Should the government have relied on Neil Ferguson’s advice

[Mogster]

You can’t evaluate the initial international response to Covid without accepting the fact that the apocalyptic predictions of epidemiologists have been wrong so many times previously.

Here’s an interesting article on the international response to Swine Flu.

Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009

Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact? A reconstruction. By SPIEGEL staff.

www.google.co.uk

Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact? A reconstruction. By SPIEGEL staff.

It’s still not clear what the “best” healthcare and economic response to Covid is. Reporting of the details of the epidemic really is a mess in many countries, especially those where healthcare systems have been close to or actually collapsed. It’s almost impossible to compare one countries response to another as reporting of case data has been so different. A recent report by Stanford University suggests that directing resources towards shielding the elderly and care home facilities while not locking down the general population would have been the best course of action. Knowing what we know now about which are the vulnerable groups that does seem logical.

One of the things that concerns me most is that the response to the next emerging pathogen will be completely hysterical. Pressure on governments to take extreme (and probably inappropriate) measures very early will be immense.

 

[matacaster]

You can’t evaluate the initial international response to Covid without accepting the fact that the apocalyptic predictions of epidemiologists have been wrong so many times previously.

Here’s an interesting article on the international response to Swine Flu.

Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009

Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact? A reconstruction. By SPIEGEL staff.

www.google.co.uk

It’s still not clear what the “best” healthcare and economic response to Covid is. Reporting of the details of the epidemic really is a mess in many countries, especially those where healthcare systems have been close to or actually collapsed. It’s almost impossible to compare one countries response to another as reporting of case data has been so different. A recent report by Stanford University suggests that directing resources towards shielding the elderly and care home facilities while not locking down the general population would have been the best course of action. Knowing what we know now about which are the vulnerable groups that does seem logical.

One of the things that concerns me most is that the response to the next emerging pathogen will be completely hysterical. Pressure on governments to take extreme (and probably inappropriate) measures very early will be immense.

Quite!!!

 

[Yew]

There is an interesting comparison with the old "people are fed up of experts" like from Brexity discussions. Is that the aforementioned experts (or scientists) may not represent the general consensus of their field. Whilst their slogan, may be "we're following the science" it's actually "we're following the advice of our pet scientists, from a board that also inexplicably has Dominic Cummings sitting on it" as opposed to "we're following the general scientific consensus from the literature"

 

[Yew]

I feel that this extract (P35) from Wedlake Bell (in relation to the legality of lockdown) bears some relevance

A prediction made using Prof Ferguson’s modelling, dated 15 April 2020, of the death rates in Sweden were they to continue with lighter social distancing policies, which predicted that the death rate would exceed 40,000 shortly after May 1, and continue to rise to almost 100,000 deaths by June; whereas the true death rate by 29 April 2020 was 2,462 (15 times lower) and, by 10 May 2020, 3,220

 

[edwin_m]

I feel that this extract (P35) from Wedlake Bell (in relation to the legality of lockdown) bears some relevance

However it is now reported that Sweden has the highest death rate per day relative to its population.

Sweden's death rate per capita highest in world for past week after no lockdown

Sweden's deaths-per-million from the coronavirus were the highest in the world for a week, while the country's shops, schools and restaurants remain open for business

www.mirror.co.uk

Data compiled by the European Centre of Disease Prevention and Control shows that Sweden had 6.08 deaths per-million inhabitants per-day on a rolling seven day average from May 13 to Wednesday.

The figures put it above the UK (5.57), Belgium (4.28), the US (4.11) in terms of per-capita mortality rates.

It should be noted that countries tend to suffer the peak of the virus at different times, meaning multiple countries have been at the top of the deaths-per-capita table.

 

[scarby]

However it is now reported that Sweden has the highest death rate per day relative to its population.

Sweden's death rate per capita highest in world for past week after no lockdown

Sweden's deaths-per-million from the coronavirus were the highest in the world for a week, while the country's shops, schools and restaurants remain open for business

www.mirror.co.uk

That isn't really so surprising given that other countries shut people inside. It doesn't mean that the outbreak is getting worse though, it isn't - total deaths are falling, not going up. The trend in Sweden is that the outbreak is subsiding of its own course, with the number of people in hospital/intensive care falling significantly daily throughout May. They give the most up-to-date indication of the way the outbreak is going.

Interestingly, you'd think April, when deaths from the virus were at their worst in Sweden, would therefore be Sweden's deadliest month within modern times, right? But it isn't. A total (all deaths!) of 10,458 in April is less than in December 1993, when 11,057 people died. Also, taking population figures into account, more people died in January 2000 than in April this year. A total of 110.8 people per 100,000 inhabitants died that month, compared with 101.1 last month.

Both those highs were from bad 'flu seasons. In 1993, 97,008 people died in Sweden, which is 7,000 more the the norm, which is generally steady at around the 90,000 mark per year.

 

[Yew]

However it is now reported that Sweden has the highest death rate per day relative to its population.

Sweden's death rate per capita highest in world for past week after no lockdown

Sweden's deaths-per-million from the coronavirus were the highest in the world for a week, while the country's shops, schools and restaurants remain open for business

www.mirror.co.uk

Interesting, and although slightly off the topic of Neil Fergusons predictions; It's worth considering that we're not considering like with like here. Sweden's peak was on ~23rd April, whereas ours was ~8th of April, roughly two weeks before. Though to it's credit, the Mirror does mention this (albeit as somewhat of an afterthought, with no discussion of the implications)

A VERY rough linear interpolation gives our number two weeks ago as around 8.



Though, perhaps we should we looking at the week on week percentage decreases from the peak, under the various levels of lockdown to try and determine the actual effectiveness? I'm not entirely sure