Rant alert! How do those who want Lockdown to continue justify the suffering of everyone else?

[Thefrenchbaguette]

My 3 month old has been waiting for a hip scan to confirm her rather obvious DDH. She needs a harness, the GP already confirmed she will need one and put in an urgent referral at her 6 week review and still nothing because they're not doing them at all here! You can only use a harness up until 6 months and after that the treatment for DDH is an operation! My baby is going to have to have a completely unavoidable operation or suffer lifelong damage to her hips because the NHS is just not interested in anyone who doesn't have Covid19! There isn't even the option to pay for it to be done privately! I am furious and so sick of seeing countless threads and comments about how lockdown needs to be continued and even stricter! All very well with your comfortable house and perfectly secure income and no real risk to your overall well-being but what about everyone else who is suffering?!
A friend had an abnormal smear come back in January but the follow up has been indefinitely postponed! How many people are going to miss life saving diagnosis', life saving treatments! It's disgusting and I feel so unbelievably angry at what this country has come through so 90% of people can avoid getting what is essentially a bad cold!

[MarginalGain]

I agree with you, further analysis required.

I would guess that what the analysis would reveal is that locking down a state and allowing only essential employees to work results in the same general death profile as ring fencing vulnerable populations and allowing everyone to get on with it.

[MarginalGain]

Florida, for example, having a much older population (avg 42 vs 35 in NY) ring fenced their care homes and had a much softer lockdown (huge amounts of criticism for DeSantis and his 'reckless' policies).

Florida had 4 deaths per 100,000 vs NY's 76 per 100,000.

The US is an interesting comparison because unlike the UK, different regions had different lockdown policies.

[mrpumblechook]

I would guess that what the analysis would reveal is that locking down a state and allowing only essential employees to work results in the same general death profile as ring fencing vulnerable populations and allowing everyone to get on with it.

Very hard to "ring fence" vulnerable people and their households as demonstrated by Sweden. Even if they did it wouldn't help the economy considering it's about a third of the population.

[MarginalGain]

That doesn't account for the dramatically different levels of success in care home fatality rates between different states having different lockdown policies. Sweden and the UK and NY (and others) were derelict in testing hospital discharges to care homes. It's not rocket science.

I don't understand why people continue to insist that a third of the population is at such elevated covd19 risk that it's sensible and proportional for them to fundamentally alter their way of life. This is not true.

And now I must get on with my day.

[mrpumblechook]

That doesn't account for the dramatically different levels of success in care home fatality rates between different states having different lockdown policies. Sweden and the UK and NY (and others) were derelict in testing hospital discharges to care homes. It's not rocket science.

It's not just those in care homes who are vulnerable though.

I don't understand why people continue to insist that a third of the population is at such elevated covd19 risk that it's sensible and proportional for them to fundamentally alter their way of life. This is not true.

I haven't said that a third of the population are at risk though.I said it could be about a third of the population once you take into account other household members. You would need to isolate them all if you are going to "ring fence".

[mrpumblechook]

@MarginalGain

www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-europe-lockdown-excess-deaths-recession/

Consider googling the worldwide body of epidemiological studies.

Have you read this study?

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

[MarginalGain]

You mean the study where Professor Ferguson goes back and compares his predictions of how many people would die against the actual number of people who died and determines not only that his predictions were correct but that the lockdown was directly causal in preventing this unfolding of events, i.e. that lockdown saved 3.1 million lives in Europe?

There are many critiques of Ferguson's work, namely that he has overestimated IFR, assumed an heterogeneously susceptible population, and a herd immunity achieved at 80% - none of these are reasonable assumptions at this point.

I think Sweden will continue to throw doubt on the 'proven' (by way of circular modelling) efficacy of lockdown, particularly into 2021.

[mrpumblechook]

There are many critiques of Ferguson's work, namely that he has overestimated IFR, assumed an heterogeneously susceptible population, and a herd immunity achieved at 80% - none of these are reasonable assumptions at this point.

The peer reviewers of the Nature publication obviously disagree with you that his assumptions aren't reasonable considering the study has been published in what is one of the most respected journals in the world.

I

Nature wouldn't publish

[MarginalGain]

^^homogeneously rather than hetero.

[MarginalGain]

OK, so why do you disagree with what I've said? You do realise that the study itself states that their baseline assumption of non-intervention deaths (500,000 or thereabouts) is derived from their own model which the study purports to test?

I consider myself a science enthusiast. I',m a lifelong subscriber to National Geographic and Scientific American (although not Nature) and I was raised on a pretty steady diet of PBS.

I'm sad to say I no longer believe that 'the science' is apolitical - everyone has a dog in this race, and most of them are aligned with lockdown.