Lockdown stats

(24 Posts)
savethegrannies Sun 18-Apr-21 13:25:45

I hope this post is allowed as I appreciate it might be seen as controversial. This is the death rate stats from the US States in terms of those that imposed lockdowns and those that did not. I have already posted this in another thread but thought it was worth a thread of its own. If anything states that did not lockdown fared slightly better in terms of deaths ... but the difference is too small to he significant. These figures do, however, surely raise some serious questions for policy makers moving forwards.
I have also looked at stats globally in terms of countries that locked down v countries that did not. From what I have seen so far, I would say it is a mixed picture. There is no definitive pattern and no conclusive evidence either way that lockdowns do or do not work. Put another way, either viewpoint would be able to find the statistics to make a case.
To me, if you are going to impose such draconian measures, the evidence that they work has to be absolutely watertight, there should not be any doubt. It is not, and that is not just my view, the facts support it.
Interested in people’s thoughts...

OP’s posts: |
Tealightsandd Sun 18-Apr-21 13:29:05

Haven't clicked on the graph, but we're not America. Each US state has varying geography (some are largely rural and very spread out little public transport), demography, density of housing, standards of health, wealth levels, healthcare access and treatments used.

Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 13:39:50

It’s interesting but fairly meaningless in isolation. I would like to see the stats for hospital capacity, excess death and population density for any meaningful comparison.

BelleHathor Sun 18-Apr-21 13:54:10

I've been watching Texas and Florida with interest. Considering that they are red states with Republicans who are less likely to wear masks or get vaccinated the results are definitely worth investigating. Even Dr Fauci was unable to explain the Texas results when questioned earlier this week (NB. that the reason for Michigan and New York numbers being so high is that they did a similar thing to us by moving untested residents from Hospital to care homes).
Fauci on Texas at 4 mins
m.youtube.com/watch?v=j0r10OWrBqg&feature=youtu.be

Tealightsandd Sun 18-Apr-21 13:57:15

Cornettoninja

It’s interesting but fairly meaningless in isolation. I would like to see the stats for hospital capacity, excess death and population density for any meaningful comparison.

This.

savethegrannies Sun 18-Apr-21 14:07:20

Cornettoninja

It’s interesting but fairly meaningless in isolation. I would like to see the stats for hospital capacity, excess death and population density for any meaningful comparison.

If the stats showed there had been many more deaths in states that had not locked down, would you have said the same thing?

OP’s posts: |
MargaretThursday Sun 18-Apr-21 14:18:10

Cornettoninja

It’s interesting but fairly meaningless in isolation. I would like to see the stats for hospital capacity, excess death and population density for any meaningful comparison.

Absolutely.

Have you even considered that those who did a lockdown might well have put it in place simply because of rising cases and deaths?
A state with few cases/deaths wouldn't need a lockdown in the same way one whose healthcare was being overwhelmed.

Or an early hard lockdown may well be able to open up earlier than a half-hearted late one? So no winter lockdown could be that they locked down earlier so didn't need to do one over winter.

An interesting comparison is looking at the 1918 flu and US states alongside the lockdown measures:
National Geographic

savethegrannies Sun 18-Apr-21 14:39:57

I have considered all sorts MargaretThursday. My point is simple: there is evidence on either side, none of it conclusive.
Any policy decision as draconian which brings with it a great many negative social impacts should surely be absolutely 100 per cent proven.
I accepted lockdowns first time round, but now we have data on their impacts there is no excuse for not using it.
I do find it odd that people are very closed minded on this. They almost don’t want to think they may have been wrong 😳

OP’s posts: |
Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 15:42:11

If the stats showed there had been many more deaths in states that had not locked down, would you have said the same thing

Probably because it’s about context. If there was no need to lockdown because hospital capacity wasn’t breeched or the population was spread out enough to act as a natural chain break then it’s relevant. If there was no lockdown and hospitals were breeched and the excess deaths are high (but still low in comparison to other states) then it goes against the point I presume you’re trying to make hence your deflection.

Fatality numbers in isolation just don’t mean much. I’ve said it before on here - if covid killed quickly without patients lingering in hospital we probably wouldn’t have seen the measures that we have. Unfortunately the consequences of covid are more complex than that and trying to simplify it to the extent you’ve presented it doesn’t really represent anything.

savethegrannies Sun 18-Apr-21 15:55:23

Cornettoninja lockdowns have been sold on the back of the notion that they prevent huge numbers of deaths. This message has been fairly consistent. In the UK, various estimates by Imperial College were suggesting all kinds of outlandish figures if we did not lockdown and these projections were very influential in winning over the public.
If you look at many of the states that did not lockdown in the US there is nothing at all atypical about them in terms of population density etc. The decision not to lockdown was political more than anything, as it has been in most countries; surely you can understand that?
It is interesting people have become so dogmatic about this issue. I suspect you, like many others, hate the idea you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes.

OP’s posts: |
savethegrannies Sun 18-Apr-21 15:56:48

... and if fatality numbers in isolation do not mean much, why has the government been making fatality numbers available to the press each day for the past year?

OP’s posts: |
noblegiraffe Sun 18-Apr-21 16:03:54

Right, so in England in the lead-up till Christmas we saw rapidly increasing numbers of cases, and with a few weeks lag, increasing numbers of deaths.

We then locked down, and cases came down, as did infection rates through random sampling, and then with a few weeks lag, so did deaths.

What’s your alternative explanation if lockdown didn’t work to reduce cases and deaths? Are you suggesting that deaths would have come down regardless? Or that those deaths will now happen at a different time?

JassyRadlett Sun 18-Apr-21 16:10:07

I mean, winter in Texas and Florida is a fair bit different to winter in New Jersey or New York.

The places that fared better seem to have some things in common to do with population density and/or climate.

Arizona is the particularly interesting one to me, it would be interesting to see the dynamics of disease spread and deaths by geography and demographics.

Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 16:20:02

“Lockdowns have been sold on the back of the notion that they prevent huge numbers of deaths”

Yes because they do. When hospitals are over capacity then deaths from other things as well as covid increase because there’s just no resource. It’s a fairly simple flow chart which I’m sure you understand.

“In the UK, various estimates by Imperial College were suggesting all kinds of outlandish figures”

Completely unprovable statement. Your suggestion of outlandishness is as theoretical as theirs except you have no responsibility about the consequences of yours.

“If you look at many of the states that did not lockdown in the US there is nothing at all atypical about them in terms of population density etc. The decision not to lockdown was political more than anything”

Are you speaking on behalf of the residents of these states? I agree it’s political and the people I know would politically distance themselves from the USA’s initial covid response up to the time Trump left office because they massively disagree (and in some states continue to disagree at state level) with the official stance. I don’t dispute that there other groups that disagree. A measure of who is possibly right might be found looking at your initial post along with the figures I initially pointed out.

“surely you can understand that?”

Obviously, you’re not exactly presenting a complicated argument. I’m pointing out that you’ve simplified it to the point of meaning nothing.

“It is interesting people have become so dogmatic about this issue”

It is interesting isn’t it? Perhaps you’d be as interested as discussing similar aspects of your arguments, also dogmatic, following.

“I suspect you, like many others, hate the idea you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes”

Not really. I do dislike attempts at rewriting history though.

“and if fatality numbers in isolation do not mean much, why has the government been making fatality numbers available to the press each day for the past year“

Fatalities are a fairly common measure of a pandemic and they’ve been focussed on. What could they do? Not publish them?

I’m open to discussing any view point but when someone starts to pick apart my stance for having the audacity to ask questions then I question their motives and the credibility of their argument tbh. I pointed out not unreasonable missing factors in my initial post and you’ve taken that as a cue to deflect from my points. If you don’t know or want to discuss fuller figures that’s okay but why go on the attack?

noblegiraffe Sun 18-Apr-21 16:23:41

Just before Christmas the most infected subset of the population in England by far was secondary school pupils, due to the complete lack of mitigation measures in schools.

Having a look at Texas, I see that a lot of their schools are online, or hybrid, and there was a requirement to wear masks even from a young age and remain 6 feet apart.

Perhaps you need to be looking at measures taken as a whole, not simply lockdown versus no lockdown. If England had implemented similar safety measures in its schools when they reopened in September, would the country have had to lockdown in January?

lonelyplanet Sun 18-Apr-21 17:02:45

I don't think the graph is correct. Most of the states imposed lock down restrictions. Most of them closed schools and nurseries.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_government_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic

Flyonawalk Sun 18-Apr-21 17:13:58

Lockdown was always a controversial experiment with heavy risks.

The Lockdown Sceptics has a good article about it today. They explain that the U.K. population of 67 million has lost 1.25 years of quality life because of lockdown, amounting to over 80 million years of life lost.

They point out that this is worse than the projection of years of life lost if the U.K. had not locked down.

Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 18:41:58

They explain that the U.K. population of 67 million has lost 1.25 years of quality life because of lockdown, amounting to over 80 million years of life lost

They point out that this is worse than the projection of years of life lost if the U.K. had not locked down

I’ll have to hunt down the link but that contradicts a report I read from the ONS earlier this week. I’d be interested to know where they’ve got that number from. I suspect that they’re alternating the use of ‘years of life’ and ‘quality years of life’, the latter of which is subjective, to suit their view. A lot these days depends on how much you trust the source data and the interpretation of it.

Tealightsandd Sun 18-Apr-21 19:19:01

The reduced quality of life is because of the pandemic.

I agree though that long repeated lockdowns weren't the right choice.

The right way to go was the Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan approach. Strict border restrictions and real quarantine.

Delatron Sun 18-Apr-21 19:56:22

I agree OP. Why aren’t we analysing this more? It’s not completely clear cut. But I think this virus will follow a certain path. Lockdown prolongs this path (but will arguably ‘protect’ your health service). You just spread the deaths out over a longer time. With huge societal abs economic consequences of lockdown. And maybe you end up with the same result.

It will all become clear in a few years time.

Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 19:58:05

@Tealightsandd I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that. We missed our opportunity to emulate Asia very early on. We could have followed their examples of dealing with SARS and MERS but for some inexplicable reason that was never on the table (despite covids formal naming). I’ve had my outrage over that quite early on!

How we’ve dealt with it further down the line is also questionable. Germany have a proven track record of better outcomes, largely I believe, due to their approach of very early intervention at home when our resources where being poured into the nightingales. Whether we could have staffed a home care programme is up for debate. France have managed long periods over the winter maintaining case numbers with more forgiving restrictions than we’ve had, but again we couldn’t manage to emulate that. Whether that’s solely due to the emergence of variants or not still needs scrutiny (although judging by events this side of January in France it looks unavoidable).

It’s such a complex, fast moving situation but there are certainly elements demonstrated globally that could have possibly prevented the UK’s third lockdown, length of lockdowns or huge death toll.

I don’t believe any country has implemented a lockdown lightly and in most cases have had their hand forced due to the sheer weight put on their healthcare systems and public pressure. I haven’t come across an alternative yet to easing hospital pressure (if that’s the goal) that doesn’t involve keeping people away from each other.

Tealightsandd Sun 18-Apr-21 20:08:17

I don't think we missed our chance. Better late than never especially with potential new variants of concern popping up. We had low numbers after our first lockdown and again after the winter one just coming out. Both times were opportunities to do it. Instead we did EOTHO and summer holidays abroad. Now Boris wants to bring back an unwelcome souvenir from India.

Tealightsandd Sun 18-Apr-21 20:28:41

Nicola Sturgeon thinks we should have better travel restrictions. Scotland already does but it's undermined by people flying in to London then driving up to Scotland.
She's not the only British politician calling for action. Many in the Labour Party are saying the same.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-variant-travel-restrictions-sturgeon-b1833342.html

Cornettoninja Sun 18-Apr-21 20:41:48

But from the perspective of case numbers/fatalities that can’t be undone, nor the socioeconomic impact. But yes I agree that going forward we maybe we can do things better.

I can’t bring myself to give credit to this cabinet for that though and believe that any success will rely heavily on vaccinations - although I will concede that they made a cracking move backing developments of vaccines and the choice to extend the period between doses which I was initially very scathing of.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in