australiannationalreview--2020-09-01--Revolver Exclusive Study: COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself

Revolver Exclusive Study : COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself .
A groundbreaking new study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens .
Up until this point there had been no simple , rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns .
Accordingly , Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that : to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simply put , we have drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States , and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns .
The results are nothing short of staggering , and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans have had to endure for the greater part of 2020 represent one of the most dramatic , consequential , and damaging policy measures undertaken in this nation ’ s history .
For the first time in its history , America has experienced a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened .
As with everything in 2020 America , these lockdown measures have become deeply politicized .
President Trump opposes further devastating lockdowns .
In his recent Republican National Convention speech , President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very real and very devastating effects on the lives of many Americans .
Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden , by contrast , has suggested that he is willing to impose further lockdowns if “ scientists ” tell him to do so .
It is unclear which scientists Joe Biden would be listening to , as there is no consensus among scientists and experts as to whether or not lockdowns are worth the staggering costs they impose on the common man .
Revolver News is very proud to present a rigorous study on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will be spread far and wide both within government and without to assist policymakers .
This exclusive study is a collaborative guest contribution to Revolver News .
Due to the unfortunately politicized nature of the COVID-19 lockdowns , and the associated plausibility of professional repercussions , the authors have chosen for the time being to represent themselves pseudonymously .
Abel Sumner is a Ph.D. candidate in a social sciences field with both private and public sector experience as a policymaker .
He is extensively trained in statistics , econometrics , and quantitatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Ph.D. in economics and has experience both in the public sector as a policy maker and in the private sector as an analyst .
Jacob Cage holds a Ph.D. in a social sciences field and has extensive experience both in the public and private sectors in policy analysis and strategic communications .
• Standard approaches to evaluating epidemic policy responses , involving the Value of a Statistical Life , have conceptual problems and are biased towards the elderly and rich .
• Using a life-years criterion as an alternative shows that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life-years than they saved .
• Most of the publicized cost-benefit analyses of COVID-19 lockdowns have used coarse measures like lives as units rather than life-years , which misleads politicians and the general public .
COVID-19 deaths disproportionately impact the oldest members of the population , whereas the economic impacts of lockdowns disproportionately harm the youngest of the working population , who have far greater life expectancies at the time of impact .
• Using prior research on workforce entrants and recent graduates entering into a market marred by an economic recession , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined .
Extensive research on job displacement can be used to estimate the economic impact in life-years of starkly increased unemployment for mid-to-late career workers .
• Combining these analyses , we found that an estimated 18.7 million life-years will be lost in the United States due to the COVID-19 lockdowns .
Comparative data analysis between nations shows that the lockdowns in the United States likely had a minimal effect in saving life-years .
Using two different comparison groups , we estimate that the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. saved between a quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Every broad age category lost life-years from the lockdowns including those 55 and older .
• The media and state and local governments contributed to the panic by selectively presenting evidence on COVID-19 and shutdowns of dubious benefit .
• Public health researchers and health economists gave poor policy advice and made selective use of the prior research literature .
They will likely be rewarded , not punished , by academia for their failure because of academia ’ s biases .
• Public health in general is so biased and vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ not yet ready for policy analysis.
” On March 11 , 2020 , the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19 as a global pandemic .
In the following weeks , the countries of the world began implementing previously unthinkable measures to prevent the spread of the virus .
In the United States , some states quickly locked down nearly all physical businesses , venues , and public areas .
As a short quarantine rapidly grew into an indefinite lockdown , some lawmakers and economists began asking if the lockdowns would cause more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empirical research , first-pass estimates can be made about the impact of the unprecedented lockdown in life-years lost .
This can then be compared to the number to the estimated life-years lost to COVID-19 in the United States .
Why life-years ?
It is well-known that socioeconomic status ( SES ) appears to be linked to life expectancy and some of that association is causal , with higher SESes causing longer life expectancies through a number of channels .
Most government policy analysts make decisions using the Value of a Statistical Life ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 million .
If a regulation can save 1 life and costs $ 9 million , for instance , then it ’ s worth imposing to save a life .
If it costs $ 11 million , then it ’ s not worth imposing to save a life .
A problem with this approach is how coarse it is .
Because SES is linked to life expectancies , actions by the government that do not result in direct loss of life are liable to being simply unaccounted for in this approach .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at $ 100 million ?
Or $ 1 ?
If you set the VSL too low , you will fail to impose many very cheap lifesaving regulations .
Something perhaps more subtle is that if you set the VSL too high , then regulations you impose will reduce income so much by retarding economic activity that you will wind up reducing life expectancies through the SES-life expectancy channel .
There are actually more fundamental issues with the use of a single VSL for all citizens ( see Sunstein ’ s Valuing Life for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find the general equilibrium problems with it very intuitive .
Surprisingly , the COVID-19 conversation among public health analysts , bio-statisticians , economists , and policymakers who are otherwise sensitive to the problems with VSL has been dominated by the standard “ coarse ” VSL calculation above .
We have seen no full policy analyses utilizing life-year approaches , although various studies have tried to estimate the average life-year losses per COVID-19 death .
Controversy over estimating the correct value of a statistical life , problems with actually applying it in analysis as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odiousness associated with the rendering of human lives in dollar terms have pushed some health economists and public health analysts toward use of a life-years approach .
This approach is simple , and in principle , involves no explicit conversion of human lives into money terms — although such a trade-off is implicit in any policy analysis .
From the life-years ’ perspective , a policymaker can compute the life-years lost and gained if they take a specific action .
For instance , a new airline safety regulation may make users of airlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 0.1 life-years per traveler , but the higher cost of air travel may induce potential passengers to switch to less safe car travel , costing the switchers an average of 0.3 life-years .
If enough people switch to car travel , then the airline safety regulation will actually reduce the total life-years lived from the perspective of the transportation system as a whole .
A life-year maximizer would say that the regulation should not be adopted .
An advantage of the life-year approach is that it values all people ’ s life-years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an 80 year old is of equal value to that of a 20 year old .
The life-year of a poor person is worth the same as the life-year of a rich person .
The VSL method , by incorrectly estimating the amount that heterogenous consumers and workers are willing to pay for safety , may privilege the wealthy ( who place a higher premium on safety ) and the elderly ( who will not have to face the “ general equilibrium ” costs of more safety regulations ) over the poor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe but much cheaper goods and services or higher paying , but unsafe jobs over lower paying , but safe jobs .
With life-years now established as our operational metric , we shall proceed with our analysis of the life-year impacts of Covid lockdown policies .
The COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a massive global recession , which has spared almost no country , firm , or economic sector .
Job displacement in America has occurred at a scale nearly rivaling that of the Great Depression in the 1930s , with unemployment as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
Using a back-of-the envelope calculation , we can lower-bound the medium-term increase in unemployment , which can reasonably be estimated at around 8.5 % .
It is important to note that even medium-term unemployment will result in permanent job separations , as employees who are unemployed for over a year are unlikely to return to their previous position .
Previous research on job displacement and mortality has found that displaced workers face a significant increase in mortality rates , from which lost years of life can be estimated .
[ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been shown to correlate directly with increases in heart disease , drug overdoses , lung cancer , and liver disease , among other factors of increased mortality risk .
Sullivan and Von Watcher ’ s paper on job displacement and mortality estimated that job separation results in about 1.5 lost life-years per individual .
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) estimates that U.S. unemployment in 2021 will range between 8.5 % in a single-wave scenario and 11.5 % in a double-wave scenario .
[ 2 ] Assuming that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next year will increase by about 5 percentage points over pre-COVID-19 2020 levels .
Based on pre-COVID-19 payrolls , total job displacements in 2021 will likely be around 8.2 million .
Increases in 2020 unemployment by age group between February and July can be used to estimate the distribution of additional unemployment for each age group .
Taking the 8.2 million job displacements and multiplying them by Sullivan and Von Watcher ’ s lost life-year coefficients for each age group provides a total estimate of over 8,000,000 life-years lost due to job displacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research has shown that labor market recessions have significant but lagged effects on the future mortality rates of those entering the labor market .
[ 3 ] Based on Hannes Schwandt and Till von Wachter ’ s linear model of increased mortality due to entering the job market during a recession , a figure of 0.629 life-years are lost per individual in this classification .
[ 4 ] This number can be multiplied by 13 million workers in the 16-24 age group in 2020 and then multiplied separately by the 3.9 million college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This methodology is also used by Till von Wachter in his working paper on the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis on workers .
[ 6 ] By these estimates , long-term life-years lost due to the COVID-19 recession in the U.S. total around 18.7 million .
Table 1 contains a breakdown of total life-years lost as a result of economic conditions created by the lockdowns by all estimation methods .
Having established the amount of life-years lost due to COVID-19 lockdown policies , it remains to consider how many lives these may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing , the virus has proven to be a clear public health threat in America .
Table 2 ( below ) contains CDC data for COVID-19 deaths by age group in the United States , and life expectancies of those age groups .
Multiplying the expected years of life remaining by the number of deaths in each age group provides a number for life-years lost by age group .
The total calculated life-years lost from COVID-19 in the United States adds up to 1.88 million .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high-end estimate .
This calculation assumes that those dying from coronavirus have an average life expectancy and would have otherwise likely lived out the remaining years , had they not contracted the virus .
Recent medical research has shown that coronavirus deaths are more likely to occur in patients with underlying health conditions .
This implies that an estimate of life-years lost due to COVID-19 may be slightly inflated .
To better contextualize the effect of the lockdown , it is important to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the United States in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While much is still unknown about the virus , data from other countries illustrates the effect of varying degrees of lockdowns .
Sweden faced controversy for not enacting lockdown measures , unlike most other nations .
Data from Johns Hopkins University shows that Sweden had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 56.62 per 100,000 people .
[ 7 ] The United States , with full lockdown measures , had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 50 per 100,000 people [ note all data valid up to the time of writing ] .
The United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it initially took an approach closer to Sweden and then changed course during the pandemic , resulting in a COVID-19 death rate of 70 per 100,000 people .
An estimate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths had the lockdowns not been enacted can be estimated by using either Sweden ’ s per-capita death rate or the United Kingdom ’ s rate as counterfactual estimates of the “ least economically costly-possible policy.
” For simplicity , we hold the distribution of age at death constant .
Figure 2 and Table 3 show these estimates by age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterfactual and actual COVID-19 deaths .
For simplicity , we assume that the “ age structure of death ” in the United States for COVID-19 would have continued to apply and apply a simple multiplier ( based on the ratio of per capita deaths in the U.S. and UK/Sweden ) to construct our counterfactual estimates .
Based on the estimations in Table 4 ( directly above ) , the U.S. lockdowns may have saved anywhere between a quarter of a million to three quarters of a million life-years .
This estimate range is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be lost as a result of the lockdown .
Figure 3 ( below ) shows the breakdown with the Swedish and U.K. models .
In the Figure , the blue bars represent life-years saved from the lockdown , which are estimated by comparing the U.S. ’ s performance with Sweden and the U.K .
The red bars represent life-years lost from the lockdown , which are estimated using the estimated reductions in life expectancy from unemployment and separations using U.S. data described above .
An intuition policymakers should develop is that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 will “ cost ” a little over 50 life-years .
Similarly , a permanent employment separation today will “ cost ” between 0.5 and 1.5 lost life-years , as a small fraction of permanent separations will yield permanently unemployed workers , who have shorter life expectancies in general ( think stress-induced increases in cancer , heart attacks , homicide , and deaths of despair [ alcohol , suicide , pills ] ) .
On the other hand , a typical COVID-19 death will cost between 7 and 17 years — simply because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those typically dying already tilts them towards an early death .
A second key assumption , more debatable , is that absent the lockdowns unemployment would not have dramatically increased .
Krugman and other economists make the case that the consumption cuts driving unemployment would have happened without the stay-at-home orders based on the experience of contiguous countries e.g .
Sweden and Denmark both suffered similar GDP losses .
This logic ignores the fact that huge fractions of the Nordics ’ collective GDP are linked through trade and so a straightforward difference-in-difference exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Norwegian lockdowns imposed on their neighbors .
Even if it was not lockdowns causing the consumption cutbacks , mainstream media did little to push back on catastrophe narratives and , through selective coverage , actively misled citizens ’ about the actual ( small ) risks of COVID-19 .
The fact of the matter is that once COVID-19 hit , there were going to be economic and life-year losses compared to the world where COVID-19 did not hit .
However , the ultimate size of those income and life-year losses , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses , amount to a policy choice .
Some pedants may quibble that we have constructed our unemployment counterfactual using a time series analysis of U.S. data while we constructed our “ no lockdown ” COVID-19 life-year losses counterfactual using foreign country experience , effectively mixing two different designs .
We encourage the fair reader to consult the title of this piece .
The correct counterfactual is impossible to know .
Real results from a country like Sweden or the UK are better than results from an epidemiological model with extremely limited out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The point of this quantitative thought experiment is mostly qualitative and aimed at making the single point to citizens and policymakers : small permanent or cohort-level increases in unemployment induced by the lockdowns easily wipe out the small documented benefits of lockdowns .
[ 8 ] The actual increases in unemployment in the United States are massive — exceeding the scale of the Great Recession .
The long-run increase in unemployment can not easily be constructed from contemporaneous cross-country data for the simple reason that those countries long-run employment evolutions haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable to assume that COVID-19 has run its course in say , New York or Sweden — which now has around 1-2 COVID-19 deaths per day .
Revolver.news would be honored if someone stole these insights for Lancet , which has a quick turnaround ( recall their Hydroxychloroquine debacle ) , the CDC ’ s in-house journals , or the NBER working paper series on epidemics/COVID-19 .
The economic devastation of the lockdowns will last for decades after the virus is brought under control , and it may lead to far worse ripple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time in its history , America has experienced what could be almost likened to a sudden stop in an emerging nation — a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened .
How did this happen ?
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the institutional incentives in academia that led to the pandemic pandemonium and the U.S. ’ s almost assured future fiscal collapse .
Our calculations imply that — from a lost life-years ’ perspective — the COVID-19 lockdowns in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good to every age category .
The life year losses are so large that it is difficult to see any kind of refinement justifying the current American policy combination .
Indeed , one would need to argue that — without elite panic — a disease only about two to four times as virulent as the flu would have induced a depression , which itself would indict the macrofinancial policymaking community .
Why have the policy trade-offs of COVID-19 never been presented to politicians , the media , or the public in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health field as a whole , which popularized linkages between socioeconomic status and life expectancy , suddenly fail to consider these linkages when it came to COVID-19 ?
Why did trade economists ignore the trade spillover impacts of lockdowns when considering COVID-19 policy ?
American politicians who enacted these lockdowns were driven by a combination of fear and political incentives .
What drove tenured professionals to exaggerate the potential harms of the virus and minimize the costs of lockdowns ?
Citizens give huge amounts of both money and time to academics with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more rational policymaking .
Indeed , a few economists were vocal in warning of the damage of potential lockdowns , but most were either silent or fomented panic .
Some economists at the FED and MIT Sloan rushed research to print that actively misled policymakers making life or death decisions Ridiculously , public health experts encouraged “ Black Lives Matter ” protests and riots and claimed that they actually reduced COVID-19 infections .
Indeed , in the hyper-politicized atmosphere of academia , it is difficult to imagine any “ academic ” retaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ riots on common-sense public health grounds .
On the basis of this asymmetry ( and similar asymmetries in the treatment of race and mortality , pollution , sexual minorities , and the role of economic analysis in public health ) , public health must be condemned as “ not yet useful for policy analysis ” .
COVID-19 shows that the promise of rational social research is a lie .
Politicians and citizens would have been better off following common-sense approaches pursued in past plagues : shutting down borders within the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , isolating the elderly , and simply wearing a mask .
[ 8 ] Because the employment losses primarily affect downscale workers , making less than $ 50,000/year , remote-working social and policy elites ’ do not intuit or feel these downscale workers ’ pain , unless enterprising journalists can derive some racial oppression narrative from the employment losses .

Revolver Exclusive Study: COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself.
By Revolver
A groundbreaking new study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens.
Up until this point there had been no simple, rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Accordingly, Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that: to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.” Simply put, we have drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States, and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns. The results are nothing short of staggering, and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus itself.
The COVID-19 lockdown measures that Americans have had to endure for the greater part of 2020 represent one of the most dramatic, consequential, and damaging policy measures undertaken in this nation’s history. For the first time in its history, America has experienced a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.
As with everything in 2020 America, these lockdown measures have become deeply politicized. President Trump opposes further devastating lockdowns. In his recent Republican National Convention speech, President Trump raised the point that lockdowns have had very real and very devastating effects on the lives of many Americans.
President Trump: “The cost of the Biden shutdown would be measured in increased drug overdoses, depression, alcohol addiction, suicides, heart attacks, economic devastation, job loss and much more. Joe Biden’s plan is not a solution to the virus, but, rather, it’s a surrender to the virus.” [Politico]
Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, by contrast, has suggested that he is willing to impose further lockdowns if “scientists” tell him to do so. It is unclear which scientists Joe Biden would be listening to, as there is no consensus among scientists and experts as to whether or not lockdowns are worth the staggering costs they impose on the common man.
Revolver News is very proud to present a rigorous study on such an important topic and we hope that this will be spread far and wide both within government and without to assist policymakers. This exclusive study is a collaborative guest contribution to Revolver News. Due to the unfortunately politicized nature of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the associated plausibility of professional repercussions, the authors have chosen for the time being to represent themselves pseudonymously.
Abel Sumner is a Ph.D. candidate in a social sciences field with both private and public sector experience as a policymaker. He is extensively trained in statistics, econometrics, and quantitatively informed public policy.
Jeremiah Jackson holds a Ph.D. in economics and has experience both in the public sector as a policy maker and in the private sector as an analyst.
Jacob Cage holds a Ph.D. in a social sciences field and has extensive experience both in the public and private sectors in policy analysis and strategic communications.
—————————–
CHEAT SHEET: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease
Standard approaches to evaluating epidemic policy responses, involving the Value of a Statistical Life, have conceptual problems and are biased towards the elderly and rich.
Using a life-years criterion as an alternative shows that the lockdowns cost an order of magnitude more life-years than they saved.
life-years than they saved. Most of the publicized cost-benefit analyses of COVID-19 lockdowns have used coarse measures like lives as units rather than life-years, which misleads politicians and the general public. COVID-19 deaths disproportionately impact the oldest members of the population, whereas the economic impacts of lockdowns disproportionately harm the youngest of the working population, who have far greater life expectancies at the time of impact.
Using prior research on workforce entrants and recent graduates entering into a market marred by an economic recession, empirical estimates of life-years lost can be determined. Extensive research on job displacement can be used to estimate the economic impact in life-years of starkly increased unemployment for mid-to-late career workers.
Combining these analyses, we found that an estimated 18.7 million life-years will be lost in the United States due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. Comparative data analysis between nations shows that the lockdowns in the United States likely had a minimal effect in saving life-years. Using two different comparison groups, we estimate that the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. saved between a quarter to three quarters of a million life-years.
Every broad age category lost life-years from the lockdowns including those 55 and older.
The media and state and local governments contributed to the panic by selectively presenting evidence on COVID-19 and shutdowns of dubious benefit.
Public health researchers and health economists gave poor policy advice and made selective use of the prior research literature. They will likely be rewarded, not punished, by academia for their failure because of academia’s biases.
Public health in general is so biased and vulnerable to motivated cognition that it is not “not yet ready for policy analysis.”
———————————
Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19 as a global pandemic. In the following weeks, the countries of the world began implementing previously unthinkable measures to prevent the spread of the virus. In the United States, some states quickly locked down nearly all physical businesses, venues, and public areas. As a short quarantine rapidly grew into an indefinite lockdown, some lawmakers and economists began asking if the lockdowns would cause more damage than the virus itself. Using empirical research, first-pass estimates can be made about the impact of the unprecedented lockdown in life-years lost. This can then be compared to the number to the estimated life-years lost to COVID-19 in the United States.
Why life-years? It is well-known that socioeconomic status (SES) appears to be linked to life expectancy and some of that association is causal, with higher SESes causing longer life expectancies through a number of channels. Most government policy analysts make decisions using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSLs) — which is about $10 million. If a regulation can save 1 life and costs $9 million, for instance, then it’s worth imposing to save a life. If it costs $11 million, then it’s not worth imposing to save a life. A problem with this approach is how coarse it is. Because SES is linked to life expectancies, actions by the government that do not result in direct loss of life are liable to being simply unaccounted for in this approach. For example, why not set the VSL at $100 million? Or $1? If you set the VSL too low, you will fail to impose many very cheap lifesaving regulations. Something perhaps more subtle is that if you set the VSL too high, then regulations you impose will reduce income so much by retarding economic activity that you will wind up reducing life expectancies through the SES-life expectancy channel. There are actually more fundamental issues with the use of a single VSL for all citizens (see Sunstein’s Valuing Life for a good overview), but many find the general equilibrium problems with it very intuitive.
Surprisingly, the COVID-19 conversation among public health analysts, bio-statisticians, economists, and policymakers who are otherwise sensitive to the problems with VSL has been dominated by the standard “coarse” VSL calculation above. We have seen no full policy analyses utilizing life-year approaches, although various studies have tried to estimate the average life-year losses per COVID-19 death. Controversy over estimating the correct value of a statistical life, problems with actually applying it in analysis as described above, and perhaps a certain odiousness associated with the rendering of human lives in dollar terms have pushed some health economists and public health analysts toward use of a life-years approach. This approach is simple, and in principle, involves no explicit conversion of human lives into money terms — although such a trade-off is implicit in any policy analysis. From the life-years’ perspective, a policymaker can compute the life-years lost and gained if they take a specific action. For instance, a new airline safety regulation may make users of airlines so safe that they save an average of 0.1 life-years per traveler, but the higher cost of air travel may induce potential passengers to switch to less safe car travel, costing the switchers an average of 0.3 life-years. If enough people switch to car travel, then the airline safety regulation will actually reduce the total life-years lived from the perspective of the transportation system as a whole.
A life-year maximizer would say that the regulation should not be adopted. An advantage of the life-year approach is that it values all people’s life-years equally in principle. The life-year of an 80 year old is of equal value to that of a 20 year old. The life-year of a poor person is worth the same as the life-year of a rich person. The VSL method, by incorrectly estimating the amount that heterogenous consumers and workers are willing to pay for safety, may privilege the wealthy (who place a higher premium on safety) and the elderly (who will not have to face the “general equilibrium” costs of more safety regulations) over the poor and the young, who might prefer less safe but much cheaper goods and services or higher paying, but unsafe jobs over lower paying, but safe jobs. With life-years now established as our operational metric, we shall proceed with our analysis of the life-year impacts of Covid lockdown policies.
The COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a massive global recession, which has spared almost no country, firm, or economic sector. Job displacement in America has occurred at a scale nearly rivaling that of the Great Depression in the 1930s, with unemployment as high as 14.7% in April of 2020. Using a back-of-the envelope calculation, we can lower-bound the medium-term increase in unemployment, which can reasonably be estimated at around 8.5%. It is important to note that even medium-term unemployment will result in permanent job separations, as employees who are unemployed for over a year are unlikely to return to their previous position.
Figure 1
Previous research on job displacement and mortality has found that displaced workers face a significant increase in mortality rates, from which lost years of life can be estimated.[1] Job losses and permanent job separations have been shown to correlate directly with increases in heart disease, drug overdoses, lung cancer, and liver disease, among other factors of increased mortality risk. Sullivan and Von Watcher’s paper on job displacement and mortality estimated that job separation results in about 1.5 lost life-years per individual.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that U.S. unemployment in 2021 will range between 8.5% in a single-wave scenario and 11.5% in a double-wave scenario.[2] Assuming that a single-wave scenario occurs, U.S. unemployment next year will increase by about 5 percentage points over pre-COVID-19 2020 levels. Based on pre-COVID-19 payrolls, total job displacements in 2021 will likely be around 8.2 million. Increases in 2020 unemployment by age group between February and July can be used to estimate the distribution of additional unemployment for each age group. Taking the 8.2 million job displacements and multiplying them by Sullivan and Von Watcher’s lost life-year coefficients for each age group provides a total estimate of over 8,000,000 life-years lost due to job displacement.
Beyond direct job displacements, additional research has shown that labor market recessions have significant but lagged effects on the future mortality rates of those entering the labor market.[3] Based on Hannes Schwandt and Till von Wachter’s linear model of increased mortality due to entering the job market during a recession, a figure of 0.629 life-years are lost per individual in this classification.[4] This number can be multiplied by 13 million workers in the 16-24 age group in 2020 and then multiplied separately by the 3.9 million college graduates of 2020.[5] This methodology is also used by Till von Wachter in his working paper on the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis on workers.[6] By these estimates, long-term life-years lost due to the COVID-19 recession in the U.S. total around 18.7 million.
Table 1 contains a breakdown of total life-years lost as a result of economic conditions created by the lockdowns by all estimation methods.
Table 1
Group Estimated life-years lost 2020 Displaced Workers 8,071,000 New Workforce Entrants 8,180,000 Recent Graduates 2,453,000 Total 18,704,000
Having established the amount of life-years lost due to COVID-19 lockdown policies, it remains to consider how many lives these may have saved.
With over 170,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the virus has proven to be a clear public health threat in America. Table 2 (below) contains CDC data for COVID-19 deaths by age group in the United States, and life expectancies of those age groups.
Multiplying the expected years of life remaining by the number of deaths in each age group provides a number for life-years lost by age group. The total calculated life-years lost from COVID-19 in the United States adds up to 1.88 million. It is important to note that this is a high-end estimate. This calculation assumes that those dying from coronavirus have an average life expectancy and would have otherwise likely lived out the remaining years, had they not contracted the virus. Recent medical research has shown that coronavirus deaths are more likely to occur in patients with underlying health conditions. This implies that an estimate of life-years lost due to COVID-19 may be slightly inflated.
Table 2
Age Group US COVID-19 Deaths Expectation of Life Estimated Life-Years Lost Under 1 year 15 78.61 1,179 1-4 years 10 78.61 786 5-14 years 20 74.14 1,483 15-24 years 225 64.23 14,452 25-34 years 1,074 54.66 58,705 35-44 years 2,728 45.32 123,639 45-54 years 7,298 36.11 263,558 55-64 years 17,583 27.36 480,997 65-74 years 29,869 19.40 579,539 75-84 years 37,494 12.26 459,549 85 years and over 45,842 6.58 301,848 Total 142,158 2,285,735
To better contextualize the effect of the lockdown, it is important to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the United States in a scenario where a lockdown was not enacted. While much is still unknown about the virus, data from other countries illustrates the effect of varying degrees of lockdowns.
Sweden faced controversy for not enacting lockdown measures, unlike most other nations. Data from Johns Hopkins University shows that Sweden had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 56.62 per 100,000 people.[7] The United States, with full lockdown measures, had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 50 per 100,000 people [note all data valid up to the time of writing]. The United Kingdom provides yet another perspective, as it initially took an approach closer to Sweden and then changed course during the pandemic, resulting in a COVID-19 death rate of 70 per 100,000 people. An estimate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths had the lockdowns not been enacted can be estimated by using either Sweden’s per-capita death rate or the United Kingdom’s rate as counterfactual estimates of the “least economically costly-possible policy.” For simplicity, we hold the distribution of age at death constant. Figure 2 and Table 3 show these estimates by age group. Table 4 shows differences between counterfactual and actual COVID-19 deaths. For simplicity, we assume that the “age structure of death” in the United States for COVID-19 would have continued to apply and apply a simple multiplier (based on the ratio of per capita deaths in the U.S. and UK/Sweden) to construct our counterfactual estimates.
Figure 2
Table 3
Age Group COVID-19 Deaths Estimated Life-years lost 56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k Under 1 year 17 21 1,336 1,653 1-4 years 11 14 865 1,102 5-14 years 23 28 1,614 1,968 15-24 years 255 315 15,393 19,042 25-34 years 1,216 1,506 61,912 76,664 35-44 years 3,089 3,825 128,574 159,194 45-54 years 8,264 10,232 265,366 328,554 55-64 years 19,910 24,651 480,005 594,314 65-74 years 33,500 41,876 551,204 689,027 75-84 years 42,458 52,567 417,063 516,360 85 years and over 51,911 64,270 207,233 256,573 Total 160,654 199,306 2,130,565 2,644,450
Table 4
Age Group Excess COVID-19 Deaths Excess Life-Years Lost 56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k Under 1 year 2 6 157 474 1-4 years 1 4 865 311 5-14 years 3 8 211 564 15-24 years 30 90 1,811 5,460 25-34 years 142 432 7,230 21,982 35-44 years 361 1,097 15,026 45,646 45-54 years 966 2,934 31,019 94,207 55-64 years 2,327 7,068 56,101 170,410 65-74 years 3,631 12,007 59,744 197,567 75-84 years 4,964 15,073 48,761 148,057 85 years and over 6,069 18,428 24,228 73,568 Total 18,496 57,148 245,153 758,247
Based on the estimations in Table 4 (directly above), the U.S. lockdowns may have saved anywhere between a quarter of a million to three quarters of a million life-years. This estimate range is staggeringly low compared to the life-years that will be lost as a result of the lockdown.
Figure 3 (below) shows the breakdown with the Swedish and U.K. models. In the Figure, the blue bars represent life-years saved from the lockdown, which are estimated by comparing the U.S.’s performance with Sweden and the U.K. The red bars represent life-years lost from the lockdown, which are estimated using the estimated reductions in life expectancy from unemployment and separations using U.S. data described above.
An intuition policymakers should develop is that that the death of someone aged 20 to 25 will “cost” a little over 50 life-years. Similarly, a permanent employment separation today will “cost” between 0.5 and 1.5 lost life-years, as a small fraction of permanent separations will yield permanently unemployed workers, who have shorter life expectancies in general (think stress-induced increases in cancer, heart attacks, homicide, and deaths of despair [alcohol, suicide, pills]). On the other hand, a typical COVID-19 death will cost between 7 and 17 years — simply because of the age and comorbidity structure of those typically dying already tilts them towards an early death.
A second key assumption, more debatable, is that absent the lockdowns unemployment would not have dramatically increased. Krugman and other economists make the case that the consumption cuts driving unemployment would have happened without the stay-at-home orders based on the experience of contiguous countries e.g. Sweden and Denmark both suffered similar GDP losses. This logic ignores the fact that huge fractions of the Nordics’ collective GDP are linked through trade and so a straightforward difference-in-difference exercise ignores the negative externalities Finnish, Danish, and Norwegian lockdowns imposed on their neighbors. Even if it was not lockdowns causing the consumption cutbacks, mainstream media did little to push back on catastrophe narratives and, through selective coverage, actively misled citizens’ about the actual (small) risks of COVID-19.
The fact of the matter is that once COVID-19 hit, there were going to be economic and life-year losses compared to the world where COVID-19 did not hit. However, the ultimate size of those income and life-year losses, and the geographic and age-allocation of those life-year losses, amount to a policy choice.
Some pedants may quibble that we have constructed our unemployment counterfactual using a time series analysis of U.S. data while we constructed our “no lockdown” COVID-19 life-year losses counterfactual using foreign country experience, effectively mixing two different designs.
We encourage the fair reader to consult the title of this piece. The correct counterfactual is impossible to know. Real results from a country like Sweden or the UK are better than results from an epidemiological model with extremely limited out of sample validity and fundamentally unidentifiable parameters. The point of this quantitative thought experiment is mostly qualitative and aimed at making the single point to citizens and policymakers: small permanent or cohort-level increases in unemployment induced by the lockdowns easily wipe out the small documented benefits of lockdowns.[8] The actual increases in unemployment in the United States are massive — exceeding the scale of the Great Recession. The long-run increase in unemployment cannot easily be constructed from contemporaneous cross-country data for the simple reason that those countries long-run employment evolutions haven’t happened yet, but it is reasonable to assume that COVID-19 has run its course in say, New York or Sweden — which now has around 1-2 COVID-19 deaths per day. Revolver.news would be honored if someone stole these insights for Lancet, which has a quick turnaround (recall their Hydroxychloroquine debacle), the CDC’s in-house journals, or the NBER working paper series on epidemics/COVID-19.
The economic devastation of the lockdowns will last for decades after the virus is brought under control, and it may lead to far worse ripple effects down the road. For the first time in its history, America has experienced what could be almost likened to a sudden stop in an emerging nation — a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.
How did this happen? It is worth reflecting for a moment on the institutional incentives in academia that led to the pandemic pandemonium and the U.S.’s almost assured future fiscal collapse. Our calculations imply that — from a lost life-years’ perspective — the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. objectively caused far more harm than good to every age category. The life year losses are so large that it is difficult to see any kind of refinement justifying the current American policy combination. Indeed, one would need to argue that — without elite panic — a disease only about two to four times as virulent as the flu would have induced a depression, which itself would indict the macrofinancial policymaking community.
Why have the policy trade-offs of COVID-19 never been presented to politicians, the media, or the public in terms of life-years? Why did economists and the public health field as a whole, which popularized linkages between socioeconomic status and life expectancy, suddenly fail to consider these linkages when it came to COVID-19? Why did trade economists ignore the trade spillover impacts of lockdowns when considering COVID-19 policy?
American politicians who enacted these lockdowns were driven by a combination of fear and political incentives. What drove tenured professionals to exaggerate the potential harms of the virus and minimize the costs of lockdowns? Citizens give huge amounts of both money and time to academics with the promise that knowledge can help lead to more rational policymaking. Indeed, a few economists were vocal in warning of the damage of potential lockdowns, but most were either silent or fomented panic. Some economists at the FED and MIT Sloan rushed research to print that actively misled policymakers making life or death decisions
Ridiculously, public health experts encouraged “Black Lives Matter” protests and riots and claimed that they actually reduced COVID-19 infections. Indeed, in the hyper-politicized atmosphere of academia, it is difficult to imagine any “academic” retaining their position who condemned the protests and riots on common-sense public health grounds. On the basis of this asymmetry (and similar asymmetries in the treatment of race and mortality, pollution, sexual minorities, and the role of economic analysis in public health), public health must be condemned as “not yet useful for policy analysis”.
COVID-19 shows that the promise of rational social research is a lie. Politicians and citizens would have been better off following common-sense approaches pursued in past plagues: shutting down borders within the United States and between the United States and other countries, isolating the elderly, and simply wearing a mask.
[1] https://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/sullivan_vonwachter_qje.pdf
[2] https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate-forecast.htm
[3] https://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/Unlucky_Midlife_Schwandt_vonWachter.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates/#:~:text=To%20illustrate%2C%20the%20estimates%20for,the%202015%2D2016%20academic%20year.
[6] https://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/covid19/LT_effects_STC_memo_vonWachter.pdf
[7] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
[8] Because the employment losses primarily affect downscale workers, making less than $50,000/year, remote-working social and policy elites’ do not intuit or feel these downscale workers’ pain, unless enterprising journalists can derive some racial oppression narrative from the employment losses.


australiannationalreview--2020-09-01--Many Australians still sadly in denial and don’t realise the Coronavirus is a falsified pandemic des

Many Australians still sadly in denial and don ’ t realise the Coronavirus is a falsified pandemic despite the overwhelming evidence .
For those who are still in denial .
Did you know that the highly infectious tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year ?
No masks , no pandemic .
.
.
?
Did you know that from CDC data , 2020 has the lowest weekly death rate in a decade – so far ?
Although some of this lower death rate may be due to a reporting lag , that lag is likely too small to explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in previous years .
Did you know that in Australia since the Shut Down there have been approximately twice as many deaths by suicide than by covid-19 ?
Did you know that over 500 doctors in Germany made the following statement regarding covid-19 ?
“ We have a lot of evidence that it ’ s a fake story all over the world.
” Did you know that in 1998 a small group of nasty people decided that the common coronavirus would be the best for genetic engineering ?
Did you know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for covid – 19 .
Oh yes , we have a pandemic all right .
.
.
a pandemic of fear .
And so began the attempted global takeover .
The only reason most governments in the world become mindless zombies under the control of the W.H.O is because the W.H.O declared it a ‘ pandemic ’ .
Australia leads in their mindless conditioned subservience to the controllers who plan to break our economy .
Yet , at the same time , they are attempting , to some extent , to maintain it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine the direction of our lives .
A continued denial is not a future that I would want .
Nor is a fear focus going to help .
We each need to be informed , be open , be strong , and make choices that honour us .
Sadly , this is beyond the mass consciousness .
And this is what ‘ they ’ aim to control .
.
.
the good , kind people that make up our mass consciousness .
Yet these people who mindlessly conform also ask , “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” I am in no doubt that Love/Light will win .
I am in no doubt that Great Change awaits us .

Many Australians still sadly in denial and don’t realise the Coronavirus is a falsified pandemic despite the overwhelming evidence.
By Michael Roads
For those who are still in denial. Did you know that the highly infectious tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year? No masks, no pandemic . . .?
Did you know that from CDC data, 2020 has the lowest weekly death rate in a decade – so far?
Although some of this lower death rate may be due to a reporting lag, that lag is likely too small to explain the lower weekly death rate in 2020 than in previous years.
Did you know that in Australia since the Shut Down there have been approximately twice as many deaths by suicide than by covid-19?
Did you know that over 500 doctors in Germany made the following statement regarding covid-19?
“We have a lot of evidence that it’s a fake story all over the world.”
Did you know that in 1998 a small group of nasty people decided that the common coronavirus would be the best for genetic engineering?
Did you know that in 2009 the first patents were applied for covid – 19.
Oh yes, we have a pandemic all right . . . a pandemic of fear.
And so began the attempted global takeover.
The only reason most governments in the world become mindless zombies under the control of the W.H.O is because the W.H.O declared it a ‘pandemic’.
That was a masterstroke.
Australia leads in their mindless conditioned subservience to the controllers who plan to break our economy. Yet, at the same time, they are attempting, to some extent, to
maintain it.
Each one of us has to determine the direction of our lives.
A continued denial is not a future that I would want.
Nor is a fear focus going to help.
We each need to be informed, be open, be strong, and make choices that honour us.
Sadly, this is beyond the mass consciousness.
And this is what ‘they’ aim to control . . . the good, kind people that make up our mass consciousness.
Yet these people who mindlessly conform also ask, “Why doesn’t somebody do something?!”
I am in no doubt that Love/Light will win. I am in no doubt that Great Change awaits us.
Reposted from…
~Michael Roads


australiannationalreview--2020-09-02--The UK Govt downgraded the threat of Covid way back in March like many did but didn’t end the unnece

The UK Govt downgraded the threat of Covid way back in March like many did but didn ’ t end the unnecessary lockdowns .
Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England .
As of 19 March 2020 , COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease ( ) in the UK .
The 4 nations public health group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an .
This was based on consideration of the UK criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now that more is known about COVID-19 , the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK criteria .
They have determined that several features have now changed ; in particular , more information is available about mortality rates ( low overall ) , and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test , the availability of which continues to increase .
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens ( ACDP ) is also of the opinion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an .
The need to have a national , coordinated response remains , but this is being met by the government ’ s COVID-19 response .
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by treatment centres only .
All healthcare workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the updated national infection and prevention ( ) guidance for COVID-19 , which supersedes all previous guidance for COVID-19 .
This guidance includes instructions about different personal protective equipment ( ) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical scenarios .
In the UK , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defined according to the following criteria : • may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment • often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly • ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings • requires an enhanced individual , population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively , efficiently and safely are further divided into contact and airborne groups : • contact are usually spread by direct contact with an infected patient or infected fluids , tissues and other materials , or by indirect contact with contaminated materials and fomites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or aerosol transmission , in addition to contact routes of transmission A list of has been agreed by a joint Public Health England ( ) and NHS England Programme : *No cases reported since 2004 , but remains a notifiable disease under the International Health Regulations ( 2005 ) , hence its inclusion here **Human to human transmission has not been described to date for avian influenza A ( H5N6 ) .
Human to human transmission has been described for avian influenza A ( H5N1 ) , although this was not apparent until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Both A ( H5N6 ) and A ( H5N1 ) often cause severe illness and fatalities .
Therefore , A ( H5N6 ) has been included in the airborne list despite not meeting all of the criteria .
The list of will be kept under review and updated by if new emerge that are of relevance to the UK .
, including viral haemorrhagic fevers ( ) , are rare in the UK .
When cases do occur , they tend to be sporadic and are typically associated with recent travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known to be endemic or where an outbreak is occurring .
None of the listed above are endemic in the UK , and the known animal reservoirs are not found in the UK .
As of February 2020 , 2019 , the UK has experience of managing confirmed cases of Lassa fever , , , and monkeypox .
The vast majority of these patients acquired their infections overseas , but rare incidents of secondary transmission of and monkeypox have occurred in the UK .
For health professionals wishing to determine the risk in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Z list of countries and their respective risk is available .
’ s epidemic intelligence activities monitor global events .
These are published in a monthly summary .
Specific infection prevention and control ( ) measures are required for suspected and confirmed cases , in all healthcare settings ( specialist and non-specialist ) .
guidance appropriate for suspected and confirmed cases of Lassa fever , , , , Lujo virus disease , Argentinian haemorrhagic fever , Bolivian haemorrhagic fever and SFTS , is available in the ACDP guidance .
guidance for , avian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pneumonic plague , can be found in the relevant guidance listed below .
The Imported Fever Service ( ) provides 24-hour , 7-days a week telephone access to expert clinical and microbiological advice .
Hospital doctors across the UK can contact the after discussion with the local microbiology , virology or infectious disease consultant .
Once an has been confirmed by appropriate laboratory testing , cases in England should be transferred rapidly to a designated Treatment Centre .
Occasionally , highly probable cases may be moved to an Treatment Centre before laboratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principal Contact Treatment Centres in England : Further support for managing confirmed contact cases is provided by the Royal Liverpool Hospital and the Royal Hallamshire Hospital , Sheffield .
There are 5 interim Airborne Treatment Centres in England .
Adult and paediatric services are provided by 7 NHS Trusts : • Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust , with a paediatric service provided by Alder Hey Children ’ s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital clinicians seeking to transfer confirmed cases , or discuss the transfer of highly probable cases , should contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected that each case will have been discussed with the Imported Fever Service before discussing transfer .
The National Travel Health Network and Centre ( ) provides travel health information about a number of , for healthcare professionals and travellers .
Advice can be accessed via the Travel Health Pro website .

The UK Govt downgraded the threat of Covid way back in March like many did but didn’t end the unnecessary lockdowns.
By Public Health England
Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.
Status of COVID-19
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease ( HCID ) in the UK.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID . This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID .
The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the updated national infection and prevention ( IPC ) guidance for COVID-19, which supersedes all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes instructions about different personal protective equipment ( PPE ) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical scenarios.
Definition of HCID
In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease ( HCID ) is defined according to the following criteria:
acute infectious disease
typically has a high case-fatality rate
may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely
Classification of HCIDs
HCIDs are further divided into contact and airborne groups:
contact HCIDs are usually spread by direct contact with an infected patient or infected fluids, tissues and other materials, or by indirect contact with contaminated materials and fomites
are usually spread by direct contact with an infected patient or infected fluids, tissues and other materials, or by indirect contact with contaminated materials and fomites airborne HCIDs are spread by respiratory droplets or aerosol transmission, in addition to contact routes of transmission
List of high consequence infectious diseases
A list of HCIDs has been agreed by a joint Public Health England ( PHE ) and NHS England HCID Programme:
Contact HCID Airborne HCID Argentine haemorrhagic fever (Junin virus) Andes virus infection (hantavirus) Bolivian haemorrhagic fever (Machupo virus) Avian influenza A H7N9 and H5N1 Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever ( CCHF ) Avian influenza A H5N6 and H7N7 Ebola virus disease ( EVD ) Middle East respiratory syndrome ( MERS ) Lassa fever Monkeypox Lujo virus disease Nipah virus infection Marburg virus disease ( MVD ) Pneumonic plague (Yersinia pestis) Severe fever with thrombocytopaenia syndrome (SFTS) Severe acute respiratory syndrome ( SARS )*
*No cases reported since 2004, but SARS remains a notifiable disease under the International Health Regulations (2005), hence its inclusion here
**Human to human transmission has not been described to date for avian influenza A(H5N6). Human to human transmission has been described for avian influenza A(H5N1), although this was not apparent until more than 30 human cases had been reported. Both A(H5N6) and A(H5N1) often cause severe illness and fatalities. Therefore, A(H5N6) has been included in the airborne HCID list despite not meeting all of the HCID criteria.
The list of HCIDs will be kept under review and updated by PHE if new HCIDs emerge that are of relevance to the UK.
HCIDs in the UK
HCIDs , including viral haemorrhagic fevers ( VHFs ), are rare in the UK. When cases do occur, they tend to be sporadic and are typically associated with recent travel to an area where the infection is known to be endemic or where an outbreak is occurring. None of the HCIDs listed above are endemic in the UK, and the known animal reservoirs are not found in the UK.
As of February 2020, 2019, the UK has experience of managing confirmed cases of Lassa fever, EVD , CCHF , MERS and monkeypox. The vast majority of these patients acquired their infections overseas, but rare incidents of secondary transmission of MERS and monkeypox have occurred in the UK.
HCID risks by country
For health professionals wishing to determine the HCID risk in any particular country, an A to Z list of countries and their respective HCID risk is available.
See HCID country risks
Monthly summaries of global HCID events
PHE ’s epidemic intelligence activities monitor global HCID events. These are published in a monthly summary.
Infection prevention and control in healthcare settings
Specific infection prevention and control ( IPC ) measures are required for suspected and confirmed HCID cases, in all healthcare settings (specialist and non-specialist).
IPC guidance appropriate for suspected and confirmed cases of Lassa fever, EVD , CCHF , MVD , Lujo virus disease, Argentinian haemorrhagic fever, Bolivian haemorrhagic fever and SFTS, is available in the ACDP guidance.
IPC guidance for MERS , avian influenza, Nipah virus infection, monkeypox and pneumonic plague, can be found in the relevant PHE guidance listed below.
Specialist advice for healthcare professionals
The Imported Fever Service ( IFS ) provides 24-hour, 7-days a week telephone access to expert clinical and microbiological advice. Hospital doctors across the UK can contact the IFS after discussion with the local microbiology, virology or infectious disease consultant.
Hospital management of confirmed HCID cases
Once an HCID has been confirmed by appropriate laboratory testing, cases in England should be transferred rapidly to a designated HCID Treatment Centre. Occasionally, highly probable cases may be moved to an HCID Treatment Centre before laboratory results are available.
There are 2 principal Contact HCID Treatment Centres in England:
the Royal Free London High Level Isolation Unit ( HLIU )
) the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary HLIU .
Further support for managing confirmed contact HCID cases is provided by the Royal Liverpool Hospital and the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield.
Airborne HCIDs
There are 5 interim Airborne HCID Treatment Centres in England. Adult and paediatric services are provided by 7 NHS Trusts:
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (adult and paediatric services)
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, with a paediatric service provided by Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, with a paediatric service provided by Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (adult and paediatric services)
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (adult service only)
Case transfer arrangements
Hospital clinicians seeking to transfer confirmed HCID cases, or discuss the transfer of highly probable HCID cases, should contact the NHS England EPRR Duty Officer. It is expected that each case will have been discussed with the Imported Fever Service before discussing transfer.
Travel health advice for HCIDs


australiannationalreview--2020-09-02--Gates-funded Program to Begin Tests on Biometric ID Vaccination Records in Africa

Gates-funded Program to Begin Tests on Biometric ID Vaccination Records in Africa .
The biometric digital identity platform Trust Stamp , which claims to “ evolve as you evolve , ” is to be introduced in “ low-income , remote communities ” in West Africa as part of a partnership between the Bill Gates-supported GAVI vaccine alliance and Mastercard .
According to a profile by Mastercard , Trust Stamp uses biometrics to verify your identity without revealing any information : The process is simple : The customer takes a photo of their face , palm or fingerprint and shares it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI to create a 3D mask of it — and then throws away the data and adds encryptions in place of the name or records .
“ Only a small percentage of the data that originally existed is in the hash , ” [ Trust Stamp co-founder Gareth ] Genner says .
“ What you have is something safer for storing because it can ’ t be used to directly identify you .
No one would recognize you in this huge jumble of numbers.
” The new program to be tested in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “ Wellness Pass , ” a digital vaccination record and identity system .
GAVI , the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunizations , is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , the Rockefeller Foundation , and other elite foundations .
Mastercard has stated its commitment to a “ World Beyond Cash ” and created a suite of services known as “ Digital Wellness ” to facilitate digital transactions .
The Wellness Pass combines vaccines with Mastercard ’ s technology “ to leverage state of the art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunisation programs for optimal impact in terms of reach , adherence , efficiency and centralised record keeping of childhood immunisation.
” By integrating with Trust Stamp , Wellness Pass will be able to track vaccines biometrically even in areas lacking cellular data or Internet connectivity .
The hash has to work where there is no internet , no cellular connectivity , he says .
It helps create a simple , low-budget way for children and their guardians to maintain medical records that can not be confused with another child .
Each time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hash is created at the clinic , it is encoded with the updated health information .
Algorithms can accurately predict if two different hashes belong to the same living person .
“ The hash evolves over time , ” Genner says , “ just as you evolve.
” Genner says his work would be beneficial in the time of COVID-19 because the technology allows for digital identification in public without having to show a full face — as is the case with people wearing face masks .
Mastercard notes that “ Trust Stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hash ” and that it is working on ways to allow companies to “ identify criminals prior to appointments.
” The question is : Will the definition of “ criminals ” eventually be extended to include those who refuse to get their vaccines ?
The integration of biometric identification technology with digital banking and vaccine records is a dangerous step that could be used to force people to get their shots or else be blocked from making purchases .
The global elites fully understand this possibility , which is exactly why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation have pumped millions into the technology .
It ’ s also why the establishment , as in the case of multinational corporation Mastercard , so ardently want to create a “ world beyond cash.
” Cash is decentralized , unregulated , and is difficult to trace .
Cards and digital currency , on the other hand , can be not only tracked , but controlled .
With the flip of a switch , someone accused of wrongthink can have his personal funds frozen or even confiscated .
It ’ s just another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right into the hands of the totalitarians who seek to undermine republican nation-states in favor of a centralized world government .
Not surprisingly , globalist organs such as the World Health Organization have said that cash could be spreading coronavirus .
These fears about cash , along with the lockdown , have contributed to America ’ s supposed coin shortage .
Moreover , Gates is funding both an under-the-skin vaccine history device that can be read with infrared-equipped smartphones and a remote-controlled contraceptive microchip to go under women ’ s skin .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans to get a vaccine is to keep the fear flowing .
Hence the current hysteria about rising coronavirus cases and the insistence by everyone from Joe Biden to Andrew Cuomo to Fauci himself that we all need to wear a mask .

Gates-funded Program to Begin Tests on Biometric ID Vaccination Records in Africa.
By Luis Miguel
The biometric digital identity platform Trust Stamp, which claims to “evolve as you evolve,” is to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa as part of a partnership between the Bill Gates-supported GAVI vaccine alliance and Mastercard.
According to a profile by Mastercard, Trust Stamp uses biometrics to verify your identity without revealing any information:
The process is simple: The customer takes a photo of their face, palm or fingerprint and shares it with Trust Stamp. The company uses AI to create a 3D mask of it — and then throws away the data and adds encryptions in place of the name or records. “Only a small percentage of the data that originally existed is in the hash,” [Trust Stamp co-founder Gareth] Genner says. “What you have is something safer for storing because it can’t be used to directly identify you. No one would recognize you in this huge jumble of numbers.”
The new program to be tested in West Africa will see Trust Stamp’s technology integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system.
GAVI, the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunizations, is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other elite foundations. Mastercard has stated its commitment to a “World Beyond Cash” and created a suite of services known as “Digital Wellness” to facilitate digital transactions.
The Wellness Pass combines vaccines with Mastercard’s technology “to leverage state of the art technology by bringing the Smart into traditional immunisation programs for optimal impact in terms of reach, adherence, efficiency and centralised record keeping of childhood immunisation.”
By integrating with Trust Stamp, Wellness Pass will be able to track vaccines biometrically even in areas lacking cellular data or Internet connectivity.
Trust Stamp co-founder Gareth Genner explains how it works:
The hash has to work where there is no internet, no cellular connectivity, he says. It helps create a simple, low-budget way for children and their guardians to maintain medical records that cannot be confused with another child. Each time the child gets a vaccine and a new hash is created at the clinic, it is encoded with the updated health information. Algorithms can accurately predict if two different hashes belong to the same living person. “The hash evolves over time,” Genner says, “just as you evolve.”
Genner says his work would be beneficial in the time of COVID-19 because the technology allows for digital identification in public without having to show a full face — as is the case with people wearing face masks.
Mastercard notes that “Trust Stamp is also exploring new ways to commercialize the hash” and that it is working on ways to allow companies to “identify criminals prior to appointments.”
The question is: Will the definition of “criminals” eventually be extended to include those who refuse to get their vaccines?
The integration of biometric identification technology with digital banking and vaccine records is a dangerous step that could be used to force people to get their shots or else be blocked from making purchases.
The global elites fully understand this possibility, which is exactly why the likes of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation have pumped millions into the technology. It’s also why the establishment, as in the case of multinational corporation Mastercard, so ardently want to create a “world beyond cash.”
Cash is decentralized, unregulated, and is difficult to trace. Cards and digital currency, on the other hand, can be not only tracked, but controlled. With the flip of a switch, someone accused of wrongthink can have his personal funds frozen or even confiscated.
It’s just another example of how the COVID-19 scare plays right into the hands of the totalitarians who seek to undermine republican nation-states in favor of a centralized world government. Not surprisingly, globalist organs such as the World Health Organization have said that cash could be spreading coronavirus. These fears about cash, along with the lockdown, have contributed to America’s supposed coin shortage.
Moreover, Gates is funding both an under-the-skin vaccine history device that can be read with infrared-equipped smartphones and a remote-controlled contraceptive microchip to go under women’s skin.
But the only way to convince the majority of Americans to get a vaccine is to keep the fear flowing. Hence the current hysteria about rising coronavirus cases and the insistence by everyone from Joe Biden to Andrew Cuomo to Fauci himself that we all need to wear a mask.


australiannationalreview--2020-09-02--Australian National Review asks citizen journalists to find evidence to support the conspiracy that

Australian National Review asks citizen journalists to find evidence to support the conspiracy that Melbourne has underground tunnels where child sex trafficking has occurred .
Australian National Review is now asking citizen journalists and truth seekers to find evidence to support the conspiracy that Melbourne has underground tunnels where child sex trafficking has occurred .
Below is the episode where the presenter “ outs ” politicians for sex with children .
He said what no one has been brave enough to .
The whole world knows it .
Yes it ’ s fucking time to stand up and say it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having the guts to say what NO ONE ELSE ON TELEVISION HAS THE GITS TO SAY .
No matter how awkward it maybe , I ’ ll rather take the uncomfortable truth , than except a comfortable lie .
Anyone tap in with # KarenBrewer yet [ ON FB ] ?
The lady is a A+ , providing perspective that ’ s backed with credible research & sources on the DAILY .
The more you know , the more you realise how the Melbourne tunnel rumours may Infact be real — stay connecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an oldie ep from the show # TheLastLeg — this has aged perfectly for a time like this .

Australian National Review asks citizen journalists to find evidence to support the conspiracy that Melbourne has underground tunnels where child sex trafficking has occurred.
By Staff Reporter
Australian National Review is now asking citizen journalists and truth seekers to find evidence to support the conspiracy that Melbourne has underground tunnels where child sex trafficking has occurred.
Below is the episode where the presenter “outs” politicians for sex with children.
“POLITICIANS ARE FUCKING CHILDREN”.
.
He said what no one has been brave enough to.
.
The whole world knows it. Yes it’s fucking time to stand up and say it.
.
@adamhillscomedy thank you legend for having the guts to say what NO ONE ELSE ON TELEVISION HAS THE GITS TO SAY.
.
Posted @withregram • @monzee_thaplug #AwakeYet.
.
Host: Tonight on the show — a massive fcukn RED PILL maaate.
.
#OnMyRealShit.
No matter how awkward it maybe, I’ll rather take the uncomfortable truth, than except a comfortable lie.
.
Anyone tap in with #KarenBrewer yet [ON FB]? The lady is a A+, providing perspective that’s backed with credible research & sources on the DAILY.
.
The more you know, the more you realise how the Melbourne tunnel rumours may Infact be real — stay connecting dots.
.
#SAVETHECHILDREN.
.
#Disclaimer: This is an oldie ep from the show #TheLastLeg — this has aged perfectly for a time like this.
#fortheQulture #pedogate #pizzagate #ghislainemaxwelldidntkillherself #massarrestseason #globalfinacialreset #nesara #gesara #wwg1wga #draintheswamp #Qanon
#PacificPatriot


australiannationalreview--2020-09-02--Victorian Doctors write to their Premier in spite of the potential of being ostracised and losing th

Victorian Doctors write to their Premier in spite of the potential of being ostracised and losing their licences .
We , the undersigned , are senior medical practitioners of various specialities who practice in Victoria and are deeply concerned with the Victorian government ’ s management of the SARS-CoV-2 ( COVID-19 ) viral pandemic as a public health issue .
The purpose of this letter is to make you aware that not all medical practitioners are in agreement with the Chief Medical Officer and the Victorian government regarding the most effective way to control this disease .
We believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects what we know about the spread of the virus , those who have died from it , and the impact that the stage 3-4 lockdown restrictions are having on the physical and mental health of the general population .
For the sake of people in Victoria with other medical illnesses , it is vital that Stage 4 restrictions be lifted on schedule in mid-September .
This letter details our concerns and recommendations .
We are ready to offer any assistance we can to help create and implement a revised , effective and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this end we would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the matter further .
Focusing on the numbers of cases of COVID-19 is at best an unsophisticated way of looking at disease management .
Factors such as the side effects of any policy , its cost effectiveness , the quality of life years lost , and the cost per life saved are fundamental when considering disease management .
In addition , any policy to manage any disease must be reviewed in light of new data .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to handling COVID-19 , via a stage 3 lockdown to ‘ flatten the curve ’ , was reasonable in view of the limited information available at the time on the outbreak in China and the alarming number of deaths in Italy .
The initial response , though arguably excessive , was still highly effective in preserving medical capacity and allowing time to co-ordinate a full medical response , with the community accepting that the social and economic consequences were reasonable and for the common good .
However , we now know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of limited virulence .
Whilst an accurate cause of death of a person can be difficult to determine , we are told that since March 2020 , 565 Victorian patients have died either with or from the virus ( 31st August numbers ) .
This compares with annual Victorian deaths of approximately 10,000 patients with cardiovascular disease and 11,000 with cancer .
Accordingly , the COVID-19 deaths are a relatively small proportion of the 114 deaths per day that are normally seen in Victoria .
In comparison , since the start of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 114 deaths per day .
Most of the 565 deaths have occurred in nursing homes which according to doctors currently working in this environment have described causal factors related not only to the virus but to other care related issues , including isolation , loneliness , and related diminished nutritional intake .
However , in Victoria we have had 541 LESS deaths this July compared to July last year .
( 3,561 deaths compared to 4,102 deaths in July 2019 ) .
In Australia last year , 2019 , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new laboratory confirmed cases , and a total of 313,000 laboratory confirmed cases of influenza for the year .
This is only a fraction of the actual total cases of influenza , as many cases go untested .
In August 2017 we had 99,000 new laboratory confirmed cases of Influenza and a total of over 250,000 cases for the year .
During 2017 and 2019 Influenza resulted in 25-30,000 hospital admissions and up to 2500 ICU admissions across Australia .
Three per cent of hospital admissions were pregnant women and up to 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 .
The deaths from Influenza each and every year is between 3500 and 4000 , according to the Australian Influenza Specialist Interest Group website and the Australian Bureau of Statistics .
This is despite recent excellent rates of vaccination in the vulnerable population and millions of vaccinations utilised each year .
( 2020 , 18 million , 2019 13.2 million , 2018 11 million , 2016 8.3 million ) The vast majority of deaths associated with COVID-19 have occurred in frail people over 80 years , many of whom also had significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of known COVID-19 deaths resided in nursing homes .
( 381 out of 524 and 30 out of 52 in NSW , as of August 30 ) .
For people who are physically well and under 60 years of age , the mortality risk is extremely low .
Contrary to what you have said , Mr Andrews , the virus DOES discriminate .
See graphs below .
Since June 2020 , the death rate has risen sharply in aged care facilities where the risk of transmission of COVID-19 has been unacceptably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the doctors advising it , have not reviewed their policy in order to focus on this vulnerable segment of the population .
Instead , stage 3-4 lockdowns for the whole community have continued for no apparent scientific reason .
As medical practitioners , it is our collective experience that patients are presenting later to us with their medical complaints .
Specialist referrals from GPs , and indeed GP workload , have fallen dramatically due to patients ’ reluctance to leave home in fear of acquiring the virus .
As a direct consequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorer prognoses .
This has especially been the case with consultants who treat cancer .
A study in the UK estimated an extra 4000 deaths from not screening the four main cancers alone and not from lack of treatment .
In addition , it is our professional opinion that the stage 4 lockdown policy has caused unprecedented negative economic and social outcomes in people , which in themselves are having negative health outcomes .
In particular , it has caused or exacerbated depression , anxiety and other mental health issues , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extreme and unjustified disruption to family , social and work life .
Job losses , home schooling , the isolation of the elderly and single people and the restriction on the number of people who may attend funerals , are but a few examples of how the government ’ s current response is harming the health of the general population .
In short , the medical , psychological and social costs of the lockdown are disproportionately enormous compared to the limited good being done by current policies , and are relevant factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible government .
* Proposed Amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 ( Vic ) We further note with much concern , that the proposed amendment to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act that would effectively allow the government to continue its current policy to manage COVID-19 even if there were to be zero cases over a period of time .
This is unfathomable and certainly contrary to the objects of the Act , which require accountability , proportionality and collaboration to be fulfilled .
Specifically , the legislation explicitly mandates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health initiatives must be transparent , systematic and appropriate , with members of the public given access to reliable information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of the issue .
In addition , the legislation acknowledges that decisions will be enhanced through collaboration between all levels of government and industry , business , communities and individuals .
For all these reasons , ordinary sensible people if properly informed , should inevitably conclude that the current government policy is ill focused , heavy-handed , and unjustifiable as a proportionate response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public ’ s health .
As the virus is not going away soon , and an effective vaccine may not be available for a considerable period of time , if at all , we respectfully call upon the government to do the following : 1 .
The State of Emergency not be continued past September 13 with an agreement made for parliament to be allowed to openly discuss and debate appropriate medical plans to manage the current COVID-19 crisis .
A panel of non-politically aligned medical and health-related experts be selected by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and active role of informing and advising government decisions and responses to the epidemic .
2 .
Ensure adequate measures , testing , and protection of the vulnerable , especially those in aged residential care environments and their families and carers .
3 .
Clearly communicate to the public the medical evidence-base , objectives and timelines of any proposed future management plans , with open disclosure of the processes and negative consequences , to inform those discussions and decisions .
4 .
A broader focus be given to the health and well-being of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data and by calculating the costs and harms , including the social , economic , family , emotional , psychological and spiritual impacts on the community , of any decisions and plans to manage the COVID-19 crisis , thereby explaining and justifying the merits of these plans as a reasonable and proportionate response .
5 .
To review regularly the outcomes of any management decisions and demonstrate a willingness to modify plans as new data and insights become available .
Thank you for your time in reading this letter .
We look forward @ @ @ @ @

Victorian Doctors write to their Premier in spite of the potential of being ostracised and losing their licences.
By Anthony Golle
Dear Premier,
We, the undersigned, are senior medical practitioners of various specialities who practice in Victoria and are deeply concerned with the Victorian government’s management of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) viral pandemic as a public health issue.
The purpose of this letter is to make you aware that not all medical practitioners are in agreement with the Chief Medical Officer and the Victorian government regarding the most effective way to control this disease.
We believe that an alternative medical response is required that reflects what we know about the spread of the virus, those who have died from it, and the impact that the stage 3-4 lockdown restrictions are having on the physical and mental health of the general population.
For the sake of people in Victoria with other medical illnesses, it is vital that Stage 4 restrictions be lifted on schedule in mid-September.
This letter details our concerns and recommendations. We are ready to offer any assistance we can to help create and implement a revised, effective and just response to the Victorian situation; to this end we would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss the matter further.
Focusing on the numbers of cases of COVID-19 is at best an unsophisticated way of looking at disease management. Factors such as the side effects of any policy, its cost effectiveness, the quality of life years lost, and the cost per life saved are fundamental when considering disease management. In addition, any policy to manage any disease must be reviewed in light of new data.
We believe that the government’s initial response to handling COVID-19, via a stage 3 lockdown to ‘flatten the curve’, was reasonable in view of the limited information available at the time on the outbreak in China and the alarming number of deaths in Italy.
The initial response, though arguably excessive, was still highly effective in preserving medical capacity and allowing time to co-ordinate a full medical response, with the community accepting that the social and economic consequences were reasonable and for the common good.
However, we now know that whilst COVID-19 is highly contagious, it is of limited virulence.
Whilst an accurate cause of death of a person can be difficult to determine, we are told that since March 2020, 565 Victorian patients have died either with or from the virus (31st August numbers).
This compares with annual Victorian deaths of approximately 10,000 patients with cardiovascular disease and 11,000 with cancer. Accordingly, the COVID-19 deaths are a relatively small proportion of the 114 deaths per day that are normally seen in Victoria. In comparison, since the start of March COVID-19 has been associated with 3 of the 114 deaths per day.
Most of the 565 deaths have occurred in nursing homes which according to doctors currently working in this environment have described causal factors related not only to the virus but to other care related issues, including isolation, loneliness, and related diminished nutritional intake.
However, in Victoria we have had 541 LESS deaths this July compared to July last year. (3,561 deaths compared to 4,102 deaths in July 2019).
In Australia last year, 2019, in the month of July alone we had 71,000 new laboratory confirmed cases, and a total of 313,000 laboratory confirmed cases of influenza for the year. This is only a fraction of the actual total cases of influenza, as many cases go untested.
In August 2017 we had 99,000 new laboratory confirmed cases of Influenza and a total of over 250,000 cases for the year.
During 2017 and 2019 Influenza resulted in 25-30,000 hospital admissions and up to 2500 ICU admissions across Australia. Three per cent of hospital admissions were pregnant women and up to 18 per cent were under the age of 16.
The deaths from Influenza each and every year is between 3500 and 4000, according to the Australian Influenza Specialist Interest Group website and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is despite recent excellent rates of vaccination in the vulnerable population and millions of vaccinations utilised each year. (2020, 18 million, 2019 13.2 million, 2018 11 million, 2016 8.3 million)
The vast majority of deaths associated with COVID-19 have occurred in frail people over 80 years, many of whom also had significant co-morbidities. In Victoria more than 73 per cent of known COVID-19 deaths resided in nursing homes. (381 out of 524 and 30 out of 52 in NSW, as of August 30).
For people who are physically well and under 60 years of age, the mortality risk is extremely low. Contrary to what you have said, Mr Andrews, the virus DOES discriminate. See graphs below.
Since June 2020, the death rate has risen sharply in aged care facilities where the risk of transmission of COVID-19 has been unacceptably high. However, the government, and the doctors advising it, have not reviewed their policy in order to focus on this vulnerable segment of the population. Instead, stage 3-4 lockdowns for the whole community have continued for no apparent scientific reason.
* Medical and Social Consequences
As medical practitioners, it is our collective experience that patients are presenting later to us with their medical complaints. Specialist referrals from GPs, and indeed GP workload, have fallen dramatically due to patients’ reluctance to leave home in fear of acquiring the virus.
As a direct consequence of this delay, many will have poorer prognoses. This has especially been the case with consultants who treat cancer. A study in the UK estimated an extra 4000 deaths from not screening the four main cancers alone and not from lack of treatment.
In addition, it is our professional opinion that the stage 4 lockdown policy has caused unprecedented negative economic and social outcomes in people, which in themselves are having negative health outcomes.
In particular, it has caused or exacerbated depression, anxiety and other mental health issues, as well as contributed to domestic violence, through an extreme and unjustified disruption to family, social and work life. Job losses, home schooling, the isolation of the elderly and single people and the restriction on the number of people who may attend funerals, are but a few examples of how the government’s current response is harming the health of the general population.
In short, the medical, psychological and social costs of the lockdown are disproportionately enormous compared to the limited good being done by current policies, and are relevant factors to be taken into account by any responsible government.
* Proposed Amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic)
We further note with much concern, that the proposed amendment to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act that would effectively allow the government to continue its current policy to manage COVID-19 even if there were to be zero cases over a period of time. This is unfathomable and certainly contrary to the objects of the Act, which require accountability, proportionality and collaboration to be fulfilled.
Specifically, the legislation explicitly mandates that the government’s decisions on public health initiatives must be transparent, systematic and appropriate, with members of the public given access to reliable information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of the issue. In addition, the legislation acknowledges that decisions will be enhanced through collaboration between all levels of government and industry, business, communities and individuals.
* Recommendations
For all these reasons, ordinary sensible people if properly informed, should inevitably conclude that the current government policy is ill focused, heavy-handed, and unjustifiable as a proportionate response to the risks posed by COVID-19 to the public’s health.
As the virus is not going away soon, and an effective vaccine may not be available for a considerable period of time, if at all, we respectfully call upon the government to do the following:
1. The State of Emergency not be continued past September 13 with an agreement made for parliament to be allowed to openly discuss and debate appropriate medical plans to manage the current COVID-19 crisis. A panel of non-politically aligned medical and health-related experts be selected by a bi-partisan parliamentary group to provide the transparent and active role of informing and advising government decisions and responses to the epidemic.
2. Ensure adequate measures, testing, and protection of the vulnerable, especially those in aged residential care environments and their families and carers.
3. Clearly communicate to the public the medical evidence-base, objectives and timelines of any proposed future management plans, with open disclosure of the processes and negative consequences, to inform those discussions and decisions.
4. A broader focus be given to the health and well-being of Victorians, by utilising all relevant available data and by calculating the costs and harms, including the social, economic, family, emotional, psychological and spiritual impacts on the community, of any decisions and plans to manage the COVID-19 crisis, thereby explaining and justifying the merits of these plans as a reasonable and proportionate response.
5. To review regularly the outcomes of any management decisions and demonstrate a willingness to modify plans as new data and insights become available.
Thank you for your time in reading this letter. We look forward to your early response.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Geoff Wells, Urologist, Box Hill Hospital, Private Practice.
Mr Bob Millar, Transplant Surgeon, Royal Melbourne Hospital
Mr Jon Bare, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Monash Hospital, Private Practice.
Professor Nathan Grills, Public Health Physician, University of Melbourne.
Professor John Murtagh, Emeritus Professor AO Academic General Practitioner
Professor Haydn Walters, Respiratory Medicine, University of Tasmania.
Professor Kuruvilla George, Psychiatrist,
Mr Peter Denton, General Surgeon
Mr William Edwards, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Private Practice.
Dr Andrew Taylor, Gastroenterologist, St Vincent’s Hospital
Mr Michael Knight, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Private Practice.
Dr John Mathai, Psychiatrist,
Dr Eamonn Mathieson, Anaesthetist, Private Practice.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/a-doctors-open-letter-to-daniel-andrews/