Peter wrote:
I think the 30k figure must be wrong, because this states 30.4k in hospital.From here life expectancy is 7.3 years and 8.5 years (male/female) at 82, so I got that wrong too; need to search my previous posts more diligently
Yes, 30.4 k total Covid cases also sound more plausible than ICU patients. All of the ventilated patients are on an ICU by definition, but there might be others who are not (yet) ventilated also monitored on an ICU or IMC.
Graham wrote:
Those are the figures used (by someone, I don’t know who but it’s a US site) to calculate annuities. They will always have very high numbers, because the point of their ‘calculation’ is to determine that you might live for some unfeasibly long length of time and hence give you a very low annual payment (because you’ll go on for ever, right?) in return for your capital. For instance, they suggest that someone aged 100 can expect over two more years!
I think you are underestimating life expectancy at old age. There is a somewhat counter-intuitive factor in these things: The older you become, the more chances of dying early have been missed, meaning that your remaining life expectancy is not actually that bad. During medical school I learned that once you reached 80, your average life expectancy is 8 more years, at 90 it is 4 more years and at 100 still 2 more years!
Be aware that the average life expectancy is lowered a lot by people dying early (most notably during birth, during childhood and due to accidents as teenagers and young adults). People who survived all these things therefore have, on average, a higher than average life expectancy. Confusing, isn’t it?
The figures posted by @Peter therefore do sound about right.
There is even a point in your early 80s where your life expectancy rises slightly as you get older!
I wonder if this case could be made for running an engine well past TBO
The dodgy figures I posted above were definitely stated on BBC yesterday but were probably misleadingly context-specific. A specific hospital could have an unusual mix.
Another thing someone pointed out to me is that you could achieve a surprisingly low “average age in ICU”, simply because the 80+ don’t survive in there for very long, and anyway after the 1st wave (during which between 50% and 90%+ (depending on where, with Italy being the latter) of ventilated patients died) the 80+ are rarely being put on ventilators anyway because their prognosis would be poor, so if they would need one, they are left to die.
This is for my local area. I had a big dental job today (part 1; part 2 in 2 wks’ time) and the guy is getting concerned for him and his staff because they have been refused the vaccine.
And for me, it’s one of those frustrating situations where I/we have spent the last 9 months pretty well totally avoiding proximity to people and risky situations (down to ozone-sterilising all incoming packages, etc) but you just know that if this guy or his assistant have it, I will prob99 have got it" but there is no choice. Just like my FAA medical last April which was also prob99 “if he’s got it I’ve got it” but if I didn’t do it I would be grounded because the FAA was not offering extensions. I revalidated my UK PPL with an FI in November in identical circumstances (I very much doubted he was a risk, but I would not have flown with a school FI). Basically all risks (of possibly dying, or just getting serious lung/heart damage) which I have taken in this CV19 crisis have been related to having valid flying paperwork! The world has gone completely mad. Well, plus this dentist.
But we are fortunate. Those who have to travel to work on public transport are probably a big group driving the stats because they will get it sooner or later.
There is even a point in your early 80s where your life expectancy rises slightly as you get older!
Only if you do a Clive Sinclair (nobody does this kind of stuff as well as the Daily Trash 
)
There is even a point in your early 80s where your life expectancy rises slightly as you get older!
That is certainly true in the context of using proven components e.g. a camshaft which has 1000hrs on it and no damage is definitely better than a brand new one. Although the real reason for that is that the new one has not been fully tested (probably only magnaflux or dye pen, not x-ray like they would do with space parts, and not had the Rockwell hardness test, or whatever it is called, done all over, to verify the case hardening).
kwls wrote and Peter quoted:
There is even a point in your early 80s where your life expectancy rises slightly as you get older!
ummmm.. statistically, anyone’s life expectancy increases with age. Simply because you missed opportunities to die.
ummmm.. statistically, anyone’s life expectancy increases with age. Simply because you missed opportunities to die.And both humans and engine parts have a ‘bathtub curve’ rate of failure – infant mortality, a long and healthy life, followed by increasing death rates.
I know what you mean – you mean life expectancy in terms of how old a person will be when they die. I am referring to the number of years that a person might expect to live at a given age. e.g. If you are 100 you have a life expectancy of about 2 years, which is less than your life expectancy of 9 years if you are 80 or your life expectancy of about 80 years if you are 0.
Interestingly I can’t see the effect I was looking for in the ONS statistics online, where the curve is monotonic. I’m sure I remember being taught about it. Perhaps it was true in the past but is no longer so.
A Stanford university peer reviewed study concludes there is no proof lockdown measures work.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
LFHNflightstudent wrote:
A Stanford university peer reviewed study concludes there is no proof lockdown measures work.
Interesting find. It is important to consider that the authors do not conclude “there is no proof lockdown measures work”, rather they find no statistically significant difference between “less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (lrNPI)” and “more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (mrNPI)”.
NPIs (meaning all sorts of social distancing measures) were effective at lowering the growth of case numbers in 9 out of 10 countries analysed (Spain being the notable exception), the authors write.
So, a more accurate summary is: Social distancing measures are effective at curbing the spread of SARS-CoV2, but we do not know if there is a significant benefit to having “hard” lockdowns"
Unclear how this paper got accepted. The methodology is substantially flawed.
It is a fact much too trivial to mention, that no law or regulation whatsoever would ever change spread of a disease. The thing that can change spread is change of behavior of people. And sometimes laws are needed to change behavior, sometimes not and sometimes even laws are not effective to change behavior.
The core result of the statistics is: Countries like France, UK and Germany were not able to control the spread better with implementation of shop closures, stay at home orders, etc. than South Korea and Sweden were without such measures.
That frankly says more about the population in South Korea (and Sweden) than about efficacy of some measures.
Yes, South Korea doesn’t need to implement such regulations because if the South Korean government tells the people that it is a good idea to stay at home if one doesn’t urgently need to, they stay at home. When German government issues a law that you are not allowed to leave home, people are leaving their homes in an oversized coat pretending “there is no law that said that a coat can’t be a home”. South Koreans just have a very different mentality from Europeans.
So the entire “insight” from this paper is that during first wave of Corona in Spring (paper doesn’t look at second wave), Sweden had a much better development without imposing forced shop closures, etc. than other European countries had with such measures – a fact already broadly discussed and btw. not longer true for second wave.
P.S.: Another clear weakness of the paper is that they didn’t include China as a country with clearly the strongest measures – and their reason for not including them is no more than “by chance China has not been included in the database we were using”.
You can get anything “peer reviewed” if the “peers” receive the money to send their kids to private schools their research grants from the right places 
It’s an old and well known problem in academic publishing. It also works the other way: you can’t get some things peer reviewed if the only “peers” you can dig up (a) don’t like the topic (non PC, etc) or (b) don’t like you (academia has some highly competitive stuff going on, and you have CV19 researchers who hate some other CV19 researchers; there is a lot of prestige involved)
But actually I can believe that, in liberal countries, lockdowns don’t alter the total number who get ill or die. They just slow it down. It’s pretty obvious that CV19 is so infectious that no suppression will eliminate it and it will always come back, so eventually virtually everybody would catch it, so around 0.5 to 1% of the world will die of it. Unless a vaccine is developed.
The same would have been true of the old infectious diseases e.g. measles, polio, etc.
Only a totally isolated community can avoid these things.
