The longer this lockdown goes on, the more people will choose that risk. Because they will be unemployable otherwise. Cooped up in their homes, which may not be nice at all. Living half a life.
We have already had anecdotes in the form of GideonWise (aged 33?) who has had this and survived it. The more anecodotes people hear from their friends the more they will go "yeah, I'll chance it." Particularly when those who have survived it are back at their jobs, socialising, and posting instagram from their holidays, while you're sat under house arrest, waiting for your next government handout.
I'm not sure that's the choice. I mean, *I'm* not under house arrest. OK, it's not a sure thing that this blessed state of affairs will continue but for now it looks promising. *You're* under house arrest, but that's because your government was too slow to do less disruptive things. I don't think it'll make that mistake again.
That said, I do think it's plausible that some places will just fail to contain this and give up, and some young people will end up just moving to those places.
Fair enough.
I see this purely as an expected value calculation.
Let's say I'm in my 30s and the doctor says if I am infected with this, I have a 1 in 500 chance of dying, or 0.2%. The alternative is spending the next 6 months effectively under house arrest.
Assuming I live to 80, 6 months = 0.6% of my life. If surviving and being immune means I can get backto my life as normal, an EV calculation says I am regaining 0.6% of my life for a 0.2% chance of dying, or a x 3 return. If this was a hand of poker, I'd be all in.
This calculation holds true for a 70 year old with a 10% chance of dying, by the way. Assuming they only live another 10 years and, being honest with themselves, the years 80+ aren't a fart in the wind worth living anyway.
How many more summers do any of us have? Those of us who want to take the risk should be allowed the risk. It's a self-regarding action and you can mitigate the possibility of harming others by enforced, supervised quarantine after deliberate infection.
The benefit to society is you add to herd immunity and become economically productive again. So a decision with positive externalities.
Except that I doubt you would be all in in poker. The trade is assymetrical.
You either “win” 0.6% of your life or it is all over for ever. Would you take 3-1 odds on that bet? Or would you want more?
It’s more complex than that since you can enjoy and spend the money freely if you win but can’t do very much with it at all if you don’t play.
So you’re not just playing for the 0.6% but the rights and freedom to enjoy the 100.6%.
You also have your keys in the pot. At the end of the six months, you won't have just lost six months, you may have also lost your job, your life savings, even your home.
I completely understand that gambling with your life isn't the same as gambling for chips. You would expect to "double through" on such a bet not gain 0.6% of your stack.
I'm just looking at the odds as a way to demonstrate that as the lockdown goes on, more and more people will look at what they are losing and decide to chance it. If you have a 50/50 shot of being infected anyway, and there is no vaccine, why not get it over and done with if you are reasonably healthy?
That number will increase exponentially if we find ourselves in a world where those who have already been infected and conferred with immune status are allowed to move freely while others are not.
A healthy twenty something will be looking at his odds (99.9% survival) and wondering why he is sacrificing his summer to house arrest.
Thought experiments like these help to model how long lockdown can potentially hold for, what the opportunity cost is, what other options are there.
I think, fundamentally, my idea of allowing the young and healthy to choose to be infected now in a controlled environment to regain 6 months of freedom, as well as confer upon society the benefits of herd immunity and economic activity is worthy of consideration.
Should add, where the UK has "failed" is moving from the early testing / contact tracing which we did really well and put out a load of hotspots, to the mass testing. Germany has excelled at this, partly because of having bigger supply of PCR machines.
But lots of the other planning seems very good. The expanding NHS capacity, the plans to get retired staff back in, the likes of the Excel centre, the ratcheting approach to lockdown.
Our civil service is wonderful. I hope what they have done and are doing is fully appreciated.
The visceral Europhobia of this government is boundless. It is willing to risk lives rather than work with the EU.
I have two takeaways from the government lying on the reasons for not taking part in EU joint procurement. The first positive interpretation is the hope that the Johnson regime is growing up and realising that ideology doesn't butter the parsnips.
The second more worrying interpretation is that it knows it hasn't sourced nearly as much equipment as it should have done and it's getting its excuses in early.
The simple interpretation is the correct one. This is hardwired into the government's ideology but they realise that now is not the time to advertise it.
There is a further takeaway. Observe the silence of the site's Leavers. Not a peep from them. They either prefer to back up the government than be seen to be insufficiently Europhobic or agree with its priorities. The pathological hatred of the EU runs deep in them.
There is a third possibility - the probability that the EU procurement initiative won't magic more materials into existence. All the manufacturers are working flat out. The UK has some non-trivial amount of manufacturing capability in this regard. To put it crudely, would UK be putting material into such a program or getting it out?
That would be a plausible and intelligent reply. It was however, not the one that our government gave.
I think the Italian numbers spooked a Govt. that had been inclined to believe the Chinese numbers - until Italy's indicated they must be plain wrong. An NHS that might just have coped on the Chinese numbers turned into one that stood no chance on Italy's.
That doesn't seem tenable to me. At the end of January, several papers were published in the Lancet on typical features of COVID19, including hospitalization rate and need for intensive care. 17% and 11% respectively in this review:
I suspect the lack of action was more down to not expecting sustained transmission outside China. The evidence was clear on how severe the disease was. This paper from China on 31 Jan for example:
Prior to this the experience with SARDS showed what the demands for respiratory support would be. The Chinese were quite open on this.
The spin that is going on that the Chinese misled the government on the seriousness of the epidemic is quite a long way from the truth. It is plain old arse covering.
Agreed. While it's entirely possible/very likely that the Chinese have played fast and loose with the numbers infected (for example, they don't count detected cases who are asymptomatic), the idea that they misled the world as to the seriousness of this isn't tenable. It's undeniable that there was a coverup by local officials at the start of the outbreak, but following that the scale of the response (which was discussed on here at the time in some detail) gave a quite early warning of how serious they thought it was. That their nearest neighbours reacted almost immediately, and have suffered least from the pandemic, is confirmation of that.
Part of the reason that the South Koreans were so well prepared is that in December 2019 they wargamed a Flu or Coronavirus epidemic. They implemented their findings fairly quickly as a result.
I think the Italian numbers spooked a Govt. that had been inclined to believe the Chinese numbers - until Italy's indicated they must be plain wrong. An NHS that might just have coped on the Chinese numbers turned into one that stood no chance on Italy's.
That doesn't seem tenable to me. At the end of January, several papers were published in the Lancet on typical features of COVID19, including hospitalization rate and need for intensive care. 17% and 11% respectively in this review:
I suspect the lack of action was more down to not expecting sustained transmission outside China. The evidence was clear on how severe the disease was. This paper from China on 31 Jan for example:
Prior to this the experience with SARDS showed what the demands for respiratory support would be. The Chinese were quite open on this.
The spin that is going on that the Chinese misled the government on the seriousness of the epidemic is quite a long way from the truth. It is plain old arse covering.
Agreed. While it's entirely possible/very likely that the Chinese have played fast and loose with the numbers infected (for example, they don't count detected cases who are asymptomatic), the idea that they misled the world as to the seriousness of this isn't tenable. It's undeniable that there was a coverup by local officials at the start of the outbreak, but following that the scale of the response (which was discussed on here at the time in some detail) gave a quite early warning of how serious they thought it was. That their nearest neighbours reacted almost immediately, and have suffered least from the pandemic, is confirmation of that.
Part of the reason that the South Koreans were so well prepared is that in December 2019 they wargamed a Flu or Coronavirus epidemic. They implemented their findings fairly quickly as a result.
Perhaps other developed countries should have listened to a well-known billionaire?
Estimates of the real mortality rate of the virus range widely from ~0.1% (implied by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland yesterday) to 5+% (from articles in The Lancet). Professor Neil Ferguson, an advisor to the government, has also said that up to 5-10% of London may become infected in the next few weeks, implying a lower mortality rate.
However, news on the economic front is also grim and getting worse. There is a risk that the government could leave it too late to restart the economy. I cannot visualise where the UK economy will be in a year or two, especially if no vaccine is found. Fortunately, there is a reasonable chance that a vaccine can be developed.
The situation in countries which are implementing a less effective lockdown than the UK will be very informative. I would include in these Sweden, Iran and India. Right now the government is gathering information. Then later, before the end of this year, the government will have to make some very difficult decisions.
Some key questions have not been answered. What is the mortality rate of the virus? What will be the effectiveness of a safe vaccine that can be developed? What is the lessor of two evils: a coronavirus epidemic and economic devastation caused by a lockdown?
The best (to date) controlled experiment - The Diamond Princess, with free association, then lockdown - gives the mortality rate at 0.5% which seems imo (what do I know) to be the most likely eventual outcome.
The visceral Europhobia of this government is boundless. It is willing to risk lives rather than work with the EU.
I have two takeaways from the government lying on the reasons for not taking part in EU joint procurement. The first positive interpretation is the hope that the Johnson regime is growing up and realising that ideology doesn't butter the parsnips.
The second more worrying interpretation is that it knows it hasn't sourced nearly as much equipment as it should have done and it's getting its excuses in early.
The simple interpretation is the correct one. This is hardwired into the government's ideology but they realise that now is not the time to advertise it.
There is a further takeaway. Observe the silence of the site's Leavers. Not a peep from them. They either prefer to back up the government than be seen to be insufficiently Europhobic or agree with its priorities. The pathological hatred of the EU runs deep in them.
There is a third possibility - the probability that the EU procurement initiative won't magic more materials into existence. All the manufacturers are working flat out. The UK has some non-trivial amount of manufacturing capability in this regard. To put it crudely, would UK be putting material into such a program or getting it out?
That would be a plausible and intelligent reply. It was however, not the one that our government gave.
Maybe its being tactful?
The important thing in considering such questions is what is the physical truth - in this case what in the EU scheme trying to achieve and what can it achieve.
We can say with utter certainty that it can't increase production of the relevant items - every national government is procuring on a send-me-all-you-can-make basis.
The longer this lockdown goes on, the more people will choose that risk. Because they will be unemployable otherwise. Cooped up in their homes, which may not be nice at all. Living half a life.
We have already had anecdotes in the form of GideonWise (aged 33?) who has had this and survived it. The more anecodotes people hear from their friends the more they will go "yeah, I'll chance it." Particularly when those who have survived it are back at their jobs, socialising, and posting instagram from their holidays, while you're sat under house arrest, waiting for your next government handout.
I'm not sure that's the choice. I mean, *I'm* not under house arrest. OK, it's not a sure thing that this blessed state of affairs will continue but for now it looks promising. *You're* under house arrest, but that's because your government was too slow to do less disruptive things. I don't think it'll make that mistake again.
That said, I do think it's plausible that some places will just fail to contain this and give up, and some young people will end up just moving to those places.
Fair enough.
I see this purely as an expected value calculation.
Let's say I'm in my 30s and the doctor says if I am infected with this, I have a 1 in 500 chance of dying, or 0.2%. The alternative is spending the next 6 months effectively under house arrest.
Assuming I live to 80, 6 months = 0.6% of my life. If surviving and being immune means I can get backto my life as normal, an EV calculation says I am regaining 0.6% of my life for a 0.2% chance of dying, or a x 3 return. If this was a hand of poker, I'd be all in.
This calculation holds true for a 70 year old with a 10% chance of dying, by the way. Assuming they only live another 10 years and, being honest with themselves, the years 80+ aren't a fart in the wind worth living anyway.
How many more summers do any of us have? Those of us who want to take the risk should be allowed the risk. It's a self-regarding action and you can mitigate the possibility of harming others by enforced, supervised quarantine after deliberate infection.
The benefit to society is you add to herd immunity and become economically productive again. So a decision with positive externalities.
Except that I doubt you would be all in in poker. The trade is assymetrical.
You either “win” 0.6% of your life or it is all over for ever. Would you take 3-1 odds on that bet? Or would you want more?
It’s more complex than that since you can enjoy and spend the money freely if you win but can’t do very much with it at all if you don’t play.
So you’re not just playing for the 0.6% but the rights and freedom to enjoy the 100.6%.
You also have your keys in the pot. At the end of the six months, you won't have just lost six months, you may have also lost your job, your life savings, even your home.
I completely understand that gambling with your life isn't the same as gambling for chips. You would expect to "double through" on such a bet not gain 0.6% of your stack.
I'm just looking at the odds as a way to demonstrate that as the lockdown goes on, more and more people will look at what they are losing and decide to chance it. If you have a 50/50 shot of being infected anyway, and there is no vaccine, why not get it over and done with if you are reasonably healthy?
That number will increase exponentially if we find ourselves in a world where those who have already been infected and conferred with immune status are allowed to move freely while others are not.
A healthy twenty something will be looking at his odds (99.9% survival) and wondering why he is sacrificing his summer to house arrest.
Thought experiments like these help to model how long lockdown can potentially hold for, what the opportunity cost is, what other options are there.
I think, fundamentally, my idea of allowing the young and healthy to choose to be infected now in a controlled environment to regain 6 months of freedom, as well as confer upon society the benefits of herd immunity and economic activity is worthy of consideration.
A couple of my mates, mid 40s, want to catch it for that reason. Won’t kill them and they can get on with their life
I like the way the King of Thailand is coping with the situation. He has, apparently taken over a whole hotel in Garmisch-Partenkrichen and moved his staff and 20 concubines there.
Amazing what happened inside Cameron’s second term, really, isn’t it?
It wouldn’t be him fighting this one though. It would probably be Osborne v. Corbyn assuming Remain won by enough but he might have been ousted for Boris by now too.
Had Remain won, it would prob be Osborne vs Farage
Comments
I completely understand that gambling with your life isn't the same as gambling for chips. You would expect to "double through" on such a bet not gain 0.6% of your stack.
I'm just looking at the odds as a way to demonstrate that as the lockdown goes on, more and more people will look at what they are losing and decide to chance it. If you have a 50/50 shot of being infected anyway, and there is no vaccine, why not get it over and done with if you are reasonably healthy?
That number will increase exponentially if we find ourselves in a world where those who have already been infected and conferred with immune status are allowed to move freely while others are not.
A healthy twenty something will be looking at his odds (99.9% survival) and wondering why he is sacrificing his summer to house arrest.
Thought experiments like these help to model how long lockdown can potentially hold for, what the opportunity cost is, what other options are there.
I think, fundamentally, my idea of allowing the young and healthy to choose to be infected now in a controlled environment to regain 6 months of freedom, as well as confer upon society the benefits of herd immunity and economic activity is worthy of consideration.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-warns-the-next-pandemic-disease-is-coming-2018-4?op=1&r=US&IR=T
https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1244911001872543746?s=21
We can say with utter certainty that it can't increase production of the relevant items - every national government is procuring on a send-me-all-you-can-make basis.
What can the EU scheme add to this?