Anyone not in lockdown and still able to sail?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by UFO

For there population they are doing very well - The sooner people come to realise and understand that people die - approximately 106,000 every day from various issues and you are talking about 20 or even 200 people!

Their population is 40% the size of ours. The data and numbers show this statement to be incorrect.

Originally Posted by UFO

Perth has had 3 deaths and a few hundred cases (mostly from a cruise ship that came in) and we are locked down pretty tight with drones and fines and restrictions on where/how far we can travel.


I know personally of many businesses that have gone under and more that are in trouble - The hospitals are not stressed as its not happening here - People need to get this virus and get over it as its not going away - What do you think if you lock down long enough it will magically go away? It won't it will just pop up and as no one has had it there is no immunity, so you want to stay lock downed forever and bankrupt the country so our children's children are paying it off?


Back to my original statement - People die - I know I have lost many friends and family members - It's not pleasant when it happens to you but it happens every day, day in day out the world over.

There's some logical failures here. It's not happening 'here' because we've instigated lockdowns, WA has closed the state. The government has released modeling based on no lockdowns - you should use those numbers for your position. They're not pretty and show that we've avoided a rather large catastrophe.



People dying by accident or through the course of their natural lives is not the same as choosing to let them die.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

It's very easy to discount examples that don't fit with your narrative.

And it's very correct to discount examples which are not representative of anything. Again, Australia has just about the best stats in the world, so you don't demonstrate anything whatsoever, by comparing any country in the world, to Australia.

Originally Posted by tp12

There were a number of responses to your original response, more than mine, which challenged your assumptions which you've seemed to ignore.

I guess I didn't read everything, and I don't care about it enough to study the thread. Unlike some people on here, I do not feel like I understand it enough to judge any particular country's policies correct or incorrect. I don't know and I doubt if anyone in this thread knows any better. The only thing I have said about Sweden is that Sweden's policies are not obviously wrong, that is, these policies might turn out to be wrong, but you can't say that based on what we see right now. That's a modest claim and I think quite defensible.

Originally Posted by tp12

No, there hasn't. At least, not according to the worldometers site. From ~400 deaths to nearly 600 deaths in two days you're calling that a sharp decrease. It isn't.

This is what I have. This corresponds to what is being reported in the local press. Whether it's wrong or not I don't know; I'm at work and don't have time to make a complete study of it. But in any case, the number of new cases is the important metric of the current trend, not deaths. Deaths will lag new cases by about 2 weeks. Infections in Stockholm are reported to have already peaked: https://www.thelocal.se/20200310/tim...oped-in-sweden. There are only some hundreds of people in intensive care, well within the capacity of the health care system.

The Swedish health system is coping very well, and to be sure that it will continue to do so, the Swedish government has mobilized resources and created a lot of reserve intensive care beds. Today the government agreed with parliament on emergency powers so that it could take quick action anywhere needed, but will not use these powers so far. People are calm. Of course there is internal debate, but most people support what the government is doing. Totally different situation from Southern Europe with overwhelmed hospitals, triage, and overwhelmed morgues and funeral homes, and what we will soon have in the U.S.

You think you know better than the Swedish government how to handle this. I wouldn't be so quick. They seem to be doing a pretty good job, as they do in most things. That doesn't prove that they are doing everything right, but you cannot say except on the basis of your own prejudices that they are definitely doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by tp12

That may well be the case but that would involve Sweden changing their response and not maintaining their current trajectory. Which seems at odds with your previous commentary which appears to support their position.

You seem to be awfully sure about your opinion about what the right policies are. Are you an epidemiologist? How do you know their "trajectory" is wrong? I am not an epidemiologist, and I do not pretend to have such knowledge. I am watching with an open mind. And with a stake in the outcome -- as I very much hope to be cruising the waters of these countries in a couple of months.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And it's very correct to discount examples which are not representative of anything. Again, Australia has just about the best stats in the world, so you don't demonstrate anything whatsoever, by comparing any country in the world, to Australia.

Oh, Dockhead ... come on


So, yes, you're discounting a policy whose objective numbers are successful. Dismissing them as not representing of anything with no real reasoning to support it. If you're referring to your reasoning in a previous post well that has been challenged and you've not responded.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I guess I didn't read anything, and I don't care about it enough to study the thread. Unlike some people on here, I do not feel like I understand it enough to judge any particular country's policies correct or incorrect. I don't know and I doubt if anyone in this thread knows any better. The only thing I have said about Sweden is that Sweden's policies are not obviously wrong, that is, these policies might turn out to be wrong, but you can't say that based on what we see right now. That's a modest claim and I think quite defensible.

You must post and not read any responses to it. You're a unique human, well done. The numbers suggest your emboldened statement is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is what I have. This corresponds to what is being reported in the local press. Whether it's wrong or not I don't know; I'm at work and don't have time to make a complete study of it. But in any case, the number of new cases is the important metric of the current trend, not deaths. Deaths will lag new cases by about 2 weeks. Infections in Stockholm are reported to have already peaked: https://www.thelocal.se/20200310/tim...oped-in-sweden. There are only some hundreds of people in intensive care, well within the capacity of the health care system.

The Swedish health system is coping very well, and to be sure that it will continue to do so, the Swedish government has mobilized resources and created a lot of reserve intensive care beds. Today the government agreed with parliament on emergency powers so that it could take quick action anywhere needed, but will not use these powers so far. People are calm. Of course there is internal debate, but most people support what the government is doing. Totally different situation from Southern Europe with overwhelmed hospitals, triage, and overwhelmed morgues and funeral homes, and what we will soon have in the U.S.

You think you know better than the Swedish government how to handle this. I wouldn't be so quick. They seem to be doing a pretty good job, as they do in most things. That doesn't prove that they are doing everything right, but you cannot say except on the basis of your own prejudices that they are definitely doing it wrong.

The numbers provide an objective reality. Despite being 40% of our population their infections and deaths, with a huge deaths/infections rate, is a lot larger than ours. But you've already engineered a mechanism to dismiss this and 'disallow' those numbers. Do you work in the legal profession? Oh, wait .... Let's get real.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You seem to be awfully sure about your opinion about what the right policies are. Are you an epidemiologist? How do you know their "trajectory" is wrong? I am not an epidemiologist, and I do not pretend to have such knowledge. I am watching with an open mind. And with a stake in the outcome -- as I very much hope to be cruising the waters of these countries in a couple of months.

Appeals to authority when there are objective numbers to view is metaphorically clutching at straws. Their trajectory is not as you've described. Go to the worldometers site to view how their cases have grown; you don't need to believe anything I say. Are you an epidemiologist to defy those numbers and give your 'everything is ok even if the numbers don't suggest that' analysis? Perhaps it's a rather silly and redundant position.



Let's move one from this and have some serious analysis that helps people. The thread is about "Anyone in lockdown and still able to sail?"


Here on the Gold Coast our local sailing club, the Southport Yacht Club, is closed so there's no racing or organised sailing. There's some debate about recreational sailing but I think it's best to stick to the 'stay at home' message being promulgated. The government even sent me a text message to that effect so those on the Gold Coast should probably heed it.

[Mike OReilly]

Not wanting to get in the middle of this bun fight, but I do think this C19 event will be fodder for endless epidemiological, sociological, political, cultural and economic study once the dust finally settles. I'm no expert in anything, but just looking at the range of both infection and mortality rates from around the world certainly shows some areas are better off than others.

Are the differences due to differing legal responses (lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, lots of testing)? Is it the quality of the existing healthcare systems? Is it population density? Is it cultural mores (some cultures are more touchy-feely than others)? Is it community trust levels? Is it environmental? Is it just dumb luck? Likely it is a combination of a number of factors.

It's certainly not clear to me why we have such a range of outcomes, and I doubt anyone knows any better at this point. We'll only know for sure in retrospect.

[tp12]

Can we keep the thread on topic, please?

Thank you.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Oh, Dockhead ... come on

So, yes, you're discounting a policy whose objective numbers are successful. Dismissing them as not representing of anything with no real reasoning to support it. If you're referring to your reasoning in a previous post well that has been challenged and you've not responded. .

You are trying to prove that Sweden's policy is wrong because a different country with a different policy has better stats.


But when you choose a country which is a total outlier and totally different from dozens of countries with the same policy, this objectively doesn't prove anything. It's a total logical fallacy. Do you really not understand that?



Compare Sweden rather to the average country under full lockdown. Compare Sweden to any non-Nordic European country under full lockdown. You will get a completely different result.


All I am saying is that you have not provided any argument that Sweden's policy is wrong. I am saying that you don't know whether it's wrong or not, because neither you nor anyone else has enough information to say that. The only claim I have made is a very modest one -- that it is not obvious that Sweden's policy is wrong. This is objectively supported by the fact that Sweden's stats are not out of line with countries under full lockdown, and in fact are better than most so far. Tomorrow may be a different story, but that's how it looks today.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by tp12

Can we keep the thread on topic, please?

Thank you.

How is trying to prove that Sweden is worse than Australia in its C19 response "on topic"?

[AKA-None]

As we can see it all depends on the social contract people have with their society and their government.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You are trying to prove that Sweden's policy is wrong because a different country with a different policy has better stats.


But when you choose a country which is a total outlier and totally different from dozens of countries with the same policy, this objectively doesn't prove anything. It's a total logical fallacy. Do you really not understand that?



Compare Sweden rather to the average country under full lockdown. Compare Sweden to any non-Nordic European country under full lockdown. You will get a completely different result.


All I am saying is that you have not provided any argument that Sweden's policy is wrong. I am saying that you don't know whether it's wrong or not, because neither you nor anyone else has enough information to say that. The only claim I have made is a very modest one -- that it is not obvious that Sweden's policy is wrong. This is objectively supported by the fact that Sweden's stats are not out of line with countries under full lockdown, and in fact are better than most so far. Tomorrow may be a different story, but that's how it looks today.

You're off topic.

But seeing as you won't let it go:

If the numbers can't show you that Sweden's response is wrong then I think your post is a result of commitment bias. You can conveniently rule us as an outlier with no supporting logic. This is escalating commitment bias.

The numbers don't support your assertions, either, and are likely over the next week to continue to do so.

We're not going to agree. So perhaps it's best for you to just stick to the topic. Thanks.

[jmh2002]

On top of all of this, some type of fuzzy logic filter needs to be applied to the numbers when making comparisons, since there are multiple variances between countries, such as the testing rate (low/high), counting of cases (only hospitalised, all tested positive, etc), counting of deaths (only confirmed cases, who die in hospital, or...?).

Germany is a good example to understand, where the Test Rate is very high, around 500,000 people per week from what I have read, resulting in a high number of Confirmed Cases, and yet they have a relatively low number of Total Deaths by comparison.

In my opinion what this really tells us is not that Germany 'is so good', but instead that the other neighbouring countries, especially the ones that have a much higher number of Total Deaths (eg: Spain, Italy, France, etc) are most likely woefully under reporting their real Confirmed Cases - due to their much lower Test Rate.

***

For example, France has approximately the same number of Confirmed Cases as Germany (according to the published statistics), but approximately 5 times the Total Deaths.

Most likely France's real number of Confirmed Cases should be much higher.

Of course it's not as simple as just multiplying by 5 to get France's real number, and also there are some various mitigating circumstances for each country, but certainly a multiplication factor of several would allow the numbers to make a lot more sense.

French people aren't somehow magically catching the virus 'less' than German people - at least not by this type of magnitude of difference anyway.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

As we can see it all depends on the social contract people have with their society and their government.

Yes, I think this will prove to be one of the factors in understanding why some countries and societies did better than others in responding to C19.

I suspect that those countries or areas with stronger social connections and sense of community will do better. One way to consider this is looking at measures of communal trust. Here's one attempt to measure interpersonal trust by country. It's interesting to see how both Australia and Sweden measure high, in this regard, although Sweden is higher.


https://ourworldindata.org/trust

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

You're off topic.

But seeing as you won't let it go:

If the numbers can't show you that Sweden's response is wrong then I think your post is a result of commitment bias. You can conveniently rule us as an outlier with no supporting logic. This is escalating commitment bias.

The numbers don't support your assertions, either, and are likely over the next week to continue to do so.

We're not going to agree. So perhaps it's best for you to just stick to the topic. Thanks.

The numbers from Sweden, which are better than the average country under full lockdown, most definitely and most obviously do not show that Sweden's response is wrong.



The commitment bias is all on your side -- you have a prejudice that a country has to either lockdown fully, or it's stupid and will melt down. You make a strong assertion on the basis of this prejudice. But all you have is prejudice, since comparison with one cherry picked and totally deviant country is just meaningless.


My statement, by contrast, is very modest.



No logic that Australia is an outlier? Well, the numbers speak for themselves. And bully for Australians. Lucky? Good? Both? Whatever it is, it's great, and the Australian experience is objectively totally different from other countries, from the U.S. to Canada to the U.K., Italy, Spain -- pick any another locked down country and you will see that Australia is doing exceptionally well, on a totally different level.



We shall see in the next weeks how the situation develops.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The numbers from Sweden, which are better than the average country under full lockdown, most definitely and most obviously do not show that Sweden's response is wrong.



The commitment bias is all on your side -- you have a prejudice that a country has to either lockdown fully, or it's stupid and will melt down. You make a strong assertion on the basis of this prejudice. But all you have is prejudice, since comparison with one cherry picked and totally deviant country is just meaningless.


My statement, by contrast, is very modest.



No logic that Australia is an outlier? Well, the numbers speak for themselves. And bully for Australians. Lucky? Good? Both? Whatever it is, it's great, and the Australian experience is objectively totally different from other countries, from the U.S. to Canada to the U.K., Italy, Spain -- pick any another locked down country and you will see that Australia is doing exceptionally well, on a totally different level.



We shall see in the next weeks how the situation develops.

My bias is to data. Yours is to your, unsupported by data, opinion. Nice try to flip it around though.

I said two days ago that it will be borne out by data. So far the data is on my side in the large increase in deaths and, in, my opinion, will continue to be. I hope you're right, it will mean a reduction in rate of deaths, but so far the numbers aren't on your side, despite your opinion.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, I think this will prove to be one of the factors in understanding why some countries and societies did better than others in responding to C19.

I suspect that those countries or areas with stronger social connections and sense of community will do better. One way to consider this is looking at measures of communal trust. Here's one attempt to measure interpersonal trust by country. It's interesting to see how both Australia and Sweden measure high, in this regard, although Sweden is higher.

https://ourworldindata.org/trust

I think you're onto something.


It's very hard to analyze this, because the development of the disease in any one country does not depend only on a single factor -- like the lockdown policy. That's why I dislike bombastic assertions about what is right and what is wrong as a policy response. What is the right policy response will surely depend very much on what kind of country you are talking about, what kind of society, demographics, health care system, etc. etc. etc., and there will be no "one size fits" all policy.


Some countries will surely need a very aggressive lockdown and aggressive enforcement of it, with intense tracking of people's movements and contacts. That would probably be countries with less social trust, less well developed health care systems, more poverty, more crowding, less discipline. I hate to say it, but my native USA probably falls in this group, and the economic consequences of the required policies may be absolutely devastating. Whereas some other countries may -- MAY, we shall see -- do very well with a light hand from the side of the state, trusting the health care system to cope, and trusting people to mostly themselves make the right decisions about how to behave, when and whether to travel or go out, etc. And in some cases with a lot of help from demographics, lack of poverty, lack of crowding, population density, climate, etc etc etc etc. If this can work, it is very desirable since it causes less economic harm. There are surely dozens of factors which influence how the pandemic develops in different countries and so surely different policies will be required and in different measures, in different places.


Note that we have talked a lot about Sweden, with the most famously light hand, but the policies in other Nordic countries are also very light. I'm in Denmark at the moment, and although schools and restaurants and external borders are closed, most workplaces are open, all kinds of shops are open, it is not forbidden for people to visit each other, and the local sailors are out in force sailing around from port to port -- just not across international borders. Even restaurants are open for takeout.



People are not forbidden to gather in groups of less than 50, but social distancing is recommended, and people here do it. This is a nation of mostly very disciplined and very responsible people -- and governing that sort of people may not require the same measures as in some other countries, like my own native land.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

My bias is to data. Yours is to your, unsupported by data, opinion. Nice try to flip it around though.

I said two days ago that it will be borne out by data. So far the data is on my side in the large increase in deaths and, in, my opinion, will continue to be. I hope you're right, it will mean a reduction in rate of deaths, but so far the numbers aren't on your side, despite your opinion.

I beg to disagree. Your bias is not to data at all. The only argument you have made is a comparison to a single cherry picked country which is totally off the chart of any trend line. If that argument were valid, you could prove that any country's policies are wrong. But in fact the only thing you prove is that any given country is "not Australia", and this doesn't tell us anything.



All I have said is that this argument is not valid. That deaths have "increased a lot" is not an argument -- compared to what? What's "a lot"?