Coronavirus

[dismalist]

All good stuff upthread, but it seems that even deaths [not just infections, which differ on account of the extent of testing] are reported differently across European countries. One confounder is that some countries report non-hospital corona deaths and some don't. Belgian public health officials, covering a comparatively high death rate, are adamant about this. Apparently, what is classified as a corona death also differs across European countries.

Thus, it's too early to say which approach at which time has been best or worst.

[Parasaurolophus]

Straight-up deaths (as in: brute numbers of decedents, irrespective of cause) are reported pretty standardly and comprehensively everywhere though, aren't they? So I imagine that the most telling number will result from comparing the death rate for the relevant months to previous years' tallies, and seeing how large the excess is. While that won't tell you the number of direct COVID deaths, it will give you a pretty accurate accounting of COVID's butcher's bill (since it's killing both directly and indirectly).

IIRC, that's how the numbers get calculated for major natural disasters, among other things.

[dismalist]

Sure [though I don't like calling the unexplained residual the number we want]. Now different countries had different start dates and have tried various responses. Some will have earlier deaths [Sweden] and some will have later deaths [Germany]. With the residual method, too, we'll have to wait and see which approach[es] worked best.

[Cheerful]

Deaths per million are significantly worse in Sweden than in the US, so I'd dispute that it "worked somewhat," unless you're comparing only with Italy and Spain. Apart from the UK and the Netherlands, Sweden is by the same criterion the worst-affected country in Northern Europe. As I've written before, the Western response (except basically in New Zealand) has been an abject failure.
Sure, there are plenty of measures, like shutting down schools and businesses, that can't continue indefinitely. But other useful measures most certainly can - South Korean-style testing and contact tracing, the use of facemasks in public (which in the Far East is close to 100%) and selective, local lockdowns if cases shoot up. Note that the Far East is largely reopening or has largely re-opened, so it makes sense economically (with the Spanish flu, there is evidence the places that dealt with it best in terms of minimizing casualties also had the most vigorous economic recovery). By international standards, the Swedish approach is objectively a failure, and any evidence-based approach needs to look at places that were actually, objectively successful (Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Macao, New Zealand and even Costa Rica) rather than at what fits our prejudices.

Thanks for this post.

[Stockmann]

@Cheerful: You're welcome!

All good stuff upthread, but it seems that even deaths [not just infections, which differ on account of the extent of testing] are reported differently across European countries. One confounder is that some countries report non-hospital corona deaths and some don't. Belgian public health officials, covering a comparatively high death rate, are adamant about this. Apparently, what is classified as a corona death also differs across European countries.

Thus, it's too early to say which approach at which time has been best or worst.

Where numbers are of the same order of magnitude, yes, they might get skewed by all sorts of things. There is substantial undercounting of the dead in some places (the corpses rotting on the streets of Guayaquil weren't tested) and many governments may be undercounting by a combo of insufficient testing and by design (not just the North Korean figure of zero cases, but also very likely Venezuela and Mexico). But given that the number of dead per million population is nearly three orders of magnitude worse in Sweden than in Taiwan, that can't be accounted for by simple methodological differences of who you count, etc. Those issues could account for the differences between the Netherlands and Belgium (which seems to be overcounting) or between Italy and Spain, but not for the vast chasm between Sweden and Taiwan, and I don't think they could even account for the substantial difference between Germany and most of Europe.


The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.

[marshwiggle]

The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.

But this is almost meaningless in the context of the US, where the acceptance of those sorts of restrictions by governments is challenged routinely and vehemently.

[bacardiandlime]

To judge from social media we do seem to be polarising into the "open everything NOW!" folks and the "stay locked down people are at risk!!". Both seem to be operating from false premises (that if we declare the shutdown is over, everything will snap back to how it was at the start of March vs the idea that it's possible to keep everyone locked down indefinitely).
I'm pretty timid about it myself (look at when I started this thread!).

[Cheerful]

To judge from social media we do seem to be polarising into the "open everything NOW!" folks and the "stay locked down people are at risk!!". Both seem to be operating from false premises (that if we declare the shutdown is over, everything will snap back to how it was at the start of March vs the idea that it's possible to keep everyone locked down indefinitely).
I'm pretty timid about it myself (look at when I started this thread!).

Yes.  The polarization is troubling.  I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts (if we could agree on some reliable info from reliable sources), think things through carefully, have compassion (both sides are full of people struggling in various ways), and confront this challenge united rather than selfishly, fearfully divided.

[Stockmann]

The experience of Singapore suggests having schools open is not catastrophic on its own in terms of transmission, if done with precautions like having everyone wear facemasks and taking everyone's temperature.

But this is almost meaningless in the context of the US, where the acceptance of those sorts of restrictions by governments is challenged routinely and vehemently.

Yes, probably, but then again Americans have accepted metal detectors, etc in schools.

In other news, Israel seems to be making good progress in producing antibodies against this pandemic.

[clean]

I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It is one thing to agree that the glass can be Both 1/2 empty and 1/2 full. It is another to deal with those that want to add water and those that want to dump the water that is there. 

The  problem here is that some say 'My business will die and I will starve" if we Dont Reopen and that some worry "I will die and my dependents will starve" IF we reopen too soon! 

[Hegemony]

And everyone in power seems to be okay with workers running out of money and being in desperate straits, as long as we don't give them any more financial support — that's the key thing. No more support to poor people! It's only the wealthy who have enough money to buy themselves some extra support.

[Caracal]

I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It is one thing to agree that the glass can be Both 1/2 empty and 1/2 full. It is another to deal with those that want to add water and those that want to dump the water that is there. 

The  problem here is that some say 'My business will die and I will starve" if we Dont Reopen and that some worry "I will die and my dependents will starve" IF we reopen too soon!

Its a false choice. The economy isn't going to just humming right along again while lots of people are getting sick and dying. Also, obviously lockdowns are a temporary measure, and do need to be lifted over time. But if you do it soon you aren't going to help the economy.

[FishProf]

I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It would be debatable, it need not be divisive.  Give me an argument that starts from agreed upon baselines any day over this madness.

[marshwiggle]

I'm disappointed that this country can't unite around facts

Even IF everyone agreed on the facts, the implication or application of those facts would still be divisive

It would be debatable, it need not be divisive.  Give me an argument that starts from agreed upon baselines any day over this madness.

The real problem is that people on both ends of the political spectrum have been led to believe, (by politicians and journalists who should know better), that problems have "ideal" solutions, if only the "will" exists to implement them. The reality is that EVERY potential solution involves a trade-off of some sort, and will have some unpleasant but unavoidable consequences. And there is no objective way to pick the "best" solution; which solution is "best" depends on a subjective weighting of various factors.

[bacardiandlime]

The reality is that EVERY potential solution involves a trade-off of some sort, and will have some unpleasant but unavoidable consequences. And there is no objective way to pick the "best" solution; which solution is "best" depends on a subjective weighting of various factors.

This is what gets me, it seems some people hold the platonic ideal of NO corona deaths, and judge anything against that. I'm not of the "let 'er rip, herd immunity, devil take the hindmost" school by any means. But it seems like people are not seeing this disease clearly. We're getting told numbers of deaths, which sound huge on their own - without recognising that thousands of people die every day anyway. Often from things that better laws or treatment might have prevented.
At the same time, 40,000 people die in the US each year from road accidents. If we banned cars, that number could be brought down to zero. But nobody wants to do that.