Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Beer...hmmm, I'd prefer a glass of whiskey.
Influenza in epidemic form made its appearance in the army camps of the United States during March, 1918.... Influenza became epidemic in Spain about the middle of May and in other countries received the name "Spanish influenza" which is not more applicable than the designation "Russian influenza" often applied to the disease during the pandemic of 1889–90.
In his tweet he quotes an economist, who appears to have no medical background. This is the first I have heard that putting people in quarantine/lockdown was not effective.
Health officials in countries with around the world, with governments of all types, have instituted lockdowns, based on science. I am going to assume for the moment that they have a better understanding of public health than a newspaper reporter and an economist.
this might be a good place to start for people interested in the lockdown effectiveness issue.
Lockdown Effectiveness Studies Roundup | National Review
The National Review?
lol
It is a politically slanted conservative mouth peace. It's on the same level as CNN, Breitbart, Fox News and Huffpost for lack reliability due to its slanted bias.
To expand on this, and give some perspective:
Tasmania, population ~537k, 226 cases, 13 deaths., 0 active cases
Closest US states in terms of population are Wyoming and Vermont.
Wyoming, (~579k pop) 1,179 cases, 20 deaths, 263 active cases
Vermont, (~623k pop), 1,147 case, 56 deaths, 171 active cases
Neither Wyoming or Vermont have cities the size of Greater Hobart (~240k) or Launceston (~87k). The disease spreads most easily in more populated areas.
The National Review is a bias publication, but the article contained about 30 links to actual studies on the topic. A much better example of useful journalism than just another news articles that skews facts or expresses hypocritical opinions. I will channel my inner Rod Sterling here but ... picture, if you will, a society were people research topics and weigh information and data from multiple and contradictory sources and arguments to reach there own conclusions rather than following the lead of some talking head with a political agenda to push or cower to the current radical chic.
Unless it is an independent study with no bias, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
We will agree to disagree. Anyone can pick and choose studies that agree with their bias. Unless it is an independent study with no bias, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
No side, Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, has a monopoly on good or bad ideas.
I have yet to meet the human being without bias... Isn't that part of the Human condition?
No side, Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, has a monopoly on good or bad ideas.
I have yet to meet the human being without bias... Isn't that part of the Human condition?
Although I am no fan of the National Review, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
No side, Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, has a monopoly on good or bad ideas.
I hate to say it but in the present political climate in multiple countries an independent study and independent peer review are !@#$%^&* near impossible to find.
The National Review is a bias publication, but the article contained about 30 links to actual studies on the topic. A much better example of useful journalism than just another news articles that skews facts or expresses hypocritical opinions. I will channel my inner Rod Sterling here but ... picture, if you will, a society were people research topics and weigh information and data from multiple and contradictory sources and arguments to reach there own conclusions rather than following the lead of some talking head with a political agenda to push or cower to the current radical chic.
"Do Lockdowns Work? A Counterfactual for Sweden." This study compares Sweden with a "synthetic" version of Sweden, a mix of other countries that had similar trends pre-lockdown: 39 percent Netherlands, 26 percent Denmark, 19 percent Finland, 15 percent Norway, and 1 percent Portugal. The upshot is that the real Sweden had no more deaths than the fake Sweden. The real Sweden saw a lot of voluntary social distancing, but its mobility rates didn't fall quite as much as the fake Sweden's did.
"Full Lockdown Policies in Western Europe Countries Have No Evident Impacts on the COVID-19 Epidemic." This one looks at "full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom" and finds "no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends."
Finally, Carl Quintanilla of CNBC recently circulated an analysis from JPMorgan pointing out that the states that have reopened haven't seen the virus take off. This could imply that the lockdowns never did anything, that these states' replacement policies were adequate, or simply that a spike is still to come.
I think anyone arguing that lockdown is not efficient is not thinking clearly.
I think a much more interesting debate is how strict this lockdown has to be. So at what point do extra measurements stop being significant.
For instance The Netherlands and Belgium are demographically quite similar. The pandemic reached these countries almost simultaneously. While the Belgians has a very strict lockdown, we had slightly less so. Still in both countries the curve seems to be the same. The number of ICU patients started to decline at about the same moment with the same rate. Based on that, admittedly single, example, one could argue that the extra measures taken by the Belgians were not significant. One could argue that the NL did it slightly better as the little bit more freedom lessened the mental burden for the population.
On the other hand, both countries fared better than Brazil, so both lockdowns seem to be more efficient than doing nothing.
Admittedly this is pure anecdotal evidence, so maybe these observations should be taken with a grain of salt.
One remark about the efficiency of the New Zealand lockdown is that NZ are islands in the middle of a big ocean, while European countries are not. So more has to be considered when comparing countries at how well they did.