COVID-19 Map worldwide, with statistics

[ronsatspokane]

I think that was that Ferguson chap at Imperial College.

How many of the 100,000 deaths here were of Covid-19 and not really just with Covid-19? Nearly all deaths have been with comorbidities. That fact is just impossible to circumnavigate.
-

I enjoyed the meme posted in the lighter side thread: and suddenly in 2020, no one died from natural causes.

 

[JEFFPPC]

Lots of “statistics” on all sides of this issue have been shared on this thread. If you don’t have the wherewithal to sift through them, might I suggest you place this thread on your ignore list?

Jim, I hope to wake up some who are being led around by hysteria.If we loaded our ammunition with info like this we would blow our guns and ourselves up, instead we are blowing up our Republic.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Sweden's economy is suffering almost as much as its neighbors. No surprises there. The best example of crisis management outside of Asia is New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Australia). Decisive action, even if they weren't the fastest to close borders; clear and sensible leadership; a population that for the most part trusts their elected government; a population with - it seems - a larger degree of commonsense. After a complete and successful lockdown the virus is basically gone and the domestic economy almost fully reopened and back to normal. A recovery in tourism remains a long way off but it won't be long before the border reopens with Australia. Job done. Bloody clever those kiwis.

Thank god Donald Trump closed off travel from China then. All the while the left was denigrating him as a racist and xenophobe. He likely flattened the curve in doing so more than any other actions taken since.

 

[SGK]

You have been advocating for slowing via locking down the worlds population. That is the path most of the world chose. Sweden took a different path. It boils down to the age old question, one in the head or three in the gut? Sweden chose one in the head. The rest of the world has yet to take all three in the gut. In two or three years when the science is in we will have a valid basis for comparison of the two approaches. For now, everyone is quoting point data as if the data itself were science and proof that their preferred approach is correct. Everyone is full of shite.

Nah. I've always said that once you missed the opportunity to react as NZ did, your only choice was to manage the virus through the population in a manner which didn't overload the healthcare system. Lock-down to buy time to prepare and then manage the flow thereafter. I've just been realistic enough to: (1) understand that this thing isn't "much less worse than the regular 'flu" or "annual driving fatalities", (2) believe it will have an enormous economic impact simply as a result of basic human behavioral reactions regardless of whether there are any or many governmental directives and (3) realise that if you are in a risk category, either by virtue of age, race or particular pre-existing conditions, you have to be pretty freakin' stupid to not make commonsense adjustments to your lifestyle. Sensibly, we avoided the "unchecked" scenario because when healthcare infrastructure (my business BTW) gets overloaded then all hell breaks loose. We're just working that big fat-laden pile of sausage meat through the sausage stuffer and hoping the casing doesn't break again. I'm pretty confident Toby will be fine on his 200k bet unfortunately. Hopefully I'm wrong, but so far things are tracking about as expected.

 

[Laurie]

Compare Sweeden to Italy.

While I have a lot of sympathy for the main drift of your thinking, Sweden and Northern Italy (where most Italian cases occurred) are in no way comparable societies. Sweden has the highest percentage of single-occupant homes in Europe by a large margin, even in Stockholm making it very different from most other medium to large cities anywhere. Northern Italian industrial towns and cities by contrast in many cases consist of densely packed old buildings and crucially often see three, even four generations living under one roof. (Young Italian men marry and leave home far later than their peers in other western countries for a mix of financial and cultural reasons for example.) The early pre-lockdown stages of the pandemic saw young adults using public transport, going to work, socialising widely and returning home to unknowingly spread the virus to grandpa and grandma while still asymptomatic.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Nah. I've always said that once you missed the opportunity to react as NZ did, your only choice was to manage the virus through the population in a manner which didn't overload the healthcare system. Lock-down to buy time to prepare and then manage the flow thereafter. I've just been realistic enough to: (1) understand that this thing isn't "much less worse than the regular 'flu" or "annual driving fatalities", (2) believe it will have an enormous economic impact simply as a result of basic human behavioral reactions regardless of whether there are any or many governmental directives and (3) realise that if you are in a risk category, either by virtue of age, race or particular pre-existing conditions, you have to be pretty freakin' stupid to not make commonsense adjustments to your lifestyle. Sensibly, we avoided the "unchecked" scenario because when healthcare infrastructure (my business BTW) gets overloaded then all hell breaks loose. We're just working that big fat-laden pile of sausage meat through the sausage stuffer and hoping the casing doesn't break again. I'm pretty confident Toby will be fine on his 200k bet unfortunately. Hopefully I'm wrong, but so far things are tracking about as expected.

That is about as clear as any statements you have made. Thank you for that. So is it your belief that "flattening" the curve only serves to slow the infection but has no impact on the final outcome (as the epidemiologists have said and as the pitch from politicians has been) or do you believe that the flattening has actually impacted the final outcome?

I can see an argument for isolation resulting in herd immunity being reached earlier given that isolation, in effect, artificially reduces the population. If the virus runs its course in the non-isolated population prior to the bulk of the populations doors being unlocked, then the show is over when people emerge into the light. That approach however will result in even greater tolls due to the issues associated with lockdown. Issue like missed cancer and other medical diagnosis, mental health, failing economies leading to starvation and many other problems.

Of course application of the scientific method will be needed to determine truth.

 

[Evan]

Anyone interested in what a "do nothing" approach looks like should check out what is happening in Brazil.

 

[ronsatspokane]

While I have a lot of sympathy for the main drift of your thinking, Sweden and Northern Italy (where most Italian cases occurred) are in no way comparable societies. Sweden has the highest percentage of single-occupant homes in Europe by a large margin, even in Stockholm making it very different from most other medium to large cities anywhere. Northern Italian industrial towns and cities by contrast in many cases consist of densely packed old buildings and crucially often see three, even four generations living under one roof. (Young Italian men marry and leave home far later than their peers in other western countries for a mix of financial and cultural reasons for example.) The early pre-lockdown stages of the pandemic saw young adults using public transport, going to work, socialising widely and returning home to unknowingly spread the virus to grandpa and grandma while still asymptomatic.

You forgot to mention that the Swedes don't like each other and social distance is a matter of culture while the Italians love everyone.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Anyone interested in what a "do nothing" approach looks like should check out what is happening in Brazil.

Sounds like a vote for isolation of the population. is it your contention that isolation will mitigate the final result?

 

[JimT]

Sweden's economy is suffering almost as much as its neighbors. No surprises there. The best example of crisis management outside of Asia is New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Australia). Decisive action, even if they weren't the fastest to close borders; clear and sensible leadership; a population that for the most part trusts their elected government; a population with - it seems - a larger degree of commonsense. After a complete and successful lockdown the virus is basically gone and the domestic economy almost fully reopened and back to normal. A recovery in tourism remains a long way off but it won't be long before the border reopens with Australia. Job done. Bloody clever those kiwis.

In this sort of situation there is a lot to be said for a compliant and domesticated populace. Btw, Jacinda’s approval rating is just 2 points higher than Trump’s as of May.

 

[DRNewcomb]

There is a fundamental difference between flattening the curve and achieving herd immunity. Herd immunity will be reached regardless of the degree of lockdown. It cannot be stopped. It can only be slowed. .....

The governor of my state (Mississippi) has always been crystal clear about the purpose of the emergency restrictions. It's always been, to assure that anyone who can get better though quality medical care, has access to that care. In other words, it's to protect the ability of the state's hospitals to care for the sick so that doctors don't have to decide who gets to live and who dies. To accomplish this we had to slow the spread of the disease to give the domestic supply chain an opportunity to produce enough ventilators, PPE and meds to care for everyone who needs medical care. The objective has never been to stop anyone from dying of the disease and so far 670 Mississippians have died of the disease. Mississippi's "lockdown" has never been as severe as some other states. For instance, we never shut down outdoor construction projects. You could buy socks and birdseed at Walmart. Churches were never ordered to close, although almost all did so voluntarily. Gun stores were declared "essential". Although we canceled matches, the local shooting clubs stayed open for socially-distant shooting. I personally know someone who was hospitalized with COVID-19. So, maybe from my perspective, this has all been much more reasonable than it might seem to someone from, say, Michigan or California.

 

[Evan]

Sounds like a vote for isolation of the population. is it your contention that isolation will mitigate the final result?

I think we needed to isolate, but we've now bought the time we needed to gear up the health care systems and the benefits of continuing in isolation are rapidly shrinking. I do strongly advocate wearing a mask everywhere and practicing higher standards of hygiene, more for the benefit of protecting others than for protecting myself. I don't know if I have COVID, so wearing a mask and washing my hands frequently will help prevent spreading it to others. If everyone does this, it will slow the spread and make sure our hospitals have more resources to help people with severe symptoms.

 

[ronsatspokane]

The governor of my state (Mississippi) has always been crystal clear about the purpose of the emergency restrictions. It's always been, to assure that anyone who can get better though quality medical care, has access to that care. In other words, it's to protect the ability of the state's hospitals to care for the sick so that doctors don't have to decide who gets to live and who dies. To accomplish this we had to slow the spread of the disease to give the domestic supply chain an opportunity to produce enough ventilators, PPE and meds to care for everyone who needs medical care. The objective has never been to stop anyone from dying of the disease and so far 670 Mississippians have died of the disease. Mississippi's "lockdown" has never been as severe as some other states. For instance, we never shut down outdoor construction projects. You could buy socks and birdseed at Walmart. Churches were never ordered to close, although almost all did so voluntarily. Gun stores were declared "essential". Although we canceled matches, the local shooting clubs stayed open for socially-distant shooting. I personally know someone who was hospitalized with COVID-19. So, maybe from my perspective, this has all been much more reasonable than it might seem to someone from, say, Michigan or California.

That was the apolitical pitch early on and most accepted it. In some states like mine the pitch has now changed. The goal was reached in WA long ago but the state remains in lockdown. WA was thought to be the first state impacted and it is where the first deaths occurred. It is now known that it was much more wide spread earlier than originally thought but still, WA remains in lockdown. The only areas severely impacted were Seattle and the surrounding area but the entire state remains in lockdown. Only recently did the governor agree to let parts of the state partially open up. Might have had something to do with all the "Fuck Inslee" bumper stickers and the fact that most of the state was ignoring the governor of Seattle anyway. This was always going to be a citizen driven reopening as most politicians do not have the courage to free their people and some do not want to free their people believing that economic destruction is their path to victory in the next election.

 

[SGK]

So is it your belief that "flattening" the curve only serves to slow the infection but has no impact on the final outcome

No that's not what I said. I've also been consistent in my statements. Flattening can substantially reduce the final death quota (and this is consistent with the views of leading epidemiologists). Amongst other things, healthcare infrastructure isn't overloaded (when it is, people who would otherwise survive the virus end up dying from it) and in fact is expanded - facilities (temporary or otherwise) added or planned facilities accelerated and equipment (everything from ventilators to PPE) purchased to better meet demand - the population is educated about the effects of the virus, more is learnt about treatment and those most at risk etc plus time is gained for developing a vaccine. [We have been in the midst of the surreal activity of states competing with other states for supplies of equipment. It has been extraordinary.] But certainly the fat lady hasn't sung until most of the population has been vaccinated with a vaccine proven to deliver immunity (and not some other complication along with it) or we've all got antibodies post infection that provide immunity. There's a lot of unknowns as to when that will be achieved but I'd back science on this one.

It's been obvious from the outset that a lock-down was only going to be sustainable for a relatively short period of time. The big question was how wisely that time would be used. It's also been obvious that, absent a NZ scenario, we would have to adapt to be able to live with the virus for quite a long period of time (say, 12-18 months at least) and that those most vulnerable would have to take extra precautions or risk the consequences.

Adapting is going to be a challenge, particularly for densely populated areas where people depend on things like public transport, high-rise office buildings and apartment blocks. It's less challenging in rural areas although rural areas in the US have been suffering from falling levels of hospital infrastructure for many years. Just imagine the complexities facing business management of, for example, how to get, say, 5,000 employees up 30 floors and into their offices and out again in the evening. Two to three in an elevator at any one time? It would take hours for people to get to their desks. And what if they depend on densely packed Tube or Subway trains or buses to get to work? (I can tell it's unlikely you've ever had the pleasure of traveling on the Jubilee Line in rush-hour London commuter traffic.) Whether it be open plan offices with many sharing the same room or tightly packed work environments like abattoirs and food processing plants, there are lots of challenges ahead. You can't produce much if a significant portion of your labour force is absent due to sickness or fear of getting ill. Of course people are going to continue working from home if they can and significant accommodations will need to be made for those that can't. And of course production efficiencies are going to fall in some areas where the challenges are most acute.

The initial shock is dissipating. Now the battle enters a different and, in my view, an even more challenging phase. Unfortunately the risk of virus contraction for the vulnerable and the stupid is now greater than it's been to date. Hopefully we are better equipped to save those we can. Or maybe we all wake up tomorrow to find it's all just been a bad dream.

 

[SGK]

In this sort of situation there is a lot to be said for a compliant and domesticated populace. Btw, Jacinda’s approval rating is just 2 points higher than Trump’s as of May.

Not "compliant" or "domesticated" (whatever the fack that means in this context) but, yes, a large degree of common sense and pragmatism helps a lot.

Yeah, I didn't vote for her and I disagree very much with her economic policies. The National Party (the republican / conservative equivalent in NZ) was complacent in their expectation to hold power in the last elections. Her inability to deliver on election promises has led to low approval ratings. But she has proven to be a wise, charismatic and sensible leader throughout the crises in her tenure. Quite the Anti-Donald in that regard.

 

[SGK]

This was always going to be a citizen driven reopening as most politicians do not have the courage to free their people and some do not want to free their people believing that economic destruction is their path to victory in the next election.

You REALLY should run for governor. Or at least mayor of somewhere. I'd come to your rallies just to observe the spectacle. It'd be better than MSM TV. Come on - give it a go!

 

[ronsatspokane]

No that's not what I said. I've also been consistent in my statements. Flattening can substantially reduce the final death quota (and this is consistent with the views of leading epidemiologists). Amongst other things, healthcare infrastructure isn't overloaded (when it is, people who would otherwise survive the virus end up dying from it) and in fact is expanded - facilities (temporary or otherwise) added or planned facilities accelerated and equipment (everything from ventilators to PPE) purchased to better meet demand - the population is educated about the effects of the virus, more is learnt about treatment and those most at risk etc plus time is gained for developing a vaccine. [We have been in the midst of the surreal activity of states competing with other states for supplies of equipment. It has been extraordinary.] But certainly the fat lady hasn't sung until most of the population has been vaccinated with a vaccine proven to deliver immunity (and not some other complication along with it) or we've all got antibodies post infection that provide immunity. There's a lot of unknowns as to when that will be achieved but I'd back science on this one.

It's been obvious from the outset that a lock-down was only going to be sustainable for a relatively short period of time. The big question was how wisely that time would be used. It's also been obvious that, absent a NZ scenario, we would have to adapt to be able to live with the virus for quite a long period of time (say, 12-18 months at least) and that those most vulnerable would have to take extra precautions or risk the consequences.

Adapting is going to be a challenge, particularly for densely populated areas where people depend on things like public transport, high-rise office buildings and apartment blocks. It's less challenging in rural areas although rural areas in the US have been suffering from falling levels of hospital infrastructure for many years. Just imagine the complexities facing business management of, for example, how to get, say, 5,000 employees up 30 floors and into their offices and out again in the evening. Two to three in an elevator at any one time? It would take hours for people to get to their desks. And what if they depend on densely packed Tube or Subway trains or buses to get to work? (I can tell it's unlikely you've ever had the pleasure of traveling on the Jubilee Line in rush-hour London commuter traffic.) Whether it be open plan offices with many sharing the same room or tightly packed work environments like abattoirs and food processing plants, there are lots of challenges ahead. You can't produce much if a significant portion of your labour force is absent due to sickness or fear of getting ill. Of course people are going to continue working from home if they can and significant accommodations will need to be made for those that can't. And of course production efficiencies are going to fall in some areas where the challenges are most acute.

The initial shock is dissipating. Now the battle enters a different and, in my view, an even more challenging phase. Unfortunately the risk of virus contraction for the vulnerable and the stupid is now greater than it's been to date. Hopefully we are better equipped to save those we can. Or maybe we all wake up tomorrow to find it's all just been a bad dream.

You keep referring to the New Zealand model. New Zealand is an island with a population of only 4 million. Before the virus ever made it to New Zealand it was already a pandemic in the rest of the world. New Zealand saw that and pulled a Donald Trump. Smart move on their part as they were able to cut interfaces to the rest of the world before they were impacted. Much of the rest of the world did not have the opportunity to see how it was going to play out and were already impacted by the time they understood. So goes the spread of pandemics. Geographically, culturally and economically isolated regions of the world have time. Some make use of that time, some don't. New Zealand did, Brazil didn't.

As far as the vulnerable and stupid, that would constitute the entire worlds population. As I have said a number of times in this thread. We live on Pandora. The difference being that it is not large toothy creatures trying to devour us, the creatures that are can only be seen under a microscope and they are ever present. Be they viral, bacterial, community spread, insect spread, cancers or tragedies of our own making (as in auto accidents), death stalks us all on a daily basis. Few are aware yet civilization has managed to survive. If we are to fret, which threat vector should we fret about the most? The current advertised one or the ones that are killing millions around the world every year such as cancer?

Philosophically speaking, Homosapians are not all that different from the common Water Buffalo. During the annual migration of the Water Buffalo the herd comes to a river. As they cross, alligators take a few. The herd moves on. We as a species have not yet crossed that river. It may well be that I will be one who is snagged by an alligator before the herd crosses. Only time will tell. Few things are certain. One that is is that some who were the best prepared and most diligent in their hygiene practices were taken by this alligator. People in your field, healthcare workers. Another is that I will be snagged by an alligator at some point and so will you. When that happens, the herd will move on. Such is life. Sounds heartless but it is true.

 

[ronsatspokane]

You REALLY should run for governor. Or at least mayor of somewhere. I'd come to your rallies just to observe the spectacle. It'd be better than MSM TV. Come on - give it a go!

Here in the US I am in a much better position. Our government is owned by its citizens. I am already in charge. That does not mean that my employee's (government functionaries) do not require the occasional bitch slapping you understand.

 

[Brians356]

Maybe a pic with Trump in it will make y'all remember that the 1.5-2.2 million scenario was the "no intervention" scenario. We just clocked through the low end of the "with intervention" scenario. Eyes Wide Shut.

The "no intervention" outcome (1.5M+ deaths in the US) was a fantasy, and never would have happened even with zero government "intervention". The curve would have flattened anyway because of the instant and constant communication we enjoy (or hate) today. Enough people would have been frightened enough to avoid crowds and looked to their personal hygiene to flatten the curve. The only argument is over the degree of flattening. The models certainly have never been correct at any stage of this, and IHME in particular has floundered almost comically like a fish out of water.
-

 

[Laurie]

You forgot to mention that the Swedes don't like each other and social distance is a matter of culture while the Italians love everyone.

Yup, that may well be true - especially of the Italians if you're female, have a nice bottom and travel standing on crush-loaded public transport. (A comely lady friend who travelled the length and breadth of Italy by train a good few years back said she was black and blue after some journeys, she was 'pinched' so often ........ of course, political correctness may have stopped this practice now, but if not it's another custom that Covid has stopped in its tracks!)