Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

You concerned yet?

Yes 91 49.19%
 
No, but I will be followi... 50 27.03%
 
No, its being overblown 44 23.78%
 
Total:185

Sweden did bad and they still have a lot of deaths per week considering their small population.

But they have much less deaths as most virologists claimed a country would have with doing so little.

So, better as expected but still climbing that deaths per million population ladder.

Question is how it will look after a year. Will other countries have much worse new waves as Sweden or not. If not, Sweden fucked up but maybe Sweden will look better as it does right now in a year.

But Sweden shouldn't be compared with a country like Italy with such an old population and with so many homes where you have three generations living together (or only two but still with a 45 years old son living with his parents)

Last edited by crissindahouse - on 20 May 2020

Around the Network
donathos said:
vivster said:

I wasn't referring to the daily trends. It was more of a statement to the Sweden apologists in here who for some reason think that Sweden did not do one of the worst jobs in the world at stopping their outbreak.

Sweden was not and is not trying to "stop their outbreak." They're aiming at protecting themselves against worse future outcomes by controlling the spread of the virus now, which may or may not prove to be a good strategy -- but your analysis will be better if you can at least try to understand their objectives. It won't really be possible fully to evaluate this approach until we know more.

(And please drop the juvenile and needlessly antagonistic "Sweden apologist" rhetoric. Rather than casting absolutely everything as "us versus them" team ball, consider that others may simply want someone to find the best way to deal with this unprecedented-in-the-modern-age problem, regardless of who, where, or "what team" they're supposedly on. I root for Sweden to succeed, because why on earth wouldn't I?)

Please enlighten me as to what their real objective is. It's obviously not killing as few people as possible.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Trumpstyle said:

Here's a picture from Nytimes hit piece on us:

We have reported a total of 3831 death which includes todays number. Nytimes report an excess death of 3300 as of may 3.

Canada looked into its excess deaths as well and came out we're well in the negative after subtracting the covid19 deaths.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/excess-deaths-not-in-canada-during-pandemic-s-early-days-statcan-says-1.4937145
The agency found that between Jan. 1 and March 31, the eight provinces and one territory included in the data actually saw 1,145 fewer deaths than expected.
Quebec, which has been hit harder by the pandemic than any other part of Canada, logged 1,257 fewer deaths than expected between January and March, according to StatCan.

Another measure to take with a grain of salt, plenty other factors at work, but large percentages above normal do indicate not counting all covid19 related deaths.

Anyway, cities are hit harder, low population density areas are hit much less or not at all (Nunavut in Canada). Comparing Sweden to the UK will always be comparing apples to oranges. The population of greater London (8.9 million) isn't that far off the entire population of Sweden. The population density of Greater London is 4,542 people per sq km, Greater Stockholm or Stockholm county (2.2 million) has a population density of 360 people per sq km.

Population density seems to be the biggest factor for community spread which makes sense. NYC (18.8 million) has a population density of over 10K per sq km. Melbourne (5.2 million), the most populated city in Australia, 453 per sq km. It makes more sense to compare Sweden to Australia than to the UK or USA.

For comparison, the greater Toronto area (5.9 million) has a population density of 849 per sq km and Montreal metro area (4.1 million) 898 per sq km. We have tons of room but crowded cities as well.


Lower density, less measures needed to get the growth rate below 1.0, much better chances at beating the spread quickly and then keeping it under control with much lower effort. New Zealand and Australia caught on quickly and are now virtually free of community spread. Norway and Luxembourg as well, Finland, Austria and Switzerland very close behind followed by Ireland and Denmark. Japan and South Korea got it under control as well.

Sweden still has the easy mode option to eliminate community spread in less than a month if they want to. Or keep going with 60 deaths a day until maybe it stops by itself. It should eventually when the higher density areas start getting saturated, either by herd immunity or by all the easy targets being used up. I assume many Swedish people are just as concerned and practice their own social distancing while avoiding places carrying more risk.

Google's mobility update dated May 13 still has Sweden at -18% retail + recreation, -34% transit stations, and -23% workplaces.
https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-05-13_SE_Mobility_Report_en.pdf
No mandated lockdown (which is needed where population density is simply too high to let people self regulate) yet people are taking measures.



SvennoJ said:


Anyway, cities are hit harder, low population density areas are hit much less or not at all (Nunavut in Canada). Comparing Sweden to the UK will always be comparing apples to oranges. The population of greater London (8.9 million) isn't that far off the entire population of Sweden. The population density of Greater London is 4,542 people per sq km, Greater Stockholm or Stockholm county (2.2 million) has a population density of 360 people per sq km.


It's hard to find info on population density. But this what I found, population density urban London 6004 citizen/km2 and Stockholm urban density 3970 citizen/km2, this is based on swedish wikipedia.

London

Stockholm

I think both u and vivster are wrong, but I don't know much about population density.

Edit: This what I found english wikipedia, 1million people 4500 citizen/km2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Municipality

Also I'm not comparing us to any country, but there are several people using population density as an argument, they are likely wrong, based on this post I just made.

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 20 May 2020

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

This topic is still active ? There are still that many people who believe today that this virus is a real danger ?



Current PB on Secret of Mana remake : 2h27 (2nd)
Strongest worldwide achievement on TGM : 1st European S13 rank
Fastest TGM3 MASTER in Europe : rank Master V in 5min10
Western record on TGM3 EASY : 1484
Current PB on Power Ranger (Game Gear) : 10min06 (World Record)

Non-geek activity : ThermalHungary

Around the Network
SvennoJ said:

The population of greater London (8.9 million) isn't that far off the entire population of Sweden. The population density of Greater London is 4,542 people per sq km, Greater Stockholm or Stockholm county (2.2 million) has a population density of 360 people per sq km.

Population density seems to be the biggest factor for community spread which makes sense. NYC (18.8 million) has a population density of over 10K per sq km. Melbourne (5.2 million), the most populated city in Australia, 453 per sq km. It makes more sense to compare Sweden to Australia than to the UK or USA.

For compar.

You are comparing apples to oranges within an apples to oranges comparison.

The area of Stockholm County (Stockholms län) is 4 times greater than Greater London (6500 sq km vs 1570 sq km). That should be an indication of the two not being comparable. There are huge swathes of forests, lakes and farmland that are a part of Stockholm County. Just throwing "Greater" infront of the city name doesn't have any standardized meaning in terms of city borders and where the cutoff is.

What you should be comparing it to is the Stockholm Urban Area, which has a population of 1.4 million (two thirds of the entire country) and an area of 381 sq km (about 6% of the entire county). Which gives a population density of 3600 per sq km, which, you know, actually makes sense because large urban areas don't have a population density of 360 people per sq km. I'd look into your Melbourne number because it triggers my bullshit alarm immediately as well, but I think this gets the message across.



vivster said:
donathos said:

Sweden was not and is not trying to "stop their outbreak." They're aiming at protecting themselves against worse future outcomes by controlling the spread of the virus now, which may or may not prove to be a good strategy -- but your analysis will be better if you can at least try to understand their objectives. It won't really be possible fully to evaluate this approach until we know more.

(And please drop the juvenile and needlessly antagonistic "Sweden apologist" rhetoric. Rather than casting absolutely everything as "us versus them" team ball, consider that others may simply want someone to find the best way to deal with this unprecedented-in-the-modern-age problem, regardless of who, where, or "what team" they're supposedly on. I root for Sweden to succeed, because why on earth wouldn't I?)

Please enlighten me as to what their real objective is. It's obviously not killing as few people as possible.

Our virus scientists simply believe that this virus can't be stopped and countries trying to do so is just wasting everybody's time. We shall see if they are right, maybe a few countries can :)



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Amnesia said:

This topic is still active ? There are still that many people who believe today that this virus is a real danger ?

100,000 new cases and over 5,000 deaths per day prove it's a real danger.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Amnesia said:

This topic is still active ? There are still that many people who believe today that this virus is a real danger ?

100,000 new cases and over 5,000 deaths per day prove it's a real danger.

Cases mean nothing, and as long as you believe that the death toll is real and not biased, from your point of view it is a real danger.

Not for me who believe that the death toll of these countries is artificially biased :

USA

SPAIN

ITALY

FRANCE

BELGIUM

NETHERLAND

Every other countries of the planet have 4-5 times less death/million. Sweden statistics debunked this covid-19.



Current PB on Secret of Mana remake : 2h27 (2nd)
Strongest worldwide achievement on TGM : 1st European S13 rank
Fastest TGM3 MASTER in Europe : rank Master V in 5min10
Western record on TGM3 EASY : 1484
Current PB on Power Ranger (Game Gear) : 10min06 (World Record)

Non-geek activity : ThermalHungary

vivster said:
donathos said:

Sweden was not and is not trying to "stop their outbreak." They're aiming at protecting themselves against worse future outcomes by controlling the spread of the virus now, which may or may not prove to be a good strategy -- but your analysis will be better if you can at least try to understand their objectives. It won't really be possible fully to evaluate this approach until we know more.

(And please drop the juvenile and needlessly antagonistic "Sweden apologist" rhetoric. Rather than casting absolutely everything as "us versus them" team ball, consider that others may simply want someone to find the best way to deal with this unprecedented-in-the-modern-age problem, regardless of who, where, or "what team" they're supposedly on. I root for Sweden to succeed, because why on earth wouldn't I?)

Please enlighten me as to what their real objective is. It's obviously not killing as few people as possible.

Their objective appears to be killing as few people as possible... in the long run.

Do they have a higher infection rate currently than the would have if they'd locked their country down? Of course. That's the idea: they want the virus to spread through their populace in such a way as to protect them in the long term against possible "second waves," and etc. The higher infection rate right now isn't a bug in the system, it's the design.

It's also not inconsistent with what we were all talking about just a couple of months ago: "flattening the curve." Sweden's approach initially raised alarms because people believed that their health resources would be quickly overwhelmed, running out of ventilators, hospital beds, and so forth. Well, have they? (Does anyone else remember the actual conversations and why we locked down, in the first place?) It seems to me that they've managed the spread so as to "flatten the curve," but did not clamp down so tightly as other places. So the virus spreads somewhat more there, albeit not catastrophically so, which again, is precisely what they intend.

Will that approach work out for Sweden over time? I have no idea. I don't know whether "herd immunity" is possible, or whether people will be reinfected, or whether the disease will come back in the fall, or what it will look like for countries that have maintained lockdowns that then open things back up (especially given populations that may not endure these measures indefinitely, and push back against them), or when an effective vaccine will be available -- if it ever will. If Donald Trump is right and Covid simply disappears in the summer, "like a miracle," then Sweden surely made a bad decision. But I don't tend to bet on Trump.