chessman

And your point is?

here’s the graph from your link. Look at that sudden surge in March 2020 (there’s nothing like that in 2018), did it not justify extreme action? 
 

Now the number is falling quickly, time for countries in the EU to start relaxing restrictions and opening up their economies.

that’s what they are doing. So everything is perfectly logical and understandable, no?
 

a proportionate response to a potentially devastating event. 

A model says that if it rains heavily non-stop for 48 hours then if people carry on with their routine exactly as normal then 91% of people will get wet. 
 

“But” say the doubters, “if it rains then people change their behaviour patterns, people stay at home and use umbrellas, so the numbers are going to be much less”

“of course” say the people who designed the model “Our model states this explicitly”

this doesn’t stop the 91% figure being the one that is publicised most widely. But who do you blame more? The people who designed the model? The press that runs with the 91% figure? The politicians who make decisions about stopping people going outside based on a number in a report that the report itself says won’t happen?

24 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

I grow weary of the flip flopping of this whole thing....masks no.....masks...yes......surface transmission significant......surface transmission not significant....lockdown needed till vaccine....vaccine not likely for 18 months if ever......

 

It is a new virus though, so it is to be expected that advice will change as more becomes known.

14 minutes ago, tlock said:

Yeah this is huge- those numbers get added to the all important coronavirus daily scoreboard.  I think once we do large scale serology testing we'll see that the number of infections were at least an order of magnitude higher.  Adding those numbers to the daily scoreboard of new cases is incredibly misleading.  

This is actually a very minor thing, done in a few states, probably to look like they are testing more effectively. Try reading an article without trying to bend it to your own particular agenda.

and calling it a ‘coronavirus daily scoreboard’ is in really bad taste.
 

6 minutes ago, moe666 said:

The latest is the herd isn't working only 7 percent of population is infected.

It’s not even that. It’s 7% in the worst affected area of Sweden (Stockholm). In the whole of the country it’s lower.

The fastest ever vaccine developed up to now was mumps and took 4 years. Wonderful if it can be done significantly faster than that but governments should not be basing their strategies on potential vaccines In 2020 or early 2021.

Interesting results from Sweden. Just 7.3% of people at Stockholm had antibodies at end of April, less than what was expected.

we all know that there are many more Covid cases than what the official count shows but quite a few recent antibody tests have shown that the virus is not quite as widespread as some claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

Sweden has about double the population but more than 16 times the number of deaths compared to Norway. This number is increasing every week.
 

the Yearly GDP predictions from their central banks are as follows:

Sweden expecting a 6.5% drop.

Norway expecting a 7.4% drop.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200518/swedens-lack-of-lockdown-wont-be-enough-to-save-the-economy-experts-warn

So a modest but hardly earth-shattering benefit for Sweden.

2 questions though.

1- Happiness and individual freedom. Would the lack of legal restrictions placed upon Swedish people be resulting in more happiness (or less unhappiness). Not sure how you could quantify this.

2- The future. If there are further waves could Sweden be less affected than other countries? There are lots of questions about the strength of immunity and how long it lasts but it is possible. It seems unlikely that Norway will ever approach the mortality rate of Sweden (They were able to minimise their numbers of deaths when they were most vulnerable, now every country will have better tools to fight the virus) but they might be caught in a cycle of shutdowns that negatively affect their economy over a longer period.

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

interesting article from the economist. Originally projected ifr at .1 but in editor's note of April 26 revises it to .4 as in the study by the German Virologist Streeck. You need to register to read it:

All of this is encouraging. Would be interesting if this kind of research was done in countries that were harder hit. Germany has maintained a relatively low mortality rate, would the results be similar in Spain or Italy?

20 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Which do you prefer in Colorado? The old way of counting virus deaths or the new way?

New way seems better. Seems a good idea to trust doctors to make decisions on why people have died. There should be more transparency with other numbers too. The average age of deaths, the overall number of deaths in the state compared with previous years.

12 hours ago, Walker88 said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Dr Fauci knows more about viruses, epidemiology, pathology and statistics that the OP or any of those supporting the OP's post. If my suggestion or assumption is incorrect, go ahead and post your credentials and accept my apology.

 

Despite that famous Mark Twain quip, statistics do reveal important trends. There is a statistically normal rate of death in any population over a given period. Models are based on them. Models are adjusted for population size. Insurance companies use such models to set premium levels. One can be sure insurers recognize the trend.

 

When the number of deaths runs way above trend, that represents an 'outlier', and scientists and statisticians will look into it to see what might have been causing it. They will look at coroner reports and hospital records to see what was determined or listed as the cause of death. If it is pneumonia or some other ailment strongly linked to CV-19, then that raises a red flag. These deaths are not necessarily added to the CV-19 total, but if the body has yet to be interred, blood samples can be taken to see if CV-19 is present. Remember that these are deaths above trend, or 'outliers' using the term from statistics.

 

Dr Fauci, when he makes a statement that he believes total CV-19 deaths are higher than reported, he is falling back on both his expertise as an epidemiologist and one comfortable with statistics. Still, the 'outlier' deaths, even those whose cause per the death certificate was pneumonia or other maladies associated with CV-19, are not added to the total. Another problem has been the scarcity of reliable tests, as the US has only administered 11.5 million total tests as of this writing.

 

It is a fact that the death rate in the US for 2020 is running approximately 150,000 above the norm, though only 90,000 so far have been added to the CV-19 total. "Something" has caused that rate to run way above trend. For those who died, and for their loved ones, the argument as to the cause makes precious little difference. They're dead, and they are dying at rates far in excess of death rates one would expect using the models that even insurance companies use in the actuarial calculations. To what do those arguing against the CV-19 totals attribute these far above normal rate deaths?

 

Go ahead and believe whatever you wish. It makes no difference. Denying the danger of CV-19, however, would be most unwise for anyone who is obese, a smoker, has Type II diabetes, is older than 60, has high blood pressure, has an underlying condition like COPD, asthma or emphysema, or just has bad luck.

Very noticable that posts like this are basically ignored by people who desperately want to prove their conspiracies.

I guess it's difficult to argue with posts written with clarity and logic.

I will add that Swine flu had 18,000 lab confirmed deaths but scientists and statisticians estimated the true number to be at least 10 times more than that. The upper range estimates are 30 times more. It is normal for analysis of mortality data to show that deaths during pandemics are underestimated. It is very likely to be the same with COVID 19. Initial data on excess deaths show this clearly. 

5 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

I find it disgusting to look at the death stats of the countries hoping that the countries with the model I don't like have more deaths than the countries with the models I like.

I wish best success to all of them. 

I don't think anybody is doing that. I have a lot of family in Sweden and try to be as objective as possible, I certainly don't want harm to come to Sweden or the people of any country.

But you need to quote those figures showing mortality because they are worrying. A lot of these arguments started when Sweden had similar figures to Denmark and Norway...  It is very noticeable that the trend is not looking good for Sweden. Not only are the figures high but they are increasing more than in other countries.

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think that everyone knows coronavirus and HIV vaccinations are not yet available.

and even though there is no vaccine for HIV, we have become much more successful in treating it. Deaths are half of what they were in 2005 despite more than 10 times the number of cases.

Putting trust in science and medical professionals to find solutions is what we need to do.

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

The point the member was making in attempting to compare deaths by poverty due to unemployment to Covid-19 doesn't stack up. Currently during the Covid crisis Congress has authorised an additional $600 p.w. for the unemployed, similar initiatives are happening in other Western countries (here in Oz not as generous as the US, an additional $250 p.w) but Oz enjoys universal health care.

 

In the US, as they would be in other Western countries, poverty related deaths are due to a number of lifestyle causes e.g. smoking, illegal drugs, bad diet choices and so on. At the moment in the US increase in deaths due to Covid far exceed customary death rates. e.g.

Indeed. The mortality rate in the US actually went down during the Great Depression. Life expectancy increased at the same time. Deaths from suicides did go up but most other causes of deaths were down.

1 hour ago, Stygge said:

The figures about the Somalis are correct

6 out of the first 15 deaths in Stockholm were Somalis. That is where they get 40% from. 

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

That's a good point. A quick look at tourism statistics reveals 417,000 (2018) East Asian people visiting Sweden. East Asia includes China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea.

 

Italy, by comparison, had 2.2 million, over 5 times as many.

 

And the really big difference is that Sweden gets about 5.2 million European tourists annually, compared to Italy's 82.84 million, France 70 million, Spain 72 million and Germany 30 million, UK 27 million, which is probably the source of most infections in Europe.

Also, it seems northern Italy was the first area in Europe to be really badly affected. Think of all the direct flights between northern Italy and the UK. Just the London - Milan route is about 20 flights a day. And all those budget airlines that seem to have more flights from/to the UK. 
 

a city being an international hub also seems to be a big factor... think of London and New York.

5 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Interesting, where are you getting this from? The bit about the Somalis

From articles like this.

https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/counterterrorism/when-religion-and-culture-kill-covid-19-in-the-somali-diaspora-communities-in-sweden/

it’s well meaning but the 40% comes from 6 out of the first 15 deaths in Stockholm... it’s not an up to date number.

17 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

If one were to look at the stats, 40% of all deaths in Sweden were from the Somali population

6 of the first 15 deaths in Sweden were Somali. This was well publiciced and people started saying 40%. Of course 3600 have died since then so that 40% stat wouldn’t be applicable. 

1 minute ago, yuyiinthesky said:

If you want to examine the influence or importance of density, then look at Stockholm and London, compare them, not at the beautiful but empty forests, where not many people live beneath the trolls and elks, not even corona viruses.

Yeah but it’s the amount of urban centres. And how close they are to each other.  Sweden has one and it was really badly affected. The UK has many more large urban centres and they are all much closer. 

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

all the so called experts ( apart from the ones on Thai visa ) still haven,t got a clue.

I truly hope this is the kind of thing you might say in a pub (shame the pubs are closed) to get a discussion going and not something you actually believe.

1 minute ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Sweden's cases have been mainly in Stockholm, and Stockholm has a density even higher than London. So you could compare Stockholm with London, if you want to compare similar density.

This argument doesn’t make sense. What you are saying shows that density is really important...