sydthebeat wrote: » "Probably".... When I see this is a statement it makes what comes afterwards worthless
Glenomra wrote: » Becoming more obvious every day that Sweden avoided the hysteria and implemented a sensible policy.
jibber5000 wrote: » We know for a fact that in Ireland >90% of those that died have 0% chance of 10 year survival. No reason why would be different there.
biko wrote: » It's way too early to tell if Sweden's policy is good or not for their economy.
wakka12 wrote: » I dont see how this is obvious at all, over 1050 people have died in Sweden in the last 14 days
biko wrote: » https://c19.se/ 13329 cases 1442 dead death rate 10.8%
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » All of them very old or compromised in other health issues
Cyrus wrote: » What will become apparent is that the number of deaths in 2020 is probably not any higher than many other recent years
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » Well it definitely won’t damage their economy
Asked about the Danish government's closing of their borders (and most dramatically The Bridge connecting the two countries), Carlson answered that it was a political decision that makes no difference epidemiologically. In other words, it was political gesturing. (As a footnote, whereas in the UK it is Downing Street holding daily press conferences, in Sweden it is the Public Health Agency.) As in many countries, politics in Sweden is usually a tiresome round of point scoring. But not now. Despite the fragility of the present coalition, the other parties are showing a fairy-tale level of unanimity. The opposition could easily win a few points by comparing the number of deaths in Sweden to other Nordic countries – the differences are significant – but they don't.
wakka12 wrote: » And? A fraction of that number of people who are old and with health issues would have died within the last two weeks in a typical year, influenza and pneumonia kills 1000 swedes in an entire year, this has done more than that in 14 days Though it does have to be said Ireland has lost considerably more citizens in the last 14 days to COVID than would die from influenza in an entire year also despite the lockdown
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » If this is success i'd hate to see what failure looks like
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » Add in Spain, Italy, USA and China’s real figures and post again
Akrasia wrote: » Why? Probably means 'most likely' so its something that is very likely to happen but not guaranteed Given that the future is not certain, you should be more concerned by someone saying something will definitely happen because 99% of the time they are overstating the likelyhood According to many, Liverpool were 'definitely' gonna win the premiership this year but now its uncertain if there will be any winner this year, it could be decided by lawyers
sydthebeat wrote: » What a very, very strange statement to pull directly out of your hole. When did we start triaging cases on a "likely to live more than ten years" basis?? Do you work for a pension company by any chance??
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » So, your argument is that Sweden has not implemented the same level of lock down measures (they actually do have counter measures incidentally) and that somehow this has restricted transmission to a greater extent than those who have? Is that your argument?
jibber5000 wrote: » Now stay with me here. 9% of those who have died here did so in Intensive care units. Thus 91% died in wards or community. When assessing whether a patient should go to ICU a score called the charlson comorbidity index is used. If that score is 0% 10 year survival, a patient will not be intubated. In fact an anesthesist will likely not even assess the patient. This will be assessed when a patient comes into ED with a likely covid infection. So approx 91% of those who died were assessed by some medical professional and felt due to age and co morbidities that they were not fit for ICU. This should be done by using the CCMI. Does that makes sense?
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » The people who have died were very old or in poor health or exposed to huge volumes of the virus. No need for the whole economy to be shut down, ridiculous over reaction with huge mental health and financial consequences for the majority who would have gotten over the virus with relative ease by the looks of things.
sydthebeat wrote: » Because, in the context of the post I quoted, the poster is basing it on nothing but opinion. I have no problem with someone saying "x will probably because (insert evidence for argument).... In your case above, Liverpool would probably have won the league because they were 25 points ahead. Leinster would probably have won the pro 14 as they were unbeaten. But it give a bland statement based on a "probably" with no reason for the opinion, then it renders the statement worthless. ALL previous pandemics increased the death rate.... Why would this one be any different. Assuming it won't, means EVERYONE who dies from it would have died anyway this year....
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I am just surprised Greta Thunberg is not more vocal? "How dare you how dare you" etc, etc. Or is she pleased because because there are less cars on the roads or what's the craic?
biko wrote: » They don't have an argument, they just want you to add numbers for countries with high death rates. Comparing a country with its neighbours isn't enough.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
