9,374 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

Smoothed out, it peaked at 100 around day 44 and is at 80 on day 51.   80 < 100.   Not sure why you don't think the numbers have trended lower.    The curve looks similar to other countries curves.  

 

If the deaths per week variable makes new high, it is safe to conclude that this past week was an aberration rather than a change of trend.  

 

If the trend continues lower, it would makes the case for opening things up in some other countries a bit stronger.  

The point here is that at best they have a plateau, at worst it will still grow. Definitely too early to see going down. The daily reporting there is so chaotic that even with strong smoothing it is hard to see where the true peak is, if it was reached at all. Example: on the 24th of May they reported 131 deaths and on the 26th of May they reported 2 (!!!!) deaths.

 

Looking at the graph you could also just be seeing a repeat of days 27-33 (x axis), meaning a new peak could come next. Let's give it a week before drawing conclusions. And let's not forget that Sweden is one of the worst countries in terms of testing, so there should be plenty of cases and deaths unidentified.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

 

Erm...and save lives.

 

 

Yea but the main point of it is the healthcare system not with the deaths.

As much as we like to think they wouldn`t the govts would put up with the amount of deaths if people who didn`t die from it didn`t need hospitalisation.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

 

Looking at the graph you could also just be seeing a repeat of days 27-33 (x axis), meaning a new peak could come next. Let's give it a week before drawing conclusions.

 

Could be - and i will keep a close eye on it.   I am not married to the idea that Sweden's approach was correct, but will be optimistic if the trend continues downward.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fraufruit said:

 

Erm...and save lives.

 

 

 

Yes, which they would be unable to do if overtaxed. I take your point, but it is A then B then C. If we flatten the curve, the hospitals can manage their caseload. If they can manage their caseload, more patients live.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

Could be - and i will keep a close eye on it.   I am not married to the idea that Sweden's approach was correct, but will be optimistic if the trend continues downward.  

 

Maybe they are right, and they will gain herd immunity and be in better shape when a potential second wave comes. In the meantime, with their saturation of the health service, this is a complete failure of their state to the elderly people:

 

https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/sweden-leaving-elder-covid19-patients-to-die-care-worker-says

Quote

Nursing homes are offering morphine to elder COVID-19 patients instead of admitting them to hospitals and providing ventilators, one care worker has said, noting that such treatment results in a painful death.

 

But if this continues to grow, maybe they are right, a second wave won't kill many, as those who could die from it are already dead!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

But if this continues to grow, maybe they are right, a second wave won't kill many, as those who could die from it are already dead!

You can't be serious, so I hope you're being sarcastic.
For your future use:

Sarchasm.png.0158ed25744ff08ef5b2a7aace1

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, katheliz said:

You can't be serious, so I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

As a SW guy I should use <sarcasm/>

 

On a more serious note, I don't think the Swedish authorities thought on an important topic: if they do achieve herd immunity and they keep the infection rate controlled by that, they might not be allowed to travel outside their country for a long time. Because the rest of Europe will not have herd immunity (if that is even attainable) for a year or more.

Nobody will want potential carriers from Sweden. This will be a headache in a few months, when travel restrictions relax (and, of course, if(!) herd immunity is achieved in Sweden). Can they keep Sweden out? 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

But if this continues to grow, maybe they are right, a second wave won't kill many, as those who could die from it are already dead!

 

In my opinion, worldometer, or some other website, needs to start start tracking death from all causes in every country because policy will be a matter of tradeoffs.    

 

If society shuts down too long resulting in unslaughtered livestock, unmiliked cows, and unpicked fruits and vegetables,  there will be  a food crisis.   If the economy is damaged too much and there is mass unemployment + bankruptcies, we will see social unrest.   

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

 

But if this continues to grow, maybe they are right, a second wave won't kill many, as those who could die from it are already dead!

 

13 hours ago, katheliz said:

You can't be serious, so I hope you're being sarcastic.

I´m afraid it´s a proper description of what might very well happen if they don´t manage to protect the elderly - no sarcasm needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, balticus said:

In my opinion, worldometer, or some other website, needs to start start tracking death from all causes in every country because policy will be a matter of tradeoffs. 

That would require all countries to report deaths from covid 19 separetely from death with coronavirus. That doesn´t happen though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jeba said:

That would require all countries to report deaths from covid 19 separetely from death with coronavirus. That doesn´t happen though.

 

In case it is not clear what the target is.   My view is that policy should not be singularly focused on COVID-19, but rather look at the least worst or optimal outcome.   If COVID-19 is completely stopped, but people are starving or dropping dead because elective surgeries have been delayed too long, then the decision making has not considered enough variables.  

 

We will know whose policies weighted the variables properly when we see how much each country diverges from expected deaths and not just COVID-19 deaths.  

 

I spoke with someone in the US yesterday who told me that there are hospitals in flyover country which are furloughing workers because elective surgeries are not allowed.   In addition, hospitals can treat COVID-19 patients and have payments guaranteed for COVID-19 patients and casualties, so, surprise, surprise!  everything under the sun is being reclassified as a COVID-19 case.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure - another variation of the "COVID deaths are being overreported to make Trump look bad" excuse.

 

Sorry, not buying it.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Yeah, sure - another variation of the "COVID deaths are being overreported to make Trump look bad" excuse.

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

You will need to think about the second and third order effects of the virus and the lockdowns rather than just indulging in intellectually lazy TDS.    It goes way beyond Trump.   Don't be so provincial.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Yeah, sure - another variation of the "COVID deaths are being overreported to make Trump look bad" excuse.

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

The fuzzy math comes from the fuzzy math man who is not a epidemiology expert.
 

Quote

President Trump’s habit of promising unrealistically low casualty counts is one of the more inexplicable unforced errors in the administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. “One is too many,” he said on April 20, “but we’re going toward 50 or 60,000 people.” Just four days later, the number of confirmed deaths had already exceeded 50,000. A few days after that, he tacked on another 10,000 to the upper and lower bound, saying, “we’re probably heading to 60,000, 70,000.” That figure is already moot.

Trump’s normal sales pitch is to juxtapose his results against a horrific alternative. He routinely says that, had he not been elected, the economy would have collapsed, the U.S. would have gone to war with North Korea, and so on. Why, this time, did he establish a target he couldn’t meet? Indeed, why did he throw out numbers that were obviously going to be exceeded very quickly?

A chief culprit in the blunder turns out to be Kevin Hassett, the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Despite having no expertise in epidemiology, Hassett designed his own model and “White House aides interpreted the analysis as predicting that the daily death count would peak in mid-April before dropping off substantially, and that there would be far fewer fatalities than initially foreseen,” reports the Washington Post.

Hassett denies that his model projected death counts, but other officials insist “his presentations characterized the count as lower than commonly forecast,” and was embraced by Jared Kushner and other Trump officials eager to downplay the pandemic’s severity and justify scaling back social-distancing measures faster than public-health experts advised. At minimum, Hassett’s model gave support to the administration’s most unqualified and irresponsible officials.

Hassett’s role in the debacle is one of its less surprising developments. Throughout the course of the coronavirus saga, the supply-siders have anchored the administration’s anti-public-health wing. Supply-siders are a conservative sect fanatically devoted to the reduction of top-level tax rates. They dismiss standard economic thought, circulating affirmations of their creed in their own lavishly funded ecosystem of think tanks, op-eds, and books.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jeba said:

 

I´m afraid it´s a proper description of what might very well happen if they don´t manage to protect the elderly - no sarcasm needed.

I don't read it as you do, @jeba. I interpret Melba's remark this way: If those who might die have already died, then there isn't anyone left who is in danger.

Well, at my age and with my co-morbidities, I'm one of those who could easily die. And I don't feel alone. That's why I responded as I did.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2010418?query=featured_coronavirus

Increased Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest during the Covid-19 Outbreak in Italy

 

"During the study period in 2020, a total of 9806 cases of Covid-19 were reported in the study territory. During this period, 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were identified, as compared with 229 cases identified during the same period in 2019 (a 58% increase). Increases of various magnitudes in the numbers of cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were seen in all four provinces. The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, "

 

Another side effect of corona?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, katheliz said:

Well, at my age and with my co-morbidities, I'm one of those who could easily die. And I don't feel alone. That's why I responded as I did.

 

There are tradeoffs.   How much are you willing to crush your grandkids and great-grandkids to live a few years longer?

 

Nobody here wants you to die, though fraufruit and a couple of other regulars might raise your rent and hire Lawyers to intimidate you if they thought you were taking too long to vacate a rental of theirs thus keeping them from increasing the rent, revenue stream and thus resale value of the rental.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.5.2020, 13:28:03, fraufruit said:

... when nobody is traveling or not allowed to travel?

 

At least very few.  I was at our local flying club yesterday & ome member who is a captain & examiner with Eurowings was stood there.

I asked him "when did you last fly".  The answer was "yesterday" i.e. 1st May HAM => PMI & back.  Not many on board (at least for the outward journey).

I guess commercial pilots also have issues adhering to the rule "3 flights in the last 90 days".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now