The General Covid19 Thread

Jules72 3% of gdp Hannu…. Well worth it in Hugo’s beady eyes

That 3% of GDP is $16bn.

You’re also overlooking the significant costs of lockdown on things such as mental health and children’s education.

Even in purely immediate economic terms, about 8,000 people died of covid in Sweden in 2020, of which almost half were nursing home residents. Remember that the average age of death from covid is 82.4. Meanwhile, average life expectancy in Sweden is 82.96.

Even if Sweden having a more strict lockdown (temporarily) saved the lives somehow of half of all those 8,000 who died, which is a pretty generous estimate, that’s $4,000,000 per person saved.

In the UK, NICE’s “quality-adjusted life year” (QALY) calculation means that the NHS will only consider it justified to pay a max of about £30,000 on medical treatment per “quality-adjusted life year” saved.

Again, even being perhaps a tad generous and assuming 1 QALY saved per each of the 4,000 maybe saved covid deaths, that would put the GDP figure at around 100x what would normally be considered as a reasonable cost of medical treatment.

I remember I did a similar calculation about a year ago on here for the UK for the sum which lockdowns had been estimated to have cost the UK economy, relative to the number of covid deaths, and I recall that the cost had also been ridiculously excessive in that instance as well.

hugopal

Erm, and yet both Austria and Germany are applying stricter restrictions on the unvaccinated, eg in Germany only the vaccinated are allowed to attend the cinema, theatre, restaurants, non-essential shops and large events. In Germany, nightclubs are literally the only domain where the government have introduced full closures in certain circumstances, even for the vaccinated. Also, what specifically “doesn’t work”?

Again, you need to go back to LT42’s original post–that I was responding to– where the central point was that “There’s really no good way to compartmentalise sections of society effectively.” This is his full post so you can read it in context:

Is that a watertight way of containing the spread of the virus? You can still contract the virus and spread it, albeit with a smaller viral load but thats impossible to determine in real time. There’s constitutional issues at play too for some Govts. Its not as simple as you’re suggesting. Again though, I’m not disagreeing with the fact decisions have been clumsy, I just think some of the arguments are just as clumsy. There’s really no good way to compartmentalise sections of society effectively. Schools are a huge problem and the obvious elephant in the room, especially in Ireland, but what’s more important to keep open, schools or clubs? Its not just a health crisis, its clearly a management crisis.

I was agreeing with what he said: that it is a fundamental principle of any country that they apply laws, rules, restrictions (as is the case with Covid) to society as a whole. You can’t adopt a reductioninst approach to it. The restrictions on nightclubs, as they pertain to Covid, are applied equally to the vaccinated and unvaccinated The distinction is that one of these groups chooses not to take steps to consider other people while the other does not and that is why they are restricted in where they can go and what they can do as per what you mention re Greece and Germany. You asked ‘what specifically does not work?’ and what I indicated in my answer is that you have to apply laws/rules/restrictions to everyone. I suspect you will say that in the case of Germany and Greece et al, they are only applying restrictions against unvaccinated people, but as expressed above, this misses the central point that everybody is subject to the same limitations, it is just that one group has elected to opt out.

LT42 also said that some of the decisions taken concerning nightclubs have been clumsy, which I also agreed with and reflected in my post in response to it. What I put to you was that sometimes there aren’t perfect ways of doing things but in the case of trying to tackle a global pandemic, the process won’t always be as calibrated as we might like.

Bullcrap, it’s negative, overly cautious, socialist-leaning social policy. It’s trashing the economy and unfairly inhibiting the lives of the young and healthy in a futile attempt to save those who are unproductive and/or at death’s door anyway. As with other red-tape-heavy socialist-leaning policies it does indeed drag things down to the lowest common denominator, but it is a policy choice, not a necessary one - it’s policy driven by ‘misery loves company’ thinking, rather than increasing prosperity. As demonstrated by the looser restrictions that have stayed in place in Sweden, and now remain in the UK and the US, it is possible to let life go on without succumbing to such misguided paranoia, negativity and authoritarianism. Your attempt to make an analogy to gun control also does not work in this context as controlling guns does not also trash peoples’ lives, livelihoods and the wider economy.

I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here. On one hand, you seem to be trying to establish a link between socialism and the restrictions that are currently being applied during a pandemic. Perhaps you could elaborate and set out the exact link that you are referring to as I’m none the wiser from what you have said. It might be helpful to start out by saying what you understand socialism to be and go from there. You also seem to be mischaracterising my views without actually knowing what they are.

It is breathtaking that you say you are concerned about the dangers of authoritarianism while at the same time you refer to society’s “futile attempt to save those who who are unproductive/and or at death’s door anyway.” which wouldn’t sound out of place substituting it for the words of any dictator of any authoritarian country you care to choose.

The irony is that authoritarianism is a very real and present danger. In the UK, we have a government who prorogued parliament to stifle debate about Brexit and to avoid scrutiny, the same government launched a full-blooded attack on judicial institutions in an attempt to overrule any court that disagrees with what the executive does. They also sought to control the media, threatening to defund the BBC because they don’t like it when they voice criticisms of what the government does. Where it concerns Covid, the government has frequently demonstrated that they have been slow to act, reluctant to resort to lockdowns, demurred from enforcing masks and yet you seem to be worried that this is the preeminent example of authoritarianism (assuming you are also referring to Covid restrictions in the UK, of course).

Concerning your “misery loves company” line. Do you actually think anyone really derives any enjoyment out of this situation or that an expectation that people who express a view that we should all work together to defeat the virus is because they actually want to make other people miserable? Honestly? Nobody in their right mind would hold that view. What you are seeing is that everyone is fed up and exasperated with it and wants it to come to an end in the shortest time possible but there are those who needlessly perpetuate the situation and society wishes to progress.

On the analogy that you refer to: that wasn’t an analogy that I made. I believe Benson said it. For what it’s worth, I don’t think gun control is a brilliant analogue either.

Where is this "objective’ evidence that the closing or opening of clubs has had any meaningful impact one way or another on the progress of the virus and especially serious cases whenever such things have occurred? It seems for some a “difficult decision” is clearly rather to let go of their over-controlling, fear-induced, life-stifling authoritarian tendencies. Rather than current decisions being “difficult”, many governments will likely be revelling in the myriad of excuses covid has given them to extend the reach of the state.

We have extensive research on the spread of the virus in public places including, but not limited to nightclubs. I said previously that there is a spectrum where some activities will have a greater impact on the spread of the virus. Wherever you think that nightclubs sit on that continuum, it is pure obfuscation to claim that nightclubs have no meaningful impact on the spread of the virus.

Maybe you could set out the exact link between Covid restrictions and the dystopian authoritarian world that you envisage. Seriously, what are the steps to that as you see it?

If whatever wishes for continued restrictions on gatherings then he can just as well be true to his word and stay at home; I doubt he’d be missed anyway.

Brilliant.

And with that, I retire from this exchange. Good luck to you.

303abuser to you and everyone else on here still supporting lockdowns, do you really think paying $4,000,000 to save 1 year of an 82 year-old’s life is sensible and reasonable? Are you really happy with that?

hugopal yes, especially when not everyone lives to exactly the average age. take care of the people around you, if you’re lucky, you’ll be that old at some point and will appreciate the compassion.

edit: and i’m not in support of arbitrary measures, evidence-based policy is important

303abuser nope, you’re just avoiding the issue - would you, say, sell your house and give away all your money and worldly possessions to buy your grandma one more year of life?

I’m aware such things aren’t easy thing to think about, but hiding from them as you are doesn’t answer them when decisions need to be made.