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

[tp12]

There's a lot of people, who want their businesses to open or feel 'their rights' are being violated, claiming all sorts of catastrophes from locking down. I've only seen one set of models on what that actually looks like, I posted the article here, and it's nowhere near the fearmongering that these people are indulging in. Certainly not even remotely comparable to the amount of deaths we're already seeing and what would be the results if lockdowns weren't in place.

Let's see the data. Surely the economists in favour of lifting lockdowns have modeled the worst case scenarios for locking down - let's see it. Otherwise it's just noise. Hopelessly biased noise.

[damianham]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

50 days or 70 days or however many days of strict quarantine has caused mass unemployment, mass bankruptcies, and other devastation, the bills for which we haven't even started to receive. The EU may collapse altogether; there may be hunger.

It is absolutely right and even necessary, to question whether this has been done in the right way. We don't know yet, but the picture will slowly become clear in the coming months.

I am absolutely sure it has been done in the wrong way - and looking at the FT graphs and what we know about the demographics of the excess deaths it is easy to come to conclusions about what measures could have been taken, when and where to limit the death toll of covid-1984.

We know that among other factors age, obesity, poor overall health, underlying conditions and population density all play a part in increasing the death rate. The UK has a high number of excess deaths because of the population densities of London and other cities, people travelling to work on crowded public transport, a poor diet of junk food for many people leading to widespread obesity, the introduction of the virus into care homes etc.

We know that good health with a good diet, regular exercise, plenty of vitamins etc. increase the body's chances of fighting off the virus. Given the lifestyle I will be surprised to find if ANY sailor (without underlying health conditions) has contracted and died of the virus.

So IMHO governments should have acted to protect the vulnerable while encouraging the less vulnerable to go about their normal business while also promoting outdoor activities and healthy diets. Instead we have restricted the activities of the healthy as well - meaning they have less chance of contracting the virus and becoming immune and thus forming a barrier against future waves.

What would I have done ?

• Ban the sale of fast food considered to be junk
• Encourage the sale of healthy take away food
• Ban the sale of processed food and drink with high salt/sugar levels
• Encourage the sale of fresh food, farmers markets etc.
• Ring fence care homes with super strict quarantine measures
• Establish regimes in schools to teach kids about healthy food and healthy living
• Encourage daily exercise workouts in parks
• Require PPE for travel on crowded public transport
• Keep the schools open so kids can become immune
• Advise against kids/parents visiting older relatives until the presence of antibodies

The reports we have all seen, of police approaching and even arresting solitary people in open spaces, on beaches etc. have shown that governments and police forces around the world are utterly incapable of establishing the right balance between protecting the health of the nation while at the same time protecting civil liberties. Our health WILL recover - but our economies and civil liberties are under immense threat and it is a far greater threat than a transient virus to which we will become immune. There is no immunity against totalitarianism, we have to fight it endlessly.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by tp12

There's a lot of people, who want their businesses to open or feel 'their rights' are being violated, claiming all sorts of catastrophes from locking down. I've only seen one set of models on what that actually looks like, I posted the article here, and it's nowhere near the fearmongering that these people are indulging in. Certainly not even remotely comparable to the amount of deaths we're already seeing and what would be the results if lockdowns weren't in place.

Let's see the data. Surely the economists in favour of lifting lockdowns have modeled the worst case scenarios for locking down - let's see it. Otherwise it's just noise. Hopelessly biased noise.

I'd also add to this that the effects of locking down can be mitigated by smart policy. The worst impacts will be felt by Country's that don't take an intelligent approach to that and also don't take a conservative approach to saving lives.


Look at the recoveries from the GFC. The Treasurer of Australia won an award for his approach to mitigating the impacts of the GFC. IT's served as a template to keeping the economy afloat in emergency situations.

[tp12]

I'd also be very careful of this concept of the 'less vulnerable'. It's true that the numbers of elderly or those with medical conditions make up the bulk of deaths but it's also true that healthy young people have died. It is also true to say that there are many people who have lived who have suffered irreparable damage to their lungs, central nervous systems and brains. It's not a moral position to want those people to take those risks for the sake of the economy or for developing herd immunity. Not enough is known about the virus yet which really highlights policy that relies on assumptions as being poorly devised.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

There's a lot of people, who want their businesses to open or feel 'their rights' are being violated, claiming all sorts of catastrophes from locking down. I've only seen one set of models on what that actually looks like, I posted the article here, and it's nowhere near the fearmongering that these people are indulging in. Certainly not even remotely comparable to the amount of deaths we're already seeing and what would be the results if lockdowns weren't in place.

Let's see the data. Surely the economists in favour of lifting lockdowns have modeled the worst case scenarios for locking down - let's see it. Otherwise it's just noise. Hopelessly biased noise.

You really ought to read a little more.


There is tons of data. A thumbnail of some of it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rauleli.../#768a5dbb3364



In the U.S., there are 36,500,000 (!!) people thrown out of work and millions of companies have gone or are in the process of going bankrupt. Already. And this is just the beginning. The economic collapse is already bigger than the Great Depression.


Finland loses 20 years of economic growth -- a whole generation's worth of economic progress wiped out, although the lockdown was exceedingly mild there, almost like Sweden's. The whole world is so interconnected now that the economic devastation will reach every country no matter what that country's specific policies were.



In Europe, GDP is forecast to shrink 7.4% by the end of 2020, the sharpest drop ever. Italy's banks and whole financial system are on the brink of collapse. Greece, Italy, and Spain could have a complete economic collapse even with mass hunger, which is beyond the ability of other EU states to solve. The EU itself could collapse.



The global retail, hospitality and airline industries face up to 50% bankruptcies and tens of millions of lost jobs. It could take a decade to build these industries back up again.



In Russia, economic collapse has started, and in the autumn there will be political unrest which could go as far as civil war.


In South Africa, the first models of the economic consequences of lockdown show that lockdown will cause 27 times more deaths than the uncontrolled epidemic would have https://summit.news/2020/05/05/south...n-coronavirus/. I don't really believe that, and don't believe we know enough to calculate it yet, but it is entirely possible that the world has shot itself in the foot, and that lockdowns were the worst policy mistake ever made in modern times, accomplishing nothing long term which could not have been accomplished with less destructive measures, and crashing the whole world economy. We don't know yet. We'll understand it a lot better in a year.



That's why people should be less dogmatic and more thoughtful and open minded and wait. This is not a football game, the "score" won't be known for another year or more, and the consequences of mistake in either direction are millions of deaths and billions of ruined lives.

[Dockhead]

OK, so after that gloomy post, something more pleasant.


I have just crossed the Gulf of Finland by ferry on a beautiful sunny summery day from Estonia to Finland. I saw three sailboats sailing in a direction to be crossing the Gulf -- I wouldn't have thought that would be allowed, but there they are.



I have now crossed two more closed borders without any difficulty. Estonians didn't like my story about going to my bank in Tallinn, but as soon as they saw my ferry ticket for the next day, waved me through. Finns took one look at my residence permit and waved me on with a smile.


Airline and ferry traffic has been thoughtfully organized to produce social distance, and it looks pretty good. People keep their distance from each other, and there is hand sanitizer everywhere. Airports and ferry ports have every other seat blocked in the waiting areas. No middle seats are sold on the planes. People crowd up somewhat when getting off the plane but otherwise it looks like it's working surprisingly well.



The atmosphere is pretty good here; in Tallinn restaurants are open and full of people (but with every other table empty), life seems to be coming back.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

I'd also add to this that the effects of locking down can be mitigated by smart policy. The worst impacts will be felt by Country's that don't take an intelligent approach to that and also don't take a conservative approach to saving lives.


Look at the recoveries from the GFC. The Treasurer of Australia won an award for his approach to mitigating the impacts of the GFC. IT's served as a template to keeping the economy afloat in emergency situations.

The Global Financial Crisis created serious economic destruction, but that was a fart in the wind compared to the economic consequences of this. "Smart policy" will not produce quick or easy answers to this -- it could take decades to rebuild.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You really ought to read a little more.


There is tons of data. A thumbnail of some of it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rauleli.../#768a5dbb3364



In the U.S., there are 36,500,000 (!!) people thrown out of work and millions of companies have gone or are in the process of going bankrupt. Already. And this is just the beginning. The economic collapse is already bigger than the Great Depression.


Finland loses 20 years of economic growth -- a whole generation's worth of economic progress wiped out, although the lockdown was exceedingly mild there, almost like Sweden's. The whole world is so interconnected now that the economic devastation will reach every country no matter what that country's specific policies were.



In Europe, GDP is forecast to shrink 7.4% by the end of 2020, the sharpest drop ever. Italy's banks and whole financial system are on the brink of collapse. Greece, Italy, and Spain could have a complete economic collapse even with mass hunger, which is beyond the ability of other EU states to solve. The EU itself could collapse.



The global retail, hospitality and airline industries face up to 50% bankruptcies and tens of millions of lost jobs. It could take a decade to build these industries back up again.



In Russia, economic collapse has started, and in the autumn there will be political unrest which could go as far as civil war.


In South Africa, the first models of the economic consequences of lockdown show that lockdown will cause 27 times more deaths than the uncontrolled epidemic would have https://summit.news/2020/05/05/south...n-coronavirus/. I don't really believe that, and don't believe we know enough to calculate it yet, but it is entirely possible that the world has shot itself in the foot, and that lockdowns were the worst policy mistake ever made in modern times, accomplishing nothing long term which could not have been accomplished with less destructive measures, and crashing the whole world economy. We don't know yet. We'll understand it a lot better in a year.



That's why people should be less dogmatic and more thoughtful and open minded and wait. This is not a football game, the "score" won't be known for another year or more, and the consequences of mistake in either direction are millions of deaths and billions of ruined lives.

Are these costs due to the existence of the Corona virus or just due to the measures taken by various reactions of different governments; are they distinguishable?

Is it even possible to determine the costs if it was business as usual i.e. borders open, flights as normal, service industries as normal?

I'm not wanting to argumentative, I am trying to understand how the costs of doing things different can ever be known, now or next year or it ten years.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Are these costs due to the existence of the Corona virus or just due to the measures taken by various reactions of different governments; are they distinguishable?

Is it even possible to determine the costs if it was business as usual i.e. borders open, flights as normal, service industries as normal?

I'm not wanting to argumentative, I am trying to understand how the costs of doing things different can ever be known, now or next year or it ten years.

Not argumentative at all; it's a very good question, one of the absolutely key questions. And as with so much of what concerns this disaster, nobody has any definite answer.


If we had just "let it rip" without changing life at all, tens of millions would die but it would be over pretty fast. Since the great majority of deaths would be people too old or sick to work, the direct economic consequences would be modest. I'm not talking about the human consequences, however and I'm not saying that this justifies letting massive numbers of people die. But what it does mean is that virtually all of the economic damage is due to measures taken to control the epidemic. I think that was one of your questions.



Then you have a long menu of different measures each of which has its own cost and its own economic consequences.


Even the mild measures are very costly. Even the voluntary ones are very costly. So as soon as we start doing anything which disrupts economic life, we start damaging the economy. So economic destruction was certainly inevitable.


The most costly measures are stay at home orders and closing factories and businesses, and these are the measures which raise the biggest doubts. There is little correlation between infection rates and stay at home orders -- they were not done in any of Nordic countries for example. My own guess -- only a guess, because no one knows yet for sure -- is that the stay at home orders and closing factories and businesses was a bridge too far, doing immense damage without doing much of anything good against the epidemic.


Remember that these policies were made on the basis of flawed data from the Imperial College study back in March which indicated terrifying death rates even with harsh measures, due to shortage of hospital beds and overwhelmed health systems. By the middle of April it was clear that the epidemic was developing much more slowly than predicted and that health systems would with few exceptions not be overwhelmed anywhere. Then the goalposts were silently moved in many countries from protecting health care systems to reducing infections to the lowest possible rates. At that point I believe those policies should have been reviewed and hard questions about them should have been asked.


Now we see that in American states which have lifted lockdowns there is so far no burst of new cases. That puzzles everyone. Probably what it means is that it's not the "hard" measures which slow down the epidmic, it's the change of behavior -- people keeping their distance, washing their hands, etc etc etc -- which has the biggest effect on the infection rate. that would explain also why there is no correlation between the "hardness" of lockdowns and infection rates. So it could be that those measures were really counterproductive, but that is just speculation, as we will start to understand this well only after a year.







Anyway, your questions are excellent. Sorry no one can answer them

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by tp12

My skin in this game is to see rational and unbiased debate and to see a lives first response to our deadly predicament. You may have a different position but if you express that expect others to challenge you and express theirs.

"I do not think that means what you think it means. "
—Inigo Montoya

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

"I do not think that means what you think it means. "
—Inigo Montoya

It's no less than I'd expect from you.

Let's see a data driven response. And get rid of deadly assumptions.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by tp12

It's no less than I'd expect from you.

Let's see a data driven response. And get rid of deadly assumptions.

I don't actually need to post any more as Dockhead does a fine job of... oh wait.

[Barbaria]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am hoping very much that Norway will be open to me. We are UK flagged, so "sort of" an EU boat. What makes you think Norway will be closed?


Plan A for me so far is Norway starting with Oslofjord and working around into the North Sea as far as maybe Bergen. Then perhaps across to Shetlands if it's open. We will start 1 July or perhaps on Midsummer.Plan B would be to cruise Denmark and Germany.
Plan C would be to cruise Denmark and the West Coast of Sweden.
I wish the hell they would announce what the border policies will be, already, so people can make plans.

We had/have the same plan as your plan A. With the changes in Norway we choose to take a detour via Sweden and hope that Norway will open.

I can now get into Norway to visit family and kids, but I don’t think a sailing trip with a Swedish boat down the coast will be inside the rules yet. You can try, but prepared to meet a lot of local enforcement who don’t agree with you.

We want to get to the Mediterranean as soon as possible after min June and we need to plan a route with open country’s.

How about UK, can we sail there now?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I don't actually need to post any more as Dockhead does a fine job of... oh wait.

We're all entitled to our opinions

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by tp12

We're all entitled to our opinions

No wait, I like your original response better:

Originally Posted by tp12

Well great, I look forward to you not posting.

And, he doesn't. His posts are terribly biased and ... well, like I said, I can't say more without suffering adverse results

I'll let this go, but honestly, you really can't see the pot and kettle moment here? You can really say his posts are "terribly biased" without seeing the irony?

I'll shut up now and just enjoy both sides of the argument which you seem unwilling to do.