Tucker: Are coronavirus lockdowns working?

[dvdjs]

Which is exactly what I have told dvdjs on 2 or 3 occasions in the recent past

Sorry If I misunderstood you, but the conflation of CFR and death rate threw me.
I hope that data that I plotted in post #142 is illuminating.

that’s what I’ve been trying to reiterate over and over a

What I gathered from your post is that you objected to use of the crude death rate.
You seemed to be seeking adjustments to the actual data via models that would account or present known unknowns. IMO that introduces too much arbitrariness at this state of the pandemic; it is better just to report the facts, with whatever caveats are useful to guide their interpretation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But in the growth stages of an epidemic, when transmission is starting and the degree of infection low, the death rate has the disadvantage of understating the severity of the outbreak,

That is true, if the death rate in the population is taken as a static snapshot. So in the very early stages of the epidemic, we need more than just a static snapshot. We also need a measure of the rate of growth of the death rate. It is usually exponential. If we have enough samples of the death rate over time we can construct a fairly accurate projection of what the ultimate death rate will be.

By this measure, the covid-19 outbreak is very serious. We have several months now of death rates in various nations, and we can tell from those datasets if we are still in the pure exponential growth stage, and what the doubling period is, or if we have progressed to a point where the exponential growth has started to flatten out. This is why graphs of deaths are properly presented with a log scale for the vertical axis. The slope of the curve is directly related to the doubling rate. Despite Tucker’s protestations, social counter-measures (I would not call it a lockdown in most places) are effective.

 

[dvdjs]

I never said the virus cares, but are you seriously in doubt of the misusage by both left and right commentators regarding the morbidity rate from covid-19?

I seriously doubt that.
I think that most people are doing the best that they can to characterize the situation using unfamiliar nomenclature and being a bit less accustomed to working with known unknowns.
The Atlantic article that I posted talks about this in a helpful way.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. But I disagree with your analysis that it would be arbitrary as it is necessary for policy makers to get a truer sense of the mortality rate in order to plot a better response to Covid-19, which is why there are studies trying to ascertain that.

This quote taken from the Hill but referring to the Lancet stated this:

A new study that accounts for milder cases of the novel coronavirus that previously went undiagnosed claims the virus may not be as deadly as some early estimates.

The study published Monday in [The Lancet Infectious Diseases (DEFINE_ME) medical journal estimates that about 0.66 percent of patients who become infected with the virus will die. When undetected infections aren’t taken into account, researchers found the coronavirus death rate was 1.38 percent.

That number is more consistent with previous estimates from health officials. In early March, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said the virus was 10 times more deadly than the seasonal flu, with a 2 percent mortality rate. He did emphasize, however, that the number could drop depending on “what the factor of asymptomatic cases are.”

 

[dvdjs]

That is true, if the death rate in the population is taken as a static snapshot. So in the very early stages of the epidemic, we need more than just a static snapshot.

Of course. but what we have is what we have.

we can construct a fairly accurate projection of what the ultimate death rate will be.

I will pass on a discussion of the modelling, or the relative merits of focusing on infection of death.
But will post this link, in case the exponential growth is still unclear to anyone.

Anyone else heated about Hilary's Tweet?!? World News

Yes, it is a semi-log plot that shows exponential growth in a readily recognizable linear form. In science and engineering, a semi-log or semi-logarithmic graph or plot has one axis on a logarithmic scale, the other on a linear scale. It is useful for data with exponential relationships, or where one variable covers a large range of values.[1] All equations of the form [y=\lambda a^{{\gamma x}}] form straight lines when plotted semi-logarithmically, since taking logs of both sides…

Despite Tucker’s protestations, social counter-measures (I would not call it a lock down in most places) are effective.

Thanks for bringing this back to the topic. And here is the US data on cases:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Extrapolation of the trend in the first half of May would have us over 10M cases today.
The change in slope a bit after mitigation measures ere implemented is fairly dramatic.

The trend in deaths is similar bit lags the case data by about a week…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. But I disagree with your analysis that it would be arbitrary as it is necessary for policy makers to get a truer sense of the morbidity rate in order to plot a better response to Covid-19, which is why there are studies trying to ascertain that.

Yes, there is no doubt that policy makers must make the best estimate that the can of the calues of the parameters that govern the epidemic, even with all of the known unknowns. But I agree with LbN that at this point we have clear answer to the the questions that were still open when policy was being formulated: this is not the common cold nor is it a typical seasonal flu. The estimates in later February/early March were that the mortality rates (I don’t recall discussions of morbidity rates) would be between that of seasonal flues and SARS-CoV, and that its transmissible would be more typical of flu - much greater than MERS. All of these estimates have been borne out. Similarly, on the topic, the data show that the lock downs have worked, and risks associated with not locking down. What, of any of this, are you questioning?

 

[josie_L]

I don’t actually question the quarantine happening, so much as question whether at this point in time certain areas should be quarantined if the risk from Covid-19 is rather low for many people?

I don’t think this one shoe fits all scenario is good nor should we forget to take into consideration the consequences of what a prolonged quarantine would have on society if the risks are rather much lower than we thought?

There is another side to this after all.

 

[dvdjs]

There is another side to this after all.

Of course there is. Who, apart form the builders of straw men, have suggested that there isn’t?

 

[josie_L]

Well, then that needs to be mentioned in light of what we are debating.

Does quarantine at this point in time for certain areas and many people not duly affected by Covid-19 MERIT a continuation in light of other factors and what we now know???

I do not question the merit of a quarantine especially not in the area I live, but again a one size fits all approach is not very good either.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, then that needs to be mentioned in light of what we are debating.

The topic was: are the lockdowns working. The data say yes.

 

[josie_L]

I revised my post. And the point I brought up is more nuanced than that.

 

[josie_L]

And I don’t think Tucker is contending we should never have had a lockdown. He is contending whether the lockdown is to be supported in light of the new data given by said researchers and whether the policies issued had inadvertent affects on hospitals not dealing with a covid-crisis!

Given this and your first response, I think what I said is apropos.

 

[dvdjs]

the new data given by said researchers.

That was dispensed of early in the the thread. The gentleman from Bakerfield are not researchers and have no data. They do are questioning the fundamental parameters of the pandemic. But they don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Annie]

I am of an age to be more at risk, and I live with two elderly people who additionally have health issues which increase their vulnerability.

My job involved being around large numbers of people every day. I will not be returning once businesses are able to reopen because of the risk to those at home.

But I do not think that we should continue the lockdowns for much longer, except in places where high risks remain. A very high number of those in the general population who have been tested are asymptomatic or only slightly ill. I think we can now work to protect those who are vulnerable in a more targeted way, and at the same time work on building herd immunity.

 

[josie_L]

I agree with this commentary unequivocally because a continued lockdown will I think over time prove worse than the disease. But again, this is because not all areas nor all people are affected by this coronavirus in a like manner.

Thank you for your response!

 

[josie_L]

Yes, they were wrong about the mortality rate being so low, but my point is, is it high enough to merit a continued lockdown in light of adverse affects, which I think is the geist of what Tucker is saying??

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t put much stock in what Tucker Carlson says because he will ALWAYS take the conservative ideological stance no matter what. This leads me to believe he does not really think through the specific situation.

My own feeling is that you either lock down the whole country, lock down the whole state, OR do not lock down the whole country or the whole state. Since the U.S. is doing this on a state-by-state basis, either all or none according to each state. But the governors should NOT be ambivalent and swing back and forth based on public demand, as, for example, Gov. Newsom of California has done with regard to the beaches. Either lock down ALL the beaches or leave them ALL open. Any other decision causes mass confusion. Don’t be afraid to TAKE A STAND, but if you do, make it a SOLID stand based on your understanding of the situation, not based on only ideology or only public sentiment and pressure.

I have a close friend, who is Italian and not Jewish, who respects the Hasidim for having a mass funeral gathering in Brooklyn the other day, as is their custom, to bury a beloved rabbi, without masks and without any social distancing. He respects their religious belief and he believes that social distancing is not the way to go to reduce the spread of the virus. I disagree with my friend on all counts, and with the Hasidim for their, in my view, foolish, reckless, and illegal behavior. But we both have our reasons, so we can agree to disagree. We have each taken our stand based on our understanding of the merits regarding stopping the virus: my friend believes in herd immunity as in Sweden, while I believe in what the medical experts are telling us to do.

 

[dvdjs]

But I do not think that we should continue the lockdowns for much longer, except in places where high risks remain.

The question is how much, and how to link that time to data on infection.

A very high number of those in the general population who have been tested are asymptomatic or only slightly ill. I think we can now work to protect those who are vulnerable in a more targeted way, and at the same time work on building herd immunity.

I am not sure of the degree of morbidity, but if we just look that dead and critically ill, that is about 7% of cases in the US. That is not a small fraction and would include upwards of 20 million people as we “work on building herd immunity”.

I agree with this commentary unequivocally because a continued lockdown will I think over time prove worse than the disease

I would like to see some quantitative analysis of the relative costs.

is it high enough to merit a continued lockdown in light of adverse affects,

Where is the analysis of the adverse effefts?
Continue for how long? A nanosecond/ A day. A week? And does it mean not to continue the lockdown? An immediate resumption of all activities? A phased progression?

These are the matters for discussion, IMO.

 

[Annie]

I am not sure of the degree of morbidity, but if we just look that dead and critically ill, that is about 7% of cases in the US. That is not a small fraction and would include upwards of 20 million people as we “work on building herd immunity”.

Say that in area where the danger is high, we have quarantine measures, but in areas where the risk is low, we just have measures such as social distancing in public areas.

The latter would allow businesses to open and the economy to start getting back up to speed. Those who are vulnerable would be more protective of themselves, and we could maintain some protective measures for them such as special hours in the stores.

We also need to get our hospitals back up and running. There are people in pain whose care has been postponed for the coronavirus, and there are people who are afraid to go to the hospital when they need to because of the virus.

Also, we should really minimize the areas of strict quarantine to areas with areas with a lot of risk.

 

[dvdjs]

Say that in area where the danger is high, we have quarantine measures, but in areas where the risk is low, we just have measures such as social distancing in public areas.

I agree, provided we also consider the degree of travel between high and low risk areas…
Now we also must determine, what are the criteria of high or low danger? What level should new cases reach before a place is called low danger?