3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, I just looked it up, at one point Austrian testing numbers approached South Korea.

 

They tested a lot more than Sweden.

 

So there we have it. Again, testing and isolating the infected is what makes a difference.

 

Social distancing clearly does not. Sweden has far less social distancing than the UK, yet still half the mortality rate.

That's the easy part the hard part will be convincing everybody,and breaking through the fear barrier that's been erected.

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

The mortality rate based on identified cases and deaths from Johns Hopkins:

 

Sweden : 5%

 

UK:         10%

 

The UK has extreme social distancing. Sweden does not.

 

Yet Sweden has a mortality rate half as high as the UK.

 

So another clear illustration that social distancing is of very little use.

This is a false perception: The mortality rate and the social distancing have nothing to do with each other. 

 

You can - on the other hand - take the infection rate for a comparison.

2 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I put the laugh emoji there because in my next post I suggest that it may indeed be that chance plays an important role in the numbers by way of kaos.  

Lol, while i was typing i had the same thought, indeed "chance" may be a factor, until a certain extent.

12 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Are there any Swedes on here? 

 

I used to live in a company village. The expats wives had a social group for house parties and stitch-and-bitch sessions but none of the Swedish women joined. They tried many times to get them to participate but no... so there take and my supposition is that swedes are less gregarious.

 

Which might have a bearing on their infection rate etc.. 

 

Finns likewise. If your neighbour lives closer than 1km, he is too close. 

 

That's an interesting point, Swedes are notorious for hating small talk and never chatting to strangers. The cultural factors are so overlooked, like Asians not even shaking hands while Italians are hugging, kissing, waving their hands and yelling.

 

Another thing is that covid is most deadly to older males, which many in Sweden would be OK with.

10 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

That's the easy part the hard part will be convincing everybody,and breaking through the fear barrier that's been erected.

Yes, especially since everybody has been indoctrinated by their governments that social distancing is the miracle cure, and if only we did it the virus will be stopped.

 

Very hard to then convince people of the reality, that testing and isolating the infected is the most important measure that makes the difference.

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Finns likewise. If your neighbour lives closer than 1km, he is too close. 

an built barrier bred into them... from their border infiltration pressures with Russia etc

15 minutes ago, henry2109 said:

This is a false perception: The mortality rate and the social distancing have nothing to do with each other. 

 

You can - on the other hand - take the infection rate for a comparison.

The mortality rate and social distancing have nothing to do with each other?

 

That's odd. I thought the governments were saying that with the social distancing wonder weapon there will be less infections, one would think less infections means less deaths. Don't you have to be infected with the virus then to die of Covid?

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

20 minutes ago, henry2109 said:

This is a false perception: The mortality rate and the social distancing have nothing to do with each other. 

 

You can - on the other hand - take the infection rate for a comparison.

The mortality rate and social distancing have nothing to do with each other?

 

That's odd. I thought the governments were saying that with the social distancing wonder weapon there will be less infections, one would think less infections means less deaths. Don't you have to be infected with the virus then to die of Covid?

Edited 5 minutes ago by Logosone

yes but you have to maintain familiarity with the concept of Constant Velocity versus a Reduction of Constant Acceleration... now reducing (less) Acceleration...

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

 

It's a very interesting comparison between Austria and Sweden. Both have similar population sizes. Both have ski resorts and remote areas with few people, but both also have urban centres.

 

Ski resorts may actually play a role here. Austria's success in containing the virus is remarkable, especially if you consider that they are neighbours of Italy.

 

So what is the difference between Austria and Sweden?

 

It could be that in Austria the cases were concentrated in remote ski resorts like Ischgl, which was found to be a hotspot in Austria. Italian tourists from Lombardy brought the virus there.

 

Since these ski resorts are fairly easy to isolate, here social distancing actually meant sense. It may just be that Austria caught the virus hotspots on time and because, by chance, they were at a remote ski resort it was easier to contain the spread.

 

In Sweden by contrast, whose ski resorts are not that popular with tourists anyway and more for Swedes, the virus was brought in by a Swedish woman who returned from Wuhan and lived in Stockholm. By all accounts in an urban setting the virus spreads much quicker and easier.

 

 

Ski resorts in Sweden is much more about x-country skiing (no mountains to speak of in Sweden)  They also tend to have much less night life .. Austria, alpine with a very strong apree ski night life.   Ski per say is 'social distance' by its nature ... Many will cover there face anyway when its cold (aka mask by default)   However night life tided to down hill skiing is a different matter all together.. That is party time.

yes but you have to maintain familiarity with the concept of Constant Velocity versus a Reduction of Constant Acceleration... now reducing (less) Acceleration...

 

Sweden had its first case on 24 January.

 

UK had its first case on 31 January.

 

You also need to keep familiarity with the concept of facts.

 

Sweden being "behind" in the curve is not an explanation for the fact that Sweden has half the mortality rate of the UK with minimal social distancing, whereas the UK has extreme social distancing.

52 minutes ago, fforest1 said:

The Swedish people were smarter than I thought by not falling for all this Corona nonsense...

they will follow the government can not get a majority on the use of restrictions.

 

Sweden 10m population over 450,295km² 21 persons per sq km, 638 cases per million, most populated city Stockholm with a population of 1.5million, stockholm consists of 14 islands

UK 66.5m population over 241,495km² with 274 persons per km, 617 cases per million, most populated city London with 10.6m population, the same as the entire population of Sweden. 

 

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, while i was typing i had the same thought, indeed "chance" may be a factor, until a certain extent.

Yes there seem to be way to many contributing factors at this early stage but there does seem to be a strong case for massive testing and isolating the infected combined with protecting the those most vulnerable to the disease.One also has the Swiss cheese effect where a series of events slip through where the holes in the cheese line up which allow outcomes of catastrophic proportions.

33 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, I just looked it up, at one point Austrian testing numbers approached South Korea.

 

They tested a lot more than Sweden.

 

So there we have it. Again, testing and isolating the infected is what makes a difference.

 

Social distancing clearly does not. Sweden has far less social distancing than the UK, yet still half the mortality rate.

Social distancing affects the infection rate, not the mortality rate. The idea is that if you keep your distance you will be less likely to get infected   but once you are infected the mortality rate is affected by other factors, such as the underlying health of the general population. I would suggest that the average Swede is healthier than the average Briton. That’s why the mortality rates differ so much.

1 minute ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Yes there seem to be way to many contributing factors at this early stage but there does seem to be a strong case for massive testing and isolating the infected combined with protecting the those most vulnerable to the disease.One also has the Swiss cheese effect where a series of events slip through where the holes in the cheese line up which allow outcomes of catastrophic proportions.

The economies of millions are being destroyed, i am afraid that in the next weeks we will have more important issues to worry about rather than the virus.

18 minutes ago, MikeN said:

Social distancing affects the infection rate, not the mortality rate. The idea is that if you keep your distance you will be less likely to get infected   but once you are infected the mortality rate is affected by other factors, such as the underlying health of the general population. I would suggest that the average Swede is healthier than the average Briton. That’s why the mortality rates differ so much.

Immunity could definitely play a role, and by all accounts Swedes are considerably fitter than the British.

 

However, if social distancing affects the infection rate, that would affect the mortality rate, since the higher the number of infected the higher the likelihood of higher mortality.

 

Unless those infected are properly isolated.

 

However, without therapy, vaccine, and proper materials it is unlikely the doctors save lives with Covid patients. 

 

Sweden and the UK have a population of exactly identical age, btw.

 

The average age in both is 40.

Sweden is really quit odd case today. What I understood is that their government stepped back and let a civil servant practically run the country. 

 

This is what happens, when populists, from left or right are gaining power. They are useless as leaders. 

 

Hopefully Sweden find her way soon enough. Otherwise Sweden is going to be sick man of Europe.

30 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The mortality rate and social distancing have nothing to do with each other?

 

That's odd. I thought the governments were saying that with the social distancing wonder weapon there will be less infections, one would think less infections means less deaths. Don't you have to be infected with the virus then to die of Covid?

 

Yes but your original post on about this referenced the percentage of deaths in people that had the virus.

The percentage of deaths of people who have the virus has nothing to do with social distancing, it can only affect the percentage of citizens catching it.

 

2 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

 

The percentage of deaths of people who have the virus has nothing to do with social distancing, it can only affect the percentage of citizens catching it.

 

If social distancing affects the percentage of people who get the virus then it affects the percentage of deaths because it is the virus that causes the deaths.

 

The greater the number of infected the greater the likelihood of deaths.

 

Unless the infected are isolated properly or you have a miracle therapy. None of which applies in most countries, including Sweden and UK.

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

If social distancing affects the percentage of people who get the virus then it affects the percentage of deaths because it is the virus that causes the deaths.

 

The greater the number of infected the greater the likelihood of deaths.

 

Unless the infected are isolated properly or you have a miracle therapy. None of which applies in most countries, including Sweden and UK.

 

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

The mortality rate based on identified cases and deaths from Johns Hopkins:

 

Sweden : 5%

 

UK:         10%

 

The UK has extreme social distancing. Sweden does not.

 

Yet Sweden has a mortality rate half as high as the UK.

 

So another clear illustration that social distancing is of very little use.

 

Social distancing is not expected to effect mortality rate. It affects the rate of infection. How many people get the virus, how quickly.

 

Mortality rate is mainly related to age distribution of patients, prevalence of underlying conditions, and quality of medical care.

 

Since the denominator of total cases is nto known anywhere, and the proportion of actual cases that are diagnosed varies widely from place to place, can't put much stock into mortality rates at this point.  It would also need to be age-adjusted mortality rate to have any meaning.

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

If social distancing affects the percentage of people who get the virus then it affects the percentage of deaths because it is the virus that causes the deaths.

 

That would be true only if what was reported was not the death rate for the disease but the percent of the population dying of the disease. 

 

They are not reporting the latter, they are reporting the former. Which is subject to all sorts of inaccuarcies and limitations as per post above.

11 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Mortality rate is mainly related to age distribution of patients, prevalence of underlying conditions, and quality of medical care.

The average age in the UK is 40, the average in Sweden is 40. The quality of medical care in the UK is not going to be much different to medical care in Sweden.

 

To argue that a greater prevalence of respiratory diseases in the UK would account for the UK having a mortality rate twice the size of Sweden would be difficult, frankly.

 

I was one of the first people on here to draw attention to the fact that the identified cases are not the same as actual cases, even before Patrick Vallance raised the ten or twenty times multiple, and I have repeatedly made clear that mortality rates would be affected by the real number of cases, that is rather obvious.

 

However, we can only go by the confirmed figures when making calculations, Prof Wieler of the RKI says the same and relies on confirmed case numbers while acknowledging that actual cases are most likely higher.

 

Looking at the confirmed, evidence figures, Sweden has half the mortality rate of the UK, as of today.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

That would be true only if what was reported was not the death rate for the disease but the percent of the population dying of the disease. 

 

They are not reporting the latter, they are reporting the former. Which is subject to all sorts of inaccuarcies and limitations as per post above.

Again, that's not the case, whilst of course the identified case numbers will be inaccurate, and actual cases most likely higher we can only go on confirmed and evidenced figures when discussing numbers at the moment, estimating numbers is going for speculation. 

 

The WHO, Prof Wieler of the HKI, everyone is talking about the confirmed and identified cases, because they are beyond doubt and evidenced. Everyone recognises that the real number of cases is most likely higher but that is entering speculation territory, not evidenced figures.

 

The principle that if you have a higher number of cases you have a higher likelihood of a greater number of deaths seems to be borne out by the statistics (Italy, Spain, China). So clearly the number of cases is likely to affect the number of deaths.

 

Taking the percent of population is less interesting, because it is skews the figures in favour of large countries, so China and the US could for example have far lower figures than smaller countries, just because they have a smaller population.

 

 

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

The mortality rate based on identified cases and deaths from Johns Hopkins:

 

Sweden : 5%

 

UK:         10%

 

The UK has extreme social distancing. Sweden does not.

 

Yet Sweden has a mortality rate half as high as the UK.

 

So another clear illustration that social distancing is of very little use.

Maybe condition of liver of many Brits has something to do with it? Alcohol is for sale only in specialised shops in Sweden, not widely available. Can't say that for the UK...

6 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

Maybe condition of liver of many Brits has something to do with it? Alcohol is for sale only in specialised shops in Sweden, not widely available. Can't say that for the UK...

Yes, and very expensive in Sweden, so net result the Swedes consume far less alcohol than Estonia, UK, Czechs, Irish or Austrians.

 

Pneumonia can cause organ failure, but maybe an unlikely correlation.

Sweden is only testing hospital admissions. Also they have the lowest number of ICU beds per capita in Europe.

 

3 hours ago, fforest1 said:

The Swedish people were smarter than I thought by not falling for all this Corona nonsense...

 

What you think is killing all the people?

3 minutes ago, Andy from Kent said:

 

What you think is killing all the people?

Ignorance?

1 minute ago, Bluetongue said:

Also they have the lowest number of ICU beds per capita in Europe.

 

Which, if true, would mean that clinical management would not be a big factor in explaining why the mortality rate of Sweden is half that of the UK.

 

Having looked at the figures the UK does have more icu beds per capita than Sweden.

 

So clinical management is unlikely to explain why the UK has a higher mortality rate than Sweden.

 

 

3 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Is obvious that Austria's much higher temperatures are keeping infection numbers much higher than Sweden's at the same time keeping  the CFR much lower.Confusing ain't it?  

Maybe confusing Austria and Australia?
I see almost no difference in the temps....
Sweden:

 

Austria: