The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Life Sciences
  3. Physiology & Medicine
  4. COVID-19
  5. Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Is Lockdown Cost Effective?

  • 28 Replies
  • 14920 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vhfpmr (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 722
  • Activity:
    5%
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #20 on: 14/04/2020 17:30:16 »
So is the suggestion that it's the quinine, or fruit bats, or both that's conferring the immunity?
Logged
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21136
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #21 on: 14/04/2020 22:59:30 »
According to my source, the quinine is irrelevant. It's the habitual exposure to corona viruses that produces herd immunity in the local population. It may even be evolutionary, like the sickle cell response offers protection against malaria.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 
The following users thanked this post: vhfpmr

Offline Petrochemicals

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3629
  • Activity:
    8%
  • Thanked: 182 times
  • forum overlord
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #22 on: 14/04/2020 23:07:53 »
Quote from: vhfpmr on 12/04/2020 15:37:52
I wasn't necessarily suggesting that we shouldn't lock down, but it would be interesting to see a price list for other measures that might save more per unit cost. I wonder how fixing climate change would compare, for example.

I'm intrigued by the debate about essential vs non-essential in the media too, quite a lot of the economy is essential eventually.
If your germany and you have invested in healthcare, rather than the nhs, lockdown is not worth it, people in that country have no qualms about calling the nhs, but the argument then becomes is investing in a good health care system worth it ? And taxing accordingly, if you are a member of the bullingdon club the answer was no !
Logged
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
To ignore someone too, go to your profile settings>modifyprofie>ignore!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21136
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #23 on: 15/04/2020 18:01:02 »
Quote
The preliminary fatality rate in Germany was much lower than in Italy or Spain, leading to a discussion and explanations citing the country's higher amount of tests conducted, higher amount of available intensive care beds with respiratory support, absence of COVID-19 analyses in post-mortem tests and higher amount of positive cases among younger people. The head of the Robert Koch Institute warned that the German death rate would increase over time.

my italics. In other words, the infection rate is probably as high as anywhere else, but postmortem recording is probably underplaying the actual fatality rate.

Fact is, there are no facts. Or at least very few credible facts.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    14.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #24 on: 15/04/2020 18:30:17 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51
Given the enthusiasm of the green movement for turning East Anglia back into a malarial swamp,
No, that's your intention. The Greens are trying to stop the UK getting warmer and wetter.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    14.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #25 on: 15/04/2020 18:32:26 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51
Had an interesting discussion with a tropical agronomist today. He had been shown an anticorrelation between the incidence of malaria and COVID,
How did they rule out
"poor countries can't afford covid testing"
as an explanation?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Petrochemicals

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3629
  • Activity:
    8%
  • Thanked: 182 times
  • forum overlord
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #26 on: 15/04/2020 18:37:14 »
Quote from: chiralSPO on 14/04/2020 02:59:27
This gif uses data for USA specifically, but is likely reasonably extended to most industrialized nations. It is a fascinating and horrifying graphical progression:

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1727839/

It indicates that in the order of a few weeks, deaths directly attributable to COVID-19 has eclipsed even heart disease as the leading cause of death (who knows how many otherwise preventable deaths will result from the flooding of hospitals and the exhaustion of physical and human resources associated with outbreaks).

That said, the value of human life is not infinite. The United States Department of Transportation defines the value of a statistical human life as about $10,000,000. So the difference between 100,000 deaths (locked down) vs 2,000,000 deaths (not locked down) is on the order of (1.9x106)(107) = $1.9x1013

Add to that lost wages assuming that everybody was still working, and it looks like without the lockdowns ~80% of people would contract the disease, of which about 50% would have no symptoms. So if 40% of the US working population were out sick for 2 weeks, with US median pay, that's about $1800x1.56x108x0.4 = $1.1x1011. Not so big compared to all the dying, but also not great.

It's hard to know what "would" have happened without lockdowns, but we can see example after example of places that "should" have locked down earlier (from a casualty perspective). But if we really want an "economical" strategy. Aggressive testing and tracking will be able to ensure that populations with low enough infection rates can return to business "as usual" while those with problematic infection rates can shelter in place for a few weeks at a time. (the more people self-isolate, the less time is required to strangle the infection: if only 10% of people isolate, there's no point at all)
Whats the value of an 80 year old with rumatoid arthritis that lives in a carehome ?
Logged
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
To ignore someone too, go to your profile settings>modifyprofie>ignore!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21136
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #27 on: 16/04/2020 05:09:09 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2020 18:30:17
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51
Given the enthusiasm of the green movement for turning East Anglia back into a malarial swamp,
No, that's your intention. The Greens are trying to stop the UK getting warmer and wetter.
https://www.greatfen.org.uk/creating-wetlands

Note: creating.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21136
  • Activity:
    70%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?
« Reply #28 on: 16/04/2020 05:17:59 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2020 18:32:26
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51
Had an interesting discussion with a tropical agronomist today. He had been shown an anticorrelation between the incidence of malaria and COVID,
How did they rule out
"poor countries can't afford covid testing"
as an explanation?
The sudden appearance of clusters of unusual symptoms and an increase in deaths from respiratory disease, is unequivocal, even in the poorest of countries. Limited testing in the UK has actually distorted the statistics: it's quite obvious that deaths in non-hospital settings have increased but they aren't reported as COVID as there's been little or no testing in care homes and private houses.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.213 seconds with 45 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.