An Idiot Way To Deal With Coronavirus

6
1058

This is not to say that coronavirus is unimportant. It is though to say that it’s not as important as all that.

Coronavirus: UK schools and offices could close for up to two months

The only reason we might do that is because it has become pandemic. Yet, if it’s pandemic there’s no point in doing that.

After such ineffable logic we should actually go further.

So, the entire population gets it. Some 400,000 deaths perhaps. Horrendous, horrible, foul etc. There are 600,000 deaths a year in the UK. OK, back of envelope, call that a doubling of the death rate. Except, of course, it won’t be. Some goodly portion of those who die from Corvid-19 will be those who are about to die of something else. There’s a reason pneumonia was long known as the old man’s friend.

Of course, none of us wants to be one of them, none of us wants anyone else to be one of them either.

So, what should we be prepared to give up in order to avoid those extra, what, 200,000 (?) deaths?

The economic answer – no, not the one that is economical in the sense of saving money but economical in the sense of using economics to gain an answer – is where the number of deaths avoided is still larger than the number of deaths from our avoidance tactics. That’s the outer limit of how far we should be willing to go at least.

Close the economy for 2 months, as recommended here? That’s, again back of the envelope, a £400 billion hit to the economy. How many will die because of that reduction of 20% in production/consumption/incomes?

No, I dunno either but I’d certainly be willing to listen to people who tell me that it’s more than 200,000. After all, Marmot, Dorling, they tell us that tens of thousands have been killed just by government spending rising from 33% of everything to 34% of everything, that austerity.

Sure, it’s all horribly harsh and all that. But stopping the world because of coronavirus would indeed kill more than allowing it to let rip. So, there’s some limit to how much we want to stop the world in order to avoid it ripping, isn’t there?

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
SnarkusWackPcarSpike Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spike
Guest
Spike

In every previous century of human history, we would simply have called 2020 “a bad year for the flu.” The current panic is solely because we are suddenly able to pin a name on this disease and monitor its spread; also because most of our mortality statistics come from China, with primitive care, a lying government, and most of the data coming from hospitals treating the most severe cases. The cure in Congress is log-rolling, competing bids for how many thousands of millions of dollars we “need.” The reaction could indeed be deadlier than the pathogen. China might have known… Read more »

Wack
Guest
Wack

The reason to quarantine and close things down (like schools) is to stop it becoming endemic in the UK or a pandemic generally. If the disease has achieved either of those the benefits of the control methods will be limited and will start to be outweighed by the costs. However, in the early stages they should not be ignored. If we can reduce the infection rate from say 3 new cases per infection to 1.5 the number of infected will be significantly reduced. (The Chinese figures if you believe them suggest a figure currently of below 1.) The benefits of… Read more »

Pcar
Guest
Pcar

WHO figures 28 Feb excluding China & Korea:

84,146 Covid-19 Cases and 2,876 Deaths in RoW, mortality rate* 0.03%

Italy mortality rate 0.025%

Gov aided by MSM scaremongering – give us More Power

Surprised Tim hasn’t swallowed it as he swallows Global Warming scaremongering

* mortality rate based on infected who seek treatment not total infected and recover ‘invisibly’

Wack
Guest
Wack

The mortality rate is affected by two things we don’t really know, the number of cases that are missed as not tested / limited symptoms and the time to die. I have seen suggestions that it can take up to 28 days to die which would imply you should compare the deaths to the number of cases 28 days ago not the current number of cases. From Ambrose Evans Pritchard in the Telegraph “The latest tracking data as of Feb 22 (unreliable, but the best we have) is that the mortality rate is 4pc in Wuhan, 2.8pc in Hubei, and… Read more »

Wack
Guest
Wack

The figures you give have a 3% mortality rate not 0.03% though I presume the figures include China & Korea

Snarkus
Guest
Snarkus

Shutdowns of human concentrating activities like schools, cruises etc are not to avoid or stop the virus. It is to slow the pandemics rate of spread so the ICUs do not get overloaded. In a year everyone will have been exposed. I note in Oz our paid for and bought cheap government has encouraged importing latest bug dejeur by making sure infected people arrive from source before closing borders to aircraft from that country.