Coronavirus - Data Analysis Thread
Discussion
Jambo85 said:
It's hard to trade various things off against each other but while you have listed things undoubtedly in India's favour, there are a fair few things working the other way:
- Lower standard/quantity of healthcare
- Vast numbers of people living in poverty with presumably less access to healthcare
- Those in poverty presumably less educated and with less access to reliable information and sanitation to protect themselves and others
- It is common in India to have very large households of not just multiple generations but multiple families.
- Vast, densely populated cities
+ lower reporting due to inefficiencies and politics...- Lower standard/quantity of healthcare
- Vast numbers of people living in poverty with presumably less access to healthcare
- Those in poverty presumably less educated and with less access to reliable information and sanitation to protect themselves and others
- It is common in India to have very large households of not just multiple generations but multiple families.
- Vast, densely populated cities
Covid taking out the old, weak and vulnerable as it has done in every country so far.Elysium said:
2. Key metrics. Cases per 100k tests and admissions continue to halve every 18 days. I have added a CFR line to the cases graph, which has fallen from over 3% at the peak to an average of 0.59% over the last 2 weeks.
Thinking out loud, have we seen similar (fixed) rates of decline in other countries?If we have, that would seem to suggest that there is little to be done about it...
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
2. Key metrics. Cases per 100k tests and admissions continue to halve every 18 days. I have added a CFR line to the cases graph, which has fallen from over 3% at the peak to an average of 0.59% over the last 2 weeks.
Thinking out loud, have we seen similar (fixed) rates of decline in other countries?If we have, that would seem to suggest that there is little to be done about it...
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
2. Key metrics. Cases per 100k tests and admissions continue to halve every 18 days. I have added a CFR line to the cases graph, which has fallen from over 3% at the peak to an average of 0.59% over the last 2 weeks.
Thinking out loud, have we seen similar (fixed) rates of decline in other countries?If we have, that would seem to suggest that there is little to be done about it...
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
RSTurboPaul said:
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
I disagree. Their curve has had a MUCH slower deterioration than the other three countries. The rate of change of the curve is what shows how quickly a country is improving, and they were WAY off Portugal and the UK. Sweden benefitted with lower original rates from being more isolated from international travel (than certainly UK and Germany), from having a much lower population density (with also fewer people / fewer generations per household), and from being a reasonably outdoors culture. Also because they tend to listen to their governments and act like adults.Interestingly:-
- Portugal has probably the weakest healthcare system of the 4 and also had the hardest lockdowns
- UK had the second-hardest lockdowns
- Sweden had the weakest.
Also:-
- Portugal enjoys the most sunshine and (probably) most outdoor lifestyles.
...so for all those saying "the lockdowns didn't work" - I think the stats clearly put the lie to that statement. We don't like them, they're bad for the economy, for mental health and for social cohesion. But they have been the most effective tool at preventing the spread*.
* Allowing that Europe was roundly s
t at the crucial initial control of the disease through strict border controls, mask-wearing, and track-and-trace systems, all of which the developed Asian nations and New Zealand have excelled at.Edited by havoc on Tuesday 27th April 10:20
havoc said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
I disagree. Their curve has had a MUCH slower deterioration than the other three countries. The rate of change of the curve is what shows how quickly a country is improving, and they were WAY off Portugal and the UK. Sweden benefitted with lower original rates from being more isolated from international travel (than certainly UK and Germany), from having a much lower population density (with also fewer people / fewer generations per household), and from being a reasonably outdoors culture. Also because they tend to listen to their governments and act like adults.Interestingly:-
- Portugal has probably the weakest healthcare system of the 4 and also had the hardest lockdowns
- UK had the second-hardest lockdowns
- Sweden had the weakest.
Also:-
- Portugal enjoys the most sunshine and (probably) most outdoor lifestyles.
...so for all those saying "the lockdowns didn't work" - I think the stats clearly put the lie to that statement. We don't like them, they're bad for the economy, for mental health and for social cohesion. But they have been the most effective tool at preventing the spread*.
* Allowing that Europe was roundly s
t at the crucial initial control of the disease through strict border controls, mask-wearing, and track-and-trace systems, all of which the developed Asian nations and New Zealand have excelled at.havoc said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
I disagree. Their curve has had a MUCH slower deterioration than the other three countries. The rate of change of the curve is what shows how quickly a country is improving, and they were WAY off Portugal and the UK. Sweden benefitted with lower original rates from being more isolated from international travel (than certainly UK and Germany), from having a much lower population density (with also fewer people / fewer generations per household), and from being a reasonably outdoors culture. Also because they tend to listen to their governments and act like adults.Interestingly:-
- Portugal has probably the weakest healthcare system of the 4 and also had the hardest lockdowns
- UK had the second-hardest lockdowns
- Sweden had the weakest.
Also:-
- Portugal enjoys the most sunshine and (probably) most outdoor lifestyles.
...so for all those saying "the lockdowns didn't work" - I think the stats clearly put the lie to that statement. We don't like them, they're bad for the economy, for mental health and for social cohesion. But they have been the most effective tool at preventing the spread*.
* Allowing that Europe was roundly s
t at the crucial initial control of the disease through strict border controls, mask-wearing, and track-and-trace systems, all of which the developed Asian nations and New Zealand have excelled at.Edited by havoc on Tuesday 27th April 10:20
And that Portugal was better than Sweden because their rates dropped off quicker, despite having over double the death rate at their much higher peak and an ultra-strict lockdown that appears to have made no difference to that peak?
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue TBH.
This is the data analysis thread, though, so we should take this to the 'cure is worse than the disease' thread while we wait for anything that Elysium (or anyone else) is able to kindly knock up re: rates of decline / halving periods.
Maybe covered already just noticed this from two weeks ago
Covid and the lockdown effect
Essentially saying Boris was right to be questioning lockdown, as infections already falling before lockdowns implemented, thus raising big questions about Ferguson's allegation that lockdown a week earlier would have halved deaths.
Peer reviewed paper here for subscribers.
Covid and the lockdown effect
Essentially saying Boris was right to be questioning lockdown, as infections already falling before lockdowns implemented, thus raising big questions about Ferguson's allegation that lockdown a week earlier would have halved deaths.
Peer reviewed paper here for subscribers.
Ashfordian said:
havoc said:
...so for all those saying "the lockdowns didn't work" - I think the stats clearly put the lie to that statement. We don't like them, they're bad for the economy, for mental health and for social cohesion. But they have been the most effective tool at preventing the spread...
The majority in this group are saying "Lockdowns cause more damage than they mitigate". It would be good if people like you tried to stop misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with if you want to maintain sensible discussion around this rather than coming out as a crankI think that my post above was quite measured and factual.
As for quantifying damage, exactly how much is a human life worth? Or another 10,000 lives? Or 50,000? Not hyperbole, but genuinely interested in how you've arrived at your conclusion that the lockdowns are worse than the alternative? What calculations have you done on the likely additional deaths, how have you quantified the economic loss of those deaths, the emotional loss and trauma to those families, vs the economic loss and emotional trauma of lockdowns?
Please, share your logic and workings so we can all learn...or are you the crank shooting from the hip?
This may be of interest havoc....
The High Costs of Lockdowns: An Interview with Dr. Bhattacharya
Dr. Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics, both from Stanford.
https://jimmyalfonsolicon.substack.com/p/the-high-...
The High Costs of Lockdowns: An Interview with Dr. Bhattacharya
Dr. Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics, both from Stanford.
https://jimmyalfonsolicon.substack.com/p/the-high-...
havoc said:
Ashfordian said:
havoc said:
...so for all those saying "the lockdowns didn't work" - I think the stats clearly put the lie to that statement. We don't like them, they're bad for the economy, for mental health and for social cohesion. But they have been the most effective tool at preventing the spread...
The majority in this group are saying "Lockdowns cause more damage than they mitigate". It would be good if people like you tried to stop misrepresenting the views of those you disagree with if you want to maintain sensible discussion around this rather than coming out as a crankI think that my post above was quite measured and factual.
As for quantifying damage, exactly how much is a human life worth? Or another 10,000 lives? Or 50,000? Not hyperbole, but genuinely interested in how you've arrived at your conclusion that the lockdowns are worse than the alternative? What calculations have you done on the likely additional deaths, how have you quantified the economic loss of those deaths, the emotional loss and trauma to those families, vs the economic loss and emotional trauma of lockdowns?
Please, share your logic and workings so we can all learn...or are you the crank shooting from the hip?
So if cancer treatment prolongs life by one year and costs £30k per year, great, let's spend the money.
If the cancer treatment costs £100k but only gives another year of life, no dice, bad luck, better get crowdfunding for a trip to the US to play with dolphins. (Other life-affirming experiences are available.)
Even if we take the fantasyland worst case scenario by Professor Pantsdown, of 500,000 dead, and pretend that anything the Govt has done has had an actual effect, we could pretend that we've saved, what, 400k lives?
Some clever people have claimed that each death has resulted in on average 11 years of life lost. (Please ignore the fact that the average age of death from/with Covid is higher than the average age of death from anything at all.)
So 400,000 x 11 = 4400000 years 'saved'.
So far we've spent, what, £400bn? more? including the
440,000,000,000 spent
divided by
4,400,000 years 'saved'
equals £100k per year of life 'saved'
so three times the usual amount that is acceptable by NICE/the Govt's own policies.
However you then do any follow-up sums with a lower number of people 'saved', because 500k dead was clearly a nonsense and in line with all of Ferguson's previous 'work' (as per the Spectator comment article), the cost per year of life 'saved' with the vast sums thrown at 'the solution' can only ever get higher and further above the recommended cost per QUALY
If we had followed Sweden, with common sense cleanliness measures recommended and no shuttering of entire industries and sectors of the economy, we would not have needed Furlough and all the associated money printing from thin air, that the younger generations in school (who have been roundly f
ked over to SaVE grANnY) are going to be paying back for the rest of their lives.We also would not have the NHS waiting list increase to mind-boggling waiting times, the increased suicides that will become known formally once the Coroners start reporting, the mass unemployment of the younger sectors of the population, the despair of children losing a year of schooling and all the associated personal growth...
I genuinely cannot see how anyone can claim lockdown does more good than harm. Anyone who does so would seem to be willingly blind to the widely reported, but widely ignored, side effects.
EDIT:
And that doesn't even touch on the mental proposals for 'Project Moonshot' weekly testing of the entire population forevermore in some sort of never-ending and unwinnable (is that a word?) 'war on Covid', at a cost of £100bn/year, a figure only slightly less than the entire annual NHS budget (£113bn IIRC), the same NHS that was reported recently as having a 10 year backlog that would cost £12bn/yr to fix the waiting list problem that they've caused.
What better use could that £100bn be put to each year? Someone else has posted on here the anecdotal story of an acquaintance in the research industry, who reckoned they could cure cancer given £530bn. But instead let's test for an illness that is so mild for most people that they don't even know they've got it, and for which the most vulnerable have been vaccinated against it so are 80-90% less at risk from serious illness.
And then we have the nice little industry that Vaccine Passports will create - I'm sure that no money whatsoever from that will go to any friends of our Cabinet...
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Tuesday 27th April 15:55
Jambo85 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's hard to trade various things off against each other but while you have listed things undoubtedly in India's favour, there are a fair few things working the other way:- Lower standard/quantity of healthcare
- Vast numbers of people living in poverty with presumably less access to healthcare
- Those in poverty presumably less educated and with less access to reliable information and sanitation to protect themselves and others
- It is common in India to have very large households of not just multiple generations but multiple families.
- Vast, densely populated cities
ETA:
- Poverty = living hand to mouth - so going out to get food daily or more, unlike us lucky people who can buy enough for a week or more or even have it delivered.
- Also the same people if they don't work that day they don't eat that day - I don't know for sure but I'm guessing the state isn't paying people 80% of their wage to sit at home and do feck all - something which likely helped here.
Edited by Jambo85 on Monday 26th April 23:29
I’m sure it’s even worse than the numbers show. But then they have worse outcomes for even basic stuff that we would consider none issues like TB and digestive illnesses, because we have clean and sanitary living conditions and food supplies, whereas in India, many do not. It’s not a great base from which to face any kind of pandemic.
Otispunkmeyer said:
To be honest, the real answer is that the U.K. and India just aren’t that comparable. The countries are too different and so is the culture.
I’m sure it’s even worse than the numbers show. But then they have worse outcomes for even basic stuff that we would consider none issues like TB and digestive illnesses, because we have clean and sanitary living conditions and food supplies, whereas in India, many do not. It’s not a great base from which to face any kind of pandemic.
I know I was strongly advised not to travel to India during the swine flu epidemic 2009/ 2010. I'd had the flu a month before and whilst recovered the FCO advised that it would be likely that the Indian health officials at immigration would require me to isolate. Thus Govt hospital, shared needles, appalling conditions, (their words) and they would be able to do nothing in terms of getting me into any private health facilities or to exit the country.I’m sure it’s even worse than the numbers show. But then they have worse outcomes for even basic stuff that we would consider none issues like TB and digestive illnesses, because we have clean and sanitary living conditions and food supplies, whereas in India, many do not. It’s not a great base from which to face any kind of pandemic.
steveT350C said:
This may be of interest havoc....
The High Costs of Lockdowns: An Interview with Dr. Bhattacharya
Dr. Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics, both from Stanford.
https://jimmyalfonsolicon.substack.com/p/the-high-...
Thanks. The High Costs of Lockdowns: An Interview with Dr. Bhattacharya
Dr. Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He holds an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics, both from Stanford.
https://jimmyalfonsolicon.substack.com/p/the-high-...
RSTurboPaul said:
...that the younger generations in school (who have been roundly fked over to SaVE grANnY) are going to be paying back for the rest of their lives.
We also would not have the NHS waiting list increase to mind-boggling waiting times, the increased suicides that will become known formally once the Coroners start reporting, the mass unemployment of the younger sectors of the population, the despair of children losing a year of schooling and all the associated personal growth...
I genuinely cannot see how anyone can claim lockdown does more good than harm. Anyone who does so would seem to be willingly blind to the widely reported, but widely ignored, side effects.
EDIT: And that doesn't even touch on the mental proposals for 'Project Moonshot' weekly testing of the entire population forevermore in some sort of never-ending and unwinnable (is that a word?) 'war on Covid', at a cost of £100bn/year, a figure only slightly less than the entire annual NHS budget (£113bn IIRC), the same NHS that was reported recently as having a 10 year backlog that would cost £12bn/yr to fix the waiting list problem that they've caused.
What better use could that £100bn be put to each year? Someone else has posted on here the anecdotal story of an acquaintance in the research industry, who reckoned they could cure cancer given £530bn. But instead let's test for an illness that is so mild for most people that they don't even know they've got it, and for which the most vulnerable have been vaccinated against it so are 80-90% less at risk from serious illness.
And then we have the nice little industry that Vaccine Passports will create - I'm sure that no money whatsoever from that will go to any friends of our Cabinet...
Agree with all of that...not least the knock-on effects on schoolkids, mental health and treatments for more serious conditions. That this government have robbed the future to line their cronies pockets to an unbelievable level, all the while cheered on by the blinkered masses, is a shame that our generations will wear badly when this is looked back upon. And mass testing is a bad fked over to SaVE grANnY) are going to be paying back for the rest of their lives.We also would not have the NHS waiting list increase to mind-boggling waiting times, the increased suicides that will become known formally once the Coroners start reporting, the mass unemployment of the younger sectors of the population, the despair of children losing a year of schooling and all the associated personal growth...
I genuinely cannot see how anyone can claim lockdown does more good than harm. Anyone who does so would seem to be willingly blind to the widely reported, but widely ignored, side effects.
EDIT: And that doesn't even touch on the mental proposals for 'Project Moonshot' weekly testing of the entire population forevermore in some sort of never-ending and unwinnable (is that a word?) 'war on Covid', at a cost of £100bn/year, a figure only slightly less than the entire annual NHS budget (£113bn IIRC), the same NHS that was reported recently as having a 10 year backlog that would cost £12bn/yr to fix the waiting list problem that they've caused.
What better use could that £100bn be put to each year? Someone else has posted on here the anecdotal story of an acquaintance in the research industry, who reckoned they could cure cancer given £530bn. But instead let's test for an illness that is so mild for most people that they don't even know they've got it, and for which the most vulnerable have been vaccinated against it so are 80-90% less at risk from serious illness.
And then we have the nice little industry that Vaccine Passports will create - I'm sure that no money whatsoever from that will go to any friends of our Cabinet...
king joke whichever way you look at it.I'm still on the fence ref. the lockdowns - they could and should have been implemented much sooner twice, and then could have been shorter and less harmful. BUT...I can't argue with any of the above...if there was a half-decent political opposition Johnson and his ineffectual, corrupt colleagues would have been utterly ripped to shreds a dozen times over, wouldn't be ahead in the polls (WTAF???), and we might not be in the state we're currently in.
(Oh, and FWIW, I'm one of the economic AND health victims of this s
t...I'm not supporting lockdowns out of personal interest...)PS - Sweden is a bad example - compared to the other Scandanavian countries they fared notably worse, and most commentators suggest they SHOULD have implemented an early lockdown...god knows they had the warning that Italy etc. didn't...
Quick update on weekly deaths following todays ONS report for week 15 ending 16th April.
This is the 7th consecutive week of normal deaths in England and Wales. Just 275 deaths where COVID is stated as a cause, which accounts for 2.6% of all deaths that week.
The second wave ended in February and so far as I can see we are no longer in an emergency situation. Despite our gradual reopening.
This is the 7th consecutive week of normal deaths in England and Wales. Just 275 deaths where COVID is stated as a cause, which accounts for 2.6% of all deaths that week.
The second wave ended in February and so far as I can see we are no longer in an emergency situation. Despite our gradual reopening.
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
2. Key metrics. Cases per 100k tests and admissions continue to halve every 18 days. I have added a CFR line to the cases graph, which has fallen from over 3% at the peak to an average of 0.59% over the last 2 weeks.
Thinking out loud, have we seen similar (fixed) rates of decline in other countries?If we have, that would seem to suggest that there is little to be done about it...
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
Germany and Sweden are also very closely matched, but not falling exponentially:
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Elysium said:
2. Key metrics. Cases per 100k tests and admissions continue to halve every 18 days. I have added a CFR line to the cases graph, which has fallen from over 3% at the peak to an average of 0.59% over the last 2 weeks.
Thinking out loud, have we seen similar (fixed) rates of decline in other countries?If we have, that would seem to suggest that there is little to be done about it...
Interesting to note Sweden's similarity to / improvement on other, much stricter countries
Germany and Sweden are also very closely matched, but not falling exponentially:
Interesting (but not a surprise) that there are two different curves going on, which seem to be independent of any actions being taken.
I'm not sure why any of the countries in the graph have any restrictions at this moment in time, given the death rate is either <0.25/million or c.2/million.
Exactly how much lower can risk get??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff