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

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

The increase in deaths over winter is only partially due to influenza. You have only presented influenza data.

The most comprehensive stats I have found are from Euromono:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

Data from Statista lags a couple of weeks, but also shows that excess deaths for England and Wales are not dramatic so far this winter:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...and-and-wales/

Excess death data from a UK government we site regarding excess deaths show this to have been roughly between 25,000 and 50,000 each winter during the last 50 years:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...017to2018final

Prior to this winter:
“ Generally, historical trends in EWD in England and Wales show that the steady decreases since the 1950 to 1951 winter period have levelled off and most recently increased for the third consecutive year.”

Sorry I have presented a direct 5 year historical comparison of flue deaths with this year Covid figures, I also include this years flu deaths versus COVID as well.

COVID when left run rampant is a killer

[Seaworthy Lass]

More data on excess mortality:

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

For England and Wales there is certainly an excess number of deaths the last couple of months, but it is relatively low so far. Nothing like it was last spring. And so far it does not seem to be increasing at nearly the same rate as detected cases are increasing.

I emphasise “so far”.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry I have presented a direct 5 year historical comparison of flue deaths with this year Covid figures, I also include this years flu deaths versus COVID as well.

COVID when left run rampant is a killer

I don’t think there are too many people who think it should be left to run rampant, however, the best balance of measures at any particular time in any particular country (or part of a country) still seems to be largely guesswork. Even a year down the track.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I don’t think there are too many people who think it should be left to run rampant, however, the best balance of measures at any particular time in any particular country (or part of a country) still seems to be largely guesswork. Even a year down the track.

Everyone understands the key to stopping transmission is socisl distancing. Th3 issue is how to achieve that and retain some sense of “ normal “. Th3 evidence is mounting that relaxed approaches didn’t really work

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Everyone understands the key to stopping transmission is socisl distancing. Th3 issue is how to achieve that and retain some sense of “ normal “. Th3 evidence is mounting that relaxed approaches didn’t really work

I am at a loss regarding how to determine what restrictions are needed when or how best to help protect health whilst not destroying livelihoods or causing collateral health issues, both physical and mental.

To me it seems extremely sensible for people to personally employ all the measures that can be relatively easily adopted (particularly those measures that are simply a bit inconvenient), even if the exact benefit of these is unknown. For me this means avoiding indoor spaces with others, the use of hand sanitisers and face masks and avoiding touching my face at all when out and about. I know not everyone feels the same way. Some of the threads on CF have certainly been eye opening in this regard.

We know who the most vulnerable are. We have known since early last year. I think the greatest tragedy in all this is that governments have not done more to specifically protect these groups, particularly if they are either under care or carers (and I include those in hospitals in this category). This group has little choice regarding their exposure. The elderly who are not under care should be offered advice and support. I don’t think that sweeping measures affecting the entire population adversely are necessarily the best solution. That is just my opinion though. Don’t crucify me for it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Everyone understands the key to stopping transmission is socisl distancing. Th3 issue is how to achieve that and retain some sense of “ normal “. Th3 evidence is mounting that relaxed approaches didn’t really work

The evidence shows no such thing. In Europe, the Nordic region has by far the best outcome, with never any lockdown. NONE of the best outcome countries in Europe every had any lockdown, not one. I am assuming that by "relaxed approaches" you mean countries which avoided the most severe measures, stay at home orders, mass closing of businesses, etc.

In Asia, you see more or less the same thing.

There is a pretty strong correlation between lockdowns and bad outcomes, with the only outliers being Australia and New Zealand, which uniquely succeeded in eradicating the virus.

Correlation doesn't prove causation, but for sure there is no evidence whatsoever that avoiding the most severe measures, "doesn't work".

My guess is that the Imperial College study was right about one thing -- severe NPI's have to be repeated over and over again, because once you lift them, the virus goes on a rampage again. Since they are unsustainable, you can't keep them in place forever, so they have to be cycled. Those countries which used the "relaxed approach" -- maybe better called the "sustainable approach" -- don't have to cycle their measures so much.

The 13 best outcomes (so far) in Europe:



Leaving aside the micro states (which I don't know about), not a single one of these countries had lockdowns. ALL of them used the "relaxed approach".

The 13 worst outcomes (so far) in Europe:



ALL of them used the most severe measures.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I am at a loss regarding how to determine what restrictions are needed when or how best to help protect health whilst not destroying livelihoods or causing collateral health issues, both physical and mental.

I think the evidence is while a restricted section of the economy is suffering , mainly hospitality , overall economic effects look relatively minor , most governments are spending billions in pandemic support payments to workers and businesses affected
While there is much radio talk of mental affects , there have been equally as many anecdotal reports of people enjoying their “ lockdowns “ . ( home cooking , walks in the outdoors , time with the kids etc )

To me it seems extremely sensible for people to employ all the measures that can be relatively easily adopted (particularly those measures that are simply a bit inconvenient), even if the exact benefit of these is unknown. Personally, for me this means avoiding indoor spaces with others, the use of hand sanitisers and face masks and avoiding touching my face at all when out and about. I know not everyone feels the same way. Some of the threads on CF have certainly been eye opening in this regard.

I agree, minor inconviences like mask wearing and hand hygiene are just that and it’s staggering the arguments advanced against them

We know who the most vulnerable are. We have known since early last year. I think the greatest tragedy in all this is that governments have not done more to specifically protect these groups, particularly if they are either under care or carers (and I include those in hospitals in this category). This group has little choice regarding their exposure. The elderly who are not under care should be offered advice and support. I don’t think that sweeping measures affecting the entire population adversely are necessarily the best solution. That is just my opinion though. Don’t crucify me for it.

The categories of vulnerability seems to be moving , hospital admission age is falling and COVID can have a long tail of illness

We all argue about national efforts , I do think that it’s not fair , this side of a vaccine, to subject the vulnerable to essentially a prison sentence , society does have a responsibility to collectively look after its vulnerable , it also has a collective obligation to limit a very easily transmissible disease which causes significant illness even if it doesn’t kill. It has an obligation to limit health care workers exposure.

The net result is we have to act collectively, as a society, that means many sections shouldering a burden that , taken on its own , they might not feel they should be.

What’s clear is the cyclic pattern of lockdowns has been only partially acceptable , and it’s a blunt weapon, but public health has very little options in its bag. Doing nothing is unthinkable also. The rest therefore is just an argument over degree. Arguments about personal freedoms are largely nonsense , my view is the greater public opinion would have harsher measures then the Gov actually undertook. Freedoms are not inherent, they rely on the cooperation of others, irrespective of what printed documents say.

Society will have loads of time to analyse all this in times to come

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think the evidence is while a restricted section of the economy is suffering , mainly hospitality , overall economic effects look relatively minor , most governments are spending billions in pandemic support payments to workers and businesses affected
While there is much radio talk of mental affects , there have been equally as many anecdotal reports of people enjoying their “ lockdowns “ . ( home cooking , walks in the outdoors , time with the kids etc ) . .

For every person who anecdotally reports "enjoying" lockdown, there are 10 or maybe 100 whose lives are damaged by it -- parents who can't work because they have been forced into service as their children's teachers, families experiencing alcoholism, suicide, despair, abuse (which has reached record levels in country after country). Note also that those people most likely to be able to "enjoy" lockdown are most likely to be prosperous older white people; whereas for the working poor it is a catastrophe.


Keeping children out of school causes damage which may last for a lifetime; takes slices off GDP for a decade.


The hospitality industry is just the tip of the iceberg, and not in any country I know of is it being substantially rescued, only a little bandaid applied here and there. Large corporate players are managing, some of them, but smaller businesses are dying in huge numbers. This will lead to a huge increase in concentration in this industry, increasing the power of the big players.


Retail is being slaughtered in locked-down countries; companies large and small are going bankrupt, and again this will lead to more concentration in the hands of a few big players.


Millions of people have been thrown out of work and millions of those may never find work again.


And the consequences of deficit spending, the likes of which has never been seen outside of Venezuela in the 90's, is yet to be felt, and are still unknown -- this bill hasn't arrived in the mail yet -- many economies may be beggared. The effect on public health from all this economic and social damage will be vast -- and will certainly outweigh the direct effects on public health from the pandemic. I'm not saying that the economic and social damage all comes from lockdown -- it also comes from the pandemic itself, but choice of measures has a huge effect on the social and economic effects of the pandemic. However in the long term, the wrong choice of measures can EASILY cause damage dwarfing the damage from the pandemic.



I suggest you consider that what this looks like from the selfish point of view of a retired white guy on a yacht, may not reflect broader society at all. The effect of 2020 on young people, and particularly on the working poor, is absolutely catastrophic.



I'm not saying lockdown is definitely a bad idea in all cases -- I don't know. As the WHO say, it may be necessary as "a last resort", when all else fails, which may be the case in the UK right now. But almost certainly if you can get your country through this horrendous period without it, you will come out far ahead, in terms of just public health, never mind broader social effects. Certainly all the outcomes in Europe as of today point to that.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For every person who anecdotally reports "enjoying" lockdown, there are 10 or maybe 100 whose lives are damaged by it -- parents who can't work because they have been forced into service as their children's teachers, families experiencing alcoholism, suicide, despair, abuse (which has reached record levels in country after country). Note also that those people most likely to be able to "enjoy" lockdown are most likely to be prosperous older white people; whereas for the working poor it is a catastrophe.


Keeping children out of school causes damage which may last for a lifetime; takes slices off GDP for a decade.


The hospitality industry is just the tip of the iceberg, and not in any country I know of is it being substantially rescued, only a little bandaid applied here and there. Large corporate players are managing, some of them, but smaller businesses are dying in huge numbers. This will lead to a huge increase in concentration in this industry, increasing the power of the big players.


Retail is being slaughtered in locked-down countries; companies large and small are going bankrupt, and again this will lead to more concentration in the hands of a few big players.


Millions of people have been thrown out of work and millions of those may never find work again.


And the consequences of deficit spending, the likes of which has never been seen outside of Venezuela in the 90's, is yet to be felt, and are still unknown -- this bill hasn't arrived in the mail yet -- many economies may be beggared. The effect on public health from all this economic and social damage will be vast -- and will certainly outweigh the direct effects on public health from the pandemic. I'm not saying that the economic and social damage all comes from lockdown -- it also comes from the pandemic itself, but choice of measures has a huge effect on the social and economic effects of the pandemic. However in the long term, the wrong choice of measures can EASILY cause damage dwarfing the damage from the pandemic.



I suggest you consider that what this looks like from the selfish point of view of a retired white guy on a yacht, may not reflect broader society at all. The effect of 2020 on young people, and particularly on the working poor, is absolutely catastrophic.



I'm not saying lockdown is definitely a bad idea in all cases -- I don't know. As the WHO say, it may be necessary as "a last resort", when all else fails, which may be the case in the UK right now. But almost certainly if you can get your country through this horrendous period without it, you will come out far ahead, in terms of just public health, never mind broader social effects. Certainly all the outcomes in Europe as of today point to that.

Pretty Much spot on.


In regard to the UK, they are from what I hear from my friends there going from one lockdown to the next, with varying restrictions of each lockdown, but from looking at the figures it appears to not be doing much, with cases continually over 50,000 at day and a recent study from i think Imperial college stated that there around 500,000 positive but untested cases currently at any one point in time - If that is true how can you ever stop it?

On the flip side they are certainly racing their way to herd immunity, maybe they should antibody test to see who is immune and give the vaccine to those that are not - They would certainly reach there herd immunity % a lot quicker this way and allow the people who really need it to get the vaccine ASAP.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

. . On the flip side they are certainly racing their way to herd immunity, maybe they should antibody test to see who is immune and give the vaccine to those that are not - They would certainly reach there herd immunity % a lot quicker this way and allow the people who really need it to get the vaccine ASAP.

Unfortunately we are not anywhere seeing any effect of herd immunity from natural immunity yet. A lot of people thought that Italy, and New York, might even avoid a second wave, because so many people were infected.


Unfortunately it didn't happen. A vast number of people will die if the virus is allowed to run rampant before we get everyone vaccinated.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Unfortunately we are not anywhere seeing any effect of herd immunity from natural immunity yet. A lot of people thought that Italy, and New York, might even avoid a second wave, because so many people were infected.


Unfortunately it didn't happen. A vast number of people will die if the virus is allowed to run rampant before we get everyone vaccinated.

Its not about letting it run rampant its about vaccinating only those which are not already immune from having it - Speeding up the race to herd immunity! (Although it is pretty much running rampant in the UK at the moment)



Some reports suggest that the actual figures for people having it are around 10 times the tested amount - That would make it over 20 million in the UK or 1/3 of the population - Meaning you would only need to vaccinate 40% to start seeing some serious effects and moving to a herd immunity level before vaccinating the rest - 40% can be done a LOT quicker than 75%.



This means that people who actually need the vaccine get it as they are not immune, whereas those that are immune can wait until the supply and apparatus is in place later in the year.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... The effect on public health from all this economic and social damage will be vast -- and will certainly outweigh the direct effects on public health from the pandemic. I'm not saying that the economic and social damage all comes from lockdown -- it also comes from the pandemic itself, but choice of measures has a huge effect on the social and economic effects of the pandemic. However in the long term, the wrong choice of measures can EASILY cause damage dwarfing the damage from the pandemic ...
... I'm not saying lockdown is definitely a bad idea in all cases -- I don't know. As the WHO say, it may be necessary as "a last resort", when all else fails, which may be the case in the UK right now. But almost certainly if you can get your country through this horrendous period without it, you will come out far ahead, in terms of just public health, never mind broader social effects. Certainly all the outcomes in Europe as of today point to that.

I think you are jumping to conclusions, about the severity of economic & health implications of non-medical interventions, that are (as yet) unsupported by much evidence.
When discussing our choice(s) of interventions, the robustness (intrusiveness), and duration (sustainability) are only two factors to consider. The timing may be just as (or more) important.
In most every case, to date, interventions have lagged behind outbreaks, sometimes significantly. This was initially somewhat justified, with the first wave of a new (novel) virus.
However, our natural inclination to avoid interference in the normal functioning of society has excused delayed and restrained intervention(s).
We(mostly) haven't hit early, and hit hard.
We’ve just, occasionally, hit (somewhat & variably) hard.
I’ll look forward to the retrospective studies that analyze the timeliness of non-medical measures (interventions), as well as the robustness, against the outcomes.
I believe that WHEN we act(ed) may turn out to have been as important as HOW we act(ed).
Earlier interventions may also result in shorter-duration measures (this is just speculation)

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For every person who anecdotally reports "enjoying" lockdown, there are 10 or maybe 100 whose lives are damaged by it -- parents who can't work because they have been forced into service as their children's teachers, families experiencing alcoholism, suicide, despair, abuse (which has reached record levels in country after country). Note also that those people most likely to be able to "enjoy" lockdown are most likely to be prosperous older white people; whereas for the working poor it is a catastrophe.


Keeping children out of school causes damage which may last for a lifetime; takes slices off GDP for a decade.


The hospitality industry is just the tip of the iceberg, and not in any country I know of is it being substantially rescued, only a little bandaid applied here and there. Large corporate players are managing, some of them, but smaller businesses are dying in huge numbers. This will lead to a huge increase in concentration in this industry, increasing the power of the big players.


Retail is being slaughtered in locked-down countries; companies large and small are going bankrupt, and again this will lead to more concentration in the hands of a few big players.


Millions of people have been thrown out of work and millions of those may never find work again.


And the consequences of deficit spending, the likes of which has never been seen outside of Venezuela in the 90's, is yet to be felt, and are still unknown -- this bill hasn't arrived in the mail yet -- many economies may be beggared. The effect on public health from all this economic and social damage will be vast -- and will certainly outweigh the direct effects on public health from the pandemic. I'm not saying that the economic and social damage all comes from lockdown -- it also comes from the pandemic itself, but choice of measures has a huge effect on the social and economic effects of the pandemic. However in the long term, the wrong choice of measures can EASILY cause damage dwarfing the damage from the pandemic.



I suggest you consider that what this looks like from the selfish point of view of a retired white guy on a yacht, may not reflect broader society at all. The effect of 2020 on young people, and particularly on the working poor, is absolutely catastrophic.



I'm not saying lockdown is definitely a bad idea in all cases -- I don't know. As the WHO say, it may be necessary as "a last resort", when all else fails, which may be the case in the UK right now. But almost certainly if you can get your country through this horrendous period without it, you will come out far ahead, in terms of just public health, never mind broader social effects. Certainly all the outcomes in Europe as of today point to that.

Your opinion here is not being borne out , by the facts , leaving aside the deficit spending issues , progressive governments are spending billions to support furloughed industries , certainly around me , this is almost all hospitality and less so , non food retail, furloughed workers are receiving €350 a week , to an extent , that small shops typically paying minimum wages struggled to get staff back into work.

The rest of industry is surging ahead , construction and manufacturing are booming , house prices are climbing etc. The Central Statistics office revised its projections from negative growth of 3-5% to 0.3% and expects positive growth this year. Household savings are at their highest level in decades with 25 billon euro on deposit from householders , this represents a massive pent up demand.

Home improvement , grocery , etc are booming , even retailers who were allowed open over the last three weeks of Christmas , stated that they enjoyed near record Christmas trade.

Mental health effects are much talked about but with little hard data l the people “ enjoying “ lockdown are often ordinary families , where the benefit of time with kids , cooking family meals , while having the flexibility of working at home has made a lot of people stop and think

My wife’s a teacher , it’s well accepted in the profession that 8-10 weeks out of school over a 6 year secondary cycle , will have some short term disruption , but little academic effect. Social development for younger kids is an issue , but groups of kids playing together has continued here lockdown or not. ( we struggle with rules here , at the best of times )

I’m not in anyway defending Covid restriction , I hesitate with the term lockdown as it means very different things to different people. We here have had rather voluntary restrictions, ie you define what necessary travel , if you have to work from an offIce do etc , food , hardware , etc remain open , a huge number of restaurants have continued to trade as take-always.

Yes there will be business failures but the sectors are being supported on the idea that this period will end

I’m not on a yacht by the way. I’m at home , yes for me the impact is small , but I’ve also spoken to many of my friends who are working from home and are clearly making life choices and reevaluating what’s next.

Again I not saying , there are groups that arnt suffering , but the “ devastation “ largely promoted by groups arguing against restrictions is not transpiring in quite the extreme vision presented by such people

A respected economist said recent , it’s a rule of thirds , 1/3 are having a boom, 1/3 arnt affected and 1/3 are suffering

The evidence is mounting we will have V shaped recovery, due to high levels of savings and suppressed demand.

Here we have around 15% unemployment , while up from 5% , it’s at levels we have regularly in the last 30 years seen before and that’s before you factor in the huge pandemic support payments not present in ordinary high unemployment periods

[goboatingnow]

Any way we are enjoying our three week relaxation of retail !, but we love Christmas so hard this see what else could have been done , but opening the pubs clearly was a bad idea

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I think you are jumping to conclusions, about the severity of economic & health implications of non-medical interventions, that are (as yet) unsupported by much evidence.
When discussing our choice(s) of interventions, the robustness (intrusiveness), and duration (sustainability) are only two factors to consider. The timing may be just as (or more) important.
In most every case, to date, interventions have lagged behind outbreaks, sometimes significantly. This was initially somewhat justified, with the first wave of a new (novel) virus.
However, our natural inclination to avoid interference in the normal functioning of society has excused delayed and restrained intervention(s).
We(mostly) haven't hit early, and hit hard.
We’ve just, occasionally, hit (somewhat & variably) hard.
I’ll look forward to the retrospective studies that analyze the timeliness of non-medical measures (interventions), as well as the robustness, against the outcomes.
I believe that WHEN we act(ed) may turn out to have been as important as HOW we act(ed).
Earlier interventions may also result in shorter-duration measures (this is just speculation)

I totally agree with this. And it does not in the slightest contradict the other things I said -- just expands and elucidates it.

In fact, timing is so important, that it might even justify choosing otherwise unnecessarily strict measures. As I said, if you catch it early enough, you don't care nearly as much how sustainable the measures are -- because you don't need to sustain them. Look at New Zealand, or Taiwan.

HOWEVER, when you don't catch it early enough -- and that might happen not just because you're not fast enough, but also just because you had the bad luck to have an early superspreader event -- then it looks different. If it's too late to eradicate the virus, then you had better be ready to live with the virus in the long term. There your choice of measures becomes really important indeed, and sustainability becomes a really important factor.