nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sweden avoiding lockdown

frillyleaf

Does Sweden have the right approach to this and how is their healthcare system being able to manage Covid19 cases?

What are the differences between Sweden and Ireland and why can’t we continue similar to how Sweden is managing Covid19?

I’m not suggesting either is right or wrong. I would just like to know how Sweden can continue as normal and other countries can’t. Thanks ðŸ˜Š

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cyrus

wakka12 wrote: »

Definitely weakens the theory that the COVID patients would have died anyway.

Sweden and Belgium have experienced 25% and 12% increase in national mortality rates in the month of March. This would equate to 2300 additional deaths in Belgium and 1100 additional deaths in Sweden. In March Belgium reported 2373 coronavirus deaths while Sweden reported 1160. A strikingly similar correlation between number of excess deaths and reports of coronavirus deaths

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

The point is you would need to look at the totals for the full year not one month. If the theory holds less people will die later in the year as some of those that would have died a little earlier .

robinbird

marno21 wrote: »

I think the point being made was that many of the unfortunate deaths were patients with limited life expectancies which would only see them survive for months with no covid, whereby their death was accelerated by covid-19.

The median age of deaths in Ireland being in the mid 80s would seem to provide some evidence to this theory, that a proportion of the deaths were older people who were weak and had limited quality of life.

Of course, there is a large proportion of deaths occurring in much younger people also.

Not really. If you take out the elderly and those with already serious underlying medical conditions as well as the obese, there are very few.

marno21

wakka12 wrote: »

Definitely weakens the theory that the COVID patients would have died anyway.

Sweden and Belgium have experienced 25% and 12% increase in national mortality rates in the month of March. This would equate to 2300 additional deaths in Belgium and 1100 additional deaths in Sweden. In March Belgium reported 2373 coronavirus deaths while Sweden reported 1160. A strikingly similar correlation between number of excess deaths and reports of coronavirus deaths

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

I think the point being made was that many of the unfortunate deaths were patients with limited life expectancies which would only see them survive for months with no covid, whereby their death was accelerated by covid-19.

The median age of deaths in Ireland being in the mid 80s would seem to provide some evidence to this theory, that a proportion of the deaths were older people who were weak and had limited quality of life.

Of course, there is a large proportion of deaths occurring in much younger people also.

wakka12

Definitely weakens the theory that the COVID patients would have died anyway.

Sweden and Belgium have experienced 25% and 12% increase in national mortality rates in the month of March. This would equate to 2300 additional deaths in Belgium and 1100 additional deaths in Sweden. In March Belgium reported 2373 coronavirus deaths while Sweden reported 1160. A strikingly similar correlation between number of excess deaths and reports of coronavirus deaths

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html

wakka12

So including the 77 additional probable deaths today Ireland has almost the exact same number of deaths per capita as Sweden

jibber5000

wakka12 wrote: »

I've taken a place where an known and established outbreak of coronavirus has occurred, there are not that many known large epicentres of contagion from which to draw assumptions. It, Lombardy, Madrid and Wuhan are where the bulk of the known information of how this virus spreads and affects people will come from, because of that reason, whether you like the information coming out of them or not

Basically, its the best we have to go on. And youre countering the proof based on a number of unknowns..maybe its spreading in Africa or Texas or India or whatever example youre using and not causing large numbers of deaths becuse the population is young not urbanised whatever..but equally maybe its not..most likely not given theres no proof of it yet

Of course with any epidemic there will be epicentres. I'm not arguing that.

Picking one place and saying that the mortality rate will be greater based on this one example is just incorrect from a public health standpoint.

jibber5000

hmmm wrote: »

They're at the start of their epidemic, bottom of the curve etc.

Georgia is the state to watch. Their governor has started to reopen the state - I was watching Scott Gottlieb on CNBC who has been one of the most reliable forecasters, and he said Georgia appeared to be starting by opening "the riskiest businesses first".

Why do you think they're at the start?
Dr Fauci and Dr Birx disagree with that pov.

wakka12

jibber5000 wrote: »

In certain populations was the argument. Youve taken a place where it's greater than .1%.

I've already accepted that in older populations, populations with greater co morbidities, places where the health system have been overwhelmed the mortality rate will be higher

I've taken a place where an known and established outbreak of coronavirus has occurred, there are not that many known large epicentres of contagion from which to draw assumptions. It, Lombardy, Madrid and Wuhan are where the bulk of the known information of how this virus spreads and affects people will come from, because of that reason, whether you like the information coming out of them or not

Basically, its the best we have to go on. And youre countering the proof based on a number of unknowns..maybe its spreading in Africa or Texas or India or whatever example youre using and not causing large numbers of deaths becuse the population is young not urbanised whatever..but equally maybe its not..most likely not given theres no proof of it yet

jibber5000

wakka12 wrote: »

I realise, but some posters were saying the mortality rate of the disease to be lower than 0.1%, which is impossible if 0.1% of a given population has already died from that disease

In certain populations was the argument. Youve taken a place where it's greater than .1%.

I've already accepted that in older populations, populations with greater co morbidities, poplualtions with higher BMIs and places where the health system has been overwhelmed, the mortality rate will be higher

For an example if you're talking about Aids for example, it's mortality rate is much higher in Africa than in the US. You can't just pick Africa to base mortality on.

hmmm

jibber5000 wrote: »

If you take places like Texas (.007%) and Florida (.015%) who have both largely ignored the strict social distancing, why is the mortality rate there so low?

They're at the start of their epidemic, bottom of the curve etc.

Georgia is the state to watch. Their governor has started to reopen the state - I was watching Scott Gottlieb on CNBC who has been one of the most reliable forecasters, and he said Georgia appeared to be starting by opening "the riskiest businesses first".

wakka12

YFlyer wrote: »

Mortality rate is measured according to positive cases not total population.

I realise, but some posters were saying the mortality rate of the disease to be lower than 0.1%, which is impossible if more than 0.1% of a given population has already died from that disease

jibber5000

glasso wrote: »

says here also that the New York strains are the same as the ones in Europe.

Im not arguing those studies arn't true.

I just think if you take two studies which back up your argument you at least have to acknowledge two studies which go completely against that position.

YFlyer

wakka12 wrote: »

New York state deaths are 19,000, state population 19.45 million.
By this evening more than 0.1% of the state population will have died over the last 4 weeks after contracting coronavirus

Mortality rate is measured according to positive cases not total population.

[Deleted User]

marilynrr wrote: »

According to this article the strains in Europe are have mutated to become more deadly than the strains in the US.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-has-mutated-to-become-deadlier-in-europe-than-the-us-study-finds/ar-BB12YLmD?ocid=spartanntp

The results revealed that some of the deadliest mutations were found in Zhejiang, while these strains had also been found in Spain, Italy and New York.

says here also that the New York strains are the same as the ones in Europe.

jibber5000

marilynrr wrote: »

According to this article the strains in Europe are have mutated to become more deadly than the strains in the US.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-has-mutated-to-become-deadlier-in-europe-than-the-us-study-finds/ar-BB12YLmD?ocid=spartanntp

I think the only reason our deaths are so bad is because it got into so many nursing homes.
60% of all death is an absolutely bonkers figure.

jibber5000

glasso wrote: »

the study is about genetic marker analysis of the the strain in comparison to the European one - that's pretty standard stuff tbh

So is antibody testing. You either have antibodies or you dont

wakka12

thebaz wrote: »

Ther seam pockets in the world that have a very high mortality rate - North Italy, New York and even Belgium.
I would have expected places like India, Africa and Thailand to have had massive death rates and hospital overcrowding - but, so far this has not happened - Perhaps ther are issues like obesity/High blood pressure or age in North Italy - but different places are having different outcomes , so far.

Well its hard to know with developing countries , there is evidence of extensive outbreaks and very high numbers of deaths in Ecuador, Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil despite those countries officially reporting much lower deaths than European countries

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/04/asia-pacific/jakarta-funerals-unreported-coronavirus-deaths/#.Xp8OHlNKgb0
Indonesia

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/04/medics-in-brazil-fear-official-coronavirus-tally-ignores-a-mountain-of-deaths
Brazil

https://www.eturbonews.com/570579/6000-coronavirus-dead-unreported-corpses-left-on-the-sidewalk/
Ecuador

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/world/middleeast/coronavirus-turkey-deaths.html
Turkey

Death toll in Iran also likely underrepresented by tens of thousands

marilynrr

jibber5000 wrote: »

Perhaps. I've been saying this for two weeks and everyone keeps saying come back in a few weeks. But their deaths per million have actually got better compared to ours.
The figures show most states have flattened the curve.

According to this article the strains in Europe are have mutated to become more deadly than the strains in the US.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-has-mutated-to-become-deadlier-in-europe-than-the-us-study-finds/ar-BB12YLmD?ocid=spartanntp

[Deleted User]

jibber5000 wrote: »

Wasn't arguing that point. I was saying they weren't peer reviewed thus by the criteria here we must take them with a pinch of salt.

the study is about genetic marker analysis of the the strain in comparison to the European one - that's pretty standard stuff tbh

[Deleted User]

jibber5000 wrote: »

Perhaps. I've been saying this for two weeks and everyone keeps saying come back in a few weeks. But theyre numbers have actually got better in the US.
The figures there show most states have flattened the curve.

many states are bigger than countries in Europe and are definitely at different stages.

jibber5000

glasso wrote: »

the US as a whole is a very bad example at the moment imo as too many separate states reporting figures and they at different stages of their curve

come back in a month on the US

Perhaps. I've been saying this for two weeks and everyone keeps saying come back in a few weeks. But their deaths per million have actually got better compared to ours.
The figures show most states have flattened the curve.

jibber5000

glasso wrote: »

not sure what that has to do with a study showing the origins of the New York outbreak as coming from Europe?

Wasn't arguing that point. I was saying they weren't peer reviewed thus by the criteria here we must take them with a pinch of salt.

jibber5000

thebaz wrote: »

Ther seam pockets in the world that have a very high mortality rate - North Italy, New York and even Belgium.
I would have expected places like India, Africa and Thailand to have had massive death rates and hospital overcrowding - but, so far this has not happened - Perhaps ther are issues like obesity/High blood pressure or age in North Italy - but different places are having different outcomes , so far.

Obesity is a massive risk factor too. More likely in western countries.

[Deleted User]

jibber5000 wrote: »

But there were two antibody studies giving the mortality rate at .1% UCLA and Stanford.

not sure what that has to do with a study showing the origins of the New York outbreak as coming from Europe?

thebaz

wakka12 wrote: »

Yes, that would possible explain a high number of cases, and hence a higher number of total deaths, but not a higher mortality rate. We are talking about that, not case numbers.

Ther seam pockets in the world that have a very high mortality rate - North Italy, New York and even Belgium.
I would have expected places like India, Africa and Thailand to have had massive death rates and hospital overcrowding - but, so far this has not happened - Perhaps ther are issues like obesity/High blood pressure or age in North Italy - but different places are having different outcomes , so far.

[Deleted User]

jibber5000 wrote: »

If we go by deaths per million we're doing worse than the US.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

the US as a whole is a very bad example at the moment imo as too many separate states reporting figures and they at different stages of their curve

come back in a month on the US

jibber5000

glasso wrote: »

does say "two separate teams" so there is that...

But there were two antibody studies giving the mortality rate at .1% UCLA and Stanford.

[Deleted User]

jibber5000 wrote: »

Fair hadn't seen that.

Although if we're going by the standard response to studies here, not peer reviewed.

does say "two separate teams" so there is that...

jibber5000

wakka12 wrote: »

Yes, that would possible explain a high number of cases, but not a high mortality rate. We are talking about that, not case numbers.

I think the Lombardy older population does explain the higher mortality rate. I think the mortality rate of over 60s could be upto 5%

wakka12

jibber5000 wrote: »

Well the one massive similarity is the influx of Chinese people into both areas. Northern Italy had trade routes and flights direct to Wuhan up until February, New York has the highest Chinese population of any city outside Asia -600k. If the virus was in Wuhan in December/January and large groups were entering these places it is likely that the infection was well established in both places before the numbers really increased.

If you take places like Texas (.007%) and Florida (.015%) who have both largely ignored the strict social distancing, why is the mortality rate there so low?

On the Lombardy point we know that the mortality rate increases with age, so the older the population the higher mortality rate of the virus.

Yes, that would possible explain a high number of cases, and hence a higher number of total deaths, but not a higher mortality rate. We are talking about that, not case numbers.