Yes, I believe that is exactly what most "open it all up" people want. They have limited common sense measures.
Exactly what we should be doing.
Exactly what we should be doing.
Did Sweden end up taking the best approach?
260,870 Views |
1675 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Enzomatic
hospitalization rate?
Those don't say what you think they do.
The second to last is a meta analysis they concluded that handwashing didn't prevent the spread of influenza, and only might have had any effect on combo with a mask.
The last showed that hand washing was significantly worse than alcohol and only marginally better than water alone. Washing with soap only had a 60% reduction on fingerpad viruses, vs 99% with alcohol. Their conclusion was that hand washing with soap is potentially ineffective.
This is exactly why we do RCTs in medicine. Because tremendous amount of the time what makes logical sense doesn't pan out in reality.
The second to last is a meta analysis they concluded that handwashing didn't prevent the spread of influenza, and only might have had any effect on combo with a mask.
The last showed that hand washing was significantly worse than alcohol and only marginally better than water alone. Washing with soap only had a 60% reduction on fingerpad viruses, vs 99% with alcohol. Their conclusion was that hand washing with soap is potentially ineffective.
This is exactly why we do RCTs in medicine. Because tremendous amount of the time what makes logical sense doesn't pan out in reality.
Didn't offer any interpretation. To be honest I didn't even read them.
Their CV19 projected death rate is back up, from 5,800 to over 10,500 now.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden
https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
They still have plenty of hospital beds so not sure the total death rate will change much by the time all is said and done. UK is still way worse off. They will however get through this way way faster with less economic damage than most.
"Sweden's ambassador to the U.S. believes the country's controversial strategy of imposing only limited restrictions and not locking down the country is bearing success, with the capital Stockholm on course to reach herd immunity in the next few weeks."
That's pretty crazy to think about, as some states have extended lock-downs until the end of may. It's also interesting that Finland extended that ban on mass gatherings through summer. Going be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Even with New Zealand, which claims to have zero cases, they can't stay closed forever if they want to participate in a global economy. Tourism is very essential to their livelihood, and remaining closed to outsiders until this is 100% gone seems impossible.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-to-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-swedish-ambassador-says
That's pretty crazy to think about, as some states have extended lock-downs until the end of may. It's also interesting that Finland extended that ban on mass gatherings through summer. Going be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Even with New Zealand, which claims to have zero cases, they can't stay closed forever if they want to participate in a global economy. Tourism is very essential to their livelihood, and remaining closed to outsiders until this is 100% gone seems impossible.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/26/845211085/stockholm-expected-to-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-swedish-ambassador-says
Mike Shaw - Class of '03
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
The big issue in all of this is that overall we're just operating from a place of so little data.
If we actually knew infection rates, antibody population, etc., it could totally change approaches to everything, but everyone is just guessing right now.
If we actually knew infection rates, antibody population, etc., it could totally change approaches to everything, but everyone is just guessing right now.
I don't have a dog in this fight but my bet is he is advised by scientists.
There are a ton of nuance around healthcare and economics.
There are a ton of nuance around healthcare and economics.
Beware of Doug said:
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
If their hospital system is not being overwhelmed then what, exactly, is the issue?
As per our original goals Sweden cannot be "proven" wrong until their hospital system is overwhelmed, can they?
Agreed. Somewhere along the way I think the message got muddied. The lockdowns were never going to get rid of the virus. It was to give us time to ramp up production of testing and supplies and keep numbers below the hospital breaking points. If they are already at the point of handling the crisis, why change course? I don't think we are there due to our size and lack of testing capabilities. But maybe they are.
You would be wrong, it is just some rando Ambassador. No one has good data, the 1000th most powerful politician in Sweden wasn't let in on some secret scientific data.Knucklesammich said:
I don't have a dog in this fight but my bet is he is advised by scientists.
There are a ton of nuance around healthcare and economics.
The ambassador to the most powerful country on Earth, speaking officially for his government is not advised on what he can and cannot say? When that country is taking a novel approach to handling the pandemic in their country?
Ok, you are right he just says what he wants and is totally unsupervised.
Ok, you are right he just says what he wants and is totally unsupervised.
Knucklesammich said:
The ambassador to the most powerful country on Earth, speaking officially for his government is not advised on what he can and cannot say? When that country is taking a novel approach to handling the pandemic in their country?
Ok, you are right he just says what he wants and is totally unsupervised.
We talking Trump or the sweede?
I apologize for my post that was removed. I am completely against politics in this forum, and I was only trying to be funny.
While we won't know for a long time, there's a few possibilities:Squadron7 said:Beware of Doug said:
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
If their hospital system is not being overwhelmed then what, exactly, is the issue?
As per our original goals Sweden cannot be "proven" wrong until their hospital system is overwhelmed, can they?
(1) Treatments improve, but they can't benefit from them to the same extent others can.
(2) Effective vaccine emerges, but they can't benefit from it to the same extent others can.
(3) Historical analysis of past events suggests they might not end up better economically.
Maybe there's more, but those come to mind. Again, we won't really know for a long time.
(And the regular disclaimer that what works or does not work in Sweden might not apply elsewhere.)
Translation: (1) & (2) We need to wait for a medical breakthrough irrespective of the economic meltdown raging all around us. (3) And even if we did open it up the virus has already killed the economy.TXAggie2011 said:While we won't know for a long time, there's a few possibilities:Squadron7 said:Beware of Doug said:
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
If their hospital system is not being overwhelmed then what, exactly, is the issue?
As per our original goals Sweden cannot be "proven" wrong until their hospital system is overwhelmed, can they?
(1) Treatments improve, but they can't benefit from them to the same extent others can.
(2) Effective vaccine emerges, but they can't benefit from it to the same extent others can.
(3) Historical analysis of past events suggests they might not end up better economically.
Maybe there's more, but those come to mind. Again, we won't really know for a long time.
(And the regular disclaimer that what works or does not work in Sweden might not apply elsewhere.)
No thanks. Open it all up regardless.
You know why you're so mad at so many people on here, and think this place is chock full of overly dramatic fear mongerers?The_Fox said:Translation: (1) & (2) We need to wait for a medical breakthrough irrespective of the economic meltdown raging all around us. (3) And even if we did open it up the virus has already killed the economy.TXAggie2011 said:While we won't know for a long time, there's a few possibilities:Squadron7 said:Beware of Doug said:
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
If their hospital system is not being overwhelmed then what, exactly, is the issue?
As per our original goals Sweden cannot be "proven" wrong until their hospital system is overwhelmed, can they?
(1) Treatments improve, but they can't benefit from them to the same extent others can.
(2) Effective vaccine emerges, but they can't benefit from it to the same extent others can.
(3) Historical analysis of past events suggests they might not end up better economically.
Maybe there's more, but those come to mind. Again, we won't really know for a long time.
(And the regular disclaimer that what works or does not work in Sweden might not apply elsewhere.)
No thanks. Open it all up regardless.
Answer: You want to be mad at everyone. So you make crap up, and in the act become an overly dramatic fear mongerer.
I wouldn't say mad. More like disappointed. I had no idea fear amongst average Americans was so rampant. If exposure to COVID is the most dangerous thing to happen to you, I just do not know what to say. Did you shelter in place for weeks when facing those other dangers?TXAggie2011 said:You know why you're so mad at so many people on here, and think this place is chock full of overly dramatic fear mongerers?The_Fox said:Translation: (1) & (2) We need to wait for a medical breakthrough irrespective of the economic meltdown raging all around us. (3) And even if we did open it up the virus has already killed the economy.TXAggie2011 said:While we won't know for a long time, there's a few possibilities:Squadron7 said:Beware of Doug said:
A couple of points, your highlight from the article is based on the quote below. They don't say it will happen, they say it might happen, in one city.
"About 30% of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity," Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter told NPR. "We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month."
The ambassador has no background in science.
There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm are immune to anything. There is no proof that 30% of Stockholm has had COVID.
The claim has about as much science behind it advice to inject yourself with disinfectant
If their hospital system is not being overwhelmed then what, exactly, is the issue?
As per our original goals Sweden cannot be "proven" wrong until their hospital system is overwhelmed, can they?
(1) Treatments improve, but they can't benefit from them to the same extent others can.
(2) Effective vaccine emerges, but they can't benefit from it to the same extent others can.
(3) Historical analysis of past events suggests they might not end up better economically.
Maybe there's more, but those come to mind. Again, we won't really know for a long time.
(And the regular disclaimer that what works or does not work in Sweden might not apply elsewhere.)
No thanks. Open it all up regardless.
Answer: You want to be mad at everyone. So you make crap up, and in the act become an overly dramatic fear mongerer.
Most of my previous jobs were filled with risk takers. So, I have never before had the widespread opportunity to watch the rank and file react to danger like this virus. This is just totally surreal and demoralizing for me.
Quote:
While we won't know for a long time, there's a few possibilities:
(1) Treatments improve, but they can't benefit from them to the same extent others can.
(2) Effective vaccine emerges, but they can't benefit from it to the same extent others can.
(3) Historical analysis of past events suggests they might not end up better economically.
Maybe there's more, but those come to mind. Again, we won't really know for a long time.
(And the regular disclaimer that what works or does not work in Sweden might not apply elsewhere.)
Fair enough....but I really have my doubts about number 3 regarding economics. The economy is a much different beast than it was 100 years ago. Only a handful in those days enjoyed a standard of living that all but the poorest have now.
I don't come across too many people that are personally afraid for themselves. Not in my personal life, not on here. The vast majority that are not "open everything up now" minded are concerned with others' well being.
7nine
Texaggie7nine said:
I don't come across too many people that are personally afraid for themselves. Not in my personal life, not on here. The vast majority that are not "open everything up now" minded are concerned with others' well being.
I'd kind of like my kids to not have to live through a depression.
I am concerned with my parents and in-laws too. It is why I want my family and my brother's family to catch and become verifiably immune ASAP.Texaggie7nine said:
I don't come across too many people that are personally afraid for themselves. Not in my personal life, not on here. The vast majority that are not "open everything up now" minded are concerned with others' well being.
I do not want to be dealing with this and my at-risk family trapped at home come this fall. This is not sustainable economically and almost everybody has minimal risk. Those that are at risk should be praying for quick herd immunity.
I know people get freaked out by healthy 30 year olds dying from this but those are statical outliers like the marathon runner who dies of a heart attack in their 40s.
We know who this impacts. The rest of us should be praying to get this and not have to worry about passing in it on our parents and grandparents.
Not sure about you but I, and most people I know, actually care for the well being of people we haven't met and aren't close to as well.Quote:
I am concerned with my parents and in-laws too.
People with little life left may be a large portion of the deaths, but there are still a significant amount who's lives are ending very prematurely from this.
7nine
My concern has always been how risk averse we are as a state/country/school district/university.
There will be more cases and more outbreaks. Do you shut down an entire school in the fall because a bus driver was positive or if they were hospitalized. Do you shut down A&M because a student in a dorm tested positive, or suck it up - quarantine that dorm and move on.
There will be more cases and more outbreaks. Do you shut down an entire school in the fall because a bus driver was positive or if they were hospitalized. Do you shut down A&M because a student in a dorm tested positive, or suck it up - quarantine that dorm and move on.
I am concerned in the abstract, sure. Is it not better for all of the at risk for use to achieve herd immunity quickly? Most people cannot shelter in place much longer. My parent and in-laws can, but they are growing weary of the isolation.Texaggie7nine said:Not sure about you but I, and most people I know, actually care for the well being of people we haven't met and aren't close to as well.Quote:
I am concerned with my parents and in-laws too.
People with little life left may be a large portion of the deaths, but there are still a significant amount who's lives are ending very prematurely from this.
I would rather the government force COVID parties on the healthy the shelter in place for another few months.
Why do they have a bunch of peaks and valleys?
Those COVID parties for the "healthy" would raise the risk of death for those involved some, but it would definitely put several in the hospital.
Do you want to fill up hospitals?
Do you want to fill up hospitals?
7nine
As opposed to us all slowly getting it over the next 9 months and those same people being hospitalized. Knowing what we know right now? I'm thinking yes.Texaggie7nine said:
Those COVID parties for the "healthy" would raise the risk of death for those involved some, but it would definitely put several in the hospital.
Do you want to fill up hospitals?
What percentage of the healthy population under 50 requires hospitalization. Under 1%? We can handle that.
Where are you getting that?Quote:
What percentage of the healthy population under 50 requires hospitalization. Under 1%? We can handle that.
7nine
Texaggie7nine said:Where are you getting that?Quote:
What percentage of the healthy population under 50 requires hospitalization. Under 1%? We can handle that.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of people over the age of 40 in America have AT LEAST one co-morbidity like obesity.
Well fine then, so long as you accept that the "healthy population under 50" is not going to be the vast majority of people under 50.PJYoung said:Texaggie7nine said:Where are you getting that?Quote:
What percentage of the healthy population under 50 requires hospitalization. Under 1%? We can handle that.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of people over the age of 40 in America have AT LEAST one co-morbidity like obesity.
7nine