Posted on 04/21/2020 4:58:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Professor Isaac Ben-Israel (also known as Yitzhak Ben Israel) published an English translation of his analysis on worldwide coronavirus infection decline, The End of Exponential Growth: The Decline in the Spread of Coronavirus.
As I wrote last week, professor Ben-Israel published a Hebrew paper comparing the rates of coronavirus infections in the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, Italy, Israel, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Spain over an eight-week period. His team's graphs showed a contradiction to what Americans would have expected to see after listening to our governors' lockdown orders: irrespective of whether a country quarantined like Israel, or went about business as usual like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way. In the exact, same, way. Ben-Israel's graphs show that all countries experienced seemingly identical coronavirus infection patterns, with the number of infected peaking in the sixth week and rapidly subsiding by the eighth week.
Professor Isaac Ben-Israel has provided Townhall with a copy of the English version of his study.
"Our analysis shows that this is a constant pattern across countries. Surprisingly, this pattern is common to countries that have taken a severe lockdown, including an economy paralysis, as well as to countries that implemented a far more lenient policy and have continued in ordinary life," writes Professor Isaac Ben-Israel in the introduction of the translated study. His conclusion is simple: coronavirus "declines even without a complete lockdown."
Professor Ben-Israel began the analysis to find out whether the hypothesized coronavirus exponential growth rate is accurate. His research proved the answer is no. But aside from proving that the infection rate was not exponential in Israel, or anywhere else in the world, his investigation showed "a global phenomenon" of infection rate decline as opposed to exponential growth. "The spread of the virus starts at an exponential rate, however, it continues to moderate and ultimately fades after 8 weeks or so since its outbreak," Professor Ben-Israel explains.
"It is interesting to note," he writes, "that this pattern, mainly the onset rapid growth and the following decline in the number of new daily patients, is still shared amongst countries that responded in significantly different ways." He demonstrates this point by comparing infection rates in Italy, a country that imposed a complete lockdown, with Sweden, which did not.
Most importantly, Professor Ben-Israel debunks the misconception of government lockdowns or controls as a leading cause of coronavirus infection rate reductions. "Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that similar pattern - a rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only 'social distancing' and banning crowding, but also an economic shutdown (like Israel); some 'ignored' the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease."
Professor Ben-Israel concludes the same as we have heard from some conservative pundits, like Jesse Kelly. "Severe lockdown has some negative implications. Its immediate result is an increase in the level of unemployment and the drop in GDP ... This will eventually lead to an increase in poverty, as well as an increase in loss of human life due to other diseases."
Nonetheless, Ben-Israel recognizes the risk of the disease and notes that "it is advisable to continue with low-cost measures, such as wearing masks, expanding testing for defined populations and prohibiting mass gatherings."
President Trump's Guidelines for Opening Up America Again include these low-cost infection prevention measures such as social distancing and masks. Still, liberal Governors, such as Virginia's Ralph Northam, are not inclined to give up their authoritarian control of the people and businesses. In the meantime, 78% of Virginia restaurant workers have lost their jobs since Northam implemented his closures in March. Northam advised just a day ago that he's not budging and doubled down on this compulsory closure policy, claiming his policy is saving lives. Economic well-being, while a legal requirement for the exercise of a Virginia governor's authority, appears to be of no concern to Northam.
All American leaders need to review Professor Isaac Ben-Israel's analysis. We need to stop our reliance on Dr. Fauci and company, who have demonstrated time and time again that reality and economics play no role in their decision-making. Fauci does not understand the limitations of government powers in the United States, nor the spirit of the American people. Professor Ben-Israel showed us that closures do not reduce the spread of coronavirus. We need to accept this reality, we need to admit we overreacted and that coronavirus closures were a mistake, and we need to go back to work. Now.
So, we blew up our economy for no good reason? Trump needs to make sure every so-called expert whose opinion he heeded, is identified publicly and is excised from government.
“His team’s graphs showed a contradiction to what Americans would have expected to see after listening to our governors’ lockdown orders: irrespective of whether a country quarantined like Israel, or went about business as usual like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way. In the exact, same, way.”
Velly in-te-res-tink!! pfft!
They say we are locked down. I say, we have half the population hiding in their homes as others take care of them. It’s a good thing that those we are willing to expose are not as important. If life is safe enough for them, it’s safe enough for the hiders—get to work.
Life on “lock down”.
I can still go shopping for food, go to the bank, corner drug store, get gas, go to the state run liquor store and big box stores that sell food. Fast food places are open with drive through service only. A number of chain restaurants are squeaking by with take out only.
In other words I can pretty much do what I did before.
The lock down pain has fallen mainly on Mom & Pop stores, wait staff in restaurants, small company employees and many more of the “little people”.
This "study" (really a think tank piece, not an experimental study) has come up before, and I have already addressed it.
The professor's analysis is flawed, in that he comes up with a conclusion without taking into account different levels of compliance from the population. Some cultures readily comply with social distancing and basic infection control guidelines, so the need for imposed quarantine is lower than in cultures where such guidelines are scoffed at. Thus, the need for strict quarantine measures differs between countries. The professor did NOT show that quarantine is not effective, but that different approaches are comparable in effectiveness.
In addition, although Sweden is often touted as an example of how quarantine was not necessary, it looks as though avoiding strict quarantine has not worked very well. According to the daily update from fellow FReeper RaceBannon, the Covid-19 disease burden is higher in Sweden than in its neighbors. And, according to this article from Business Insider, "Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors. Here's where they went wrong." infectious disease specialists in Sweden are urging the government to reconsider its pandemic approach. The article notes that the economic impact of the pandemic on Sweden's economy might be lower than in other countries because it allowed businesses to remain open; I would counter that the economic impact of widespread disease and increased deaths counterbalances any advantage from allowing businesses to remain open.
Stand by for a torrent of abuse and foul names from the anti-science “it’s all just a flawed model” flubros. But I suspect you have already been subject to that abuse and are undeterred.
In other words, social distancing doens't make any difference, but, if you ask me - go ahead with social distancing. In other words, either way this works out, I'm right and I told you not to follow my faulty logic to it's inevitable conclusion.
But, I would find it deplorable if anyone were to advocate gun violence against intellectual frauds like this.
Oh, I’ve already been subject to it. I keep posting because I know that I am reaching far more people than the ones who respond negatively. I have had people tell me privately that they enjoy my analyses.
bkmk
“I would counter that the economic impact of widespread disease and increased deaths counterbalances any advantage from allowing businesses to remain open.”
That’s an argument that I would like to see quantified, in Sweden’s case. Their numbers don’t seem nearly horrific enough to make that plausible.
This should be the issue this November, and we should elect a new POTUS who will not be so easily gulled by “models,” even when put forth by those most expert in the field in question.But then, Mr. Trump actually learns, IMHO - and therefore he now is such a candidate.
OTOH we really don’t know who the Democrats will put forward to replace Mr. Trump - even if it really is (nominally) Joe Biden, in such case his running mate will IMHO be the real candidate. And Joe will be in the background, out of sight. LS is adamant that the Democrats will nominate Biden, I just don’t see it even if I hate to be on the wrong side of an issue in his distinguished esteem.
Regardless, what we do know is that the Democrats won’t put forward a candidate who is acceptable on the judiciary. And that alone is a show-stopper. In addition, Democrat governors have been taking the occasion of this (real or maybe not so real) emergency
to prove in operational terms thatthe pledge they made to the Constitution
as a condition of taking their offices
was, shall we say, not heartfelt.
That would be interesting to see.
In the case of influenza, which most people seem to think is not a large threat, the economic burden in the US alone is about $8-10 billion annually (the number depends on the source of the data). Covid-19, being much more deadly, would likely incur a far greater economic burden if it goes on to become an established pathogen.
“$8-10 billion annually”
It takes an awfully large number of years for billions to add up to trillions. Alternatively, an awfully larger amount of deadliness. I don’t see it, even in Sweden.
In any case, prohibiting people from working for an indefinitely long period of time, to prevent them from being unable to work, seems counterproductive.
There are two measures of deadliness. One, is the death rate in people who are infected, which is nearly 7% in the case of Covid-19. The other is the death rate in the overall population. Because of the first, governments are very concerned about the second. A virus that is as communicable as the common cold (it is a killer cold), but deadly to almost 7% of people who get it stands to cause huge economic disruption, for a number of reasons. For one, the number of people who die are removed from the economy forever, but represent considerable economic investment and knowledge. For another, those who are severely ill cause a burden on the healthcare system in terms of both personnel and cost. The more people get sick at a time, the less resilient the healthcare system is, along with the economy as a whole. Those sick people aren't working. Etc. This is why the quarantines are in place--as long as the population remains healthy, they will be able to go right back to work when the pandemic is over.
Your points are all valid or plausible, but a larger point is that there many factors that enter into economic health, many definitions of “good”, many ways to weigh economic good versus collective health versus quality of life, etc. And there’s a lot we don’t know, a lot that we assume, incorrectly, and inevitably a lot that we don’t even consider.
The worst I think you can say about the Swedish approach, by any long term standard, is that it’s too soon to judge.
AbstractThe H1N1 “Spanish flu” outbreak of 1918–1919 was the most devastating pandemic on record, killing between 50 million and 100 million people. Should the next influenza pandemic prove equally virulent, there could be more than 300 million deaths globally. The conventional view is that little could have been done to prevent the H1N1 virus from spreading or to treat those infected; however, there is evidence to the contrary. Records from an “open-air” hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, suggest that some patients and staff were spared the worst of the outbreak. A combination of fresh air, sunlight, scrupulous standards of hygiene, and reusable face masks appears to have substantially reduced deaths among some patients and infections among medical staff. We argue that temporary hospitals should be a priority in emergency planning. Equally, other measures adopted during the 1918 pandemic merit more attention than they currently receive.
But don’t you think that hundreds of thousands of people have been exposed and have either had no symptoms, or have had symptoms that were shrugged off as they weren’t any worse than a cold? That death rate would be certainly much less, if everyone in this country were to be tested to show antibodies.
No, I don’t.
Think of the progression of the disease as being similar to the progression of a cancer. A cancer starts as a single cell, which eventually grows to two, then four, etc. Eventually, some cells break off and migrate to other parts of the body. Metastatic stage four cancer does not happen overnight when a single cell becomes carcinomic. It takes time.
There simply has not been enough time for millions of people to have been exposed. Especially not in the time frames that the narratives propose, that it was already widespread in December after the first case occurred in November. At the initial rate of spread, it would reach 10 million cases between Apr 18 and 25, and 100 million between May 9 and 16. However, the rate of spread is already far lower than initial rates because of the quarantines. I had calculated, using the initial rate of spread, that there would be 2.3 million cases by Apr 11; on that date, there were 1.7 million. And the rate of spread continues to drop.
So no, I do not think it is biologically or mathematically plausible for Covid-19 to have already infected millions by December.
Also, I don’t know why that narrative seems to be so comforting for people. If any virus were that contagious, herd immunity would be impossible. The more contagious a pathogen is, the more people have to be immune to it to establish herd immunity. So, everyone would have to be immune, there would be no protecting the more vulnerable among us.
That's correct. The current data for Sweden and neighboring countries...
Wuhan-19 cases per 1 million people:
Netherlands - 1,949.53
Germany - 1,712.23
Sweden - 1,463.18
Norway - 1,312.06
Denmark - 1,297.43
Finland - 698.1
Russia - 322.89
Poland - 253.47
Source: European CDC data displayed at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-confirmed-cases-of-covid-19-per-million-people?year=2020-04-21
What will take longer to evaluate, is the economic destruction from societal "closures" vs. the more open approach employed by Sweden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.