Coronavirus Outbreak

[Merlot]

and the stats have been out for the last 45 years that 3 eggs a week may/ or may not benefit ,your health.depending on many scientists,economic factors,etc.etc.and it still is not a clear answer

 

[Geo]

34 yo dies from clots after AZ vaccine

 

[tigger]

Lockdown No. 6 starts in Vic at 8pm tonight. Meh.
Halfway through painting my son's apartment. One very long drawn out job.
Still, could be worse. At least we're all healthy

 

[mrem]

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.

But the figures you provide only talk to the number of people that have died from Covid in each country. They say very little about the effectiveness of the policy response for the reasons I have stated before. Working with data, you should be well aware of the whole correlation vs causation issue, right?

 

[mike]

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.

Foster has been pushing this view since day 1 of the Pandemic, around March 2019. It’s changed slightly and Foster has accepted lockdowns as long as they are targeted but that wasn’t always the case.

I’ll say what I said then, I would never take health advice from an economist. They are like a tradesman when your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything as if it was a nail. I’ll be sticking with the health professionals advice.

Are lockdowns the way out of the current outbreaks? My view is not on their own, vaccinations will be the main defence moving forward and the way out of lockdowns. That is the current advice from the health professionals.

 

[tony soprano]

Thoughts and prayers to the lady that died from the astrazeneca vaccine

 

[mike]

Thoughts and prayers to the lady that died from the astrazeneca vaccine

Yes indeed, very sad.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Correct me if im wrong, but everyone whose dying, seems to be dying after AZ

 

[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.

Foster has been pushing this view since day 1 of the Pandemic, around March 2019. It’s changed slightly and Foster has accepted lockdowns as long as they are targeted but that wasn’t always the case.

I’ll say what I said then, I would never take health advice from an economist. They are like a tradesman when your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything as if it was a nail. I’ll be sticking with the health professionals advice.

Are lockdowns the way out of the current outbreaks? My view is not on their own, vaccinations will be the main defence moving forward and the way out of lockdowns. That is the current advice from the health professionals.

Maybe you should be listening to her if she was talking about the pandemic in March 2019! Haha.

Why begrudge the poor economist? Couldn't you say the same about health professionals? Is there a relationship between economic growth and health outcomes?

 

[mike]

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.

Foster has been pushing this view since day 1 of the Pandemic, around March 2019. It’s changed slightly and Foster has accepted lockdowns as long as they are targeted but that wasn’t always the case.

I’ll say what I said then, I would never take health advice from an economist. They are like a tradesman when your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything as if it was a nail. I’ll be sticking with the health professionals advice.

Are lockdowns the way out of the current outbreaks? My view is not on their own, vaccinations will be the main defence moving forward and the way out of lockdowns. That is the current advice from the health professionals.

Maybe you should be listening to her if she was talking about the pandemic in March 2019! Haha.

Why begrudge the poor economist? Couldn't you say the same about health professionals? Is there a relationship between economic growth and health outcomes?

The economy will still be there, some of us may not be if we take an health advice from economists.

 

[Tim Sheens]

34 yo dies from clots after AZ vaccine

So sad, but would be tolerable if that person had the choice of which vaccine they would like, instead having only the non-recommended variety.

I had decided to get that one before my son asked me not to as some would be aware, but it is terrible that most of our population still doesn't have at least another option available to them.

 

[tony soprano]

Correct me if im wrong, but everyone whose dying, seems to be dying after AZ

Yeah mate hence why a governing body recommended for over 60. But because pm purchased AZ only any other choice seems months away

 

[Aesopian]

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:

AZ bros before ....

Couple more weeks until my second AZ jab. All limbs still attached, and no 2nd head grown.

On a serious note, if you're an old fart who is waiting for Pfizer but could get AZ right now, you suck & you're a big fairy.....

 

[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.

But the figures you provide only talk to the number of people that have died from Covid in each country. They say very little about the effectiveness of the policy response for the reasons I have stated before. Working with data, you should be well aware of the whole correlation vs causation issue, right?

They give you a really good indication though in relation to lockdowns savings lives. Clearly the quicker and more effectively you lock down you stop the virus spreading and that saves lives.

I don't think that is debatable. I think it's a fact.

You can bring up a whole bunch of other issues but there factors are inherently hard to compare. To be honest I don't know you would do it accurately. I don't think you could.

I know a couple of facts though:-

1. Lockdowns stop the spread and that stops deaths. It also stops bad instances of COVID that don't lead to death. This is clearly articulated in the figures I've provided.
2. Lockdowns suck. I'm personally completely fine with lockdowns. I really don't want anyone in my family going out now until they are all fully vaccinated. In stating that I have friends running small businesses and they are hurting. The poor people in the SW are hurting. That are costing the country millions of dollars.

Where do you draw the policy line - I don't know.

 

[earl]

34 yo dies from clots after AZ vaccine

This is really bad.

 

[earl]

Correct me if im wrong, but everyone whose dying, seems to be dying after AZ

Yeah mate hence why a governing body recommended for over 60. But because pm purchased AZ only any other choice seems months away

You should be safe. It's mostly younger women. Maybe women under 50 should only have the Pfizer.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Lockdown No. 6 starts in Vic at 8pm tonight. Meh.
Halfway through painting my son's apartment. One very long drawn out job.
Still, could be worse. At least we're all healthy

In and out is certainly not ideal, but as a lot of us north of the border are now similarly learning, the long term alternative is a lot worse.

Assuming that it will be the plain English version again down there that makes it easier as everyone understands what they have to do and nearly all just gets on with the program.

Is it the Sydney Eastern Suburbs variant, another escape from local quarantine or another state?

 

[Tim Sheens]

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:

AZ bros before ....

Couple more weeks until my second AZ jab. All limbs still attached, and no 2nd head grown.

On a serious note, if you're an old fart who is waiting for Pfizer but could get AZ right now, you suck & you're a big fairy.....

It should always be a choice for each and every one of us.

 

[earl]

Just to counter the vaccine hesitancy as well. We've had 17 deaths so far in our smallish cluster. None of those people have been fully vaccinated. If they were fully vaccinated they probably all live.

I'll add another point. There are more deaths coming. It'll be the unvaccinated dying.

 

[earl]

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:

AZ bros before ....

Couple more weeks until my second AZ jab. All limbs still attached, and no 2nd head grown.

On a serious note, if you're an old fart who is waiting for Pfizer but could get AZ right now, you suck & you're a big fairy.....

It should always be a choice for each and every one of us.

Should it ? I reckon it should be based on risk profile.

Pfizer are a scum company. I hope we get the vaccine some other way. Pfizer costs a lot of money whereas AZ produced the vaccine for cost. Pfizer won't let us produce their vaccine in Australia.

It appears to be the best vaccine though because of the side effects.