STILL Sweden bucks the trend:

[Bert got kinky]

4 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.

 

Wrong, the percentage of already infected people dying through the virus shows absolutely nothing about the results of social distancing, one way or the other.

For example, (and I am using an extreme example for easier understanding), if Sweden had one million confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 5% and the UK had 10 confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 10%, by your logic social distancing does not work despite the higher amount of confirmed cases in a country that does not practice social distancing.

 

 

[Kadilo]

It’s the heat ????

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

The number, of course.

 

The rate, no.

[richard_smith237]

56 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

5 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.

 

Wrong, the percentage of already infected people dying through the virus shows absolutely nothing about the results of social distancing, one way or the other.

For example, (and I am using an extreme example for easier understanding), if Sweden had one million confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 5% and the UK had 10 confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 10%, by your logic social distancing does not work despite the higher amount of confirmed cases in a country that does not practice social distancing.

 

Population density also comes into this. The UK’s population density is significantly higher than Sweeden’s (on average for the country)

The Population density of London is significantly higher than the rest of the UK’s population (figures below). 

 

The Capitals have significantly higher population densities than the country average: Stockholm and the UK have about ±5000 ppl/km2 - but the Population of London is 8.9 million, while the population of Stockholm is 974,000 people.

 

Social Distancing is not quite isolation

 

Thus: Popping when popping down to Waitrose for your caviar in central london someone is far more likely to ‘breach' social distancing guidelines than someone in the quiet UK countryside, this can be extended to the difference between the UK and Sweeden, London and Stockholm - Sweeden and Stockholm has far fewer numbers and less risk whichever angle we wish to look at this from. 

 

Additionally, more highly populated countries have a greater demand on resources, foods etc. Even with isolation I wonder how much of this virus is / could be spread on the surfaces of packaging etc

 

Population Density: 

UK 274ppl/km2

Sweeden 25ppl/km2

London 5590ppl/km2

Stockholm 4800ppl/km2

 

[scubascuba3]

5 hours ago, Denim said:

Be interesting to see how Sweden's strategy pans out. Might turn out to be a role model for everywhere else.

 

An acceptable number of deaths vs total economic collapse.

 

Exactly what they will decide is acceptable remains to be seen.

Economic collapse is obviously the wrong choice, those who disagree will change their mind when they or family lose their jobs.

 

I think Sweden has got this right, people will die of course

[metempsychotic]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

The truth is out there, everyone is free to guess what is going on, there no harm in guessing.

It's not by chance that some countries/areas have more victims, and other countries have less.

If it is not by chance, then pray tell us what the actual cause is?

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, metempsychotic said:

If it is not by chance, then pray tell us what the actual cause is?

For the specific area of Italy, population age, pre-existing conditions, air pollution, population density.

Some posters repeatedly mentioned the Italian habit of kissing and hugging a lot, all of which makes some sense too.

Some of these factors, i think, are in common with other hard-hit countries and areas.

Of course, it's just my speculation, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, Bert got kinky said:

 

Wrong, the percentage of already infected people dying through the virus shows absolutely nothing about the results of social distancing, one way or the other.

For example, (and I am using an extreme example for easier understanding), if Sweden had one million confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 5% and the UK had 10 confirmed cases with a mortality rate of 10%, by your logic social distancing does not work despite the higher amount of confirmed cases in a country that does not practice social distancing.

 

 

I am clear on the fact that some people believe that social distancing merely delays the spread of the virus and therefore does not affect the number of deaths.

 

Whilst it is correct that social distancing could delay the spread of the virus slightly, it is not the case that the number of infected has no bearing on the number of deaths. The more cases the more deaths under normal circumstances, barring some obvious exceptions (isolation, cure etc). Thefore if social distancing worked there should be less cases and less deaths.

 

Your example does not apply, because as we have seen all countries are more or less in the same progression of case and death figures, given a narrow range. Obviously I am referring to countries where numbers can be half-way trusted due to significant testing. The real position is reversed, the UK has far more cases than Sweden. In reality that should mean that the UK mortality rate should be smaller, because it is compared to a larger case number.

 

However, the mortality rate of Sweden is half that of the UK, even though the death rate is compared to a much smaller number of identified cases, because Sweden has done less testing.

 

This would suggest that either social distancing has failed and the UK has a vastly greatly number of actual cases or that other reasons would have to explain why Sweden has half the mortality rate of the UK.

 

Remember, the UK has the same age, average age 40, as Sweden, health care is about he same quality.

 

The big difference is that the UK has used social distancing in an extreme way, but Sweden has not.

 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I am clear on the fact that some people believe that social distancing merely delays the spread of the virus and therefore does not affect the number of deaths.

 

Whilst it is correct that social distancing could delay the spread of the virus slightly, it is not the case that the number of infected has no bearing on the number of deaths. The more cases the more deaths under normal circumstances, barring some obvious exceptions (isolation, cure etc). Thefore if social distancing worked there should be less cases and less deaths.

 

Your example does not apply, because as we have seen all countries are more or less in the same progression of case and death figures, given a narrow range. Obviously I am referring to countries where numbers can be half-way trusted due to significant testing. The real position is reversed, the UK has far more cases than Sweden. In reality that should mean that the UK mortality rate should be smaller, because it is compared to a larger case number.

 

However, the mortality rate of Sweden is half that of the UK, even though the death rate is compared to a much smaller number of identified cases, because Sweden has done less testing.

 

This would suggest that either social distancing has failed and the UK has a vastly greatly number of actual cases or that other reasons would have to explain why Sweden has half the mortality rate of the UK.

 

Remember, the UK has the same age, average age 40, as Sweden, health care is about he same quality.

 

The big difference is that the UK has used social distancing in an extreme way, but Sweden has not.

 

 

 

much lower population in Sweden vs UK, must have a bearing

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

The number, of course.

 

The rate, no.

I understand the logic, but I don't see it that way, because the more cases you have the more deaths you have but why would the UK, who has tested more and identified more cases have a LARGER, twice as large, mortality rate than Sweden? Sweden and the UK have the same age exactly, same modern health care...

 

If social distancing worked and it reduced the number of cases that should also mean that the number of deaths should be falling in proportion to the harshness of social distancing.

 

We have seen that this is not the case in the UK, Spain, Italy.

[MikeN]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

 

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

 

 

True, but the difference between Sweden and Britain in the relative percentages of the mortality rate of confirmed cases has absolutely nothing to do with whether people contracted the virus despite Social distancing, which is what you were arguing.

Edited April 5, 2020 by MikeN

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Population density also comes into this. The UK’s population density is significantly higher than Sweeden’s (on average for the country)

The Population density of London is significantly higher than the rest of the UK’s population (figures below). 

 

The Capitals have significantly higher population densities than the country average: Stockholm and the UK have about ±5000 ppl/km2 - but the Population of London is 8.9 million, while the population of Stockholm is 974,000 people.

 

Social Distancing is not quite isolation

 

Thus: Popping when popping down to Waitrose for your caviar in central london someone is far more likely to ‘breach' social distancing guidelines than someone in the quiet UK countryside, this can be extended to the difference between the UK and Sweeden, London and Stockholm - Sweeden and Stockholm has far fewer numbers and less risk whichever angle we wish to look at this from. 

 

Additionally, more highly populated countries have a greater demand on resources, foods etc. Even with isolation I wonder how much of this virus is / could be spread on the surfaces of packaging etc

 

Population Density: 

UK 274ppl/km2

Sweeden 25ppl/km2

London 5590ppl/km2

Stockholm 4800ppl/km2

 

A population density for London of 5590ppl/km2 and Stockholm 4800/km2 is not all that different. In Sweden too there are urban areas.

 

The problem with this theory is that many of the virus hotspots have been tiny places.

 

In Germany it was the small village of Heinsberg.

 

In Austria the small ski resort of Ischgl.

 

In Italy it was not Rome (even though two patients zero landed there from China) but the little villages from the Lombardy region that were the worst affected.

 

In Spain it was the small municipalities of Igualada, Odena, Santa Margarida de Montbui and Vilanova del Cami that were among the worst affected, some big urban centres were not badly affected.

 

How does that fit with the population density theory?

 

We have seen with every pandemic that there has been in the end an inherent correlation between cases and deaths. It took time to find it. We are in the dark about it now. But this correlation exists. Of course there can be variation that is caused by certain factors, but overall there should be a fairly uniform correlation between deaths and cases within a narrow range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeN]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Economic collapse is obviously the wrong choice, those who disagree will change their mind when they or family lose their jobs.

 

I think Sweden has got this right, people will die of course

A couple of weeks ago people were saying Germany had got it right, with only about 50 deaths. Now it’s about 1450.....

 I reckon Sweden will be looking the same soon enough.

Edited April 5, 2020 by MikeN

[scubascuba3]

2 minutes ago, MikeN said:

A couple of weeks ago people were saying Germany had got it right, with only about 50 deaths. Now it’s about 1250.....

 I reckon Sweden will be looking the same soon enough.

Sweden will have a lot of deaths, it should be acceptable collateral damage

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Sweden will have a lot of deaths, it should be acceptable collateral damage

This acceptable collateral damage you speak of... how many avoidable deaths are acceptable to you so that we can continue on with our quality of life?

 

 

The numbers must have been ‘punched in’ somewhere and the cost in life too high, otherwise these measures wouldn’t be in place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by richard_smith237

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I understand the logic, but I don't see it that way, because the more cases you have the more deaths you have but why would the UK, who has tested more and identified more cases have a LARGER, twice as large, mortality rate than Sweden? Sweden and the UK have the same age exactly, same modern health care...

 

If social distancing worked and it reduced the number of cases that should also mean that the number of deaths should be falling in proportion to the harshness of social distancing.

 

We have seen that this is not the case in the UK, Spain, Italy.

The average total lag time from initial infection to conclusion seems to be about one month. The UK started its lock down measures less than 30 days ago and so did Spain. The lock down in Italy began in Lombardy in late February but other areas were not closed until early March, so the Italians are partly out of this one month window now. The Italian infection curve has started to flatten, the Spanish one has stopped rising but the UK one is still rising. The true effect of the distancing of individuals and other methods in these countries may be better measured at the end of April and the results and ratios will be far more accurately revealed after much more mass-testing for antigens and antibodies, with the accuracy of these results checked and published.  

 

Sweden is a much smaller country in terms of population, population distribution, range and density. It is quite different to those countries which comprise 'the trend' and is not a good choice as a comparison. The Swedish infection curve showed a flattening yesterday but this could be a temporary anomaly as, before this, it was rising quite aggressively. Again, more time is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be reached. 

[scubascuba3]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This acceptable collateral damage you speak of... how many avoidable deaths are acceptable to you so that we can continue on with our quality of life?

 

 

The numbers must have been ‘punched in’ somewhere and the cost in life too high, otherwise these measures wouldn’t be in place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measures taken are similar to Small pox or something with a very high death rate, politics has taken over. Killing the economy is the wrong thing to do, killing jobs will kill lives but takes longer. As for numbers its what ever it takes, but countries should get extra ventilators etc, whatever is needed. I haven't heard that Thailand has ordered any, so likely if you get a bad case here you are doomed

[UbonThani]

6 hours ago, Logosone said:

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

Nice way of putting it.

[UbonThani]

19 minutes ago, MikeN said:

A couple of weeks ago people were saying Germany had got it right, with only about 50 deaths. Now it’s about 1450.....

 I reckon Sweden will be looking the same soon enough.

1450 isnt much. Under 100 a week. No doubt flus wipe out thousands a year.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Measures taken are similar to Small pox or something with a very high death rate, politics has taken over. Killing the economy is the wrong thing to do, killing jobs will kill lives but takes longer. As for numbers its what ever it takes, but countries should get extra ventilators etc, whatever is needed. I haven't heard that Thailand has ordered any, so likely if you get a bad case here you are doomed

[Killing the economy is the wrong thing to do, killing jobs will kill lives but takes longer]

 

You mean, in your opinion. Because the leaders of almost every country in the world seem to disagree with you. 

 

[but countries should get extra ventilators etc, whatever is needed]

 

Absolutely agree. Another facet of this is that there will be further waves, especially if Covid-19 proves seasonal and can mutate / evolve and we can’t vaccinate against it as efficiently as we can with Influence (which still only has 40-60% effectiveness). 

 

[UbonThani]

 Around 25,100 people lost their lives in Germany in the exceptionally strong flu wave in 2017/18, according to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). This is the highest number of deaths in the past 30 years, said RKI President Lothar Wieler.

[UbonThani]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

and we can’t vaccinate against it as efficiently as we can with Influence (which still only has 40-60% effectiveness). 

Flu vaccines about 90% immune.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, UbonThani said:

22 minutes ago, MikeN said:

A couple of weeks ago people were saying Germany had got it right, with only about 50 deaths. Now it’s about 1450.....

 I reckon Sweden will be looking the same soon enough.

1450 isnt much. Under 100 a week. No doubt flus wipe out thousands a year.

Seasonal Influenza wipes about about 300,000 to 650,000 people per year world wide.

This is for something of which we have far greater knowledge and have vaccines. 

 

Covid-19 is in its infancy - we have no idea how it will compare, but if its transmission rate is similar to that of influenza the numbers could be devastating - hence the global reaction. 

 

But, a handful of keyboard experts are questioning the decisions of those advised by the experts, some are calling conspiracy, some are telling us we’ve been conned !!! All seem to think deaths in the millions is an acceptable number for something which can be minimised. 

 

We have no idea how bad this can get. we could be talking millions of deaths by the end of the summer if the exponential spread of this virus is not curtailed. 

[MikeN]

4 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

1450 isnt much. Under 100 a week. No doubt flus wipe out thousands a year.

The figures have gone from 50 to 1450 in two weeks. Want to recalculate? 

You obviously don’t understand exponential growth, perhaps you should read this : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-05/coronavirus-exponential-growth-explained-by-rice-on-a-chessboard/12122214

 

[FarFlungFalang]

3 hours ago, Lupusthai said:

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

 

Austria:

You haven't applied the sarcasm filter.I'm taking the p!ss out of those who believe the hot weather reduces infection rates rather than testing regimes.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

and we can’t vaccinate against it as efficiently as we can with Influence (which still only has 40-60% effectiveness). 

Flu vaccines about 90% immune.

 

Quote: "recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine."

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

[Logosone]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The average total lag time from initial infection to conclusion seems to be about one month. The UK started its lock down measures less than 30 days ago and so did Spain. The lock down in Italy began in Lombardy in late February but other areas were not closed until early March, so the Italians are partly out of this one month window now. The Italian infection curve has started to flatten, the Spanish one has stopped rising but the UK one is still rising. The true effect of the distancing of individuals and other methods in these countries may be better measured at the end of April and the results and ratios will be far more accurately revealed after much more mass-testing for antigens and antibodies, with the accuracy of these results checked and published.  

 

Sweden is a much smaller country in terms of population, population distribution, range and density. It is quite different to those countries which comprise 'the trend' and is not a good choice as a comparison. The Swedish infection curve showed a flattening yesterday but this could be a temporary anomaly as, before this, it was rising quite aggressively. Again, more time is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be reached. 

I'm not so sure if we've seen a conclusion anywhere. China has just announced on 2 April it is putting another county, Jia County in Henan, in lockdown because of a new patient being diagnosed with the virus. It could be this will just be the first wave among three, or two, or four, who knows.

 

But yes, you can make a case for the 30 day wave duration, but you wouldn't look at the lockdown, you'd look at the first case. In the UK the first case was found on 31 January, it should long be over in the UK if the 30 day wave applied there.

 

I very much doubt we will see any real analysis of which measure caused what percentage of reduction in transmission. Since several measures are thrown at the virus at the same time it's almost impossible to determine that. I'm even more sceptical there will be the mass testing in the UK that is required.

 

As for population density in Sweden, again Sweden has urban areas that are comparable to those in the UK. Some of the hotspots in Europe have been small villages and municipalities whereas as some big cities were not affected.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

much lower population in Sweden vs UK, must have a bearing

Well, that paradox is that if we take the population density theory, since the UK has the greater population density, even though Sweden has comparable urban centres, the UK should have far greater number of cases and as a result the number of deaths set against such a greater number of cases should yield a smaller mortality rate.

 

However, even though Sweden has less cases, so the deaths are set against a smaller figure, its mortality rate is actually half of the UK.

 

The UK is a bigger country in terms of population therefore, due to population density it should have more cases as well, and the number of deaths set against that figure should yield a smaller percentage of deaths.

 

This is what happened in Germany, the large number of cases actually means that as a percentage the mortality rate is smaller. However, this is not the case with the UK. Sweden has less cases, but a smaller mortality rate.

 

Something is a tad askew here.

[robblok]

6 hours 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?

Ok read this really slow maybe you understand it then.

 

Death rate is based on deaths from corvid and infections. Death rate could be higher and or lower if much testing is done or only testing when people who are really sick get to a DR. It could also show how good the healthcare is in a country.

 

Social distancing has nothing to do with this. Social distancing could be seen in more or less infections but absolutely not in death rate. Death rate is just a percentage of deaths divided by nr of infections. That does not change if there are more or less infections (unless the hospital system is at full capacity)

[FarFlungFalang]

According to the WHO the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is the amount of Confirmed cases to the amount of confirmed deaths.The Mortality Rate is the number of confirmed deaths compared to the population.

According to me the Death Rate is the number of actual cases compared to confirmed deaths.The Death Rate can only be calculated accurately by testing everybody in a population with antibody testing.Accurate estimations can be calculated by taking samples of populations and testing thoroughly.

  Only  after getting an accurate estimation will it be possible to say with any degree of certainty how severe this outbreak really is.Guessing the severity although possible is still only guessing.Those who are saying this is worse than the flu are guessing.

   My question is why are seemingly intelligent people trying to guess the severity of this outbreak?To try and answer this question I would say that it may be better to expect the worst and prepare for the worst incase it is the worst.

Edited April 5, 2020 by FarFlungFalang