going by what they've said recently on miscalculating and put in place originally, there was supposed to be a big emphasis on isolating the elderly and vulnerable. the virus either was more severe than they anticipated or more easily slipped thru their cracks there.wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 6:24 pmThat seemed to be the Swedish view based on that article..... Old people need to be more careful. They are going to let the virus run it’s course. They are not going to shut down the country. Seems like they have decided that the more vulnerable population is what it is...more vulnerable. We will see if it works. I was initially of that mind....shelter the old people and let everyone else move about. But I discovered that a number of people 55 and under end up in the hospital and a chunk of them die. Changed my opinion. If you go to the hospital in Sweden with COVID 19, there is a 75% chance you won’t be leaving. Our numbers are better.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 6:10 pmthe conversation was sweden. you're either conflating or contrasting the 2 countries' political moves, making another argument,or whatevs i can't follow.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:31 pmYes. It remains to be seen. The philosophy seems to be, "we will let some of these old people die off and hopefully the younger people will develop some immunity". The question seems to be what is an acceptable number of deaths?... for the greater good.ggait wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:26 pmI posted this Swedish interview the other day. The head health guy in Sweden is being pretty open about what he is doing and why. He still thinks it is the right plan.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:07 pm https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01098-x
He's waaaaaay behind at halftime. Up to 192 deaths per million pop -- that is 3X Denmark and 6X Norway. UW is projecting Sweden is still three weeks from the peak. UW projecting 9,200 deaths for Sweden -- which would be 900 deaths per million pop. For reference, Italy is currently at 415.
He's betting that he'll win in the second half -- because Sweden will have developed herd immunity sooner than other countries. Very much TBD.
again, don't need to. peace.
they've also admitted more testing would have helped in that regard, particularly with the elderly, and are supposedly ramping that.
not knowing exactly what level of social contact is there vs. other places like ours, i still would've guessed their case numbers would be growing a lot more rapidly than they are by now. immunity? lack of enough tests? we'll see. if it's the former (and there is such a thing), their outcomes may not be nearly as bad as predicted. and wrapped sooner.
[/quote]
I am not sure the numbers we’ll be as bad as anyone predicted. If we end up with 60k dead by May 15th. That will be a win. Early on, I posted a death rate of 1% or lower here would be a win. This is worse than the flu but may not be catastrophic. Social distancing has “likely” helped. The number of dead bodies in the short amount of time is a barometer of how lethal the virus can be and I believe we have an undercount on deaths as well as those that have already been exposed. We learn more as we go. This virus could not have been avoided but we are paying the price for lack of preparation.