Pyro as Bill said:
SvennoJ said:
Of 1,000 sent samples, 550 returned. Of these, 446 test responses were approved.
Sending out samples to randomly selected people, good!
But it's not random anymore when only half the people return the sample, lot of room for bias to creep in there.
446 sample size is rather small to make any accurate statement over 1.22 million people.
The average sampling date was April 11th, not sure why they say that shows the rate of infection at the end of March. With an average incubation period of 5 days, anti bodies should already start to show not long after, plus if the average was April 11th and the results are just there now, when were the last test kits received back? How big was the time window?
Anyway, 10% at beginning of April while the growth rate since then hasn't really changed much. Comparing Sweden's reported cases to 4 weeks ago, the daily reported cases have grown 120%, or less than 1% per day, adding on average a bit over 500 cases per day for the past month. So really, any stories about reaching herd immunity in Stockholm are off the table. The reported deaths have been very slowly growing as well since the start of April, in line with the reported cases.
Sweden is doing enough to stop the growth, just not enough to get back down from the peak.
|
The antibody test doesn't become 90%+ accurate until 21 days after symptoms.
Scoobes said:
Underlying health conditions range from severe heart disease to completely manageable conditions such as diabetes and mild asthma.
How many 5 years olds do you think will just die of manageable conditions without the virus? Having diabetes or asthma just means certain parts of your body are more susceptible to the virus. Diabetics have weaker immune systems which means they can't fight the virus as effectively. So yes, in all likelihood, it was the virus because it's unlikely death would occur due to only the underlying health condition.
Looking at the global demographics, 0.2% of infected people under 18 die of the virus. There are approx. 15,000,000 children in the UK. If you let everyone of them get the virus that's up to 30,000 preventable children deaths. Do you think that's acceptable?
|
I think your 0.2% CFR number for under 18s is bullshit.
100,000+ people infected in Stockholm at the end of March. How many under 18s had died there a month ago?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
|
It's taken from here using global statistics, not just Sweden:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
I made a mistake as the 0-9 age group is low enough to be not statistically significant (or it's out of date), 10-19 is 0.2% likelihood of death.
Age of Coronavirus Deaths
COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:
*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). This probability differs depending on the age group. The percentages shown below do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group. Rather, it represents, for a person in a given age group, the risk of dying if infected with COVID-19.
|
AGE
|
DEATH RATE
confirmed cases |
DEATH RATE
all cases |
|
80+ years old
|
21.9%
|
14.8%
|
|
70-79 years old
|
|
8.0%
|
|
60-69 years old
|
|
3.6%
|
|
50-59 years old
|
|
1.3%
|
|
40-49 years old
|
|
0.4%
|
|
30-39 years old
|
|
0.2%
|
|
20-29 years old
|
|
0.2%
|
|
10-19 years old
|
|
0.2%
|
| 0-9 years old |
|
no fatalities
|
*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). The percentages do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group.
That's still up to 15,000 10-19 year olds dead in the UK if we assume they all get infected. So, is that acceptable?
