Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:51pm
Is that working out?
Actually, don't worry about answering, I've checked.
Is a total lockdown working for Spain? Taking the numbers at face value... Yes. But, again taking the numbers at face value, no better than the UK's approach.
The UK is about two weeks behind Spain. New daily cases in Spain peaked about two weeks ago and flatten to about 8,000 per day. They're now decreasing, presently around the 4,000 a day with the odd blip.
The UK on the other hand, being two weeks behind, is now only starting to appear to peak, in terms of the graphs, and it's averaging about 5,000 a day. Roughly 3,000 less per day than Spain.
In terms of deaths. Spain is averaging 404 deaths per 1m population. The UK 202, weirdly exactly half that of Spain. You must, of course, take into account the countries are at different points in the death curve, as Spain is two weeks ahead of the UK. But, it's unlikely the UK will make up the slack. So, less deaths per capita in UK than Spain. A lot less.
Testing in each country is roughly the same per capita. So while discrepancies in testing can account for some anomalies, not enough to reflect the current numbers. This is before we start to factor in that Spain has 20% less population than the UK. The median age in Spain is higher than the UK, by 1.3yrs: UK 40yrs. Spain 41.3yrs, so not really enough to skew the stats.
So, to counter your assumption, that the approach Spain has taken is "better" than that of the UK, sorry, nope, the numbers say otherwise. To put it bluntly. You're wrong. Sorry. But there you go.
The real price for a total lockdown (Spain) Vs. a partial lockdown (UK) won't be known for a while yet. Once the effect each approach has had on mental health, I suspect you'll see huge differences there, and not in Spains favour.
The only thing that might make the total lockdown approach better is the risk of a 2nd wave, which is greatly reduced by a total lockdown. A partial lockdown means the virus can still spread, although very slowly, meaning it's still out there in strength, and a 2nd wave will kick in the moment everyone is back out. So as for which is the better approach longterm... No one know. Not you, me or the experts.
History though says that if a virus is allowed to come back for a 2nd wave, it's normally much more destructive than the first. Evident by the Spanish flu which came back, albeit mutated, and killed millions worldwide. Although it did have some help in spreading: The end of the war.
I should add I'm not saying this as some Union Jack flying Spain hating idiot. I'm just passing on what the numbers are saying. I'm not making this up.
So, back to the top... What is a (proven) better approach than the one the original poster says is moronic?
Oh, by the way, slightly off topic, but...
The real human cost of Covid-19 won't be fully understood for some time yet, most likely the end of the year at least. You see, we have to compare this quarters (April-June 2020) total deaths with those for the same period last year. Then we have to factor in any variations in the numbers for the third and forth quarters 2020.
What do I mean? At the moment 12k people have died and had cause of death written on the death cert as Covid-19. But how many of these were going to die this quarter anyway? We'll only know this once we get the totals and can compare year on year.
Then, you need to see if the third and Forth quarters adjust accordingly. What do I mean? If the number of deaths April to June 2020 go up by 20k, do the numbers for July-Sept and Oct-Dec go down by the same amount? If so, what actually happened was those who were going to die in the 2nd half of the year died earlier, due to Covid-19. But, they were going to die anyway.
Only when we get these stats can we begin to understand how many people Covid-19 really killed. Some are saying, looking at the limited data out at present, that the number of additional deaths over the average is actually not that much. So, it's possible that Covid-19 isn't killing many more than would have been dying anyway. Not sure I agree with that, but we'll know once the stats are available, next year.
And yes, sorry, very morbid post, I'm not attempting to lessen anyone grief, or make light of anyone dying, just analysing the stats in a somewhat detached way, as you have to if you want to make sense of all this.