Meanwhile, in Sweden...

Status
Not open for further replies.
otto62 said:
So you're suggesting that Australia actually has another 70,000 asymptomatic cases, despite having opened up our testing to tens of thousands of people without symptoms and only identifying a handful of undetected cases? Hmmm. I think not.

Just checked our data, we'll have tested 100,000 people without symptoms by 11 May. It will take a few days for the final results to come thorugh. But no spike so far with this extended testing.
Click to expand...

No I'm suggesting in Europe and America where this forum is based the serological testing has shown that the IFR is 0.1%-0.3%. What's occuring in the southern hemisphere actually lends credence to it going away seasonally, hopefully you don't get a bunch of cases when your flu season starts.
 
dooderooni said:
So if we all get it then 60,000 to 180,000 UK deaths.
Given that it is a very infectious disease then we're already halfway to the 'best case scenario' based on your chosen figures Alvez and we still have no idea how many people have actually had it.
Click to expand...

Firstly not everyone in our nation will get it unless it's a first for a virus.
Secondly how many millions are you ok dying in places like Africa from supply chains being destroyed dood? As a lefty surely you would equal those lives the same?
How many deaths from porverty are ok to you dood?
 
Alvez_48 said:
Firstly not everyone in our nation will get it unless it's a first for a virus.
Secondly how many millions are you ok dying in places like Africa from supply chains being destroyed dood? As a lefty surely you would equal those lives the same?
How many deaths from porverty are ok to you dood?
Click to expand...
Let's just pivot away from death rates and tackle the small and uncomplicated issue of global poverty. Deflection at it's best.

In fact if the UK had managed to control the spread and only had say ... oh I don't know 20,000 cases all up (just to keep it comparable to another island with easily closed borders, that I know reasonably well) .... and say 300 deaths .... you might be better placed to re-open your industries earlier and help the global economy.
 
otto62 said:
Let's just pivot away from death rates and tackle the small and uncomplicated issue of global poverty. Deflection at it's best.

In fact if the UK had managed to control the spread and only had say ... oh I don't know 20,000 cases all up (just to keep it comparable to another island with easily closed borders, that I know reasonably well) .... and say 300 deaths .... you might be better placed to re-open your industries earlier and help the global economy.
Click to expand...

I'm not pivoting away from anything as a direct result of lockdown there is predicted to be huge famines.
As a direct results from lockdowns there predicted to be huge poverty both factually cause death.
On top of that we have the many thousands dying from not attending hospital, not receiving treatment, not getting diagnosed for diseases which untreated cause death.

On the one hand you (or someone next to your post) claim Germany is having to lockdown again due to a spike and then in this post you claim we could open up earlier had we locked down earlier. Which is it?
Regardless the lockdown has at best been inefficient at worst completely useless in stopping the spread.

Simple facts have to be accepted, a vaccine is not now or in the short term going to exist. We cannot fund the NHS or fund economic activity on the backs of a tiny proportion of tax receipts.
There is practically 0 risk to any fit individual below the age of 50 who make up the bulk of the workforce. It's unacceptable to expect that workforce to return to work without then allowing them enjoy the pursuit of life and happiness (though who knows maybe you're into slavery).
 
Bit of a leap to go from pushing statistics about death rates being lower than they look to asking me how many deaths in Africa I'm ok with if food supply chains break down.
All lives lost to this pandemic and the knock-on effect will be unfortunate, wherever they are, but as it is a global pandemic then it won't just be the actions of the UK that will affect the final death toll.

How many deaths in this country (the one where most of us on this forum live) are you happy with Alvez? What about those you've accused of being happy being furloughed and enjoying the time off? What happens if they get sick and die because they go back to work before it's safe? What about those like yourself who have the ability to work from home? What if you have to go back to an unsafe workplace? How will your lower death figures protect you if we don't have the ability to test and identify all these people who are asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms and that might be a walking death sentence to those who are susceptible to the full impact of being infected? I'll repeat it for clarity, the vast majority on here realise that we have to move on and get people back to work, but they accept that we have to do so in as safe a manner as we can.

You're in danger of pinning your flag to this idea that lockdown doesn't work, that the death rate isn't as high as it appears and that we should all get back to work to protect the global economy because it's not as deadly as 270,000+ confirmed Covid-19 deaths worldwide so far would indicate. I've very much tried to not lump you in with the likes of Trump and his cronies, but it's getting harder and harder to avoid doing so with every post you make.
 
dooderooni said:
Bit of a leap to go from pushing statistics about death rates being lower than they look to asking me how many deaths in Africa I'm ok with if food supply chains break down.
All lives lost to this pandemic and the knock-on effect will be unfortunate, wherever they are, but as it is a global pandemic then it won't just be the actions of the UK that will affect the final death toll.

How many deaths in this country (the one where most of us on this forum live) are you happy with Alvez? What about those you've accused of being happy being furloughed and enjoying the time off? What happens if they get sick and die because they go back to work before it's safe? What about those like yourself who have the ability to work from home? What if you have to go back to an unsafe workplace? How will your lower death figures protect you if we don't have the ability to test and identify all these people who are asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms and that might be a walking death sentence to those who are susceptible to the full impact of being infected? I'll repeat it for clarity, the vast majority on here realise that we have to move on and get people back to work, but they accept that we have to do so in as safe a manner as we can.

You're in danger of pinning your flag to this idea that lockdown doesn't work, that the death rate isn't as high as it appears and that we should all get back to work to protect the global economy because it's not as deadly as 270,000+ confirmed Covid-19 deaths worldwide so far would indicate. I've very much tried to not lump you in with the likes of Trump and his cronies, but it's getting harder and harder to avoid doing so with every post you make.
Click to expand...

Oh dear lord go away.

I might vote Tory just to cancel out your vote. 🤣
 
Alvez_48 said:
Firstly not everyone in our nation will get it unless it's a first for a virus.
Secondly how many millions are you ok dying in places like Africa from supply chains being destroyed dood? As a lefty surely you would equal those lives the same?
How many deaths from poverty are ok to you dood?
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this idea about "millions" dying from the economic effects (and you've mentioned depression and suicide killing millions before) but where are you getting this from?

I'm not sure the evidence supports the idea of all that many increased deaths in a recession, let alone millions.

In fact, according to Clemens Noelke, a research scientist at Brandeis University, economic downturns lead to less mortality, not more, certainly in the developed world:

"During recessions, economic activity contracts, pollution declines, work hours decline, people have more time for themselves and others, traffic deaths decline, and deaths from cardiovascular disease decline," Noelke said. "So, paradoxically, perhaps, a sizeable portion of the population experiences health improvements." A lot of data supports those conclusions. Studies have shown that between 1960 and 2010, mortality rates in the US and UK declined by 0.5 percent for every 1 percent increase in unemployment.
Click to expand...
 
The U
Liamo said:
You keep repeating this idea about "millions" dying from the economic effects (and you've mentioned depression and suicide killing millions before) but where are you getting this from?

I'm not sure the evidence supports the idea of all that many increased deaths in a recession, let alone millions.

In fact, according to Clemens Noelke, a research scientist at Brandeis University, economic downturns lead to less mortality, not more, certainly in the developed world:
Click to expand...

The United Nations and the fact that every % drop in employment maps accurately to an increase in death.
 
Lockdown hasn't worked though really has it? Compared to other countries that have done it. If anything it's made people more hostile, more likely to congregate than they did after the hand washing guidance was brought in. There are even sectors of society on social media now having a pop at those who work in the NHS posting their tik tok videos dancing in full ppe gear whilst on a break.

It is what it is at the minute and nothing I can do about it but follow the rules, but, I'm willing to bet a fair amount that when all is said and done the lockdown will cost more lives directly and indirectly than Covid-19 will.

Seems at least people in Sweden are living and not just existing.
 
Alvez_48 said:
The United Nations and the fact that every % drop in employment maps accurately to an increase in death.
Click to expand...
The studies linked to in my post directly contradict that. Here's the graph showing that mortality decreases when unemployment rises. The graph is based on multiple studies.

IMG_20200509_213050.png​
 
Last edited:
Liamo said:
The studies linked to in my post directly contradict that. Here's the graph showing that mortality decreases when unemployment rises. The graph is based on multiple studies.

Click to expand...

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062272

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...our-politics-are-more-unequal-than-elsewhere/

Unemployment has long been associated with a significantly increased risk of death in general, particularly for low-skilled workers in the U.S.. The risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the U.S. at almost 650,000 deaths per year, has been shown to increase by 15–30 percent in men unemployed for more than 90 days. Among older workers, involuntary job loss can more than double the risk of stroke, which already claims 150,000 lives in the U.S. per year, as well as increase the likelihood of depressive symptoms that then persist for years. Such harms are likely exacerbated by concomitant longer term social isolation, which in of itself is associated with a 30 percent increase in mortality risk. Loneliness and social isolation have been associated with a 29 percent increase in risk of incident coronary heart disease and a 32 percent increase in risk of stroke. The scale of these elevated health risks is significant—comparable to that caused by taking up light smoking or becoming obese

Taken from - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-true-costs-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/
 
The United Nations sells papers? Weird.

Also added another piece from the scientific American. Please re read before aggressively coming at me.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Regardless the lockdown has at best been inefficient at worst completely useless in stopping the spread.
Click to expand...

The lockdown was never about stopping the spread - it was about keeping it at levels the NHS could manage, and a more even distribution over a period of time rather than a very early spike that hospitals couldn't have coped with. To that extent, it's been successful
 
Alvez_48 said:
Unemployment has long been associated with a significantly increased risk of death in general, particularly for low-skilled workers in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Haven't read the lot, but looking at your first link (about the link between unemployment and mortality in Germany and the US) it didn't take me long to find this statement:
"The results from this study are also consistent with the one other study that used the GSOEP, which found no relationship between current unemployment and mortality in Germany."
I admit that it did find a link in the US, which let's face it is something of a unique case.
 
Alvez_48 said:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062272

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...our-politics-are-more-unequal-than-elsewhere/

Unemployment has long been associated with a significantly increased risk of death in general, particularly for low-skilled workers in the U.S.. The risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the U.S. at almost 650,000 deaths per year, has been shown to increase by 15–30 percent in men unemployed for more than 90 days. Among older workers, involuntary job loss can more than double the risk of stroke, which already claims 150,000 lives in the U.S. per year, as well as increase the likelihood of depressive symptoms that then persist for years. Such harms are likely exacerbated by concomitant longer term social isolation, which in of itself is associated with a 30 percent increase in mortality risk. Loneliness and social isolation have been associated with a 29 percent increase in risk of incident coronary heart disease and a 32 percent increase in risk of stroke. The scale of these elevated health risks is significant—comparable to that caused by taking up light smoking or becoming obese

Taken from - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-true-costs-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Click to expand...
Two of those links say nothing about rises in unemployment leading to increased mortality. The last one says only that mortality increases in those who are unemployed, it doesn't say that it leads to an increase in mortality overall. If you look at the paper I linked to, it acknowledged that in a recession there is an increase in mortality in certain sectors of the population, especially those that lose their jobs, and the elderly but that in the population as a whole, multiple studies show there is a decrease.

So I think we have to say the evidence is mixed, at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top