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

[UFO]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In the linked U-Tube editorial, Ivor Cummins* makes a number of speculative arguments (without any support), untested and speculative assumptions, and cherry picking science, and represents himself as though he knows the real truth, and studies he doesn't mention, are somehow more flawed, than the ones he chooses to focus on (but doesn't specify).
He doesn’t even offer any rational, or the reasoning behind, his opinions; merely stating his speculative assumptions as (baseless & implausible) fact.
His ideological perspective goes much too far, trying to squeeze the data and pandemic into his preconceived explanations, which he presents in a condescending "I know what real science is" way, and makes speculative unsupported points, ignores data and studies that don't suit him, and does not even attempt to link the other data types into his analysis.
He’s clearly singing to the ideological choir, and appealing to people who already agree with him. This is, yet another case of intentional deception, and taking things out of context.
Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

* Ivor Cummins, the low carb keto fantasist, and wellness zealotry troll, demonstrating that he can be as ignorant, dangerous, and unaware of his own limitations, when taking about viral pandemics, as he is about nutrition.

Gord I did not ask for a character assassination, that can be done about pretty much anyone and is an easy way of ignoring any facts.


If you want to tear it down, tear it down by analysis of the data he presented, rather than just vague assumptions.



Arguments without support - What was the data he presented?


I was after a reasoned analysis of the data he presented, which is why I asked Dockhead, to have a look if he had time, as I know he is less emotional of the situation and will look at the facts and will not throw the baby out with the bath water.



It seems that anything that does not agree with the official and political narrative is immediately shot down, without even delving into the data of what is presented.


But hey, stick with the official line with the "Official" Scientists as they have done such a stand up job and really know what they are doing, take the UK for example, they have a full handle on it there!


Or on the flip side Australia which for one case locked a whole city center down and because of 1 case the borders have hardened and anyone returning from QLD to Places like WA have to Quarantine for 14 days - For 1 Case. The economic damage being caused because of this is huge. But again, I suppose these guys really know what they are doing right?


In the above situation everywhere in Qld & WA has full contact tracing - you can not go pretty much into any Cafe, Pub, Gym, Tourist attraction etc without filling in your details online and they do check, also with the quarantine you have to have 2 Covid tests, yet even if they are both negative you still need to stay in Quarantine - This is for Intestate travel not international and as I said its all because of 1 positive. So do they not trust the tests that you are negative and do they not trust their tracing system?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by UFO

..........


Or on the flip side Australia which for one case locked a whole city center down and because of 1 case the borders have hardened and anyone returning from QLD to Places like WA have to Quarantine for 14 days - For 1 Case. The economic damage being caused because of this is huge. But again, I suppose these guys really know what they are doing right?

In the above situation everywhere in Qld & WA has full contact tracing - you can not go pretty much into any Cafe, Pub, Gym, Tourist attraction etc without filling in your details online and they do check, also with the quarantine you have to have 2 Covid tests, yet even if they are both negative you still need to stay in Quarantine - This is for Intestate travel not international and as I said its all because of 1 positive. So do they not trust the tests that you are negative and do they not trust their tracing system?

Let's look at the flip side in greater detail and think it through. This 1 case in Brisbane is a case of the new UK mutation which is already known to be far more infectious. The person picked up the virus from a quarantine hotel where she is employed as a cleaner. It was some days before the symptoms appeared and then immediately tested. Quite legitimately she had moved about the city and visited quite a few places. It can't be ascertained to the hour of what day she may have staring shedding the virus so contact tracing (to be effective) has to assume the worst case. Not everyone follows all the entry rules all the the time and they don't always check. Yes, mostly, but not every time.

Contact tracing is not instantaneous, it takes time to make contact with the potential people who may have encountered the virus due to this one person.

This is why there has been a three day lockdown in the greater Brisbane area - it gives the tracing team time to do their job. There is no evidence the virus has left the greater Brisbane are (yet) and as such the there is no short lockdown elsewhere in Queensland.

However if the virus is allowed to spread to say to a 10 people before restricting travel, the contact tracing effort becomes far more difficult and with less certainly.

Plus there are the people who may have come in contact with her without being aware or becoming known to the contact tracers.

So the border between WA and QLD slams shut. The economic pain of letting the new variant of the virus into WA would far exceed the short term pain for a few weeks of shut border.
Right now in Tassie, the economy is holding up and the place is flooded with travellers from WA, NT, Victoria, country NSW and until a few days ago, QLD. ATM, the greater Brisbane area is locked out of Tassie. If the government in NSW can stamp out the Sydney clusters and Brisbane controls this one case of the UK variant, travel will continue to increase.

If there is one thing we have learned so far looking around the world, the virus can't be controlled by taking soft and easy measures. Go hard, go early or go home.

Crikey, even the PM is in agreement with the action taken in QLD ATM, that hasn't happened for a long long time. Mostly they are snipping at each other at any time they can.

The UK would have loved to have the opportunity to have controlled the first case of this mutation.

Not to do so in Australia is simply stupid IMO. The economic cost of sitting on one's hands is too scary to think about.

This virus is very much like a hot ember getting blown around in a hot tinder dry Australian summer bushland. It will start a spot fire in a nanosecond and will spread like wildfire. In the current climate, any spot fire gets the full attention of the local fire brigades and they throw everything at their disposal at it least it becomes a full-blown bushfire.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Let's look at the flip side in greater detail and think it through. This 1 case in Brisbane is a case of the new UK mutation which is already known to be far more infectious. The person picked up the virus from a quarantine hotel where she is employed as a cleaner. It was some days before the symptoms appeared and then immediately tested. Quite legitimately she had moved about the city and visited quite a few places. It can't be ascertained to the hour of what day she may have staring shedding the virus so contact tracing (to be effective) has to assume the worst case. Not everyone follows all the entry rules all the the time and they don't always check. Yes, mostly, but not every time.

Contact tracing is not instantaneous, it takes time to make contact with the potential people who may have encountered the virus due to this one person.

This is why there has been a three day lockdown in the greater Brisbane area - it gives the tracing team time to do their job. There is no evidence the virus has left the greater Brisbane are (yet) and as such the there is no short lockdown elsewhere in Queensland.

However if the virus is allowed to spread to say to a 10 people before restricting travel, the contact tracing effort becomes far more difficult and with less certainly.

Plus there are the people who may have come in contact with her within being aware or known to the contact tracers.

So the border between WA and QLD slams shut. The economic pain of letting the new variant of the virus into WA would far exceed the short term pain for a few weeks of shut border.
Right now in Tassie, the economy is holding up and the place is flooded with travellers from WA, NT, Victoria, country NSW and until a few days ago, QLD. ATM, the greater Brisbane area is locked out of Tassie. If the government in NSW can stamp out the Sydney clusters and Brisbane controls this one case of the UK variant, travel will continue to increase.

If there is one thing we have learned so far looking around the world, the virus can't be controlled by taking soft and easy measures. Go hard, go early or go home.

Crikey, even the PM is in agreement with the action taken in QLD ATM, that hasn't happened for a long long time. Mostly they are snipping at each other at any times they can.

The UK would have loved to have the opportunity to have controlled the first case of this mutation.

Not to do so in Australia is simply stupid IMO. The economic cost of sitting on one's hands is too scary to think about.

This virus is very much like a hot ember getting blown around in a hot tinder dry Australian summer bushland. It will start a spot fire in a nanosecond and will spread like wildfire. In the current climate, any spot fire gets the full attention of the local fire brigades and they throw everything at their disposal at it least it becomes a full-blown bushfire.

If we continue down this path where 1 case can cause the mass restrictions and quarantine across a country where do you think this will take us? You think we can continue this for years? You think the vaccine will really stop this with all the new variants that will come and the time lag in vaccinations? or it will eventually burn itself out like previous en/pandemics have, which is more likely.



Also why is having 2 Negative tests over a period of time not good enough to end your quarantine, especially when it is 1 case and the odds in the first place are minute, but after 2 negative tests its got to be non existent. So the question is how accurate are the tests? - It would seem not very if this is the case, which then leads to questions about all the positive asymptomatic results, how accurate are these?



To me this is massive over reaction in WA and just more fear based leadership.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by UFO

If we continue down this path where 1 case can cause the mass restrictions and quarantine across a country where do you think this will take us?

Err... no, it currently is three day lockdown of the greater Brisbane area (maybe pop 2M), the other 23M and the rest of the country (say 99% area wise) remains unaffected. Already 24 hours has past so only 2 days left. Mostly likely it will result in zero community spread in QLD, just like WA, NT and TAS. Back to life as usual.

You think we can continue this for years? You think the vaccine will really stop this with all the new variants that will come and the time lag in vaccinations? or it will eventually burn itself out like previous en/pandemics have, which is more likely.

My crystal ball doesn't predict the future too well but ask any rational person in the UK, Europe and the USA where they would rather be ATM? . I have some hope the various vaccines will be effective.




Also why is having 2 Negative tests over a period of time not good enough to end your quarantine, especially when it is 1 case and the odds in the first place are minute, but after 2 negative tests its got to be non existent. So the question is how accurate are the tests? - It would seem not very if this is the case, which then leads to questions about all the positive asymptomatic results, how accurate are these?

I dunno but I reckon the Aussie health officials know a shipload more about this than I do - I'm happy to trust them. I dunno about other countries.


To me this is massive over reaction in WA and just more fear based leadership.

To each his own .

[Dockhead]

So I've listened carefully to this Ivor Cummins video.

Cummins has a hard position against lockdowns as being (a) ineffective; and (b) in any case not worth the cost. It's very different from my position, and it's a position which Cummins expresses tendentiously at times, which is unfortunate, but he makes a number of different points, some of them entirely valid:

1. Comparison between this pandemic and Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of excess mortality and life-years lost.

The point of this is to give some perspective about how bad this is. This perspective is crucial for making policy. This pandemic is nothing like the Spanish Flu -- that is objectively true.

2. Quotes of different studies (serious, peer-reviewed) which fail to demonstrate efficacy of lockdown.

I think he overstates the case, and I think he leaves out some other studies. However, it is objectively true, that no GREAT efficacy of lockdown is visible in the data. Lockdown is not a silver bullet -- that is indisputable:



3. He compares total mortality in the Nordic countries over the past several years and shows that they are all quite similar, and significantly less (normalized for population) than Scotland. Also, that 2020 is not particularly bad in terms of total mortality in any of the Nordic countries, including Sweden.

Absolutely valid point, made in many serious scientific discussions. There have been worse flu years in the last decade in Sweden, than COVID has been in 2020. That's a fact. Furthermore, as Seaworthylass has pointed out several times, and which many epidemiologists and demographers have been saying all along -- you really have to look at excess mortality over a certain period of time; you can't just tally up the deaths, if you want to understand what is really going on, and how bad it really is.

4. He compares Florida vs. California in an attempt to show the relative efficacy of "light" versus "heavy" approach.

I don't think he made this case at all. Florida has had 1066 cumulative deaths per million, and California has had 740. On the other hand, at the moment, hard locked down California is having 11 daily deaths per million (7 day rolling average) whereas open Florida is having 9. None of this really proves anything though, and I think Cummings overstates his case. At most you can say from this comparison that lockdown is not a silver bullet, nor does declining to lock down inevitably doom a people to mass death. This is different from saying that lockdowns don't work (which I don't believe BTW).

5. He attacks Neil Ferguson.

It is true that Neil Ferguson got a number of things spectacularly wrong. However, the personal attack detracts from Cummins' argument, and I condemn this. It's all the same as all the personal attacks on Tegnell in Sweden. None of this does anything to advance understanding -- this is profoundly anti-scientific. Note that real scientists don't do this -- Ferguson and Tegnell in fact not only know and respect each other, they have even co-authored articles together, including even Tegnell's most cited work: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...483f4f004fbff9.
In Ferguson's excellent videos on the pandemic, he declines to criticize Tegnell.

Originally Posted by GordMay

In the linked U-Tube editorial, Ivor Cummins* makes a number of speculative arguments (without any support), untested and speculative assumptions, and cherry picking science, and represents himself as though he knows the real truth, and studies he doesn't mention, are somehow more flawed, than the ones he chooses to focus on (but doesn't specify).
He doesn’t even offer any rational, or the reasoning behind, his opinions; merely stating his speculative assumptions as (baseless & implausible) fact.
His ideological perspective goes much too far, trying to squeeze the data and pandemic into his preconceived explanations, which he presents in a condescending "I know what real science is" way, and makes speculative unsupported points, ignores data and studies that don't suit him, and does not even attempt to link the other data types into his analysis.. .

Gord, are these your words, or is it cut and paste from somewhere? If it's someone else's words, please attribute. If it's yours, meaning you've read all these studies and know the subject matter, then please make your case. Which study is left out, and how does it contradict Cummins' argument? Which points are unsupported? Please point to the other data types, which Cummins failed to mention? That's the way a real scientist would respond, and we're talking about science here.

I strongly disagree with this: "He doesn’t even offer any rational, or the reasoning behind, his opinions; merely stating his speculative assumptions as (baseless & implausible) fact." This is totally false. Cummins unfortunately departs from a real scholarly or scientific demeanour from time to time, but he makes rational and strongly reasoned arguments based on real facts. Some of these arguments are wrong, in my opinion, but these arguments are more than worthy of respect and engagement and certainly do not deserve to be just slagged off like this.

[goboatingnow]

I think one of the flaws in the flu versus Covid argument is that while we do little to actively suppress the flu , every country has implemented controls in respect of Covid.

So we have no “ let it rip “ control sample.

In Ireland now we have jumped in two weeks from 50 cases a day to 6000, hospitals are filling up. ICU is filing up. Age profile has significantly lowered , We are now hearing of more and more of our friends who have come down with the disease , some very ill with it.

This 3rd wave is vicious

Despite what has been postulated there is only two ways to deal with this 3rd wave

Lockdown or vaccination. There is no other way. you MUST limit human contact , you must prevent crowds and groups forming, you can’t allow travel.

End of story. There are no other “ tools “ left in the toolbox

So it’s now a race between infection and vaccination but the evidence is the disease is much faster then the vaccination.

I’ll say it again as this 3rd wave spreads every country that contracts it will enter tight lockdowns that includes the Nordic countries too.

There is no alternative

Ireland now looks like remain in a 5km travel restriction ( schools shut , construction shut , non non essential retail ) until March , ie by the time the most vulnerable are vaccinated

This is going to be a rough one.

Countries need to be vaccinating 24/7 24 hours.

The consequences of the vaccines not being effective are too horrendous to imagine.

( this is not a political comment , if the US ends up with these aggressive infection rates. I hope the new administration gets real serious real fast as the consequences of inaction will be horrendous )

[goboatingnow]

By the way I agree with using blood oxygen monitors. It’s a very useful tool in detecting early stage Covid.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So I've listened carefully to this Ivor Cummins video.

Cummins has a hard position against lockdowns as being (a) ineffective; and (b) in any case not worth the cost. It's very different from my position, and it's a position which Cummins expresses tendentiously at times, which is unfortunate, but he makes a number of different points, some of them entirely valid:

1. Comparison between this pandemic and Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of excess mortality and life-years lost.

The point of this is to give some perspective about how bad this is. This perspective is crucial for making policy. This pandemic is nothing like the Spanish Flu -- that is objectively true.

2. Quotes of different studies (serious, peer-reviewed) which fail to demonstrate efficacy of lockdown.

I think he overstates the case, and I think he leaves out some other studies. However, it is objectively true, that no GREAT efficacy of lockdown is visible in the data. Lockdown is not a silver bullet -- that is indisputable:

Attachment 230114

3. He compares total mortality in the Nordic countries over the past several years and shows that they are all quite similar, and significantly less (normalized for population) than Scotland. Also, that 2020 is not particularly bad in terms of total mortality in any of the Nordic countries, including Sweden.

Absolutely valid point, made in many serious scientific discussions. There have been worse flu years in the last decade in Sweden, than COVID has been in 2020. That's a fact. Furthermore, as Seaworthylass has pointed out several times, and which many epidemiologists and demographers have been saying all along -- you really have to look at excess mortality over a certain period of time; you can't just tally up the deaths, if you want to understand what is really going on, and how bad it really is.

4. He compares Florida vs. California in an attempt to show the relative efficacy of "light" versus "heavy" approach.

I don't think he made this case at all. Florida has had 1066 cumulative deaths per million, and California has had 740. On the other hand, at the moment, hard locked down California is having 11 daily deaths per million (7 day rolling average) whereas open Florida is having 9. None of this really proves anything though, and I think Cummings overstates his case. At most you can say from this comparison that lockdown is not a silver bullet, nor does declining to lock down inevitably doom a people to mass death. This is different from saying that lockdowns don't work (which I don't believe BTW).

5. He attacks Neil Ferguson.

It is true that Neil Ferguson got a number of things spectacularly wrong. However, the personal attack detracts from Cummins' argument, and I condemn this. It's all the same as all the personal attacks on Tegnell in Sweden. None of this does anything to advance understanding -- this is profoundly anti-scientific. Note that real scientists don't do this -- Ferguson and Tegnell in fact not only know and respect each other, they have even co-authored articles together, including even Tegnell's most cited work: https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...483f4f004fbff9.
In Ferguson's excellent videos on the pandemic, he declines to criticize Tegnell.




Gord, are these your words, or is it cut and paste from somewhere? If it's someone else's words, please attribute. If it's yours, meaning you've read all these studies and know the subject matter, then please make your case. Which study is left out, and how does it contradict Cummins' argument? Which points are unsupported? Please point to the other data types, which Cummins failed to mention? That's the way a real scientist would respond, and we're talking about science here.

I strongly disagree with this: "He doesn’t even offer any rational, or the reasoning behind, his opinions; merely stating his speculative assumptions as (baseless & implausible) fact." This is totally false. Cummins unfortunately departs from a real scholarly or scientific demeanour from time to time, but he makes rational and strongly reasoned arguments based on real facts. Some of these arguments are wrong, in my opinion, but these arguments are more than worthy of respect and engagement and certainly do not deserve to be just slagged off like this.

Thanks Dockhead, your reasoned and well thought out views on this are appreciated

[UFO]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think one of the flaws in the flu versus Covid argument is that while we do little to actively suppress the flu , every country has implemented controls in respect of Covid.

Errr... On a Yearly basis there are more flu vaccines given than any other vaccine!


Also what are your views on the Ivor Cummins video in regards to Ireland?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think one of the flaws in the flu versus Covid argument is that while we do little to actively suppress the flu , every country has implemented controls in respect of Covid.

So we have no “ let it rip “ control sample.

I agree. This is an entirely valid point.

But I don't think anyone seriously argues that COVID is "just like the flu" -- and certainly, it is not. COVID clearly more deadly than variants of the flu we have been dealing with since the Spanish Flu, and it's highly infectious. I don't think there can be any serious argument about that.

But the purpose of comparing this pandemic (not this virus) with the 1918 pandemic is PERSPECTIVE -- and that is useful. Cummins point was that this pandemic is vastly less deadly than 1918, and this is correct. As you correctly point out, this is partially due to the control measures implemented. Another factor surely is better health care and treatment, compared to a century ago. But the point is that this pandemic is not a uniquely civilization-ending event; it is not far out of the range of other pandemics and much less than 1918, especially if you correctly measure the damage in life-years lost rather than lives as an absolute number.

This perspective is really useful for sober thinking about this event, and helps counteract the "just freak out" panic over absolute death numbers taken out of context, as if they were deaths in a war. Note I say "sober thinking", and not "minimizing". Good policy will follow from sober balanced thinking, not freaking out on the one hand, or minimizing, on the other hand, and this point of Cummins is valid and very useful, even if we draw somewhat different conclusions from it -- as I do.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

In Ireland now we have jumped in two weeks from 50 cases a day to 6000, hospitals are filling up. ICU is filing up. Age profile has significantly lowered , We are now hearing of more and more of our friends who have come down with the disease , some very ill with it.

This 3rd wave is vicious

I agree entirely. When hospitals get overwhelmed, we move into an entirely different category of event. This is so dangerous that even very costly measures could be justified, if they are really necessary to prevent this. But I think just about everyone agrees about this. This is basically what the WHO says.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . .Despite what has been postulated there is only two ways to deal with this 3rd wave

Lockdown or vaccination. There is no other way. you MUST limit human contact , you must prevent crowds and groups forming, you can’t allow travel.

End of story. There are no other “ tools “ left in the toolbox

Why do you say that? The entire Nordic and Baltic region has gotten by without lockdown so far as have various Asian countries. Florida, among other U.S. states, are doing reasonably well -- at least without seriously overwhelmed hospitals so far, without hard restrictions.

It may very well turn out that this wave gets so bad that we will ALL turn to lockdown as a last resort -- just like the WHO recommends. But it's not clear yet. Denmark which had a really bad outbreak in November-December is already coming out of it -- without having resorted to lockdown. Lithuania is in really bad shape with one of the worst death rates in the world, but they are not doing lockdown. Sweden is an interesting case -- will the curve turn down? Or not? Finland and Norway are doing pretty well.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . So it’s now a race between infection and vaccination but the evidence is the disease is much faster then the vaccination.

I’ll say it again as this 3rd wave spreads every country that contracts it will enter tight lockdowns that includes the Nordic countries too.

There is no alternative

It's possible, but I don't agree that there is no alternative. We shall see.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . Ireland now looks like remain in a 5km travel restriction ( schools shut , construction shut , non non essential retail ) until March , ie by the time the most vulnerable are vaccinated

This is going to be a rough one.

Yikes. Good luck. Those measures will be hugely destructive. I hope they work.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Countries need to be vaccinating 24/7 24 hours.

The consequences of the vaccines not being effective are too horrendous to imagine.

I have not read any serious concern from real scientists, that the vaccines will not be effective. We won't know for sure until we get there, but I'm not worrying about this.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

( this is not a political comment , if the US ends up with these aggressive infection rates. I hope the new administration gets real serious real fast as the consequences of inaction will be horrendous )

The new administration can do almost nothing except better communication. In the U.S. system, the federal government has almost no power to impose pandemic restrictions, so 90% or more of all policy which effects the pandemic is made on the state level. Under the U.S. Constitution, only the states have undefined "police powers" to impose any kind of restriction; the Federal government is limited by the concept of "enumerated powers". I think communication is really important (it has played a huge role in the Nordic countries), but will not by itself change the course of the pandemic.

It's important to remember that the pandemic response is very deeply shaped by the political culture and by the constitutions of different countries. Lockdown is constitutionally impossible in Sweden and Finland and is constitutionally doubtful in the other Nordic countries and certainly runs against the culture. It's impossible on a national level in Germany (which has a similar federal system to the U.S. one), and in the U.S. In the U.K. and France, there's no legal problem.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Hi all,
I am not criticising the validity of the data Cummins is presenting (and I do agree with much of what he says regarding the severity of this pandemic), I just do not think the conclusions he is drawing from the data are at all valid regarding lockdowns.

I think his logic is faulty ascribing the number of cases as being directly due to the presence or absence of a lockdown. Cummins is confusing correlation with causation.

It is true that the data he is presenting does not show any great efficacy of a lockdown, but neither does it not show this. I simply don’t think any conclusion can be drawn simply looking casually at the figures given.

There are a huge number of factors at play. He is comparing data from countries where rates of known cases vary wildly, countries with different demographics, different means of social interaction, different other strategies employed, different compliance, different health profiles, different timing and severity of lockdowns etc (all occuring simultaneously) and then stating the presence of absence of a lockdown (and he hasn’t even defined “lockdown”) has no significant effect on the number of cases.

We have no idea what would have occurred in these countries had no lockdown measures been taken. Even adjacent, very similar countries taking similar measures have had very different outcomes. Good analysis is going to be an enormously complex task.

If the only aim is to keep numbers down at all cost, then Australia and New Zealand illustrate the effectiveness of “stay at home” lockdowns implemented either extremely early for a short time or very early for an extended time (four months in Victoria when the number of cases spiked July) coupled with agressive testing and contact tracing.

Cummins is not an epidemiologist, he is a chemical engineer presenting a personal opinion in what seems to me a dogmatic way. I am very wary of information given in this manner.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

If the only aim is to keep numbers down at all cost, then Australia and New Zealand illustrate the effectiveness of “stay at home” lockdowns implemented either extremely early for a short time or very early for an extended time (four months in Victoria when the number of cases spiked July) coupled with agressive testing and contact tracing.

I think you have hit the nail on the head...


We got in very early, closed international borders and internal borders and nipped the whole pandemic in the bud before it got a foothold - We have always though had very tight borders and being a very large island with minimal population helps as well.


In other countries with more porous borders and a massive amount of population/travelers it is not so easy and the virus appears to be so contagious that once it is out in the wild in sufficient numbers it appears to be pretty much unstoppable, whatever you do - Look at the UK for an example where they have been in one form of a lockdown or another since the end of summer and it has made virtually no difference in slowing the spread down and currently they are now saying that 1 in 20 is testing positive in the larger populous areas like Greater London, Manchester etc, so when you hit that level of infection it is pretty much irrelevant what you do.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi all,
I am not criticising the validity of the data Cummins is presenting (and I do agree with much of what he says regarding the severity of this pandemic), I just do not think the conclusions he is drawing from the data are at all valid regarding lockdowns.

I think his logic is faulty ascribing the number of cases as being directly due to the presence or absence of a lockdown. Cummins is confusing correlation with causation.

It is true that the data he is presenting does not show any great efficacy of a lockdown, but neither does it not show this. I simply don’t think any conclusion can be drawn simply looking casually at the figures given.

There are a huge number of factors at play. He is comparing data from countries where rates of known cases vary wildly, countries with different demographics, different means of social interaction, different other strategies employed, different compliance, different health profiles, different timing and severity of lockdowns etc (all occuring simultaneously) and then stating the presence of absence of a lockdown (and he hasn’t even defined “lockdown”) has no significant effect on the number of cases.

We have no idea what would have occurred in these countries had no lockdown measures been taken. Even adjacent, very similar countries taking similar measures have had very different outcomes. Good analysis is going to be an enormously complex task.

If the only aim is to keep numbers down at all cost, then Australia and New Zealand illustrate the effectiveness of “stay at home” lockdowns implemented either extremely early for a short time or very early for an extended time (four months in Victoria when the number of cases spiked July) coupled with agressive testing and contact tracing.

Cummins is not an epidemiologist, he is a chemical engineer presenting a personal opinion in what seems to me a dogmatic way. I am very wary of information given in this manner.

I totally agree with this, every word. I was also thinking about correlation vs. causation.

As I said, Cummins has failed to make the case that lockdowns are not effective (and in my opinion this case cannot be made -- it's not true).

But the data he gives ARE VALUABLE. And true. He gives a lot of it, so the video is really valuable if simply taken with a grain of salt. What the data DO show is that lockdowns are not a silver bullet, that there is no correlation between severity of the measures and outcomes which would show that this or that measure, including lockdown, is a sine qua non to a good outcome, that this pandemic is not a unique civilization-ending event, all of which is really relevant and important to know. The data he presents might not prove everything he claims (he consistently overstates his case), but they DO prove a lot of interesting other things.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

. . . In other countries with more porous borders and a massive amount of population/travelers it is not so easy and the virus appears to be so contagious that once it is out in the wild in sufficient numbers it appears to be pretty much unstoppable, whatever you do - Look at the UK for an example where they have been in one form of a lockdown or another since the end of summer and it has made virtually no difference in slowing the spread down and currently they are now saying that 1 in 20 is testing positive in the larger populous areas like Greater London, Manchester etc, so when you hit that level of infection it is pretty much irrelevant what you do.

This might be true.

I don't agree with Cummins that we have any good reason to believe that lockdowns are altogether not effective (although I don't think we can prove the opposite, either).

I agree with SWL and with you, that short hard early lockdowns appear to have really worked in Australia and New Zealand. Since they were short, the huge cost might be offset or more than offset by the huge cost saving from not having a pandemic.

Whether months and months of lockdowns like the UK or California in conjunction with a huge infection rate are worthwhile, is much more doubtful. I really doubt it in fact. The point ALL of the Nordic health chiefs (and not just Tegnell) have made, is that once it is impossible to wipe out the virus, you need to concentrate on SUSTAINABLE measures which can be kept up for a year or more, and to avoid measures which CAN'T be sustained.

I think they are probably right. However, if hospitals start to get overwhelmed, all bets are off.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by UFO

I think you have hit the nail on the head...


We got in very early, closed international borders and internal borders and nipped the whole pandemic in the bud before it got a foothold - We have always though had very tight borders and being a very large island with minimal population helps as well.


In other countries with more porous borders and a massive amount of population/travelers it is not so easy and the virus appears to be so contagious that once it is out in the wild in sufficient numbers it appears to be pretty much unstoppable, whatever you do - Look at the UK for an example where they have been in one form of a lockdown or another since the end of summer and it has made virtually no difference in slowing the spread down and currently they are now saying that 1 in 20 is testing positive in the larger populous areas like Greater London, Manchester etc, so when you hit that level of infection it is pretty much irrelevant what you do.

I agree. I’m a anti lockdown type, I would have argued elements of the Nordic approach are better ( and actually Ireland to this day has essentially a voluntary lockdown , only the business closures required legislation and that was to provide economic relief , ie it had be an “ ordered” shutdown. We still have all our borders open etc. ( is that wise , who knows) the police have been given very few powers to police the lockdown compared to the U.K. etc.

But

We now have a positively rate of 25% and an R number of over 2.
This narrows significantly the options. You have to keep people apart , there is no other option

The view here is public health measures will run for most of 2021

For the first time, there is a real sense of fear here about Covid