Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
164 Answers
An interesting view from Peter Hitchens here. Has he got a point?
Answers
When the pubs were ordered to close on March 20th and the other lockdown measures followed I posted somewhere on here that I doubt that it would do any good. I based my doubts on the fact that similar (if not harsher) measures had failed to halt the rise in the number of new cases in Italy (who were said to be about two weeks ahead of the UK with the crisis). Well we’re...
15:17 Sun 12th Apr 2020
//As a case in point there's been a noticeable dip in reports on Sundays and Mondays owing to a "weekend" effect, which you want to account for when observing any trend.//
Hence the use of my seven day rolling average, deliberately chosen to counter that problem.
//In this case, the disease was more or less following an exponential curve in March.//
Of course it did. It began from zero. An increase from one to two is 100%. From 2 to 8 is another 400%. Small numbers; big percentages.
//That represents progress, that represents a slowing-down //
It’s not slowed down at all and it’s not slowed down since it passed 1,000 (which I would suggest is a better base to start from than zero). The daily increase keeps on increasing. That is not “slowing down”. The percentage increase may (scarcely) be declining (and when your analysis began, remember, an increase of 34 cases meant an increase of 66% whereas the same increase now would mean a 0.04% change).
//On yes, and one other factor that undermines your analysis is that the number of tests conducted has also grown rapidly.//
No it doesn’t. My analysis is based solely on the published figures which are for hospital admissions only. People in hospital don’t go there because they’ve tested positive. They go there because they are ill.
We have a fundamental difference of interpretation. I’m not saying new infections would be the same or different if the lockdown had not been in force (and neither can you or anybody else with any degree of certainty, but that’s not the point). The lockdown has ben in force for three weeks and I am querying your suggestion that the increase in infections is slowing down. From sixteen to eight days ago the number of new infections doubled (from 2,129 to 4,450). In the past eight days they have doubled again (from 4,450 to 8,719). Anybody suggesting that they are “slowing down” based on those figures is either a politician or he needs to have a chat with Darell Huff (if only he hadn’t died).
Hence the use of my seven day rolling average, deliberately chosen to counter that problem.
//In this case, the disease was more or less following an exponential curve in March.//
Of course it did. It began from zero. An increase from one to two is 100%. From 2 to 8 is another 400%. Small numbers; big percentages.
//That represents progress, that represents a slowing-down //
It’s not slowed down at all and it’s not slowed down since it passed 1,000 (which I would suggest is a better base to start from than zero). The daily increase keeps on increasing. That is not “slowing down”. The percentage increase may (scarcely) be declining (and when your analysis began, remember, an increase of 34 cases meant an increase of 66% whereas the same increase now would mean a 0.04% change).
//On yes, and one other factor that undermines your analysis is that the number of tests conducted has also grown rapidly.//
No it doesn’t. My analysis is based solely on the published figures which are for hospital admissions only. People in hospital don’t go there because they’ve tested positive. They go there because they are ill.
We have a fundamental difference of interpretation. I’m not saying new infections would be the same or different if the lockdown had not been in force (and neither can you or anybody else with any degree of certainty, but that’s not the point). The lockdown has ben in force for three weeks and I am querying your suggestion that the increase in infections is slowing down. From sixteen to eight days ago the number of new infections doubled (from 2,129 to 4,450). In the past eight days they have doubled again (from 4,450 to 8,719). Anybody suggesting that they are “slowing down” based on those figures is either a politician or he needs to have a chat with Darell Huff (if only he hadn’t died).
The think about the 8,000 figure is it looks to me like a bit of an outlier. On either side of that there's been a fairly reliable c.5,000 increase in cases for a while -- and, besides, the UK isn't the only data set worth studying. You can see similar trends in most European countries.
It's worth stressing that the "advantage" I have over officials is that my judgement is entirely academic. Nobody cares about what I say, meaning I have perhaps a freedom to go further than the official line. As I understand it, there is hope that the lockdown is having an effect but, for obvious reasons, there is much more caution to say so at the top when policy issues are at stake. Nevertheless, I'd say that there are good signs that the lock down is having an effect -- and, of course, extremely good reasons to believe that it would.
// Of course it [followed exponential growth]. It began from zero. An increase from one to two is 100%. From 2 to 8 is another 400%. Small numbers; big percentages. //
I'm not sure how to reply to that because it seems to utterly miss the point. An exponential growth rate is how a disease spreads if it's uncontrolled (at least initially; a more accurate version is the SIR model, but this is exponential to start with before correcting as the disease runs out of new people to infect), and it doesn't rely on small numbers to see that effect. Without controls, and assuming perfect data, then the spread would have continued at essentially the same rate for quite some time.
// My analysis is based solely on the published figures which are for hospital admissions only. People in hospital don’t go there because they’ve tested positive. They go there because they are ill. //
Then shouldn't your analysis also acknowledge an apparent trend towards fewer new cases there, too? The information I understood the government to have released includes, for example, that they haven't exhausted critical care capacity -- which is, not incidentally, the entire point of the lockdown -- and that there are maybe the signs that hospital cases are stabilising.
I just don't see how you can arrive at any conclusion that the lockdown isn't having an impact. Also, as a matter of fact, although yes we can't say for certain what would have happened without a lockdown, the entire purpose of modelling is to understand what is likely to have happened -- and what common sense and mathematical models tell us is that without such extreme measures the disease would be out of control and then some, and the number of deaths and rate of deaths would be much higher. What the actual scale would be I cannot of course say, but I think that at least half as much again by now would be a reasonable ballpark.
It's worth stressing that the "advantage" I have over officials is that my judgement is entirely academic. Nobody cares about what I say, meaning I have perhaps a freedom to go further than the official line. As I understand it, there is hope that the lockdown is having an effect but, for obvious reasons, there is much more caution to say so at the top when policy issues are at stake. Nevertheless, I'd say that there are good signs that the lock down is having an effect -- and, of course, extremely good reasons to believe that it would.
// Of course it [followed exponential growth]. It began from zero. An increase from one to two is 100%. From 2 to 8 is another 400%. Small numbers; big percentages. //
I'm not sure how to reply to that because it seems to utterly miss the point. An exponential growth rate is how a disease spreads if it's uncontrolled (at least initially; a more accurate version is the SIR model, but this is exponential to start with before correcting as the disease runs out of new people to infect), and it doesn't rely on small numbers to see that effect. Without controls, and assuming perfect data, then the spread would have continued at essentially the same rate for quite some time.
// My analysis is based solely on the published figures which are for hospital admissions only. People in hospital don’t go there because they’ve tested positive. They go there because they are ill. //
Then shouldn't your analysis also acknowledge an apparent trend towards fewer new cases there, too? The information I understood the government to have released includes, for example, that they haven't exhausted critical care capacity -- which is, not incidentally, the entire point of the lockdown -- and that there are maybe the signs that hospital cases are stabilising.
I just don't see how you can arrive at any conclusion that the lockdown isn't having an impact. Also, as a matter of fact, although yes we can't say for certain what would have happened without a lockdown, the entire purpose of modelling is to understand what is likely to have happened -- and what common sense and mathematical models tell us is that without such extreme measures the disease would be out of control and then some, and the number of deaths and rate of deaths would be much higher. What the actual scale would be I cannot of course say, but I think that at least half as much again by now would be a reasonable ballpark.
How utterly unsurprising, by the way, that Naomi's example of my supposed "flawed thinking" merely serves to demonstrate her own. I've never argued remotely to the contrary that "the vast majority" will survive, but those who end up dead, their families and friends, probably can be excused for not caring. Besides, a minority of a great many people is still a lot. even if 99.5% of people survive Covid-19, that would still lead to 300,000 deaths in the UK alone assuming everyone caught it, and the quicker we get to that the greater the load on hospitals.
// The thought occurs to me...is just those suckling from the nation's teat who have no issue with the lockdown (it won't affect their (and for 'their', read my money). //
How utterly cynical and disgusting of you. Never mind utterly wrong. A shame, as the rest of your post seemed fair enough -- in that we looked to be respectfully disagreeing.
How utterly cynical and disgusting of you. Never mind utterly wrong. A shame, as the rest of your post seemed fair enough -- in that we looked to be respectfully disagreeing.
My point is, as I'm sure you are aware, is that those that don't contribute to the economy, won't be affected as much as those that do. You may find it disgusting, but it doesn't make it any less true.
You know it, I know it, everybody who properly contributes knows it...but apparently we're not meant to voice it.
You know it, I know it, everybody who properly contributes knows it...but apparently we're not meant to voice it.
I don't know anything of the sort. People who were in vulnerable jobs with no savings are always the most vulnerable to economic collapse, because they have nowhere left to fall and no room for manoeuvre. That isn't to imply, I hasten to add, that anyone better off than this doesn't suffer, because that would be equally nonsense, but it's a strange suggestion indeed that the lockdown would be welcomed by the already unemployed. What prospect now of getting a job when so many are losing theirs?
And, besides, even if it were true we should be grateful that the UK has a system to protect those who fall on hard times. How much worse the fallout from a lockdown would be without social security, without a safety net, and without the unprecedented hundreds of billions the Government hopes to provide as support for those forced to shut their businesses.
And, besides, even if it were true we should be grateful that the UK has a system to protect those who fall on hard times. How much worse the fallout from a lockdown would be without social security, without a safety net, and without the unprecedented hundreds of billions the Government hopes to provide as support for those forced to shut their businesses.
What prospect now of getting a job when so many are losing theirs?
I believe that after this Corona virus shutdown has ended there will be many many job loss's. Mmmmm why do we need to keep those offices open when we had so many working from home and why do we need 1000 men on the shop floor when we kept vital machines running with a skeleton crew of 100.
I believe that after this Corona virus shutdown has ended there will be many many job loss's. Mmmmm why do we need to keep those offices open when we had so many working from home and why do we need 1000 men on the shop floor when we kept vital machines running with a skeleton crew of 100.
>Golly! What's this? A posse calling for an example from me of Jim’s flawed thinking - even though Jim declares I don’t have one.
A bit of hyperbole there, Naomi. Can a posse comprise just one person (me?)- or are you including Jim too (who is of course entitled to challenge your flawed comment about him)?
Maybe time to wind things back a notch.
A bit of hyperbole there, Naomi. Can a posse comprise just one person (me?)- or are you including Jim too (who is of course entitled to challenge your flawed comment about him)?
Maybe time to wind things back a notch.
On a personal level within my immediate circle the lock down has resulted as follows
My mother's early stage dementia and depression have deteriorated to the point where it things don't change soon I am sure she will be totally unable to look after herself.
My sister has lost her job
Her husband's health has improved because he had been under a lot of stress and needed a rest
My elderly aunt now suffers anxiety attacks and has needed medication
For me little has changed except I can't do anything to help at the moment which is stressing me out.
Even at that tiny scale it's obviously swings and roundabouts.
My mother's early stage dementia and depression have deteriorated to the point where it things don't change soon I am sure she will be totally unable to look after herself.
My sister has lost her job
Her husband's health has improved because he had been under a lot of stress and needed a rest
My elderly aunt now suffers anxiety attacks and has needed medication
For me little has changed except I can't do anything to help at the moment which is stressing me out.
Even at that tiny scale it's obviously swings and roundabouts.
Clearly people are struggling, I agree, david, but some of the stories of misery I hear don't hold water. Some of those who have lost their jobs would not have been due to be paid until the end of April anyway if they'd kept their jobs yet are now complaining of having no money now. Some of the self employed who have had no money coming in seem to be in desperate straights now- but surely being self employed one should have something in place to get you through a quiet month. This crisis has shown how many people live on the edge and either don't have savings or don't want to touch them ( heard someone yesterday saying they couldn't pay bills and wouldn't touch their savings because she was saving for a new car).
Some will fall through the net as the schemes have had to be put in place extremely quickly and overall are very helpful- and hopefully the Chancellor will expand the scope to pick mor eof those up.
Some will fall through the net as the schemes have had to be put in place extremely quickly and overall are very helpful- and hopefully the Chancellor will expand the scope to pick mor eof those up.
We have to bear in mind that even without lock down many jobs would be lost. Some stalwarts would undoubtedly carry on as normal, but many of us would still refrain from using bars, restaurants and doing unnecessary shopping. Many tasks like home improvements that required others to enter our homes would be put on the back-burner too.
Jim, //even if 99.5% of people survive Covid-19, that would still lead to 300,000 deaths in the UK alone assuming everyone caught it//
My assessment, giving valid figures, is flawed - and you think it’s acceptable to use an hypothetical ‘if’ to bolster your argument? It doesn’t work.
fiction-factory, you claim my comment is flawed but offer no explanation. As for winding things back a notch, that would be more usefully addressed elsewhere.
I think there is something in the argument proposed by deskdiary relating to ‘safe’ jobs. There does seem to be an enormous divide here and it appears to be between those who are in ‘safe’ jobs and those more business-orientated.
//Some of the self employed who have had no money coming in seem to be in desperate straights now- but surely being self employed one should have something in place to get you through a quiet month.//
^That illustrates the naivety of someone who is sheltered in a safe job and has no conception of a life outside that. Of course they’re in desperate straights. They don’t depend upon someone else paying a regular wage into their bank account every month regardless of whether they’re working or not. Their livelihoods are volatile at the best of times. If they don’t work they don’t earn - it’s as simple as that. When this is over those who are employed in ‘safe’ jobs will simply go back to work, confident of their regular salaries and confident of their pensions. The same cannot be said for the self-employed.
My assessment, giving valid figures, is flawed - and you think it’s acceptable to use an hypothetical ‘if’ to bolster your argument? It doesn’t work.
fiction-factory, you claim my comment is flawed but offer no explanation. As for winding things back a notch, that would be more usefully addressed elsewhere.
I think there is something in the argument proposed by deskdiary relating to ‘safe’ jobs. There does seem to be an enormous divide here and it appears to be between those who are in ‘safe’ jobs and those more business-orientated.
//Some of the self employed who have had no money coming in seem to be in desperate straights now- but surely being self employed one should have something in place to get you through a quiet month.//
^That illustrates the naivety of someone who is sheltered in a safe job and has no conception of a life outside that. Of course they’re in desperate straights. They don’t depend upon someone else paying a regular wage into their bank account every month regardless of whether they’re working or not. Their livelihoods are volatile at the best of times. If they don’t work they don’t earn - it’s as simple as that. When this is over those who are employed in ‘safe’ jobs will simply go back to work, confident of their regular salaries and confident of their pensions. The same cannot be said for the self-employed.
well I pretty good discussion generally and thanks to all for keeping it civil. Jim thanks for the effort on this thread and I do comprehend your points and yes lives are more important than economics. In the end though if we end up destroying the economy many more may suffer than the disease effects directly. Anyway lets hope that we can get through this with a multi-pronged attack on the virus. Eg this should be useful:
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
ChatterBank57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Body & Soul67 mins ago