Re: ATP FINALS 2020 Thread

[Tenez]

just saw that Federer is over 39 now....amazing!

[naxroy]

02 was as slow.

Medvedev had gone out of roland garros in first round in each and everyone of his previous appearances, thats why I said he had 0 chance of winning RG as you had said. Then he got beaten again in round 1 this year.

thats all

[Daniel2]

02 was as slow.

Medvedev had gone out of roland garros in first round in each and everyone of his previous appearances, thats why I said he had 0 chance of winning RG as you had said. Then he got beaten again in round 1 this year.

thats all

And your hero lost again.  That's all.

[N2D2L]

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas

[Tenez]

Happy New year everybody!

You are now free with a good deal. Enjoy!

[bogbrush]

Happy New year everybody!

You are now free with a good deal. Enjoy!

Thanks Tenez, really happy we’re out and incidentally happy that we made a sensible deal in the next 5 years on fishing. British fishermen aren’t ready for capacity and they’d only sell their quotas which is hardly the point, and this isn’t supposed to screw people’s livelihoods.

Ah well, it’s behind us finally. Now we need the damn Covid to get handled too. We need to vaccinate faster!

Meanwhile, Federer pulls out if AO and I question whether I give a toss about tennis until another genius emerges.

[N2D2L]

I voted remain but I am open minded, and admit that Boris' deal has surpassed my expectations. From what I have read, it appears we have gained sovereignty, without the serious harm to our economy that was forecasted by some.

[N2D2L]

Meanwhile, Federer pulls out if AO and I question whether I give a toss about tennis until another genius emerges.

Wimbledon 2021 may be Fed's last chance to add to slam tally, but I think Federer will be joint favourite with Nole as long as he is healthy. Added pressure of Rafa and Nole catching up to his slam tally may also motivate him in a good way. Foolish to write him off.

[N2D2L]

This new more contagious Covid variant is really scary. Doctors in London I know are telling me that hospitals are far more stretched than they've ever been.

Hospitals are having to ration oxygen because demand is too high, they are running out of beds for urgent cancer surgeries as COVID admissions spike, and in one hospital they had to turn outpatients into an inpatient ward. These examples are all London hospitals, but the new variant is already spreading across the UK.

The vaccine is the big hope, but with every COVID transmission there is an increased chance of mutation. If people don't comply with the restrictions as the vaccine is being rolled out, it massively increases the chance of the new variant further mutating and becoming vaccine resistant. That would cause so many deaths, and irreparably hurt our economy.

[Tenez]

Happy New year everybody!

You are now free with a good deal. Enjoy!

Thanks Tenez, really happy we’re out and incidentally happy that we made a sensible deal in the next 5 years on fishing. British fishermen aren’t ready for capacity and they’d only sell their quotas which is hardly the point, and this isn’t supposed to screw people’s livelihoods.

Ah well, it’s behind us finally. Now we need the damn Covid to get handled too. We need to vaccinate faster!

Meanwhile, Federer pulls out if AO and I question whether I give a toss about tennis until another genius emerges.

Yep I am still hoping France will follow suit and free Herself one day from EU/Germany too.

[Tenez]

Meanwhile, Federer pulls out if AO and I question whether I give a toss about tennis until another genius emerges.

Wimbledon 2021 may be Fed's last chance to add to slam tally, but I think Federer will be joint favourite with Nole as long as he is healthy. Added pressure of Rafa and Nole catching up to his slam tally may also motivate him in a good way. Foolish to write him off.  

From my understanding Fed used knee injury to pull out cause he did not fancy travelling with family in this covid climate. I am pretty sure he will start play soon in Europe.

Let's not forget he will be 40 this year! So I don;t think he stands a chance to win a slam now.

[Tenez]

This new more contagious Covid variant is really scary. Doctors in London I know are telling me that hospitals are far more stretched than they've ever been.
....

You keep being scared!?! This new variant timing is great for pushing for vaccination.

Do you personally know people who died of covid?

[N2D2L]

Do you personally know people who died of covid?

Yes, I do. I also have family and friends who are both consultants and junior doctors, and they are saying the number of admissions and fatalities is like they've nothing they've experienced before. Many are calling me and emotionally overwhelmed from the scale of death.

This new variant timing is great for pushing for vaccination.

No, it's actually the other way round.
Mutations will mean it's less likely that the vaccine will be as effective. The current UK strain will likely affect vaccine efficacy, but hopefully not by too much. But further mutations could even make COVID variants resistant to some/all vaccines.

[Tenez]

Do you personally know people who died of covid?

Yes, I do. I also have family and friends who are both consultants and junior doctors, and they are saying the number of admissions and fatalities is like they've nothing they've experienced before. Many are calling me and emotionally overwhelmed from the scale of death.

This new variant timing is great for pushing for vaccination.

No, it's actually the other way round.
Mutations will mean it's less likely that the vaccine will be as effective. The current UK strain will likely affect vaccine efficacy, but hopefully not by too much. But further mutations could even make COVID variants resistant to some/all vaccines.

Bizarre It's been a year since this virus came out and I don;t know personally anyone who died from it. I know people who know people but personally I don't....and believe me I know a lot of people who are younger and older than me.

I however have quite a few people around me who have been tested positive. Including an uncle who has huge heart problems and a cousin's father who is 89 and both survived it.

I am not saying it is not killing but my understanding is that it kills old people, people with other heavy health issues and very unlucky ones whose genetics make them very vulnerable to the virus.

And yes, you are correct, variants make the vaccine less likely to work.

However, you are going to see lots more death and damage is lockdown is extended.

[N2D2L]

In terms of lockdown... I urge everyone to follow the rules. 

Not only will it prevent more COVID deaths, but due to hospital occupancy being overwhelmed, surging COVID rates will also result in more non-COVID deaths, as urgent cancer operations etc. are cancelled 

The argument for restrictions is clear and logical:
-One is contagious very early on after being infected. This is partly within their incubation period- so when pre-symptomatic (This is different to patients who are completely asymptomatic during their COVID infection, who are less likely to ever be contagious).  
-As one could spread COVID without realising they have it, the more people they interact with while contagious, the more people they will spread it to. 
-So try and distance yourselves from many people as possible. Even spreading it, while not symptomatic, to another young person, will likely cause a chain of transmission that would end up with actual people dying of COVID. 

The phoney data used by 'lockdown sceptics' is incredibly flawed, which is why scientific opinion says lockdowns are needed as a last resort if community spread is rampant (as it is now). If you want I can address those flaws specifically.

[Tenez]

In terms of lockdown... I urge everyone to follow the rules. 

Not only will it prevent more COVID deaths, but due to hospital occupancy being overwhelmed, surging COVID rates will also result in more non-COVID deaths, as urgent cancer operations etc. are cancelled 

The argument for restrictions is clear and logical:
-One is contagious very early on after being infected. This is partly within their incubation period- so when pre-symptomatic (This is different to patients who are completely asymptomatic during their COVID infection, who are less likely to ever be contagious).  
-As one could spread COVID without realising they have it, the more people they interact with while contagious, the more people they will spread it to. 
-So try and distance yourselves from many people as possible. Even spreading it, while not symptomatic, to another young person, will likely cause a chain of transmission that would end up with actual people dying of COVID. 

The phoney data used by 'lockdown sceptics' is incredibly flawed, which is why scientific opinion says lockdowns are needed as a last resort if community spread is rampant (as it is now). If you want I can address those flaws specifically.

Is there a study out there showing that locking down works? Please show it to me. Cause I have seen half a dozen that say it does not work!

Just by looking at countries that have locked down most, I can see they have suffered most in terms of contamination cases and deaths. Maybe it is time to make a correlation.

[N2D2L]

Is there a study out there showing that locking down works? Please show it to me. Cause I have seen half a dozen that say it does not work!

It's interesting that you've seen 6 that say it doesn't work, but none that say it does. Through university I'm subscribed to all the major medical journals, and the vast majority of studies recommend lockdowns when community spread is existent. So the fact you've seen 6 vs 0 in the other direction is perhaps indicative of where you're accessing information.

This study is based on UK data from March to October 2020 in England, prestigious journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30984-1/fulltext

Just by looking at countries that have locked down most, I can see they have suffered most in terms of contamination cases and deaths. Maybe it is time to make a correlation.

That data is fatally flawed. Selection bias which is why correlation doesn't = causation.

All countries try to initially control COVID with a combination of travel restrictions and contact tracing. (Btw, Asian countries had better track and trace system than UK as they had infrastructure and planning in place since the 2003 SARS scare.) In countries where initial measures can't stop community spread from surging, both these options become ineffective. Travel restrictions can't stop domestic spread, while tracing and communicating with all the contacts of positive cases is unfeasible when cases are too high.

So it's only when cases are high that most countries consider lockdown. Sweden is an exception, in that it didn't put into place lockdown even when there was community spread, and it has a far higher mortality per capita than both Europe and the world. They've now had to U-turn 180°.

Logically, if you compare countries that needed lockdown vs those that didn't, without controlling for the variables, you would by default come to the misled correlation that lockdown leads to more COVID.

It would also be contrary to basic scientific understanding of how viruses spread.
The fewer people a contagious person comes into physical contact with, the fewer people he/she would spread COVID to. So lockdowns and social distancing would reduce rate of spread. Sometimes common sense does the trick!

[Tenez]

It's interesting that you've seen 6 that say it doesn't work, but none that say it does. Through university I'm subscribed to all the major medical journals, and the vast majority of studies recommend lockdowns when community spread is existent. So the fact you've seen 6 vs 0 in the other direction is perhaps indicative of where you're accessing information.

This study is based on UK data from March to October 2020 in England, prestigious journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30984-1/fulltext

The lancet? You must be kidding! Even its Editors are saying that sciences studies they publish are flawed and even apologise for it!!!. Have you heard of the one they pusblished about choloroquine financed by Gilead using 3 fake doctors including a former porn star and a sci fi writer? Google it!

I don;t need a study. I can make up my own mind by looking at results of countries who have locked down and those who have not in Europe. Locking down only works a la Chinese where people are simply not allowed out at all and the army comes and provide them with food.  

That data is fatally flawed. Selection bias which is why correlation doesn't = causation.

All countries try to initially control COVID with a combination of travel restrictions and contact tracing. (Btw, Asian countries had better track and trace system than UK as they had infrastructure and planning in place since the 2003 SARS scare.) In countries where initial measures can't stop community spread from surging, both these options become ineffective. Travel restrictions can't stop domestic spread, while tracing and communicating with all the contacts of positive cases is unfeasible when cases are too high.

So it's only when cases are high that most countries consider lockdown. Sweden is an exception, in that it didn't put into place lockdown even when there was community spread, and it has a far higher mortality per capita than both Europe and the world. They've now had to U-turn 180°.

Logically, if you compare countries that needed lockdown vs those that didn't, without controlling for the variables, you would by default come to the misled correlation that lockdown leads to more COVID.

By the same logic, explain why the swededs who have never locked down are less affected than us?

It would also be contrary to basic scientific understanding of how viruses spread.
The fewer people a contagious person comes into physical contact with, the fewer people he/she would spread COVID to. So lockdowns and social distancing would reduce rate of spread. Sometimes common sense does the trick!

And how do you feed this way? One needs to get out, right? but when he/she returns homes, everybody is more likely get contaminated cause they all are within closed walls 24/7,

You do not have a logical mind I am afraid. You are the one who thinks Nadal and Djoko are 2 excellent clean athletes!

[/quote]

[N2D2L]

The lancet? You must be kidding! Even its Editors are saying that sciences studies they publish are flawed and even apologise for it!!!.

Have you heard of the one they pusblished about choloroquine financed by Gilead using 3 fake doctors including a former porn star and a sci fi writer? Google it!

No journal has a 100% record of being able to vet and filter out fraudulent studies. A rare exception does not mean all studies published in the Lancet are flawed.
The article I linked was accessible to everyone, and uses public data, so feel free to point out the flaws, or find anyone who did.

I don;t need a study. I can make up my own mind by looking at results of countries who have locked down and those who have not in Europe.

I've explained why correlation = causation is literally the worst possible assumption in this instance. Could you follow my analysis?  

By the same logic, explain why the swededs who have never locked down are less affected than us?

Sweden actually have a significantly worse COVID mortality per capita than the average in Europe, and the world's average too.
Their own Prime Minister admitted their approach failed, as did their king, and they've now U-turned and have just opted for a lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/a-56185101

And how do you feed this way? One needs to get out, right? but when he/she returns homes, everybody is more likely get contaminated cause they all are within closed walls 24/7,

Shopping is a potential risk, but that would be the case whether we were in lockdown or not, so it's not that relevant.

Lockdown does mean one would spend more time with fellow members of their household, but even in normal circumstances most people would be in close physical contact with other people in their house for long periods of time.

Let's say you go to work in a business without distancing, or have to use crowded public transport. Interacting with MORE people would mean there's a greater chance that you catch the virus, or spread it if you're contagious. This completely outweighs the increase in risk of household transmission to a small number of people.

[Tenez]

No journal has a 100% record of being able to vet and filter out fraudulent studies. A rare exception does not mean all studies published in the Lancet are flawed.
The article I linked was accessible to everyone, and uses public data, so feel free to point out the flaws, or find anyone who did.

You see you are not educated. The editors themselves say that about 50% or more of the studies they publish are sponsored, hence flawed. It is not exceptional.

Once again you underestimate the power of money.

Sweden actually have a significantly worse COVID mortality per capita than the average in Europe, and the world's average too.
Their own Prime Minister admitted their approach failed, as did their king, and they've now U-turned and have just opted for a lockdown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/

Why discussing? you are not honest with facts:
Belgium, Italy, UK, France, Switzerland, Spain, Croatioa, Czechia Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Andorra have worse mortality than Sweden, with Poland, Luxembourg, Romania, catching up soon.

So check your facts!!!!

Let's say you go to work in a business without distancing, or have to use crowded public transport. Interacting with MORE people would mean there's a greater chance that you catch the virus, or spread it if you're contagious. This completely outweighs the increase in risk of household transmission to a small number of people.

Sweden, Denmark or Netherland should be by far in much worst case scenario than all those other countries which have had strict confinement!...yet they are not worse...if anything better. So your logic does not fit with reality.

[N2D2L]

You see you are not educated. The editors themselves say that about 50% or more of the studies they publish are sponsored, hence flawed. It is not exceptional.

Once again you underestimate the power of money.

I don't think that 50% figure is correct.
Regardless, the study I linked uses publicly available data, so anyone with expertise can check the veracity of their calculations. The scientific consensus is clear, lockdowns do reduce the spread of COVID when there is already community spread.

Why discussing? you are not honest with facts:
Belgium, Italy, UK, France, Switzerland, Spain, Croatioa, Czechia Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Montenegro, Andorra have worse mortality than Sweden, with Poland, Luxembourg, Romania, catching up soon.

So check your facts!!!!

Sweden had a significantly higher mortality per capita than the average of Europe and the world. That's a fact.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/

Sweden, Denmark or Netherland should be by far in much worst case scenario than all those other countries which have had strict confinement!...yet they are not worse...if anything better. So your logic does not fit with reality.

Both Denmark and Netherlands have had lockdowns, and are in fact currently in a lockdown too.  

Meanwhile, you still haven't directly addressed my points on why your correlation = causation hypothesis is obviously flawed.

[summerblues]

Most of the countries you listed there have a lower mortality per capita than Sweden.

Nonsense.

[N2D2L]

Most of the countries you listed there have a lower mortality per capita than Sweden.

Nonsense.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
This link was titled on Google search as "Europe: coronavirus deaths per 100,000 by country | Statista", so I assumed it was so, and Sweden was 12th worse in Europe. However, I then misread the sub-headline, which made clear it was only referring to EEA & UK, hence my error with those individual countries. Apologies for that, although I do think their title was misleading, and I've edited my reply to Tenez.

However, my main point still stands; it was 12th worse out of a list of 31 countries, so still below average performance in Europe. Their lawmakers have recognised this, and despite their hatred of lockdowns, have now just implemented one: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/a-56185101

[Tenez]

Looking at overall mortality, rather than mortality per capita (person), is incorrect.
Most of the countries you listed there have a lower mortality per capita than Sweden.

I said Sweden had a significantly higher mortality per capita than the average of Europe and the world. That's a fact. I'm not sure how you misunderstood it.

Check by yourself. But imagine if what I say is correct, would that change your mind on the real benefit of locking down? I doubt it.

Both Denmark and Netherlands have had lockdowns, and are in fact currently in a lockdown too. You appear to be grossly uninformed.

 I know they have, but only late and with far much less restriction and rigour than Italy, Spain and France. Yet they have better results.
Regarding Sweden they have had quite a bit of casualties in March/April cause they had not taken very good care of their elder people but having let the virus circulate freely probably helped them having a much better mortality ration in autumn.

But anyway look at the curves, the funny thing is locking or not locking shows the curves being very similar between Sweden, Holland, Denmark and other countries who have locked down. Explain that with your locking down benefits!
And a bit of reading for you:

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/

[N2D2L]

Regarding Sweden they have had quite a bit of casualties in  March/April cause they had not taken very good care of their elder people but having let the virus circulate freely probably helped them having a much better mortality ration in autumn.

Sweden didn't get COVID under control though. Worse than average of Europa & World.

In fact, it is spiking to such an extent, that they've now reintroduced a lockdown. The Prime Minister of Sweden himself said their policy was a failure, and hence the U-turn. https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/a-56185101

I know they have, but only late and with far much less restriction and rigour than Italy, Spain and France. Yet they have better results.

You're still making the same error that you made initially. I pointed out the flaw, and you just ignored it completely.

Countries where COVID rates are already high are more likely to implement lockdowns, and the higher the rate the tougher the lockdown they are likely to implement. So observing lockdown toughness, and then comparing overall mortality data, is flawed by default because of that selection bias.

[Tenez]

Most of the countries you listed there have a lower mortality per capita than Sweden.

Nonsense.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/
This link was titled on Google search as "Europe: coronavirus deaths per 100,000 by country | Statista", so I assumed it was so, and Sweden was 12th worse in Europe. However, I then misread the sub-headline, which made clear it was only referring to EEA & UK, hence my error with those individual countries. Apologies for that, although I do think their title was misleading, and I've edited my reply to Tenez.

However, my main point still stands; it was 12th worse out of a list of 31 countries, so still below average performance in Europe. Their lawmakers have recognised this, and despite their hatred of lockdowns, have now just implemented one: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/a-56185101

Sweden is roughly in the middle but your counting by countries is a bit flawed as most of those who did better than Sweden were simply hardly affected in March and did not even bother locking down. And as mentioned the autumn waye is quickly making them look worse than Sweden.

If locked down, worked, Spain, Italy and France would not have had teh need to lock down again....and probably the need to lock down a 3rd time.

Look at the casualties in sweden now....and they can still walk freely. you and I cannot!

[N2D2L]

Look at the casualties in sweden now....and they can still walk freely. you and I cannot!

Okay, before we continue this debate, can I just make one point.

Please, especially if you live in the UK where hospitals are overstretched, follow the rules. Even if I don't convince you in this debate, but I make it more likely that you or others reading would follow the rules, I would be happy. Remember, people are most contagious early on after infection, often a day or two before symptoms, and then a week after that.
So you may get COVID from someone who doesn't know they're contagious, or you could give COVID to loved ones without realising. And even if you or the people you spread COVID to, don't get too ill, they could spread it and start a chain which ends up with a few COVID deaths. Thank you.

[Tenez]

Regarding Sweden they have had quite a bit of casualties in  March/April cause they had not taken very good care of their elder people but having let the virus circulate freely probably helped them having a much better mortality ration in autumn.

Sweden didn't get COVID under control though. Worse than average of Europa & World.

In fact, it is spiking to such an extent, that they've now reintroduced a lockdown. The Prime Minister of Sweden himself said their policy was a failure, and hence the U-turn. https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-swedens-new-covid-lockdown-law-takes-effect/a-56185101

As I said, you are not prepared to digest the facts and open your mind to a different view...something we could see already when discussing tennis. Sweden has not locked down yet so their data is better than the average of Europe is we consider population and not countries. And they have done even better in that winter period than most.

And even if they were locking down now...how can you explain that their curve went flat this spring (and now again according to late figures) than those countries who locked down?
Swallow the facts. Look at the real world!

Countries where COVID rates are already high are more likely to implement lockdowns, and the higher the rate the tougher the lockdown they are likely to implement. So observing lockdown toughness, and then comparing overall mortality data, is flawed by default because of that selection bias.

...and the tougher the lock down, the worst they have done.

[N2D2L]

Sweden is roughly in the middle but your counting by countries is a bit flawed as most of those who did better than Sweden were simply hardly affected in March and did not even bother locking down.

This demonstrates why country comparisons without looking at the variables is flawed. And the overwhelming majority of experts who have looked at the data while taking the variables into account, have determined that lockdown does reduce COVID transmission.

I personally hate lockdown, and I'd have preferred it if we dealt with it like Asian countries: efficient test and contact tracing combined with very tough travel restrictions, and selective temporary local lockdowns. However, the UK and other western countries who didn't deal with the 2003 SARS scare, never planned for a COVID contagion, and hence their public health infrastructure (unlike Asian countries) were not equipped at all to deal with this.

The rates are so high now in the UK that none of these other measures will be enough. Only a lockdown, where people comply to infect as few people as possible, could help this dangerous situation. Hospitals overwhelmed, and they're now cancelling cancer operations as they've run out of ICU beds. Needless COVID, and non-COVID deaths.

[summerblues]

Most of the countries you listed there have a lower mortality per capita than Sweden.

Nonsense.

However, my main point still stands; it was 12th worse out of a list of 31 countries, so still below average performance in Europe.

It depends on what you mean your main point to be.  If your main point is that "virus spreads slower with lockdowns" then that seems quite obviously true.  I thought your point was stronger - something to the effect of "the lockdowns are needed when spread is as rampant as it is now".  But that is a policy decision that depends on numerous trade-offs.  And it matters just how much worse Sweden is than other countries - not at all clear whether being 12th worst in Europe is more a pro-lockdown or anti-lockdown datapoint.

[Tenez]

Look at the casualties in sweden now....and they can still walk freely. you and I cannot!

Okay, before we continue this debate, can I just make one point.

Please, especially if you live in the UK where hospitals are overstretched, follow the rules. Even if I don't convince you in this debate, but I make it more likely that you or others reading would follow the rules, I would be happy. Remember, people are most contagious early on after infection, often a day or two before symptoms, and then a week after that.
So you may get COVID from someone who doesn't know they're contagious, or you could give COVID to loved ones without realising. And even if you or the people you spread COVID to, don't get too ill, they could spread it and start a chain which ends up with a few COVID deaths. Thank you.

Hospitals are overstretched every winter. In france the population has grown considerably over the last 20 years, yet in that period, governements have withdrawn 200 000 hospital beds. And you know what? they have even suppressed more beds since the start of cov19.

SO don;t expect me to trust anything coming from our govs!

[N2D2L]

As I said, you are not prepared to digest the facts and open your mind to a different view...something we could see already when discussing tennis.

That's not true; look earlier in this thread, I made a mistake when I misread a headline of a graph, my error was pointed out, so I apologised and corrected the record.

Sweden has not locked down yet so their data is better than the average of Europe is we consider population and not countries.

That's not true, if we consider population, ie mortality per person, they are doing worse than Europe's average, and considerably worse than their neighbouring countries. Stockholm isn't an international hub like London, Paris etc., and their average household size is much smaller, so they've done worse than average despite having considerable advantages.

Countries where COVID rates are already high are more likely to implement lockdowns, and the higher the rate the tougher the lockdown they are likely to implement. So observing lockdown toughness, and then comparing overall mortality data, is flawed by default because of that selection bias.

...and the tougher the lock down, the worst they have done.

Read what I just wrote!

This is an apt analogy:
Let's say there is a very low calorie diet that only morbidly obese people are recommended to follow by doctors. After this diet, these morbidly obese people are reduced to borderline obese, or overweight. You then look up the stats, and find out that these patients, even after their diet, have a higher rate of heart attacks than the average person.
So would you then conclude that having a low calorie diet increases the risk of heart disease? No!

[N2D2L]

Hospitals are overstretched every winter. In france the population has grown considerably over the last 20 years, yet in that period, governements have withdrawn 200 000 hospital beds. And you know what? they have even suppressed more beds since the start of cov19.

SO don;t expect me to trust anything coming from our govs!

I don't know about France's hospital situation, can only talk about UK.
We are overstretched every winter, but this winter's situation is way way worse than any other winter any doctor remembers.

As for bed suppression, I know in the UK, in many wards they've had to make beds more spaced out to reduce risk of COVID transmission from inpatient to inpatient, so there has been a slight reduction in overall capacity. It's not a conspiracy, just sensible.

[N2D2L]

It depends on what you mean your main point to be.  If your main point is that "virus spreads slower with lockdowns" then that seems quite obviously true.

This is what I'm arguing with Tenez.

[Tenez]

That's not true; look earlier in this thread, I made a mistake when I misread a headline of a graph, my error was pointed out, so I apologised and corrected the record.

But that's my very point! Acknowledging your facts were wrong did not change your view. So clearly facts don;t matter to you.

That's not true, if we consider population, ie mortality per person, they are doing worse than Europe's average, and considerably worse than their neighbouring countries. Stockholm isn't an international hub like London, Paris etc., and their average household size is much smaller, so they've done worse than average despite having considerable advantages.

More wrong facts. They have not locked down. They have passed a law that could make them lock down any time now. But looking at the graph of their casualties, I doubt they will use it. What is obvious however is that the locking down countries are desperate to see Sweden fail so they can be comforted in their decision. Regarding their neighboring countries, it is another subject. Like Germany did very well in March and are doing poorly now...in spite of more lock down. Let's focus on one matter at a time.

I have read and heard enough and I have not seen proof that lock down actually works. And the records of those countries who have locked down makes me even more sceptical. I don;t even believe it delays the spread unless you lock down a la chinese....which we will never do in the West.

[Tenez]

Hospitals are overstretched every winter. In france the population has grown considerably over the last 20 years, yet in that period, governements have withdrawn 200 000 hospital beds. And you know what? they have even suppressed more beds since the start of cov19.

SO don;t expect me to trust anything coming from our govs!

I don't know about France's hospital situation, can only talk about UK.
We are overstretched every winter, but this winter's situation is way way worse than any other winter any doctor remembers.

As for bed suppression, I know in the UK, in many wards they've had to make beds more spaced out to reduce risk of COVID transmission from inpatient to inpatient, so there has been a slight reduction in overall capacity. It's not a conspiracy, just sensible.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

look March was bad....but this winter is not that bad....and if you look at past winters ante 2018 some would be much worse.

[summerblues]

It depends on what you mean your main point to be.  If your main point is that "virus spreads slower with lockdowns" then that seems quite obviously true.

This is what I'm arguing with Tenez.

Maybe, though I was thinking that Tenez was implicitly saying "lockdowns are not sufficiently effective to be worth it" rather than "lockdowns do not reduce spread at all".

[N2D2L]

But that's my very point! Acknowledging your facts were wrong did not change your view. So clearly facts don;t matter to you.

I said they were worse than average in Europe, and I was right about that. My confusion was thinking that they were 12th worse in Europe, when actually they're 12th worse in EEA & UK, hence I thought those individual countries you listed did better than Sweden. But that is still below average, so it didn't disprove my argument.

They have passed a law that could make them lock down any time now. But looking at the graph of their casualties, I doubt they will use it.

This doesn't seem convincing to me, why would Sweden pass a law to enable lockdown, and then not enable it? Their PM also apologised for their policy being too lax.

[N2D2L]

It depends on what you mean your main point to be.  If your main point is that "virus spreads slower with lockdowns" then that seems quite obviously true.

This is what I'm arguing with Tenez.

Maybe, though I was thinking that Tenez was implicitly saying "lockdowns are not sufficiently effective to be worth it" rather than "lockdowns do not reduce spread at all".

No, he's literally arguing that lockdown doesn't reduce spread compared to no lockdown. Cited his belief that increased risk of household transmission due to more time at home in lockdown would outweigh the lower risk of transmission to people outside household. It sounds as absurd as it is.

[summerblues]

It depends on what you mean your main point to be.  If your main point is that "virus spreads slower with lockdowns" then that seems quite obviously true.

This is what I'm arguing with Tenez.

Maybe, though I was thinking that Tenez was implicitly saying "lockdowns are not sufficiently effective to be worth it" rather than "lockdowns do not reduce spread at all".

No, he's literally arguing that lockdown doesn't reduce spread compared to no lockdown. Cited his belief that increased risk of household transmission due to more time at home in lockdown would outweigh the lower risk of transmission to people outside household. It sounds as absurd as it is.

Maybe, though I am not sure he did not just mean that transmission at home will serve as an offsetting factor.  In any event, I think discussion about whether lockdowns are worth it is more interesting than a discussion about whether lockdowns have any impact at all.  I thought you guys were discussing the former.  If you discuss the latter, then that sounds to me like a good waste of time and I will let the two of you enjoy it and will return when AO starts.

[N2D2L]

 In any event, I think discussion about whether lockdowns are worth it is more interesting than a discussion about whether lockdowns have any impact at all.  I thought you guys were discussing the former.

Tenez didn't say lockdowns had no impact at all, but rather indicated they would make covid rates worse. I'm glad you agree that the notion they make 0 difference to covid spread is obviously wrong, and thus the idea they make covid rates worse is even wrong-er.

Direct quotes from Tenez, in case I've misinterpreted:

"However, you are going to see lots more death and damage if lockdown is extended."
"Just by looking at countries that have locked down most, I can see they have suffered most in terms of contamination cases and deaths. Maybe it is time to make a correlation."

[N2D2L]

@Summerblues,

The other debate you refer to, which is separate to the one I'm having with Tenez, is whether lockdowns are worth the trade-off.

It's a nuanced debate which I've contemplated for a while, and I recently realised that in the UK it had been further complicated by 2 new factors to consider:

1) The vaccine is here, and being given quite efficiently and quickly to the at risk population. This means that lockdowns could actually save lives, rather than just delay deaths.

2) The new UK variant is approximately 50-70% more transmissible than original COVID. I think this widens the differential in the rate of COVID spread between lockdown and no lockdown.

Lockdown COVID effect= Reduced risk of transmission outside household- increased risk of transmission inside household

a) If the virus is very contagious, you'd be likely to spread the virus to members of household regardless of whether you spend only the evening/night with them, or the whole day. Thus, the increase in household risk due to lockdown would not be as stark for more contagious variant compared to original.

b) No lockdown would inevitably mean you interact with more people outside the house, but not necessarily for a great length of time with each person. A more contagious virus would mean that even those you don't spend that much time with would have a starker increased risk of transmission (compared to less contagious original).

So if you accumulate those two effects, and look at the initial equation, I do think the new variant disproportionately increases the gains of a lockdown. That, in turn, would affect the mortality/ economic impact trade off.

[Tenez]

That oneis for you Amri...even though I know you better.

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

[N2D2L]

That oneis for you Amri...even though I know you better.

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

This is the link to the journal article, in full, being referred to in that Newsweek piece:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 

My points of contention:

1. There are more studies that show that lockdown have reduced the rate of COVID spread than an increase. This article is also in the minority of scientific opinion. However, I acknowledge that in itself this is a poor argument, as it may well be that the minority of studies & scientists are correct. Analysing each study closely is key. 

2. This study has many flaws and limitations, but one major one stands out. Allow me to copy and paste from the Discussion section of the journal article itself:

Because the location and timing of policies is endogenous to perceived epidemic stage, the noise in case counts is associated with the policies, making bias possible and very difficult to eradicate. The fixed effects approach provides unbiased estimates so long as the location or timing of policies is quasi-arbitrary with respect to the outcome. This may fail to hold in this assessment of NPI (Non Pharmaceutical Interventions) effects because the underlying epidemic dynamics are non-linear, and the policies respond to – and modify – the epidemic stage. This limitation also holds for all other empirical assessments of NPI effects. 

The accuracy of their estimates rely on the imposition of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) being arbitrary in timing. This is obviously untrue. The timings are the opposite of arbitrary. NPIs such as lockdown are far more likely to be imposed when cases are high compared to low. Eg: UK has lockdown now, but didn't in September. They say that this limitation is also made by other assessments, but that doesn't make it any less flawed. 

Let's take this logic and analyse any other protective measure, ie hand washing. I personally wash and gel my hands more often when COVID cases are surging in London, compared to when cases are low. Some of my friends are similar to me, some aren't, but overall there is a greater frequency of hand washing in the population when cases are higher due to more anxiety.  
So, if I was to do a similar statistical analysis, it would show greater hand washing is linked to higher COVID cases! Absurd. 
This is a classic case of correlation not equalling causation. 

3. We know that COVID cases are caused by human to human transmission. The only people to deny this was China in January 2020, but even they had to U-turn. 
Thus, any measure that reduces the average number of humans one interacts with, reduces the chance of COVID spreading. 
For example, working from home reduces your chance of catching COVID compared to travelling to work in a crowded tube and then sitting in an office with colleagues.

[Tenez]

This is the link to the journal article, in full, being referred to in that Newsweek piece:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 

My points of contention:

1. There are more studies that show that lockdown have reduced the rate of COVID spread than an increase. This article is also in the minority of scientific opinion. However, I acknowledge that in itself this is a poor argument, as it may well be that the minority of studies & scientists are correct. Analysing each study closely is key. 

I did not even read the study. My understanding is that they are just saying what we can all see. Lock down does not work! But the side effects are just too obvious and much more damaging!

2. This study has many flaws and limitations, but one major one stands out. Allow me to copy and paste from the Discussion section of the journal article itself:

Because the location and timing of policies is endogenous to perceived epidemic stage, the noise in case counts is associated with the policies, making bias possible and very difficult to eradicate. The fixed effects approach provides unbiased estimates so long as the location or timing of policies is quasi-arbitrary with respect to the outcome. This may fail to hold in this assessment of NPI (Non Pharmaceutical Interventions) effects because the underlying epidemic dynamics are non-linear, and the policies respond to – and modify – the epidemic stage. This limitation also holds for all other empirical assessments of NPI effects. 

The accuracy of their estimates rely on the imposition of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) being arbitrary in timing. This is obviously untrue. The timings are the opposite of arbitrary. NPIs such as lockdown are far more likely to be imposed when cases are high compared to low. Eg: UK has lockdown now, but didn't in September. They say that this limitation is also made by other assessments, but that doesn't make it any less flawed. 

Clutching at straws!

Firemen in France (and I guess elswhere) are monitoring cities wasted waters. It's the best way to see the start and peaks of covid and either the decrease of covid in waters happens before Lockdowns and curfews and they can even see that lockdown has a negative effect.

3. We know that COVID cases are caused by human to human transmission. The only people to deny this was China in January 2020, but even they had to U-turn. 

Exactly and being locked down simply increases the Human to human exchange.

But anyway, you'd rather be wrong than admit that you were wrong!

Oh I also forgot....Portugal has now joined the list of countries doing worse than Sweden! Sweden who has not locked down yet nor curfewed!

[N2D2L]

This is the link to the journal article, in full, being referred to in that Newsweek piece:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 
 

I did not even read the study. My understanding is that they are just saying what we can all see. Lock down does not work! But the side effects are just too obvious and much more damaging!

Well you linked to a media piece which quoted this article, so perhaps you should read it?

Clutching at straws!

Firemen in France (and I guess elswhere) are monitoring cities wasted waters. It's the best way to see the start and peaks of covid and either  the decrease of covid in waters happens before Lockdowns and curfews and they can even see that lockdown has a negative effect.

Sounds like a watertight case.

Oh I also forgot....Portugal has now joined the list of countries doing worse than Sweden! Sweden who has not locked down yet nor curfewed!

Sweden is still far worse than the EU average.

Neighbouring countries Denmark and Norway have similar variables in terms of rate of international travel (thus exposure), and population density.
Sweden death rate is 3x Denmark, and 10x Norway.

3. We know that COVID cases are caused by human to human transmission. The only people to deny this was China in January 2020, but even they had to U-turn. 

Exactly and being locked down simply increases the Human to human exchange.

Really?
Because before lockdown, I used to travel in a crowded tube twice a day, and interact at close proximity indoors with 10+ people a day while working.
Since lockdown, there are very few people I come within 2 meters of all month.

[Tenez]

The country with the most severe locking measure is Belgium! They have the worst death ratio!

Anyway, between you and the best epidemiologist in the world.....I hesitate.

[N2D2L]

The country with the most severe locking measure is Belgium! They have the worst death ratio!

Anyway, between you and the best epidemiologist in the world.....I hesitate.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/26/why-does-belgium-have-the-worlds-highest-covid-19-death-rate/
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/120258/why-belgium-still-has-the-highest-coronavirus-death-rate-in-the-world/

[Tenez]

...
Neighbouring countries Denmark and Norway have similar variables in terms of rate of international travel (thus exposure), and population density.
Sweden death rate is 3x Denmark, and 10x Norway.

And why have you omitted the other neighbouring country?...Finland?

The stats don't suit you? No lockdown either yet as much damage as Norway and 3 times less than Danemark!

You don't like facts, do you?

[N2D2L]

...
Neighbouring countries Denmark and Norway have similar variables in terms of rate of international travel (thus exposure), and population density.
Sweden death rate is 3x Denmark, and 10x Norway.

And why have you omitted the other neighbouring country?...Finland?

The stats don't suit you? No lockdown either yet as much damage as Norway and 3 times less than Danemark!

You don't like facts, do you?

What?

Finland did not just have a lockdown, but they locked down early which other countries should have done. 2 month lockdown from March:
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-11/Finland-Europe-s-success-story-in-the-COVID-19-fight-VjaMSWdQ40/index.html

Moreover they've enacted tough travel restrictions throughout to prevent a 2nd wave and new variants from entering: https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/finland-extends-entry-restrictions-to-january-12/

Lastly, they also seem to have a competent and well run test and trace system: https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/transmission-and-protection-coronavirus/contact-tracing-app-will-help-stop-chains-of-infection

[Sponsored content]