|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 13 2020 04:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 03:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 13 2020 03:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The excess deaths went up 40 % over a period of 2-3 months, then went back to normal and are now below it. That is compared to 2015-2019 btw. In real numbers it was going from ~1750 deaths to 2500 for a short period.
The vast majority were people who were 80+.
It`s not great but not horrible either. At the very least, "I'm comfortable with the number of additional people who died in return for us being able to stay mostly open" is an honest argument. Not one I would personally endorse in foresight or even in hindsight, but it's not disingenuous. What you wrote here is basically another take on the "only 6k" point I made several times before, which is a fair thing to argue. We dont close down for the flue which (in absolute numbers) killed more people in 1993 and in relative numbers in 2000. I do not agree with our response (or preparedness) for covid but I do not doubt that the people in charge did what they thougth was best. At this point just wait for the final verdict and the consensus on how it should have been handled and learn from that. Also this blog has a decent overview of excess deaths in Sweden. https://emanuelkarlsten.se/number-of-deaths-in-sweden-during-the-pandemic-compared-to-previous-years-mortality/
This is a silly comparison because covid deaths are only after a bunch of locking down, masks and tons of other measures. The covid numbers are not remotely comparable to flu numbers because we change nothing for the flu. We have already seen what happens to trends in covid with and without measures. Arizona is a notable example. Thank fucking god, we do not have apples to apples comparisons. I hope we never do. But it is important to keep in mind what the world did to get the numbers we have. We don't do anything close to that with the flu.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 08:35 JimmiC wrote:Yes much a world has done a wonderful job mitigating the damage, can you imagine the numbers with a treat it like the flu or colds strategy. Yikes.
True, we could be at 0.02% or even 0.03%
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 09:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 08:35 JimmiC wrote:Yes much a world has done a wonderful job mitigating the damage, can you imagine the numbers with a treat it like the flu or colds strategy. Yikes. True, we could be at 0.02% or even 0.03% I suspect by the time they figure out all the excess mortality we will already be way about there. I do find it kind of odd that you seem disappointed that there are not more dead. What a impossible job for public health. Let too many die and there awful, not enough and no good job, but rather it was unnecessary. BTW in case you didn't read the article Swedens economy contracted just as bad as Norway and Denmark so there was no economic advantage to more dying. It basically comes down that some people think it is ok if others die and have long term issues as long as they are not inconvenienced.
I would say that your phrasing that I'm "disappointed there aren't more dead" and people losing their livelihoods as being "inconvenienced" perfectly demonstrates the amount of effort you are willing to put in to appreciate opposing views.
|
Numbers in the Netherlands have not been good at all. For a month infection numbers have just been rising and rising every day. There's been some minor measures to combat the rise but it doesn't seem to help much. If you extrapolate we will get into 'hospitals don't have time for non-urgent procedures' territory soon.
Rumors are the government will completely close all restaurants and bars again starting tomorrow
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 11:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Numbers in the Netherlands have not been good at all. For a month infection numbers have just been rising and rising every day. There's been some minor measures to combat the rise but it doesn't seem to help much. If you extrapolate we will get into 'hospitals don't have time for non-urgent procedures' territory soon.
Rumors are the government will completely close all restaurants and bars again starting tomorrow
Ontario's been going poorly as well. Gyms, restaurants and bars just got closed down again.
I'm frustrated because I think some places are much more responsible for case growth than others. If restaurants are most of the cause then close those and leave theaters, gyms, etc. open. If otherwise, do otherwise. If all are responsible to reasonable degrees then close them all - but are they? Where's our public data that's going into these decisions?
Is it parties solely the thing that's causing this? If so, what's the point in shutting down anything, instead of just cracking down on parties?
We've had, what, 7 months to collect good data? Where is it? Where's the spread coming from?
|
On October 13 2020 11:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 09:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 08:35 JimmiC wrote:Yes much a world has done a wonderful job mitigating the damage, can you imagine the numbers with a treat it like the flu or colds strategy. Yikes. True, we could be at 0.02% or even 0.03% I suspect by the time they figure out all the excess mortality we will already be way about there. I do find it kind of odd that you seem disappointed that there are not more dead. What a impossible job for public health. Let too many die and there awful, not enough and no good job, but rather it was unnecessary. BTW in case you didn't read the article Swedens economy contracted just as bad as Norway and Denmark so there was no economic advantage to more dying. It basically comes down that some people think it is ok if others die and have long term issues as long as they are not inconvenienced. I would say that your phrasing that I'm "disappointed there aren't more dead" and people losing their livelihoods as being "inconvenienced" perfectly demonstrates the amount of effort you are willing to put in to appreciate opposing views. You keep ignoring that they were losing their livelihood anyway because of the virus.
Well I guess you know better than WHO then. I also find it odd that we are recovering millions of jobs at the same time that cases of the virus are soaring. One might think you would see an inverse relationship between the two if you want to blame people being out of work solely on the virus.
|
It's a little hard to study what causes the highest spread of COVID, because doing the hard sciences way is massively unethical and illegal. (That is, hold the different events and see how COVID spreads).
We also can't exactly imitate it with animals - wtf is the lab mice equivalent of a packed theater or restaurant?
So we're left with the softer sciences approach, where they have to study the rise in covid after different events. This is harder if there's no contact tracing, and can be noisy - wrong correlations can be seen.
It can also be harder because not many people are going to admit "Hey, I went to an illegal party!", and there's a social desirability bias to not admit to engaging in risk behaviors.
Basically, it's going to take longer to exactly find out what the riskiest behavior is.
|
On October 13 2020 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 04:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 13 2020 03:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 13 2020 03:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The excess deaths went up 40 % over a period of 2-3 months, then went back to normal and are now below it. That is compared to 2015-2019 btw. In real numbers it was going from ~1750 deaths to 2500 for a short period.
The vast majority were people who were 80+.
It`s not great but not horrible either. At the very least, "I'm comfortable with the number of additional people who died in return for us being able to stay mostly open" is an honest argument. Not one I would personally endorse in foresight or even in hindsight, but it's not disingenuous. What you wrote here is basically another take on the "only 6k" point I made several times before, which is a fair thing to argue. We dont close down for the flue which (in absolute numbers) killed more people in 1993 and in relative numbers in 2000. I do not agree with our response (or preparedness) for covid but I do not doubt that the people in charge did what they thougth was best. At this point just wait for the final verdict and the consensus on how it should have been handled and learn from that. Also this blog has a decent overview of excess deaths in Sweden. https://emanuelkarlsten.se/number-of-deaths-in-sweden-during-the-pandemic-compared-to-previous-years-mortality/ This is a silly comparison because covid deaths are only after a bunch of locking down, masks and tons of other measures. The covid numbers are not remotely comparable to flu numbers because we change nothing for the flu. We have already seen what happens to trends in covid with and without measures. Arizona is a notable example. Thank fucking god, we do not have apples to apples comparisons. I hope we never do. But it is important to keep in mind what the world did to get the numbers we have. We don't do anything close to that with the flu.
No, I think that is an apt comparison. Literally no one (here at least) argues that covid 19 isn't dangerous or a tragedy. But the fact that Sweden's covid numbers are close to a bad flu epidemic seems to indicate that the measures actually put in place have been more or less reasonable. At a certain point it is unreasonable to sacrifice more of civil society to save lives that we (as you pointed out) haven't lifted a finger to save from a regular flu. If you want to take the moral high ground and argue that every single death is unacceptable, I think you should stay on that high ground and demand lockdowns during bad flu seasons too.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 21:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 14:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 11:38 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 09:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 08:35 JimmiC wrote:Yes much a world has done a wonderful job mitigating the damage, can you imagine the numbers with a treat it like the flu or colds strategy. Yikes. True, we could be at 0.02% or even 0.03% I suspect by the time they figure out all the excess mortality we will already be way about there. I do find it kind of odd that you seem disappointed that there are not more dead. What a impossible job for public health. Let too many die and there awful, not enough and no good job, but rather it was unnecessary. BTW in case you didn't read the article Swedens economy contracted just as bad as Norway and Denmark so there was no economic advantage to more dying. It basically comes down that some people think it is ok if others die and have long term issues as long as they are not inconvenienced. I would say that your phrasing that I'm "disappointed there aren't more dead" and people losing their livelihoods as being "inconvenienced" perfectly demonstrates the amount of effort you are willing to put in to appreciate opposing views. You keep ignoring that they were losing their livelihood anyway because of the virus. Well I guess you know better than WHO then. I also find it odd that we are recovering millions of jobs at the same time that cases of the virus are soaring. One might think you would see an inverse relationship between the two if you want to blame people being out of work solely on the virus. No you just have a ever changing definition of lockdowns and an amazing ability to ignore sources and facts to keep being "right". It is like you think the WHO said they never suggest downs and that there is a linear relationship between "the economy" and restrictions, which Sweden proves wrong. It is odd to me that you can't seem to grasp that the virus itself has a huge impact on the economy.
First off, you can't possibly say anything has been proven unless you assume Sweden, Norway and Finland are identical economies. Boy I wish that was the case! Secondly, main reason why Sweden's economy took such a big hit is because everyone else shut down which is devastating to countries that rely so heavily on exports, along with the additional integration of being part of the EU. This wouldn't have been the case if the society in all countries had remained open.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 23:16 JimmiC wrote:
And btw I'm in the Sweden did not have the best strategy camp, but they are still worlds ahead of the US. Because they had a strategy and their health professionals, government and so on were on the same page. The US is a cluster where very few are on the same page with politicians actively arguing with their doctors. They are a poor example for anything other than a broken system. There may be areas that are doing well but overall it has been an awful performance where people are more interested in directing Blame away from themselves than doing what is best. If you listen to many of the politicians they argue about what should not be done but don't say what should be.
Beyond the natural advantages Sweden has in terms of geography and culture, one of the things I can say that it looks like Sweden really did right was to have a proper social safety net before this thing started. In the US, the standard rule is "you don't work, you don't eat" which means that a lot of people are forced to work through the pandemic because their employer either cannot or will not let them take the necessary safety measures. And they won't go to the hospital until it's too late because healthcare can easily lead to bankruptcy in the US.
The US response was likely to fail terribly based on that factor alone, all its other many pandemic response failures notwithstanding.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 04:05 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 13 2020 03:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 13 2020 03:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The excess deaths went up 40 % over a period of 2-3 months, then went back to normal and are now below it. That is compared to 2015-2019 btw. In real numbers it was going from ~1750 deaths to 2500 for a short period.
The vast majority were people who were 80+.
It`s not great but not horrible either. At the very least, "I'm comfortable with the number of additional people who died in return for us being able to stay mostly open" is an honest argument. Not one I would personally endorse in foresight or even in hindsight, but it's not disingenuous. What you wrote here is basically another take on the "only 6k" point I made several times before, which is a fair thing to argue. We dont close down for the flue which (in absolute numbers) killed more people in 1993 and in relative numbers in 2000. I do not agree with our response (or preparedness) for covid but I do not doubt that the people in charge did what they thougth was best. At this point just wait for the final verdict and the consensus on how it should have been handled and learn from that. Also this blog has a decent overview of excess deaths in Sweden. https://emanuelkarlsten.se/number-of-deaths-in-sweden-during-the-pandemic-compared-to-previous-years-mortality/ This is a silly comparison because covid deaths are only after a bunch of locking down, masks and tons of other measures. The covid numbers are not remotely comparable to flu numbers because we change nothing for the flu. We have already seen what happens to trends in covid with and without measures. Arizona is a notable example. Thank fucking god, we do not have apples to apples comparisons. I hope we never do. But it is important to keep in mind what the world did to get the numbers we have. We don't do anything close to that with the flu.
How is it a silly comparison when the discussion is about:
Sweden is most remarkable for managing to maintain high levels of public approval in its "strategy" for handling the virus while at the same time doing a very poor job by any meaningful metric that involves numbers. Most other places that have numbers as bad as Sweden are very enraged indeed at their governments, so they must be doing at least something right.
People are not enraged because despite it being a highly contagious pandemic the number of actual deaths are (for now) comparable to a bad flue season.
Doesn't mean we could not have done better like other Nordic countries but it's logical that people will not view it as a total disaster (like Spain with 140 % excess mortality) when it's within normal variance.
People will likely get happier if the excess mortality on a year total continues to go down and will very likely become enraged if the second wave results in a lot of additional deaths since we should know better by now.
|
On October 13 2020 23:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 22:42 Longshank wrote:On October 13 2020 21:32 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 14:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 11:38 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 09:31 JimmiC wrote:On October 13 2020 09:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2020 08:35 JimmiC wrote:Yes much a world has done a wonderful job mitigating the damage, can you imagine the numbers with a treat it like the flu or colds strategy. Yikes. True, we could be at 0.02% or even 0.03% I suspect by the time they figure out all the excess mortality we will already be way about there. I do find it kind of odd that you seem disappointed that there are not more dead. What a impossible job for public health. Let too many die and there awful, not enough and no good job, but rather it was unnecessary. BTW in case you didn't read the article Swedens economy contracted just as bad as Norway and Denmark so there was no economic advantage to more dying. It basically comes down that some people think it is ok if others die and have long term issues as long as they are not inconvenienced. I would say that your phrasing that I'm "disappointed there aren't more dead" and people losing their livelihoods as being "inconvenienced" perfectly demonstrates the amount of effort you are willing to put in to appreciate opposing views. You keep ignoring that they were losing their livelihood anyway because of the virus. Well I guess you know better than WHO then. I also find it odd that we are recovering millions of jobs at the same time that cases of the virus are soaring. One might think you would see an inverse relationship between the two if you want to blame people being out of work solely on the virus. No you just have a ever changing definition of lockdowns and an amazing ability to ignore sources and facts to keep being "right". It is like you think the WHO said they never suggest downs and that there is a linear relationship between "the economy" and restrictions, which Sweden proves wrong. It is odd to me that you can't seem to grasp that the virus itself has a huge impact on the economy. First off, you can't possibly say anything has been proven unless you assume Sweden, Norway and Finland are identical economies. Boy I wish that was the case! Secondly, main reason why Sweden's economy took such a big hit is because everyone else shut down which is devastating to countries that rely so heavily on exports, along with the additional integration of being part of the EU. This wouldn't have been the case if the society in all countries had remained open. I said Sweden proves there is not a linear relationship, which it does. And lockdown, restrictions or nothing consumers changed behaviors. If you read the sourced materials above it goes through it in more detail. On top of that, healthcare is wildly expensive not just the hospital costs but the missed productivity and so on. The economies doing the best are the ones that used a short lock to control the spread and the reopened with restrictions. The issue now is many of those places released too much and it is getting bad again. So do you repeat or try just restrictions. As hospitalizations rise it will be hard to do nothing. And btw I'm in the Sweden did not have the best strategy camp, but they are still worlds ahead of the US. Because they had a strategy and their health professionals, government and so on were on the same page. The US is a cluster where very few are on the same page with politicians actively arguing with their doctors. They are a poor example for anything other than a broken system. There may be areas that are doing well but overall it has been an awful performance where people are more interested in directing Blame away from themselves than doing what is best. If you listen to many of the politicians they argue about what should not be done but don't say what should be.
Let's bring up the US so we can all agree to fling mud eh? What an odd pivot.
Fact is, Sweden's economy has performed among the better ones in the EU in 2020, despite the restrictions, changed behavior and healthcare cost(a rounding error all things considered). And the more countries that had followed our approach(which is what WHO and most countries seems to be arguing for now) the better the performance would have been.
That's not saying other countries should have done what Sweden did. There were many good reasons for an initial shutdown but the economy is not one of them, at least not in the EU where our economies are so entangled with each other.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 12:28 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 11:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Numbers in the Netherlands have not been good at all. For a month infection numbers have just been rising and rising every day. There's been some minor measures to combat the rise but it doesn't seem to help much. If you extrapolate we will get into 'hospitals don't have time for non-urgent procedures' territory soon.
Rumors are the government will completely close all restaurants and bars again starting tomorrow Ontario's been going poorly as well. Gyms, restaurants and bars just got closed down again. I'm frustrated because I think some places are much more responsible for case growth than others. If restaurants are most of the cause then close those and leave theaters, gyms, etc. open. If otherwise, do otherwise. If all are responsible to reasonable degrees then close them all - but are they? Where's our public data that's going into these decisions? Is it parties solely the thing that's causing this? If so, what's the point in shutting down anything, instead of just cracking down on parties? We've had, what, 7 months to collect good data? Where is it? Where's the spread coming from?
You can only collect data that exists. And none of the gyms, restaurants, and theaters are exactly chomping at the bit to disclose whether they were the loci of COVID superspreader events (and it's not like they would even know how many people they infected). Pretty much all we can rely on in a meaningful inference sense is the pre/post intervention closure info, which hit all of those at once and is heavily correlated with lifts on maximum gathering side, so you can't disentangle which is responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
