> rising to 99,017 in 2020, up from 78,927 the previous year
Covid deaths in the US: 300k in 2020
Looks like another misrepresentation by the "covid skeptics"
Precision is often as important as accuracy.
[1] https://www.macmillan.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/we-make-...
Since we cannot do that you are all comparing the COVID deaths despite lockdown (which is still an order of magnitude higher then any of the estimates provided for deaths resulting from the lockdown). So you’re not making a like for like comparison.
And since you raise the point that precision is often as important as accuracy, it should be noted that those MacMillan figures are due to COVID as a wider concern, not lockdown in isolation. Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown (remember that the U.K. only went into lockdown to slow the burden on the NHS). So you cannot really use that estimated figure in its entirety given it wasn’t solely contributed to by the lockdown. And in fact if we hadn’t gone in lockdown the NHS might have been further overwhelmed resulting in even worse care for cancer patients. Once again, we can only prove your figures here by spinning up a parallel universe.
> So you’re not making a like for like comparison.
I'm not making the comparison at all, I'm pointing out the errors of making an out-of-hand dismissal of lockdown deaths and the faulty logic of the dismissal.
> It’s a pointless argument because the only way to prove that lockdown resulted in more deaths is to spin up a parallel universe and see how many more people would have died if we didn’t go into lockdown.
Two things here. The first is that it's not pointless to consider how deaths could be reduced even if we were reduced to wild guesses. Most of human history has only had access to trial and error, and the hope of some insight springing up, and our ancestors did a fine job. We've got it easy.
However, we don't need a parallel universe, different countries did different things, and - as the Macmillan report shows - it's possible to see that there's a link between the effects of lockdown (e.g. missed cancer diagnoses) and higher levels of mortality resulting from that, even if the precision is unknowable (which is won't be, it just won't be perfect).
People aren't stupid, and the main point is don't compare deaths from lockdown with deaths from COVID-19, the questions are:
- were lockdowns more effective than not?
- which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial?
- what lessons can we learn?
It'll take a while (because of politics and cognitive dissonance / pride) but I'm confident we'll see that lockdowns were largely ineffective at best and detrimental at worst.
Finally:
> Hospitals were already cancelling appointments even before lockdown happened because of staffing issues. This would only have been a bigger problem if we hadn’t gone into lockdown
You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.
This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though. It's purely about making wild guesses about total death tolls without factoring in any additional variables. It's not even a statistical analysis, it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions.
> However, we don't need a parallel universe, different countries did different things, and - as the Macmillan report shows - it's possible to see that there's a link between the effects of lockdown (e.g. missed cancer diagnoses) and higher levels of mortality resulting from that, even if the precision is unknowable (which is won't be, it just won't be perfect).
Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof.
> People aren't stupid,
I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/
> - were lockdowns more effective than not?
> - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial?
> - what lessons can we learn?
We had a lot of data on that already quite early on and bare in mind this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus). A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture. For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's.
This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe. While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too.
> You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.
They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.
> This thread isn't considering how deaths can be reduced though… it's just people throwing around cherry picked "guestimations"f based on their prior assumptions.
I have not made any wild guesses or guestimations about death tolls, nor made reference to such. You might try simply responding to my comments instead of trying to dismiss them by pointing to (alleged) mistakes made by others.
> > However, we don't need a parallel universe…
> Health care systems vary wildly from country to country. COVID infection rates varied wildly. As do cancer treatments and diagnosis. You can get some approximate figures to make speculations but it's a long way off a proof.
Do you have a specific reason to dismiss the Macmillan report's methodology or findings other than your own assertion that it's not possible to provide a report that isn't full of "speculations"?
> > People aren't stupid,
> I wish I could agree with you on that one but the last 5 years has really made me change my mind about the degree of common sense in a great many people :-/
Common sense is not the same as stupidity.
> > - were lockdowns more effective than not? > > - which kinds of lockdowns were beneficial? > > - what lessons can we learn?
> We had a lot of data on that already quite early on
I'd love to hear more on this.
> this isn't even the first outbreak that has needed to be contained (it's not even the first coronavirus outbreak let alone the first infectious virus).
Those behind the [Great Barrington Declaration] have pointed out repeatedly that the mitigation strategies used in the past were different and would be more effective than what are known as "lockdowns":
> Inconsistent with the standard pandemic preparedness plans that existed before the COVID-19 epidemic, lockdowns are, and have always been, a radical approach to infection control.
You continue:
> A large part of the problem isn't just what technically works better but what is more socially acceptable for a particular culture.
If we're looking for things in this thread that aren't relevant, this would be one, interesting though it might be. Moreover, since many of the lockdowns were backed by law and punitive sanctions then what is socially acceptable is moot.
> For example South Korea was a lot more effective at restricting the spread of COVID than America but America's culture is based on different principles than South Korea's.
This chart is why "a lot of data on that already quite early on" looks hasty:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
> This is why I say you cannot come up with a proof without spinning up a parallel universe.
You keep using the word proof but I'm not sure in what sense. Scientists keep making the mistake of thinking it's possible. From a report in [Nature] on school closures:
> Here we assess the causal effect of school closures in Japan on reducing the spread of COVID-19 in spring 2020. By matching each municipality with open schools to a municipality with closed schools that is the most similar in terms of potential confounders, we can estimate how many cases the municipality with open schools would have had if it had closed its schools. We do not find any evidence that school closures in Japan reduced the spread of COVID-19. Our null results suggest that policies on school closures should be reexamined given the potential negative consequences for children and parents.
But if we're using special pleading arguments then this isn't possible, and nor is it even comparable with the act of comparing between countries. If only the US were as homogeneous as the Yamato culture!
[Duke] university looked at school closures in North Carolina but instead comparing spread within schools to community transmission. How can two different environments with different populations be compared? Well, they take you through it in the methodology of their paper. I didn't see mention of interdimensional travel.
We even have scientists and doctors comparing lockdown between… countries![Nature2] Not one of them is called Dr Strange, unfortunately. No, they simply compared things using methods that are well known.
> While you can gather information from observing other responses in other countries, it's not proof that the same would have held true in your own country too.
This is a dismissal prior to a claim being made, which makes it look more like a habit than a reasoned response. An open mind is more important than both common sense and IQ in ascertaining truth.
> > You can't on the one hand use a there is no parallel universe argument for your own rebuttal and then hope to avoid it by claiming bigger problems without a lockdown. Be fair.
> They're not conflicting arguments so it's absolutely fair to make both statements.
They're absolutely conflicting and strike me as a wild guess without proof.
[Great Barrington Declaration] https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/
[Nature] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01571-8
[Duke] https://today.duke.edu/2021/01/duke-study-when-schools-take-...
[Nature2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
Orrr we could compare to the places that didn't have any measures in place since mid-2020. About half of US states, for example.
States vary wildly in terms of economy and culture. While there's benefit in looking at each state and seeing what worked, that isn't proof that the same would have worked in all states (let alone all countries).
Increased consumption of alcohol can of course lead to more cancers in the future as well
It’s true that some people are anti lockdown and there may be merit. There may not be.
The truth is we won’t know for a few years until we have more information.
This is not about "maybe the person is right" or "these are debatable" it's about A > B but being claimed otherwise with one of the numbers being in TFA to push an agenda
Anyway... "let's wait until we have all the data" has been my favorite losing argument starting in like week 5 of the pandemic, when the deaths started mounting in Sweden.
Not in the US, they didn't. Traffic deaths in 2020 were around 7% higher than in 2019, after a multi-decade general downtrend. There were more traffic deaths in 2021 than in any year since 2007.
Final tabulation isn't ready for 2021, but from the first 9 months' figure 2021 was on pace to be materially higher than even 2020 was.
Is this some sort of scientific fact or your opinion?
Frankly if you look at say the death rate difference between Florida, Texas (hardly any lockdowns), and California, or New york, your 5x number makes no sense. There were nowhere near 5x as many deaths in Florida, despite an older population.
Peru had massive lockdowns, and they've topped the deaths per million list. Australia are creeping up the list despite being locked down the no covid, and fully vaccinated.
China are struggling to keep omicron under control with lockdowns. Their death rate will probably rise a lot soon.
It is not at all obvious that lockdowns do actually help with the death rate.
And yes it is obvious (derivable from germ theory) that lockdowns are effective at slowing the spread of disease exactly in proportion to how complete/total/rigid the lockdowns are. Whether they were worth the cost is obviously more complex to answer.