Cyrus wrote: » A bit of common sense analysis which it seems we are being purposely being deprived of to heighten the hysteria:https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/04/02/the-vital-contexts-of-coronavirus/n all the millions of words written about how many people have died in each country each day, no coverage appears to have given the baseline daily death rate before the outbreak began. Take Scotland: here, the death rate had averaged between 6 and 8 people per day before increasing to 16 on the 1st of April. But the typical death rate in Scotland is 160 people per day, with about a quarter of them dying of cancer. This means that the virus is currently increasing the daily rate by 10% (and before that around 5%) – a substantial increase, but not as massive as many members of the public are probably assuming, given the press coverage. Reporting the increasing number of deaths in isolation without this context is likely to increase people’s stress about the virus, because people are unaware of how many people normally die each day.
tuxy wrote: » If you look at the death rates as of yesterday Deaths per 1M population Sweden: 59 Denmark: 35 I think that's a significant increased chance of death from COVID-19
tuxy wrote: » I think that's a significant increased chance of death from COVID-19
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » No of cases per 1million: Sweden: 762 Denmark: 875 So you've (statistically) more chance of catching it in Denmark. That said, it's not really a fair balance because Sweden is much bigger and therefore easier to socially distance, and a lot of Swedes are staying at home where possible by choice anyway.
tuxy wrote: » Do you think difference in testing levels could explain it? Someone who is dead is more obvious than someone who is asymptomatic and alive. If the number of cases were that close I don't understand why the death rate would be so much higher in Sweden.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » No, it isn't massive. Things may well change, but as it stands, there is only the tiniest percentage more chance of dying in Sweden compared to Denmark. You can do the knee jerk 'every life is important' thing if you like, but it's ridiculously simplistic. What about the people in Denmark who are going to die of other things because they can't access proper healthcare during the lockdown? Suicides? Self harm? Domestic violence? I'd bet there is not such a huge difference when you factor this stuff in, not to mention the damage to the economy as a whole. It's all well and good to say lives are more important than money, but who is going to fund all this if nobody is working?
ITman88 wrote: » At the end of the year the deaths can be put in perspective. 60k odd people in Italy died in March in 2015. The media have latched on to the death rate because it’s click bait. I’d love to know how much extra traffic is on this website? Before covid the best reading here was a certain etiquette thread.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » No, it isn't massive. Things may well change, but as it stands, there is only the tiniest percentage more chance of dying in Sweden compared to Denmark. You can do the knee jerk 'every life is important' thing if you like, but it's ridiculously simplistic.What about the people in Denmark who are going to die of other things because they can't access proper healthcare during the lockdown? Suicides? Self harm? Domestic violence? I'd bet there is not such a huge difference when you factor this stuff in, not to mention the damage to the economy as a whole. It's all well and good to say lives are more important than money, but who is going to fund all this if nobody is working?
Queasy Tadpole wrote: » I'm going up the wall. The restrictions are now really starting to get me. I've already been hit terribly financially, socially... it's getting to the stage now where I'm caring less and less about people I don't know dying and that is just horrible to think about. I've lost many loved ones and know the pain and never ending grief but I feel myself becoming quite cold towards others now.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » You are over-simplifying things. It is not a case of saving any individual person or not. There are many other implications of any decision made. How many people are missing out on other medical procedures not being carried out (not necessarily life saving ones but certainly life changing ones)? How many are suffering mental health issues from lack of social contact, financial issues due to losing job, etc? I know of young children who are really struggling to cope with lack of interaction forced by something they don't understand and are showing personality changes. Any reasonable person will consider these people too, not just the one person you want to look at. The virus kills some people, that is unavoidable (most likely because the damage caused by the virus is compounded by another medical issue). Our health service is coping, ICUs are well within capacity, everyone who needs treatment is getting it, yet some are still dying. Deaths, while tragic, are not the only factor here. Those in high risk categories can substantially reduce the risk to themselves by continuing to isolate and take precautions. The fastest way for them to then return to normality is if immunity is built up in the general population. The virus will still exist so continued lockdown achieves little.
kippy wrote: » All "Non essential" movement in and out of the country needs to be restricted before the majority of the current restrictions are eased. This probably has to happen for minimum 4-6 months I would say. It's a fairly easy thing to do when it comes to getting off the island..
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Of course I didn't answer the way you wanted. As I said I'm not the person who will be tasked with the allocation of scant resources. What part do you not understand?
terrydel wrote: » The crisis is exactly that, unprecedented and essentially impossible to plan for, so all the cold economics that housemouse tried to graft onto it are superfluous, it was a fairly binary choice they had to make, and they made the correct one.
terrydel wrote: » The answering of the question does not in any way require you to be the person tasked with making the decision. How can you not grasp that? Your refusal to answer is simply because you know the answer will contradict the argument you are trying to make.
housemouse wrote: » The lockdown policy is driven by fear and panic. Medical experts are not economists. They are tasked with fixing one problem: the spread of disease. They don't know how (because it's not their job, and it's difficult) to do a proper cost-benefit analysis. The policy of lockdown means the death of our economies. A temporary death, yes. But with long-term consequences that reduce the wealth, happiness and life expectancy of everybody. A cost-benefit analysis would try to understand what were the full costs of the policy, and see if there are alternatives that are better value, i.e. the opportunity cost. For example, the Central Bank has predicted that the cost to the Irish government of the current lockdown policy will be €22 billion. I'm going to ignore the absolutely huge cost to everybody else and focus only on this €22 billion cost to government. The supply of ICU care isn't cheap and the supply of nurses and doctors is not very elastic. But for the cost of ten overpriced children's hospitals, don't tell me there was no alternative. The lockdown is already going to cost an entire annual healthcare budget in lost taxes and income supports. More, if it is extended. Investing any amount up to €22 billion in ICU care and other measures to deal with the virus would be cheaper to the Irish government than the policy of lockdown, and would be far better for all private citizens and private business. GDP is expected to fall by 8% this year, thanks to lockdown - this has real-life consequences. A proper cost-benefit analysis would also include the remaining life expectancy of those who are vulnerable to Covid-19, after taking into account their other underlying health conditions. The media doesn't bother distinguishing between those dying with the virus, versus those who die of the virus. Health budgets should be focused on extending survival for those who can have a high quality of life (see the recent article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick on his website for more). The total number of deaths in Western countries has not increased by any noticeable amount as a result of this virus. And the life expectancy of the typical victim might well be less than 2 years, given their age and existing conditions - so the virus is likely to make almost no difference to the total number of deaths over the next year or two. If you think it makes sense to spend €22 billion on this project, then you haven't considered the alternatives.
housemouse wrote: » This binary thinking is what you see in someone with a fanatical belief sytem. If you want to analyse or measure the costs, he will call you a sociopath. People who can't think but are still very loud - they are why we can't have nice things.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » I'll tell you what 'sparky' you write the answer you would be happy with, PM it to me. I'll have a read and will consider whether to post it as my own. How's that sound . I didn't refuse to answer btw I answered you twice, your refusal to accept an answer you disagree with is not my problem. You want an echo chamber? Start your very own thread and restrict access to those that agree with you.
TheCitizen wrote: » The first line says it all. Utter Utter bollocks. The panic and fear is driven by panic merchants like you on here. I m not a Fine Gael supporter but they’ve got this right and the rest of the body politic have generally supported them and followed the right advice. Even when we get reports like the positive projections in the Irish Times today, the penny still won’t drop with the likes of you. They’ve largely got it right, and they deserve the discipline and support of the population to maintain the current direction. Quit snowflaking and carping, it’s embarrassing.
Idbatterim wrote: » Fg have got it right? you think we would be following a different strategy if it were FF in power?
terrydel wrote: » So you'd have gone with what approach then? You are great at criticising and calling things panicked and poor, but you offer no alternative or are afraid to back your principles. The decisions they took were manifestly not poor or panicked, you are just 100% wrong, but Im sure you are used to that. If you think otherwise, please provide the evidence that shows they are poor., and what your alternative is and why that is better I look forward to it.
terrydel wrote: » Haha, throwing out nicknames now when you are struggling. You didnt answer, you avoided it and obfuscated, no amount of telling yourself you did not will change that fact.
housemouse wrote: » This is what it looks like when someone disagrees with me but can't explain why.
housemouse wrote: » I've already done far more work than you in this thread. I am now here just to remind you that you failed to understand what was said. There are some other people here who might actually add to the discussion. Let's give them a chance to speak now.
