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

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by laird

I left manila in Jan 2020 ,the Philippines had airport staff wearing masks ,hotels and airports were taking temperatures , I flew to Heathrow and there were no containment measures in sight , it gave the impression that this " Corona" virus was a big hullabaloo from China ,we now know different

Are we looking for additional information for a covid debate ? Well those of you who are not in the UK ,can I believe in most cases tune in by downloadIng an app called BBC iPlayer , tomorrow night (Tuesday 8th Feb ) at approximately 9pm UK time can watch a programme about the Astra Zenica vaccine and how many life's could have been saved if the EU had not put politics before people

Yet thankfully it allowed 1/3 of its vaccine productions be sent to the U.K. and In all the hullabaloo delayed vaccinations about three weeks and even then several eu countries comprehensively beat the U.K. to final double dose vaccinations.

[goboatingnow]

My own perspective is the early scenes in Italy terrified Europeans in particular

A couple of points based on what I saw where I lived

The government was very very hesitant to introduce lockdown measures , it did so late and possible too late

Most of the deaths occurred due to a simple policy blunder ( hospitals emptied old people into care Homes without testing )

The public itself “ demanded “ stringent “ lockdowns. It’s was public clamour ( parents & teachers unions ) that forced schools to close , in fact public Health repeated schools were safe

It was public clamour that restricted international travel ( despite leaving a land border with NI open and 30000 a day crossing )

The lockdowns here were never sold to prevent deaths , they were always sold to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed.

It was public clamour that forced people to adhere to lockdown ( the I’m in it so you’d better be in it too , line)

Here there was zero , virtually zero opposition to lockdowns in fact the legacy is that the government is legislating for the right to work from home.

Social cohesion in a small country of course is generally far better then a large one , especially in a state that is not overly cynical about authority ( yet perhaps )

There were very very few economic effects , in fact outside hospitality , the economy grew strongly , exchequer tax returns boomed from corporate and income tax and in fact there is now a huge labour shortage as many immigrants went home ( or are now working from home countries ) the government pumped 22billion into the economy directly into the hands of businesses and employees. In fact the issue is that created zombie companies that would have normally failed. There is an expectation now of increased business failure and the supports are unwound.
The exchequer expects a budget surplus this year even after abnormal spending


The effect on children is minimal , children are extremely resilient and adaptable , talking to a group of teachers yesterday , none expressed serious concerns about long term effects. ( short term issues yes )

The lockdowns change s the landscape , people want to work partly from home. They now realise they spend too much money frivolously and can save for bigger things , no one wants to commutes anymore and zoom is like hoover

Had we a “ good little pandemic “, listening to many people , yes actually.

So again this was no government conspiracy or big tech media nonsense. This was the public demanding action ( in the early lockdowns ) and being prepared to knuckle down and suddenly discovering “ hey this is interesting “

Oh and the price of rural housing rocketed ( great ! )

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The main problem for the UK was not shutting down international travel fast enough..
Flights were still arriving from China, Italy had cases going through the roof and still flights arrived into the late Spring/Summer of 2020..
Locking down citizens has little effect if one's still importing Spreaders.

I think that's exactly right. At least, the evidence seems to be showing that more and more.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Prior to Omicron, the differences in case numbers between the various states were stark. The reasons why looks pretty straightforward to me.

The states that had strong border and quarantine controls remained virtually virus free. Quarantine control varied between that states and those states where the quarantine was tight, fared better.

When the virus did breach the quarantine arrangements, those states that responded hard and fast with SAHO and SNPI and coupled with good TTQ found the outbreaks were short lived and the SAHO and SNPI were removed. Density of population seemed to have some effect on the speed of spread.

The two badly performing states were VIC and NSW.

ViC arguably had less border control and lax quarantine standards but they strong SAHO and SNPI. They did manage to stare down an alpha outbreak and two delta outbreaks before succumbing to combined delta/omicron outbreak.

NSW never had any internal border control, reasonable quarantine standard and strong TTQ. The NSW SAHO and SNPI were a joke compared to the hard line states. Their TTQ was good enough for alpha but not for delta.

If the NSW version of SAHO and SNPI were considered to be the “standard”, then they aren’t worth the pain and effort involved.

IMO, the best analogy is Covid is like a bushfire (wildfire). Border / quarantine controls are like fire containment lines. SAHO, NPI and TTQ are like water, fire appliances and fire crews. Strong fire containment lines keeps an ember attack to nearby areas small. Weak containment lines allows for a massive ember attack. A small ember attack must be stamped out hard and fast with every available asset otherwise it become uncontrollable. A massive ember attack is uncontrollable. Once a bushfire is out of control, no amount of water or fire appliances will put it out. The best you can do is to try to limit infrastructure damage until nature runs it’s course.

Put simply - keep the virus out of the community with strong border / quarantine controls and when it breaches these controls (as it will), it has to be hit hard AND fast with SAHO, SNPI and TTQ. If the reaction is slow OR soft, it’s too late and no amount of SAHO, SNPI and TTQ will put it out. The only thing left is damage control. No amount of SAHO, SNPI and TTQ will work once the virus is well seeded in community.

Tasmania (island state) is a good case study, it had very strong border / quarantine controls for travel from any mainland hotspots and when they were occasionally breached, very short term SAHO, SNPI and TTQ was immediately applied. In the very early days of alpha, they managed to stamp a small outbreak in the north west region. Other later quarantine breaches were hit so hard, no community outbreak occurred. By the time omicron came along, the population was around 90% vaccinated. The borders were flung open to the mainland hotspots and within 3 to 4 weeks, around 5% of the population had omicron. Prior to that, zero.

So far very little hospitalisation and very very very little death.

I think there were some questions addressed to me in there.

What worked in Oz?

Just my opinion, and I don't think anyone knows for sure, but several of the scientific studies on the effectiveness of measures have concluded that it doesn't so much matter WHICH measures you implement, what matters is HOW SOON. Also, how well the population complies with the measures.

That sounds right to me, and that would then explain a lot of the differences in outcomes in different countries.

It certainly would explain the outcomes in the Nordic countries where, except for Sweden, there was time to implement measures before the virus got much of a foothold. And where the very light measures had very high compliance, because of the nature of those societies, and because reasonable measures which are well-explained to the population will naturally have higher compliance.

Would explain Australia which closed the borders tight before the virus got in.

If this is true, then there are two things which other countries should imitate if possible:

1. Very fast border closing, like Australia
2. Light but sustainable and well-obeyed measures like in the Nordic countries.

One very wise thing said at the beginning of this by Tegnell in Sweden -- "this is a marathon, not a sprint". Explaining why it's important not to use measures which are unsustainable, to concentrate on measures which can be left in place for long periods of time if necessary. I think at the time no one dreamed this would go on for so long; those words now sound prophetic. Very harsh measures which are taken off, put back on, then taken off again, had notably poor results, especially where accompanied by widespread resistance from the population.

[Dockhead]

Here are the outcomes in Europe so far (leaving out Eastern Europe which distorts the scale, since excess mortality there is much higher than Western and Northern Europe):





Difference between the Nordic countries, all under 1000 excess deaths per million, and the rest of Europe, all (except Ireland) over 1000 excess deaths, is striking.


Ireland and Italy are missing because the data is too old, at last report the rates were: Ireland 414 (as of 30 November 2021) and Italy (2 480 as of 3 October 2021).

[Exile]

Very important points about Aus & NZ. Could very well have been more about a combo of (a) having the time to observe what was happening elsewhere (timing), and (b) the ability to isolate given their geography, rather than their various levels of restrictions. Probably other examples of smaller island nations with good outcomes. Hard to say, but plenty of evidence that once the virus infiltrates it's an uphill battle with outcomes so varied it's hard if not impossible to demonstrate causation simply by relying on correlations. The big exception being the vaccines, of course.

This is also consistent with the science that doubted the effectiveness of NPI's, etc. prior to Covid-19, and supports the view that much of it was imposed regardless, and perhaps unduly influenced by popular opinion and politics.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Very important points about Aus & NZ. Could very well have been more about a combo of (a) having the time to observe what was happening elsewhere (timing), and (b) the ability to isolate given their geography, rather than their various levels of restrictions. Probably other examples of smaller island nations with good outcomes. Hard to say, but plenty of evidence that once the virus infiltrates it's an uphill battle with outcomes so varied it's hard if not impossible to demonstrate causation simply by relying on correlations. The big exception being the vaccines, of course.

This is also consistent with the science that doubted the effectiveness of NPI's, etc. prior to Covid-19, and supports the view that much of it was imposed regardless, and perhaps unduly influenced by popular opinion and politics.

I agree completely.

We have discussed the role of politics before.

There are two powerful forces which I think drove politics towards harsher measures, than were needed:

1. Need for politicians to appear to be "strong leaders"; "bold action" is always more politically profitable than policy which is nuanced and restrained, even if that "bold action" carries cost.

2. Disproportionate political influence of older white males who were terrified of the virus but not much afraid of the economic and other consequences of overly harsh measures, effect on children, and so forth. You can be damned sure that if policy had been being made by younger black women, there would not have been any stay at home orders.

The Nordic countries were fortunate in this because their systems provide for technocratic management of this kind of policy. Which I'm not necessarily advocating, because it is to some extent anti-democratic, to hand over decision making to unelected technocrats. But I think it worked well in this case. In Sweden and Finland, there is a constitutional principle of non-intereference in the work of the ministries, and the politicians have little influence over pandemic policy. That's how those countries got profoundly science-driven and unpolitical decisions on pandemic policy. Denmark and Norway don't have this legal mechanism, but the culture is the same, and the politicians typically keep their hands off. A notable exception was the decision in Denmark to (briefly) close schools, overriding a decision of the health authority which had decided that it wasn't worth the harm to children. When it came out that this decision had been interfered with, there was quite a scandal in Denmark about it. There is also less antagonism between political parties in the Nordic countries, which tend to close ranks and work together in a crisis, rather than trying to use the crisis to score points. In the absence of this antagonism and points-scoring, there is no need for political leaders to posture as "strong leaders", and it's easier to make nuanced policy which might otherwise be characterized as "weak" or "indecisive".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree completely.

We have discussed the role of politics before.

There are two powerful forces which I think drove politics towards harsher measures, than were needed:

1. Need for politicians to appear to be "strong leaders"; "bold action" is always more politically profitable than policy which is nuanced and restrained, even if that "bold action" carries cost.

2. Disproportionate political influence of older white males who were terrified of the virus but not much afraid of the economic and other consequences of overly harsh measures, effect on children, and so forth. You can be damned sure that if policy had been being made by younger black women, there would not have been any stay at home orders.

The Nordic countries were fortunate in this because their systems provide for technocratic management of this kind of policy. Which I'm not necessarily advocating, because it is to some extent anti-democratic, to hand over decision making to unelected technocrats. But I think it worked well in this case. In Sweden and Finland, there is a constitutional principle of non-intereference in the work of the ministries, and the politicians have little influence over pandemic policy. That's how those countries got profoundly science-driven and unpolitical decisions on pandemic policy. Denmark and Norway don't have this legal mechanism, but the culture is the same, and the politicians typically keep their hands off. A notable exception was the decision in Denmark to (briefly) close schools, overriding a decision of the health authority which had decided that it wasn't worth the harm to children. When it came out that this decision had been interfered with, there was quite a scandal in Denmark about it. There is also less antagonism between political parties in the Nordic countries, which tend to close ranks and work together in a crisis, rather than trying to use the crisis to score points. In the absence of this antagonism and points-scoring, there is no need for political leaders to posture as "strong leaders", and it's easier to make nuanced policy which might otherwise be characterized as "weak" or "indecisive".

Re: #1 -- Ironic, isn't it, that politicians' need to look "strong & bold" often necessitates them weakly caving into popular demand, even if that is the wrong choice policy-wise. Not too many "profiles in courage" out there anymore who put the public interest ahead of personal ambition.

Re: #2 -- Not sure I see the connection to race, gender and age, but there's certainly a connection between those imposing the policies and more affluent segments of the population supporting them, as opposed to working class and more blue-collar segments who are bearing the disproportionate brunt of them. It's far easier to confine your work and life to your home when Amazon workers are working around the clock to distribute and deliver needed goods to your door. It's also much easier to indulge one's sense of moral superiority by castigating others' noncompliance from the comfort & safety of one's home. Quite another for those who don't have such luxuries when needing to make a living. I think the pandemic has created even deeper fissures over this in the US, with the oft-heard cries of "social responsibility" being heard as sanctimonious and out of touch with most peoples' day-to-day reality.

As you've also pointed out before, it's the greater trust between people and their govt officials generally which supported the ability of the technocrats in the Nordic countries to develop & implement policies which were effective and achieved high levels of compliance. I think this may be more important than how ministries are structured, with more or less independence from political influence. In contrast, the administrative bureaucracies in the US are so vast, politicized, and all too often hopelessly partisan, that it's difficult to convince people that their officials are working in the public's best interest, and difficult to hold them accountable when mistakes are made. This can often be more perception than reality, but either way it makes for endless opportunities for political point-scoring, and of course limitless ways for 24-hour news media to increase their ratings and advertising dollars. [sigh]

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The main problem for the UK was not shutting down international travel fast enough..
Flights were still arriving from China, Italy had cases going through the roof and still flights arrived into the late Spring/Summer of 2020..
Locking down citizens has little effect if one's still importing Spreaders.

Sure.

If you're going to shut it down, you have to shut it down, and quarantine without exception. If you're stuck on a cruise ship, you stay in quarantine until it safe to come off. Or come off to quarantine somewhere else. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

The idea of shutting down travel only for non-citizens, or shutting down with two weeks notice may slow things down, but not nearly enough.

One might think that governments could figure this out, but its really more of a political problem than a scientific one, as people are going to cry that any measure is unfair.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

. . . but there's certainly a connection between those imposing the policies and more affluent segments of the population supporting them, as opposed to working class and more blue-collar segments who are bearing the disproportionate brunt of them. It's far easier to confine your work and life to your home when Amazon workers are working around the clock to distribute and deliver needed goods to your door. It's also much easier to indulge one's sense of moral superiority by castigating others' noncompliance from the comfort & safety of one's home. Quite another for those who don't have such luxuries when needing to make a living. I think the pandemic has created even deeper fissures over this in the US, with the oft-heard cries of "social responsibility" being heard as sanctimonious and out of touch with most peoples' day-to-day reality. . . .

I agree entirely. I think the overwhelming influence of people who are retired or can easily work from home, really drowned out the voices of people who couldn't work from home, many of whom were unemployed for long periods of time during the pandemic, or working parents of small children, especially single working parents, who were basically screwed by the school closings. The latter group of people mostly in age groups with very little risk from the virus. I can't recall another big policy question where the voices of these people was so much absent from the discussion.


It was totally different in the Nordic countries, where a lot of older people spoke up to say -- the children have all their lives in front of them. Don't spoil their educations. They are more important than we are -- don't forget about them. There was much, much less fear altogether. Even, I daresay, fear of dying. People there have a better sense of there being more important things in the world than their own selves, including their own lives. There was an overwhelming consensus against school closings -- even if it cost lives (which in the event, it didn't).

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree completely.

We have discussed the role of politics before.

While I agree with your summation, let's not loose track of the greater forces at play now, as the World teeters on the brink of a global war.

The apparent alliance between Russia and China has the obvious end goal.... to expand their territorial control by force over the weakened democratic nations , polarized and drained from Covid infighting.

We need to get our heads out of statistics and smell the air!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

While I agree with your summation, let's not loose track of the greater forces at play now, as the World teeters on the brink of a global war.

The apparent alliance between Russia and China has the obvious end goal.... to expand their territorial control by force over the weakened democratic nations , polarized and drained from Covid infighting.

We need to get our heads out of statistics and smell the air!

Its still political game playing.. Who are shouting 'Invasion' the loudest.. Biden and Boris.. both teetering on the edge and desperate to turn attention from the domestic mess and cry "To arms.. To arms"
At the moment it reminds me of Gulf War 1 with the use of a 'Puppet' and Gulf War 2 with the lies.. right down to the '48 hrs'. QUOTE.. the Blair and Bush playbook.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Sure.

If you're going to shut it down, you have to shut it down, and quarantine without exception. If you're stuck on a cruise ship, you stay in quarantine until it safe to come off. Or come off to quarantine somewhere else. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

The idea of shutting down travel only for non-citizens, or shutting down with two weeks notice may slow things down, but not nearly enough.

One might think that governments could figure this out, but its really more of a political problem than a scientific one, as people are going to cry that any measure is unfair.

Ah, cruise ships - and 'the Great Sydney Cruise Ship Fiasco of 2020'. A fine example of government incompetence and bone pointing - seems it was all the Captain's fault.

Re letting citizens back in but not others. As I recall that is exactly what the US did and why Covid went absolutely wild in New York.

Couple I know from Ecuador found themselves up the creek without a paddle quite literally in March '20. They found themselves in a lodge in Peruvian Amazonia with an armed guard at the entrance making sure nobody broke the 24h curfew.

They managed to fly back to the US on an evacuation flight almost 2 months later.
They said that it would be a very long time before they feel safe at an American airport again..

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Exile

Very important points about Aus & NZ. Could very well have been more about a combo of (a) having the time to observe what was happening elsewhere (timing), and (b) the ability to isolate given their geography, rather than their various levels of restrictions. Probably other examples of smaller island nations with good outcomes. Hard to say, but plenty of evidence that once the virus infiltrates it's an uphill battle with outcomes so varied it's hard if not impossible to demonstrate causation simply by relying on correlations. The big exception being the vaccines, of course.

This is also consistent with the science that doubted the effectiveness of NPI's, etc. prior to Covid-19, and supports the view that much of it was imposed regardless, and perhaps unduly influenced by popular opinion and politics.

Pretty much agree with this, especially about the 'uphill battle'.
Regarding having time to observe, not so sure. Australia was one of the first to close the national border to a selection of countries, primarily Asia and used the term 'pandemic' well before WHO called it. As soon it was clear the virus was arriving from other countries (USA / Europe), the border was closed to all and quarantine was required for the few arrivals allowed. IIRC, NZ beat us to these measures by a week. This all happened before the Italy meltdown.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...................

Just my opinion, and I don't think anyone knows for sure, but several of the scientific studies on the effectiveness of measures have concluded that it doesn't so much matter WHICH measures you implement, what matters is HOW SOON. Also, how well the population complies with the measures.

That sounds right to me, and that would then explain a lot of the differences in outcomes in different countries.

..........................

Yep, speed (and compliance) is king.

All of these contagions start off small but some spread fast. The response has to be the same - fast. Dilly dally around and suddenly you got a huge problem to deal with. It's the nature of exponential growth and many simply don't understand the ramifications of exponential growth.

Knock a candle over in the living room, takes minutes before the sofa ignites but only seconds after that for the curtains to go up. At this stage not much can be done to save the place.

No point initially looking at the fallen candle and wondering what is the best way to deal with it or if the candle is really burning near the sofa or thinking about the best way to recover the sofa.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

My own perspective is the early scenes in Italy terrified Europeans in particular

A couple of points based on what I saw where I lived

The government was very very hesitant to introduce lockdown measures , it did so late and possible too late

Most of the deaths occurred due to a simple policy blunder ( hospitals emptied old people into care Homes without testing )

The public itself “ demanded “ stringent “ lockdowns. It’s was public clamour ( parents & teachers unions ) that forced schools to close , in fact public Health repeated schools were safe

It was public clamour that restricted international travel ( despite leaving a land border with NI open and 30000 a day crossing )

The lockdowns here were never sold to prevent deaths , they were always sold to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed.

It was public clamour that forced people to adhere to lockdown ( the I’m in it so you’d better be in it too , line)

Here there was zero , virtually zero opposition to lockdowns in fact the legacy is that the government is legislating for the right to work from home.

Social cohesion in a small country of course is generally far better then a large one , especially in a state that is not overly cynical about authority ( yet perhaps )

There were very very few economic effects , in fact outside hospitality , the economy grew strongly , exchequer tax returns boomed from corporate and income tax and in fact there is now a huge labour shortage as many immigrants went home ( or are now working from home countries ) the government pumped 22billion into the economy directly into the hands of businesses and employees. In fact the issue is that created zombie companies that would have normally failed. There is an expectation now of increased business failure and the supports are unwound.
The exchequer expects a budget surplus this year even after abnormal spending


The effect on children is minimal , children are extremely resilient and adaptable , talking to a group of teachers yesterday , none expressed serious concerns about long term effects. ( short term issues yes )

The lockdowns change s the landscape , people want to work partly from home. They now realise they spend too much money frivolously and can save for bigger things , no one wants to commutes anymore and zoom is like hoover

Had we a “ good little pandemic “, listening to many people , yes actually.

So again this was no government conspiracy or big tech media nonsense. This was the public demanding action ( in the early lockdowns ) and being prepared to knuckle down and suddenly discovering “ hey this is interesting “

Oh and the price of rural housing rocketed ( great ! )

Well, a couple of things writtten here are contrary to experiences in the rest of the world.


First of all, Ireland is the only country in Europe outside of the Nordic region with cumulative excess mortality of less than 1000 per million, so a uniquely good outcome in terms of death. Ireland is the only country in Europe outside of the Nordic region with a better outcome than Sweden.



Second, if schoolchildren were really not harmed in Ireland by school closures, that is an absolutely unique case. The devastation to children, not only in terms of permanently lost learning, but in terms of social development, abuse, and even nutrition, is very well documented elsewhere and is not controversial.


What concerns "government conspiracy" -- who has suggested that? The political aspect of this involves stimulating, through fear, demand for restrictions among the public. So the public itself clamoring to be "locked down" is part of the whole ugly complex; next after that is neighbors turning each other in for minor violations of restrictions, calling each other "rat-lickers" and such in fear and loathing, and it goes downhill from there. Not saying that this is what happened in Ireland; probably not, but it happened in a lot of places, and that's what we were talking about.


Residential property prices are soaring all over the world. This is asset price inflation, one of the harbingers of a general inflationary period which is the final result of the gigantic expansion of the money supply used around the world in hopes of preventing the pandemic from causing a general economic collapse. This is not indeed a good thing -- nothing to be happy about! The only winners here will be people owning property which is highly leveraged with fixed rate long term debt, since inflation will wipe away the debt. Even property owners will lose in the end, if they are unleveraged, because their equity in real terms will not increase, and the increase in value of their property will not compensate from harm of inflation of everything else. Property owners with variable rate mortgages will be screwed and may lose their property; young people, renters, and buyers will be royally screwed. Not enough people are still around who experienced the 70's and 80's that there is widespread understanding of how bad this will be.