Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

[ToraToraTora]

An interesting view from Peter Hitchens here. Has he got a point?

[pixie374]

I'm not trying to explain "extra " deaths, just using some recent experience. We usually have 1600 per day dying... but is now only 800+, not including the virus. That doesn't add up.

[jim360]

How does that last bit follow? We're reporting 800 Covid-19-related deaths, and don't have data yet for other deaths -- see tomorrow for more information when the ONS will tell us what's going on and whether overall daily deaths were increasing at the end of March.

[Ellipsis]

Tell you what, pixie ... I'll answer your question if you answer mine ... how do you explain those extra deaths in New York, from 25 a week without CV-19 to 24 a day with CV-19?

[pixie374]

Before covid, we had an average of 1600 deaths per day. That has apparently, nearly halved, to just over 800 per day (excluding covid). That has to be relevant... as it implies around 800 deaths a day are being attributed to it, which would have happened anyway (on average).

[pixie374]

I don't explain it, ellipsis. Why do you think I can? I'm not suggesting it doesn't
or can't cause death. I am asking about the numbers.

[jim360]

Where did you get the source for deaths halving excluding covid?

[pixie374]

Work.... lol

[pixie374]

What is your figure for "normal" deaths now?

[jim360]

I'll get back to you in about half an hour but I'm honestly lost by what you're trying to say. The only figures for death we have currently are Covid-related.

[pixie374]

No, they aren't. We always have a figure for "normal" deaths per day. My question is... why have they halved, when you exclude covid? I can only think that around half of deaths that would usually be expected anyway, are being put down to coronavirus.
Does that make sense, even if it isn't right?

[jim360]

OK, now it makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it's also wrong. Tomorrow's figures will give a better picture.

[pixie374]

Ok, thanks, please let me know x

[weecalf]

Dunno never heard the Disease ( little joke there ) okay then back to the subject

[Ellipsis]

Pixie, if you could explain the New York deaths then you would answer your own question about not being bothered about the difference between with and of ... but since you can't explain it, and you aren't listening to anybody else's explanation, we're done.

[pixie374]

I am listening.... people are dying because of coronavirus. I don't think that is even debatable. But that wasn't what I was asking.

[Ellipsis]

The point is that, in a place that reacted too late, the daily deaths is demonstrably far in excess of normal. Whether those deaths are with or of coronavirus, we would be wise not to expose our country to 5-10 times its usual number of daily deaths for weeks on end.

[jim360]

[pixie374]

Absolutely agree, ellipsis. When I gave that view at the beginning, I was told it was a knee-jerk overreaction and not possible. Although, it has been done since. Just slightly too late. I am not playing down this illness, I am just looking for the truth of it x

[New Judge]

//Exactly who, pray, is leading us to believe this is straightforward?//

The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).

There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.

I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country has imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants and shops are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…

On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. But by the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?

The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, does not, in Sweden’s case, appears to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.

[New Judge]

^^^^

Oh for an edit button :-). The last para should read:

//Exactly who, pray, is leading us to believe this is straightforward?//

The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).

There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.

I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…

On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. By the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?

The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, appears at least in Sweden’s case, to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.