I suppose that we could view the Chinese virus as something that had to happen to thin out a burgeoning population that is wrecking the Earth. Let 'er rip, and may the fittest survive. Let's face it: there are many people making up the 8 billion or so population who are no use to anyone, including themselves. Should we be wrecking our economy just to save people we can do without? I put that idea as a person in his late seventies who could be 'done without'. Why our anti-Christian, unspiritual and not very nice society has not given the idea a thought is beyond me.

ttbn,
I hoped Ebola would achieve something but a cure was eventually found.
Now maybe Cov-19 might.
Any reduction in the gross overpopulation situation will be positive.

Why the Christ do I bother ?

Try this, if you dare:

http://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

No. There isn't a population explosion. Europe, Japan, South Korea and Russia have static or declining populations, which will cause huge problems in a generation or two. The US and Australia would have static populations if it weren't for immigration. China is about to reach 'peak child' and in a decade or so, a static level of population. India is probably one generation behind China.

Of course populations might keep rising because people (at least until this virus) have been living longer: so they're counted amongst the living for longer. World birth rates are stabilising but mortality rates are declining even faster.

So do you mean Africa ? Africa is a very big continent, very lush: it could fit in about four Australias and has probably half the world's rainfall (somebody can correct me on that, please). So of course, if its governments were less corrupt and more civic-minded, it could support far more people.

But are you contemplating the use of some virus like Ebola or COVID-19 or Lyssa or Zika or even HIV to kill off hundreds of millions of people ? i.e. Africans ? Fascism dies very hard, doesn't it ?

Joe

Before there is any prospect of a reboot of the, Cooperative capitalism, economy? We need a few imperatives!

First of all, we need an effective antiviral that inhibits covid-19.

Plus, a blood test that enables a confirmed result in around an hour.

Enough clot-busting medication to give to all ICU patients, to prevent, fatal P.E's!

Need to become totally self-sufficient in PPE production!

With that in play? We could allow young volunteers ( at least 100,000) to acquire the infection, before it becomes full-blown? Treat with staggered, on and off again, antivirals, to allow the immune response to get ahead of the infection, relatively mild?

T cells could also be harvested from the ill/multiplied a thousandfold in the lab/reinjected into patients to further assist recovery/immunity?

[Always providing there's adequate, there's no time to lose, time? Trained lab techs?] We start yesterday!

Then with a large cohort of now immune volunteers, collect their monthly donations of blood. From which plasma could be harvested and used to produce immunity in our front line, essential service workers starting with the oldest first. If our politicians are last in this mind-blowingly massive queue? An assurance there will be no quibbling about cost, etc-etc!

All these things occurring inside various bubbles of quarantined production?

I mean it might be a little tough sleeping under the stars in a swag for various itinerant farmworkers? Or in cubicles in dorms for factory workers who will also live in quarantined accommodation, temporary demountables, caravans, tents, on the grounds of their production facility/factory! In lockdown, but ramped up full production, from inside the bubble!

And only transport able to penetrate? And where drivers are secunded from the immune cohort!

Even so, hygiene cannot be overdone and will need an army of attached cleaners to ensure all production leaves the premises, sans any viral contaminants!

Eventually, enough community immunity will allow this (squashed flat) virus to die a natural death?

Given we quarantine all incoming tourists and students etc? Will never reemerge here!?
Alan B.

Joe: Nailed it in one! Maybe we should just click heels and raise a stiff arm?

Me? With one middle finger extended!

Take care and stay safe!

We need positively informed and sensible thinkers like yourself engaged in the debate! Just to prevent those on the extreme right from having their dehumanizing (white supremacist, apartheid) views prevailing!
Alan B.

Joe's Africa is the very place most of the totally useless people live. It's always been a basket case a and it always will be. The same applies to the Middle East and much of Asia. The West is where the action is; or at least it was prior to globalisation and other Leftist fantasies, like cultural relativity.

In the meantime, it seems that WHO will be without the almost half a billion dollars a year it gets from the US while their shonky, pro-China nonsense is investigated.

Thanks, Alan. Those half-wits (to give them some benefit of the doubt) know little or nothing about how population growth is being trimmed back, mainly through (this would utterly baffle them) better education for women in developing countries. That reference

http://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

goes into that in detail, but they won't be bothered to read any of it.

Of course, that decline in mortality rates, which means people are living longer, has a finite limit: once we all start living to 100 or 120, maybe that will be it, and populations generally will start to decline everywhere.

And because more or less everybody will be healthier, governments will push up retirement ages to seventy, seventy five and eighty. Then people will have forty years of do-nothing retirement to endure.

Meanwhile, an extra generation of 'young people' will have to contemplate far more working years, supporting far more old farts like me. Couldn't happen to nicer people :)

Anyway, world population could reach a limit by about 2100, and then decline, with growing acceleration. I'm not sure I would want to be around in a century or two, in a world of Old Farts.

Cheers,

Joe

Here's my estimation of Australian deaths if there is no vaccine.

Presuming an episodic lockdown approach of weeks to months at a time, in which there will be several waves of death over a long time period without quarantine of the vulnerable (or likelihood of economic activity returning much between episodes, I add), and, presuming herd immunity is reached at 80% population infection:

25000000 x 80/100 x 0.37 (or justify your own number here)/100 = 74,000

Under the Swedish model, assume ~ 0.2% mortality rate (approximation based on weighted WHO estimates for mortality in younger demographics, cf 0.37% without isolating the vulnerable, based on a German study):

25000000 x 80/100 x 0.20 (or justify your own number here)/100 = 40,000

Now, you might assert, Australia could successfully isolate the vulnerable over the entire stretch of several waves of infection until herd immunity is reached long-term, or that the Australian model is smarter because a vaccine will come.

Discuss.

Luciferase,
The original SARS outbreak was stopped not by heard immunity, but by quarantining those affected.
We should do likewise this time.

It's harder than before because this time the virus is transmissible before symptoms appear. So a lot more testing needs to be done. Australia's testing rate may be among the best in the world, but in absolute terms it's pathetic. If we want to wipe out COVID19, the testing rate should be a thousand times higher!

Luciferase,

I don't disagree with the formulae but the numbers are iffy.

First, we need to realise that for all intents and purposes we really haven't got the faintest idea what the infection mortality rate is. We think we have a pretty good idea of the numbers of fatalities but even that is under a cloud.

But as to the numbers of actual infections we really don't know much, since the current testing regime is nowhere near comprehensive and is skewed toward finding those sickened by the virus and therefore more likely to die. In the example of the Diamond Princess half of those infected were asymptomatic and, had they been in the general community rather than in a closed environment, would likely not have been tested.

What we also know with some certainty is that the fatality rate differs by age. For all intents and purposes, the fatality rate for those under 40 is zero and for those under 50 barely detectable. For those older than that, the rate increases but is much more prevalent among those with pre-existing conditions.

So if/when we open the society, it will be a case of letting those least at risk get exposed and develop immunity. Those most at risk will remain sequestered. Its not going to be easy and surely many will fall through the cracks and not survive.

But the numbers will not be as high as you calculations suggest.

For goodness sake you children... you are a disgrace to the human mind and its power.

1. sure people will die, more die from drugs, drink, smoking, stupid Extreme sports and in cars every year than will die from this.
2. Apart from China and Who, governments have tried to balance the needs of human suffering with the economy that supports our first world luxurious life
3. People have been given a breathing space where for one weird limbo, they can stop, look around and even be sociable, as opposed to head down bum up making money and being promoted in the rat race we call modern life.
4.This is a time to re-assess, and rebuild and then move on positively.

Stop winging!, tomorrow a double-decker bus, or worst stage 4 cancer might hit you!

Ask yourselves WHAT makes a good society and what are its VALUES... its certainly not China or WHO.. its certainly not Wall Street or stock markets... its commonsense, fairness, equal opportunity and basic health, water, sanitation and power... after that, human nature will take over and its up to individuals to steer it in the most balanced direction.

Author asks 'Now comes a question often asked in university philosophy tutorials. How much is a human life worth? Is it a million dollars for a person in their teens or much less for a person with a chronic illness in their 70s or 80s?'

nothing if you believe in killing the unborn.

Hi Alison,

You might get a kick out of this article abstract on what the authors call tribal thinking:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233

It precedes an entire issue on a similar subject, of which this one is also a beauty:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722580

One writer quotes Joubert, 1883: "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

That ought to be OLO's motto :)

Cheers,

Joe

mhaze,

I think this is as definitive as there is right now across a broad demographic: http://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/

The demographic data (from where I took a 0.2% estimation) is here: http://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/. There seems a fit with the 0.37% figure from the site further above.

Aidan,

The possibility of testing, tracking and isolating our way out of this is miniscule when we must presume half the cases are asymptomatic: http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/04/13/what-the-rest-of-the-world-can-learn-from-icelands-mass-coronavirus-testing-project/?fbclid=IwAR20TSi-22VQRk97E83VUaonMrwDAOsp_kxl0RXicU1qxcsPI2YpOLYPCLA

I've read also (links abound) that the virus is shed from those recovered for some time, even weeks.

SARS was contained because it was only infectious when symptoms were obvious and the need to isolate was obvious. Testing will need to go beyond the symptomatic cases, so how long is your piece of string?

Whatever, your (Australia's) approach will simply slow the inevitably of herd immunity being attained while freedom and the economy are crushed.

Chinese people will eat anything even dogs cats, rats and bats, for the sake of money, what kind of people are they.
https://u.to/6OdNFw

What the hell do you think we ate vancrideout, before we became rich enough to only eat the preferred animals.

It is not much more than a century ago that English sailors were scrambling around in the holds of sailing ships to catch rats to add to their weevily biscuits to make dinner more appetising.

Loudmouth, its interesting stuff, but I ain't going to pay to read the articles.

I for one like debate, as long as its respectful and not just pointless sniping, which seems to dominate about 75% of the comment posts… which is a shame, as the authors obviously put so much effort in to writing the stuff,... irrespective of whether you, I or others agree with their opinion, they deserve pertinent comments, as apposed to bitchy childish sniping.

before we became rich enough to only eat the preferred animals.
Hasbeen's totally right on that one. One just has to watch one of those over-the-top cooking competitions on Tv during which we are bombarded with ads for the starving !

Alison,

Me neither, but we can read those article abstracts and intros for free :)

Joe

Luciferase,
>Testing will need to go beyond the symptomatic cases, so how long is your piece of string?
What part of "a thousand times more" did you not understand?

We need to test the ENTIRE population, and retest those with symptoms, and those who suspect they may have been in contact with someone affected, and those who travel interstate.

And once the international flights are running again, people who want to come here should be required to be tested a week from departure, then three days from departure, then on departure, then on arrival, and several times after that as well as having to use a phone tracking app for at leat two weeks.

It may sound expensive, but compared to an extended economic shutdown it would be very cheap. And compared to letting the disease run its course, it would be very cheap.

As for herd immunity, that should wait until a vaccine is available.

Agreed Aidan, complete & continued testing & complete quarantine of all effected is the only way of actually beating the thing.

It would be so much cheaper than shutting down, & destroying the economy, & the future for millions of people.

Luciferase,

I'm not disputing your overall 0.2% CFR, but just the breakdown by age. The link you've shown incorporates data from China. Indeed it relies heavily on data from China. But as we've seen China has lied about this from the get-go. (China is asshole!!)

I go here....http://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#what-do-we-know-about-the-risk-of-dying-from-covid-19

There you'll find that other countries have different data from the age groups than China's (you'll need to scroll a long way into the page to get to the age breakdown data).

Pay your money and take your choice. Personally, I'm think we need to try to avoid having to rely on any data from China

Aidan et al who want more testing...

1. stop ranting the repetitive chant of the now disgraced head of WHO, its bas enough we pay him a salary and god knows how many " brown paper envelopes he gets from Bejing!
2. Testing is not available due to the lack of time o develop the antibody kits and more detailed lab tests. SO those resources available must be used in a targeted fashion, until mass production facilities can ramp up production.
3. China has plenty of kits which it flooded Spain and Italy with ( its only major EU "Belt n Road" sponsors).. problem is they are on 25-30% reliable, therefore useless and even more dangerous than no test.

Yes in the perfect world we all should be tested, but under the circumstance, each countries gov is doing what it can with what its got.

Its so easy for you to whinge and complain, but leave it to the professionals and mouthpieces like Tedros and Dr 'stormin' Norman Swan>

Dear Allison Jane,

Actually your earlier post was pretty good.

As an alternative to paying for the articles loudmouth2 linked to you can always try Researchgate.

Here is a direct link to the first article in full.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/338754119_Tribalism_in_War_and_Peace_The_Nature_and_Evolution_of_Ideological_Epistemology_and_Its_Significance_for_Modern_Social_Science

Alison Jane,
1. My opinions are my own. If the head of the WHO shares them then maybe you're too quick to regard him as "disgraced". I haven't seen any actual evidence of corruption on his part.

2. Antibody testing requires blood and is therefore too intrusive for mass testing. It's also less accurate.

And of course resources must be used in a targeted fashion until mass reduction facilities can ramp up production. But ramping up production should be the ABSOLUTE priority; the government should be spending billions on it. Yet they seem to be ignoring the need t do so, and instead resigning themselves to an extended economic shutdown.

mhaze, I looked at your data and it's not way off my estimation. Whatever the correct number is, it will be somewhat lower than for a full demographic, hence the general principle applies.

Looks like relaxing quarantine within states and testing, testing, testing is going to be the way our pollies take us in the hope of eliminating the virus. When that doesn't work, because the virus is too slippery, the purists will say there just wasn't enough testing, however much is done.

Thank you Steel -Redux. I am on research gate and will download it.

Aidan...Their spending 100's billions on keeping the economy and hope for citizens alive.. Its not a money issue but a development of test and production issue DUUUUH!. not money!

You obviously have no understanding of science, regulatory processes and production engineering, but as you are a CCC believer, why would I expect you to even consider such trivial details in your quest to protect WHO and China!

Alison, though I'm not a production engineer, I am an engineer - unlike you. OF COURSE I know that there are technical issues holding back the production of testing equipment. But I also know that the more money is thrown at it, the faster those issues are resolved. And while throwing money at it may seem inefficient, the much greater sum they're spending to hibernate the economy is far more inefficient.

Do you understand yet? I'm not saying the government's actions are unnecessary; I'm saying that implementing far more testing could make the continuation of such actions unnecessary sooner. It's purely at the engineering stage now; there's no need to wait for future scientific breakthroughs.

In your previous posts you've demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of science and an even worse deficiency in your thought process (basing your opinions on delusions and stereotypes, and deliberately choosing to ignore the truth because you're too stupid to admit your stereotypes are wrong). I see you now imagine I'm on a "quest to protect the WHO and China" just because I pointed out your allegations were unproven. Hasn't the far simpler explanation occurred to you yet?