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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

* * *

It is highly possible, and I have a feeling that it is really so, that the world grossly overreacted to this and inflicted economic meltdown for no purpose. That the epidemic could have been controlled with very fast action using mild measures.

But I am speculating -- no one knows this yet. We shall see in a year's time.

Speculation at this point in time for sure, but more & more people around the world seem to be in agreement with your feeling about this. Greater protections implemented much sooner to protect the elderly in nursing homes, and putting a halt to overcrowded mass transit systems (esp. subways) in places like NYC, are but two examples of milder measures that could have had a disproportionately larger impact on rates of infection and deaths. As you've eloquently pointed out over & over again, these are not binary choices without negative impacts regardless of which is implemented and to what degree.

When I read and hear comments from people full of certainty about such complex policy decisions, I can only assume it is the result of either personal partisanship or over-reliance on partisan sources of information. As always, politicization of the issue from both sides has distorted public perception with the result that objective policymaking has often been compromised. Contrary to some of the accusations of bias leveled against you on account of your business interests (so what?) and summer cruising goals (this is still a sailing forum, right?), I have found your analysis throughout to be refreshingly objective. Thank you for that.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I'm curious - what were the mistakes (so far) in Australia and against what criteria are you making the judgement immensely destructive?

Hi Wottie,
How are you?

I, too, think that it is likely Australia is making an awful mistake with its “eradication” policy (that was not actually the original intention, we were initially just aiming to flatten the curve so that hospitals were not overwhelmed and also to give time to prepare for what was thought to be coming).

The “flattening” worked so well there were only 10 new cases countrywide in the last 24 hours, with zero cases for 6 of the 8 states:
https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...d-case-numbers

Despite zero new cases in neighbouring states, no state borders have yet been reopened. How can Australia maintain this self isolation until the bulk of the population is successfully immunised (which is not likely to occur for at least a year and maybe a lot longer)?

The economy has already been hit badly. Money is haemorrhaging to support those newly in need. Australia is now is recession and unemployment has increased, along with people being paid under the Jobkeepers allowance (36% more than unemployment benefits) that was put in place for 6/12 to help prevent businesses from collapsing. If this turns out to be a temporary prop for many businesses that will collapse anyway, the unemployment rate may shortly spike significantly. The economy is extremely unlikely to act in a V pattern even when this is “over” (and it possibly may never be).

Aussies seem to be very proud of the statistics for our infection rate, but this is only just the beginning of this saga and when the country’s border eventually reopens, I worry terribly that cases will spike uncontrollably and the country is back to “square one” in dramatically worse position financially.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speculation at this point in time for sure, but more & more people around the world seem to be in agreement with your feeling about this. Greater protections implemented much sooner to protect the elderly in nursing homes, and putting a halt to overcrowded mass transit systems (esp. subways) in places like NYC, are but two examples of milder measures that could have had a disproportionately larger impact on rates of infection and deaths. As you've eloquently pointed out over & over again, these are not binary choices without negative impacts regardless of which is implemented and to what degree.

When I read and hear comments from people full of certainty about such complex policy decisions, I can only assume it is the result of either personal partisanship or over-reliance on partisan sources of information. As always, politicization of the issue from both sides has distorted public perception with the result that objective policymaking has often been compromised. Contrary to some of the accusations of bias leveled against you on account of your business interests (so what?) and summer cruising goals (this is still a sailing forum, right?), I have found your analysis throughout to be refreshingly objective. Thank you for that.

Thank you for the kind words.


I think it's really important to be humble at this stage and avoid at all costs politicizing this. These are simply hellishly difficult policy decisions, which policymakers are making on the basis of little to no information. The less afraid of political attack the policymakers are, the better chance we have that better rather than worse decisions will be made.


It is especially important that policymakers not be afraid to take on board new knowledge as we develop it, and make course corrections. Without being afraid of this being used as political ammunition -- proof that they are idiots etc. Treating this whole thing like a football game is not the way to do it.


Not politicizing it starts with us.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am only speculating because, as I said, no one knows how this is going to turn out.

Australia opted for maximum lockdown which causes the greatest disruption of economic and social life.

The policy was based on the Imperial College projections on infectiousness which turned out to be grossly wrong.

So the targets of reducing infection were greatly over-achieved, like almost everywhere.

...snip

You can't claim Imperial Collage projections were wrong, on the contrary they predicted quite well the spread without protective measures.
What they didn't account for was the response from people how they started to protect themselves, according the guidelines from officials and sometimes beyond. There were also only questimates how much each of these protective measures had impact on the pandemic. Now, I think it's time for the epidemilogists to start to calculate how much..

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by tp12

(...)



he didn't need today's knowledge, he just needed to understand what he didn't know and not make assumptions.


(...)

This sound like exactly what he did - he did not make assumptions based on WHO reports - ones provided by a tiny US private company run by what may be a crook and employing adult models and s-f writers:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oxychloroquine

gist: "Surgisphere’s science editor, listed on LinkedIn, appears to have no science or data credentials. Instead, searches of her name and photo suggest she is a full-timescience-fiction author and artist. Searches of the company’s director of sales and marketing, also listed on LinkedIn, suggest she is an adult model and brand ambassador, again with no scientific background or references to a Surgisphere job on her websites. Most of the Linkedin profiles for Surgisphere staff were created only two months ago."


In the light of the above, I think Sweden did what they did. I say they did right, given what they knew, what we knew, back then.


We have opinions, and it is way better when opinions differ than when everybody is nodding their head to the drum of a tyrant (be it media, politicians or the crowd we live in).


I recommend book by Sam Sommers "Situations Matter" for those of us who believe they can make their own, educated and independent, decisions ...



b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You can't claim Imperial Collage projections were wrong, on the contrary they predicted quite well the spread without protective measures.
What they didn't account for was the response from people how they started to protect themselves, according the guidelines from officials and sometimes beyond. There were also only questimates how much each of these protective measures had impact on the pandemic. Now, I think it's time for the epidemilogists to start to calculate how much..

Well, the Imperial College projections predicted a peak of 9 deaths per day per 100,000 population in Sweden IN CASE OF LOCKDOWN, and a peak of 18 per day in case of "uncontrolled epidemic".






Much ado upthread was made about a petition signed by Uppsalla University scientists warning of impending disaster in Sweden. These scientists made their own model based on the Imperial Colleg algorithms published on GitHub. This model predicted 96,000 deaths in Sweden by the end of June (52,000 to 183,000) in case Sweden's policy was not changed, and 1/3 of that in case of hard lockdown, so 17,000 to 45,000 in case of hard lockdown


We are into the first week of June and actual deaths are at 4,500.


It's crucially important in thinking about this whole thing to see how the goalposts have been moved. The policies adopted in March were intended to prevent millions of predicted deaths. Those predictions were wrong.


That doesn't mean our policies are necessarily wrong, but it means that the whole basis for policymaking was different from reality. It means we need to re-examine the basis for those decision.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, the Imperial College projections predicted a peak of 9 deaths per day per 100,000 population in Sweden IN CASE OF LOCKDOWN, and a peak of 18 per day in case of "uncontrolled epidemic".



Attachment 216584


Much ado upthread was made about a petition signed by Uppsalla University scientists warning of impending disaster in Sweden. These scientists made their own model based on the Imperial Colleg algorithms published on GitHub. This model predicted 96,000 deaths in Sweden by the end of June (52,000 to 183,000) in case Sweden's policy was not changed, and 1/3 of that in case of hard lockdown, so 17,000 to 45,000 in case of hard lockdown


We are into the first week of June and actual deaths are at 4,500.


It's crucially important in thinking about this whole thing to see how the goalposts have been moved. The policies adopted in March were intended to prevent millions of predicted deaths. Those predictions were wrong.


That doesn't mean our policies are necessarily wrong, but it means that the whole basis for policymaking was different from reality. It means we need to re-examine the basis for those decision.

You don't take into account the fact much of the people avoided contacts outside what they had to. Even those swedes who went out to restaurants didn't take tours around everywhere as before but stayed in one place with the same people every evening. This goes beyond the government expectetions. You remember those dot animations how virus speads in a population and the ones with isolated groups and stationary individuals.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You don't take into account the fact much of the people avoided contacts outside what they had to. Even those swedes who went out to restaurants didn't take tours around everywhere as before but stayed in one place with the same people every evening. This goes beyond the government expectetions. You remember those dot animations how virus speads in a population and the ones with isolated groups and stationary individuals.

Well, but I do take account. The deaths according to the model would have peaked at nearly 10x the actual death rate -- if full lockdown.

So the much lighter measures than those stridently demanded by Uppsalla group, produced nearly 10x better results, than the predicted results from full lockdown.


So obviously the model was grossly wrong.


You are very right to point out that what happened in Sweden was not the same at all as the "uncontrolled epidemic". Right you are there. Measures were taken in Sweden and they drastically changed people's lives (and did great economic harm too). It is particularly stupid to fall into a false dichotomy between "lockdown" or "no lockdown". Those are not the choices. Sweden took extensive measures, and perhaps those measures were not so different in effectiveness from those taken elsewhere in the Nordics. The difference may all be down to Sweden's having taken them quite late, compared to other Nordic countries. Note the Danish study I linked earlier suggesting just that -- suggesting that (a) timing; and (b) banning large gatherings, are by far the most important factors; everything else may be just noise.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Wottie,
How are you?

I, too, think that it is likely Australia is making an awful mistake with its “eradication” policy (that was not actually the original intention, we were initially just aiming to flatten the curve so that hospitals were not overwhelmed and also to give time to prepare for what was thought to be coming).

The “flattening” worked so well there were only 10 new cases countrywide in the last 24 hours, with zero cases for 6 of the 8 states:
https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...d-case-numbers

Despite zero new cases in neighbouring states, no state borders have yet been reopened. How can Australia maintain this self isolation until the bulk of the population is successfully immunised (which is not likely to occur for at least a year and maybe a lot longer)?

The economy has already been hit badly. Money is haemorrhaging to support those newly in need. Australia is now is recession and unemployment has increased, along with people being paid under the Jobkeepers allowance (36% more than unemployment benefits) that was put in place for 6/12 to help prevent businesses from collapsing. If this turns out to be a temporary prop for many businesses that will collapse anyway, the unemployment rate may shortly spike significantly. The economy is extremely unlikely to act in a V pattern even when this is “over” (and it possibly may never be).

Aussies seem to be very proud of the statistics for our infection rate, but this is only just the beginning of this saga and when the country’s border eventually reopens, I worry terribly that cases will spike uncontrollably and the country is back to “square one” in dramatically worse position financially.

SWL

We should be proud of our infection and death rates. They're up there with the best in the world. There's a few issues with your post. Some state borders never closed, between NSW and Vic and ACT for example (the two most populous states). There are currently no restrictions on the NSW, ACT and Vic borders. Qld border allows trade and has some other traffic based on applying for a pass and the remaining states and territory are the same/similar.

Australia was already facing rising unemployment, underemployment and the Treasurer was already under pressure to avoid a looming recession. Long before Covid-19. He was fending off questions of a 'per capita' recession as long ago as half way through last year. Economists were already calling for more investment in infrastructure to stimulate the economy and there was a fight between the Reserve Bank and the Government on monetary and fiscal policy to stimulate the economy.

The LNP were already tanking our economy and the only modelling we've seen on lockdown vs no lockdown shows that the cost of locking down vs not locking down weighed in favour of doing it.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You can't claim Imperial Collage projections were wrong, on the contrary they predicted quite well the spread without protective measures.
What they didn't account for was the response from people how they started to protect themselves, according the guidelines from officials and sometimes beyond. There were also only questimates how much each of these protective measures had impact on the pandemic. Now, I think it's time for the epidemilogists to start to calculate how much..

Exactly. Comparing 'let her rip' modelling to numbers achieved by taking measures is disingenuous at best.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

This sound like exactly what he did - he did not make assumptions based on WHO reports - ones provided by a tiny US private company run by what may be a crook and employing adult models and s-f writers:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oxychloroquine

gist: "Surgisphere’s science editor, listed on LinkedIn, appears to have no science or data credentials. Instead, searches of her name and photo suggest she is a full-timescience-fiction author and artist. Searches of the company’s director of sales and marketing, also listed on LinkedIn, suggest she is an adult model and brand ambassador, again with no scientific background or references to a Surgisphere job on her websites. Most of the Linkedin profiles for Surgisphere staff were created only two months ago."


In the light of the above, I think Sweden did what they did. I say they did right, given what they knew, what we knew, back then.


We have opinions, and it is way better when opinions differ than when everybody is nodding their head to the drum of a tyrant (be it media, politicians or the crowd we live in).


I recommend book by Sam Sommers "Situations Matter" for those of us who believe they can make their own, educated and independent, decisions ...

b.

He made assumptions on death rate, which he now admits he got wrong, and on immunity, which he also got wrong. As I said, when you don't know anything about the new threat you take the 'save lives' option until you can make informed decisions. Anders now accepts he got it wrong.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You don't take into account the fact much of the people avoided contacts outside what they had to. Even those swedes who went out to restaurants didn't take tours around everywhere as before but stayed in one place with the same people every evening. This goes beyond the government expectetions. You remember those dot animations how virus speads in a population and the ones with isolated groups and stationary individuals.

Yes, even Sweden took some rudimentary measures.

If we're being honest we can see what's going on here. Referring to Australia and the misuse of LSE data are cheap conjurers misdirection to take focus off Anders Tegnall admitting he got it wrong.

This is the punter who put the house on horse 7. 7 was running mid-pack and pulled a muscle and is now going out the back door and the trainer has fronted the press and said "Yeah, ahh, we, ahh, got that wrong". The pointing at Australia is that punter pointing to a horse in a podium position and saying "they're an immense failure". That punter needs a few of his mates to tell him he's drunk and needs to go home to his wife.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by tp12

There's a few issues with your post. Some state borders never closed, between NSW and Vic and ACT for example (the two most populous states). There are currently no restrictions on the NSW, ACT and Vic borders. Qld border allows trade and has some other traffic based on applying for a pass and the remaining states and territory are the same/similar.

Yes, if an exemption has been granted some movement is permitted.

I did not say all state borders had closed, merely that none had reopened (this includes WA, SA, QLD and Tasmania). The ACT is not an Australian state, it is an internal territory.

None of this removes the fact that these border controls are extremely harmful to Australia’s economy, particularly when Australia's borders are closed as well.

This is unfortunately merely the beginning of the crisis. I think that it is impossible at this very early stage to know what the final outcome will be, so comments made by anyone (including CF members ) are purely speculative. It is certainly too early for Aussies to be patting themselves on the back.

I do find many posts here quite disturbing. There is no need for apparent glee each time figures rise in certain countries when their policies are not in line with personal views.

SWL

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Yes, if an exemption has been granted some movement is permitted.

I did not say all state borders had closed, merely that none had reopened. The ACT is not an Australian state, it is an internal territory.

None of this removes the fact that these border controls are extremely harmful to Australia’s economy, particularly when Australia's borders are closed as well.
SWL

I didn't say the ACT was a state; the two most populous states comment refers to NSW and Vic which were also in that statement. They're also the two states that contribute most to GDP and have open movement.

Extremely harmful is a matter of opinion. Given the circumstances of being hit by this pandemics the economists that wrote the lockdown vs no lockdown analysis, which I linked earlier in the thread, don't agree with you. Those economists were in favour of the lockdown.

And restrictions are being lifted regularly now. We moved to Level 2 almost two weeks earlier than planned here in Queensland and it's likely we'll see border restrictions removed sooner rather than later. This is the benefit of getting infections and deaths under control early through locking down.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

. . .Exactly. Comparing 'let her rip' modelling to numbers achieved by taking measures is disingenuous at best.

One more time -- the comparison was with "lockdown" modelling, not with "let her rip" modelling.

Originally Posted by tp12

. . If we're being honest we can see what's going on here. Referring to Australia and the misuse of LSE data are cheap conjurers misdirection to take focus off Anders Tegnall admitting he got it wrong.. . .

What? I see the point flew 500 feet over someone's head.

The point is that EVERYONE got this wrong to some extent or another, and it could not have been otherwise considering the lack of adequate information at the time policies were being made.

If it turns out -- and we won't know for sure for a year -- that Australia ends up with the same number of deaths as everyone else, and is facing total economic collapse with hunger and breakdown of health care systems, then we will know that Australia got it wrong.

If it turns out that stay at home orders and closing businesses do little to stop the epidemic, and the same result could have been achieved with less destructive means, then we will know that Australia got it wrong.

We can't know yet -- we will have to wait and see.

Conversely, if the virus just disappears tomorrow, or if a vaccine is perfected and widely distributed in a few months, then we will know that Sweden got it wrong.

If we learn that stay-at-home orders and closing businesses are crucial to controlling the virus, and the epidemic spirals out of control in Sweden, then we will know that Sweden got it wrong.

We can't know yet -- we will have to wait and see.

[Dockhead]

Latvia has now opened borders completely to anyone from the EU. Hurra! Latvia is a decent cruising destination, and together with the Estonian islands is a place one could happily spend a whole summer.

So now 3 Baltic littoral states are completely open, at least to visitors from the EU -- Estonia, Latvia, and Sweden.

Germany will join this group on 16 June. Hurra!

This is already looking better. So an English boat thinking about leaving for a Baltic cruise could do so and have a perfectly decent summer with about half of the Baltic shore open to it.

That leaves Denmark, open only to Germans and Norwegians.

Norway, open only to Danes.

And Finland, open only to Estonians except for business travel.

Poland might be open on the 12th -- but no one knows whether the border closures will be extended or not.

But most Baltic cruisers care about Germany (Kiel Canal), Denmark, and Sweden I guess. To a lesser extend Finland and Estonia. Poland is not a main cruising destination in the Baltic.

All eyes on Denmark and Finland, then, I guess.

[WTRacer]

Whether it will happen only time will tell but I assume you've seen the reports today that the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs says states should reopen internal borders by end of June.


If you've not viewed it yet the latest UnHerd offering is interesting.


Summary: a huge proportion of people may simply not be susceptible to the disease. This would go some way to explaining the oddities of the spread in differing nations, sometimes at odds with the severity of their lockdowns.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by WTRacer

Whether it will happen only time will tell but I assume you've seen the reports today that the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs says states should reopen internal borders by end of June.

I hope it happens! The previous recommendation was for 15 June, and most states did not do it.

Originally Posted by WTRacer

If you've not viewed it yet the latest UnHerd offering is interesting.

Summary: a huge proportion of people may simply not be susceptible to the disease. This would go some way to explaining the oddities of the spread in differing nations, sometimes at odds with the severity of their lockdowns.

Yet another theory, and as plausible as any other.


We understand very little about this epidemic so far.


One thing which is clear -- there is no correlation between the severity of lockdown, and the rate of deaths or infections.



Among the most severe, total lockdowns you see everything from the lowest death rates to the very highest.


"Soft" lockdown countries without stay at home orders and without mass closing of business, like all the Nordic countries, South Korea, Japan, Iceland, a number of other countries, represent the low to middle range of the death rates .



We don't know why. What you posted is one theory.


Another is what the Danish scientists came out with this week, linked upthread, which says that only banning mass gatherings has a profound effect; most of the effect is down to timing. Not which measures, but WHEN.


Certainly there is NO evidence, at least not yet, that "hard lockdown" has any direct effect on death rates.


We will start to understand this only much later. It is idiotic to treat this like a horse race.