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

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I certainly agree about errors being made beacuse of failing to look at the science. I think that's my point.



There is a serious question whether actual lockdowns -- forcing people to stay at home -- does any good at all, based on what science we do know. See the interview with Johan Giesecke linked above. This particular particularly destructive measure does not seem to have been taken on the basis of any science-based thinking.


Whether Portugal saved lives by lockdown or by something else -- we don't know. Early action in Portugal probably played a big role, but early lockdown? We don't know that lockdown was necessary.

Portugal's lockdown wasn't actually that hard, apart from easter when it was very restrictive. Don't think you can say much at all about 'lockdown' as countries are so different culturally. Portugal , like Sweden/south korea/japan(where I am) is generally very well behaved so even loose restrictive measures will very likely have as great an impact slowing the spread as much greater measures in other countries. The general feel is much more 'for the greater good' than the 'me me me' you get in many other places, like UK, USA, AUS etc. Look at the UK, 'please stay home' just didn't work there like it did in Sweden. A week later the law was required to force people to do as there were told. So bit pointless really talking of a one size fits all. Mass testing and isolation seems very successful in S Korea (though prob not an option in most countries), as did early and strong social isolating either legally or socially in other countries.
In many countries little legal methods of slowing the spread could well lead to a huge spike in infections devastating the workforce with an even worse economic outcome than almost shutting down the country not to mention the deaths. We don't know.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Portugal's lockdown wasn't actually that hard, apart from easter when it was very restrictive. Don't think you can say much at all about 'lockdown' as countries are so different culturally. Portugal , like Sweden/south korea/japan(where I am) is generally very well behaved so even loose restrictive measures will very likely have as great an impact slowing the spread as much greater measures in other countries. The general feel is much more 'for the greater good' than the 'me me me' you get in many other places, like UK, USA, AUS etc. Look at the UK, 'please stay home' just didn't work there like it did in Sweden. A week later the law was required to force people to do as there were told. So bit pointless really talking of a one size fits all. Mass testing and isolation seems very successful in S Korea (though prob not an option in most countries), as did early and strong social isolating either legally or socially in other countries.
In many countries little legal methods of slowing the spread could well lead to a huge spike in infections devastating the workforce with an even worse economic outcome than almost shutting down the country not to mention the deaths. We don't know.

I agree with much of this. We should not forget that different countries are different in many different ways and may require quite different combinations of methods -- I've been saying this all along. I am becoming increasingly skeptical about lockdowns, myself, but let's see what the science actually shows as we understand the virus better.


Here is interesting news from Sweden: https://www.thelocal.se/20200417/how...he-coronavirus


According to this, the Swedes are rolling out truly massive testing capacity -- capable of testing 1% of the population every week, or 10% in 10 weeks. The leaders in testing and contact tracing, South Korea, have only tested cumulatively about half a million people or 1% of their population over the whole course of the outbreak. So what the Swedes are doing is big, order of magnitude beyond what the Koreans have done in the way of testing.



So much we don't understand, but surely this one thing is clear -- we need to do a ton more testing than we do now. It's really the only way to have even a vague idea of what kind of policy measures need to be taken.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... The only argument I make is against knee-jerk, oversimplified answers based on flawed logic. Like just take the most radical action we can think of, just in case. The kind of thinking which caused a lot of people to ridicule the Swedish approach to the crisis, as if the right answers were so obvious, that people assume that the Swedish health authorities are idiots ...
... I'm not actually worried about my own summer -- I'm living in what may be the only remaining sane part of the world ...

It seems as though you assume, that the majority* of countries, outside of Sweden, are run by insane idiots.
I'm not entirely convinced that your logic is without flaw.

* I'll grant you, that 'some' countries are.

[martinworswick]

i'm in NZ where we went to lockdown fairly early, as of today we have 12 deaths and around 540 active cases from around 1400 total cases.We get around 4 million tourists per year here so the potential for importing the virus was huge and an early lockdown was prudent.It would seem that many countries went into lockdown after the horse had bolted

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It seems as though you assume, that the majority of countries, outside of Sweden, are run by insane idiots.
I'm not entirely convinced that your logic is without flaw.

I don't assume anything of the sort, and don't assume much of anything at all. As I've said a few times, I don't think we will really know much for sure about the efficacy of various combinations of policies for at least a year.



My attitude about lockdowns is merely skeptical. That doesn't mean that I have any concrete knowledge that they are not needed or counterproductive. I have however heard an awfully persuasive argument from one eminent epidemiologist who DOES have a certain amount of concrete knowledge, that they are useless, and that we do know enough to know that.



That's just one voice of course. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, maybe what he says applies in some countries and less so in others. I don't know. But it seems to me that we should demand evidence-based and scientifically coherent foundations, for policies which get implemented which have enormous costs. I bet we could at least agree on that at least?



It's important to keep in mind that politicians and also not less so, public health authorities, are under enormous pressure not to make a mistake, when the stakes are so high and when we lack precedents or any clarity about what should be done. So if they err on the side of caution, on the side of appearing to be taking the maximum bold action, they may be thinking more about their careers and not getting blamed later, than they are thinking about us. They will not be the ones to pay the bill later -- we will. Some healthy skepticism is very much appropriate in such a situation, methinks.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by martinworswick

i'm in NZ where we went to lockdown fairly early, as of today we have 12 deaths and around 540 active cases from around 1400 total cases.We get around 4 million tourists per year here so the potential for importing the virus was huge and an early lockdown was prudent.It would seem that many countries went into lockdown after the horse had bolted

Closing external borders, and lockdown, are two different things. One should not think that there are just two ways to do this -- "lockdown" or "not lock down". There is a long list of possible measures which can be implemented in different combinations.


Full lockdown -- ordering people to stay home and stop all social contact -- is immensely costly, actually destructive -- like putting the whole society and the economy into an induced coma. Should not be done lightly, if at all.

[martinworswick]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Closing external borders, and lockdown, are two different things. One should not think that there are just two ways to do this -- "lockdown" or "not lock down". There is a long list of possible measures which can be implemented in different combinations.


Full lockdown -- ordering people to stay home and stop all social contact -- is immensely costly, actually destructive -- like putting the whole society and the economy into an induced coma. Should not be done lightly, if at all.

Both happened here,only residents/citizens are allowed in with a compulsory 2 week quarantine.We've been in lockdown for 3.5 weeks,the government will make a decision on reducing the alert level tomorrow which i think will happen so a lot more sectors can go back to work from thursday(maybe)who knows how it will all end but wed may be a country to watch to see if an early lockdown was the correct call.

[TeddyDiver]

Update. My daughter lives in Stockholm and her boyfriend works in a nursing home. He is now sick at home, not get tested and there are several patients in the nursing home too, none of them taken to hospital just left to survive where they are. Dunno how sick they really are but defineatly among the most propable victims. Just a reality check..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by martinworswick

Both happened here,only residents/citizens are allowed in with a compulsory 2 week quarantine.We've been in lockdown for 3.5 weeks,the government will make a decision on reducing the alert level tomorrow which i think will happen so a lot more sectors can go back to work from thursday(maybe)who knows how it will all end but wed may be a country to watch to see if an early lockdown was the correct call.

Are you talking about Denmark?



Denmark never had any lockdown; just borders closed, schools and restaurants closed. People have never been confined to their homes or prohibited from having small gatherings (up to 10 people). Schools opened here last week already and I hope everything else will open soon.


Denmark's response seems sensible to me and seems to have achieved good results. I'm not sure keeping borders closed to neighboring countries with no worse situations makes much sense, but there's not much travel in any case, and Schengen as a whole is closed so whatever Denmark's policy, no one can get in from outside the Schengen Zone (this is true in Sweden too).



My guess is that early response is critically important, but that response does not necessarily need to be a lockdown. Social distancing certainly works, at least to slow down what may be the inevitable spread of the disease, but social distancing can be achieved in different ways and to different degrees.

[martinworswick]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Are you talking about Denmark?



Denmark never had any lockdown; just borders closed, schools and restaurants closed. People have never been confined to their homes or prohibited from having small gatherings (up to 10 people). Schools opened here last week already and I hope everything else will open soon.


Denmark's response seems sensible to me and seems to have achieved good results. I'm not sure keeping borders closed to neighboring countries with no worse situations makes much sense, but there's not much travel in any case, and Schengen as a whole is closed so whatever Denmark's policy, no one can get in from outside the Schengen Zone (this is true in Sweden too).



My guess is that early response is critically important, but that response does not necessarily need to be a lockdown. Social distancing certainly works, at least to slow down what may be the inevitable spread of the disease, but social distancing can be achieved in different ways and to different degrees.

No i'm in NZ at the moment-havn't updated my profile since moving.I guess the coming months will reveal which responses have been the most successful.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by martinworswick

No i'm in NZ at the moment-havn't updated my profile since moving.I guess the coming months will reveal which responses have been the most successful.

Ah, I see.


NZ is one of the places which puzzles me the most. Why the immensely costly lockdown when there are so few cases?


As far as I understand (and I may misunderstand something), all these measures are not intended to reduce the total number of infections -- they are intended to stretch them out so that at their peak, they don't overwhelm the health care systems.


If that is true, then what is the point of incurring so much damage in a country which is not anywhere near the capacity of its health care system? If that is true, then zero lives will be saved by having the same number of infections over say 4 months rather than 2 months provided that during the peak in the 2 month scenario, the health care system is not overwhelmed. If the same number of infections is inevitable, then it's better to get them over with as quickly as the health care system can deal with them. That's why some people are saying that for all the agony in Italy, which has not yet equalled the death toll from a bad flu year, the Italians may have the easiest time of anyone because by now more or less everyone has had it and it's actually over with, whereas we are prolonging our agony into the indeterminate future.



Don't know if that's valid or not, but what we do know is that a full lockdown is an immensely costly exercise and not something which a country will be able to do for many weeks per year without total economic meltdown. It's not sustainable in the long or even medium term so it's a bullet which should be used with care. It is certainly not possible to lockdown for 18 months or more until a vaccine is developed and distributed.



So what is the plan in NZ? Maybe they are buying in an immense number of test kits and planning to transition directly to testing and contact tracing, hiring people and implementing technology and passing laws? If that's the plan, then I can see that it could make sense to keep the number of infections as low as possible in the beginning phase. But if that's not what's being done, then it's hard for me to see the logic.

[Munoz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ah, I see.


NZ is one of the places which puzzles me the most. Why the immensely costly lockdown when there are so few cases?


As far as I understand (and I may misunderstand something), all these measures are not intended to reduce the total number of infections -- they are intended to stretch them out so that at their peak, they don't overwhelm the health care systems.


If that is true, then what is the point of incurring so much damage in a country which is not anywhere near the capacity of its health care system? If that is true, then zero lives will be saved by having the same number of infections over say 4 months rather than 2 months provided that during the peak in the 2 month scenario, the health care system is not overwhelmed. If the same number of infections is inevitable, then it's better to get them over with as quickly as the health care system can deal with them. That's why some people are saying that for all the agony in Italy, which has not yet equalled the death toll from a bad flu year, the Italians may have the easiest time of anyone because by now more or less everyone has had it and it's actually over with, whereas we are prolonging our agony into the indeterminate future.



Don't know if that's valid or not, but what we do know is that a full lockdown is an immensely costly exercise and not something which a country will be able to do for many weeks per year without total economic meltdown. It's not sustainable in the long or even medium term so it's a bullet which should be used with care. It is certainly not possible to lockdown for 18 months or more until a vaccine is developed and distributed.



So what is the plan in NZ? Maybe they are buying in an immense number of test kits and planning to transition directly to testing and contact tracing, hiring people and implementing technology and passing laws? If that's the plan, then I can see that it could make sense to keep the number of infections as low as possible in the beginning phase. But if that's not what's being done, then it's hard for me to see the logic.

Government in NZ is aiming for complete elimination:


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...challenge.html


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...each-the-world


Not a viable option in many parts of the world admittedly, but given NZ's relative isolation, and very limited amount of local/community transmission that has occurred to date they seem to think it's worth a shot.


Australia seems to be heading in a similar direction even if they haven't said so explicitly. Might also see a few other small island/isolated nations do the same even if it's not a viable option in many cases....

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't assume anything of the sort, and don't assume much of anything at all...
... My attitude about lockdowns is merely skeptical. That doesn't mean that I have any concrete knowledge that they are not needed or counterproductive...

Not knowing, is casting doubt.

A common reasoning progression, might go like this:

One person says: “There might not be a problem.” “I’m skeptical.”
The next person says: “There’s likely no problem.” “I’m doubtful.”
The third person says: “There will be no problem.”
Finally, the rest of us conclude: “There is not, will not be, and never has been, a problem.”

Or

One person says: “There could be a problem.”
Another person says: “There will likely be a problem.”
A third person says: “There will be a problem.”
Finally, the rest of us conclude: “There is a problem.”

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not knowing, is casting doubt.

A common reasoning progression, might go like this:

One person says: “There might not be a problem.” “I’m skeptical.”
The next person says: “There’s likely no problem.” “I’m doubtful.”
The third person says: “There will be no problem.”
Finally, the rest of us conclude: “There is not, will not be, and never has been, a problem.”

Or

One person says: “There could be a problem.”
Another person says: “There will likely be a problem.”
A third person says: “There will be a pr


oblem.”
Finally, the rest of us conclude: “There is a problem.”

Well, if I cast doubt, then that's OK with me. Don't just swallow whatever policy is being implemented; dig into it, think critically, find out. Especially when it has such immense costs.



If you find some sound logic behind the policy -- like if there's really a well-calculated chance of eradication in New Zealand, like someone above suggested -- then great!! But if you can't find a sound scientific basis for the policy, as part of a sound long-term plan, if you find fear and politics, or worse, fear mongering for political ends (as may be happening in Poland and Hungary), then speak up! We should all be casting doubt on what our politicians do, subjecting what they do to questions and criticial thinking. Don't just think "they're taking bold action, so it must be the right thing to do" or "that doesn't sound bold, so it must not be good".

[MrChris]

Great thread, nicely argued. One fly in the ointment is that there is apparently no proof that having recovered from Covid ensures immunity, according to WHO warning.