Randall Flagg wrote:

"We searched the WHO repository of COVID-19 studies on 24th March 2020. To identify studies reporting data on LTCs among people who had died from Covid-19, we screened titles and abstracts of all epidemiological, clinical, case-series and review articles (n=1685). We identified and screened 77 potentially relevant full-text articles, of which four reported aggregate data on LTCs among people who had died of COVID-19. Three were small studies (32, 44, and 54 deaths, respectively) based in Wuhan, China"

Any person with any academic background in stats would immediately see the problem.  To say nothing that its thesis clearly doesn't align with real world data.  They're using data from March, and 3/4 of their data is from "small studies"  in Wuhan.  That's just  a fantatsic model to make predictive claims from.

''In view of the smaller sizes of the Chinese studies, and the greater dissimilarity of these populations with the UK relative to the Italian data, we opted not to include these in the analysis.''

Any person with an academic background in stats would probably read the whole study properly first.

Randall Flagg wrote:

TheMole wrote:

Of course everyone acknowledges there are consequences, but the financial fall-out just seems so much more manageable (in the sense that we as a society have the tools to soften the impact) than the loss of lives (for which we still don't have an adequate answer in the form of a cure or vaccin).

Do you have anything to support this opinion, or is based on the same appeal to authority as your other posts are.  "I don't really have an answer, but I like it when authority tells me it's going to be ok.  I'm still going to express an opinion, but when someone tells me not to worry, I just let the people I think are smarter than me make decisions, and accept them.  You're crazy if you question any of it."

Does he really need to support this opinion on that? The West has recovered from many financial crisis over the years, history tells us it is not only possible but highly likely. Is the stance that a financial crisis and the effects thereof are easier to reverse than death a postion that needs defending?

A Private Eye wrote:

Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.

This, right here, talk about pot calling the kettle black...

A Private Eye wrote:

It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see.

Yes, true. And I also pointed this out in my initial post. But I also don't think we should dismiss it out of hand, and I'm inclined to give more stock to this paper than I am to some back of the napkin calculation of some (admittedly well-educated) random folks on the internet.

Randall Flagg wrote:

TheMole wrote:

Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.

I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79.  Average life expectancy in the US 78.5.  So people dying by me don't have 12 years left.  As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would  apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion.  I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home.  How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice?  33% unemployment?  How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home?  I'm curious where your cutoff is?

So what, we should just accept the anecdotal evidence for your state instead of the only actual scientific report on this?

The problem I see with this whole "economic collapse" argument is that no one is able to pinpoint the actual real-world impact of this. So what if the stock market is down? The economy is a societal construct anyway, we as a society have all the tools at hand to mitigate the impact of the lockdown on the economy and most countries seem to be rather successful in doing so. In most Western countries, defaults on morgages are not up significantly, foreclosures are not up significantly, etc... because the gov't is doing their job and addressing these things, temporarily changing the rules of the game. Seems to me the biggest problem for the US economy is the federal government half-assing it, as usual.

As for my cutoff, hard to say. I do know that I'd rather lose my job than lose my grandmother... If this pandemic means I have to get furloughed until this thing blows over, so be it. Banks have been ordered by the government to put mortgage payments on hold anyway. But that's just how things go in a socialist European country, I know things are different stateside.