Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
164 Answers
An interesting view from Peter Hitchens here. Has he got a point?
Answers
When the pubs were ordered to close on March 20th and the other lockdown measures followed I posted somewhere on here that I doubt that it would do any good. I based my doubts on the fact that similar (if not harsher) measures had failed to halt the rise in the number of new cases in Italy (who were said to be about two weeks ahead of the UK with the crisis). Well we’re...
16:17 Sun 12th Apr 2020
“ When I posted something to the effect that doing nothing and letting the most old & infirm die was the best course of action ..... the thought police deleted it.”
I don’t think anyone here has suggested doing that.
It may well be the case that had the UK govt imposed a lockdown sooner then there’d be fewer cases now.
However the idea as I understand it was never to reduce the number of cases but the number of deaths, in a situation where people would not get treated. It was acknowledged tho that this was actually, to our it bluntly if not actually stated, to spread the deaths out longer.
And that’s where Hitchens has a point, because this approach is going to take a long time and doesn’t actually stop the virus. We do need people to catch it, without necessarily going for “herd immunity”.
The Chinese were able effectively to seal off part of their country but we can’t do that now and nor have France Spain Italy etc even if they did start their lockdowns earlier
I don’t think anyone here has suggested doing that.
It may well be the case that had the UK govt imposed a lockdown sooner then there’d be fewer cases now.
However the idea as I understand it was never to reduce the number of cases but the number of deaths, in a situation where people would not get treated. It was acknowledged tho that this was actually, to our it bluntly if not actually stated, to spread the deaths out longer.
And that’s where Hitchens has a point, because this approach is going to take a long time and doesn’t actually stop the virus. We do need people to catch it, without necessarily going for “herd immunity”.
The Chinese were able effectively to seal off part of their country but we can’t do that now and nor have France Spain Italy etc even if they did start their lockdowns earlier
She doesn't have one, ff. Or, at least, if she does, Naomi seems to have a habit of letting the "flaws" speak for themselves, when I would actually far prefer she try to point them out explicitly.
In this case, though, you're mistaken again. Yes I've said NJ and Hitcens are wrong, but I've taken the trouble to explain why-- or, at least, why I think so. But in any case it really should speak for itself. A disease that spreads through social contact is going to spread far less effectively when most people are in their own houses rather than travelling.
Any suggestion that the lockdown isn't working is then flawed from the outset. People are free to argue that they'd rather see a couple of hundred thousand excess deaths this year, alongside the NHS continually overstretched, but they can't pretend that this isn't the choice they are making if they want to put the economy first.
In this case, though, you're mistaken again. Yes I've said NJ and Hitcens are wrong, but I've taken the trouble to explain why-- or, at least, why I think so. But in any case it really should speak for itself. A disease that spreads through social contact is going to spread far less effectively when most people are in their own houses rather than travelling.
Any suggestion that the lockdown isn't working is then flawed from the outset. People are free to argue that they'd rather see a couple of hundred thousand excess deaths this year, alongside the NHS continually overstretched, but they can't pretend that this isn't the choice they are making if they want to put the economy first.
As a final point to Naomi, what makes NJ's opinion "wrong" is that his facts are wrong -- or, at least, extremely misleading. Yes, there is still a 10% daily rise in cases, and similar rise in deaths, but that is both lower than it was before the lockdown took effect, and (almost certainly) lower than it would have been had the lockdown never been imposed. A refusal to acknowledge that, or, at least, a failure to have noticed that, invalidates the opinion. People are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to their facts, and that's the case here -- especially with Hitchens, whose continued insistence that this is nothing more than seasonal flu utterly undermines his position.
As you know, Jim, averaging percentages is never a good idea. More than that, for the first eight days of your analysis (from March 4th) the numbers of new cases remained in double digits and did not pass 100 until March 12th. During that period there were increases of 34 (which increased the total by 66%), 29 (34%), 46 twice (40% and 29%) and 65 (32%). These are huge percentage increases for what were relatively small absolute numbers because, of course, the base was zero. It’s quite obvious the percentage increase will reduce as the absolute numbers get higher. If you take a seven day rolling average from 14th March (when cumulative cases first exceeded 1,000) It has shown a steady increase from 528 (average for the seven days to 21st March) up to 5,103 (for the seven days ending yesterday). There have been no decreases in that average at all and it shows no sign of significantly slowing down whatsoever.
//There can be no doubt that relaxing the measures would lead to the death toll exploding, to the point that the death toll would be surely well into six figures.//
Neither you nor anybody else has any idea whether that is true or not. Nobody knows much about the natural life-span of this pandemic (such events often seem to end as suddenly as they begin) and nobody can say what would have happened without the measures being put in place. The continued daily increase in the number of cases would indicate to me that, if anything, there has been little benefit.
//And, finally, what was NJ expecting? That total new cases three weeks into the lockdown would plummet to zero already?//
No that wasn’t what NJ was expecting. But, since the incubation period is said to be two week, the increase should certainly have abated in the last week. But they haven’t, There were 3,735 new cases on April 4th; there were 8,719 yesterday.
The point is, Mr Hitchens is putting up an “Aunt Sally”. The lockdown clearly cannot go on forever and it is doubtful whether it can be sustained (either economically or practically) for much more than another month. As I said earlier, there are indications that "conventional" medicine is taking a back seat and that people are suffering and possibly dying because of that. Some important decisions need to be taken because by any reasonable analysis (which does not consider increases of tens of cases to be as significant as increases in the thousands) the lockdown is simply not producing the desired results.
//There can be no doubt that relaxing the measures would lead to the death toll exploding, to the point that the death toll would be surely well into six figures.//
Neither you nor anybody else has any idea whether that is true or not. Nobody knows much about the natural life-span of this pandemic (such events often seem to end as suddenly as they begin) and nobody can say what would have happened without the measures being put in place. The continued daily increase in the number of cases would indicate to me that, if anything, there has been little benefit.
//And, finally, what was NJ expecting? That total new cases three weeks into the lockdown would plummet to zero already?//
No that wasn’t what NJ was expecting. But, since the incubation period is said to be two week, the increase should certainly have abated in the last week. But they haven’t, There were 3,735 new cases on April 4th; there were 8,719 yesterday.
The point is, Mr Hitchens is putting up an “Aunt Sally”. The lockdown clearly cannot go on forever and it is doubtful whether it can be sustained (either economically or practically) for much more than another month. As I said earlier, there are indications that "conventional" medicine is taking a back seat and that people are suffering and possibly dying because of that. Some important decisions need to be taken because by any reasonable analysis (which does not consider increases of tens of cases to be as significant as increases in the thousands) the lockdown is simply not producing the desired results.
The problem with that is that diseases, when out of control, exhibit exponential growth. So it *is* relevant, extremely so, to focus on the percentage increases rather than the absolute. To smooth those out by averaging also follows logically, because you want to take into account fluctuations due to reporting lags, etc. As a case in point there's been a noticeable dip in reports on Sundays and Mondays owing to a "weekend" effect, which you want to account for when observing any trend.
In this case, the disease was more or less following an exponential curve in March. It's now on a generally linear trajectory. That represents progress, that represents a slowing-down. Unfortunately, there's a way to go before it turns from linear to declining, but there can be no reasonable doubt that social restrictions will increase the chances of that happening sooner rather than later. Leading medical experts from across the world are universally agreed on that point.
In this case, the disease was more or less following an exponential curve in March. It's now on a generally linear trajectory. That represents progress, that represents a slowing-down. Unfortunately, there's a way to go before it turns from linear to declining, but there can be no reasonable doubt that social restrictions will increase the chances of that happening sooner rather than later. Leading medical experts from across the world are universally agreed on that point.
Incidentally, this is why there's been an obsession lately with plotting the disease's progress on semi-logarithmic graphs. It makes it easier to see the exponential, and then the linear, regions. We're moving out of the exponential growth period, perhaps slower than hoped, but the only way to stop the spread as opposed to slowing it is to have locked everybody in their homes altogether, no exceptions. That was clearly unreasonable.
On yes, and one other factor that undermines your analysis is that the number of tests conducted has also grown rapidly. When the UK was reporting about 100 cases there were probably rather closer to 50,000 across the country. Similar story in the US, where the "15 days to slow the spread" period ended up seeing an incredible rise in case numbers, which would be counter-intuitive but for the fact that it's only when they started the social restrictions that widespread testing became possible.
In short, then, reopening the country prematurely will almost certainly lead to a second wave, many thousands of more deaths, and just a re-emergence of precisely the same problems that we were trying to avoid. The economic crash that's going to lead to is painful in the extreme, but the human cost of not doing the lockdown would be greater still.
And I think this government, and almost every other government, even those strongly pro-business/conservative governments, will go along with the consensus of medical scientists and continue with the lockdown-type measures. They all know that if there is a clear loosening of policy and there is a surge in deaths again there is probably no way out of it and disaster may follow for the health services and economy. Governments aren't posting anonymously on sites like this without any accountability and have to live with the consequences. The risk is too great. The approach will be to extend it and just hope that with all the testing and possible vaccine developments, and some community immunity, there will be an opening in the next 6 weeks to loosen restrictions
Quite. The economic risk of continuing lockdown might well be outweighed by the massive political backlash if the country were reopened, deaths (inevitably) spike again, and the Governments pay the price for their rashness.
I'm not ignorant of the economic impact, by the way. But it has to play second to health considerations. Perhaps there will even be plenty of other benefits from the lockdown across the world too. We've seen dramatic falls in pollution levels, for example. Long run, this pain will have been well worth it.
I'm not ignorant of the economic impact, by the way. But it has to play second to health considerations. Perhaps there will even be plenty of other benefits from the lockdown across the world too. We've seen dramatic falls in pollution levels, for example. Long run, this pain will have been well worth it.
"I'm not ignorant of the economic impact, by the way. But it has to play second to health considerations."
Jim provides, as usual, a very compelling argument.
But personally I think he's wrong; people will be lost, and that's very sad, but the vast majority will survive (there's no doubt about this - so there no point in arguing about it) and therefore the economy absolutely must now become more important.
The thought occurs to me...is just those suckling from the nation's teat who have no issue with the lockdown (it won't affect their (and for 'their', read my money).
Jim provides, as usual, a very compelling argument.
But personally I think he's wrong; people will be lost, and that's very sad, but the vast majority will survive (there's no doubt about this - so there no point in arguing about it) and therefore the economy absolutely must now become more important.
The thought occurs to me...is just those suckling from the nation's teat who have no issue with the lockdown (it won't affect their (and for 'their', read my money).
Golly! What's this? A posse calling for an example from me of Jim’s flawed thinking - even though Jim declares I don’t have one.
An example of Jim’s flawed thinking - and my response.
From Jim: //Events in the last month have already shown how sadly mistaken your call for perspective and optimism//
From me: //I disagree. As of last week about 10% of confirmed cases in the UK had died. It follows then that the majority by far, haven't - and that takes no account of the vast number of unconfirmed cases that have beaten it. That, to me, is good reason to keep things in perspective - and I would have thought that you, as a mathematician would recognise that. In short, as prevalent and as awful as this virus is, it doesn’t automatically mean death, which if we all listen to people like you we could be forgiven for thinking it does.//
Incidentally, I haven’t read everything posted since encountering the posse - but I will at sometime.
An example of Jim’s flawed thinking - and my response.
From Jim: //Events in the last month have already shown how sadly mistaken your call for perspective and optimism//
From me: //I disagree. As of last week about 10% of confirmed cases in the UK had died. It follows then that the majority by far, haven't - and that takes no account of the vast number of unconfirmed cases that have beaten it. That, to me, is good reason to keep things in perspective - and I would have thought that you, as a mathematician would recognise that. In short, as prevalent and as awful as this virus is, it doesn’t automatically mean death, which if we all listen to people like you we could be forgiven for thinking it does.//
Incidentally, I haven’t read everything posted since encountering the posse - but I will at sometime.
