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

[conachair]

Fantastic piece in the guardian >
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ns-coronavirus

As a regular Twitter user, I choose the people and organisations I follow online carefully. And therein lies my problem. On social media, we are more likely to engage with and trust content that aligns with our views, and thus become saturated by opinions we already agree with. Some of these views are based on political or religious ideologies, others on the flimsiest of evidence or the most superficial and unreliable of information.

During the coronavirus crisis, everyone online seems to have a “scientific” opinion. We are all discussing modelling, exponential curves, infection rates and antibody tests; suddenly, we’re all experts on epidemiology, immunology and virology.

Ample examples in this and pretty much any thread even loosely connected with science of posters picking a viewpoint then filtering out anything which doesn't back it up. Still, we're only human

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.

Think criticially. Don't just assume that just because it's bold, just because it's painful, it must be the right thing to do. I heard something on NPR yesterday about an antiseptic invented some years ago which was extremely effective, but did not sting. People wouldn't buy it, because they couldn't believe that it worked, if it didn't sting. I say again -- I'm not saying that lockdowns are useless everywhere (although we heard an eminent epidemiologist saying that on the linked YouTube) -- I don't have this knowledge. I'm just asking questions.

There is room for differences of opinion here. It could be that different situations call for different responses. No country has come out of the other end of this just yet.

You’re choosing a particular interpretation, with the benefit of two months worth of data that weren’t available two months ago, and you are, in fact casting dispersions on countries whose situations were different.

Further, you’re suggesting that the approach Sweden took would have worked everywhere, and you’re suggesting that other countries took that approach, when they did not.

And then you say you’re just asking questions. In fact, you’re strongly advocating a particular course of action. It’s the pretense that nobody else can have a different opinion that derails your argument.

It’s ok to have an opinion. Just own it already. But own the idea that these decisions cost lives. And the folks who have to make these decisions for real, and not just as a parlor game, have to live with the results.

Sweden is a fairly particular country. In fact, all the Nordic countries are fairly similar. To pretend their approach would have worked in Italy is to ignore some stark realities. It’s a pretty tricky proposition to trade lives for economy in a democracy.

There is no doubt a “best answer” here. I’m not sure anyone could have known it for sure two months ago. I’m also not sure we know it for certain now. Trumps’s initial instinct was to let it rip. But it would have been awfully hard to look at the worst case death count from that, given the models that were out there.

What’s funny is that I find some of the “open her up” arguments fairly compelling. I’m just a bit wary of saying that anyone who proposes an alternate approach isn’t thinking critically.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by conachair

Fantastic piece in the guardian >
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ns-coronavirus



Ample examples in this and pretty much any thread even loosely connected with science of posters picking a viewpoint then filtering out anything which doesn't back it up. Still, we're only human

Good observation.

[GordMay]

“The months of magical thinking: As the coronavirus swept over China, some experts were in denial!”~ by Helen Branswell

"The response to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States and other countries has been hobbled by a host of factors, many involving political and regulatory officials. Resistance to social distancing measures, testing debacles, and longtime failures to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic all played a role.
But a subtler, less-recognized factor contributed to the wasting of precious weeks in January and February, when preparations to try to stop the virus should have kicked immediately into high gear.
Magical thinking — you could call it denial — hampered the ability of even some of the most seasoned infectious diseases experts to recognize the full threat of what was bearing down on the world..."

More ➥ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/...t-was-to-come/

"Only when the tide goes out do you see who is swimming naked." ~ Warren Buffett

[Exile]

From a companion thread which seems particularly apt to the discussion here.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3122317

"73% of inmates at one Ohio prison test positive for novel corona virus infection. These are reported as confirmed cases, most with no symptoms and zero deaths so far reported in the prison. The test results added about 20% to the states total case load.

This was apparently a well controlled test where 100% of the population and the staff were tested. Many of the staff were also found to have been infected."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“The months of magical thinking: As the coronavirus swept over China, some experts were in denial!”~ by Helen Branswell

"The response to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States and other countries has been hobbled by a host of factors, many involving political and regulatory officials. Resistance to social distancing measures, testing debacles, and longtime failures to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic all played a role.
But a subtler, less-recognized factor contributed to the wasting of precious weeks in January and February, when preparations to try to stop the virus should have kicked immediately into high gear.
Magical thinking — you could call it denial — hampered the ability of even some of the most seasoned infectious diseases experts to recognize the full threat of what was bearing down on the world..."

More ➥ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/...t-was-to-come/

"Only when the tide goes out do you see who is swimming naked." ~ Warren Buffett

"Hindsight is always genius." ~ My stock broker

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Exile

From a companion thread which seems particularly apt to the discussion here.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3122317

"73% of inmates at one Ohio prison test positive for novel corona virus infection. These are reported as confirmed cases, most with no symptoms and zero deaths so far reported in the prison. The test results added about 20% to the states total case load.

This was apparently a well controlled test where 100% of the population and the staff were tested. Many of the staff were also found to have been infected."

Interesting.

So what should the conclusion be from that?

Looks like another vote for the "let her rip", don't bother testing, and keep the vulnerable isolated approach (except for the antibody test, so the epidemiologists can keep track).

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Exile

From a companion thread which seems particularly apt to the discussion here.

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3122317

"73% of inmates at one Ohio prison test positive for novel corona virus infection. These are reported as confirmed cases, most with no symptoms and zero deaths so far reported in the prison. The test results added about 20% to the states total case load.

This was apparently a well controlled test where 100% of the population and the staff were tested. Many of the staff were also found to have been infected."

Interesting. I've watched that Swedish video several times and really can't find fault in their logic. I'm not that into numbers on this but in my county in Michigan we have 265,000 people, 9 have died from the virus, the median age was 84 years old, and every one of them had underlying health conditions. Our neighboring county with twice the population has had 21 deaths, 10 of which came from the same assisted care facility. Now our numbers of cases are skyrocketing (180), why? Because we are testing. But the hospitals are empty - really empty.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in one year as the Swedish Dr. said. How it impacts cruising? I'm guessing pretty negatively in the long term.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Hindsight is always genius." ~ My stock broker

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

There is room for differences of opinion here. It could be that different situations call for different responses. No country has come out of the other end of this just yet.

I completely agree and I think this is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You’re choosing a particular interpretation, with the benefit of two months worth of data that weren’t available two months ago, and you are, in fact casting dispersions on countries whose situations were different.

Casting aspersions, I think you mean. No, I have said over and over again, I don't know what works and what doesn't, and I don't think anyone will know for sure for at least another year. I am just suggesting that we should all think critically and ask questions and not blindly accept this or that solution as being obviously right.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Further, you’re suggesting that the approach Sweden took would have worked everywhere, and you’re suggesting that other countries took that approach, when they did not.

I never said that, not even close. First of all, I don't know whether Sweden's approach is right or not even for Sweden. I joined this conversation by pushing back against some people who were saying that the Swedes are idiots and will soon have an explosion of cases. My pushback was that what the Swedes were doing is not obviously wrong, not that I know it's right -- and there's a big difference. That was a few weeks ago; and those people are pretty quiet now as it looks more or more like the Swedes did a decent job of steering policy, although we are "not out the other end of it" as you said correctly, so too early to say for sure.

Brought down to grade school level: To say that Sweden's (or any other country's) policy is not obviously wrong, is absolutely not the same thing as saying that it is right. Got it?

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

And then you say you’re just asking questions. In fact, you’re strongly advocating a particular course of action. It’s the pretense that nobody else can have a different opinion that derails your argument.

No, I'm really not advocating a particular course of action, and certainly not the same particular course of action for all countries. I am not an epidemiologist and don't claim any special insight. I said this over and over again. I guess it's too nuanced a position for some people to understand, or else I badly expressed it.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

It’s ok to have an opinion. Just own it already.

I have a strong opinion that we don't know, and that those making categorical statements that this and that is the wrong policy, are wrong, because they can't know either. I have another opinion that the facts are very gradually giving us a hint that the Nordic countries, not just Sweden, may have steered a course which is bringing good results, but it's just a hint so far. It is not too late for it to all turn bad either here, or there.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

But own the idea that these decisions cost lives. And the folks who have to make these decisions for real, and not just as a parlor game, have to live with the results.

Of course I "own the idea that these decisions cost lives" -- it's obvious to everyone, and I've said that over and over again. I agree, and have also said over and over again that I would not like to be making these decisions for real -- all respect to the real policy makers; we are just doing this from our armchairs. YOU should own that these decisions costs lives in several dimensions -- economic destruction also costs lives and ruins lives for survivors. That is what makes it so hard.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Sweden is a fairly particular country. In fact, all the Nordic countries are fairly similar. To pretend their approach would have worked in Italy is to ignore some stark realities.

I never said anything different.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

It’s a pretty tricky proposition to trade lives for economy in a democracy.

Indeed. But remember that "the economy" does not exist in a vacuum -- you can't just give up the economy and everyone lives. Destroy the economy and you also destroy lives -- direct deaths result, and the quality of lives of survivors can also be seriously degraded. In countries like the U.S. if you lose your work, you very often lose access to health care. We are going to have 47 million (!!!!) unemployed in the U.S. -- how many of those will die as a result of being unemployed, in despair, no health care, etc.? One percent is half a million people, 3 percent is 1.5 million. How many of the rest will have careers ruined? The cure can be worse than the disease, in all respects, if you're not careful.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

There is no doubt a “best answer” here. I’m not sure anyone could have known it for sure two months ago. I’m also not sure we know it for certain now. Trumps’s initial instinct was to let it rip. But it would have been awfully hard to look at the worst case death count from that, given the models that were out there.

I agree.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

What’s funny is that I find some of the “open her up” arguments fairly compelling. I’m just a bit wary of saying that anyone who proposes an alternate approach isn’t thinking critically.

I never said that. There's a lot of daylight between blindly accepting the notion of the appropriateness of lockdowns for all countries, and mocking as stupid anyone who does it differently (which is what got me started on this topic), and "proposing an alternative approach".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Palarran

Interesting. I've watched that Swedish video several times and really can't find fault in their logic. I'm not that into numbers on this but in my county in Michigan we have 265,000 people, 9 have died from the virus, the median age was 84 years old, and every one of them had underlying health conditions. Our neighboring county with twice the population has had 21 deaths, 10 of which came from the same assisted care facility. Now our numbers of cases are skyrocketing (180), why? Because we are testing. But the hospitals are empty - really empty.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in one year as the Swedish Dr. said. How it impacts cruising? I'm guessing pretty negatively in the long term.

There is a rather chilling article in the New York Times today which suggests that there is not only massive undercounting of cases, but serious undercounting of deaths in many countries:


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...gtype=Homepage


This to some degree dampens the idea that the disease may be less lethal than previously thought because of the undercounting of cases, although only somewhat since undercounting of cases seems to be more than an order of magnitude.


It is really a problem that different countries report deaths differently. I really don't like to keep focussing on Sweden, since I don't think the attention is deserved -- Sweden's policies are not so different from other Nordic countries -- but note in the Times article that Sweden is the ONLY country where the reported number of deaths exactly tracks the demographic estimate. The Swedes report all deaths wherever they happen, and whether or not there was a test, whereas the UK reports only test-confirmed cases which occcur in hospitals, ignoring even nursing home deaths. Apples and oranges as they say.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Interesting.

So what should the conclusion be from that?

Looks like another vote for the "let her rip", don't bother testing, and keep the vulnerable isolated approach (except for the antibody test, so the epidemiologists can keep track).

Can't conclude anything without a sufficient level of verification. Even then I don't think any responsible policymakers would advocate for a "let her rip" approach. Still too many unknowns I would imagine. All we can do for now is make "what if" type assumptions, but only for the sake of furthering the discussion. It's what I tried to do here:

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3122356

"There will have to be a lot more testing done before policymakers could responsibly act on such evidence, but if it pans out I would think it could be a game changer as far as the justification for the lockdowns go. If large percentages of the population are going to become infected no matter what we do, but the number of those infected requiring hospitalization would be small enough so as not to overwhelm health care systems, then the economic harm from the lockdowns may no longer be justified. All of this presupposes, however, the availability and implementation of widespread testing.

Or am I missing something? (no politics/partisan bickering please)"

[tp12]

Dockhead, apparently you're the only person on this thread who doesn't know what your position is!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . Looks like another vote for the "let her rip", don't bother testing, and keep the vulnerable isolated approach (except for the antibody test, so the epidemiologists can keep track).

It's a big mistake to make a false dichotomy between total lockdown, on the one hand, and "let her rip", on the other. Those are not the only choices, not by far. And I don't think anyone advocates "let her rip" anymore. I think everyone advocates as much testing as we can possibly bring on line. I have not seen any significant disagreement about that.



The Nordic countries, far from following "let it rip" policies, seem to be in the forefront with bringing massive testing online. In Denmark big white tents for drive-through testing starting appearing all over the country. The Swedes announced they now have capacity to test 1% of the population every week, a far greater degree of testing than any country other than microstates has done so far. Not the quickie antibody tests, but DNA tests for active infections.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I completely agree and I think this is exactly what I have been saying all along...

...I never said that. There's a lot of daylight between blindly accepting the notion of the appropriateness of lockdowns for all countries, and mocking as stupid anyone who does it differently (which is what got me started on this topic), and "proposing an alternative approach".

Do you not see the irony of using statements like "blindly accepting lockdowns for all countries" and then beating up a strawman argument that nobody is making as "mocking as stupid anyone who does it differently"? Aren't you, in fact, the one doing that?


People who see this differently from you aren't "blind". There are well-reasoned arguments for different approaches. I've seen good arguments taken for the different approaches. None of the data was as complete as one would like.



Also, there are few pure approaches here. The term "lockdown" didn't mean the same thing in different countries, or different states. In the U.S. the stated goal was flattening the curve and getting things opened up again as possible without overwhelming the health care system. To me, that's not necessarily a blind approach. The measures taken in individual states were quite different. The "safer at home" order in Florida was significantly less stringent than some other states. Essential businesses were most everything other than places where the general public would have had a lot of contact with each other.