Coronavirus Outbreak

[Demps]

Today the NSW Government announced new restrictions for Hunter / Newcastle from 5pm today.

There will be a 1 week snap lockdown for Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Port Stephens, Cessnock, Dungog, Singleton and Muswellbrook, ending on 12 August 2021.

From 5pm today, the Newcastle area will join Greater Sydney residents in only leaving home for limited reasons. Residents must limit their exercise and shopping to within their Local Government Area (LGA) or, if outside their LGA, within 10km from home, unless the item is not available locally.
You must carry a face mask with you at all times when you leave your home.

?

Welcome to the club, sorry.

Haha, thanks man...
Business as usual for me.

 

[tigger]

An alternative view

https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-19-lockdowns-cost?mc_cid=b3bf486161&mc_eid=03bdb4a448

Very difficult to do what this research purports to do.

We can determine that lockdowns have a cost, but the only true comparison is against a similar nation which didn't institute lockdowns.

Without lockdowns, our hospitals would probably have been overwhelmed. What is the social cost of all the elective surgery that would have been cancelled to accommodate Covid admissions? What is the impact on emergency procedures? What is the social and financial impacts of overburdened ICU's?

Would deaths and illness have disrupted our economy anyway? If so, by how much and at what cost?

It's like trying to quantify a negative. For example, we do safety audits and we know what the cost to business is of doing those audits. But we don't know what the cost is of NOT doing those audits until we stop doing them. And only then, after some time.

 

[happy_tiger]

Man in his 20s passed away over night

Unfortunately some people won't believe it.

Guessing he didn't believe in it either - he died at home. So pointless.

Yeah they mentioned it happened very quickly in the end .....guessing he may have had some pre existing conditions ....

None from what I heard, just a previously healthy guy in his twenties.

From his photos he looks like a typical healthy young bloke - not overweight or anything.

The woman in her 30s who died the other day had no underlying conditions either.

I'm not sure ...but a lot of healthy looking people can have conditions ...even being asthmatic

Hey Hap, you in Brisbane?

Gladstone

Ahk. Was going to ask how long you think the lockdown was going to run for in Bris.

Good question ......we have 66 kids under the age of 19 with the Delta variant as of yesterday in this cluster ...and seeing how kids act in my workplace ...... 3-4 weeks

Yeah I was thinking a month. No good.

Sorry those numbers i gave you weren't correct

45 under the age of 19

21 over the age of 19

66 all up ....sorry ..my bad

 

[mrem]

Australia wide, we have responded to outbreaks by activating lockdowns. This research suggests lockdowns has cost more lives than it has saved. Thus proposing an alternative view.

The report is therefore to me nonsense.

Put it this way how would we be going now without those lockdowns. Go look at the mortality rate across the world.

You have to be able to critically evaluate reports and data. Cherry picking stuff to make up a story to suit your argument is dumb.

Science is about discovering reality. That is it.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Check it out for yourself. Just filter on deaths per million people.

Sweden:- 1,438
Australia:- 36
New Zealand:- 5
Britain:- 1,904

To me it's pretty clear cut.

Maybe I'll rephrase this:-

1. Do you believe the countries with lesser lockdowns (note lockdowns have been everywhere it's a matter of scale) have performed better ? Can you justify that opinion when you look at the figures above ?
2. Do you believe some random report where you do not know the bias of the people involved or how well researched that report is over the raw data which appears pretty conclusive ?

So assuming the vaccination rate remains the same lockdowns have to be used. The thing is and this is the reason I mention vaccines the picture changes completely dependent on how many people are vaccinated.

Perhaps you could answer your own questions by reading the report yourself??

 

[Tim Sheens]

But the worry is, where it is allowed to let loose in countries that have high (but not high enough) vaccination rates, there is an increased risk of vaccine-resistant strains evolving. At least that seemed to be the fear some were expressing in relation to the UK opening right up again.

I don't buy the idea that it increases the risk of vaccine-resistant strains evolving. Don't get me wrong it's true but we have a population of 25 odd million. America has 100 million unvaccinated peope. China and India have huge numbers of people.

My point is that I doubt that Australia is the high risk country when it comes to new strains evolving.

I feel the same way about having everyone vaccinated here. Sure it's better but it's not going to stop new variants popping up all over the world.

The delta variant came form India but now it's the dominant strain across the world.

Yeah sorry didn't mean to imply Australia was a likely place for that happening.

I didn't think you were. It's a common argument but I think it's a bit overdone. If we are talking world wide that is a different story.

Thing is it only takes one single anomaly in many millions of common strands to change some of it's characteristics and that could occur anywhere at anytime and may already have.

 

[mrem]

An alternative view

https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-19-lockdowns-cost?mc_cid=b3bf486161&mc_eid=03bdb4a448

Very difficult to do what this research purports to do.

We can determine that lockdowns have a cost, but the only true comparison is against a similar nation which didn't institute lockdowns.

Without lockdowns, our hospitals would probably have been overwhelmed. What is the social cost of all the elective surgery that would have been cancelled to accommodate Covid admissions? What is the impact on emergency procedures? What is the social and financial impacts of overburdened ICU's?

Would deaths and illness have disrupted our economy anyway? If so, by how much and at what cost?

It's like trying to quantify a negative. For example, we do safety audits and we know what the cost to business is of doing those audits. But we don't know what the cost is of NOT doing those audits until we stop doing them. And only then, after some time.

It is absolutely difficult to quantify what would have happened if you chose another path. Modelling is one way to provide an estimate. Comparing the results with similar countries is another. However, it is often a poor choice, because too many of the variables are different ie. different demographics, cultures, geography etc.

The article specifically spoke about 'not letting it rip' but being more targeted. So it is not about lockdown vs. no lockdown.

Finally, comparing alternative options to ones that have been taken happen all the time. If they didn't we would never move from the status quo

 

[Tim Sheens]

Think this is appropriate in this thread as it pertains to the public having the right to know how National Cabinet comes to it's decisions on our situation and futures.


Rex Patrick is a great advocate for the transparency us citizens deserve and has had a preliminary win in gaining us knowledge.
.


 

[mrem]

An alternative view

https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-19-lockdowns-cost?mc_cid=b3bf486161&mc_eid=03bdb4a448

I know that I take such things into account and am pretty sure the majority of others also give them similar consideration.

Nearly day on day record calls to Lifeline and other services clearly illustrates the despair many feel and I am certain that some of them are suffering because of being left behind in eligibility for governmental assistance, which whilst appreciated, still not wide enough.

I didn't know about the record number of calls to Lifeline. That's quite sad.

I suppose I consider the argument in the report as an alternative view as it seems almost as a reflex we lockdown to contain the outbreak. We report daily Covid numbers/hospitalisation/deaths but no other statistics, such as the one you mentioned above...

 

[earl]

Perhaps you could answer your own questions by reading the report yourself??

I did. You asked if it was any good. I read it. I analyzed it. It's nonsense.

Extremely poor made up data. Conclusions that are easily rebuked with simple checks of mortality rate per million people. Clearly the countries who implemented lockdowns quicker and more effectively have suffered the least amount of damage.

I'm not one to criticize the current NSW government. I've been saying how good a job they've been doing. Clearly though it would have been better if we were completely locked down as soon as we had one case. I'm not convinced we are going to get this outbreak under control ever. That isn't a prediction. It's just it isn't looking good.

One more point is that the Delta strain is a lot more contagious. So NSW did follow a very light touch lockdown approach with contact tracing. It was perfect for that point in time. It's not effective now.

 

[earl]

But the worry is, where it is allowed to let loose in countries that have high (but not high enough) vaccination rates, there is an increased risk of vaccine-resistant strains evolving. At least that seemed to be the fear some were expressing in relation to the UK opening right up again.

I don't buy the idea that it increases the risk of vaccine-resistant strains evolving. Don't get me wrong it's true but we have a population of 25 odd million. America has 100 million unvaccinated peope. China and India have huge numbers of people.

My point is that I doubt that Australia is the high risk country when it comes to new strains evolving.

I feel the same way about having everyone vaccinated here. Sure it's better but it's not going to stop new variants popping up all over the world.

The delta variant came form India but now it's the dominant strain across the world.

Yeah sorry didn't mean to imply Australia was a likely place for that happening.

I didn't think you were. It's a common argument but I think it's a bit overdone. If we are talking world wide that is a different story.

Thing is it only takes one single anomaly in many millions of common strands to change some of it's characteristics and that could occur anywhere at anytime and may already have.

I get it. It's already happened. The delta strain is a mutation. It's going to keep happening. We've got to hope that immunity with the vaccination works going forward. This has always been the case though.

Viruses so far haven't killed us off. I'm not stating it couldn't happen but typically you get enough deaths and the virus passes.

Don't get me wrong it'd be preferable to vaccinate every person in the entire world. The pandemic would be over the next day. It's not going to happen though.

 

[earl]

I suppose I consider the argument in the report as an alternative view as it seems almost as a reflex we lockdown to contain the outbreak.

Do you understand why this may be the case ?

 

[tigger]

An alternative view

https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-19-lockdowns-cost?mc_cid=b3bf486161&mc_eid=03bdb4a448

Very difficult to do what this research purports to do.

We can determine that lockdowns have a cost, but the only true comparison is against a similar nation which didn't institute lockdowns.

Without lockdowns, our hospitals would probably have been overwhelmed. What is the social cost of all the elective surgery that would have been cancelled to accommodate Covid admissions? What is the impact on emergency procedures? What is the social and financial impacts of overburdened ICU's?

Would deaths and illness have disrupted our economy anyway? If so, by how much and at what cost?

It's like trying to quantify a negative. For example, we do safety audits and we know what the cost to business is of doing those audits. But we don't know what the cost is of NOT doing those audits until we stop doing them. And only then, after some time.

It is absolutely difficult to quantify what would have happened if you chose another path. Modelling is one way to provide an estimate. Comparing the results with similar countries is another. However, it is often a poor choice, because too many of the variables are different ie. different demographics, cultures, geography etc.

The article specifically spoke about 'not letting it rip' but being more targeted. So it is not about lockdown vs. no lockdown.

Finally, comparing alternative options to ones that have been taken happen all the time. If they didn't we would never move from the status quo

Yes. You're right in what you say.

To fully understand the research, we would need to know what assumptions have been made in relation to the alternative scenarios (i.e. lockdown v more targeted approaches) and what the sensitivities are for each of the assumptions being made.

So still very difficult and likely to result in a range of possible outcomes rather than absolute outcomes.

 

[mrem]

Australia wide, we have responded to outbreaks by activating lockdowns. This research suggests lockdowns has cost more lives than it has saved. Thus proposing an alternative view.

The report is therefore to me nonsense.

Put it this way how would we be going now without those lockdowns. Go look at the mortality rate across the world.

You have to be able to critically evaluate reports and data. Cherry picking stuff to make up a story to suit your argument is dumb.

Science is about discovering reality. That is it.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Check it out for yourself. Just filter on deaths per million people.

Sweden:- 1,438
Australia:- 36
New Zealand:- 5
Britain:- 1,904

To me it's pretty clear cut.

Maybe I'll rephrase this:-

1. Do you believe the countries with lesser lockdowns (note lockdowns have been everywhere it's a matter of scale) have performed better ? Can you justify that opinion when you look at the figures above ?
2. Do you believe some random report where you do not know the bias of the people involved or how well researched that report is over the raw data which appears pretty conclusive ?

So assuming the vaccination rate remains the same lockdowns have to be used. The thing is and this is the reason I mention vaccines the picture changes completely dependent on how many people are vaccinated.

Wow, a pretty aggressive response here. I'll do my best to respond to the questions.

1. How do you define better? Is it simply number of deaths due to Covid? If that was the only metric, the optimal policy response would, at the beginning of the crisis, weld everyone's door shut and only let people out when the virus has been totally eradicated. As this didn't happen, one could suggest metrics other than Covid deaths should be included to determine 'better'. The report I attached was looking at metrics other than Covid deaths to determine optimal policy response. That is why I welcomed it into the discussion.

You talk about intellectual dishonesty, I would suggest that basing arguments on univariate correlations for an undoubtedly multivariate problem could also be classified as intellectually dishonest. These figures you show are only Covid deaths and they do not take into account population density, the number of positive cases within a community before Covid was known, structure of the health system, general health of the population, deaths from non-covid reasons etc. The figures you provide above tell me very little about the success of lockdowns.

I should also stress the report does not propose no lockdowns, but rather tries to estimate the differences between mitigation vs. elimination strategies.

2. This is the bio of the author. I'll let you judge her research credentials. Note, Quantitative Economics and the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization are A* journals which are the highest ranked journals as judged by the Australian Business Deans Council. As to her biases, I can't answer that.


Gigi Foster is a Professor with the School of Economics at the University of New South Wales, having joined UNSW in 2009 after six years at the University of South Australia. Formally educated at Yale University (BA in Ethics, Politics, and Economics) and the University of Maryland (PhD in Economics), she works in diverse fields including education, social influence, corruption, lab experiments, time use, behavioural economics, and Australian policy. Her research contributions regularly inform public debates and appear in both specialised and cross-disciplinary outlets (e.g., Quantitative Economics, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Population Economics, Journal of Economic Psychology, Human Relations). Her teaching, featuring strategic innovation and integration with research, was awarded a 2017 Australian Awards for University Teaching (AAUT) Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning. Named 2019 Young Economist of the Year by the Economic Society of Australia, Professor Foster has filled numerous roles of service to the profession and engages heavily on economic matters with the Australian community. As one of Australia’s leading economics communicators, her regular media appearances include co-hosting The Economists, a national economics talk-radio program and podcast series premiered in 2018, with Peter Martin AM on ABC Radio National.

 

[mrem]

I suppose I consider the argument in the report as an alternative view as it seems almost as a reflex we lockdown to contain the outbreak.

Do you understand why this may be the case ?

It could be the case for multiple reasons. One, it is popular with some parts of the electorate?

 

[earl]

I suppose I consider the argument in the report as an alternative view as it seems almost as a reflex we lockdown to contain the outbreak.

Do you understand why this may be the case ?

It could be the case for multiple reasons. One, it is popular with some parts of the electorate?

It's due to not wanting people to die. You should recognize that. I'm not a fan of lockdowns but it's better to face the issue directly and be transparent when it comes to what is being discussed.

People dying is not a good look.

It's cool to discuss the issue or at least it is as far as I'm concerned but be open and willing to look at the facts.

 

[earl]

These figures you show are only Covid deaths and they do not take into account population density, the number of positive cases

Let's face the facts. I'll state I'm not even against your point of view. The figures I gave you are the best data you can get. They are really good data points because they are all developed countries that have implemented differing levels of lockdowns. Those figures are also per million to ensure that we are comparing apples to apples.

The figures provided are the gold standard determining how effective the fight has been within those countries against COVID in relation to deaths while taking into account the population size. You won't get better figures.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Just had my 1st pfizzer vax ..
All good

I thought you were an AZ guy?

Nah mate

It's 6 hours since I had my first AZ vaccination. At this stage, my arm hasn't dropped off. I'm going to leave my options open. My brother in law warned me he was sick for two weeks after. Apparently the man flu from hell struck. The only cure was two or three glasses of whiskey per night. My sister wasn't sick at all :blush: :blush:

 

[earl]

I should also stress the report does not propose no lockdowns, but rather tries to estimate the differences between mitigation vs. elimination strategies.

I get this. The data is trollop though. It's an opinion argument which I'm cool with but that data is low quality. A multivariate analysis using bad data is a poor piece of analysis. I work with data.

I'll explain something to you. No one cares about that report because it's a fringe piece in the middle of nowhere with poor data that doesn't help one little bit.

If you have an opinion on lockdowns that is cool but it's an opinion. I also have an opinion on lockdowns and probably lots of people have different opinions.

 

[mrem]

I suppose I consider the argument in the report as an alternative view as it seems almost as a reflex we lockdown to contain the outbreak.

Do you understand why this may be the case ?

It could be the case for multiple reasons. One, it is popular with some parts of the electorate?

It's due to not wanting people to die. You should recognize that. I'm not a fan of lockdowns but it's better to face the issue directly and be transparent when it comes to what is being discussed.

People dying is not a good look.

It's cool to discuss the issue or at least it is as far as I'm concerned but be open and willing to look at the facts.

There is only one of us here trying to look at all the facts.