NYC.gov
Did Sweden end up taking the best approach?
260,869 Views |
1675 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Enzomatic
Thanks.
Anyway you look at it, I would argue the statement that it doesn't affect non-elderly isn't true. They might recover but there are still a significant number of working aged people being hospitalized.
*Know you were talking about deaths
Anyway you look at it, I would argue the statement that it doesn't affect non-elderly isn't true. They might recover but there are still a significant number of working aged people being hospitalized.
*Know you were talking about deaths
I agree with that. Even if it's only 5-10% of the total deaths, that's still statistically significant. Anyone that has to be hospitalized is obviously not in great shape either.
It's not as simple as you would have it.
Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus.
Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus.
Someone smarter than me please correct me if i'm wrong but there are roughly 170,000,000 americans between the ages of between the ages of 25-64. for heard immunity we need about 80% of people to be infected. That leaves us with 136,000,000 infected americans in the 25-64 age group. at a very conservative 0.2% mortality rate that leaves us with 272,000 dead just in this age group. Given the high rates of diabetes, htn, and obesity in the US, it would probably be even higher.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DadHammer said:
It's not as simple as you would have it.
Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus.
That can't remotely be stated as fact.
If the overall mortality rate is 0.2%, than it will presumably be lower than 0.2% within that group.Quote:
at a very conservative 0.2% mortality rate that leaves us with 272,000 dead just in this age group.
But yes, your post captures the broad point that when you scale this thing up, there's some tough realities to be grappled with.
good point about the mortality rate. I don't see how the overall mortality rate can end up being 0.2% but I hope so! I think 0.2% mortality is still underestimating a bit considering the inclusion of the 50+ demographic.
Sweden is leveling off. Good news for them.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Deaths in Italy by Age
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-region-in-italy/
Deaths
20-29 7
30-39 39
40-49 164
50-59 692
60-69 2075
70-79 5669
80-89 7270
90 and older 1998
Cases in Italy (unfortunately not Identical age groups and by percentage of total) by age (total 152300 cases)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103023/coronavirus-cases-distribution-by-age-group-italy/
19-50 27% (41,121 total)
51-70 34.9 (53,152 total)
70 and older 36.5% (55,590 total)
Total deaths age 20 to 49 - 7+39+164 = 210
210/41,121 = 0.5% CFR for 19-50
In Italy they may still have mostly tested sick people, I have no idea - but if true, then in theory CFR would be lower than that calculation.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-region-in-italy/
Deaths
20-29 7
30-39 39
40-49 164
50-59 692
60-69 2075
70-79 5669
80-89 7270
90 and older 1998
Cases in Italy (unfortunately not Identical age groups and by percentage of total) by age (total 152300 cases)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103023/coronavirus-cases-distribution-by-age-group-italy/
19-50 27% (41,121 total)
51-70 34.9 (53,152 total)
70 and older 36.5% (55,590 total)
Total deaths age 20 to 49 - 7+39+164 = 210
210/41,121 = 0.5% CFR for 19-50
In Italy they may still have mostly tested sick people, I have no idea - but if true, then in theory CFR would be lower than that calculation.
You are very wrong. That has been documented way more times. It actually is a fact. Look it up yourself.
Player To Be Named Later said:
Personally, the most glaring takeaway I've learned the last few weeks is just how beholden to the almighty dollar a large part of our society is. I should be surprised, but I'm not.
Are there people truly hurting? Sure. But I'd imagine a lot of the people clamoring for "open things up!" aren't in real danger of putting food on the table. But they may be im danger of not living the lifestyle they're accustomed to. I guess I'm used to not having a lot, so for me lives trump $$$.
I have several friends on social media who have, before this, spent almost every day lecturing about how conservatively Christian they are (as am I) but in this instance they are more worried about their $$$ than saving lives.
It's really been an interesting thing to watch.
I think there are two fears at play during this time: 1) Sickness and death and 2) Personal loss (money, material, sustenance, etc.)
The average household doesn't have 3 months work of emergency savings. I would bet most don't have 2 months. A lot of that is tied into lifestyle, as you mentioned, mostly living above their means or the very top of their means. Yes, this is a personal choice, and I hope people learn from this situation going forward, but we can't change their position currently.
I do think people are facing some very real fears if the economy goes through an extended recession and they lose their job. If things continue to spiral, they might be facing the very real threat of losing their home if they don't have enough savings. That's a very scary thought, no matter how you slice it.
I do agree with you the lack of compassion for people like the elderly is a larger contingent of people than I expected. In my personal opinion, that's more to do with America devaluing life in general. If people whose main fear is personal loss and feel certain lives are not as valuable, I really want them to reevaluate their thoughts.
My overall thought is there are a lot of motivations for comments to be made on this topic - some self-serving (on both sides of the argument) out of fear and some genuinely thoughtful of others. I wish we would consider each other's comments and understand there are some very real fears behind them before we rebut.
By the way, this is not directed at you, these are just thoughts I've been having lately.
A little more time will be needed. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aaDadHammer said:
Sweden is leveling off. Good news for them.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
They climbed, then positives plummeted for several days. Then they had their 3 worst days, all in a row, on April 6, 7, and 8.
Also, I don't know why, but every Friday positives tests in Sweden have continually been substantially lower than they were on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Saturdays and Sundays generally remain similar to Friday. And then every Monday positives seem to jump back up.
Saturdays and Sundays generally remain similar to Friday. And then every Monday positives seem to jump back up.
DadHammer said:
You are very wrong. That has been documented way more times. It actually is a fact. Look it up yourself.
How about when you make a claim you provide supporting data. Several of us have done nothing but refute your incorrect claims, save us some time
TXAggie2011 said:
Also, I don't know why, but every Friday positives tests in Sweden have continually been substantially lower than they were on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
Saturdays and Sundays generally remain similar to Friday. And then every Monday positives seem to jump back up.
465 today, much like Saturday's #.
They still look ok generally, but not when you compare death rates with their neighbors.
Sweden 919 deaths
Norway 134
Finland 59
Sweden 10.2 million population
Norway 5.3
Finland 5.5
EDIT: and just like many people have said, we won't know the final answer until much, much later
Maybe it's time to take a break from arguing on the internet? This is the 2nd time you've done the frustrated "look it up yourself" claim in different threads.DadHammer said:
You are very wrong. That has been documented way more times. It actually is a fact. Look it up yourself.
How can it be documented as fact until all the data is in? Like time of shutdown, number of deaths, etc.DadHammer said:
You are very wrong. That has been documented way more times. It actually is a fact. Look it up yourself.
He's trolling. Use your stars and block him
From Monday March 30 to Thursday, April 2, they went 475, 486, 555, up to 601.
Then dropped to 357, 341, and 391 on Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Then jumped to 739, 656, and 645 Monday through Wednesday.
Thursday dropped to 452. Good Friday dropped to 389, Saturday was 419.
Their government website is still only showing 82 on Easter Sunday. Worldometers showing 332.
Then they jumped about 40% to 465 today?
I'm not trying to voice an opinion on their policies with this, I'm just confused by their reporting, or whatever is causing their graph to look like a roller coaster.
Then dropped to 357, 341, and 391 on Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Then jumped to 739, 656, and 645 Monday through Wednesday.
Thursday dropped to 452. Good Friday dropped to 389, Saturday was 419.
Their government website is still only showing 82 on Easter Sunday. Worldometers showing 332.
Then they jumped about 40% to 465 today?
I'm not trying to voice an opinion on their policies with this, I'm just confused by their reporting, or whatever is causing their graph to look like a roller coaster.
using that data we would have a 5% mortality rate for the 50-69 age group. Assuming they mostly tested symptomatic people then, as you mentioned, it would actually be lower than that. I think this age group is the biggest challenge. They are at high risk but I don't think they can realistically isolate themselves from society because they still work and will be major contributors to the herd immunity. There are 80 million americans in that age group. that's 60 million of that age group needed for heard immunity. Lets say we are off by a factor of 10 for that age group and the mortality is 0.5%. it's still 300,000 people. At 0.2% its still 120,000 just in that age group. That's the challenge with the heard immunity plan. The scale is so large that its a large amount of people dying to achieve it.
generally agree, especially among the community posting on this board.Beat40 said:Player To Be Named Later said:
Personally, the most glaring takeaway I've learned the last few weeks is just how beholden to the almighty dollar a large part of our society is. I should be surprised, but I'm not.
Are there people truly hurting? Sure. But I'd imagine a lot of the people clamoring for "open things up!" aren't in real danger of putting food on the table. But they may be im danger of not living the lifestyle they're accustomed to. I guess I'm used to not having a lot, so for me lives trump $$$.
I have several friends on social media who have, before this, spent almost every day lecturing about how conservatively Christian they are (as am I) but in this instance they are more worried about their $$$ than saving lives.
It's really been an interesting thing to watch.
I think there are two fears at play during this time: 1) Sickness and death and 2) Personal loss (money, material, sustenance, etc.)
The average household doesn't have 3 months work of emergency savings. I would bet most don't have 2 months. A lot of that is tied into lifestyle, as you mentioned, mostly living above their means or the very top of their means. Yes, this is a personal choice, and I hope people learn from this situation going forward, but we can't change their position currently.
I do think people are facing some very real fears if the economy goes through an extended recession and they lose their job. If things continue to spiral, they might be facing the very real threat of losing their home if they don't have enough savings. That's a very scary thought, no matter how you slice it.
I do agree with you the lack of compassion for people like the elderly is a larger contingent of people than I expected. In my personal opinion, that's more to do with America devaluing life in general. If people whose main fear is personal loss and feel certain lives are not as valuable, I really want them to reevaluate their thoughts.
My overall thought is there are a lot of motivations for comments to be made on this topic - some self-serving (on both sides of the argument) out of fear and some genuinely thoughtful of others. I wish we would consider each other's comments and understand there are some very real fears behind them before we rebut.
By the way, this is not directed at you, these are just thoughts I've been having lately.
i'd add a third category of fear that is too readily dismissed on this board given the demographic of Texags.
3) fear of breakdown as society copes with the depression we are entering. I'm personally exposed to folks in LE, military, and policy leadership who are VERY concerned about where we will be in areas of the country by the second half of this year, regardless of how fast we 'reopen' or not.
anybody who presumes all will be well with an extended period of >20% unemployment is being very very optimistic. i personally don't think 'v-shaped' or bounce-back recoveries are likely, and that we are in for a long difficult road to recovery from this catastrophe.
if all is well through this upcoming hardship, then we are the most robust 'stress proof' society in human history - more robust than America in 68, America in the 30's, and any number of other countries throughout history.
for me, this is a definite fear you should include. I think about this constantly. it has nothing to do with my personal financial circumstances.
one of the more regrettable aspects of the discussion on this board is that any effort to discuss (3) is either dismissed as greed-driven avarice by those worried more about (1), or turned into a cold, purely financial equation by those worried more about (2).
i'm praying the optimists are right. there is little in our public discourse in the past decade that encourages me to believe we are socially strong enough to handle what is coming without major upheaval. i truly hope we are stronger than we look.
We're from North California, and South Alabam
and little towns all around this land...
and little towns all around this land...
Sorry, that reply was in reference to 20%+ unemployment and poverty related deaths.
Look guys I am not going to look up every study for you on poverty and it's impacts.
You can do that yourself. The other reference was already listed many times on doctors preferring HCQ so far around the world. I am not going to repost already posted material every time you don't like an answer.
Stay off my threads or block me, I block most of you anyway when you get personal and can't debate facts.
Look guys I am not going to look up every study for you on poverty and it's impacts.
You can do that yourself. The other reference was already listed many times on doctors preferring HCQ so far around the world. I am not going to repost already posted material every time you don't like an answer.
Stay off my threads or block me, I block most of you anyway when you get personal and can't debate facts.
So is that why you started a new thread?DadHammer said:
Sorry, that reply was in reference to 20%+ unemployment and poverty related deaths.
Look guys I am not going to look up every study for you on poverty and it's impacts.
You can do that yourself. The other reference was already listed many times on doctors preferring HCQ so far around the world. I am not going to repost already posted material every time you don't like an answer.
Stay off my threads or block me, I block most of you anyway when you get personal and can't debate facts.
Why bother posting if you block everyone? Might as well go to twitter to hear yourself talk.
DadHammer said:
Sorry, that reply was in reference to 20%+ unemployment and poverty related deaths.
Look guys I am not going to look up every study for you on poverty and it's impacts.
You can do that yourself. The other reference was already listed many times on doctors preferring HCQ so far around the world. I am not going to repost already posted material every time you don't like an answer.
Stay off my threads or block me, I block most of you anyway when you get personal and can't debate facts.
Factual question ... so how can you compare unemployment and poverty related deaths to virus deaths until the death totals are finalized?
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
29,707
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I was hoping our strength would have been used belt tightening for a real and valid balanced budget, but this whole affair will put this off until past my lifetime. But I guess that is for another thread.California Ag 90 said:
there is little in our public discourse in the past decade that encourages me to believe we are socially strong enough to handle what is coming without major upheaval. i truly hope we are stronger than we look.
That sir is the $million question.
Is the lock down worse than the virus? You are correct in that we won't know until it's too late. The models have been so far off I just don't trust the government forcing a total lock down as we are in today.
I could be 100% wrong. It's just a message board.
Is the lock down worse than the virus? You are correct in that we won't know until it's too late. The models have been so far off I just don't trust the government forcing a total lock down as we are in today.
I could be 100% wrong. It's just a message board.
Seamless segue from "it actually is a fact" to "I could be 100% wrong", bravo.
Complete Idiot said:
Seamless segue from "it actually is a fact" to "I could be 100% wrong", bravo.
You noticed that too.
"Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus" was what we said before.
Based on the projected deaths of what about 65,000?
Unemployment of 20% or more could easily top that.
I want to see your proof that poverty doesn't shorten lives, cause drug abuse deaths, suicides, stress, and disease.
Please post your links to your data.
Unemployment of 20% or more could easily top that.
I want to see your proof that poverty doesn't shorten lives, cause drug abuse deaths, suicides, stress, and disease.
Please post your links to your data.
No need for me to prove anything. You posted this ...
"Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus"
It was your opinion and not a fact. Yet you said you were stating facts.
Have a great rest of your day!
"Poverty will cost us way more lives than the virus"
It was your opinion and not a fact. Yet you said you were stating facts.
Have a great rest of your day!
What government is forcing a total lockdown?DadHammer said:
That sir is the $million question.
Is the lock down worse than the virus? You are correct in that we won't know until it's too late. The models have been so far off I just don't trust the government forcing a total lock down as we are in today.
I could be 100% wrong. It's just a message board.
"The investigators found that approximately 245,000 deaths in the United States in the year 2000 were attributable to low levels of education, 176,000 to racial segregation, 162,000 to low social support, 133,000 to individual-level poverty, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty. Overall, 4.5% of U.S. deaths were found to be attributable to povertymidway between previous estimates of 6% and 2.3%. However the risks associated with both poverty and low education were higher for individuals aged 25 to 64 than for those 65 or older."
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-many-us-deaths-are-caused-poverty-lack-education-and-other-social-factors
There are many many more studies you could easily look up for yourself.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-many-us-deaths-are-caused-poverty-lack-education-and-other-social-factors
There are many many more studies you could easily look up for yourself.
This thread probably should have been titled Did Sweden Take The Best Approach For Sweden
We saw a different first-tier country in Europe (the UK) try a 'herd immunity' approach avoiding putting significant social distancing restrictions on their population for quite awhile, and now a COVID outbreak has gotten pretty bad there and the government is facing heavy public criticism about being slow to act.
We saw a different first-tier country in Europe (the UK) try a 'herd immunity' approach avoiding putting significant social distancing restrictions on their population for quite awhile, and now a COVID outbreak has gotten pretty bad there and the government is facing heavy public criticism about being slow to act.