Afaik Sweden's government didn't have teeth to deal with covid. They did try to push legislation that would have helped, but it won't happen fast. Only war or threat of it allows martial law there. It is hard to convince people to curfew and close businesses when there is no legal base to do so.
The Swedish Experiment
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
danstanford
Anarchist
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it isn't safer to isolate and that the infection rate and death count will be lower if you do. However, that solution is unsustainable for long. Most of us cannot isolate and provide for ourselves both. The isolation concept also relies on some portion of us being prepared to not isolate so we will have the necessities of life. I confess I do get a little aggravated at those of us who blithely stay home preaching about these issues while assuming someone will deliver what they need to their door despite the risks.
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
IFR Rates:
CDC: .28-.41% (age dependent)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
UBonn: .37% (but, expected to be overestimated for reasons they describe)
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020
Stanford: .26%
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2
In March, everyone said it could be 3-7% IFR. So, you could argue a lockdown was justified (I disagreed, personally, but I understand the perspective/fear aspect).
As the data comes in though, it's much closer to a bad flu.
So, we should continue to protect the vulnerable populations, that's the compassionate thing to do.
But, attempting to lock people indoors for the rest of the year, to appease those who demand complete 'safety'
Well, that's *clearly* the wrong decision anymore.
I realize it's politically correct to be scared and cautious, I get it. I get that it's fun to sit at a computer and rant that other people should do exactly what you think. Call out culture says anyone who doesn't agree with your side, is the enemy, and a disgusting human being.
I get it, very primal/tribal thinking there, but we all fall into that trap, me as well.
I hope the data speaks for itself, and people here might say 'hmmm, in the pursuit of truth, yes, I see the point. It was good we all worked together to lock down when we thought it was the end of the world. And, now, yes, I see the data too, and we should be protective of the old/sick, but, yeah, science shows now what we didn't know then.'
CDC: .28-.41% (age dependent)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
UBonn: .37% (but, expected to be overestimated for reasons they describe)
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020
Stanford: .26%
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2
In March, everyone said it could be 3-7% IFR. So, you could argue a lockdown was justified (I disagreed, personally, but I understand the perspective/fear aspect).
As the data comes in though, it's much closer to a bad flu.
So, we should continue to protect the vulnerable populations, that's the compassionate thing to do.
But, attempting to lock people indoors for the rest of the year, to appease those who demand complete 'safety'
Well, that's *clearly* the wrong decision anymore.
I realize it's politically correct to be scared and cautious, I get it. I get that it's fun to sit at a computer and rant that other people should do exactly what you think. Call out culture says anyone who doesn't agree with your side, is the enemy, and a disgusting human being.
I get it, very primal/tribal thinking there, but we all fall into that trap, me as well.
I hope the data speaks for itself, and people here might say 'hmmm, in the pursuit of truth, yes, I see the point. It was good we all worked together to lock down when we thought it was the end of the world. And, now, yes, I see the data too, and we should be protective of the old/sick, but, yeah, science shows now what we didn't know then.'
Last edited by a moderator:
- Moderator
- #244
most epidemiologists agreed it would probably somewhere between 5 and 15 times more deadly than seasonal flu, even towards the end of march. reality, not straw men. Who is shocked that it looks like it falls right in that range?
Last edited by a moderator:
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
The CDC shows it at .28% IFR (link above)
The most aggressive study I have seen shows it at .5% potentially.
Anyone who originally estimated 3-7% was wrong by between 12x to 25x
Just think about that sentence for one moment.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the economy should stay shut down until a vaccine is found and until everybody is vaccinated. Indeed that solution is unsustainable. I am one of the lucky ones who can work from home and who have kept his job (and in the oil industry today, this is no small feast, believe me!). The opening concept relies on everybody doing the right thing. Maintain social distancing, especially in doors, maintain the use of masks, absolutely critical indoors, when other people at proximity. I confess I do get a LOT aggravated at those of us who preach a full re-opening now, without making any effort to make the re-opening viable and sustainable in the name of their sacro-saint individual freedom ("I am not wearing any stinking mask!" type of attitude) while assuming someone will take care of them in the hospital if they do get sick.
To me, not doing the minimum steps to slow down the progression of the virus should be considered a DUI. Hear me out.
If you drink and drive and kill yourself, it is your life, your level of risk taking, your decision. The problem is: you are not alone on the road. Your freedom of drink and drive stops when you risk to kill a mom and her 2 kids on the rear seat because you came out of that curve, way to fast, and had a head-on collision with her eventhough she was doing everything right.
If the virus could potentially kill you, and only you, if you catch it, then yes, it is your freedrom to take, or not, all measures to protect yourself, even if they are constraining. But this is not the case.
Actually, not taking minimum safety measured againd the virus is worse than a DUI. If you drink and drive and have a car accident where you end up with 2 broken legs, a concussion and a perforated lung and you make it to the hospital, your foolish attitude will not impact the lifes of the medical personel taking care of you in the coming weeks and months. But a foolish attitude with the virus will jeopardize the lives of the very people who are trying to save yours.
I don't claim this is your attitude. I know that. But if I have to chose a group to be upset at, I know which one I will choose; the people screaming for re-opening of the economy and who by their very egoistic attitude, make that re-opening not viable instead of the people who err too much on the side of caution.
d'ranger
Super Anarchist
- 29,898
- 4,891
The DUI analogy is applicable except that too often the young healthy folks will likely suffer mild symptoms will be infecting others who infect others who infect others and some of those others will die and or suffer horribly.
It's like a DUI chain reaction accident where the driver walks away leaving carnage strewn in his path. Because wearing masks is for pussies and liberals.
It's like a DUI chain reaction accident where the driver walks away leaving carnage strewn in his path. Because wearing masks is for pussies and liberals.
jack_sparrow
Super Anarchist
- 37,393
- 5,094
"In March, everyone said it could be 3-7% IFR."
Cite one reputable entity that said that.... noting your claiming there IFR's 30 - 70 times greater than the flu not 12 - 25.
You have been told multiple times your cited IFR's 0.2% - 0.4% is 2 to 4 times greater than the flu. US 20I9 was 0.13% to be precise then corrected down for not all cases counted.
The range expected is 5 - 15 times (0.5 - 1.5%) depending on age with current weighted mean of multiple studies being around 6/7 times or 0.64%. Yet you keep repeating the same basic numerical mistakes.
It is clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and intent only on spreading disinformation of a dangerous kind.
Last edited by a moderator:
jack_sparrow
Super Anarchist
- 37,393
- 5,094
DUI is probably easier to detect because when your pissed it is pretty obvious.... like your shoes are on back the front, your underpants are outside your trousers....and the sliding into a drunk coma while standing is not exactly hard to miss.
Convid on the other hand you can have extraordinarily low BloodO2 levels and right off the chart where you should be fucking dead as a meat axe. But instead walking around and quite lucid often oblivious to even being short of breath.
The other difference is I haven't heard of anyone with Convid claiming they got laid sometime during the experience.
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
CFR/IFR got used interchangeably a lot at first, and I would concede, the highest estimates of IFR (from actual medical studies), were around 3%.
Most were thinking 1-1.5%.
Now we see the data at .15% to .34%
The flu at .13%
So, Covid is 0-2x a deadly as the common flu.
I think we can all agree that as of mid June, that's what the data says in aggregate.
Likely less deadly for most of the population
Looks like more deadly for sick/old (where, most of the deaths have been, clearly)
Remember: In March, the Imperial College (UK) warned up to 2.2 Million people in the US could die.
That was really the study that got the panic going. That was what started the 'SJW Call for Safety'
Even with a partial lockdown (a number of states did nothing, and yesterday ~575,000 people flew on airplanes), many people just ignored it - deaths are ~120,000 (USA). That's double the seasonal flu. (61,000 a year in US)
Context matters here.
We have the data now... mea culpa is not a bad word when our actions impact Billions of people.
Most were thinking 1-1.5%.
Now we see the data at .15% to .34%
The flu at .13%
So, Covid is 0-2x a deadly as the common flu.
I think we can all agree that as of mid June, that's what the data says in aggregate.
Likely less deadly for most of the population
Looks like more deadly for sick/old (where, most of the deaths have been, clearly)
Remember: In March, the Imperial College (UK) warned up to 2.2 Million people in the US could die.
That was really the study that got the panic going. That was what started the 'SJW Call for Safety'
Even with a partial lockdown (a number of states did nothing, and yesterday ~575,000 people flew on airplanes), many people just ignored it - deaths are ~120,000 (USA). That's double the seasonal flu. (61,000 a year in US)
Context matters here.
We have the data now... mea culpa is not a bad word when our actions impact Billions of people.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
Below is probably my favorite graph that gives context.
Where does Covid-19 fit (realizing we only have ~8 months of data)
Where does Covid-19 fit (realizing we only have ~8 months of data)
mathystuff
Super Anarchist
- 1,161
- 761
Your inabbility to do elementary school level maths kind of disqualifies you from adult conversation.
Covid-19 is definitely not 0 times as deadly as the flu. You are also ignoring it being way more contagious.
Even assuming your 0.3% death rate, which is half the scientific consens at the moment, as has been pointed out to you several times, it would still kill roughly a million US citizens if left unchecked.
That is 2.5 second world wars for the US.
Maybe you should start advocating for a social security net, that would enable you to not having to choose between mass poverty and mass graves, instead of putting the economy above hundred of thousands of lives.
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
If you think how contagious something is, determines how fatal it is... we *really* can't have an adult conversation.
Seriously. I've been super respectful and I've linked to the studies.
You can disagree, but, show data.... don't just say 'huh, this is World War 2.5'
I linked to THREE major studies that show the IFR from .24%-.41%.
Flu is .13%
I *didn't* link to the studies that show Covid-19 as .15%, but it's my *personal* suspicion it will be about this.
Basic Math:
.13% * 2 = .26% .13% *3 = .39%
So, at now, Coronavirus is 2-3x as deadly as the common flu. And, you're chance of survival is only 99.61% instead of 99.87%
This is the context everyone misses: In 2020, more people will die of Malaria than Coronavirus.
Our world isn't crusading to save all those 600,000 (mostly poor, very disproportionally BLACK lives) that die each year, year after year after year.
But, this one, this hits home. The news told me it's scary. 450,000 people died, it's WWIII!
Seriously, and adult conversation starts with facts and context.
60,000,000 people a year die, naturally.
I can't emphasize that enough.
Coronavirus will kill at best, 1.3% of the people who die anyway, every single year.
You need to wrap your head around large numbers, before having a debate on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith
Super Anarchist
jack_sparrow
Super Anarchist
- 37,393
- 5,094
You selected 3 studies at the low end of the range and ignored another 30 or so, many far more detailed, less qualified and more highly regarded than your selection.
Go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.
Last edited by a moderator:
jack_sparrow
Super Anarchist
- 37,393
- 5,094
So when you pressed to cite something you can't and go on to recite more unsupported shit.
Scientists and epidemiologists didn't mistakenly interchange CFR and IFR, fuckwits like you did and still do.
Dangerous cunts like you are are more dangerous than the virus.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #259
BlatantEcho
Super Anarchist
- 1,045
- 309
Love you too, handsome :wub: :wub: :wub:
It's so weird that someone who claims to rely on facts, just calls people names who post... data and facts.
It's not like that in the real world, why drag things down here because you don't agree with the data?
I love this reply: 'I don't believe the CDC, Stanford Medical School, USC Medical Center or really any peer reviewed preprint in Europe.'
Can I ask a question? Are you this upset about Malaria deaths every year too?
Or no, just this?
