biko wrote: » Deaths per million United Kingdom 700.48 Spain 610.03 Italy 582.56Sweden 565.93 USA 497.12 Brazil 482.4 Mexico 414.44 Ireland 365.1 Netherlands 357.32
Bit cynical wrote: » It is a tricky one because you only know you have, say, one year's immunity after one year and so on. Same problem with immunity from a vaccine of course. We won't know how long the vaccine confers immunity until that length of time passes. But, assuming at least some immunity - and I think the scientific consensus is that there is some - then it is reasonable to infer that those countries with more infections probably have more immunity than countries that successfully avoided infections. The full extent of it, as you say, will take time.
bb1234567 wrote: » Yes it's interesting that that is the figure because Bergamo was also around 56% antibody response. And with infections now reducing in cities like Mumbai it really seems like the often cited 60% figure may be when herd immunity occurs. Although, based on deaths in Mumbai it appears the IFR is a little bit higher than that 0.02% . This article states that in Mumbai, a city with a population of 12.5 million, it has experienced 6,200 deaths. Half of it's population live in slums - where 57% of people are infected. While the other half outside the slums, only 16% infection rate. This would mean about 4.5 million infections in the city overall . With 6200 deaths that is an IFR of approximately 0.14%. Some of the information I used to come to that figure is in the article below. Feel free to point out errors, maths are not my strong suit https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53576653
PokeHerKing wrote: » Swedens reporting is a complete sham. Why do people think a virus would act one way in one country and another way in another country?? It spreads between people in close contact, it kills a portion of those infected. That's it. Doesn't matter if you're black, brown Swedish or Irish, that's what the virus does. Similar to the States, the only metric to watch in countries is excess mortality. That's the true death toll of this pandemic. Politics and general reporting inadequacies can and will impact the "official stats".
gl0Rob wrote: » Thanks, my only reservation is that infection = immunity is an assumption that has yet to be fully proved I think. Next couple of months should make that clear
Bit cynical wrote: » 5 I will admit to being speculative on my part. But I will try to find information on screening programmes that were curtailed to a lesser extent in Sweden than Ireland. 9 is based on ICU numbers at peak which were far in excess of Ireland yet deaths were lower.https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0511/1137763-what-can-we-learn-from-swedens-covid-19-icu-figures/ This suggests that Sweden were dealing with higher levels of infection and therefore immunity while keeping deaths down. Their relatively low levels of testing hid fairly high levels of infection. 5. 8.6% for Sweden vs 12.1% Eurozone average.https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/sweden-coronavirus-record-gdp-fall-still-outperformed-some-in-europe.html
CalamariFritti wrote: » I think a lot of things come into it. In the Mumbay slums they found 57% had an immune reaction. More or less full COVID saturation you could say. And despite the awful hygienical and medical standards they had less than 0.02% fatality rate, but in the slums only 6.5% are over 65.
PokeHerKing wrote: » Swedens reporting is a complete sham. Why do people think a virus would act one way in one country and another way in another country?? It spreads between people in close contact, it kills a portion of those infected. That's it. Doesn't matter if you're black, brown Swedish or Irish, that's what the virus does.
bb1234567 wrote: » How can these two theories possibly not contradict one another. Number of deaths directly correlates with exposure levels from the outbreak. And so then Ireland likely had as high levels of infection as Sweden has,which you seem to think is high, and thus that makes the last of your points moot. Or else Sweden has lower levels than thought and more in line with the rest of Europe, which is generally consider to not be a high level of exposure, which also would make your last point moot.
gl0Rob wrote: » Can you provide source material for 5, 8 & 9? I believe they are very key points when looking at the outcome of either approach. I know Sweden didn’t exactly say immunity was a goal but none the less it’s important to compare. Economically as I understand it, they are having the worst year in their history since the Second World War.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Why is he the biggest failure of Scandinavia? Way too early to draw conclusions but I will give Sweden that at least they had the balls to listen to science and rationale instead of just hitting the panic button over and over again. It even seems they come out fairly sane in all this. None of the armageddon predictions came true. Their fatality rates are similar to ours. Their restrictions seem on a much more sustainable and less intrusive level. Their numbers are trending down for a while. And by the look of it they had much more exposure to it so there is a good chance they won't see the same resurgences that others do. At the very least its way too early to judge.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Wrong? Sweden's new cases and deaths have declined hugely and while cases are going up slightly its nowhere near as steep as elsewhere in Europe. A large number of countries are just out of lockdown and may be heading back into lockdown. How is that "right"? Whether schools reopen or stay open and the impact on infections will be a huge test to see who got this right or wrong.
biko wrote: » Mad how the biggest failure of Scandinavia now lectures other countries.
Bit cynical wrote: » No and to be honest it is speculation on my part. The indirect deaths I would expect to see over the next couple of years rather than in the immediate period of the lockdown itself.
Breezin wrote: » Back to Sweden, and Tegnell
Bit cynical wrote: » I don't think anyone has suggested we copy Sweden exactly but the basic facts would suggest that Sweden has done reasonably well and better than the critics would have predicted. It is not too long ago that someone posted a crowded tram in Stockholm and people were predicting carnage. That has not happened. 1. Lower peak of daily deaths than Ireland. 2. Deaths per age group roughly the same as Ireland. 3. Less economic dislocation than Ireland. 4. Current rate of daily deaths about the same as Ireland. 5. Economically less damaged than the Eurozone on average. 6. No talk of schools not opening in September. 7. No regional shutdowns. 8. Fewer indirect deaths due to lockdown. 9. Greater level of immunity in the general population.
bb1234567 wrote: » Do you've any evidence to support that point? I have not seen any proof that there has as yet been any increase in deaths related to lockdown here, and if there were, that they were greater than Sweden's. Sweden is experiencing increase levels of excess deaths beyond what has been confirmed as those caused by COVID, Ireland is experiencing fewer excess deaths than the number of confirmed COVID deaths. So it would seem that the opposite is true at surface level.
Bit cynical wrote: » I don't think anyone has suggested we copy Sweden exactly but the basic facts would suggest that Sweden has done reasonably well and better than the critics would have predicted. 1. Lower peak of daily deaths than Ireland. 2. Deaths per age group roughly the same as Ireland. 3. Less economic dislocation than Ireland. 4. Current rate of daily deaths about the same as Ireland. 5. Economically less damaged than the Eurozone on average. 6. No talk of schools not opening in September. 7. No regional shutdowns.8. Fewer indirect deaths due to lockdown.9. Greater level of immunity in the general population.
Cupatae wrote: » How ye all that were supporting idea that Ireland follow Sweden feeling now knowing ye were completely and utterly wrong ?
