You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place.

The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives.

The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined?

Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself.

The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_ ... a_pandemic

Other actions/restrictions will have an effect on the spread, but much slower. Where i live there was no lockdown, but they severely restricted movement in and out of districts. As the virus had not spread to here, it was very effective and there is still no community spread of the virus. In other areas, particularly big cities, there was a lockdown. This zonal approach is much more effective. Saying all the curves go up and then down regardless of lockdown is like saying all mountains go up and down so they are all the same. Everest is not the same as Ben Nevis.

I really don't have the data for all countries for dates/timing of lockdown and numbers of deaths. A thorough analysis of a significant selection of countries is needed, but it is notoriously difficult to make international comparisons as conditions and levels of testing and methods of recording deaths varies widely. Interesting that the UK binned 5,500 deaths (change of method) in the middle of August and 30,000 cases (double counting) at he start of April but never corrected the massive underestimate of cases before that (lack of testing). According to statisticians (more or less podcast) the most accurate reflection of deaths caused by covid would be a limit of 60 days, not 28.

An analogy for the virus is a loan with compound interest (also exponential).
The amount of interest you pay (deaths) depends on 3 factors: Interest rate (R number), amount borrowed (prevalence) and time. The only one you can control is the interest rate (R number).

For loans, you could transfer to different lender with lower interest, but there may be costs involved (economic impact).
So, the action you take depends on the current situation. Is the interest rate still low enough? Is the amount borrowed small? Can you easily afford the interest payments? (death rate not significantly higher than normal)
You have to do the calculations. Maybe it's worth paying to transfer the loan if you can see that in a couple of months you won't be able to pay the interest.


On the Nordic countries, it seems valid to compare them to each other rather than to the UK This is a highly contagious virus which spreads by people with the virus (symptomatic or not) coming into close contact with people who are susceptible to it. In the UK we are very mobile and in most places live very close to others. This is perfect for the spread. It is clear that due to lack of testing that the government had no idea how bad the spread had got until it was pretty much too late to control without a long lockdown. Those countries who reacted quickly and harshly have come out of this the best.

So, comparing total deaths in Sweden with the other Nordic countries combined, using daily data from the BBC/JHU (I only started collecting data 28th March when I was WFH
Sweden (Total Norway/Finland/Denmark)
28th March 105 (94)
28th April 2355 (839)
28th May 4266 (1117)
28th June 5280 (1181)

It's clear that numbers in Sweden were relatively out of control. Would they have saved lives if they'd reacted faster?

edit to add:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646

You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place.

The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives.

The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined?

Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself.

The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_ ... a_pandemic

Other actions/restrictions will have an effect on the spread, but much slower. Where i live there was no lockdown, but they severely restricted movement in and out of districts. As the virus had not spread to here, it was very effective and there is still no community spread of the virus. In other areas, particularly big cities, there was a lockdown. This zonal approach is much more effective. Saying all the curves go up and then down regardless of lockdown is like saying all mountains go up and down so they are all the same. Everest is not the same as Ben Nevis.

I really don't have the data for all countries for dates/timing of lockdown and numbers of deaths. A thorough analysis of a significant selection of countries is needed, but it is notoriously difficult to make international comparisons as conditions and levels of testing and methods of recording deaths varies widely. Interesting that the UK binned 5,500 deaths (change of method) in the middle of August and 30,000 cases (double counting) at he start of April but never corrected the massive underestimate of cases before that (lack of testing). According to statisticians (more or less podcast) the most accurate reflection of deaths caused by covid would be a limit of 60 days, not 28.

An analogy for the virus is a loan with compound interest (also exponential).
The amount of interest you pay (deaths) depends on 3 factors: Interest rate (R number), amount borrowed (prevalence) and time. The only one you can control is the interest rate (R number).

For loans, you could transfer to different lender with lower interest, but there may be costs involved (economic impact).
So, the action you take depends on the current situation. Is the interest rate still low enough? Is the amount borrowed small? Can you easily afford the interest payments? (death rate not significantly higher than normal)
You have to do the calculations. Maybe it's worth paying to transfer the loan if you can see that in a couple of months you won't be able to pay the interest.


On the Nordic countries, it seems valid to compare them to each other rather than to the UK This is a highly contagious virus which spreads by people with the virus (symptomatic or not) coming into close contact with people who are susceptible to it. In the UK we are very mobile and in most places live very close to others. This is perfect for the spread. It is clear that due to lack of testing that the government had no idea how bad the spread had got until it was pretty much too late to control without a long lockdown. Those countries who reacted quickly and harshly have come out of this the best.

So, comparing total deaths in Sweden with the other Nordic countries combined, using daily data from the BBC/JHU (I only started collecting data 28th March when I was WFH
Sweden (Total Norway/Finland/Denmark)
28th March 105 (94)
28th April 2355 (839)
28th May 4266 (1117)
28th June 5280 (1181)

It's clear that numbers in Sweden were relatively out of control. Would they have saved lives if they'd reacted faster?

edit to add:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646

I read this last night and thought that I'd accidentally logged on to RL Fans:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53191523

Dont know if i'm adding fuel to Miro's fire or have just found one of his sources:

I read this last night and thought that I'd accidentally logged on to RL Fans:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53191523

Dont know if i'm adding fuel to Miro's fire or have just found one of his sources:

And the unfounded smears continue to roll in..


I have never mentioned 5G in relation to c-19, at least not as a cause or delivering similar symptoms.
In fact I don't believe I have discussed the ins and outs of 5G at all .

Nor do I believe I have ever said digital I/D will be in the vaccine Why the smear?



For those who cannot access the link. It basically attempts to de-bunk the above allegation inferred by the poster wrencat. However, it is BBC policy to refuse to discuss vaccines with anyone who question or opposes Bills vaccine.
See article by the BBCs Emma Barrett for proof.
Therefore why anyone would go to the BBC for information on vaccines is anyone's guess. MY other guess is that the same policy applies to 5G as well as a multitude of other subjects..
Censorship by omission.

And the unfounded smears continue to roll in..


I have never mentioned 5G in relation to c-19, at least not as a cause or delivering similar symptoms.
In fact I don't believe I have discussed the ins and outs of 5G at all .

Nor do I believe I have ever said digital I/D will be in the vaccine Why the smear?



For those who cannot access the link. It basically attempts to de-bunk the above allegation inferred by the poster wrencat. However, it is BBC policy to refuse to discuss vaccines with anyone who question or opposes Bills vaccine.
See article by the BBCs Emma Barrett for proof.
Therefore why anyone would go to the BBC for information on vaccines is anyone's guess. MY other guess is that the same policy applies to 5G as well as a multitude of other subjects..
Censorship by omission.