Anyone not in lockdown and still able to sail?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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"?

We're talking about the response to a virus. To discount a country's response because it's a lot better than others is illogical and biased. You should be looking at those countries doing better than others and looking to see what could be replicated, not discounting it because it doesn't suit the opinion you made days ago which has been discredited by the increase in deaths. They were at ~400 deaths then. They're now not far away from 700 - this does not support your assertion that their death rate is lowering, it's not, it's increasing. Check worldometer for the numbers.



I brought up Sweden originally because there were people holding up its response as a smart thing to do. This is why I've made the comparison that I have. You've forgotten this context. If it was the smart thing to do they would be doing well. They're not and not only that they're starting to get smashed.


You say deaths have increased a lot as though I haven't repeatedly given you the baseline of Australia. You've even argued that I'm comparing to Australia and that this is somehow invalid. You're not even following your own arguments.


Population: Sweden ~10m - Australia ~25m
Deaths: Sweden 687 - Australia 50
Deaths two days ago: Sweden ~400 - Australia 37



This is the data. This is my bias. You're incorrect to say my bias isn't to data.

[Jonte]

I will put the boat in the water in the beginning of May. I don't think sailing in Sweden is a problem. To do a lockdown in Sweden the government need vote 2 times and there must be an election in between . As I understand it they can't do it even if they want. Freedom under responsibility.


/Jonas

[jibstay]

We’re in Luperon harbor, in the Dominican Republic. In normal times, you must obtain a despacho from the navy to depart a port in the DR, even to sail to another port in the DR. Now, you can only get a despacho to depart the DR. If you leave, you’re not allowed back.
One person per boat is allowed to go into town for groceries, medicines, or banking. Everyone must wear some sort of mask. And, there is a curfew from 5pm to 6am.
So far, there are no COVID-19 cases in Luperon. There are roadblocks to prevent travel between different areas of the country, so Luperon is fairly isolated.
The cruisers in the harbor are in good spirits, even organizing trivia games and group discussions over VHF. This isn’t a bad place to be stuck, even if it lasts into hurricane season.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

We're talking about the response to a virus. To discount a country's response because it's a lot better than others is illogical and biased. You should be looking at those countries doing better than others and looking to see what could be replicated . . .

You are looking for a simplistic answer without even looking at a representative set of data.


Sure -- by all means look at countries doing better. But look at all of them, not just one. You will not get any easy answer out of that look. Because for every Australia (and actually there is really only one Australia), there is a Spain or Italy under draconian lockdown and doing horribly. Neither example -- by itself -- proves anything about whether the policy is better or worse, and certainly not whether it is universally and uniformly applicable.



Take Finland -- under an extremely light policy -- borders closed, but no lockdown, no stay at home order, no shops closed, and doing better than any other country in Europe by any measure, few infections, low rate of new infections, only 40 deaths so far. Does that prove that this light policy is better than the heavy lockdown in Spain, which has 15,000 deaths?



By your logic, this proves that a heavy lockdown is bad policy. But Finland vs. Spain does not actually prove that, just like comparing any country to Australia does not, by itself, prove anything.


Different countries are doing better or worse with no consistent correlation to the strictness or looseness of the lockdown. Certainly, a one size policy does not fit every case of society, health care system, demographics, populuation density, etc etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by tp12

. . . not discounting it because it doesn't suit the opinion you made days ago which has been discredited by the increase in deaths. They were at ~400 deaths then. They're now not far away from 700 - this does not support your assertion that their death rate is lowering, it's not, it's increasing. Check worldometer for the numbers.

There are different statistics, with different approaches, lag times, etc.. Mine are the official ones from the Swedish Ministry of Health. But by any measure, 700 cumulative deaths, if that's what it is, is low for a country which has had the virus since January, as long as Italy has. That's 58 deaths per million of population in Sweden. Compare to Italy at 283, with people still dying at the rate of 542 a day as of yesterday, despite a month of tight lockdown and stay at home orders. Or to Spain with 300 deaths per million, or France with 154 -- all tightly locked down countries. In France you can't even leave your house without a document stating where you are going and how long you've been gone.



You can't see by the number of deaths whether or not France's tight lockdown is a good policy or not. Just like the case with Sweden, I would not assume that I know better than the French health authorities. I bet they are making mostly good decisions and wouldn't impose such pain on France without real necessity. Just like I would never assume that the Swedish ministry of health are idiots who know less than I do. None of us is qualified to say.

Originally Posted by tp12

I brought up Sweden originally because there were people holding up its response as a smart thing to do. This is why I've made the comparison that I have.

I never said that. I seem to be the only non-epidemiologist in this thread

Originally Posted by tp12

You've forgotten this context. If it was the smart thing to do they would be doing well. They're not and not only that they're starting to get smashed.

Here I disagree. Sweden is doing very well compared to the rest of Europe. The other Nordic countries are doing even better. The Nordic Region in general is doing better than any other part of Europe. And none of the Nordic countries has a tight lockdown, none of them has a stay-at-home order, like you have in Southern Europe, which is where people are "getting smashed".


However, I never said this proves that Sweden's policy is the "smart thing to do". They jury is still out. We shall see.

Originally Posted by tp12

You say deaths have increased a lot as though I haven't repeatedly given you the baseline of Australia. You've even argued that I'm comparing to Australia and that this is somehow invalid. You're not even following your own arguments.
Population: Sweden ~10m - Australia ~25m
Deaths: Sweden 687 - Australia 50
Deaths two days ago: Sweden ~400 - Australia 37
This is the data. This is my bias. You're incorrect to say my bias isn't to data.

What does this even mean? This statement is totally incoherent. This data proves nothing except that Sweden is not Australia. Using this same logic take Sweden vs. Spain and you will prove that Sweden is smart and Spain's lockdown is stupid. Totally fallacious argument either way. All I can say is you're obviously not a lawyer, or a scientist!

[tp12]

Whereas you can very much tell you're a lawyer [emoji6][emoji23]

Whatever dude, my post is clear to anyone who wants to read it without an agenda.

All the best to you and yours.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

I suspect you're right. Just looking at the wide range of mortality reported from this disease indicates it's a complex mix of factors; both in the responses and in the starting conditions. It it far too early to be making any definitive claims about which response is best for everyone, and certainly one size, or one response, does not fit all here.

The other factor to consider are each societies balance of needs or interests. Covid-19 is likely the major consideration facing all nations these days, but there are other aspects to life that still carry on. Some societies and nations will seek a different balance between population health and these other factors (civil liberties, economic health, etc.).


This doesn't make them wrong -- just different.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I suspect you're right. Just looking at the wide range of mortality reported from this disease indicates it's a complex mix of factors; both in the responses and in the starting conditions. It it far too early to be making any definitive claims about which response is best for everyone, and certainly one size, or one response, does not fit all here.

The other factor to consider are each societies balance of needs or interests. Covid-19 is likely the major consideration facing all nations these days, but there are other aspects to life that still carry on. Some societies and nations will seek a different balance between population health and these other factors (civil liberties, economic health, etc.).

This doesn't make them wrong -- just different.

I agree with all of this. And like all policy, no matter what it is, it's going to be wrong from some point of view or another.


What no one has any real clue about yet is the economic cost of all of this. We don't even really know what the real cost of these lockdowns will be. And of course economic meltdown kills people, too. Impoverishing a whole nation with an extended depression might kill more people than the worst epidemic.



I wouldn't want to be a policymaker in a time like this. There are no easy answers. We are indeed living in "interesting times", as in the Chinese curse.

[BugzyCan]

I am changing the name of my boat to Play'g and going sailing anyways.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by tp12

We're talking about the response to a virus. To discount a country's response because it's a lot better than others is illogical and biased. You should be looking at those countries doing better than others and looking to see what could be replicated, not discounting it because it doesn't suit the opinion you made days ago which has been discredited by the increase in deaths. They were at ~400 deaths then. They're now not far away from 700 - this does not support your assertion that their death rate is lowering, it's not, it's increasing. Check worldometer for the numbers.



I brought up Sweden originally because there were people holding up its response as a smart thing to do. This is why I've made the comparison that I have. You've forgotten this context. If it was the smart thing to do they would be doing well. They're not and not only that they're starting to get smashed.


You say deaths have increased a lot as though I haven't repeatedly given you the baseline of Australia. You've even argued that I'm comparing to Australia and that this is somehow invalid. You're not even following your own arguments.


Population: Sweden ~10m - Australia ~25m
Deaths: Sweden 687 - Australia 50
Deaths two days ago: Sweden ~400 - Australia 37



This is the data. This is my bias. You're incorrect to say my bias isn't to data.

Stop it, both of you, and get back to talking about sailing.

(In NZ, we think Australia is a shambles and a mess and pride ourselves on having limited to one death so far. In a 4.4M population that’s a magnitude better than Australia.)

Still can’t sail here, but if the lockdown is eased in two weeks then recreational boating will likely be allowed again.

[EmeraldCoastSailor]

I had great wind today for a day sail. Passed a couple of USCG boats and waved hello. Not many others out though. Just a few big boats moving about. Too windy to fish but I always have fishing poles on board. Please don’t judge me; I am exercising. Or I am checking on a friend (my slipmates).

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Stop it, both of you, and get back to talking about sailing.

(In NZ, we think Australia is a shambles and a mess and pride ourselves on having limited to one death so far. In a 4.4M population that’s a magnitude better than Australia.)

Still can’t sail here, but if the lockdown is eased in two weeks then recreational boating will likely be allowed again.

Wasn't the cruise ship which bought most of the infected to Australia previously cruising New Zealand and New Zealand's volcano related deaths exceed Australia's by thousands of percents?

Perhaps the cause of the vastly different mortality rates is related to the activity levels of the most affected portion of the population spectrum of a country. For example Australian's are known to be far better football players than New Zealanders and carry their sporting activities right into advanced age. Whereas Kiwis tend to play a few games whilst they are young then settle into just watching Australia's elder players on TV. The Australian geriatrics are out and about, living their entire lives to the full and consequently more exposed, whereas the Kiwi's are isolated sitting at home in front of a TV waiting to die.

It all comes back to football skills.

[Fore and Aft]

RaymondR I heard the sheep are pretty happy in NZ right now with this lock down!
I laso keep hearing this internet rumour that New Zealands low death rate is related to Sheep Herpes and if you have had them then you are immune to Corona Virus!
Cheers

[Sand crab]

I was bike riding on Beach Drive in Port Orchard, Washington State today and saw boats out in Sinclair Inlet. Sailboats too!

[tp12]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Stop it, both of you, and get back to talking about sailing.

(In NZ, we think Australia is a shambles and a mess and pride ourselves on having limited to one death so far. In a 4.4M population that’s a magnitude better than Australia.)

Still can’t sail here, but if the lockdown is eased in two weeks then recreational boating will likely be allowed again.

That's great that NZ only has one. I think we should have moved sooner, too. Of course that has nothing to do with the point of the previous conversation.


Sweden isn't doing well compared to other Nordics, either. It's doing worse and getting worse a lot faster. I think we can safely say that Sweden is not doing well.



Nordic countries + Aus in order of infections:



Infections Deaths Sweden 8419 687 Norway 6042 101 Denmark 5402 218 Finland 2487 40 Iceland 1616 6 Faroe Islands 184 0 Greenland 11 0 Aland NL NL


Australia 6052 50




There's been some reports of people out sailing on the Broadwater here on the Gold Coast and others out on the water fishing - which you're allowed to do to feed your family. Maybe people are sticking fishing rods in the holders while out sailing?

[arsenelupiga]

rubbish in rubbish out.

i do not believe official numbers, so any conclusions from them are worth very little.

There is statistically significant discrepancy between US, UK, Spain, Italy, Iran and the rest of the world.

Some countries do not test but say Germany, Swiss, Austria all have excellent healthcare. I see no logic for such large discrepancies in deaths and number of cases.

Could be easily down to test kit batches that have significantly different error of detection. Made in a hurry, noone knows how accurate.

And then in country A, everyone that dies has corona, or if it is tested and has corona is automatically corona the reason. Who would really risk testing dead person, just say it has corona and done.

In country B, more precise diagnosis is set and only people that die from corona are actually counted.

I do not see any difference from Sydney and say London. Same mix of genetic, ethnicity, health system, tourists, property etc, etc yet so different results.

Summer/winter does not appear to play big role either. See NZ for example. So my conclusion is:

RUBBISH IN RUBBISH OUT.

we know nothing, or have false ideas, which will make things worse if this thing is really bad and does not dissapear quick.