I watched a bit. Around the 11:00 mark, she says the benefit: it will save tens of thousands of lives. That’s concrete enough for me, though a range would have been preferable.
Around the 13:00 mark, she says the cost: “unprecedented economic and social disruption.” That’s not concrete enough for me. Now here, maybe, she is just doing what is politically prudent; maybe she has seen some figures and doesn’t want to discuss them with the public. Or worse, maybe she doesn’t really know. It’s definitely “gut” if you weigh the benefit and just shrug off the cost, assuming that it must be worth it. I don’t even have a huge problem with “gut” if you need to make a decision quickly and it’s a matter of avoiding catastrophe. However, that needs to be replaced with concrete numbers over time.
The briefing seems OK. Certainly better than what our own clown president is doing. But again, I would prefer to see more concrete weighing of costs/benefits.
…it isn’t a dodge in respect to the point I responded too.
The question I responded to was “In a word, the explanations being offered are unacceptable. I mean, do you think they have been good and enough?” The answer from is me is an unqualified “yes.”
You don’t have to do jack-shit. The mere fact that 90% of New Zealanders have been convinced by the briefings, that we followed the advice, and four weeks later our curve looks like thisshould be enough to convince you. But you seem to doubt me. And you literally asked me for a link you could watch. So I’ve provided one for you. But you do what you like.
No they don’t need to do this. **You **might need it. But what you need and what is actually needed might be two different things. You need to be open to that.
What was wrong with the information provided by the New Zealand government over the last four weeks? It didn’t provide the information you demand. But it certainly did the job.
But lets be honest here: that isn’t very concrete, is it? No citation was provided. It was blather. Based on projections that everyone already knew, based on projections that you most certainly would have known a month ago. So why was it so important that Arden said this?
Its not gut at all. This was a month ago and we were witnessing the devastation that was being waged on China, on Italy. During the briefing there had been 6077 deaths in Italy. As of today there have been 24,000 deaths from Covid-19 in Italy. Those deaths have objectively caused unprecedented economic and social disruption. It will be years before they recover.
In New Zealand we drop to Level 3 next week. We stay in there for another incubation cycle before (probably) dropping back to Level 2, where most businesses and people will be getting back to as-normal-as-we-can-get. After a couple of months we are going to be much better positioned to stage an economic recovery than places that didn’t lock down as hard and as early as we did. The cost/benefit of what we did here should be pretty obvious.
The person standing next to the Prime Minister was Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance. As it seems like you didn’t watch that far, can you guess what it was that he spoke about?
I’m a self-employed small business owner and freelancer and I applied for the support package. I only had to answer five questions in the online application (one of those questions was "what is my bank account number) and a statutory declaration that what I said was true (it was.) The money was in my bank before I even got an email to say my application was approved.
Sometimes actions speak louder than words. They didn’t have to tell me that they took continuity of business seriously: they just literally gave me enough money to keep my business alive for three months instead. These things matter. I’ve spent the last few weeks working on a pivot, completely redoing my website, preparing to relaunch my business into a completely different environment next week. I could only do that because of the certainty and the support provided by our government. And that certainty has been provided by the constant stream of information that we have been getting from the official sources.
What “you would prefer” and what is actually needed are two different things. When you ask for "concrete weighing of costs/benefits’ what you are really asking for is “what is the value of a human life?” Because for us here in NZ that is what this lockdown was all about.
What we heard in the briefing was that “the government had our backs. We will do everything we can to keep the country going. All you need to do is stay home and you will save lives.” If that isn’t good enough for you then that has everything to do with your own personal value system. It isn’t because “the explanations being offered are unacceptable”.
6 feet is the distance x percent of droplets from a sneeze or cough will travel before settling. It’s not a magic force field. More distance is better.
Modelling done in Jan-Feb has been released in Australiaand New Zealand showing expected effects of different control measures. While assumptions about the behaviour of the virus will need to be adjusted, we’re probably able to start saying how many lives early active intervention saved. On 12 March New South Wales said to brace for 8000 deaths. Six weeks later we are at 33 dead.
The ‘costs’ are probably harder to quantify - the various aid packages, wage supplementation and industry assistance plans in their $billions - are all forward commitments with relatively little spent in the first few months, as their main intent was to ensure an orderly decline in economic growth without selling the farm. Working out the actual costs arising from job losses and economic shutdown is also going to depend on everyone behaving, which we seem to be doing quite well.
The actual planning is changing daily, but is largely based on listening to the scientists who can relay the possible outcomes of different policy decisions. The OP should read some newspapers online to understand how evidence-based policy-making works.
A critical part of the messaging, though, was that it was all about lives and not the dollar cost. Both Aus-NZ govts can get away with that because their electorates would expect nothing less. There is also a level of trust in government that they will be equitable and proactive and aim to work in everyone’s interests. We’ve had recent human + natural disasters where both government took a strong role and earned public trust about crisis response.
The strong message I get from the US open-up protests and Trump is that there is no trust in government to be able to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone to act on behalf of the people or the nation. In other times it would be a sad and terrible thing that people in what should be a shining democracy are so poorly-served. Now stupidity and incompetence are murderous.
This report (pdf) was shared with me by an epidemiologist friend in the UK. It shows the likely effect of non-pharma interventions on the containment, delay and peak reduction in the UK. It would seem likely that other governments are accessing similar information. It comes from a larger set of reports here.
The Victorian state government has released this recently showing modelling on case numbers before and after the introduction of restrictions and increased physical distancing measures. In particular our current effective reproduction rate is under 1 as a result of of our level 3 shut down measures, which is keeping cases at around 1,000 for the state. We could be looking at closer to 10K cases in a few weeks if our rate increased to 2.5.
I empathize w/ the OP and others who question some of the guidelines/restrictions and their bases. I imagine that good modeling and such exists - but the US government and media has done a pisspoor job of making it clear to me.
For an American, the lack of reason in policy need go no further than designating gun shops as essential. And if you are going to base access to guns on personal freedoms, well, I’ll toss out my favorite BoR rights WRT which virus regs/guidelines do not impress me “narrowly tailored.”
Many people - including a majority on these boards - seem to adopt a presumption that SOMETHING is clearly needed, so MORE certainly couldn’t help. I see little indication that the guidelines - at least here in IL - were narrowly tailored to provide the greatest protection to the most vulnerable, while providing the least restriction of relatively low-level risks.
And yes, I appreciate that gov’t often has reason to apply bright-line standards. Of course, the way these lines are drawn, MANY people/businesses are working hard to circumvent them. Which I understand, if their income/business is threatened.
To all of you who have been able to discern the nuggets of value from the tonnage of material - congratulations. Me, I’ve just become fatigued with the effort.
I am sort of surprised at the response such as I received in a recent thread asking about the goals of testing. No one was able to say anything like, “If we get to a point where we are administering x number of tests to y people with z frequency, we will learn…” Instead, the response seemed to be an acceptance of “Testing can serve several laudable functions, so more is needed.” I’m not an epidemiologist, but that logic does not really resound with me.
Finally, I REALLY hate that my questioning of some of the policy is aligning me with the idiot-in-chief and his moron supporters. :mad: That should be enough for me to rethink my position. But most Trumpist BS can be readily and concisely refuted. I’m not perceiving such refutation on this issue. Instead, it seems to amount to: read more; more safety is better; and believe us.
I’m really not trying to be obstinate (maybe I’m just gifted in that obstinacy comes naturally).
I don’t know what this means, but the point remains that you think that epidemiologists should “open up Excel and start playing with the numbers,” when the reality is that there isn’t even enough of an understanding of how the virus behaves–qualities like its absolute infectiousness, infection fatality rate, the variation in dormancy period, why it hits some people very hard and others are asymptomatic, et cetera–to even make an accurate model of contagion even in absence of social factors and isolation measures of variable efficacy. There isn’t even broad agreement about the effectiveness of mask-wearing in limiting spread, which means the one thing that the public could do that would hypothetically have a direct impact upon contagion is an unknown.
It is certainly possible by making some assumptions about the transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and about social behavior to perform comparative studies between different isolation measures and doing nothing at all, and that gives authorities guidance on which policies to enact or recommend, and which ones are excessively onerous for little benefit. But it would be wrong to take such comparative studies and try to derive accurate morbidity and mortality projections based upon them because there just isn’t enough information to validate those projections, and any challenge would reveal the lack of substantive basis. Instead of focusing on trying to make some kind of “saved x number/% of people at a cost of a, and continuing them for an additional y months will save z number/% of people at a cost of b” calculations, it would be a better use of time and effort to figure out ways of allowing people to do productive work while still maintaining effective isolation measures. Obviously, some occupations are not at all amenable to this; there is no way a barber or hairdresser is going to be able to ply their trade short of wearing a full respirator mask and decontaminating their entire station after every customer, that probably isn’t practical, so we’re going to be supporting hair cutters and trimming our own hair for the foreseeable future, or else allowing for locations that will spur outbreak clusters, and I guess we’re going to see how that works out in Georgia so that will give us some (unfortunate) post hoc data on just how much that aggravates the epidemic in that state.
I know how it works in business. Let’s say there were a potentially company-killing threat on the horizon: a competitor is rumored to have a product in the works that could reduce our market share to near zero (think iPhone vs. Blackberry).
If I were an MBA in that company, it would not be acceptable to:
• Throw up my hands and say I just don’t have enough information to perform an analysis.
• Suggest countermeasures without estimating their effectiveness.
• Suggest countermeasures without costing them out.
• Suggest big-ticket countermeasures without talking to finance about how we would actually pay for them.
And so on. You create scenarios with the data you have in as much detail as possible. You perform a sensitivity analysis to identify which factors are most important in the outcome.
If I don’t know how good the product is, I would run scenarios for, say, the competitor capturing market share in increments of 10% and just see what would happen in each case and what we could possibly do in each case (estimate R&D, etc.). IOW, consider all possibilities. As information comes in, you discard the possibilities that have become impossible and drill deeper on what’s left.
So no, I don’t buy that we can’t do anything with our limited information. It’s possible to create very detailed scenarios based on a wide range of possibilities. In the world of business, it’s not just something that can be done–it must be done.
You can then plug your SEIR model numbers into your economic models to discover the financial impact of having sick and dying people not going to work/not shopping/self-isolating.
That’s basically what is happening in every Health department and Treasury in the world right now. And they are feeding back data into the model - NZ/Australia have (with pretty equivalent Level-4 lockdowns) reduced R0 to ~0.5 - it remains to be seen that with a less restrictive level of lockdown that R0 can be maintained under 1.
As for more fuzzy restrictions - why can I drive to the supermarket but not a holiday home at the beach. Well, the longer you drive, the more risk of an accident. Even with a 95% reduction in cars on the road, there have been fatal and non-fatal accidents in New Zealand during the lockdown. This requires a large number of rescue and recovery staff to “break their bubbles” to respond to a situation that did not need to occur. Similarly with things like fishing and hunting - if everything goes right, no-one gets involved. When it goes wrong, it’s impossible to respond without a large number of people interacting. So those things are banned - for now.
Couldn’t help or couldn’t hurt? I think the latter is more likely.
Without ubiquitous testing we have no good idea of “low-level risks” other than forced isolation since before November probably insulates one. By the time symptoms appear the infected are already shedding; it’s too late for restrictions to stop the spread - but it can be slowed with (take a breath) distancing, sanitation, masks, you know the drill.
What we see re: New Zealand is that an immediate tight clampdown works, and re: the US that failure to respond immediately produces the world’s highest known death count. The US approach ensures recurrent spikes; the Belarus, Brazilian, and Mexican non-reactions guarantee explosions. Restrictions to prevent mega-deaths are OK by me.
Back to OP. What’s the science? The same as always: Study data; build hypotheses (models) accounting for data and suggesting experiments. Run experiments, see results, modify hypotheses (models) as needed. Repeat till we have a good idea of what’s happening. It’s a process, not a static event.
The problem is trying to figure out what numbers to plug into formulae and models like that. If you have good, solid, reliable numbers, sure, you can plug them into your spreadsheets and go to town. Even fairly small differences in the numbers can yield very large differences in the results, however, and we simply don’t know all that much about the numbers and how reliable they are.
Well, now you are blatantly mischaracterizing and misattributing claims to me that I did not make. What I said was:
In commercial business, you run marketing studies and competitor analysis based upon consumer data scraped from knowledge of similar products or demographics to which the product is being produced for, and even then, such studies are often inaccurate. In this case, we don’t even have a comprehensive understanding of the behavior of the virus must less how people will respond to measures, and there as not been a pandemic this wide, rapid, and virulent in living memory, so there is little precedent to base any solid estimates of how much a particular measure may reduce morbidity and mortality beyond some very rough and difficult to verify numbers. Post hoc, epidemiologists will be able to make quantitative comparisons between states that enacted various measures and the degree of compliance with them, and those that did not or had poor compliance, but making estimates now just invites reasonable challenge as to how such figures could possibly be supported when we don’t even have a solid grasp on the basic IFR or replication rate of the virus.
Why do people keep saying “We just don’t know” and “We don’t have the data”? That might have been true in January or February. But a lot has happened since then: The disease has spread around the world, and countries have responded in many different ways. Even though many places aren’t testing extensively, some places are, and the data from those tests can be used to calibrate the results from limited tests elsewhere. Even if we can’t always diagnose COVID-19 itself, we can look at total death numbers in various times and places, and compare them to baseline numbers. We’ve studied previous epidemics, and have used those to construct detailed models, and we have plenty of data to determine the model parameters that apply to this one.
I mean, I don’t know all of those models, or the values of all of those parameters-- I’m not an epidemiologist. But there are epidemiologists out there, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t know those things.
Interesting article in the Chicago Trib today. Certain aldermen said the single issue they were getting the most calls about was from pedestrians fearing that an unmasked runner passing them on the sidewalk would infect them.
The medical response was consistent - if someone feels good enough to be running, it is unlikely they will be shedding, and the brief moment of someone quickly passing while not coughing or spitting further lessens the risk.
If people are really that worried, they ought to stay home, and order everything on-line, and then quarantine any incoming packages for 2 weeks.
If I am wearing a mask and gloves, what is the risk of me transmitting? If I’m not, why can’t I go buy a shirt? Or a guitar? Why not require masks in all stores (not required in IL)? Especially if folk can go maskless to stores to buy booze and guns?
Parks and forest preserves are closing, claiming a failure to socially distance. Barring the responsible along with the irresponsible. Why not view this as revenue source, and strictly enforce regulations? If people are not wearing masks, in too large of a group, or doing contact activities, give them 1 warning, and then rapidly escalating fines. And then, if someone with a ticket then gets sick, no ventilator for you!