If you really want to see insanity, look into the Cannonball Run records that were set this spring.
Did Sweden end up taking the best approach?
260,841 Views |
1675 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Enzomatic
Counterintuitive indeed. Less traffic leads to faster driving flows leads to more deadly accidents? Makes sense when you think about it. I wonder how many involved an impaired driver who, if traffic was "normal" would have used an Uber, but instead took a chance?Keegan99 said:
Doesn't look like the "offset by fewer automobile deaths" theory holds much water.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roads-are-quieter-due-to-coronavirus-but-there-are-more-fatal-car-crashes-11588152600
http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2020/05/04/massachusetts-roadway-deaths-coronavirus
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/20/859829779/as-states-locked-down-in-march-motor-vehicle-fatality-rate-spiked-by-14
https://abc7.com/traffic-fatalities-california-highway-patrol-speeding-covid-19/6198603/
The absolute number of traffic accidents did fall, reducing claims, but fatalities didn't budge that much, if at all. And in many locations roadway fatalities increased.
DadHammer said:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Looking at new infections - they spiked in June but are coming down again.
The death rate 7 day average is down to about 3.
Just looking at the graphs covid in Sweden is either over or just about over. Took about 12 weeks to build and then die off. So lots of hope the rest of the world sees the same approximately 12 week burn and then it dissipates. Tough 12 weeks for people though.
Still praying for a treatment breakthrough to end this sooner.
The 8-12 weeks range is pretty consistent across the world even when doing the lockdown.
If you look at many US states, we didn't have the rapid spike early on. Instead we flattened the initial part of the curve and as everyone who understood that what really meant (not the people fooled by the graphs that cut off before the spike happened) it was just delaying the inevitable 8-12 week cycle. It is possible that the initial extended early phase reduces the 8-12 week cycle slightly, but I'm not holding my breath for a significant shorter cycle.
I think you are correct. I have generally been in favor of the Swedish approach, but with hindsight, if the virus is mutating in a way that makes it less virile (something we didn't know, and couldn't have predicted, beforehand), postponing the peak might end up working well for places that were able to lock down before the virus became widespread (most of the US outside the NE). But, that is just focusing on the virus figures, and not the broader impact on health or the economy. If we were to end up locking down for several more months while places that hit their peak are opening up, that's not a good trade off.BiochemAg97 said:DadHammer said:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Looking at new infections - they spiked in June but are coming down again.
The death rate 7 day average is down to about 3.
Just looking at the graphs covid in Sweden is either over or just about over. Took about 12 weeks to build and then die off. So lots of hope the rest of the world sees the same approximately 12 week burn and then it dissipates. Tough 12 weeks for people though.
Still praying for a treatment breakthrough to end this sooner.
The 8-12 weeks range is pretty consistent across the world even when doing the lockdown.
If you look at many US states, we didn't have the rapid spike early on. Instead we flattened the initial part of the curve and as everyone who understood that what really meant (not the people fooled by the graphs that cut off before the spike happened) it was just delaying the inevitable 8-12 week cycle. It is possible that the initial extended early phase reduces the 8-12 week cycle slightly, but I'm not holding my breath for a significant shorter cycle.
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Taking emotion out of the equation and making sound logical decisions are only exercised in one country. Why is that?
Now, they will continue a normal life while everyone else deals with this for a year or two. Most of not all countries will catch them and lap them in numbers.
Now, they will continue a normal life while everyone else deals with this for a year or two. Most of not all countries will catch them and lap them in numbers.
Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
Yup. Keep hospitalizations down initially until we have greater capacity for potential spikes. But almost immediately it became a generalized movement to not spread the virus at all, which wasn't ever supposed to be the goal from an overall policy standpoint yet here we are, with deaths going down and an arguably "healthy" level of cases within the younger and stronger populations so that hopefully we can contain it by herd immunity. Yet now it is, "lower death rates do not matter," "those who have Covid don't have antibodies and will catch it again (though there's absolutely no proof of this at all)" and a bunch of other arguments meant to keep Covid in a pandemic status if not with the CDC in the minds of the general public. We should be opening even more, letting it spread a bit more rather than closing more and adding more unrealistic regulations.kag00 said:Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
The infatuation that people have with cases and not deaths is amazing to me...people get sick all the time and we don't care, but now with COVID it's all about how many people get sick, not how many people actually die from itCapitol Ag said:Yup. Keep hospitalizations down initially until we have greater capacity for potential spikes. But almost immediately it became a generalized movement to not spread the virus at all, which wasn't ever supposed to be the goal from an overall policy standpoint yet here we are, with deaths going down and an arguably "healthy" level of cases within the younger and stronger populations so that hopefully we can contain it by herd immunity. Yet now it is, "lower death rates do not matter," "those who have Covid don't have antibodies and will catch it again (though there's absolutely no proof of this at all)" and a bunch of other arguments meant to keep Covid in a pandemic status if not with the CDC in the minds of the general public. We should be opening even more, letting it spread a bit more rather than closing more and adding more unrealistic regulations.kag00 said:Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
Sweden had several flu seasons in the 90s era that were arguably more intense than COVID.
Agree. And Fauci even stated yesterday that it's not important that the death rate is lowering. He seriously said that. Hell, it's better than the alternative! Yet we all should listen to this "expert". SMHgougler08 said:The infatuation that people have with cases and not deaths is amazing to me...people get sick all the time and we don't care, but now with COVID it's all about how many people get sick, not how many people actually die from itCapitol Ag said:Yup. Keep hospitalizations down initially until we have greater capacity for potential spikes. But almost immediately it became a generalized movement to not spread the virus at all, which wasn't ever supposed to be the goal from an overall policy standpoint yet here we are, with deaths going down and an arguably "healthy" level of cases within the younger and stronger populations so that hopefully we can contain it by herd immunity. Yet now it is, "lower death rates do not matter," "those who have Covid don't have antibodies and will catch it again (though there's absolutely no proof of this at all)" and a bunch of other arguments meant to keep Covid in a pandemic status if not with the CDC in the minds of the general public. We should be opening even more, letting it spread a bit more rather than closing more and adding more unrealistic regulations.kag00 said:Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
That's not actually what he said, he said it's dangerous to take comfort in a lower death rate without considering other factors.Capitol Ag said:Agree. And Fauci even stated yesterday that it's not important that the death rate is lowering. He seriously said that. Hell, it's better than the alternative! Yet we all should listen to this "expert". SMHgougler08 said:The infatuation that people have with cases and not deaths is amazing to me...people get sick all the time and we don't care, but now with COVID it's all about how many people get sick, not how many people actually die from itCapitol Ag said:Yup. Keep hospitalizations down initially until we have greater capacity for potential spikes. But almost immediately it became a generalized movement to not spread the virus at all, which wasn't ever supposed to be the goal from an overall policy standpoint yet here we are, with deaths going down and an arguably "healthy" level of cases within the younger and stronger populations so that hopefully we can contain it by herd immunity. Yet now it is, "lower death rates do not matter," "those who have Covid don't have antibodies and will catch it again (though there's absolutely no proof of this at all)" and a bunch of other arguments meant to keep Covid in a pandemic status if not with the CDC in the minds of the general public. We should be opening even more, letting it spread a bit more rather than closing more and adding more unrealistic regulations.kag00 said:Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
I do think it's great that overall the death rates are better than expected, but the fact that ICUs are filling up in many places is concerning.
The lockdowns were to slow the spread and prevent ICU overload but also to formulate some sort of testing strategy, and that seems to be something that was missed or ignored on from the top down to the local levels pretty much everywhere.
fig96 said:That's not actually what he said, he said it's dangerous to take comfort in a lower death rate without considering other factors.Capitol Ag said:Agree. And Fauci even stated yesterday that it's not important that the death rate is lowering. He seriously said that. Hell, it's better than the alternative! Yet we all should listen to this "expert". SMHgougler08 said:The infatuation that people have with cases and not deaths is amazing to me...people get sick all the time and we don't care, but now with COVID it's all about how many people get sick, not how many people actually die from itCapitol Ag said:Yup. Keep hospitalizations down initially until we have greater capacity for potential spikes. But almost immediately it became a generalized movement to not spread the virus at all, which wasn't ever supposed to be the goal from an overall policy standpoint yet here we are, with deaths going down and an arguably "healthy" level of cases within the younger and stronger populations so that hopefully we can contain it by herd immunity. Yet now it is, "lower death rates do not matter," "those who have Covid don't have antibodies and will catch it again (though there's absolutely no proof of this at all)" and a bunch of other arguments meant to keep Covid in a pandemic status if not with the CDC in the minds of the general public. We should be opening even more, letting it spread a bit more rather than closing more and adding more unrealistic regulations.kag00 said:Keegan99 said:
Totally agree. Lockdowns only delay the inevitable in a naive population.
Though I do think seasonality and latitude plays a significant role as well.
Delaying the inevitable was the initial goal behind "bending the curve" and that hypothesis appears to have proven out to be generally correct. Unfortunately the goal posts have moved in many places to "no cases are acceptable".
The first I was OK with for a bit as it made sense. The new target is an unrealistic pipe dream.
I do think it's great that overall the death rates are better than expected, but the fact that ICUs are filling up in many places is concerning.
The lockdowns were to slow the spread and prevent ICU overload but also to formulate some sort of testing strategy, and that seems to be something that was missed or ignored on from the top down to the local levels pretty much everywhere.
The ICU in most places are not in danger of being overloaded. As you can see fromHarris county, despite the spike total ICU bed usage has barley moved and over 300 beds are still available.
That may not be the case in Harris County (though I'd say an increase in Covid patients of 100 people over the last week is concerning on its own), but other places in Texas, Florida, and other states are absolutely running out of room. That's something to worry about no matter where it's happening.
fig96 said:
That may not be the case in Harris County (though I'd say an increase in Covid patients of 100 people over the last week is concerning on its own), but other places in Texas, Florida, and other states are absolutely running out of room. That's something to worry about no matter where it's happening.
The border has a problem. Other places not so much. Harris county was reportedly "running out of room" two weeks ago. As we can see that is clearly not the case.
Austin is currently prepping the convention center for additional ICU capacity, and running out of capacity anywhere should be a concern.SirLurksALot said:fig96 said:
That may not be the case in Harris County (though I'd say an increase in Covid patients of 100 people over the last week is concerning on its own), but other places in Texas, Florida, and other states are absolutely running out of room. That's something to worry about no matter where it's happening.
The border has a problem. Other places not so much. Harris county was reportedly "running out of room" two weeks ago. As we can see that is clearly not the case.
I'm not proclaiming doom and gloom here, just making the point that there's multiple factors to consider.
SirLurksALot said:fig96 said:
That may not be the case in Harris County (though I'd say an increase in Covid patients of 100 people over the last week is concerning on its own), but other places in Texas, Florida, and other states are absolutely running out of room. That's something to worry about no matter where it's happening.
The border has a problem. Other places not so much. Harris county was reportedly "running out of room" two weeks ago. As we can see that is clearly not the case.
How do you determine that that is clearly not the case? The medical professionals I know in Houston are seeing elective surgeries and departments shut down and critical demand for staff rising. Houston is not in a good place right now
terradactylexpress said:SirLurksALot said:fig96 said:
That may not be the case in Harris County (though I'd say an increase in Covid patients of 100 people over the last week is concerning on its own), but other places in Texas, Florida, and other states are absolutely running out of room. That's something to worry about no matter where it's happening.
The border has a problem. Other places not so much. Harris county was reportedly "running out of room" two weeks ago. As we can see that is clearly not the case.
How do you determine that that is clearly not the case? The medical professionals I know in Houston are seeing elective surgeries and departments shut down and critical demand for staff rising. Houston is not in a good place right now
Look at the chart posted earlier.
The one where we have ~300 empty beds and added ~300 covid cases in about 10 days?
terradactylexpress said:
The one where we have ~300 empty beds and added ~300 covid cases in about 10 days?
The one that shows excess capacity
you must have a different chart you are looking at. I see one that is at or near capacity with Covid cases squeezing out other casesGAC06 said:terradactylexpress said:
The one where we have ~300 empty beds and added ~300 covid cases in about 10 days?
The one that shows excess capacity
You can see whatever you want. Last I heard, the hospitals said they have capacity and don't anticipate that changing.
Article found on Reddit:
Sweden 'literally gained nothing' from staying open during COVID-19, including 'no economic gains'
Sweden 'literally gained nothing' from staying open during COVID-19, including 'no economic gains'
Quote:
"They literally gained nothing," Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, tells the Times. "It's a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains." Sweden did see slightly less contraction in the first quarter, but now its economic pain is essentially equal to its Nordic neighbors. And Norway, which "was not only quick to impose an aggressive lockdown, but early to relax it as the virus slowed," is actually "expected to see a more rapid economic turnaround," Goodman reports.
Harris County did run out of Phase 1 capacity and was on a path to run out of Phase 2 capacity within 2 weeks based on the growth trend of hospitalizations. Those projections also made the assumption of constant bed usage for non-covid patients, which changed the math once elective procedures were post-poned.
It appears that recently that trend has finally reversed, hopefully it holds up. Hoping the bar ban and greater mask compliance and general CV awareness has helped to turn the tide.
It appears that recently that trend has finally reversed, hopefully it holds up. Hoping the bar ban and greater mask compliance and general CV awareness has helped to turn the tide.
If they currently have 300 beds per that graph and COVID ICU cases are being added at roughly 100 per week...you don't see a potential issue there?GAC06 said:
You can see whatever you want. Last I heard, the hospitals said they have capacity and don't anticipate that changing.
Looks like the thread derailed...
terradactylexpress said:you must have a different chart you are looking at. I see one that is at or near capacity with Covid cases squeezing out other casesGAC06 said:terradactylexpress said:
The one where we have ~300 empty beds and added ~300 covid cases in about 10 days?
The one that shows excess capacity
You're looking at the chart wrong.
The green line is the number of patients with covid in the ICU. That number has increased by about 430 since the beginning of June. During that same time the total number of beds in the ICU has only gone up 9% (blue line) or about 130 beds. Meaning that many of the covid patients in the ICU would've been there anyway even if they weren't infected.
Despite being in peak spike Harris County still has about 340 ICU beds available. Or to put it another more than double the number of increase in ICU bed usage so far.
The second chart shows that general bed usage has not seen a significant increase either.
Harris County is not in danger of going over ICU capacity.
fig96 said:If they currently have 300 beds per that graph and COVID ICU cases are being added at roughly 100 per week...you don't see a potential issue there?GAC06 said:
You can see whatever you want. Last I heard, the hospitals said they have capacity and don't anticipate that changing.
I'm going off of what the hospital administrators said. If they change their tune we should listen
Randy,
One week ago some of those dots were red due to the trends. The trends have reversed or flattened, as I have posted earlier. But we can't selectively choose when we listen to what the officials say and when we ignore it.
One week ago some of those dots were red due to the trends. The trends have reversed or flattened, as I have posted earlier. But we can't selectively choose when we listen to what the officials say and when we ignore it.
No, I listen closely to the officials at the TMC, and that was the point of that chart...they don't seem to be acting like they are about to be forced to treat people in restrooms or hallways. I DO NOT listen to politicians, media, or random texag-ers though! And that was my point...they WERE red not long ago...hopefully the trend holds up. In the meantime, continue to take precautions.
I think maybe we are talking past each other.
ICU in Houston is not at risk of being overrun because they are actively taking steps to reduce the normal caseload in the ICU. There is likely some overlap between COVID cases and cases that would be in the ICU anyways but they are not 1:1. Canceling elective surgeries is maintaining bedspace at the risk to those patients having to postpone operations that might impact their overall quality of life.
Does this mean we need to be locked down? no. Does this mean we should actively be trying to manage the case load and reduce increases through mask orders, reduced capacity etc? IMO yes.
ICU in Houston is not at risk of being overrun because they are actively taking steps to reduce the normal caseload in the ICU. There is likely some overlap between COVID cases and cases that would be in the ICU anyways but they are not 1:1. Canceling elective surgeries is maintaining bedspace at the risk to those patients having to postpone operations that might impact their overall quality of life.
Does this mean we need to be locked down? no. Does this mean we should actively be trying to manage the case load and reduce increases through mask orders, reduced capacity etc? IMO yes.
Interesting but they don't post any economic numbers. The last quarter Sweden did way better than its neighbors. See the actual numbers posted in this thread a few weeks back. Will be interesting to see the real economic numbers when they come out.