Sweden?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I think your numbers are correct in terms of cases and deaths, at least how they count them.  With the benefit of seeing the future, none of us know if your extrapolations are accurate. 

My extrapolations consist of multiplying the death totals in Sweden by 33.  The same factor as the population difference between Sweden (10M) and the US (330M). Jesus, this isn't difficult to figure out.

But hey, nobody could possibly know if they are correct...
Just like no one could possibly know if an argument is correct if they can find one person that disagrees with it...

[WarriorDad]

My extrapolations consist of multiplying the death totals in Sweden by 33.  The same factor as the population difference between Sweden (10M) and the US (330M). Jesus, this isn't difficult to figure out.

But hey, nobody could possibly know if they are correct...
Just like no one could possibly know if an argument is correct if they can find one person that disagrees with it...

We all understand the math.  What we do not know is if Sweden has created any herd immunity and/or if they pulled forward those numbers by the strategy they took.

Here is where I think you are wrong.  You are comparing the US death rate to Sweden’s per your statement, but they both chose different strategies.  Why would you compare the two when the strategies are so different and the curves could end up not looking anything close to the same.  This is what the debate in strategy is about.  The Swedish strategy is have the pain up front and in latter months and years the curve goes down.  The US is trying to flatten and level until a vaccine comes out, but the curve doesn’t materially drop until that vaccine comes out.  That is the difference from my perspective.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

We all understand the math.  What we do not know is if Sweden has created any herd immunity and/or if they pulled forward those numbers by the strategy they took.

Here is where I think you are wrong. You are comparing the US death rate to Sweden’s per your statement, but they both chose different strategies.  Why would you compare the two when the strategies are so different and the curves could end up not looking anything close to the same. 

Are you unnatural carnal knowledgeing kidding me?

Bye cheeks.

[GooooMarquette]

Sweden = the world's COVID control group.

If US deaths < 1/33 of Sweden's, then we were right.
If US deaths > 1/33 of Sweden's, then they were right.

Not rocket science.

[WarriorDad]

Are you unnatural carnal knowledgeing kidding me?

Bye cheeks.

Why are you so angry all the time?  A few of you are borderline hypertensive which is not good when it comes to Covid. 

[rocky_warrior]

Sweden = the world's COVID control group.

If US deaths < 1/33 of Sweden's, then we were right.
If US deaths > 1/33 of Sweden's, then they were right.

Not rocket science.

What if the numbers are equal?  Is everybody right, or is everybody wrong?  Will the folks that "WarriorDad" has found that are rooting for X to fail be devastated?  This is going to need another study...

But I agree - it seems generous of them to be the control group. 

[Hards Alumni]

Why are you so angry all the time?  A few of you are borderline hypertensive which is not good when it comes to Covid.

We don't all get the answers to the questions we ask.

[GooooMarquette]

What if the numbers are equal?  Is everybody right, or is everybody wrong?  Will the folks that "WarriorDad" has found that are rooting for X to fail be devastated?  This is going to need another study...

But I agree - it seems generous of them to be the control group.

If the numbers are equal (or pretty close), it would mean that there are two similarly effective ways to deal with an outbreak like this.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Why are you so angry all the time?  A few of you are borderline hypertensive which is not good when it comes to Covid.

I have a really bad case of CHICOS-27

[mu_hilltopper]

Sweden = the world's COVID control group.

If US deaths < 1/33 of Sweden's, then we were right.
If US deaths > 1/33 of Sweden's, then they were right.

Not rocket science.

That right/wrong calculation is based on deaths as the only metric on the scoreboard.

Many have argued that we need to look at a broader picture, the next X years of misery and death.

Sweden may very well lose on deaths, but win on misery.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Sweden may very well lose on deaths, but win on misery.

That would be an interesting game theory problem. Since all our economies are linked, do the lose on deaths and still get the misery since everyone else is trying to control the virus?

[Lennys Tap]

That right/wrong calculation is based on deaths as the only metric on the scoreboard.

Many have argued that we need to look at a broader picture, the next X years of misery and death.

Sweden may very well lose on deaths, but win on misery.

That would present a legitimate dilemma.

Sweden believes deaths will be similar, even if temporarily postponed elsewhere.

[rocky_warrior]

I have a really bad case of CHICOS-27

Clearly the scientists failed on the cure for chicos 1 through 26.

[Lennys Tap]

Clearly the scientists failed on the cure for chicos 1 through 26.

No vaccine.

Only known semi effective treatments - ignore button and ban hammer.

[tower912]

Back on point for Sweden.    I believe, with every fiber of my being, that in the next few weeks an effective treatment is going to be discovered that is going to be 90% effective on the worst cases.     Those on ventilators, etc.    At that point, I believe that society is going to look at the big picture and the percentages of asymptomatic, mild, medium, and severe.     Realize that the first 3 are inconvenient but manageable.    See that even if they are in the last 20 % of those who require hospitalization that there are now enough beds, ventilators, and a 90% chance they survive the worst.    And society will move toward opening everything up and herd immunity.   And who knows, when there is finally universal testing for anti-bodies, we could possibly find that we are nearly there already. 


 But society at large will want that safety net in place. 

Which leads to a second, purely political rant.   Skip if you want.   I don't believe in 'socialism' in the boogeyman sense that the right tries to create about it.    I like capitalism.    But as this is showing, there has to be controls.    Especially if the government has to keep bailing your ass out every few years.    And there has to be a better safety net for those left behind by capitalism.    And finally, we are being reminded every day what is an essential worker.    And if there aren't jobs and adequate salaries and money flowing through from the bottom up, the economy is going to come to a screeching halt.    Look around you.     This has got to be the stake in the heart of trickle down economics theory.   

And yes, going forward, there is going to have to be higher taxes to pay for all of this.   On corporations.   On individuals.   Time to pay it back and build it better.   

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I have been in that same place for a while now, thinking that we aren't that far from finding effective treatments--as I noted in another thread, maybe unrealistically optimistically so.

[tower912]

I forgot to tie my rant all together.    Doh!    One of the reasons that Sweden is able to choose the policy they have, to take the gamble they have, is that they have a phenomenal societal safety net in place.   

[Hards Alumni]

That would present a legitimate dilemma.

Sweden believes deaths will be similar, even if temporarily postponed elsewhere.

But that logically doesn't make sense.  People die when the health care system becomes overwhelmed, and at much higher rates.  This is the entire reasoning behind flatting the curve.

[Pakuni]

But that logically doesn't make sense.  People die when the health care system becomes overwhelmed, and at much higher rates.  This is the entire reasoning behind flatting the curve.

The other problem with Sweden's theory - at least as it's been relayed by Cheeks and Lenny - is that it works off an assumption that an effective treatment is a long way off, if it ever arrives. The idea being, "Sure, a lot of Swedes will die up front, but other countries will eventually catch up cause they won't have our herd immunity."
So, what happens if a treatment arrives within the next couple months? It seems Sweden would have allowed a lot of people to die who may have been saved.

Sweden added 751 new cases yesterday. The highest single day since the outbreak began, and the third consecutive day with an increase since they declared a plateau.

[WarriorDad]

Sweden = the world's COVID control group.

If US deaths < 1/33 of Sweden's, then we were right.
If US deaths > 1/33 of Sweden's, then they were right.

Not rocket science.

That is a simple way to look at it.

I would add the time variable.  Sweden is taking the hit up front.  Their numbers may skew poorer in the beginning but better down the road.  When one looks at the numbers will matter as the curves change, if they are right.

The other variable is cost.  Say the Sweden has 5% more deaths per million when all is said and done, but their economy wasn’t destroyed in the process.  Their suicide rates didn’t explode and other deaths from other diseases because their doctors weren’t prioritizing this over that.  Massive unemployment, businesses shuttering, govt debt. Would you only judge them on that 5% higher number, or would you holistically look at the entire picture of destruction one decision vs another may lead to?

Yes, your simplistic approach is one that could be done.  It feels significantly incomplete in looking at the entire picture, in my opinion.

[WarriorDad]

Back on point for Sweden.    I believe, with every fiber of my being, that in the next few weeks an effective treatment is going to be discovered that is going to be 90% effective on the worst cases.     Those on ventilators, etc.    At that point, I believe that society is going to look at the big picture and the percentages of asymptomatic, mild, medium, and severe.     Realize that the first 3 are inconvenient but manageable.    See that even if they are in the last 20 % of those who require hospitalization that there are now enough beds, ventilators, and a 90% chance they survive the worst.    And society will move toward opening everything up and herd immunity.   And who knows, when there is finally universal testing for anti-bodies, we could possibly find that we are nearly there already. 


 But society at large will want that safety net in place. 

Which leads to a second, purely political rant.   Skip if you want.   I don't believe in 'socialism' in the boogeyman sense that the right tries to create about it.    I like capitalism.    But as this is showing, there has to be controls.    Especially if the government has to keep bailing your ass out every few years.    And there has to be a better safety net for those left behind by capitalism.    And finally, we are being reminded every day what is an essential worker.    And if there aren't jobs and adequate salaries and money flowing through from the bottom up, the economy is going to come to a screeching halt.    Look around you.     This has got to be the stake in the heart of trickle down economics theory.   

And yes, going forward, there is going to have to be higher taxes to pay for all of this.   On corporations.   On individuals.   Time to pay it back and build it better.

A 300 year pandemic is a stake in the heart? 

Who is going to pay those taxes and what are the job losses that go with them?  The biggest question is defense, we are the policeman of the world.  All these other countries don’t spend much at all.  Are you willing to let the military rot to the core only to have to build it up again when adversaries start taking over Taiwan, or occupying the Middle East, or pick your place.

No system in perfect.  Capitalism has plenty of flaws, but as the old adage goes there hasn’t been a better system invented yet.  I’d prefer better capitalism which we used to have.  Less corporatism, but also less reliance, too. It is a two way street that both sides have contributed to.  Corporations are greedy, they should not be.  They also have to pay for many things today they did not 20 years ago (maternity pay, longer vacations, health care).  Those cost money.  As one side has become more greedy, the other side has also demanded more things.  Reaction to an action.

[Lennys Tap]

But that logically doesn't make sense.  People die when the health care system becomes overwhelmed, and at much higher rates.  This is the entire reasoning behind flatting the curve.

People are dying in Sweden because their health care system is overwhelmed? Huh?

[rocky_warrior]

That is a simple way to look at it.

[snip]

Yes, your simplistic approach is one that could be done.  It feels significantly incomplete in looking at the entire picture, in my opinion.

Lol, isn't the simple approach to let everyone live their lives as normal, pretend nothing is happening, and let lots of people die as a result, hoping for better results in the future?

I mean - since you seem focused on calling others simple...

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Lol, isn't the simple approach to let everyone live their lives as normal, pretend nothing is happening, and let lots of people die as a result, hoping for better results in the future?

I mean - since you seem focused on calling others simple...

And we also did that unknowingly (at least to the general public).  The results have been awesome so far. 

[GooooMarquette]

That is a simple way to look at it.

I would add the time variable.  Sweden is taking the hit up front.  Their numbers may skew poorer in the beginning but better down the road.  When one looks at the numbers will matter as the curves change, if they are right.

The other variable is cost.  Say the Sweden has 5% more deaths per million when all is said and done, but their economy wasn’t destroyed in the process.  Their suicide rates didn’t explode and other deaths from other diseases because their doctors weren’t prioritizing this over that.  Massive unemployment, businesses shuttering, govt debt. Would you only judge them on that 5% higher number, or would you holistically look at the entire picture of destruction one decision vs another may lead to?

Yes, your simplistic approach is one that could be done.  It feels significantly incomplete in looking at the entire picture, in my opinion.

Yeah - it was a simplistic answer to a simplistic question.

Thing is, the odds of the numbers being anywhere close is pretty small. As others have suggested, I think medical treatments for COVID will improve quite a bit over the next few months. Maybe it’s a ‘miracle cure,’ in which case the numbers will be dramatically different. Or maybe - and more likely - it will be incrementally increasing knowledge about how to use the resources we already have. Like the more conservative use of ventilators, or positioning patients differently. Either way, the delays from social distancing will allow us (and most countries) to benefit from any improvements, while Sweden will just have a body count.

Time will tell.