Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

It's occurred to me that a year is a long time and those websites we've linked to might conceivably not be around a year from now. So, just in case, I've taken screenshots from the one I provided a link to:
Covid2.png
Covid2.png (39.83 KiB) Viewed 2082 times
And the one you provided a link to:
Covid1.png
Covid1.png (74.97 KiB) Viewed 2082 times
so we do at least have the data on UK deaths up to now from those sites.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

It also occurs to me that the UK government guidance to which I linked earlier might change or the page might disappear at some time in the next year. So, for the record, I've copied and pasted the content here.



Roadmap out of lockdown
From 8 March, people in England will see restrictions start to lift and the government’s four-step roadmap offer a route back to a more normal life.

The success of the vaccination programme is one factor - so far over 17 million people have had their jabs - but by no means the whole story. The public have also risen to the challenge of suppressing COVID-19: by obeying the law; staying at home; getting tested when needed; isolating when required, and following the ‘hands, face, space’ and ‘letting fresh air in’ guidance.

Taken together, this means that even though absolute case numbers remain relatively high, we will be able to begin relaxing the current strict lockdown. While we must all remain vigilant - in particular against the threat from new COVID-19 variants - and continue to protect the NHS, a safe exit from lockdown can begin. It will take place in four steps; and at each step, we plan to lift restrictions across the whole of England at the same time.

In implementing this plan we will be guided by data, not dates, so that we do not risk a surge in infections that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS. For that reason, all the dates in the roadmap are indicative and subject to change. There will be a minimum of five weeks between each step: four weeks for the scientific data to reflect the changes in restrictions and to be analysed; followed by one week’s advance notice of the restrictions that will be eased.

Only when the government is sure that it is safe to move from one step to the next will the final decision be made. The decision will be based on four tests:

the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
The government will continue to protect the public by ensuring local outbreaks are managed quickly and effectively and that we combat new dangerous variants, both within the UK and at the border. The government will also continue to support families and businesses throughout the steps set out in the roadmap - details of which will be set out by the Chancellor in the Budget on 3 March.

Step 1 - 8 and 29 March
Changes on 8 March
Education
In Step 1, our priority is to ensure that all children and students return safely to face-to-face education in schools and colleges from 8 March. Childcare and children’s supervised activities can also resume where necessary to enable parents to work or engage in similar activities. We are introducing twice-weekly rapid testing for secondary and college pupils - in addition to regular testing for all teachers - to reduce the chance of the virus spreading in schools.

Higher Education students at English universities on practical courses can also return from 8 March.

Social contact
People will be allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents will also be allowed one regular visitor.

Changes on 29 March
Social contact
The evidence shows that it is safer for people to meet outdoors rather than indoors. And this is why from 29 March, when most schools start to break up for the Easter holidays, outdoor gatherings (including in private gardens) of either 6 people (the Rule of 6) or 2 households will also be allowed, making it easier for friends and families to meet outside.

Business and activities
Outdoor sports facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, and open-air swimming pools, will also be allowed to reopen, and people will be able to take part in formally organised outdoor sports.

Travel
The ‘stay at home’ rule will end on 29 March but many restrictions will remain in place. People should continue to work from home where they can and minimise the number of journeys they make where possible, avoiding travel at the busiest times and routes. Travel abroad will continue to be prohibited, other than for a small number of permitted reasons. Holidays abroad will not be allowed, given it will remain important to manage the risk of imported variants and protect the vaccination programme. The government has launched a new taskforce to review global travel which will report on 12 April.

Step 2 - not before 12 April
Business and activities
Step 2, which will be no earlier than 12 April, will see the opening of non-essential retail; personal care premises such as hairdressers and nail salons; and public buildings, including libraries and community centres. Indoor leisure facilities such as gyms will also reopen (but only for use by people on their own or in household groups); as will most outdoor attractions and settings including outdoor hospitality venues, zoos, theme parks, and drive-in cinemas. Self-contained accommodation such as campsites and holiday lets, where indoor facilities are not shared with other households, can also reopen.

Hospitality venues will be allowed to serve people outdoors at Step 2 and there will be no need for customers to order a substantial meal with alcoholic drinks and no curfew, although customers must order, eat and drink while seated (‘table service’). Wider social contact rules will apply in all these settings to prevent indoor mixing between different households.

Events
While funerals can continue with up to 30 mourners, the number of people able to attend weddings, receptions and commemorative events such as wakes will rise to 15.

Step 3 - not before 17 May
Social contact
As part of Step 3, no earlier than 17 May, the government will look to continue easing limits on seeing friends and family wherever possible, allowing people to decide on the appropriate level of risk for their circumstances.

This means that most legal restrictions on meeting others outdoors will be lifted - although gatherings of over 30 people will remain illegal. Indoors, the Rule of 6 or 2 households will apply - we will keep under review whether it is safe to increase this.

As soon as possible and by no later than Step 3, we will also update the advice on social distancing between friends and family, including hugging. But until this point, people should continue to keep their distance from anyone not in their household or support bubble.

Business and activities
Most businesses in all but the highest risk sectors will be able to reopen. In all sectors, COVID-Secure guidance will remain in place and businesses may not cater for groups bigger than the legal limits. Indoor hospitality will reopen - and as in Step 2, venues will not have to serve a substantial meal with alcoholic drinks; nor will there be a curfew. Customers will, however, have to order, eat and drink while seated.

Other indoor locations to open up in Step 3 include indoor entertainment venues such as cinemas and children’s play areas; the rest of the accommodation sector, including hotels, hostels and B&Bs; and indoor adult group sports and exercise classes. The government will also allow some larger performances and sporting events in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number), and in outdoor venues with a capacity of 4,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number). In the largest outdoor seated venues, where crowds can be spread out, up to 10,000 people will be able to attend (or a quarter-full, whichever is lower).

Events
Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings, receptions and wakes, as well as funerals. This limit will also apply to other types of significant life events including bar mitzvahs and christenings.

Review of social distancing
Finally, before Step 4 begins, the government will complete a review of social distancing and other long-term measures that have been put in place to cut transmission. This will inform decisions on the timing and circumstances under which the rules on 1 metre plus, the wearing of face coverings and other measures may be lifted. This will also inform guidance on working from home – which should continue wherever possible until this review is complete.

Step 4 - not before 21 June
Social contact
By Step 4 which will take place no earlier than 21 June, the government hopes to be in a position to remove all legal limits on social contact.

Business, activities and events
We hope to reopen remaining premises, including nightclubs, and ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in Step 3. This will be subject to the results of a scientific Events Research Programme to test the outcome of certain pilot events through the spring and summer, where we will trial the use of testing and other techniques to cut the risk of infection. The same Events Research Programme will guide decisions on whether all limits can be removed on weddings and other life events.

As we move through each of these phases in the roadmap, we must all remember that COVID-19 remains a part of our lives. We are going to have to keep living our lives differently to keep ourselves and others safe. We must carry on with ‘hands, face, space’. Comply with the COVID-Secure measures that remain in place. Meet outdoors when we can and keep letting fresh air in. Get tested when needed. Get vaccinated when offered. If we all continue to play our part, we will be that bit closer to a future that is more familiar.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

Update: As per the plan that I linked to and posted here, kids have started going back to lessons physically in school. My own kids are just going in to school today for a Covid test. They start in-schools lessons properly tomorrow. They are required to wear masks all day, as are the teachers.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

An update on the wager defined here.

As described in that post, the UK re-opening happened no earlier than the dates given in that UK government website. Step 4 was due to happen on 21st June. It ended up happening on 19th July. Since that date, most shops have continued to ask people to wear face masks and most people continued to do so after that date. In my experience, most people continue to wear face masks in supermarkets but the wearing of masks has gradually declined in other places, although protective screens are still in place at shop counters and the bars of pubs, for example, and most staff in those places continue to wear masks.

So social distancing and masking remained in place as predicted. As a result of those restrictions remaining in place for that time, RJG's prediction was that the virus would not be "under control" by March next year, and my prediction was that it would be. We agreed to define "under control" as follows:
"Under control" is defined as the 7 day average death rate being around what it was last summer, or lower, with the result that the lifting of social distancing to at least the level shown at the end of that government guidance ("Step 4 - not before 21 June") is still in place.
Here is the death rate as of now, 26th August:
Covid3.png
Covid3.png (26.79 KiB) Viewed 1447 times
(from the same source as used previously.)

As you can see, compared with the last spike in cases in the winter, presumably due to the vaccine rollout (since that's the obvious variable), the rate of deaths is about 10% of what it was in January, even though the peak in cases, in July, was much more comparable to what it was in January. That seems to roughly fit with the 90% efficacy for the vaccine discovered in trials. I gather that infections are now from the delta variant, against which the vaccines are still effective but not quite as effective as they are against the previous variants. Pretty much what you'd expect I guess.

The number of deaths, though much lower than in previous spikes, is still higher than it was at the lowest point last summer. Kids in Scotland have already gone back to school after the summer break, and there's been an uptick in cases there. When kids go back to school in England (in about a week from now) we can perhaps expect a similar uptick in England. What happens this winter and next spring still remains to be seen!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by LuckyR »

Steve3007 wrote: August 26th, 2021, 9:12 am An update on the wager defined here.

As described in that post, the UK re-opening happened no earlier than the dates given in that UK government website. Step 4 was due to happen on 21st June. It ended up happening on 19th July. Since that date, most shops have continued to ask people to wear face masks and most people continued to do so after that date. In my experience, most people continue to wear face masks in supermarkets but the wearing of masks has gradually declined in other places, although protective screens are still in place at shop counters and the bars of pubs, for example, and most staff in those places continue to wear masks.

So social distancing and masking remained in place as predicted. As a result of those restrictions remaining in place for that time, RJG's prediction was that the virus would not be "under control" by March next year, and my prediction was that it would be. We agreed to define "under control" as follows:
"Under control" is defined as the 7 day average death rate being around what it was last summer, or lower, with the result that the lifting of social distancing to at least the level shown at the end of that government guidance ("Step 4 - not before 21 June") is still in place.
Here is the death rate as of now, 26th August:

Covid3.png

(from the same source as used previously.)

As you can see, compared with the last spike in cases in the winter, presumably due to the vaccine rollout (since that's the obvious variable), the rate of deaths is about 10% of what it was in January, even though the peak in cases, in July, was much more comparable to what it was in January. That seems to roughly fit with the 90% efficacy for the vaccine discovered in trials. I gather that infections are now from the delta variant, against which the vaccines are still effective but not quite as effective as they are against the previous variants. Pretty much what you'd expect I guess.

The number of deaths, though much lower than in previous spikes, is still higher than it was at the lowest point last summer. Kids in Scotland have already gone back to school after the summer break, and there's been an uptick in cases there. When kids go back to school in England (in about a week from now) we can perhaps expect a similar uptick in England. What happens this winter and next spring still remains to be seen!
Oh there you go again, using statistics, facts and graphs. You've got it backwards, first you should decide how things are, then you cherrypick opinions that agree with you. That's how we do things in the current Post Truth era.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

This is another updated analysis of the UK covid situation, with particular emphasis on showing the relationship between recorded covid cases, covid deaths and the timeline of events. I'm interested, in particular, in the dates of the 3 UK national lockdowns (central government enforced social distancing and masking) in relation to the dates of the peaks in cases and deaths. I'm also interested in the dates when the vaccination programme started and the relative heights of covid case peaks and death peaks.

This link is the source of the national lockdown dates. The source of the covid case and deaths stats is as shown in previous posts.

---

To illustrate the lag between cases and deaths it's interesting to overlay 2 of the graphs (cases shown in blue and deaths shown in grey):
Covid cases and deaths overlaid.png
In November 2020, the peak in cases was around 15th November and the peak in deaths was around 27th November. The 2nd national lockdown started on 5th November.

In January 2021, the peak in cases was around 9th January and the peak in deaths was around 24th January. The lag between cases and deaths was similar for the peaks in 2020. So it seems reasonable to say that a peak in cases took about 2 weeks to manifest as a peak in deaths. That's similar to previous peaks and, given the incubation time, as expected.

So since the 3rd national lockdown started on 6th January, cases started to drop soon afterwards and the drop in deaths then followed. A similar thing happened after the 1st and 2nd national lockdowns.

You can see this graphically on this graph which covers all 3 lockdowns and shows all 3 of those death peaks:
Covid2 With Lockdowns.png
So the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the lockdowns prevented a lot of potential covid cases and therefore, with a lag of about 2 weeks, deaths. It's also worth remembering that at those peaks in cases, the UK health service (the NHS) was under severe strain. Various public buildings around the country were being requisitioned for use as emergency treatment centres (the "Nightingale Hospitals"). If those peaks had been allowed to grow even higher, by not imposing lockdowns, it's almost certain that ICU's would have started to be unable to treat all of the severely ill patients. The number of deaths for each case would have risen as it became harder to treat and save the lives of severely ill people.

Of course, the lockdowns had a terrible effect on the economy and therefore on people's lives. Arguably it thereby caused more death and illness from non-covid causes. But it's beyond doubt that the lockdowns prevented more covid deaths.

Another interesting thing that is illustrated vividly by that graph of covid cases and deaths overlaid is the massive difference between the early 2021 peak and the summer 2021 peak. As you can see, the number of cases peaked this summer to close to what it did in January. The number of deaths didn't. The difference, of course, was the vaccine rollout, which began in January and steadily continued over the following few months, starting with the elderly and moving down the age range. Being in my 50's, I had my first shot in March and my second in June.

Two obvious conclusions:

1. It's spectacularly clear that, at least for this most recent peak in cases, the vaccine has broken the link between cases and deaths. There will very probably be another peak in cases (already starting to show on that graph) going into winter. How that translates into deaths remains to be seen.

2. The lockdowns prevented a lot of covid deaths.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:2. The lockdowns prevented a lot of covid deaths.
If so, then how do you explain this:

1. Sweden had no lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 1400 per million.
2. UK had lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 2000 deaths per million.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:If so, then how do you explain this:

1. Sweden had no lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 1400 per million.
2. UK had lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 2000 deaths per million.
Given the number of different variables there are between different countries, if we want to make our test as fair as possible, it's probably best to try, as far as possible, to compare like with like - to, as far as possible, isolate just the two variables whose proposed correlation we're testing. That's a pretty standard feature of a scientifically fair test. Agreed?

In this case we're testing the correlation between lockdowns and covid deaths to test the question of whether lockdowns increase, reduce or have no effect on deaths. So we want to find countries which are, as far as possible, similar except for their lockdown policies. A "quick and dirty" first attempt at that would be a comparison between countries in the same region. If we do that for Sweden and some of its neighbours, apparently we find that Sweden has recorded a per capita covid death rate that is around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway (all of which had lockdowns).

---

Of course, another way to compare like with like is to compare a country with itself. In other words, look at the rate of change over time, within that country, of the variable being tested. As I said in my previous post, there have been 3 lockdowns in the UK as a result of rising covid cases. In each case they've resulted in a drop in cases, followed later by the drop in deaths. As I also said in that post, the overlaid graphs at the top illustrate not only the delay that can generally be expected between cases and deaths but also the effect that vaccine rollout had.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

A bit more analysis of the situations (as of 14th Sept '21) in Scandinavia, with the UK and US also shown for comparison:

Country, Overall population density, Deaths per million so far, Lockdowns:

Sweden, 24 per km2, 1437 deaths per million, No lockdowns.
Norway, 15 per km2, 155 deaths per million, Lockdowns.
Finland, 18 per km2, 189 deaths per million, Lockdowns.
Denmark, 137 per km2, 450 deaths per million, Lockdowns.

UK, 281 per km2, 2010 deaths per million, Lockdowns.
US, 36 per km2., 2018 deaths per million, Some lockdowns enforced at state level, but not in all states. Resisted and discouraged by federal government until Jan '21.

(Figures were calculated by taking death rates from here and information about populations, population densities and lockdown histories from Google and Wikipedia. UK lockdown history from here.)

I've shown the population density because it seems rational to propose that, of all the many variables, it's one of the other major factors affecting death rates from a disease like covid-19. The disease is spread largely in small droplets or aerosols from people's mouths and noses when they talk, sing, cough, sneeze, etc. Those droplets hang around in the air for a while and then, if not inhaled, gradually settle out. So, generally speaking, the more people you mix with, and the more closely you mix, the more likely you are to inhale some of those droplets before they settle. So, very generally speaking, the higher the population density the higher the case and death rate you'd expect. Although obviously the general population density for an entire country (especially a large and diverse country like the US) masks large variations in local population densities.

So it seems clear from the above figures that in similar countries with similar (quite sparse) overall population densities (Sweden, Norway and Finland) but with different lockdown policies, there are very different overall covid 19 death rates so far. Denmark has a somewhat higher population density from the other Scandinavian countries shown there (though still only half that of the UK) and it shows a slightly higher death rate than Norway and Finland.

It seems reasonable to me to conclude from this, at least as a working hypothesis, that high death rates are caused by (among other things) lack of lockdowns and dense populations, and low death rates are caused by (among other things) lockdowns and sparse populations. If Sweden had had lockdowns, given its sparse population, it seems reasonable to predict that its death rate would have been slightly higher than that of Finland; about 1/7th of what it actually has been. Maybe about 200 deaths per million. If the UK had had no lockdowns, given its relatively very densely packed population, it seems reasonable to predict that its death rate would have been even higher than it has been and would have swamped the already strained NHS.

But of course these are all very general figures that could be refined with, for example, a more detailed look at population distributions within countries and the more detailed timelines of the imposition and lifting of the various lockdowns, and the details of what those lockdowns involved in each country.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:1. Sweden had no lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 1400 deaths per million.
2. UK had lockdowns. The per capita covid death rate is 2000 deaths per million.
Steve3007 wrote:Given the number of different variables there are between different countries, if we want to make our test as fair as possible, it's probably best to try, as far as possible, to compare like with like - to, as far as possible, isolate just the two variables whose proposed correlation we're testing. That's a pretty standard feature of a scientifically fair test. Agreed?

In this case we're testing the correlation between lockdowns and covid deaths to test the question of whether lockdowns increase, reduce or have no effect on deaths. So we want to find countries which are, as far as possible, similar except for their lockdown policies. A "quick and dirty" first attempt at that would be a comparison between countries in the same region. If we do that for Sweden and some of its neighbours, apparently we find that Sweden has recorded a per capita covid death rate that is around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway (all of which had lockdowns).
Yes, but if we look at only just Sweden and the UK for the moment, are you saying that the reason the UK (with lockdowns) had more deaths (per capita) than Sweden (with no lockdowns) was because there was significantly more (or denser amounts of) viral contamination in the UK, than in Sweden?

Steve3007 wrote:As I said in my previous post, there have been 3 lockdowns in the UK as a result of rising covid cases. In each case they've resulted in a drop in cases, followed later by the drop in deaths.

...2. The lockdowns prevented a lot of covid deaths.
If lockdowns prevented a lot of covid deaths in the UK, then what prevented a lot of covid deaths in Sweden? ...certainly not lockdowns (since Sweden had no lockdowns).

I suspect the drop in covid deaths in Sweden is a direct result of "herd immunity protection", whereas, the drop in covid deaths in the UK was seemingly related to the lockdowns; "social distancing protection".

Wouldn't you agree?

Covid Deaths - UK.jpg
Covid Deaths - Sweden.jpg

...so then, doesn't it seem reasonable and prudent to have the best of both worlds? In other words, when the next wave comes, we 1) lockdown (quarantine; social distance) our 'vulnerable' population while 2) allow our 'healthy' population to roam freely (socialize unmasked) to quell and greatly minimize/remove the viral contamination in the environment?

This way, we safely enact BOTH means of protection (social distancing AND herd immunity).
Last edited by RJG on September 14th, 2021, 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Yes, but if we look at only just Sweden and the UK for the moment, are you saying that the reason the UK (with lockdowns) had more deaths (per capita) than Sweden (with no lockdowns) was because there was significantly more (or denser amounts of) viral contamination in the UK, than in Sweden?
On evidence so far, as discussed in my previous post, it looks like a result of denser population, since countries with population densities comparable to Sweden, but with lockdowns, had far fewer deaths than Sweden. But obviously there are probably other factors too, such as population distribution and the differences in the numbers of people who come and go to/from each country. Population density is the first one that "jumps out".
If lockdowns prevented a lot of covid deaths in the UK, then what prevented a lot of covid deaths in Sweden? ...certainly not lockdowns (since Sweden had no lockdowns).
See above.
I suspect the drop in covid deaths in Sweden is a direct result of herd immunity, whereas, the drop in covid deaths in the UK was seemingly related to the lockdowns (much like forcing everyone to stay indoors, greatly reduces the occurrence of sunburns).

Wouldn't you agree?
Not entirely. As discussed in previous posts, the most likely cause of the most recent lack of large increase in covid deaths in the UK appears, prima facie, to be the vaccine rollout. As discussed, the link between cases and deaths was quite clearly disrupted. Before that (as also discussed), yes, the most likely cause of the drop in deaths was the lockdowns. But there are of course bound to be other factors too, like the arrival of summer and improvements in hospital treatments.

In Sweden, it seems likely that the arrival of summer and improved hospital treatment also played a part in that drop in deaths, as well as (as you've said) immunity in people who'd caught and recovered from the infection and, this year, the vaccine rollout in Sweden.

If Sweden had had a lockdown, to contain the spread until the vaccine was rolled out, based on the experiences of similar countries, it seems likely that somewhere around 12000 lives would have been saved in Sweden. See previous post for reasons for this figure.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:...so then, doesn't it seem reasonable and prudent to have the best of both worlds? In other words, when the next wave comes, we 1) lockdown (quarantine; social distance) our 'vulnerable' population while 2) allow our 'healthy' population to roam freely (socialize unmasked) to quell and greatly minimize/remove the viral contamination in the environment?
Hard to tell at this stage, but no, I think lockdowns have played their part and probably won't be used again. Although there's still this winter to get through. They did their job of reducing the number of deaths until the development of vaccines allowed a controlled release that didn't result in a swamping of the health service. As you know, the distinction you make between "healthy" and "vulnerable" people, and the notion that "healthy" people protect the "vulnerable" by removing the virus from the environment and killing it is not one I agree with. I've kept an eye on your other topic and nothing essentially new or different appears to be have been added on that subject.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:If Sweden had had a lockdown, to contain the spread until the vaccine was rolled out, based on the experiences of similar countries, it seems likely that somewhere around 12000 lives would have been saved in Sweden.
I agree that if Sweden had implemented BOTH types of protection (herd immunity of the 'healthy' AND social distancing of the 'vulnerable') then they would have saved many more lives. Also, and likewise, if the UK would have implemented BOTH types of protection, then they too would have also saved many more lives.

Implementing BOTH types of protections seems to be the most reasonable and prudent means to effectively protect more people and stop this virus.

Covid Protections.jpg
Last edited by RJG on September 14th, 2021, 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by Steve3007 »

If we're dusting off and re-posting that old diagram then it looks like we're going back to a very old argument about something we established long ago we are unlikely to ever agree about. :D . Do you really want to do that?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Covid-19 highlights the pros and cons of mathematical models

Post by RJG »

Ha Steve, no I don't want to go back to our never ending discussion. The reason for posting that diagram was to show BOTH types of protection (herd immunity and social distancing). That's all. Sweden used one of these means of protection and the UK used the other.

My point is that using BOTH means of protection is better. ...agreed?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021