The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally fucked right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0 -
I'd have more confidence in those estimates if they could be shown to match some real world sampling.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0 -
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-cancer-treatment-cutbacks-uk-latest-calls-charities-breast-cancer-2541044kingstongraham said:
That's wrong.coopster_the_1st said:
Flattening the curve only results in fewer hospital days in the short term.
0 -
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.1 -
Reports from the Charles de Gaulle French aircraft carrier is that 50% of those who tested positive showed no symptoms.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.
There is also a view among scientists that the more the virus runs the weaker it gets. This is the case with other Coronaviruses and flu viruses. It certainly makes logical sense as the more people infected means it has less hosts to transmit it.0 -
Possibly, up to about 10 days ago things wouldn't have been materially different. As of now, we would simply be in a complete mess about how to handle the logistics of processing the dead and dying in London whilst other areas would be rapidly approaching over capacity.kingstongraham said:As a thought experiment, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?
We would probably have no PPE.
Conversely, we have no idea where the ceiling is. If as suggested by some, a large number of people have had this asymptomatically and given that London was an outbreak hotspot, maybe London got far closer to an unconstrained peak than we realise.
I guess Sweden and under developed nations will provide the control statistics in months and years to come.0 -
Doesn't answer the question.coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0 -
I mean longer term. Their approach may prove to have been correct. No-one knows either way yet.rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0 -
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.0 -
My post wasn't very long but despite that you didn't appear to read it. I've highlighted the relevant bit for you in my original post which says "Corona viruses are different".rick_chasey said:
Not seen the front page of the guardian today presumably?Stevo_666 said:
Vaccines against viruses are possible as we have them for various flu strains. Corona viruses are different, but the fact that there are around 80 different ÇOVID 19 vaccine projects on the go currently suggests thst the professionals think it is feasible - the question is probably more one of timing.Wheelspinner said:
Well, I don’t, in a practical sense anyway.tailwindhome said:
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this.Stevo_666 said:As I've mentioned before, the vaccine is the proper exit strategy. Testing & tracing etc is only managing the problem not solving it.
Find a vaccine in few months that works really effectively and maybe it is. Chances of that actually happening are somewhere between slim and SFA.
Here’s a list of all the vaccines available for Coronavirus infections, including for SARS and MERS:
Feel reassured now? Not for lack of trying I might add.
It is more likely that there will be anti-viral treatments available before a vaccine is available:
https://healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19
Some of these already exist but clearly need to be assessed.
You know corona isn’t the flu? It’s a different type of virus."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Exit polls in 2015 UK general election were based on 20,000 interviews across 140 polling stations.rjsterry said:
I'd have more confidence in those estimates if they could be shown to match some real world sampling.morstar said:
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/what-exit-poll-general-election-121122248.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFyJime4aDAu6cqykdGRNmuqmFAtTyf7QtkME63B2fgG1BDOnraFZFRz_m1-FnhU3LJtOG3bVBmHpy2zdPX1mYWFeRT5Wr8SShULvA4HTB0wVvFODPD7671Vs6oc2gifN76vZrLjIUQPAv3xDwPTK1hmGe6QRXvLc7JUro4VKr1U
Given that a UK general election is not binary in terms of seats it is more complex to model than a binary virus. Although the virus can potentially affect the entire population rather than a sub-set.
These have given mixed results in recent years. 2010, 2017 and 2019 very reliable but 2015 not so.
Does give an idea of the order of magnitude of data required. IF, you are simply trying to model and not track and trace. (Which I believe is the UK policy)0 -
I think the key bit was about anti viral treatments, the vaccine isn't the only lifesaver here. The time we're buying will save lives.Stevo_666 said:
My post wasn't very long but despite that you didn't appear to read my post. I've highlighted the relevant bit for you in my original post which says "Corona viruses are different".rick_chasey said:
Not seen the front page of the guardian today presumably?Stevo_666 said:
Vaccines against viruses are possible as we have them for various flu strains. Corona viruses are different, but the fact that there are around 80 different ÇOVID 19 vaccine projects on the go currently suggests thst the professionals think it is feasible - the question is probably more one of timing.Wheelspinner said:
Well, I don’t, in a practical sense anyway.tailwindhome said:
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this.Stevo_666 said:As I've mentioned before, the vaccine is the proper exit strategy. Testing & tracing etc is only managing the problem not solving it.
Find a vaccine in few months that works really effectively and maybe it is. Chances of that actually happening are somewhere between slim and SFA.
Here’s a list of all the vaccines available for Coronavirus infections, including for SARS and MERS:
Feel reassured now? Not for lack of trying I might add.
It is more likely that there will be anti-viral treatments available before a vaccine is available:
https://healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19
Some of these already exist but clearly need to be assessed.
You know corona isn’t the flu? It’s a different type of virus.
0 -
I didn't quite understand your numbers. Are you saying 0.15% of the population on New Yorkers have died or the US figures are 0.15% of the population of New York? The population of NYC is just over 18.8 million so would equate to around 29,000 dead. I think the US total is about 10k more than that so have nearly 75% of their deaths been in NYC? I knew it was by far the worst place but didn't realise it was that high and thought it was State wide.kingstongraham said:All I was saying was an estimate of mortality that implies an infection rate in New York City of 125% might be a bit low.
0 -
morstar said:
Not arguing against earlier lockdown. I think we all accept that is proven to be a very effective suppressant.rjsterry said:
John Burn Murdoch has analysed this and there is only a very weak correlation. It's not the magic key.morstar said:
I think population density has some good correlation to mortality rates in Europe.
Portugal seems to fare better than you’d expect on that metric but they are well isolated assuming Spain has experienced infections in the
main population centres.
See thread here
Rather awkwardly for some the best correlation with lower deaths is an earlier lockdown.
The analysis doesn't really prove or disprove the population density theory as he used national statistics when the outbreaks aren't seeded everywhere.
From a bit of reading I have done to try and see if what I had observed made sense or not the following is a general summary.
Highly dense urban areas can assist early spread.
"Relative to rural areas, urban centers do provide stronger chains of viral transmission, with higher rates of contact and larger numbers of infection-prone people."
https://www.citylab.com/life/2020/03/coronavirus-data-cities-rural-areas-pandemic-health-risks/607783/
London, like Luxembourg has a high desity of people and high frequency of inward and outward travel helping to establish viral spread. The number of other major cities in the UK have no baring on that outbreak.
But that is very much about the early stages. Over the full lifecycle, the population density seems largely irrelevant. If anything, the poorer health provision in less densely populated areas increases risk.
The German study waaay upthread posited two main areas for transmission: large gatherings in enclosed spaces, and family/households. So whilst densely populated areas figure in creating clusters and infecting lots of people efficiently, dispersal from those centres to households away from densely populated areas could easily account for subsequent waves away from those areas.0 -
What is disappointing is all these small scale tests all show different things.
For every one I read that says 50+% got it with no symptoms I read one where in a hotspot where loads died only a small proportion had it.0 -
I've made the point above that any stats now are a snapshot and to eliminate the timing differences we need to see the end outcome. It's a bit like looking at the positions of runners a few miles into a marathon, to use a previous sporting analogy.Jeremy.89 said:
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.
The current strategies largely impact timing of the spread (subject to healthcare capacity remaining available)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes, but at cost in terms of social, economic and non-covid health.kingstongraham said:
I think the key bit was about anti viral treatments, the vaccine isn't the only lifesaver here. The time we're buying will save lives.Stevo_666 said:
My post wasn't very long but despite that you didn't appear to read my post. I've highlighted the relevant bit for you in my original post which says "Corona viruses are different".rick_chasey said:
Not seen the front page of the guardian today presumably?Stevo_666 said:
Vaccines against viruses are possible as we have them for various flu strains. Corona viruses are different, but the fact that there are around 80 different ÇOVID 19 vaccine projects on the go currently suggests thst the professionals think it is feasible - the question is probably more one of timing.Wheelspinner said:
Well, I don’t, in a practical sense anyway.tailwindhome said:
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this.Stevo_666 said:As I've mentioned before, the vaccine is the proper exit strategy. Testing & tracing etc is only managing the problem not solving it.
Find a vaccine in few months that works really effectively and maybe it is. Chances of that actually happening are somewhere between slim and SFA.
Here’s a list of all the vaccines available for Coronavirus infections, including for SARS and MERS:
Feel reassured now? Not for lack of trying I might add.
It is more likely that there will be anti-viral treatments available before a vaccine is available:
https://healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19
Some of these already exist but clearly need to be assessed.
You know corona isn’t the flu? It’s a different type of virus.0 -
How do they know they are closer to the other side?Jeremy.89 said:
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.
Are they testing?0 -
That's the New York metro area that has 20 million ish, includes areas outside NYC. Including Newark etc in New Jersey. NYC population is about 8.5 million, and over 13,000 coronavirus deaths.Pross said:
I didn't quite understand your numbers. Are you saying 0.15% of the population on New Yorkers have died or the US figures are 0.15% of the population of New York? The population of NYC is just over 18.8 million so would equate to around 29,000 dead. I think the US total is about 10k more than that so have nearly 75% of their deaths been in NYC? I knew it was by far the worst place but didn't realise it was that high and thought it was State wide.kingstongraham said:All I was saying was an estimate of mortality that implies an infection rate in New York City of 125% might be a bit low.
0 -
I would say that the extent to which buying time saves lives will depend on the timing of a vaccine. If it is a long way out then I think that number will be very low, given the ease of transmission and the finite time that lockdown can realistically be kept in place. The other factor is healthcare capacity - and so far we seem to have remained within that.morstar said:
Yes, but at cost in terms of social, economic and non-covid health.kingstongraham said:
I think the key bit was about anti viral treatments, the vaccine isn't the only lifesaver here. The time we're buying will save lives.Stevo_666 said:
My post wasn't very long but despite that you didn't appear to read my post. I've highlighted the relevant bit for you in my original post which says "Corona viruses are different".rick_chasey said:
Not seen the front page of the guardian today presumably?Stevo_666 said:
Vaccines against viruses are possible as we have them for various flu strains. Corona viruses are different, but the fact that there are around 80 different ÇOVID 19 vaccine projects on the go currently suggests thst the professionals think it is feasible - the question is probably more one of timing.Wheelspinner said:
Well, I don’t, in a practical sense anyway.tailwindhome said:
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this.Stevo_666 said:As I've mentioned before, the vaccine is the proper exit strategy. Testing & tracing etc is only managing the problem not solving it.
Find a vaccine in few months that works really effectively and maybe it is. Chances of that actually happening are somewhere between slim and SFA.
Here’s a list of all the vaccines available for Coronavirus infections, including for SARS and MERS:
Feel reassured now? Not for lack of trying I might add.
It is more likely that there will be anti-viral treatments available before a vaccine is available:
https://healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19
Some of these already exist but clearly need to be assessed.
You know corona isn’t the flu? It’s a different type of virus."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
rick_chasey said:
How do they know they are closer to the other side?Jeremy.89 said:
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.
Are they testing?
Seems to be wishful thinking on the part of the architect of their plan. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/18/stockholm-will-reach-herd-immunity-within-weeks/
"Sweden's infectious diseases chief has said parts of the country could achieve "herd immunity" as early as next month as debate rages over the rising death toll. The country's laissez faire experiment with coronavirus restrictions has made it a European outlier - drawing intrigue from around the globe.
Data this week showed the rate of new cases peaking for the first time as deaths continued to outstrip neighbouring countries with strict lockdowns. Both the architects and the critics of Sweden's approach - which has left kindergartens, schools, restaurants, cafés and bars open - have both seized on new figures, claiming tentative victories"
"Mr Tegnell's upbeat assessment came on a day when the number of recorded deaths from coronavirus in Sweden rose 130 in a single day to 1,333. By Friday the death toll had hit 1,400. Sweden's death rate is much higher than in its Nordic neighbours, but it remains comfortably better off than much more locked-down countries such as the UK and France.
Lena Einhorn, the virologist who is one of the few public critics of Sweden's strategy, told the Sunday Telegraph she was incredulous that Dr Tegnell could present this week's dismal figures as good news.
"In Finland on Thursday the cumulative number was 13 dead per million inhabitants, in Sweden it was 130 per million inhabitants. Finland: 75 dead, Norway: 152 dead, Sweden: 1,333 dead," she said. "And yet Anders Tegnell is saying 'we are feeling very hopeful'. What are they hopeful about?""0 -
Fair point, I think again the impact will depend on timing of anti-viral treatments - and also their efficacy (almost by definition a vaccine is taken to be pretty much fully effective whereas anti-virals will vary in their effect).kingstongraham said:
I think the key bit was about anti viral treatments, the vaccine isn't the only lifesaver here. The time we're buying will save lives.Stevo_666 said:
My post wasn't very long but despite that you didn't appear to read my post. I've highlighted the relevant bit for you in my original post which says "Corona viruses are different".rick_chasey said:
Not seen the front page of the guardian today presumably?Stevo_666 said:
Vaccines against viruses are possible as we have them for various flu strains. Corona viruses are different, but the fact that there are around 80 different ÇOVID 19 vaccine projects on the go currently suggests thst the professionals think it is feasible - the question is probably more one of timing.Wheelspinner said:
Well, I don’t, in a practical sense anyway.tailwindhome said:
I'm not sure anyone disagrees with this.Stevo_666 said:As I've mentioned before, the vaccine is the proper exit strategy. Testing & tracing etc is only managing the problem not solving it.
Find a vaccine in few months that works really effectively and maybe it is. Chances of that actually happening are somewhere between slim and SFA.
Here’s a list of all the vaccines available for Coronavirus infections, including for SARS and MERS:
Feel reassured now? Not for lack of trying I might add.
It is more likely that there will be anti-viral treatments available before a vaccine is available:
https://healthline.com/health-news/heres-exactly-where-were-at-with-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19
Some of these already exist but clearly need to be assessed.
You know corona isn’t the flu? It’s a different type of virus."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So it seemed the thread was pertinent enough for the govt to post its own response.Pross said:
Yes but why are you focussing on that when you appeared to completely ignore when someone posted the story that a brand new product, which will hopefully minimise the need for much more intrusive ventilators, has been approved for use?rick_chasey said:
No the one I posted earlier today.Pross said:
What thread? Is it the one about the new UCL / Mercedes / Airbus product that has been designed and approved for use within weeks and will reduce the need for traditional ventilators? Found that quite positive to be honest.rick_chasey said:That ventilator thread is absolutely damning.
Do you still not understand why people criticise your negativity?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster0 -
At about the same rate as UK.rick_chasey said:
How do they know they are closer to the other side?Jeremy.89 said:
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.
Are they testing?
Which from a modelling perspective may well be enough. Not enough for track and trace which is the German policy.0 -
In general there needs to be more rebuttal of negative claims spread around on the internet. I'm proud to say we are doing our part here in Cake Stoprick_chasey said:
So it seemed the thread was pertinent enough for the govt to post its own response.Pross said:
Yes but why are you focussing on that when you appeared to completely ignore when someone posted the story that a brand new product, which will hopefully minimise the need for much more intrusive ventilators, has been approved for use?rick_chasey said:
No the one I posted earlier today.Pross said:
What thread? Is it the one about the new UCL / Mercedes / Airbus product that has been designed and approved for use within weeks and will reduce the need for traditional ventilators? Found that quite positive to be honest.rick_chasey said:That ventilator thread is absolutely damning.
Do you still not understand why people criticise your negativity?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-ft-article-and-twitter-thread-by-peter-foster
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Come on, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?coopster_the_1st said:
The biggest difference between Sweden and the UK is the Swedish government has stood behind its Chief Scientist rather than let the media take over the rolekingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
How does population density and number of highly populated areas compare between Belgium & Ireland?tailwindhome said:
Are Ireland and Sweden following the same C19 policy?
Shows how stupid that tweet is. He has compared Apples, Pears and Oranges. I can't believe the poster cannot see this!
Are you suggesting we can't compare the policies of different countries because they're following different policies?
Belgium has a much higher population density than Ireland. True
383/km2 v 72/km2
However this isn't a rebuttal of the importance of testing.
If anything testing will be more beneficial in areas of high population density, as early intervention prevents disproportionately more infections
I am of course assuming that fewer infections and a lower body count is a good thing.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
A quick Google on Lena Einhorn and her religious views/writings are enough to discredit her opinion from any conversation on this.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
How do they know they are closer to the other side?Jeremy.89 said:
But is correspondingly closer to coming out the other side?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.
This virus has got to the stage where there is no return to normal without herd immunity. The two ways of getting herd immunity are a vaccine or a significant number becoming ill.
At the moment we are treading water, but I'm pretty apprehensive about what comes next.
Are they testing?
Seems to be wishful thinking on the part of the architect of their plan. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/18/stockholm-will-reach-herd-immunity-within-weeks/
"Sweden's infectious diseases chief has said parts of the country could achieve "herd immunity" as early as next month as debate rages over the rising death toll. The country's laissez faire experiment with coronavirus restrictions has made it a European outlier - drawing intrigue from around the globe.
Data this week showed the rate of new cases peaking for the first time as deaths continued to outstrip neighbouring countries with strict lockdowns. Both the architects and the critics of Sweden's approach - which has left kindergartens, schools, restaurants, cafés and bars open - have both seized on new figures, claiming tentative victories"
"Mr Tegnell's upbeat assessment came on a day when the number of recorded deaths from coronavirus in Sweden rose 130 in a single day to 1,333. By Friday the death toll had hit 1,400. Sweden's death rate is much higher than in its Nordic neighbours, but it remains comfortably better off than much more locked-down countries such as the UK and France.
Lena Einhorn, the virologist who is one of the few public critics of Sweden's strategy, told the Sunday Telegraph she was incredulous that Dr Tegnell could present this week's dismal figures as good news.
"In Finland on Thursday the cumulative number was 13 dead per million inhabitants, in Sweden it was 130 per million inhabitants. Finland: 75 dead, Norway: 152 dead, Sweden: 1,333 dead," she said. "And yet Anders Tegnell is saying 'we are feeling very hopeful'. What are they hopeful about?""
0 -
I thought Germany was the benchmark for all things positive? Why is it suddenly neighbouring countries?rick_chasey said:
You know Sweden has vastly more deaths than compared to its nordic neighbours right?kingstongraham said:My thinking is that Sweden might have got the right approach for Sweden, but if the UK, Italy, France and the USA had done it, we would be totally censored right now.
It's way too pat to say"they did this and it worked for them, we should have done that". There's no easy solutions, there's no one size fits all.
But not taking it seriously is a real problem.0
