dealtn wrote:It is hard to know whether the largest factor here was countries "able to eliminate" rather than "wanted to eliminate".
Is there one on the list that didn't try?
But you're right... next time try to be an island
-sd
Thanks to gpadsa,Steffers0,lansdown,Wasron,jfgw, for Donating to support the site
dealtn wrote:It is hard to know whether the largest factor here was countries "able to eliminate" rather than "wanted to eliminate".
servodude wrote:dealtn wrote:It is hard to know whether the largest factor here was countries "able to eliminate" rather than "wanted to eliminate".
Is there one on the list that didn't try?
But you're right... next time try to be an island
-sd
dealtn wrote: A study that used the groups "islands" and "non-islands" (selected with hindsight bias) would produce similar results (although the UK would skew this so it would be worse than the 25X outcome in this case).
zico wrote:dealtn wrote: A study that used the groups "islands" and "non-islands" (selected with hindsight bias) would produce similar results (although the UK would skew this so it would be worse than the 25X outcome in this case).
I don't see how "islands" and "non-islands" would be hindsight bias, because in a pandemic, you'd expect island nations to be able to do very much better than other nations, so it's a reasonable grouping.
OECD countries opting for elimination are Australia, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. OECD countries opting for mitigation are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and the USA. Data on strictness of lockdown measures are from Oxford COVID-19 government response tracker.2
Data on COVID-19 deaths are from Our World in Data.3
Data on GDP growth are from OECD Weekly Tracker of economic activity.4
GDP=gross domestic product. OECD=Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Sunnypad wrote:Polite question
Is there a thread for anyone concerned about measures being OTT?
Sunnypad wrote:.....I think there will be a surge in winter and at some point, personal liberties should be restored.
Sunnypad wrote:I think measures are OTT.
dealtn wrote:Sunnypad wrote:I think measures are OTT.
We were promised "Data not dates". Doesn't appear to be the case though.
Sunnypad wrote:One of my concerns is that people do welcome lockdowns and worry less about things like quarantine coming from other countries.
I thought more people would object to lockdown but the vibe I get from people I know is very much "if it saves one life".
Julian wrote:dealtn wrote:
We were promised "Data not dates".
Doesn't appear to be the case though.
After over 13 months now it would be such a shame to ditch a sensible phased “data not dates” methodology, assuming sensible data-driven analysis really is happening in the background, all for the sake of maybe moving the June 21st date forward a couple of weeks.
Julian wrote:Sunnypad wrote:One of my concerns is that people do welcome lockdowns and worry less about things like quarantine coming from other countries.
I thought more people would object to lockdown but the vibe I get from people I know is very much "if it saves one life".
I see your point. Just asking but do you think any of your friends attitudes might also, or alternatively, be a case of “I have a date when lockdown is likely to end, I can see the finish line now, so I’m happy to keep to that schedule in order to minimise risk of another resurgence”? Basically a “we’re almost there” attitude? That’s essentially the reason why I’m OK with the current unlock timetable which is why I ask.
- Julian
zico wrote: crucially - people should keep wearing masks.
zico wrote:Going on a plane looks to be one of the riskier things you could do, hours and hours in busy concourses, lots of close proximity queueing, followed by a few hours in close proximity to strangers inside the aircraft itself. Some interesting (and alarming) reports coming from India where passengers tested negative before flights, but lots of people tested positive after the flight. (This could either be because people fake their negative self-test (so you're travelling with lots of Covid-positive people) or it's very easy for Covid to spread on a plane. Both bad things.
We'll be Eurotunnelling off to the continent as soon as we get the green (or amber) light, but I doubt we'll risk flying until next year at the earliest.
Lootman wrote:zico wrote: crucially - people should keep wearing masks.
The US CDC has ruled that vaccinated people can safely socialise indoors together without wearing masks. So it would appear that a mask mandate is only supported in indoor locations where people have not been tested or vaccinated. California recently abandoned its policy of requiring the wearing of masks when outdoors as well. So I am not sure the continued wearing of masks is "crucial" in all cases.zico wrote:Going on a plane looks to be one of the riskier things you could do, hours and hours in busy concourses, lots of close proximity queueing, followed by a few hours in close proximity to strangers inside the aircraft itself. Some interesting (and alarming) reports coming from India where passengers tested negative before flights, but lots of people tested positive after the flight. (This could either be because people fake their negative self-test (so you're travelling with lots of Covid-positive people) or it's very easy for Covid to spread on a plane. Both bad things.
We'll be Eurotunnelling off to the continent as soon as we get the green (or amber) light, but I doubt we'll risk flying until next year at the earliest.
Some figures I saw showed that the incidence of infected airplane cabin crew was no higher than the average, and was in fact lower in some cases. Seems to me that if planes were a breeding ground for the virus then we would notice it first with flight attendants going down like flies. That has not happened.
Planes have very efficient air filtration systems. It is probably airports that have a higher risk. For instance now that the UK has decided to manually check every incoming passenger for the correct documentation, there are crowded scenes in the immigration hall. So the care being taken here is counter-productive because of the crowding, and in particular mixing passengers from low-risk countries with those from high-risk countries. It hasn't helped that Heathrow has shut 3 of its 5 terminals, cramming everyone into 5 (BA and OneWorld airlines) and 2 (everyone else). Maybe have flights from high-risk countries use Terminal 4? Just a thought.
I am flying later this month!
Lootman wrote:zico wrote: crucially - people should keep wearing masks.
The US CDC has ruled that vaccinated people can safely socialise indoors together without wearing masks. So it would appear that a mask mandate is only supported in indoor locations where people have not been tested or vaccinated. California recently abandoned its policy of requiring the wearing of masks when outdoors as well. So I am not sure the continued wearing of masks is "crucial" in all cases.
CDC wrote:If you test negative, you probably were not infected at the time your sample was collected. The test result only means that you did not have COVID-19 at the time of testing. Continue to take steps to protect yourself.
9873210 wrote:
You just slipped tested in from wistful thinking. The CDC has repeatedly warned and continues to warn that a negative test should not be justification for lessening of social distancing.CDC wrote:If you test negative, you probably were not infected at the time your sample was collected. The test result only means that you did not have COVID-19 at the time of testing. Continue to take steps to protect yourself.
Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests