Quarantine extended until May 15

[jimeve]

29 minutes ago, AusExpat said:

 

So Sweden is 200 deaths per million population

UK is 294 deaths per million working with the figures given above.

 

So Sweden with open borders and no lock down at all has better figures (almost 1/3rd better) than the UK with it's belated draconian lockdown.

Correct, that's what I said.

[AusExpat]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

 

2 hours ago, GeoffH said:

 

The UK has only recently gone into lockdown and they left it late, they will end up worse than Spain and Italy because of that.

You can't use them as an example of a proper lockdown because they didn't do a proper lockdown.

 

If you want to look at an effective early lockdown then examine Australia's or New Zealand's figures, both have compliance with lockdown and social distancing well in excess of 90%.  As a DIRECT result of that Australia has only 81 deaths with a population of close to 30 million and New Zealand only has 18 deaths with population of almost 5 million.

 

Countries need to look for answers to those countries that have controlled the virus (or pay the price in deaths).

 

So why didn't the UK stay open then? It's less problematic by the Swedish figures.

[GeoffH]

Just now, AusExpat said:

 

So why didn't the UK stay open then? It's less problematic by the Swedish figures.

 

They started with the 'open and wait for herd immunity whilst accepting a higher rate of deaths' method then switched half way through to the 'lock down, minimize deaths and flatten the curve' model.

That's pretty much the defiition of poor decision making in my book.

If you're wanting me to defend the actions of the UK government that's not really my job, politicians make way more than me and they can bloody do it themselves :)

[AusExpat]

8 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

 

They started with the 'open and wait for herd immunity whilst accepting a higher rate of deaths' method then switched half way through to the 'lock down, minimize deaths and flatten the curve' model.

That's pretty much the defiition of poor decision making in my book.

If you're wanting me to defend the actions of the UK government that's not really my job, politicians make way more than me and they can bloody do it themselves :)

I'm not, I'm wondering why the Swedish figures are so much better when they did nothing as according to everything we're being told that is completely wrong but their data doesn't match that.

[GeoffH]

3 minutes ago, AusExpat said:

I'm not, I'm wondering why the Swedish figures are so much better when they did nothing as according to everything we're being told that is completely wrong but their data doesn't match that.

The Swedish figures aren't 'so much better' (than everyone else) they're only better than 'those countries that didn't commit to a methodology'.  I hate to repeat myself but those countries that tested lots, traced lots and implemented social distancing and/or lockdowns are doing better if the metric is total deaths.

Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and a few others for example.

 

My preferred method of dealing with the virus is the lockdown method but the Swedish method of going for herd immunity is scientifically valid (if you can stomach the higher cost in human lives).  The Swedish method will be less harmful to the economy so I guess you've got to ask yourself which is more important to you, the economy or (mostly older) people dying.  A darwinian approach would suggest that those older people have already done most of their contributing to the economy of the country and they're just a cost and a burden anyway so why shut down the country to save some of them.

 

I prefer a humanist approach which seeks to save as many as possible, even at the cost of a serious recession in the economy but YMMV.

 

[Tommy T.]

19 hours ago, jaybee said:

So I guess in your opinion we need to keep the lockdown forever because this virus is not going away anytime soon... 

No... but the easing of restrictions should be phased in and very gradual so we can see what's going on. To me, just jumping out and saying... okay... we're done, let's party...is not the best solution. Being in a high risk group, I am not too excited about being placed at higher risk just so some of the lower risk people can go out and have fun.

[scott h]

5 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

should be phased in

I agree, it could be phased in quickly  logically following certain safety parameters. The problem IMHO is that you kan not trust the average Joe tax payer to follow logical measures. So you have to dumb it down to the lowest level. 

[Tommy T.]

12 minutes ago, scott h said:

I agree, it could be phased in quickly  logically following certain safety parameters. The problem IMHO is that you kan not trust the average Joe tax payer to follow logical measures. So you have to dumb it down to the lowest level. 

It appears that a number of Joe Tax Payers are the village fools? Some of them are apparently trying to inject themselves now with Lysol or bleach? I think common sense may now be uncommon? Some people just don't get it.... And it causes increased risk to us who are already at higher risk. I guess they should move to Sweden???

Sorry, Viking... did not mean that to sound personal to you. How are things there from your perspective?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Tommy T.

[scott h]

5 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

Some of them are apparently trying to inject themselves now with Lysol or bleach?

As the saying goes..…."you cant fix stupid!" 

[Tommy T.]

16 hours ago, GeoffH said:

I prefer a humanist approach which seeks to save as many as possible, even at the cost of a serious recession in the economy but YMMV.

 

Always wise and considered opinions from you, Geoff. Thanks. I guess we senior citizens could just bite the bullet and accept being culled? But I am not really so fond of that idea. I still have money to spend to keep various economies rolling a bit?