Jun 2020
11:19am, 9 Jun 2020
19,375 posts
|
ChrisHB
There seems to be widespread agreement that excess deaths is the best measure of how bad things are. But the thing about excess deaths surely is that in the course of time they will drop back to zero as everyone who died early in say February will no longer die when they would have anyway, say in August. Someone here pointed out that care-home deaths will drop because all the candidates for a COVID death will already have died (and HMG will hail this as success, of course). Is there a measure of premature deaths, or a total of the months-early death has occurred compared with what would typically be expected? Preferably a simple-enough measure that a cabinet minister can grasp it. |
Jun 2020
11:34am, 9 Jun 2020
7,571 posts
|
jda
Yes we may see a modest reduction in deaths over the rest of the year (if we get/keep covid under control) but there have been a lot more than 6 months of life lost per death and there's no way it will balance out in such a short space of time. Also, some of those who survived might well have reduced life expectancy due to the after-effects. I don't think anyone has a handle on how large an effect this could be. In the long run we are all dead so I'm disappointed there hasn't been more analysis of QALYs lost/gained (pollution and traffic deaths are down for starters). |
Jun 2020
11:39am, 9 Jun 2020
11,793 posts
|
Markymarkmark
I'm guessing that measure can only be retrospective, CHrisHB. It's impossible to know when people "should" die compared to when they do, in advance. And even the statistics on excess mortality can only be in fairly broad swathes of people - it's hard to say whether anyone was taken "before their time" individually. In my mind I can see a graph with a huge great spike (excess mortality) followed by a significant but longer lasting lower "trough" after it - representing the lower number of deaths because those people have already died "earlier", in the spike. It'd have to be overlaid on a "January 2020 Forecast" line to make it real to politicians. And then they'd probably argue that actually, it's irrelevant since 100% of people die anyway. |
|
Jun 2020
11:40am, 9 Jun 2020
11,794 posts
|
Markymarkmark
x-posting with a similar thought process, JDA!
|
Jun 2020
12:18pm, 9 Jun 2020
23,387 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I'm quite interested in the US Civil War and I'm about 250+ episodes into a podcast on the subject. people may already know all this, but the run up to the outbreak of hostilities is an interesting story in itself. The Reps were (broadly) the anti-slavery party whereas the Dems were the party of the South and the slaveholding states. The Supreme Court "literally" ruled at one stage that slaves could never be classed as citizens - meaning they had no legal standing (the Dred Scott ruling). Once the SC have ruled, the only way left to change matters is to change the Constitution, which is incredibly difficult. Both North and South were systemically racist, and notwithstanding there was a vocal abolitionist minority in the North, there was never any question of Lincoln backing equal rights for black people, and in fact Lincoln at one stage thought the slavery issue could be resolved by black Americans re-colonising Africa. The emancipation proclamation was originally a war measure rather than being based around any human rights principles. It only applied to slaves in the Southern states. It only became nation-wide 2 years later with the 13th amendment. Lincoln didn't win a single Southern state in the 1860 election, and he had to travel to his inauguration in secret because there were plots in Maryland to assassinate him. The Civil war resulted from the secession of the southern states, but they seceded because of slavery, whatever the "Lost Cause" revisionists would now have people believe. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. The ideology endorses the supposed virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the war as a struggle primarily to save the Southern way of life, or to defend "states' rights", in the face of overwhelming "Northern aggression." At the same time, the Lost Cause minimizes or denies outright the central role of slavery in the buildup to and outbreak of the war. The Civil War in the US has cast a long shadow and continues to do so. With the exception of states that "didn't really exist" in the 1860s the electoral map in the US doesn't seem to have changed that much except the parties have flipped - the old Dem slavery states are now Rep and vice-versa. google.com |
Jun 2020
12:45pm, 9 Jun 2020
2,772 posts
|
J2R
I know without a rigorously done national poll, it's impossible to get a clear and accurate picture of these things. But from lots and lots of comments and discussions I've been reading recently, I've been coming to the conclusion that the majority of Brexiters don't actually realise that we've left the EU. The constant theme is that Remoaners are trying to thwart Brexit (by, e.g., wanting an extension to the transition period). There doesn't seem to be any appreciation that it's done and dusted, we've left, no thwarting is possible. (Mind you, it's not ALL one way, I still do see the occasional call for a second referendum). Am I imagining things? |
Jun 2020
12:49pm, 9 Jun 2020
16,199 posts
|
Chrisull
Excellent posting JB - some I knew, but not all (I knew Lincoln was a bit of a git, but re-colonising Africa shows how much so). larks - On the statue business, can I point you to this (reposted) link below. Colston basically shouldn't have a statue, there were plenty of more deserving candidates, and "the statue was the vanity project of one wealthy business owner who ended up grudgingly paying for his idea." And yes in Ireland the likes of Cromwell had their statues removed in some places and the remaining notorious one is facing calls for it to be removed. BUT It's slightly different to having a statue of one of the kings of England , in England, as opposed to some no-mark slave trader who is only famous by the virtue of how many he killed and how he managed to trickle down a little bit of that wealth (less than the Quakers for starters) into the city. brh.org.uk |
Jun 2020
12:53pm, 9 Jun 2020
533 posts
|
TheBeardRunner (aka Abul Choudhury
Got to say I am learning a lot on here. Good work people.
|
|
Jun 2020
12:53pm, 9 Jun 2020
23,388 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I don't see as much traffic on Brexit from Brexiteers these days. Possibly they have twigged that "life didn't actually magically get better after we left the EU", and in fact all the current news seems to suggest all the groups who were going to benefit from leaving are being shafted one by one. Having got their victory they don't seem to be finding much to crow about, in other words.
|
Jun 2020
1:05pm, 9 Jun 2020
11,225 posts
|
larkim
So on the one hand Colston wasn't the munificent benefactor of the city as alleged, but equally perhaps he wasn't the be all and end all when it comes to enslavement of West African people.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Dec 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018