No respect! US deaths by population vs deaths by positive case count

farang51 · August 5, 2020

51 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's barely noticeable in the case of Sweden because Sweden has a tiny population and 0.05% of a tiny population is a very small figure.

Sweden is perfectly fine. A figure of 0.05% of population, in the case of Sweden, is a very low number of people.

You keep misleading by using a low number. Using that way of counting the deaths, every country in the world is perfectly fine. Most are much finer that Sweden - Germany is at 0.01%.

You didn't answer my question:

How many deaths would a country have to have from the virus before you would deem it too many? Is 0.06% still fine? 0.5%, 1%, 10%, 50%? When is it too much in your opinion?

Logosone · August 5, 2020

2 hours ago, farang51 said:

You keep misleading by using a low number. Using that way of counting the deaths, every country in the world is perfectly fine. Most are much finer that Sweden - Germany is at 0.01%.

You didn't answer my question:

How many deaths would a country have to have from the virus before you would deem it too many? Is 0.06% still fine? 0.5%, 1%, 10%, 50%? When is it too much in your opinion?

How is it misleading to use the actual correct figures, you talk strange things.

Of course Germany is even finer, Germany had among the best responses to the pandemic of any country in the world. Doesn't change the fact that Sweden is in perfectly good shape.

The critical number obviously varies from country to country.

farang51 · August 5, 2020

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

How is it misleading to use the actual correct figures, you talk strange things.

The critical number obviously varies from country to country.

I do not believe that you cannot see why it is misleading; you use that number on purpose to try to minimize the death toll.

Why does the critical number vary from country to country?

Anyway, let's start with Sweden, what is the limit for what is an acceptal death count in Sweden? 0,06%, 0,5%, 1%, 10%, 50%?

Logosone · August 5, 2020

32 minutes ago, farang51 said:

I do not believe that you cannot see why it is misleading; you use that number on purpose to try to minimize the death toll.

Why does the critical number vary from country to country?

Anyway, let's start with Sweden, what is the limit for what is an acceptal death count in Sweden? 0,06%, 0,5%, 1%, 10%, 50%?

Not at all, it just happens to be the correct percentage of people who have died in the population of Sweden, 0.05%.

Because countries have different population sizes, hence in one country 3% could be a huge number, in Sweden it would 300,000 people, in the USA it would be almost 10 million people.

It's not a question of what is "acceptable" or not, you have to accept whatever happens. However, if you mean what would be a critical and problematic death toll, in Sweden, 300,000 people, so 3% would be problematic.

farang51 · August 5, 2020

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Because countries have different population sizes, hence in one country 3% could be a huge number, in Sweden it would 300,000 people, in the USA it would be almost 10 million people.

It's not a question of what is "acceptable" or not, you have to accept whatever happens. However, if you mean what would be a critical and problematic death toll, in Sweden, 300,000 people, so 3% would be problematic.

So what. 3% is 3% even if you don't like huge numbers. For a Swede, 300.000 would be just as bad as 10.000.000 for an American.

Besides if we should follow your logic: 0,05% of the world population is some 30 million - much more than the 10 million a 3% death count in the USA would mean and which you apparently find too much.

Logosone · August 5, 2020

10 minutes ago, farang51 said:

So what. 3% is 3% even if you don't like huge numbers. For a Swede, 300.000 would be just as bad as 10.000.000 for an American.

Besides if we should follow your logic: 0,05% of the world population is some 30 million - much more than the 10 million a 3% death count in the USA would mean and which you apparently find too much.

No, 10 million would be far worse for Americans than 300,000 in Sweden. See, 10 million is a far larger number.

I don't follow your logic, 0.05% of world population is not 30 million, it is 3.9 million. It's actually less than 10 million by quite a margin.

farang51 · August 5, 2020

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, 10 million would be far worse for Americans than 300,000 in Sweden. See, 10 million is a far larger number.

I don't follow your logic, 0.05% of world population is not 30 million, it is 3.9 million. It's actually less than 10 million by quite a margin.

My bad, I didn't check the current population - we are more than I thought - and I missed a decimal when I calculated.

Anyway, a larger fixed number doesn't matter when comparing Sweden and the USA. 3% is 3%. If you don't understand that, you are missing more than the decimal I missed in my calculation.

Logosone · August 5, 2020

4 minutes ago, farang51 said:

My bad, I didn't check the current population - we are more than I thought - and I missed a decimal when I calculated.

Anyway, a larger fixed number doesn't matter when comparing Sweden and the USA. 3% is 3%. If you don't understand that, you are missing more than the decimal I missed in my calculation.

No, see whilst 3% is indeed 3%, I'm afraid a figure of 10 million is very different in significance to a figure of 300,000 based on context. In the US there are 1 million doctors in Sweden there are 43,000 doctors.

If the US lose 3% of their doctors they lose 30,000 doctors. If Sweden loses 3% of its doctors, they lose 1290 doctors.

Losing 30,000 doctors with 328 million potential patients is clearly a lot worse than losing 1290 doctors with 10 million patients. Do you see the difference? Hence 10 million lost in the USA is much more of a problem than 300,000 lost in Sweden.

Rookiescot · August 5, 2020

Dont worry about it guys.

He's a single term president.

Normal transmission will be resumed soon.

asiacurious · August 5, 2020

Logo... it sounds and feels like a very significant difference because 10M is certainly a much larger number than 300K, but the reality is there is no difference at all in terms of impact.

Take your doctor example. You say there are:

Sweden - 30,000 doctors for 10,000,000 people, or 1 doctor for every 333 people
US - 1,000,000 doctors for 333,333,333 people, or 1 doctor for every 333 people
(NOTE you used 328M, but if 10M deaths equals 3% of US population, then that population would have to be 333,333,333 people, so that's the number I'll use.)

As I show above, both countries have the same ratio doctors to people - 1 Doctor for every 333 people.

If both countries lose the same percentage of Doctors - 3%, then:

Sweden - 30,000 x .03 = 900 dead doctors and 29,100 living doctors
US - 10,000,000 x .03 = 30000 dead doctors and 970,000 living doctors

So how many doctors per person are there for each country after 3% of the doctors have died?

Sweden - 29,100 living doctors for 9,999,100 living people is 9,999,100 ÷ 29,100 = 1 doctor for every 343.61 people
US - 970,000 living doctors for 333,303,333 living people is 333,303,333 ÷ 970,000 living people = 1 doctor for every 343.61 people

The ratio of Doctors to People is exactly the same. So yes, it sounds and feels like loosing 30,000 doctors is much harder for a country to handle than losing 900 doctors because there are 29,100 more dead in the US than Sweden in this example, but the actual impact to the country is exactly the same. There are exactly the same number fewer doctors per person in each country.

eppic · August 5, 2020

Trump is a dimwit voted in by other dimwits (I believe less than 25% of eligible voters actually voted for him, and he obviously lost the popular vote by 3m votes, so does not represent the will of the people).

As a former loyal Republican voter (pre-Trump, the party is a disgrace now), I can confidently say he is by far the worst, most embarrassing, morally corrupt buffoon to ever come near the white house...a complete blithering idiot (shock to no one).

He completely effed up the virus and yes someone new would make a difference (just ask people to wear masks, not to drink bleach!).

And what people are missing about Sweden....the pandemic is essentially OVER for them! Yes, they had higher deaths early on, but shouldn't that be obvious without a shutdown? The goal was not to eliminate deaths but flatten the curve to avoid health system overload. Sweden did that and deaths are now basically nil, cases plunging, and people can go along with their lives. Vaccine? We don't need no stinkin' vaccine! (for Blazing Saddles fans).

Anywhere else in Europe (or USA), forget about it! Expect continued flareups and random shutdowns. Meanwhile, Sweden back to normal, schools open, no masks, public transport open -- at the cost of a some 80-year-old lives (how many actual years lost? Life expectancy is similar to average age of Covid fatality).

Still early, but evidence so far suggests they got it right

Edited August 5, 2020 by eppic

Logosone · August 5, 2020

56 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

Take your doctor example. You say there are:

Sweden - 30,000 doctors for 10,000,000 people, or 1 doctor for every 333 people

US - 1,000,000 doctors for 333,333,333 people, or 1 doctor for every 333 people
(NOTE you used 328M, but if 10M deaths equals 3% of US population, then that population would have to be 333,333,333 people, so that's the number I'll use.)

As I show above, both countries have the same ratio doctors to people - 1 Doctor for every 333 people.

If both countries lose the same percentage of Doctors - 3%, then:

Sweden - 30,000 x .03 = 900 dead doctors and 29,100 living doctors

US - 10,000,000 x .03 = 30000 dead doctors and 970,000 living doctors

So how many doctors per person are there for each country after 3% of the doctors have died?

Sweden - 29,100 living doctors for 9,999,100 living people is 9,999,100 ÷ 29,100 = 1 doctor for every 343.61 people

US - 970,000 living doctors for 333,303,333 living people is 333,303,333 ÷ 970,000 living people = 1 doctor for every 343.61 people

The ratio of Doctors to People is exactly the same. So yes, it sounds and feels like loosing 30,000 doctors is much harder for a country to handle than losing 900 doctors because there are 29,100 more dead in the US than Sweden in this example, but the actual impact to the country is exactly the same. There are exactly the same number fewer doctors per person in each country.

No. Sweden has 43000 doctors, less 1290 as the 3% loss, so 41710 doctors or 1 doctor per 244 (10.2 million / 41710).

The US, let's take the 333,303,333 figure, that's fine, has 1 million doctors but loses 3%, so is left with 970,000 doctors, or 1 doctor per 343. So not exactly the same. In fact because the US has a much bigger population the large number of 1 million doctors was a lower figure per capita than Sweden to start with. Therefore losing 3% means in the case of the US that 100 inhabitants more share a doctor, so that is 30% less doctor per inhabitant coverage.

Clearly the US is in a worse position than Sweden, though both lost 3% of doctors. See, context matters.

Now imagine that figure were applied to Pakistan or Syria. Context matters.

geriatrickid · August 5, 2020

23 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

The problems with any statistics is that any can be twisted for your own personal agenda. My agenda is stop criticizing the countries reporting high figures that are being more honest and doing the testing they are supposed to be doing - if only belatedly

USA far as I can see has done 61,000,000 tests for 331,000,000 people, or say 20% of the population

Thailand has done 750,000 tests for 69,000,00 people, or say 1%

UK has - basically same size as Thailand - had done 17,000,000 test or 25% of population.

NO tests = pat on the back currently.

I'm no great fan of Trump, but the guy is probably going nuts (some will argue he is already) with all these BLM nutters, covid and related unemployment. Anyone thinking 'a new guy' will change anything , is madder than Trump

One important characteristic about the USA testing is that these are not individual patients.

A patient can typically be tested 3X; First for diagnosis, 2nd time to verify if infection has cleared and 3rd time to see if 2nd test result was accurate. Then there are the industries who are testing multiple times in a week (e.g. MLB, NBA, White House, some first responder departments at the epicenter) and then there are regular screenings of essential workers. Food and pharmaceutical manufacturers have started to test employees regularly. Also testing is income influenced with the lower risk wealthier people testing more frequently, while the at risk poorer demographic is unlikely to be tested due to difficulty of access to affordable tests.

The end result is that the 60million + tests, is more likely to be in the range of 30-40 million of individual patients. And while the USA deserves the criticism, other countries are not any better in their approach. Canada, despite its promises of mass testing, has not offered random, easy access to testing, usually forcing people to first obtain an appointment to justify the test. Australia hasn't made testing easy either, and the UK has really bungled its testing program.

Boomer6969 · August 5, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 11:02 PM, samsensam said:

he's been in the job four years and he's still hopeless, he can't coherently explain anything. but hey people voted for him and continue to support him. absolutely bizarre.

US new (ab)normal.

geriatrickid · August 5, 2020

58 minutes ago, eppic said:

Trump is a dimwit voted in by other dimwits (I believe less than 25% of eligible voters actually voted for him, and he obviously lost the popular vote by 3m votes, so does not represent the will of the people).

As a former loyal Republican voter (pre-Trump, the party is a disgrace now), I can confidently say he is by far the worst, most embarrassing, morally corrupt buffoon to ever come near the white house...a complete blithering idiot (shock to no one).

He completely effed up the virus and yes someone new would make a difference (just ask people to wear masks, not to drink bleach!).

And what people are missing about Sweden....the pandemic is essentially OVER for them! Yes, they had higher deaths early on, but shouldn't that be obvious without a shutdown? The goal was not to eliminate deaths but flatten the curve to avoid health system overload. Sweden did that and deaths are now basically nil, cases plunging, and people can go along with their lives. Vaccine? We don't need no stinkin' vaccine! (for Blazing Saddles fans).

Anywhere else in Europe (or USA), forget about it! Expect continued flareups and random shutdowns. Meanwhile, Sweden back to normal, schools open, no masks, public transport open -- at the cost of a some 80-year-old lives (how many actual years lost? Life expectancy is similar to average age of Covid fatality).

Still early, but evidence so far suggests they got it right

How is the Pandemic over for Sweden? It is in check for Denmark, Finland and Norway and they are reporting far fewer cases and have far fewer patients in ICU.

Sweden has diagnosed 1118+ cases in the past 4 days.

What world do you live in when you dismiss the health damage as the loss of some "80 year olds"?

It is an established medical fact that a Covid19 infection leaves patients with physical damage resulting from mild inflammatory damage that will resolve with time, to significant damage such as heart inflammation and blood clotting disorders.

As each month passes, we are discovering new more sobering aspects of the infection. The concern is not the fatalities. Rather it is the time it takes to recover and the impact the infection has on the human body. The issue here is the damage it does to middle aged people. While you were in the land of the denial, the data shows that the "expensive" at risk group is the 40-60 year olds and that the economic damage is done when these people are not working. If only it was just some 80 year olds dying. They are easier to manage because they will die, usually quickly. The younger patients, linger and report the complications.

And btw, Sweden still has some strict social distancing rules, tougher than the USA.

Sweden did not need a mandated lockdown, because the Swedes did it themselves. They were a responsible society complained to the me first selfish people in some other places. Also Sweden's social benefits programs encouraged people to stay off work if ill. In the USA, India, Brazil etc., if you don't work you do not get paid.

During the months of March to early June, all shops were practically empty, people stopped dining with friends, and families stopped seeing even their closest relatives," Furberg told MedPage Today. "A lock-down could not have been more effective. Handwashing, excessive use of hand sanitizers, and staying home at the first sign of a cold became the new normal very quickly."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812

Edited August 5, 2020 by geriatrickid

asiacurious · August 5, 2020

38 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No. Sweden has 43000 doctors, less 1290 as the 3% loss, so 41710 doctors or 1 doctor per 244 (10.2 million / 41710).

The US, let's take the 333,303,333 figure, that's fine, has 1 million doctors but loses 3%, so is left with 970,000 doctors, or 1 doctor per 343. So not exactly the same. In fact because the US has a much bigger population the large number of 1 million doctors was a lower figure per capita than Sweden to start with. Therefore losing 3% means in the case of the US that 100 inhabitants more share a doctor, so that is 30% less doctor per inhabitant coverage.

Clearly the US is in a worse position than Sweden, though both lost 3% of doctors. See, context matters.

Now imagine that figure were applied to Pakistan or Syria. Context matters.

Yes, I misread your post. I also failed to include deaths in the population! I only included 3% loss of doctors and failed to include the 3% loss of general population. Here is the revision. If I made errors, let me know.

The numbers:

No difference between the two nations. A 3% loss is a 3% loss. It sounds and feels like a larger loss in the US than in Sweden (and it is in sheer numbers) but in terms of impact it is the same.

The formulas used:

eppic · August 5, 2020

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

How is the Pandemic over for Sweden? It is in check for Denmark, Finland and Norway and they are reporting far fewer cases and have far fewer patients in ICU.

Sweden has diagnosed 1118+ cases in the past 4 days.

What world do you live in when you dismiss the health damage as the loss of some "80 year olds"?

It is an established medical fact that a Covid19 infection leaves patients with physical damage resulting from mild inflammatory damage that will resolve with time, to significant damage such as heart inflammation and blood clotting disorders.

As each month passes, we are discovering new more sobering aspects of the infection. The concern is not the fatalities. Rather it is the time it takes to recover and the impact the infection has on the human body. The issue here is the damage it does to middle aged people. While you were in the land of the denial, the data shows that the "expensive" at risk group is the 40-60 year olds and that the economic damage is done when these people are not working. If only it was just some 80 year olds dying. They are easier to manage because they will die, usually quickly. The younger patients, linger and report the complications.

And btw, Sweden still has some strict social distancing rules, tougher than the USA.

Sweden did not need a mandated lockdown, because the Swedes did it themselves. They were a responsible society complained to the me first selfish people in some other places. Also Sweden's social benefits programs encouraged people to stay off work if ill. In the USA, India, Brazil etc., if you don't work you do not get paid.

During the months of March to early June, all shops were practically empty, people stopped dining with friends, and families stopped seeing even their closest relatives," Furberg told MedPage Today. "A lock-down could not have been more effective. Handwashing, excessive use of hand sanitizers, and staying home at the first sign of a cold became the new normal very quickly."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812

Lots of nonsense here, but how about this: Sweden average daily deaths in August? 2. Yup, two. 1000 cases in 4 days (and declining!) will lead to how many new deaths? A few, at most.

Is an 80-yr old bedridden person's life (with life expectancy of a couple of years) worth the same as a child's life? Nope, not even close, and about 2/3 of the deaths in Sweden were for over 80's, distorting the statistics (they did a poor job in eldercare homes and should have done much better, but elsewhere very well).

How about this:

New infections per 100,000 people in Sweden reported in the past 14 days has dropped 46 percent, compared to that reported in the 14 days prior, according to the latest report Sunday from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Meanwhile, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands have each reported a spike between 58 and 206 percent in new cases reported per 100,000 people in the past two weeks, compared to that reported 14 days prior, according to the WHO.

New cases in Sweden's Scandinavian neighbors (Denmark, Norway and Finland) have increased by as much as around three times the percentage drop in new cases seen in Sweden in the past two weeks, according to the WHO.

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-covid-19-death-rate-lower-spain-italy-uk-despite-never-having-lockdown-1522306

Sweden's economy also suffered much less and it's children were able to attend school. The world can't remain locked down forever, but Europe and the US (or how about Philippines? Complete lockdown again!) have accelerating cases and lockdowns have proven only very temporary effectiveness. Let's see if Sweden has another major wave, but it's looking unlikely so death statistics need to be looked at in the longer term context and compared to economic, mental health and social damage of draconian lockdowns.

My last comments on the matter (and yes, Trump is still a moron)

Edited August 5, 2020 by eppic

Scott · August 5, 2020

Please stay on topic. Comparisons are acceptable, but long discussions about other countries is off-topic.

stretch5163 · August 6, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 10:38 PM, marc26 said:

"A new guy" will actually listen to the silence, a new guy won't continue say "it will go away", a new guy won't refuse to accept facts

How do you know this ?

Edited August 6, 2020 by stretch5163
missed text

geriatrickid · August 6, 2020

9 hours ago, eppic said:

Lots of nonsense here, but how about this: Sweden average daily deaths in August? 2. Yup, two. 1000 cases in 4 days (and declining!) will lead to how many new deaths? A few, at most.

Is an 80-yr old bedridden person's life (with life expectancy of a couple of years) worth the same as a child's life? Nope, not even close, and about 2/3 of the deaths in Sweden were for over 80's, distorting the statistics (they did a poor job in eldercare homes and should have done much better, but elsewhere very well).

How about this:

New infections per 100,000 people in Sweden reported in the past 14 days has dropped 46 percent, compared to that reported in the 14 days prior, according to the latest report Sunday from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Meanwhile, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands have each reported a spike between 58 and 206 percent in new cases reported per 100,000 people in the past two weeks, compared to that reported 14 days prior, according to the WHO.

New cases in Sweden's Scandinavian neighbors (Denmark, Norway and Finland) have increased by as much as around three times the percentage drop in new cases seen in Sweden in the past two weeks, according to the WHO.

https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-covid-19-death-rate-lower-spain-italy-uk-despite-never-having-lockdown-1522306

Sweden's economy also suffered much less and it's children were able to attend school. The world can't remain locked down forever, but Europe and the US (or how about Philippines? Complete lockdown again!) have accelerating cases and lockdowns have proven only very temporary effectiveness. Let's see if Sweden has another major wave, but it's looking unlikely so death statistics need to be looked at in the longer term context and compared to economic, mental health and social damage of draconian lockdowns.

My last comments on the matter (and yes, Trump is still a moron)

There is no nonsense. I obtained my data from the daily case reports to WHO as submitted by Sweden. You are making the same errors as Mr. Trump with improper comparisons, because you rely on percentages. You do not recognize the actual case loads and are using your personal imagined interpretation of the data to promote your personal political agenda which sees enhanced social distancing measures as draconian lock downs.

Like trump, you are fixated on fatalities. The cost of an infection is determined by additional factors such as the cost of care and the indirect impact that illness has on others.

Get it through your head, that there was never a full lock down in the USA. At best in some states, there were restrictions on large public gatherings, and retail outlet activity and the closures of bars and dining rooms of restaurants. Essential services continued. manufacturing continued. The reason why food prices have spiked in the USA is due to the large numbers of workers becoming ill. Food processing plants closed, not because of any lockdown, but because of contagion and mass sickness in the work force. People no longer wish to travel in the USA because they perceive it as being too dangerous, not because of any lockdown.

Led by Trump, a sizable minority see masks and social distancing as an infringement of their personal liberty, and not as a logical, low cost measure to manage a contagious disease. They are bullying the rest of society and at some point there will be a backlash the likes the USA has not seen since the 1960's and it will get violent.

asiacurious · August 6, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 1:08 PM, marc26 said:

"A new guy" will actually listen to the silence, a new guy won't continue say "it will go away", a new guy won't refuse to accept facts

4 hours ago, stretch5163 said:

How do you know this ?

I'll have a go at a reply...

The only "new guy" who has a shot at becoming president right now is Biden, and he has clearly been listening to the science and has accepted the harsh reality of the situation.

izod10 · August 6, 2020

This needs putting in perspective,just who are being infected?is it an overwhelming majority or certain classes/religions/race? now that would be more appropiate

As for UK indeed it is clear where most of the infection rates are occurring,and does give a guidance of the people to avoid,(which should not be hard)

DaveK68 · August 7, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 12:43 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The two different statistics are legitimate measurements, but they mean very different things.

--The per capita death toll from CV (which probably gets more attention from experts) is the share of someplace's population that has died from the virus. As in, just how bad things are.

--The deaths as a proportion of CV cases is a measurement of how many people die among those who are infected with the CV.... That's not so much an indicator of how good or bad a country is doing, but moreso of how well a country's medical system and population is doing at keeping infected people alive.

And of course, Trump was lying/misleading with his own stats anyway, as is his custom:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/04/trump-tells-axios-rising-covid-19-death-toll-is-what-is/5579765002/

If the US Population is 328.2 Million and CV deaths are 159Gs

US has a .00048 death rate.

If UK has a population of 66.5 Million and CV deaths are 46.4Gs.

UK has a .00069 death rate.

If Trump sucks...what does that say about Brit leadership. lol

According to google, Cambodia has somewhere between 0 and 10 deaths from Covid. They must be freakin' geniuses in that joint. lol

Making covid political is f*cking stupid and probably has contributed to the global death rate.

Countries that use hydroxychloriquine early in treatment have a much lower overall death rate.

But since Trump mentioned it and we must hate everything that is remotely related to Trump, hydroxychloriquine is evil.

Can people be any more stupid?

Perhaps...

Trump is an idiot. The bigger idiots are the fools who are obsessed with him. They are the biggest f*cking morons on the planet. Trump will have had, at most, 8 years. After that, he goes away. Obsessing over him is infantile and, well, just plain <deleted> stupid. It's as stupid as the people who obsess over him believe that Trump is.

Pull your heads out of your asses.

papa al · August 7, 2020

Biden will save the day.

TallGuyJohninBKK · August 7, 2020

15 hours ago, DaveK68 said:

US has a .00048 death rate.

Tell that to the 158,000+ dead Americans and counting, their families, friends, co-workers.

The US "leads" the world in CV deaths, and is in the top 10 of countries based on per capita CV deaths. And we're nowhere near done counting yet. CV will be the third leading cause of death in the U.S. this year, after only cancer and heart disease.

It didn't have to be that way, but Trump is a major reason it is, and all the economic damage and costs that will flow from that... because he couldn't and wouldn't take the virus seriously, and mobilize a national effort to keep things from spiraling out of control.

He is to blame (not for the virus itself, but for the failed US response to it), and there's no way around that. He's cost the U.S. dearly, both in terms of lives and treasure. And he's either too stupid to know it, or just doesn't care.

Edited August 7, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

rvaviator · August 7, 2020

On 8/5/2020 at 3:08 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Per capita (per 100K population) CV deaths with other more like countries:

Sweden 56.41

Netherlands 35.8

Switzerland 23.26

Luxembourg 19.42

Denmark 10.63

Norway 4.82

Sweden isn't looking so good, notwithstanding your diversions.

And by comparison, Sweden has already suffered more than twice the number of deaths from CV than it suffered in all of WW II.... And even adjusted for population growth since WW II, still more CV deaths on a relative basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths_by_country

You do know that Sweden did not fight in WWII ... 'Neutral country' ... So not sure how relevant that comparison is ...

TallGuyJohninBKK · August 7, 2020

15 hours ago, rvaviator said:

You do know that Sweden did not fight in WWII ... 'Neutral country' ... So not sure how relevant that comparison is ...

I never said they did. But it's a nice way of trying to ignore the fact that Sweden has up to a 10 times higher CV per capita death rate than its neighboring countries.

Edited August 7, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

Snow Leopard · August 7, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 10:59 PM, asiacurious said:

Here's the FULL interview, which I had not realized was posted to Youtube by HBO....

Posted on YouTube by HBO. I had to pause a moment and think about that fact.

rvaviator · August 7, 2020

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I never said they did. But it's a nice way of trying to ignore the fact that Sweden has up to a 10 times higher CV per capita death rate than its neighboring countries.

Sweden acknowledges that they should have looked after the elderly in care home better ... The care workers / staff brought the illness with them ... They were never 'locked down' with them but 'free' to return home after work ....

Scott · August 9, 2020

A post from an unapproved source has been removed along with replies.

Sign In

No respect! US deaths by population vs deaths by positive case count

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US