Coronavirus Lockdown Effectiveness, Other Doubts

One of the few certainties about this novel virus and the pandemic it is spreading is that, being new (or at least new to us, namely newly discovered), we don't know very much about it, and we are constantly learning about it all the time.

But, being human and not liking uncertainty in a similar way in which nature abhors vacuum, we try to jump to conclusions, any conclusion, in fact, just to avoid doubt, chaos and disorder (a very natural feeling). So we grab at many different explanatory theories, whether supported a lot, a little or not at all.

This is The Times of Israel reporting on the theory held by someone the newspaper describes as a top Israeli mathematician:

"I have no explanation but the numbers speak for themselves."

Top Israeli prof claims simple stats show virus plays itself out after 70 days.

Isaac Ben-Israel, who is not a medical expert, says analysis worldwide shows new cases peaking after about 40 days, slams economic closures; leading doctor dismisses his claims.

So, according to Professor Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University and the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development, "simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the spread of COVID-19 peaks after about 40 days and declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it."

What is intriguing is that, minus the mathematical and statistical calculations, a similar view, at least in its practical conclusions, is supported by another person in the news, who has been accused of "anti-Semitism", ie David Icke:

On Wednesday night Icke shared his unsubstantiated views in an edited interview for London Real: COVID-19, and shared baseless claims on coronavirus including that mandatory vaccination for the virus would be 'fascism' and include 'nanotechnology microchips'.

… he appeared to justify attacks on 5G masts around the UK, adding 'human life as we know it is over' if the construction continued.

The 5G theory has been discredited by experts, with Public Health England stating that 'the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.' The new coronavirus is also spreading in places without 5G networks, including in Iran.

Strange bedfellows as they may be, Icke shares with Professor Ben-Israel the hypothesis that the lockdown doesn't help to limit the spread of Covid-19, as shown on this tweet of his with a diagram comparing countries with and without lockdown measures:

Compare this image, though, with the one pictured above this post and you'll see how focusing only on deaths per million and removing cases per million gives a very different picture: this should provide an indication of the complexity of the issue, which doesn't lend itself to over-simplifications, much as we would love to rely on them.

Icke is not the only one to believe in the uselessness of lockdowns, there are many, especially among conservative and Right-oriented people, who are sceptical of their government's policies and think the same.

Now, I am in no position to categorically declare that this idea is right or wrong. As I said at the beginning, we don't have enough information.

I do have some doubts about using pure mathematics to arrive at conclusions like those of Ben-Israel on this. Correlation doesn't mean and doesn't necessarily involve causation. In Latin, this supremely logical and succinct language, it's better: post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

For example, is it possible that countries with less contact with the rest of the world and therefore fewer opportunities for contagion (ah, the joys of globalisation! we have finally discovered them in their full glory) have had lower numbers of cases of Covid-19 and therefore had a comparable smaller need for lockdown than those with more international traffic and Coronavirus spread which as a consequence resorted more to lockdown, inverting the cause-effect direction?

Has this been considered as a contributing factor, anyway?

At least we have a glimmer of hope, though: it's the prediction on the progress of the disease in Israel made by Professor Ben-Israel on last 12 April on Facebook, which I have to reproduce in its online translation:

It turns out that the expansion of the expansion [meaning, I presume, the peak] has been behind us for about a week, and apparently it will fade almost completely in about two weeks.

Assuming the translation is accurate, we can wait about two weeks to see if his prediction for Israel materialises and test whether his theory might be correct.

Walkers, Joggers, Cyclists Coronavirus Risks Study

I've noticed that in and around London pedestrians, joggers and cyclists don't always respect the minimum 2 metres' distance of social distancing recommended to limit the spread of Coronavirus.

The Guardian, helpfully, points out another anti-social behaviour in the streets which is more dangerous now: spitting.

But new research has uncovered that the 2 metres' distance deemed sufficient for people standing still, for example when queueing outside a shop, is not enough in times of COVID-19 when someone is exercising.

These are the conclusion of a Belgian-Dutch study.

There is some confusion among the public on this question, in view of the widespread notion, supported by the WHO (World Health Organisation), that the new virus is not spread via the air but by contact with people or surfaces. This is because the aerosols - minuscule particles floating in the air - containing the virus don't remain in the atmosphere long enough to cause a risk.

However, in a situation in which a person is walking, running or cycling after another, the droplets may still be in the air before they settle down on a surface.

Civil Engineering and Sports Aerodynamics researchers at Belgium's University of Leuven and the Netherlands' University of Eindhoven created simulations to investigate these risks.

Professor Bert Blocken, Study Coordinator of the white paper just published, in an interview to The Brussels Times explained why the measures for people standing still are "ineffective" for those walking, running or cycling:

When people speak, exhale, cough or sneeze they generate droplets, and while the largest droplets tend to fall to the ground first, the smaller ones can remain in the air a bit longer, so it is important that a person who is behind another does not walk into this cloud of droplets.

The Urban Physics, Wind Engineering, Sports Aerodynamics expert has extensively studied the aerodynamic advantages of slipstreaming in cycling, which is the act of a cyclist riding behind a team-mate or rival to save energy and thus gain a benefit: in sport terminology this is usually called "drafting".

But in the Coronavirus pandemic the disadvantages and dangers of this behaviour are remarkable.

The simulations show that the respiratory droplets of someone potentially infected with the virus could come into contact with anyone located behind him by travelling through a slipstream or wake, the area that a person in movement creates behind him.

From Blocken's simulations it appears that social distancing requirement may be smaller for two people running or walking beside each other, as the droplets land behind them. When they are positioned diagonally behind each other the risk to catch the droplets of the lead runner is also smaller. The risk of contamination is the biggest when people are just behind each other, in each other’s slipstream.

The researcher compared slipstreams to a vacuum or drag effect which occurs when the regular airflow is disturbed by someone who is in motion.

Luckily, although slipstreams can even be as long as 10-15 metres, Blocken observed that they remained quite narrow and that respiratory droplets tended to evaporate quite quickly.

Based on this study's results, the scientist advises greater social distances for people on the move:

• those who walk in the same direction in one line should maintain a distance of at least 4–5 metres
• for running and slow cycling the distance should be 10 metres
• for hard, fast cycling it should be at least 20 metres
• for overtaking, cyclists should be in a different lane at a considerable distance, e.g. 20 metres.

I don't wish to unnecessarily worry anyone, but we all should be cautious in these times of pandemic for the sake of others as well as ourselves.


PHOTO CREDIT
Image by Maciej Cieslak from Pixabay

Chinese Communist Regime Caused Coronavirus Pandemic, Says Asian Catholic Church Head

This is, in its bare truth, what communism, in spite of all its edulcorations, wishful-thinking illusions of a better world, lying promises, and deceiving claims of self-alleged philanthropism, really is.

Cardinal Charles Bo, president of the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, said in an official public statement on 1 April:

The Chinese regime led by the all-powerful Xi [Jinping] and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – not its people – owes us all an apology, and compensation for the destruction it has caused. At a minimum it should write off the debts of other countries, to cover the cost of Covid-19. For the sake of our common humanity, we must not be afraid to hold this regime to account. Christians believe, in the words of the Apostle, Paul, that “the truth will set you free” [in reality it is the Gospel of the Apostle John 8:32]. Truth and freedom are the twin pillars on which all of our nations must build surer and stronger foundations.

Cardinal Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, in Myanmar, added: "[T}he Chinese people were the first victims of this virus and have long been the primary victims of their repressive regime".

The Cardinal recalled how the Chinese authorities silenced doctors, journalists and intellectuals who raised the alarm as early as December, and waited until 23 January to isolate Wuhan and Hubei:

When the virus first emerged, the authorities in China suppressed the news. Instead of protecting the public and supporting doctors, the CCP silenced the whistleblowers. Worse than that, doctors who tried to raise the alarm – like Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan Central Hospital who issued a warning to fellow medics on 30 December – were ordered by the police to “stop making false comments”. Dr. Li, a 34 year-old ophthalmologist, was told he would be investigated for “spreading rumors” and was forced by the police to sign a confession. He later died after contracting coronavirus.

Young citizen journalists who tried to report on the virus then disappeared. Li Zehua, Chen Qiushi and Fang Bin are among those believed to have been arrested simply for telling the truth. Legal scholar Xu Zhiyong has also been detained after publishing an open letter criticizing the Chinese regime’s response.

Moreover, he cited a damning study from an English university:

An epidemiological model at the University of Southampton found that had China acted responsibly just one, two or three weeks more quickly, the number affected by virus would have been cut by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively. Its failure has unleased a global contagion killing thousands.

The Chinese Communist Party is a "threat to the world" were the words of the Yangon Archbishop, and Xi’s regime "is responsible, through its criminal negligence and repression, for the pandemic".

And even now, the subterfuge continues:

On top of all this, there is deep concern that the Chinese regime’s official statistics significantly downplay the scale of infection within China.

The British newspaper The Telegraph on 29 March reported the UK's Health Minister accusing China of hiding the true scale of Covid-19 and shockingly exposing China's reopening of the "wet" markets which were identified as the cause of the spread of Coronavirus.

China's communist government oppresses religious freedom, destroys thousands of churches, imprisons Muslims in forced labour camps, practice the removal of organs from prisoners of conscience, suppress the freedoms of lawyers, dissidents, intellectuals.

[All emphases are mine.]


SOURCE and PHOTO CREIDIT
Catholic Archdiocese of Yangon

Media Italiani Hanno Sbagliato il Tiro sul Coronavirus Inglese

Questo post si trova anche nella versione italiana di questo blog:

I Media Italiani Hanno Sbagliato il Tiro sul Coronavirus Inglese

---

Capisco che questi tempi di coronavirus rendono proni a sprofondare nel panico, specialmente quando le informazioni, e persino i provvedimenti e decreti, si contraddicono a rotazione.

Quando un nuovo virus e' scoperto, chiaramente anche i dati scientifici non hanno alle spalle una lunga storia di prove ed errori da cui farsi guidare.

Ma non ho potuto fare a meno di riprendere in mano questo blog, dopo due anni di lontananza, quando ho visto quello che e' accaduto in alcuni media italiani riguardo a notizie provenienti dal Regno Unito.

La Repubblica e Il Fatto Quotidiano, per esempio, hanno riportato che emergeva da un documento segreto che in Gran Bretagna l’epidemia di coronavirus sarebbe durata fino alla primavera 2021 con 8 milioni di persone ricoverate.

La loro fonte, purtroppo, e' l'inattendibile, socialista, Guardian, ma parte della responsabilita' va anche al governo inglese, che non e' stato un modello di chiarezza di comunicazione e subito dopo ha fatto retromarcia.

In un primo momento, per l'esattezza giovedi' 12 marzo, il Primo Ministro Boris Johnson aveva annunciato, nel corso di una conferenza stampa, una tattica unica in Europa (un po' come la Brexit) e strabiliante: lasciare che il virus infettasse il 60 per cento della popolazione britannica - mai, comunque, l'80% come hanno scritto Repubblica e Fatto Quotidiano - sulla base della teoria della "immunita' di gregge" che sta dietro le vaccinazioni di massa: quando un alto numero di persone e' portatore di un patogeno, una popolazione e' protetta. Come spiego' a suo tempo l'Express:

Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance warned COVID-19 is likely to become a "seasonal virus" [sic: in realta' COVID-19 e' la malattia, il nome del virus e' Sars-CoV-2] as he said the UK will only benefit from indirect protection, the so-called herd immunity, from the coronavirus if 60 percent of the population becomes infected. Asked how many Britons will need to get coronavirus before herd immunity comes into play, Sir Patrick said: "Probably about 60 percent or so."

Cioe': "Il principale consulente scientifico Sir Patrick Vallance ha avvertito che COVID-19 diventerà probabilmente un "virus stagionale", dicendo che il Regno Unito beneficerà della protezione indiretta, la cosiddetta immunità di gregge, dal coronavirus se il 60% della popolazione viene infettata. Alla domanda su quanti britannici dovranno venire contagiati dal coronavirus prima che subentrasse l'immunità di gregge, Sir Patrick ha dichiarato: 'Probabilmente circa il 60 percento'."

Ma, come dicevamo, il governo britannico ha subito dopo rivisto questa strategia che ha un aspetto eutanasico al suo interno. Basti pensare che, nell'introdurre questo piano, il leader conservatore aveva aggiunto una frase forte: "Molte famiglie perderanno i loro cari".

Johnson sembra che affronti molte questioni, non solo la Brexit, come una schiacciasassi.

Il suo piano, pero', e' stato duramente criticato da medici e ministri della Sanita' passati e presenti, in quanto non teneva conto del fatto che, cosi' facendo, la curva del numero dei casi di contagio sarebbe salita troppo velocemente, oberando il sistema sanitario e mettendo cosi' a rischio di morte persone che, con le cure adeguate, si sarebbero potute salvare.

Un conto e' la vaccinazione, dove l'immunità di massa ha un senso, perche' l'agente patogeno e' somministrato in dosi minime e controllate.

"Non si fa affidamento sull'agente infettivo in dosi altamente letali per creare una popolazione immunitaria", afferma Akiko Iwasaki, un virologo della Yale School of Medicine.

"Vallance e altri hanno dato l'impressione che il governo stesse deliberatamente mirando a far ammalare il 60% della popolazione", sostiene l'Atlantic. Ma cosi' non e'.

E' vero che La Repubblica ha pubblicato il dietrofront di Johnson, ma ho la sensazione che sia sfuggito a qualcuno.


FONTI:
La Repubblica
Il Fatto Quotidiano
Daily Express
The Atlantic
PHOTO CREDIT
Vox