/statistik-och-analyser/antalet-testade-for-covid-19/tidigare-data/#tidigare).
On page 14 of veckorapport-covid-19-v48-final_2 you have patients in intensive care per 100.000 population. As you notice it is again mostly the old and infirm living in care homes.
N.B. there are no prohibitions in Sweden. **Everything is advice that you may or may not follow at your own discretion.** Only thing that is enforcable is physical distancing in restaurants and bars and such and the number of people allowed for “organised public gatherings” (i.e. theatres, concerts, cinema, christmas markets and similar). In that case the maximum is 300 people with a physical distancing of one metre. So yes a restaurant may have more than 300 guests unless they e.g. hold a concert in which case the lower 300 person limit applies. If the meter rule cannot be enforced the maximum is eight.
Deaths are currently within normal bounds for the period (stats in the excel file here: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/statistik-och-data/statistik/statistik-om-covid-19/statistik-over-antal-avlidna-i-covid-19/). Currently 6145 people have died with laboratory verified coronavirus infection. Analyses of the medical history and medical journals performed in three counties/regios indicate that about 15-20% died of Covid, that in 50-60% Covid may have affected the outcome and that approximately 15-20% of the deaths were mis-labeled and not caused by Covid. Further investigatiions are under way and the final tallies may differ.
any article with more than 3 or 4 graphs tells me the author is a spaghetti cook … he is throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks …
in one sentence he refutes his own conclusion …
“In the great majority of the 14 countries, the new case counts have peaked since late October, and in many have since fallen significantly. So, the recent lockdowns must have had an effect. ”
since a lockdown takes weeks have an effect no lockdowns instituted since early Nov could possibly have caused the Oct peak …
Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you can draw conclusions from the measurements (and since the measurements are all biased country by country they are not fit for purpose)
This is simply useless …
Yes it is a lot of graphs. But to be fair, he’s covering a lot of countries (14), which, even at a single graph per country, would require more graphs than your “3 or 4” threshold. Even if he limited it to just summary graphs containing all 14 countries, he’s looking at multiple variables (New cases, Total cases, deaths, types of lockdowns, etc.) that’s going to require multiple graphs (there’s no way to fit that much information into 3 or 4 graphs and be able to make it readable). So yes, it’s a lot of graphs, but given the subject and data being covered, it requires more than “3 or 4” graphs to properly cover it.
I’d like to see you present the same data (14 countries with multiple variables) in only 3 or 4 readable and understandable graphs. Somehow I doubt you’ll even try.
Too many graphs.
Too soon for conclusions.
Point in time data from a pandemic still in progress.
None of the charts support the questionable conclusions at the end.
So we have the longest article ever at this website, with unsupported conclusions. And that adds up to a big pile of nothing.
Your comment on the number of charts ignores the low quality of the conclusions.
Mr Greene, do learn how to read for comprehension. I was addressing one point from a specific post. I specified the point I was addressing (specifically the “3 or 4 charts” claim). There are plenty of other posts in this comments section addressing plenty of other points including the quality of the conclusions.
So, again, if you think you can present the sheer amount of data that was presented (14 countries, multiple variables) in 3 or 4 charts and still be readable and comprehensible, that stop your nonsense whining and please do so. I bet you won’t, you’ll just continue on about something other than the one specific point that was being addressed. If so, just do us all a favor and go back under your bridge.
Ah, I see now (after seeing your latest behavior in the other thread). You’re just my groupie following me around from post to post and replying regardless of the quality of the reply. Since you are so desperate for attention I suggest you keep dancing little groupie.
#@ur momisugly$%
You got the last word in !
I have to take issue with the idea of any of the measures “working”. In what sense? If every time you put on the measures the infection drop, only to come back immediately after they remove them, do they work? Or do they only delay the inevitable? Epidemics end when you hit herd immunity. No, that isn’t a dirty word or a conspiracy theory, it is THE SCIENCE. You may be able to help reach herd immunity with a vaccine, but you must hit herd immunity none the less.
And looking forward, what is plan B, if the vaccines work against what COVID was in Dec 2019, the source for the vaccines, but not for what COVID strains have evolved in the various isolated continents and regions since then?
It’s not that complicated.
Cases are a function of testing.
Deaths are what matter.
Per US CDC data:
85.6% of C-19 CASES are among those – UNDER – 65 years of age.
80.1% of C-19 DEATHS are among those – OVER – 65 years of age.
24% of C-19 deaths occurred in nursing homes and hospice care.
The death rate for those over 85: 11,313 per million.
The death rate for those 75 – 84: 4,404 per million.
The death rate for those 65 – 74: 1,641 per million.
The death rate for those under 65: less than 700 per million.
Japan has the highest percentage of 65+, 27%, yet just barely 2,000 deaths.
What do they know/do the rest of the world does not?
(Graphic is posted on my LinkedIn site. Data sources WHO & CDC)
Covid-19 is not a problem for the young and healthy herd.
Mother Nature and her buddy Grim Reaper are just doing their jobs, culling the herd of the too many, too old and too sick warehoused together as Medicare/Medicaid cash cows in poorly run contagious lethal elder care facilities.
The US, Brazil, India, Mexico and the UK together have more C-19 deaths than the ENTIRE rest of the world combined.
The top ten countries account for more than 2/3rds of the global deaths.
Covid-19 is NOT a wide-spread, contagious, lethal pandemic.
NYC and six states together account for more C-19 deaths than the ENTIRE rest of the country combined.
The top fourteen states plus NYC account for over 70% of the C-19 deaths.
Covid-19 is NOT a national problem.
Denver, Arapahoe, Jefferson and Adams counties together have more C-19 deaths than the ENTIRE rest of Colorado.
The top ten Colorado counties account for 87% of the C-169 deaths.
Covid-19 is NOT a state-wide problem.
There are about 2.8 MILLION deaths every year in the US. That’s about
233,000 PER MONTH
53,800 PER WEEK
7,700 PER DAY
320 PER HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nationwide Covid-19 deaths are about 9% of all deaths, but each state is a different story.
For instance, leading the pack NYC Covid-19 represents almost 30% of ALL the deaths.
Good job, Cuomo!!
2018 US deaths from drug overdose: 67,367.
So, you’re saying that restriction on our already restricted movement over the last 9 months needs increasing? “According to” Dr. Fauci, through at least 2021 with or without vaccine and improved treatment. An emphatic no to that, if you understand emphatic to mean “I’ll burn your house down.”
The key fallacious assumption underlying the world approach to this particular virus is that the most important thing in the whole world – now and forever – is to not die with the virus, let alone from the virus. This is not remotely close to the extinction event you are treating it as.
“While schools are well known to be a breeding ground for the virus..”
Based on what data?
Yeah, I was wondering where that came from too.
Probably on the “well known” idea that schools are a breeding ground for viruses/illness (normally the common cold, the flu, and the like). A room full of snot nosed kids is not exactly the most hygienic and germ free of environments at the best of times. Schools tend to be germ petri dishes. The experience of most families with kids tends to be: during the school year, illnesses that go through the household tend to start with the children brining it home from school.
And you trust the data, why?
Off topic since this post is related to US data :
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/AH-Excess-Deaths-by-Sex-Age-and-Race/m74n-4hbs/data#r evert
One can filter and export data as needed.
I compared excess mortality data from 2017 to 2020.
Data is almost complete until week 43 :
– 2% difference with worldometers data until week 26,
– 3,9% difference until week 43.
Comparison can be done between 2020 and years 2017 to 2019 with respect to, for example :
– excess mortality without COVID19 (deaths – (excess deaths – CODIV19 : see data) : this is usefull to measure the deaths caused by lockdown,
– excess mortality with COVID19 only, compared to previous years excess mortality : this is usefull to measure the actual mortality of SRAS-COV2 in the US compared to previous flue seasons (2017-2018 is a good example).
The excess mortality due to all causes deaths causes except COVID19 is staggering when compared to previous years’ all causes excess mortality.
All those data can also be compared to Sweden, where despite no border closure, no lockdown, no excess mortality is observed between 2020 and previous years’ mean excess mortality :
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/
2020 data are yet incomplete, but the trends are clear in the US CDC data and in the swedish data :
– lockdowns did not save a single life from SRAS-COV2, but killed thousands of people in the US, and there is no reason Europe countries did anything better.
Another way to see that lockdowns did not save anyone :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full
Those who imposed lockdowns are a disgrace to humanity.
With respect to masks, it’s known since the beginning that they don’t work (see p. 100) :
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329439/WHO-WHE-IHM-GIP-2019.1-eng.pdf?ua=1
Corrected CDC link :
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/AH-Excess-Deaths-by-Sex-Age-and-Race/m74n-4hbs/data#revert
Would love to see the same research done on California. We have some of the harshest restrictions and have had the longest Mask Mandate in the US, yet our cases are increasing substantially.
Also, would love to see these graphs with the size and dates of BLM/Antifa and Anti-Lockdown protests. I think we could see some interesting correlations there that researchers may be afraid to look into especially in regards to BLM protests…
Thanks for the hard work!
For all interested in early treatments…
Prophylaxis trial of 788 health care workers (HCW): 12mg ivermectin/week + carrageenan nasal spray 4 x/day. Zero caught covid over 3 months vs 58% of control HCWs infected.
https://twitter.com/Hoytster/status/1335341527925657601
The interesting thing for me about this is the carrageenan nasal spray, which I knew nothing about, but apparently it has good efficacy against viruses. Sold OTC as Betadine nasal spray. Available worldwide. Apparently it works by trapping viruses in its gel matrix.
Carrageenan-based composite nasal spray may help prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201119/Carrageenan-based-composite-nasal-spray-may-help-prevent-SARS-CoV-2-infection.aspx
Not sure how many sprays are in 20 ml, but Betadine could get expensive. So DIY…
How to make an antivirus saline-carrageenan nasal spray at home
https://biotheorist.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/how-to-make-and-use-an-iota-carrageenan-spray-0.12-percent.pdf (links to pdf)
The data is the best available, but the data is not complete.
If you have symptoms you should get a test, but if you do test positive then the world closes in on you and your contacts, so lots of people don’t get a test!
So right from the start, nobody knows.
FL governor Rick DeSantis has just issued an order for PCR testing companies to report the PCR cycle threshold used for each test. Contact your state governors to get them to do the same.
Mandatory Reporting of COVID – 19 Laboratory Test Results: Reporting of Cycle Threshold Values
https://www.flhealthsource.gov/files/Laboratory-Reporting-CT-Values-12032020.pdf (links to pdf)
I suspect that the so-called Second Wave showing up at a time when upper-respiratory infections normally ramp up is more a matter of seasonality of COVID-19 than it is a failure of the different ‘Rain Dances’ that the various governments are engaging in.
Good vaccine song: “We are the 99%!!!”
https://www.facebook.com/100008189801523/posts/2850769448539354/
The British are actually singing very well.
In case it should be removed:
https://t.me/WaldgangAlbdruck/8160
Many above have commented that ‘cases’ is a very bad measure of anything, and spaghetti graphs ‘interpreted’ one at a time show very little. All cause mortality is the only meaningful statistic. For Canada, the crude number of deaths for the year ending June 2020 does show a bit of a bump from about 285,000 to 300,000. From this the trend line for increasing deaths each year must be subtracted (50k increase over 10 years due to age structure and population increase) which brings the ‘bump’ down to a maximum of 12k or 4%. Between 2014-2015 there was a 6-8% increase in deaths, but no panic. Thus, deaths might be up due to the first wave, but its not very clear.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/443061/number-of-deaths-in-canada/#:~:text=This%20statistic%20shows%20the%20total,300%2C314%20deaths%20reported%20in%20Canada.
Covid deaths are reported at about 12,300 (ie, all excess deaths) with 71% over 80. In BC the median age of a covid death is 85! This is the life expectancy for a 65 year old in BC (2009 data).
A pandemic that does not alter life expectancy is a total fraud.
Cases: past, probable, possible, and progressive. There seems to be a correlation between mortality, disease progression, and age, but it may be a correlation with certain comorbidities and conditions with age. Planned Parent facilities were real and an early, observable cause of excess (e.g. accelerated) deaths in the first few months of 2020.
I have seen an analysis that takes the ratio of the number of deaths by an age grouping claimed for Covid-19 to the number of deaths from all causes by the same age grouping, suggesting that on that basis the differences between age groupings are not so pronounced. Sorry I don’t have time to look for the paper.
Points to consider:
1. People are incredibly variable by genetics, vigor of health, behavior, and so forth. This is one of the factors causing potential bias in all medical trials and what randomization hopes to neutralize. Good luck dealing with it in the context of this reported data of unknown quality and full of biases resulting from financial incentives. R0 thus varies all over the board locally and in various sub populations. Modeling seems pretty pointless.
2. What matters is compliance with mandates, and it is darned difficult to measure such. I did some surveys of mask compliance and determined it may have been higher locally before the mask mandate. The mandate order exempted so many people that compliance may have gone down.
3. Masks don’t seem to matter at all. I have looked at the epicurves from many dozens of jurisdictions and can find no relation to mask usage. Then, there is the scientific literature going back a long way. At one time people were interested if mask usage would have an impact on influenza, and concluded they did not — or at least the effect could not be presumed to be different than chance. Recent randomized, and non-random trials suggest the same.
4. Day of onset of symptoms from exposure is a random variable with a median of 5.5 days or so, and a dispersion of several days per sigma. Then people are using 7 day, 14 day, or 21 day one-sided mean filters with attendant phase distortion. These can actually show an epidemic wave in decline when in fact it is rising.
5. Actual measurement of particle attenuation by cloth and gauze masks is nil. Only N95 respirators have an impact, and the 95% confidence interval of their effect includes the value of nil.
6. The data are a mess: I just recently had acquaintences of mine go under quarantine. Family of six. The five-year old had sniffles for one day on day zero. Mother got a positive SARS-COV-1 rt-PCR test on day 7. She never developed symptoms. One daughter had one day of body aches, got a positive PCR result. Father had a bad cold coming on at day 6. He got a doozy of a cold, never had any but negative PCR tests. One daughter had some vertigo, never a positive PCR test. One son never got a positive test and never developed any symptom. So there. Every result imaginable in a group of people all quarantined together for three weeks — but all are lab confirmed cases or presumed so. Many similar stories from this county. By the way, all these folks are now exempt from testing for the next 3 months. So, they may get sick, but with mild symptoms they can spread the disease anywhere they go.
7. Anthony Fauci, if you research this a bit, has had a fixation for decades about an epidemic wherein 25% or more of the population are sick at any one time, and it is this morbid vision of his that seems to drive the CDC and then the various local health agencies into hysterias and silly rules.
8. Mandates are imposed, but are utterly inconsistent and irrational. In cases they worry about behavior that might reduce probability by one-millionth, but then ignore things a thousand times bigger. It is a case of needing to be seen doing something. There is also a huge and noisy mask mandate mob to placate.
The lockdowns will certainly have an effect on virus transmission as reducing contacts lowers R0, but it still leaves the population vulnerable to resurgence.
The only thing that actually ever stops a highly contagious respiratory virus is herd immunity. Herd immunity is either acquired by natural infection or artificially by vaccination.
But simply slowing the infection of this low-mortality corona virus while simultaneously destroying the economic lives and learning opportunity windows for our children is a horrible tradeoff. It is a bad trade-off that will we undoubtedly deeply regret one day.
O’Bryan
Herd immunity only means the number of cases has stopped growing.
Not growing does not mean “stops”.
“…destroying…learning opportunity windows for our children is a horrible tradeoff.”
This is nothing more than child abuse. Those gnarly totalitarian leftists believe they’re all perfect humans and the rest of us are cattle to be controlled.
Mask mandates? They restrict breathing, not (e.g. evaporation then ingestion and ejection) the virus or bacteria. They encourage touching (e.g. fecal transmission) vulnerable surfaces: eyes, nose, and mouth. They create a false sense of safety and security discouraging scientifically sound means to mitigate spread and progression. They are an intuitive, mechanistic alternative to reduce overhead caused by separation of vulnerable classes and shift responsibility. Do Europeans deny or stigmatize effective, inexpensive, low rirks early treatments that reduce mortality and hospitalization by 80 to 90% and more?
Has anyone looked at the “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” from Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201126163323/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
Yes, she reports that in the USA reported cases of deaths form WuhanVirus is peculiar since the reported cases of deaths from coronary issues (for 1 example of a major USA killer) is way down. Yet statistically the total number of coronary related deaths per population in the USA in previous years had been fairly constant & much higher for this example; making it unlikely to suddenly abate.
Briand looked at total USA deaths in this WuhanVirus period & found that statistically, per population, that the official count total for deaths of all causes is actually similar to the total deaths from all causes of previous periods. In other words: if a lot of people are dying from this WuhanVirus where is the increased number of dead supposedly added to the usual USA totals from those common causes of death that every year occurred even before the WuhanVirus spread.
While I would expect the total deaths of all causes to be up by some amount (after all some who died from complications of Wu-Flu might have survived until next year or beyond without it) it’s not too surprising that it’s not as much as the media would like to make you believe. The fact is the Wuhan Virus tends to kill those that are most vulnerable to soon dying from other causes anyway. Whether someone dies from Wu-Flu in April or a heart attack in June or a stroke in July, makes no difference for the total death for the year from all causes number- not to sound heartless but they’re dead either way, it’s just that they’re dead a few months sooner than they otherwise would be.