ush wrote: » Thats what they're doing. Its gonna spread sooner or later. If you lockdown entirely then you've only kicked the can down the road. When you open up again, you're back to square one.
ush wrote: » So lockdown everything for two years and wait for a vaccination?
average_runner wrote: » Herd immunity could be a total myth. No proof it works at the moment
charlie14 wrote: » I do not see where there is any targeted action in Sweden It is certainly not through testing where they are only testing 7,300 per million whereas we are in lock-down and are at present testing 18,000 per million.
STB. wrote: » That's what it is though. Their epidemiologist doesn't like the word. The very people who taught him disagree with his approach.
charlie14 wrote: » If that is the basis behind the Swedish thinking then would it not make sense to attempt to control the spread of the virus ?
Breezin wrote: » But they are not claiming it as a solution, as the UK and NL did initially. It's much more nuanced than that. The point is that's it's not either/or. It's a matter of degree, and more targeted actions.
ush wrote: » Policy is to make sure health service doesn't crash. That would lead to more deaths in the long run.
Breezin wrote: » Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.
jibber5000 wrote: » The ICU capacity number is really nonsense. If the surge does come they will just extend the ICU to include theatre recovery areas. All it takes is reskilling nurses and purchasing ventilators, neither of which is a big issue. It would be helpful if you understood this before posting in absolutes.
jibber5000 wrote: » Well yeah? Of course there's lots of fatalities in the community. The point is the shocking number of fatalities from nursing homes rather than the number in the community.
coastwatch wrote: » Articles on the "herd immunity" approach (Sweden's apparent policy) is that 70% of the population would need to have had the virus for population immunity to be effective, so true, not the whole population. For Sweden, population 10.2m, 70% would mean 7.1 million people need to have had the virus for population immunity. That means, 7.1 million would be unwell / sick at some stage this year, around 1m people would require hospitalisation (15% of 7.1m) around 215000 would require ICU treatment (3% of 7.1m) around 71000 deaths would result (1% of 7.1m)https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic
Bit cynical wrote: » However you are comparing deaths per day with positive cases, the latter figure being very dependent on the numbers being tested.
Mic 1972 wrote: » and that leaves 60% of fatalities from community which is where the virus is currently spreading, not very reassuring
coastwatch wrote: » Not cherry picking, just quoting the summary findings of the study, which uses statistical modelling to estimate the percentage of asymptomatic positive cases,Findings from the real-time outbreak analysis The posterior median estimate of the true proportion of asymptomatic individuals among the reported asymptomatic cases is 0.35 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.30–0.39), with the estimated total number of the true asymptomatic cases at 113.3 (95%CrI: 98.2–128.3) and the estimated asymptomatic proportion (among all infected cases) at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%).
jibber5000 wrote: » 40% of our fatalities are from nursing homes. Just for context to the 33% there.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » People are not happy about what is happening in the nursing homes in Sweden. The Covid19 infection is basically being brought into nursing homes.https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTRUR_AqupMJ:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/anger-in-sweden-as-elderly-pay-price-for-coronavirus-strategy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie
niallo27 wrote: » Of the 634 confirmed cases, a total of 306 and 328 were reported to be symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Plus you cherry picked data here, varying the incubation period increased the estimate to 40%.
coastwatch wrote: » "In this study, we conducted statistical modelling analyses on publicly available data to elucidate the asymptomatic proportion, along with the time of infection among the COVID-19 cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Our estimated asymptomatic proportion is at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%), which overlaps with a recently derived estimate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval: 8.3–58.3%) from data of Japanese citizens evacuated from Wuhan [13].
niallo27 wrote: » That article says that 50% were asymptomatic.
coastwatch wrote: » I think the population of an aircraft carrier is generally going to be young and fit, so probably not a good comparison with a general population. Maybe at the other extreme, a study of the same question, using the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, found the estimated asymptomatic rate of positive tests was only 18%.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180
tabby aspreme wrote: » I would agree, considering it's in 30% of nursing homes, the residents of which have not left those premises since early March
