STILL Sweden bucks the trend:

[stuandjulie]

Swedens numbers are rising quickly now according to new numbers, they are starting to tighten up their restrictions. 

[jacob29]

8 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.

Neighboring Norway has social distancing, at 1.1%. Completely inappropriate to cherry pick UK when their neighbor is a far more appropriate comparison.

[nauseus]

10 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?  

Well you seem to be confused anyway.

Edited April 5, 2020 by nauseus

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

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.

I said that we've not seen a conclusion anywhere. 

 

The UK lock down started 6 weeks after the first case, so we have to work from mid March, if you accept the 30 day total illness time window. 

 

The  accuracy of any analyses of will depend on the amount of testing. I'm also skeptical there will be insufficient testing in the UK.

 

Sweden has no cities the anywhere near size of London and Stockholm has the same population as Birmingham. Only Gothenburg has about the same population as several cities in the UK. Sweden has much more remote country than the UK. Not a good comparison really.

Edited April 5, 2020 by nauseus

[DrTuner]

13 hours ago, ChipButty said:

Finland there were no new deaths yesterday and the number of people who is getting the coronavirus is declining

Finland has multiple measures in place, including closure of bars, social distancing, etc. They have been fairly impressive in their response after initial fumbling. I have been following the situation there as I am a Finn myself. One worry they have is the northern border with Sweden, which I've understood is now partially closed because of Sweden's strategy.

Edited April 5, 2020 by DrTuner

[Logosone]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

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)

If, as you admit yourself, and any proponent of social distancing would, sd is supposed to have an effect on the number of infected, then very obviously it has an effect on the number of deaths. The greater the number of infected the greater the likelihood/number of deaths.

 

It's not that hard to understand really. It is the number of deaths that is likely to increase if there are more cases. We're not talking about hypothetical vs tested, but in reality, if the number of infected goes up the likelihood of deaths, and the number of deaths goes up.

 

So if social distancing were successful and would keep the number of infected down then it should keep the number of deaths down. 

 

Now, of course you can argue that the number of cases in the UK is inaccurate for this or that reason, but going on verified, evidenced and logged cases compared to deaths, Sweden has half the mortality rate.

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

I said that we've not seen a conclusion anywhere. 

 

The UK lock down started 6 weeks after the first case, so we have to work from mid March, if you accept the 30 day total illness time window. 

 

The  accuracy of any analyses of will depend on the amount of testing. I'm also skeptical there will be insufficient testing in the UK.

 

Sweden has no cities the anywhere near size of London and Stockholm has the same population as Birmingham. Only Gothenburg has about the same population as several cities in the UK. Sweden has much more remote country than the UK. Not a good comparison really.

Yes, agreed the UK lockdown started a bit later, but what if the disease has a natural 30 day (give or take a few days) cycle as you suggested, then putting in the lockdown  late would suggest that it had an effect, when in reality that was just the natural 30 day cycle.

 

Yes, Stockholm is smaller but density of people per km squared is not hugely far apart, because London is hugely spread out and the fact is that a lot of the virus hotspots in Europe have been small villages and ski resorts, tiny municipalities in Spain, the villages of the Lombardy region and so on, whereas some cities had no effect at all.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Logosone

[Mung]

Exactly what the UK started to do and changed tactics 3 or so weeks ago. We now are seeing nearly 6,000 confirmed cases a day, even after tactics were changed. It will take while to flatten the curve, but I can only imagine what this situation would be like if no action was taken 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Mung

[roo860]

13 hours ago, jacob29 said:

Neighboring Norway has social distancing, at 1.1%. Completely inappropriate to cherry pick UK when their neighbor is a far more appropriate comparison.

He'll mention the UK, normally in a derogatory way in most of his posts, bating and trolling.

[balo]

14 hours ago, stuandjulie said:

Swedens numbers are rising quickly now according to new numbers, they are starting to tighten up their restrictions.

That's right, they admitted they have under reported numbers so we are talking about 700 deaths so far.  They expect the numbers to rise significantly the next 2 weeks.  
Here in Norway we only have around 60 deaths, not as strict as in the UK , but social distancing is important. 

The Swedish model doesn't seem to be working so far, I expect they will follow the rest of Europe soon. 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by balo

[Bundooman]

23 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.

Population Sweden   - 10 million

Population UK    65+million.

 

 

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, Bundooman said:

Population Sweden   - 10 million

Population UK    65+million.

 

 

It's not as simple as explaining it with population. Switzerland has a population of 8 million, Germany one of 82 million, still Switzerland's mortality rate is higher than Germany's.

[Assurancetourix]

On 4/5/2020 at 8:14 AM, ChipButty said:

Some 230 people have died from the lethal bug in the Scandinavian country and there are almost 5,000 cases

and during the same time how many died from the flu?

 

I still do not understand this fixation on a virus as there are thousands;
virus that kills less than the flu,
virus that kills less than old age,
virus that kills a thousand times more than road accidents (at least in Thailand).

Is the human world completely sick to the point of wanting to commit suicide?

[Logosone]

55 minutes ago, balo said:

That's right, they admitted they have under reported numbers so we are talking about 700 deaths so far.  They expect the numbers to rise significantly the next 2 weeks.  
Here in Norway we only have around 60 deaths, not as strict as in the UK , but social distancing is important. 

The Swedish model doesn't seem to be working so far, I expect they will follow the rest of Europe soon. 

 

Johns Hopkins currently has Sweden with just over 400 deaths, let's see if it jumps to 700 any time soon.

 

But yes, let's compare Sweden, Norway and the UK.

 

Sweden has very moderate sd, the UK very strict sd, and Norway is in between the two.

 

Swedes are able to go to restaurants, get a haircut and send their children to school Sweden's chief epidemiologist has said:

 

“It is important to have a policy that can be sustained over a longer period, meaning staying home if you are sick, which is our message,”

 

“Locking people up at home won’t work in the longer term,” he said. “Sooner or later people are going to go out anyway.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden/swedens-liberal-pandemic-strategy-questioned-as-stockholm-death-toll-mounts-idUSKBN21L23R

 

The UK is imposing draconian fines if people breach their curfew, sending out drones to chase after people going for exercise, the UK government has given police emergency powers, and imposed rigorous restrictions on movement, as well having closed all pubs, restaurants, hairdressers and schools and heavily reducing public transport. People can only leave the house for very limited exceptional reasons.

 

Norway by contrast has public transport running as normal, and whilst discouraging leisure travel still allows it, indeed many of the measures are left up to Norwegians themselves who are asked, rather than forced, to reduce contact with others, though schools are closed and there are a few other sd restrictions, though not on the level of the UK.

 

What else do we know?

 

Norway tops the list of Scandinavian countries in terms of the number of confirmed cases per million inhabitants with 810, followed by Denmark with 441, and Sweden with 331. 

 

This strongly suggests Norway has tested more than Sweden. So Sweden has tested somewhat less and the UK, who had no test kits for a long time based its strategy therefore heavily on sd for a longer time and only recently tried, unsuccessfully, to ramp up testing levels to German levels.

 

So for now the country that has tested most has the lowest mortality rate. However, the real test will come after Norway returns to normal and Sweden does too. While cases in the short term look to be getting worse in Sweden, in the longer term Sweden may have greater immunity, whereas the more lockdown prone Norway and Denmark could have less due to the lockdown and be more susceptible to further waves.

 

https://www.thelocal.com/20200331/the-nordic-divide-is-denmark-norway-sweden-right-or-wrong-on-coronavirus

 

It is interesting to note from the above article that Danish epidemiologists also did not advocate closing the border but were overruled by politicians, yet privately these professionals are supporting the chief Swedish epidemiologist's strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Logosone

[Assurancetourix]

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It is interesting to note from the above article that Danish epidemiologists also did not advocate closing the border but were overruled by politicians, yet privately these professionals are supporting the chief Swedish epidemiologist's strategy.

 

What will be most interesting and instructive will be the final count of the deaths actually due to Covid-19 compared to the number of deaths due
--to seasonal flu,
--pathologies due to the great age of the populations,
--to the natural dead ...

 

I am ready to eat my hat that we will discover that in fact this Covid-19 as contagious as it is, is or was in fact not much in relation to the causes that I cite above.

 

Never forget that in Italy but also certainly in all the other countries of the world that the immense majority of the dead are elderly or very old people, already at the end of life and who had one to 3 serious pathologies.
The Covid only accelerated their death but is in no way the cause of this death.

 

It remains to be seen whether this post-Covid study will be done intelligently or biased, which is generally the case in countries where we do not want to recognize that we were wrong from the start.

[robblok]

11 hours ago, Logosone said:

If, as you admit yourself, and any proponent of social distancing would, sd is supposed to have an effect on the number of infected, then very obviously it has an effect on the number of deaths. The greater the number of infected the greater the likelihood/number of deaths.

 

It's not that hard to understand really. It is the number of deaths that is likely to increase if there are more cases. We're not talking about hypothetical vs tested, but in reality, if the number of infected goes up the likelihood of deaths, and the number of deaths goes up.

 

So if social distancing were successful and would keep the number of infected down then it should keep the number of deaths down. 

 

Now, of course you can argue that the number of cases in the UK is inaccurate for this or that reason, but going on verified, evidenced and logged cases compared to deaths, Sweden has half the mortality rate.

Again you totally mis the point. Have you ever done basic math ?

 

The deathrate is a percentage 

 

Its total deaths divided by corvid cases.

 

Deaths are directly related to corvid so more cases is more deaths. So the amount of cases is irrelevant as lower amount of cases will give lower deaths. 

 

Say 100 deaths and 2000 infections  = 5%

 

Now social distancing would change the amount of infections (or not) but the amounts of deaths are related alwas a percentage of the amount of people having it.

 

So say social distancing works and cuts infections by half it would mean less deaths too as deaths are related to corvid

 

50 /  1000 infections = 5 %

 

See that the amount of infections has no relation to the death rate.

 

Sure if you only test those that are really ill then your death rate is higher as when you test everyone as not everyone has the severe cases. However if you only change social distancing that could have no effect or effect but you still only test severely ill or everyone it wont change the death rate.

 

So you are totally wrong and almost everyone understand that unless your education did not include basic math and logic. 

 

Death rate is based on how bad a disease is not on how many are infected (unless we got overflowing hospitals)

 

Looks like your assuming that there is no relation between deaths by corvid and how many cases there are. (that does not change a percentage). It only changes the numbers of death not a percentage.

 

Please refresh your math knowledge and report back.

Edited April 6, 2020 by robblok

[LarryLEB]

On 4/5/2020 at 9:08 AM, Logosone said:

So what is the difference between Austria and Sweden?

 

Logosone asked the above question.

 

As far as I can tell, the main difference is the population density.  Austria's population density is 109 per square kilometer.  Sweden's is less than a quarter of that at 25 per square kilometer.

[newnative]

On 4/5/2020 at 9:50 AM, vogie said:

But most of europes trajectories are of a similar rate, the difference is some countries are some days behind other countries that's all, in Swedens case it is 12 days behind the UK and the chart shows it is running in paralell with the UKs trajectory, hope I'm wrong though.

 

    The interesting line to me is South Korea's.  The rest are much the same.  South Korea seems to have done things right from the get go. 

[Max69xl]

On 4/5/2020 at 8:22 AM, roo860 said:

Friend of mine arrived back there last Thursday, he says the same, bit unnerving.

There are no shopping malls packed with people. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. And the number was 401 dead as of yesterday. That's still less fatalities compared to the UK (5000 dead) in proportion to population. ~65,5 million people vs. 10 million. Do the math. 

[Wullie Mercer]

On 4/5/2020 at 10:14 AM, tifino said:

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

What has velocity and acceleration got to do with coughing and sneezing !!!

[scubascuba3]

12 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

There are no shopping malls packed with people. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. And the number was 401 dead as of yesterday. That's still less fatalities compared to the UK (5000 dead) in proportion to population. ~65,5 million people vs. 10 million. Do the math. 

That means nothing, countries are at different stages

[tifino]

2 minutes ago, Wullie Mercer said:

What has velocity and acceleration got to do with coughing and sneezing !!!

a metaphor for the 'trend' graphs... 

 

... a car that is accelerating, but now accelerating at a lower rate of acceleration...

[4737 Carlin]

Sweden is the 'canary in the coal mine' for the other European countries. That's its purpose since it decided to abolish itself. Whether turning its cities into Somalia or ignoring a deadly pandemic, it's become our experimental laboratory. Thanks Sweden. 

[roo860]

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

There are no shopping malls packed with people. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. And the number was 401 dead as of yesterday. That's still less fatalities compared to the UK (5000 dead) in proportion to population. ~65,5 million people vs. 10 million. Do the math. 

I don't read the newspapers, I was commenting on his arrival back in Sweden after being in Thailand (Bangkok), and how many people he said were carrying on as normal.

[scubascuba3]

25 minutes ago, 4737 Carlin said:

Sweden is the 'canary in the coal mine' for the other European countries. That's its purpose since it decided to abolish itself. Whether turning its cities into Somalia or ignoring a deadly pandemic, it's become our experimental laboratory. Thanks Sweden. 

Better than just copying other countries because of media pressure, those other countries such as France, Spain, Italy have failed

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Again you totally mis the point. Have you ever done basic math ?

 

The deathrate is a percentage 

 

Its total deaths divided by corvid cases.

 

Deaths are directly related to corvid so more cases is more deaths. So the amount of cases is irrelevant as lower amount of cases will give lower deaths. 

 

Say 100 deaths and 2000 infections  = 5%

 

Now social distancing would change the amount of infections (or not) but the amounts of deaths are related alwas a percentage of the amount of people having it.

 

So say social distancing works and cuts infections by half it would mean less deaths too as deaths are related to corvid

 

50 /  1000 infections = 5 %

 

See that the amount of infections has no relation to the death rate.

 

Sure if you only test those that are really ill then your death rate is higher as when you test everyone as not everyone has the severe cases. However if you only change social distancing that could have no effect or effect but you still only test severely ill or everyone it wont change the death rate.

 

So you are totally wrong and almost everyone understand that unless your education did not include basic math and logic. 

 

Death rate is based on how bad a disease is not on how many are infected (unless we got overflowing hospitals)

 

Looks like your assuming that there is no relation between deaths by corvid and how many cases there are. (that does not change a percentage). It only changes the numbers of death not a percentage.

 

 

Yes, I have done basic maths, but I am transporting that maths to reality which you seem clearly unable to do.

 

Of course the death rate is a percentage, and identified cases are divided by deaths. However what you don't seem to understand is that proponents of sd claim that sd keeps the number of cases lower for a period of time, and that if cases, that is actual cases, irrespective of how many are identified, are lower, then that would mean that there would be fewer deaths and it could affect the death rate. Because deaths are related to Covid19, which is related to the virus, so to the number of infected. But that relation would not necessarily be exactly the same as the original death rate without sd. On the contrary if testing is the same, eventually the lower number of cases should result in a lower number of deaths, and also in a lower percentage which should be apparent if testing continues.

 

So let's say, as an example, we have 1000 cases and before sd 50 people die, 5%. After sd there are 500 cases and 5 people die, since less patients means doctors can save more, the full sd dream come true. So then we should have a 3.6% deathrate (55 deaths with 1500 cases).

 

You're just assuming the death rate would stay in the same ratio if cases are lower due to sd, but there is no reason to assume a lower number would entail exactly the same death ratio as the previous higher case number.

 

So the amount of cases is irrelevant as lower amount of cases will give lower deaths. 

 

No actually, that's just an assumption you made. If the number of cases is lower and results in a lower number of deaths, obviously the amount of cases is not irrelevant and the death rate could be lower as well, it need not be exactly the same as originally with a higher number of cases.

 

The mortality rate is calculated by the number of cases divided by the number of deaths, but you think the number of infections does not affect the death rate?

 

No, why would you assume that? The change any intervention measure causes is in exactly the same proportion as the original death rate? Why? More likely that is not the case.

[mixed]

26 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Better than just copying other countries because of media pressure, those other countries such as France, Spain, Italy have failed

All those countries hug, kiss and wave their hands a lot while talking loudly, all good ways to spread the virus. None of this happens in Asia and from what I've read Swedes have always practiced social distancing.

 

 

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, I have done basic maths, but I am transporting that maths to reality which you seem clearly unable to do.

 

Of course the death rate is a percentage, and identified cases are divided by deaths. However what you don't seem to understand is that proponents of sd claim that sd keeps the number of cases lower for a period of time, and that if cases, that is actual cases, irrespective of how many are identified, are lower, then that would mean that there would be fewer deaths and it could affect the death rate. Because deaths are related to Covid19, which is related to the virus, so to the number of infected. But that relation would not necessarily be exactly the same as the original death rate without sd. On the contrary if testing is the same, eventually the lower number of cases should result in a lower number of deaths, and also in a lower percentage which should be apparent if testing continues.

 

So let's say, as an example, we have 1000 cases and before sd 50 people die, 5%. After sd there are 500 cases and 5 people die, since less patients means doctors can save more, the full sd dream come true. So then we should have a 3.6% deathrate (55 deaths with 1500 cases).

 

You're just assuming the death rate would stay in the same ratio if cases are lower due to sd, but there is no reason to assume a lower number would entail exactly the same death ratio as the previous higher case number.

 

So the amount of cases is irrelevant as lower amount of cases will give lower deaths. 

 

No actually, that's just an assumption you made. If the number of cases is lower and results in a lower number of deaths, obviously the amount of cases is not irrelevant and the death rate could be lower as well, it need not be exactly the same as originally with a higher number of cases.

 

The mortality rate is calculated by the number of cases divided by the number of deaths, but you think the number of infections does not affect the death rate?

 

No, why would you assume that? The change any intervention measure causes is in exactly the same proportion as the original death rate? Why? More likely that is not the case.

I give up.. you have no clue. 

 

And in my previous post i made it clear that the only reason it could be different if the hospitals are overwhelmed. That is not yet the case (except in Italy). So your example of SD and saving more people is not yet valid as its not the case YET. So you wont see  it. Sorry you just not bright enough.

 

Im sorry I stop debating with you. There is a minimum amount of knowledge needed and you don't have it. I cant lower myself too much. 

 

What I am saying is that the virus is equally deadly always. (unless health services are overwhelmed and that is not yet the case while you use it already as a factor).

 

So more infections means more deaths but the percentage says about the same. Only if more are tested that are less sick can the death rate go lower as then they are testing the less severe cases. But death rate stays reasonably the same if the same method of testing is being done.

 

The virus does not suddenly become less lethal because we keep more or less space. It only spreads more or less (depending if you believe that). Again it only gets more lethal if health services cant cope like in Italy. That is not the case in the rest of Europe or the Uk.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Assurancetourix said:

What will be most interesting and instructive will be the final count of the deaths actually due to Covid-19 compared to the number of deaths due
--to seasonal flu,
--pathologies due to the great age of the populations,
--to the natural dead ...

 

I am ready to eat my hat that we will discover that in fact this Covid-19 as contagious as it is, is or was in fact not much in relation to the causes that I cite above.

 

Never forget that in Italy but also certainly in all the other countries of the world that the immense majority of the dead are elderly or very old people, already at the end of life and who had one to 3 serious pathologies.
The Covid only accelerated their death but is in no way the cause of this death.

 

It remains to be seen whether this post-Covid study will be done intelligently or biased, which is generally the case in countries where we do not want to recognize that we were wrong from the start.

What a load of rubbish!

[Logosone]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

What I am saying is that the virus is equally deadly always.

 

Wrong.