Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[GordMay]

Here’s the complete paper:
“ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-AT-HOME AND BUSINESS CLOSURE EFFECTS ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19" ~ by Eran Bendavid et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/eci.13484

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s the complete paper:
“ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-AT-HOME AND BUSINESS CLOSURE EFFECTS ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19" ~ by Eran Bendavid et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/eci.13484

COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink



https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202010.0330/v2

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

No, that is not correct. Just google “Post viral syndrome following influenza” and a mass of info will come up. Fatigue lasting weeks or months is very common following influenza, but more severe neurological problems may occur:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22889537/

There is also speculation that post viral effects may cause issues even years down the track. Association with several serious diseases has been found, but this does not necessarily imply causation. This question is still unanswered.

Thanks for the info - I haven’t heard much about post-flu problems and the info I’ve seen (very superficial looks) shows relatively low incidence in younger patients. Whereas the long-Covid syndrome affects a much higher proportion of patients in all age groups.

That (if correct) would worry me more about catching Covid. I have no worries at all with catching the seasonal flu. Am I ignorant? (BTW, I’m a 54 year old male with some extra weight and borderline hypertension.)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s the complete paper:
“ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-AT-HOME AND BUSINESS CLOSURE EFFECTS ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19" ~ by Eran Bendavid et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/eci.13484

I hope everyone who is interested in this to the extent of being willing to dive into the math and science, has read this. This is really interesting, because it puts deep analysis behind all the curves we've been looking at all these months.

It confirms that the effect of less severe NPIs in bending the curves in countries has been basically the same as the effect of lockdowns*; or to state it more precisely, there is no evidence in the numbers that lockdowns are more effective than less severe NPIs, something which has seemed obvious to me for months. And explains why there is no correlation between lockdowns and good outcomes, or rather, negative correlation.

Seaworthy Lass, who I think is more of a lockdown skeptic than I am, will find a lot of support for her beliefs here.

I personally don't think that this proves that all the lockdowns were mistakes (although I do believe they MIGHT have been), because:

"lrNPIs [less restrictive NPIs] could have large anti-contagion effects if individual behavioral response is large, in which case additional, more restrictive NPIs may not provide much additional benefit. . . "

Cultural differences may make voluntary and other less restrictive NPIs less effective, perhaps dramatically less effective, than they have been in the Nordic countries, where it has been shown that the official recommendations have had similar effects on behavior to mandatory restrictions in other countries. That could possibly be a justification for lockdowns, at least in desperate situations.

* I have been criticized for using the term "lockdown", although I have defined it over and over again. Note that the authors of this paper use the term precisely as I do:

"Some of the most restrictive NPI policies include mandatory stay-at-home and business closure orders (“lockdowns”). The early adoption of these more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPIs) in early 2020 was justified because of the rapid spread of the disease, overwhelmed health systems in some hard-hit places, and substantial uncertainty about the virus’ morbidity and mortality."

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Thanks for the info - I haven’t heard much about post-flu problems and the info I’ve seen (very superficial looks) shows relatively low incidence in younger patients. Whereas the long-Covid syndrome affects a much higher proportion of patients in all age groups.

That (if correct) would worry me more about catching Covid. I have no worries at all with catching the seasonal flu. Am I ignorant? (BTW, I’m a 54 year old male with some extra weight and borderline hypertension.)

I can’t answer that.
All I can say is that hypertension is a risk factor for death from influenza. I would personally be more concerned about that than post viral effects. Also more concerned with all the other serious risks associated with hypertension, particularly if not well controlled. Life expectancy is substantially reduced.

“Raised blood pressure (BP) is responsible for 7.6 million deaths per annum worldwide (13.5% of the total), more than any other risk factors”:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22157565/

This is so well publicised that I can’t believe people are unaware of this, they just pop pills (hopefully) and ignore it. How many people make a serious effort to do something about it and comply with all the lifestyle changes (diet, exercise etc) their doctor recommends when they are diagnosed? I am truly mystified by this given how effective the measures can be.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202010.0330/v2

“Rethinking lockdowns: The risks and trade-offs of public health measures to prevent COVID-19 infections” ~ by Dr. Ari Joffe
Excerpt:
“What should we do?
We must take an ‘effortful pause’ from our cognitive biases and calibrate our response to the risks and trade-offs discussed above. To do otherwise risks only magnifying the many costs outlined above. A recalibrated response might involve the following:
1. Educate the public and policy-makers on the risks and trade-offs in-volved. Alleviate unreasonable fear with accurate information.
2. Focus on cost-benefit analysis. Repeated or prolonged lockdowns can-not be based on COVID-19 numbers alone.
3. Focus on protecting people at high risk: people hospitalized or in nurs-ing homes (e.g., universal masking in hospitals reduced transmission markedly), in crowded conditions (e.g., homeless shelters, prisons, large gatherings), and equal to and greater than 70 years old (espe-cially with multiple severe comorbidities). Do not lock down everyone, regardless of their individual risk.
4. Keep schools open: children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years old and younger) are less likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
5. Consider increasing health care surge capacity if forecasting, accurately calibrated repeatedly to real-time data (up to now, forecasting, even short-term, has repeatedly failed), suggests it is needed. With universal masking in hospitals, asymptomatic health care workers can continue to work.
The decision to adopt repeated or prolonged lockdown measures cannot be based on COVID-19 numbers alone. Instead, we need to better recognize the risks and trade-offs inherent in our public health measures against COVID. We cannot attempt to avoid every (or even most) case(s) of COVID-19, as this will cost far more harm than benefit. But what we can do is open up society with the more modest restrictions outlined above, with a particular emphasis on protecting high-risk people, keeping schools open, and increasing our health care surge capacity."
Full article ➥ https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pd...NTARY_FWeb.pdf


Lockdowns will cause 10 times more harm to human health than COVID-19 itself, says infectious disease expert
An interview with Dr. Ari Joffe, of the Stollery Children’s Hospital and the University of Alberta; and author of the previously linked “COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink”.
➥ https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...disease-expert

[UFO]

Dr Louise Lagendijk studied at Harvard and studied mRNA as part of her PhD in Molecular Genetics.
Dr Largendijk explains very clearly what the possible risks are of an mRNA 'vaxin'.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/O9TNqczik25m/

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Seaworthy Lass, who I think is more of a lockdown skeptic than I am, will find a lot of support for her beliefs here.

Yes, I have been very much against mandatory “stay at home & shut down businesses and schools” lockdowns for this pandemic.

I think the vulnerable should have been voluntarily sheltering if they wish to reduce their risk of dying (easy as these are mainly the elderly, non working segment of the population) and given decent support during this time, and all steps possible should have been taken to protect those who are under care and those looking after them.

I have also been very much in favour of less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (lrNPIs) for controlling spread.‬

I didn’t respond to the article, as I get no satisfaction from possibly being right. I think management of this pandemic has been even more of a disaster than the pandemic itself.‬

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by UFO

Dr Louise Lagendijk studied at Harvard and studied mRNA as part of her PhD in Molecular Genetics.
Dr Largendijk explains very clearly what the possible risks are of an mRNA 'vaxin'.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/O9TNqczik25m/

This hesitation fits in with some of my views, primarily as the vaccines simply have not been trialled fully.

Statements are being thrown around about how “safe” they are, including by governments, but we have such very limited data. Vaccines have been found to be safe for a week after the second dose. That is all we know. During this time they also dramatically reduce the risk of serious illness and dying. That is absolutely all we can say at this stage. Most side effects for vaccines crop up within around six months. As mentioned in the video, it may take years for some to occur.

But this needs to be put in perspective. Risk vs benefit is critical. The elderly have a high risk of dying from COVID-19. It goes up exponentially with age. I personally think this risk is much higher than the risk of problems with the vaccines. It may sound harsh, but the elderly will also have few life years lost if problems occur. I would jump at the chance of being vaccinated if I was in this category.

Regarding vaccinating the rest of the vulnerable due to co-morbidities rather than age, this comes with its own risks particularly if people have autoimmune conditions or are immunocompromised. I thinks some groups such as this were deliberately left out of current trials. These are very difficult groups to know what to do with long term.

I am certainly not an anti-vaxxer. Vaccines, along with safe water and safe sewerage disposal have saved countless lives. I just don’t think people should be vilified if they opt not to take a newly released, minimally trialled vaccine.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Rethinking lockdowns: The risks and trade-offs of public health measures to prevent COVID-19 infections” ~ by Dr. Ari Joffe
Excerpt:
“What should we do?
We must take an ‘effortful pause’ from our cognitive biases and calibrate our response to the risks and trade-offs discussed above. To do otherwise risks only magnifying the many costs outlined above. A recalibrated response might involve the following:
1. Educate the public and policy-makers on the risks and trade-offs in-volved. Alleviate unreasonable fear with accurate information.
2. Focus on cost-benefit analysis. Repeated or prolonged lockdowns can-not be based on COVID-19 numbers alone.
3. Focus on protecting people at high risk: people hospitalized or in nurs-ing homes (e.g., universal masking in hospitals reduced transmission markedly), in crowded conditions (e.g., homeless shelters, prisons, large gatherings), and equal to and greater than 70 years old (espe-cially with multiple severe comorbidities). Do not lock down everyone, regardless of their individual risk.
4. Keep schools open: children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years old and younger) are less likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
5. Consider increasing health care surge capacity if forecasting, accurately calibrated repeatedly to real-time data (up to now, forecasting, even short-term, has repeatedly failed), suggests it is needed. With universal masking in hospitals, asymptomatic health care workers can continue to work.
The decision to adopt repeated or prolonged lockdown measures cannot be based on COVID-19 numbers alone. Instead, we need to better recognize the risks and trade-offs inherent in our public health measures against COVID. We cannot attempt to avoid every (or even most) case(s) of COVID-19, as this will cost far more harm than benefit. But what we can do is open up society with the more modest restrictions outlined above, with a particular emphasis on protecting high-risk people, keeping schools open, and increasing our health care surge capacity."
Full article ➥ https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pd...NTARY_FWeb.pdf


Lockdowns will cause 10 times more harm to human health than COVID-19 itself, says infectious disease expert
An interview with Dr. Ari Joffe, of the Stollery Children’s Hospital and the University of Alberta; and author of the previously linked “COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink”.
➥ https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...disease-expert

Since these are the very things I have been saying since late spring last year, it would be superfluous for me to say something in favor of this article, except that of course it's a lot better stated, and backed up by better specialized knowledge, than what I have been able to write.


Arguing that policy should be informed by balanced cost-benefit analysis of different policies, as is advocated in this article, has gotten furious responses on here, including even calls for censorship of my posts. The idea of counting life-years rather than absolute lives has earned me accusations of monstrousness, even being "pathologically incapable of love". The same mentality which leads to the bizarre and irrational (as I've tried to demonstrate) demonization of Sweden's pandemic response.


The Nordic pandemic response, which I admire so much, explicitly has as its goal public health as a whole, and not just reducing pandemic deaths. This is said over and over again by the different public health chiefs up here, not just Tegnell but Salaminen and the Danes and Norwegians. Public health as a whole is a complex phenomenon where children's development, health consequences of unemployment and economic problems, even the effect on the welfare state of economic problems, all have to be considered. This is so basic, so much Public Policy 101, that I am astonished that people find looking at it this way to be so wrong, in fact evil. I never understood why people respond so furiously to these ideas, except that I guess people are so gripped by fear, that any challenge to a fanatical and single-minded response, strictly excluding any other considerations except reducing pandemic deaths at all costs, is considered to be some kind of subversion or treason (or cognitive dysfunction, as I've also been accused of). I guess we will be studying this whole phenomenon for decades to come -- such a fascinating social phenomenon, on top of everything else.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

This hesitation fits in with some of my views, primarily as the vaccines simply have not been trialled fully.

Statements are being thrown around about how “safe” they are, including by governments, but we have such very limited data. Vaccines have been found to be safe for a week after the second dose. That is all we know. During this time they also dramatically reduce the risk of serious illness and dying. That is absolutely all we can say at this stage. Most side effects for vaccines crop up within around six months. As mentioned in the video, it may take years for some to occur.

But this needs to be put in perspective. Risk vs benefit is critical. The elderly have a high risk of dying from COVID-19. It goes up exponentially with age. I personally think this risk is much higher than the risk of problems with the vaccines. It may sound harsh, but the elderly will also have few life years lost if problems occur. I would jump at the chance of being vaccinated if I was in this category.

Regarding vaccinating the rest of the vulnerable due to co-morbidities rather than age, this comes with its own risks particularly if people have autoimmune conditions or are immunocompromised. I thinks some groups such as this were deliberately left out of current trials. These are very difficult groups to know what to do with long term.

I am certainly not an anti-vaxxer. Vaccines, along with safe water and safe sewerage disposal have saved countless lives. I just don’t think people should be vilified if they opt not to take a newly released, minimally trialled vaccine.

I agree with this, of course. And I'm also against lying about the risks of vaccines (just as I was against lying about masks being ineffective, in order to prevent people from buying them at the beginning of the pandemic when we had a shortage -- awful policy which destroys public trust).

HOWEVER, I also think that the risks are grossly exaggerated in the minds of anti-vaxxers, with a careless disregard for facts, and willingness to believe all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense. I am equally against this.

From everything I understand, the risks of these vaccines, as far as we can tell, are really vanishingly small compared to risks from the disease, even if those risks as also very small if you're not in a risk group.

And widespread vaccination is really essential to breaking the back of the pandemic and allowing life to get back to normal -- that will also save lives, and not just virus deaths -- the secondary effects of the pandemic AND from the pandemic measures are immensely destructive. If this goes on much longer and we have a large global economic collapse, we are screwed -- this will kill untold millions and ruin the lives of billions. We've got to put an end to it, and widespread vaccination appears to be the only way.

THEREFORE, I am strongly pro-vaccination. I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate, and I don't think people who are reluctant to vaccinate should be disrespected or demonized, but I would not even be against mandatory vaccination, if it turns out to be the only way to stop the pandemic.

[GordMay]

Quoting Dr. Dr. Ari Joffe
“... First, the difference between the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate is important. Early estimates were based on the case fatality rate, the deaths in confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. This is a gross over-estimate of death rates, as most infections (at all ages) are mild or asymptomatic and were not detected. According to a study* by John Ioannidis (2020), the median infection fatality rate – based on detection of antibody (seroprevalence) in populations – in those infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 0.23 percent, and for those under 70 years old, is 0.05 percent.2 Thus, usually 99.95 percent of people age less than 70 infected with SARS-CoV-2 survive ...”

*“Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data” ~ by John P A Ioannidis
Conclusion
“The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.”
➥ https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_....20.265892.pdf

This synopsis gives an overview of relevant evidence in relation to two publications by John P A Ioannidis (cited by Dr Joffe):

“COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rates Reported in Two Studies by Ioannidis et al.”
~ by Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario).

“Key Findings
•Ioannidis et al. provide evidence of the previously known and well-documented age-dependent gradient in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)- associated mortality:
•In a cross-sectional study of publicly reported data on COVID-19 deaths, the risk of death from COVID-19 in patients <65 years of age was 30 to 100-fold lower than that for patients ≥65 years of age in Canada and 11 European countries, and 16 to 52-fold lower in 13 United States (US) states.[1]
•In an article reviewing seroprevalence and mortality data of COVID-19 from 51 locations, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated at 0.27% (range 0.00%–1.63%) overall, and at 0.05% (range 0.00%–0.31%) for people <70 years of age.[2]
•Ioannidis et al. speculate that a preventive approach of shielding vulnerable elderly could be used without a broad lockdown. They did not include in their analyses; however, consideration for the body of evidence that protection of the more vulnerable elderly population cannot be achieved by public health measures targeting this group in isolation, as transmission (and outbreaks) occur within households, institutions and the community where different age groups are present or interact.[3-13]
•The reviewed papers by Ioannidis et al. do not provide evidence to support the lead author’s public statements against restrictive public health measures such as lockdowns.[14,15]
...
Conclusions
•The strong age-gradient for COVID-19–associated mortality is not controversial and was accurately estimated in March 2020.38 However, the infection fatality rate estimates by Ioannidis et al. are lower than those reported in multiple other studies.[38-40-
•The articles by Ioannidis et al. speculate that ‘shielding’ the elderly or at-risk individuals, while minimizing measures used for other population groups who are less likely to experience severe illness, can be a public health strategy. There is currently little evidence that such shielding approaches can be effectively implemented across an entire jurisdiction, despite efforts.
•Although COVID-19 infections tend to be less severe in younger patients, cardiovascular, pulmonary and other neurological sequelae may be expected based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19, what is known about other infectious diseases,[41] and what is being learned about SARS-CoV-2 specifically.[42,43] Furthermore, factors at individual, biological and societal levels that increase the risk of infection and severe outcomes are still being understood.[44,45] It would not be possible to equitably shield non-elderly individuals who might be at risk.
•Public health agencies globally have supported the use of physical distancing measures and lockdowns to control community transmission of COVID-19, recognizing that high community transmission renders protection or shielding of higher-risk populations virtually impossible due to the connections within the broader community in which they live. Further, an approach to strict isolation of at-risk populations can also be considered inhumane and unethical.[47]”

Entire Synopsis ➥ https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-...ates.pdf?la=en

Emphasis added is mine.

[laird]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree with this, of course. And I'm also against lying about the risks of vaccines (just as I was against lying about masks being ineffective, in order to prevent people from buying them at the beginning of the pandemic when we had a shortage -- awful policy which destroys public trust).

HOWEVER, I also think that the risks are grossly exaggerated in the minds of anti-vaxxers, with a careless disregard for facts, and willingness to believe all kinds of anti-scientific nonsense. I am equally against this.

From everything I understand, the risks of these vaccines, as far as we can tell, are really vanishingly small compared to risks from the disease, even if those risks as also very small if you're not in a risk group.

And widespread vaccination is really essential to breaking the back of the pandemic and allowing life to get back to normal -- that will also save lives, and not just virus deaths -- the secondary effects of the pandemic AND from the pandemic measures are immensely destructive. If this goes on much longer and we have a large global economic collapse, we are screwed -- this will kill untold millions and ruin the lives of billions. We've got to put an end to it, and widespread vaccination appears to be the only way.

THEREFORE, I am strongly pro-vaccination. I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate, and I don't think people who are reluctant to vaccinate should be disrespected or demonized, but I would not even be against mandatory vaccination, if it turns out to be the only way to stop the pandemic.

I'm strongly in favour of the vaccine ,I wonder just how many of the anti vaxers use or consume non regulated products such as illegal drugs , I think it is well known that all vaccines have a risk but for me the positives far outweigh the negatives ,I've been told that I'll receive a pay out if I have an adverse reaction from the virus ,I could buy one heck of a big shiney yacht with it ,I'd prefer to be non reactive

There is concern within the UK NHS regarding the knock on effect inasmuch that there is a back log mounting of other illnesses , I know of one cancer sufferer who has been told that they played down her illness as the system was so overloaded with covid ,there was no spare capacity for her treatment. The time consuming part of covid treatment is not within the ICU ,it's the part after that , where the beds are taken up in the isolation wards
One of the big issues with the Pfizer vaccine is that dry ice is being used as part of its storage , that's causing an issue ,I'm assuming that it is to do with green house gas emissions ,possibly government is wary of not adhering to the Montreal protocol or the Tokyo agreements
I'm the on call engineer this weekend and I Had a call yesterday to a covid unit , it was not too bad as it was not in the red zone , I only had to go through green and Amber ,so no need to suit up like a telly tubby , the unit in question was an 80 bed rehabilitation complex before covid , where they have diverted the rehabilitation patients to ?

My comments are as a result of observation from within and are my opinion ,not any official opinion

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . .•Ioannidis et al. speculate that a preventive approach of shielding vulnerable elderly could be used without a broad lockdown. They did not include in their analyses; however, consideration for the body of evidence that protection of the more vulnerable elderly population cannot be achieved by public health measures targeting this group in isolation, as transmission (and outbreaks) occur within households, institutions and the community where different age groups are present or interact. . . .



•The articles by Ioannidis et al. speculate that ‘shielding’ the elderly or at-risk individuals, while minimizing measures used for other population groups who are less likely to experience severe illness, can be a public health strategy. There is currently little evidence that such shielding approaches can be effectively implemented across an entire jurisdiction, despite efforts.

I agree with this, and I think actually that this is fairly obviously true. This is why I don't join the Great Barrington Declaration approach, although I think it's worthy of great respect.

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . •Public health agencies globally have supported the use of physical distancing measures and lockdowns to control community transmission of COVID-19 . . .

SOME public health agencies globally support lockdowns. But MANY do not. The WHO itself recommends lockdowns "only as a last resort." Public health agencies in the Nordic countries are categorically against them. There is a serious scientific basis to doubt that they are highly effective, or effective at all, and there are serious reasons of public health and public policy, to question whether they are worth the cost, even if they are somewhat effective, which has not been proven.


In Europe there is a fairly strong negative correlation between lockdowns and outcomes. Correlation is not causation, so that doesn't prove that lockdowns CAUSE bad outcomes, but it is certainly strong evidence that they don't PREVENT them. I haven't really followed the various U.S. states, but I bet we see something similar there.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... SOME public health agencies globally support lockdowns. But MANY do not ...

Of course not.
Since “lockdowns” often generate vociferous cries of protest and outrage (sometimes violent), and public support is more generally calm & temperate, no wise elected official will be inclined to invoke restrictive measures, without very good cause.
The previously cited articles indicate that there is active controversy (we aggree, here), regarding the efficacy of various non medical interventions, so politicians have reasons/excuses to avoid them, as much as, and as long as, possible in their (sometimes flawed) judgement.