[GUB]

As for hindsight, we can only know the outcomes of the path we took, not those of other paths unless we really can rerun experiments and gather a meaningful sample size of outcomes. That is possible in the context of experimental medical treatments, harder to do for local/state/national issues, and impossible to do with our "sample-size-of-one" planet.

The Euromomo site will be a good tool for hindsight as things even out over the next year or so.
Graphs and maps ? EUROMOMO
It is great for keeping things in perspective too - for example the 2017 Flu season. The only thing I don't like about it is why did they decide to change format in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic.
Actually someone here might be able to answer this for me - the Z-score charts lower down on the page. I have a rough understanding of what a z-score is but I don't understand why they rarely venture into negative territory like an anomaly chart would?

[photoptimist]

I am not sure how trustworthy this is.
On droplets.
A single cough releases about 3,000 droplets

A single breath releases 50 - 5000 droplets.

Speaking increases the release of respiratory droplets about 10 fold

It then says breathing only gives off a few viral particles so total droplets are meaningless but then says every droplet in a cough or sneeze is virus laden. The writer has aquired information but is unclear on what it means.

Such is the challenge and limitations of ALL science on this topic.

Some studies just look at the production and trajectories of larger droplets. Some studies just look at the production and trajectories of smaller droplets. Some use computers to simulate droplet diffusion and fall. Others look at viral particles in fresh droplets. Others see if old droplets are still potentially infectious in a test tube. Different studies use different protocols, test subjects, atmospheric/lab conditions, diseases, etc. (There's no time to re-do 50 years of epidemiological research on COVID-19 to get everything measured right.)

None of its black-and-white, safe-or-unsafe. Everything about these studies have huge error bars -- some people spew 10X the number droplets or 10X the viral particles per droplet compared to others. There's no exact number of safe particles you inhale. All it takes in a single viable viral particle reaching the right spot at the right time to create an infection. Fortunately, the chances on any given inhaled viral particle reaching the right spot is extremely low -- many particles are simply exhaled again (e.g., just like a cigarette smoker exhales much of the smoke they inhale), many of the particles get stuck in mucus and swallowed, others might be eaten by the immune system's janitorial staff, some are defective particles, etc.

So it all ends up be mangled into a recommendation like the "6 foot rule" which is no doubt much safer than the usual pre-COVID social distance of 3 feet but not as good as a "stay at home" distance of 60 feet with a building wall between you and the next person.

[GUB]

When thinking of death rates in matters like we are currently experiencing.... for me to get true meaning out of them I like to think in terms of "years of life lost"..... so.. in Australia a 80yo male as of today could expect to live to 86.... a 10yo male today could expect to live to 81..... so if both died due to coronavirus today.. one would have forfeited 6 and the other 71 years of life...... so these 2 deaths would have cost 77 life years.


So if there was a third death - that of a 95 year old would that mean a cost of 62 life years all up.? But you are right - the decision makers have to make pragmatic choices but unfortunately can't afford to be seen to be doing this by an emotive media..

[noelpolar]

So if there was a third death - that of a 95 year old would that mean a cost of 62 life years all up.? But you are right - the decision makers have to make pragmatic choices but unfortunately can't afford to be seen to be doing this by an emotive media..

No.... a 95yo as of today could expect to live to 97.5..... there are different life expectency tables based on how old you are as of a point in time.

[Fogel70]

In a way, data exisits in the shadows already that might help with these types of matters.

When thinking of death rates in matters like we are currently experiencing.... for me to get true meaning out of them I like to think in terms of "years of life lost"..... so.. in Australia a 80yo male as of today could expect to live to 86.... a 10yo male today could expect to live to 81..... so if both died due to coronavirus today.. one would have forfeited 6 and the other 71 years of life...... so these 2 deaths would have cost 77 life years.... one could also provide a weighting to various life phases as well.... if say....older years were thought to have less value then younger years.

Applying this logic to freedoms that have a well documented life cost in one's society sorta helps to determine societies hidden life/freedom/greed etc trade offs. Things that spring to mind are motor vehicle use, "opt in" war type actions of recent etc.

Of course, this understanding might be of more benefit in less effected countries.

There are many more factors to account for. A 80 year old citizen have a much higher risk of dying from the virus. A 80+ year old citizen has maybe 15% risk of dying if getting infected, A 10 year old have less than 0.1% risk of dying if getting infected. So for every 10 year old dying it could be hundreds or thousands of 80+ year olds dying.

Which is also happening in most places. Death rate is highly dominated by 70+ year old people dying.

FI looking at the Swedish statistics. There are 3256 dead in total
1 of them is in the age group of 19 years or younger
52 of them are in the age group of 49 years or younger
2862 are from the age group of 70 years or older

So by your calculation it could have been 17172 years lost in the 70+ age group, and 71 years lost in the 19- age group.

Here is some data on fatality rated by age group.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age

[noelpolar]

So by your calculation it could have been 17172 years lost in the 70+ age group, and 71 years lost in the 19- age group.

Here is some data on fatality rated by age group.
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research - Our World in Data

FWIW.... I didn't provide a calculation as such..... "Potential years of life lost" is a somewhat normal way of analysis..... lot's of graphs and data on different counties is available online....In a way, I was just pointing out that society accepts human deaths as par for the course when it comes to their perceived freedoms.... along with an existing measure to gain some more clarity of the cost.

[beholder3]

When thinking of death rates in matters like we are currently experiencing.... for me to get true meaning out of them I like to think in terms of "years of life lost".....

And even under these circumstances there actually is a study on years of life lost: COVID-19 ? exploring the... | Wellcome Open Research

Results: Using the standard WHO life tables, YLL per COVID-19 death was 14 for men and 12 for women. After adjustment for number and type of LTCs, the mean YLL was slightly lower, but remained high (13 and 11 years for men and women, respectively).

In other words anyone arguing along the lines of "they would have died anyway" is at the same time absolutely arguing for widespread "abortions" of children up to the age of 11 or 13 years (!) for economic reasons, because obviously "a couple of years of human life" are worth nothing.

Pretty disgusting type of discussion.

[Fogel70]

FWIW.... I didn't provide a calculation as such..... "Potential years of life lost" is a somewhat normal way of analysis..... lot's of graphs and data on different counties is available online....In a way, I was just pointing out that society accepts human deaths as par for the course when it comes to their perceived freedoms.... along with an existing measure to gain some more clarity of the cost.

It may be times when this type of analysis work, but it does not really work during a pandemic.

During a pandemic one of the most important things is to keep helth care system from being overburdend, so one high priority goal is to protect elderly from being infected as it is the elderly that gets most sick from the virus, and thus put most pressure on the health care system. In the younger population it is few that need health care, but if not protecting the elderly it may be many of the yonger asympomatic people that infect the elderly.

If the health care system would get overburdened, then it could be situations like you talk about. But during a pandemic all efforts are made to flatten the curve for avoiding this to happen.

[noelpolar]

It may be times when this type of analysis work, but it does not really work during a pandemic.

During a pandemic one of the most important things is to keep helth care system from being overburdend, so one high priority goal is to protect elderly from being infected as it is the elderly that gets most sick from the virus, and thus put most pressure on the health care system. In the younger population it is few that need health care, but if not protecting the elderly it may be many of the yonger asympomatic people that infect the elderly.

If the health care system would get overburdened, then it could be situations like you talk about. But during a pandemic all efforts are made to flatten the curve for avoiding this to happen.

I think I am being misunderstood.... or something..... what you say here has been said for some time...... I don't understand why you would quote it in regard to my post.

I was just suggesting a way of getting a bit more insight into the death toll and current other death tolls and societies reaction to them etc.... I did or have not implied in any way what should be done etc. To do so would be plain stupid by me.... as I know next to nothing.

But, I do know that I know next to nothing. Not too disimilar to my scope of knowledge regarding photography really.... which is why I don't post much in most photography discussions (basic experience or fun aside).

Who Beholder3 is quoting in the second quote above has left me perplexed as well.... let alone what is being implied....

[Sandy Hancock]

In other words anyone arguing along the lines of "they would have died anyway" is at the same time absolutely arguing for widespread "abortions" of children up to the age of 11 or 13 years (!) for economic reasons, because obviously "a couple of years of human life" are worth nothing.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the discussion. No one is suggesting anything of the sort.

[Serkevan]

I think Beholder3 was talking about people (they exist, sadly) who argue - wrongly - that this is no big deal because "it only kills old people who would have died anyway because of the flu or whatever else". To me it doesn't seem directed to anyone here.

[Rondec]

I think the people who are in favor of loosening restrictions are the loudest, but I don't know that they are a majority opinion. Most people that I have spoken to are pretty afraid we are moving too fast, although there are some who hold the opposite opinion.

The hardest thing is that this isn't going away. China is still really on the defensive with regard to the virus and is now in the process of testing everyone in Wuhan again: Wuhan to test all residents for coronavirus in 10 days after new cases emerge - CNN Apparently these new cases aren't an example of foreigners bringing the virus in, but of it hiding out in the population for over a month and then popping up again.

I do think that for the under 50 folks, this is just a virus and one that their immune systems seem to deal fairly well with. But society needs to take care of all of the people in it, not just the younger ones.

[GUB]

I think I am being misunderstood.... or something..... what you say here has been said for some time...... I don't understand why you would quote it in regard to my post.

I was just suggesting a way of getting a bit more insight into the death toll and current other death tolls and societies reaction to them etc.... I did or have not implied in any way what should be done etc. To do so would be plain stupid by me.... as I know next to nothing.

But, I do know that I know next to nothing. Not too disimilar to my scope of knowledge regarding photography really.... which is why I don't post much in most photography discussions (basic experience or fun aside).

Who Beholder3 is quoting in the second quote above has left me perplexed as well.... let alone what is being implied....

I hear you Noelpolar and and agree your wording was fine. Such a dangerous subject to verbalise - the value of a life. But it is reality for a society to have to balance these things like, as you suggest, road deaths versus the value of mobility. Here in NZ I ask people "so the usual flu season is up and coming and we can save many lives by locking down for it" -- should we?)

[beholder3]

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the point of the discussion. No one is suggesting anything of the sort.

I think Beholder3 was talking about people (they exist, sadly) who argue - wrongly - that this is no big deal because "it only kills old people who would have died anyway because of the flu or whatever else". To me it doesn't seem directed to anyone here.

Correct.

It simply either doesnt play any role what age (or other specification) the human who dies is (or how much life expectancy is lost), or the argument is exactly what I highlighted.

---------- Post added 12th May 2020 at 12:31 ----------

I think I am being misunderstood.... or something..... what you say here has been said for some time...... I don't understand why you would quote it in regard to my post.

I was just suggesting a way of getting a bit more insight into the death toll and current other death tolls and societies reaction to them etc.... I did or have not implied in any way what should be done etc. To do so would be plain stupid by me.... as I know next to nothing.

But, I do know that I know next to nothing. Not too disimilar to my scope of knowledge regarding photography really.... which is why I don't post much in most photography discussions (basic experience or fun aside).

Who Beholder3 is quoting in the second quote above has left me perplexed as well.... let alone what is being implied....

Sorry then if I misunderstood your post. You just used the exact same language as the study I linked uses. My second quote is the results from the linked study, which says that on average the victims would have been expected to have lived 11-13 more years.

[reeftool]

I hear you Noelpolar and and agree your wording was fine. Such a dangerous subject to verbalise - the value of a life. But it is reality for a society to have to balance these things like, as you suggest, road deaths versus the value of mobility. Here in NZ I ask people "so the usual flu season is up and coming and we can save many lives by locking down for it" -- should we?)

You can always make that argument but you can't discuss this without taking into account all the other ramifications of doing so. Our economies will collapse and our educational systems will cease to exist. We have to get on with life in spite of the virus. This is already affecting the food chains. There are farmers dumping crops in parts of the country where the climate is warmer. It's spring here and there are farmers wondering whether or not to plant crops. Dairy farmers are thinking of slaughtering their herds because they are dumping milk. We might want to add famine to the discussion if this continues.