Sweden’s cases surge, government tightens restrictions

[blams]

In economics we have 'the law of diminishing returns' ....and it most DEFINITELY applies to pandemic response
I don't know exactly what that point is, but at SOME point, the negative effects of pandemic responses begin to outweigh the positive.

If one state locks more things down and costs more jobs, businesses, and economic distress than a state that doesn't....yet the end result is similar pandemic stats....which state did the better job?

Can't say they're similar though. If the lock down sticks, the stats in that state are far better than they would've been otherwise.

It can only be compared to that state, or states with the exaxt same population density.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[Scoots]

Yeah we can. Unless you think a million plus American deaths is no big deal.

What does that have to do with herd immunity? I said "it's bad to try" because the number of people who would have to be exposed to get there is enormous, but since we haven't done that we can't claim it doesn't work for Covid-19.

[Scoots]

i remember all the idiots out there hailing Sweden and herd immunity as a success. Now, they are spiking horribly.

Like from the beginning ... we don't KNOW jack. We can just do our best with what theories and ideas we have. Even with the spike in Sweden, we don't know why it's happening now after months of very low infection rates there. We also don't know just how bad the damage from the shutdowns are or are going to be in the long term. We know that depression and anxiety are through the roof, drug overdoses are way up, suicides are way up, and money is a major factor in health of societies and there is a HUGE amount of money being lost that will likely take decades to recover. People keep talking about how the wealth gap is increasing in the pandemic, well the shutdown is the major cause of that ... rich people always weather disaster better because they have the resources to react proactively to it, everybody else just has to hope things get better and deal day to day.

I'm not saying one thing is right and the other is wrong, I just think the certainty people seem to have about any decision is bizarre. My wife is immune compromised so my reaction has been to be fairly careful, but my daughter started to fall apart with the isolation so now she is in a school pod with her best friend. There are places that don't allow that and that would be horrible for us if we were in one of those places.

When this started and I said it would be around for years people thought I was crazy ... not so much anymore

There are no easy answers. Never have been.

[Scoots]

My point? Well I said of course lockdowns work, this isnt up.for debate, look at every single graph of every single city in america. Lockdowns work.

The surge hit now most likely because of winter. Why their numbers were so low with no lockdowns earlier, I don't know, I assume because everyone moved in a very wary and cautious manner. If everyone in America maneuvered the way you do, we wouldnt need lockdowns here either.

Yes, I followed that up by saying no medicine works with 100% effectiveness/efficancy. That was my point.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Lockdowns work to slow the spread yes. They don't work for a lot of other things. It's about what metrics you look at.

[SiteWolf]

Can't say they're similar though. If the lock down sticks, the stats in that state are far better than they would've been otherwise.

It can only be compared to that state, or states with the exaxt same population density.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

really? if the positivity and mortality percentages are similar in two states, but one had more lockdowns, you'd still view them as incomparable? OK, say they're both states of say 10 million people with 5 million of them in urban areas?

...all I'm really getting at, because it's not like I'm suggesting some are locking down too much or anything like that....what I'm saying is, at what point is the amount gained not worth the amount lost

[Scoots]

Can't say they're similar though. If the lock down sticks, the stats in that state are far better than they would've been otherwise.

It can only be compared to that state, or states with the exaxt same population density.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Even population density is not enough. There is what kind of work is done in each area, how much travel is needed for that work, the average health in the area, the wealth in the area, and on and on and on. Sociologists know it's VERY hard to be absolutely conclusive about any of this stuff.

Trends matter, but they seldom tell the whole story.

[Scoots]

really? if the positivity and mortality percentages are similar in two states, but one had more lockdowns, you'd still view them as incomparable? OK, say they're both states of say 10 million people with 5 million of them in urban areas?

...all I'm really getting at, because it's not like I'm suggesting some are locking down too much or anything like that....what I'm saying is, at what point is the amount gained not worth the amount lost

Modern humans don't like that kind of math. We believe any loss in the past is a tragedy, so any loss in similar fashion should have us sacrifice everything to keep it from happening again.

One of my favorite examples was that over 10 years something like 15 children died after getting stuck at the bottom of a pool when they sat on the drain while the pump was on. Congress passed a law that meant the drains had to be made for that to not be possible. That alone was a relatively small but not insignificant expense so it made sense. The issue came when they went on to mandate that within the year every pool that had public access had to be retrofitted to meet the new standards, and the end result was that thousands of public pools closed down permanently because of less than one death per year.

Humans are bad at these kinds of decisions.

[Crovash]

I'm simply pointing out several notable examples of states where governors took a lot of action and have had horribly high infection rates.

Yeah, and — sticking with the metaphor — these governors were in the first mile and had no idea what the rest of the course looked like. We all see the entire picture (the course, so to speak) much, much more clearly.

[blams]

really? if the positivity and mortality percentages are similar in two states, but one had more lockdowns, you'd still view them as incomparable? OK, say they're both states of say 10 million people with 5 million of them in urban areas?

...all I'm really getting at, because it's not like I'm suggesting some are locking down too much or anything like that....what I'm saying is, at what point is the amount gained not worth the amount lost

When the epidemiologists come out and say that is the case is the only time it should be listened to imo.

The experts have not determined that is the case

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[spliff(TONE)]

In economics we have 'the law of diminishing returns' ....and it most DEFINITELY applies to pandemic response
I don't know exactly what that point is, but at SOME point, the negative effects of pandemic responses begin to outweigh the positive.

If one state locks more things down and costs more jobs, businesses, and economic distress than a state that doesn't....yet the end result is similar pandemic stats....which state did the better job?

These states do not exist in a vacuum.

[spliff(TONE)]

What does that have to do with herd immunity? I said "it's bad to try" because the number of people who would have to be exposed to get there is enormous, but since we haven't done that we can't claim it doesn't work for Covid-19.

Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that this country would have experienced way more death if we went the herd immunity route (an approach that we can absolutely claim doesn't work).

[brett05]

As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate was 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world

Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic progressed

Sweden botched it.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

But prior were doing great. The question is why the change.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...sclient=psy-ab

[valade16]

As I said, Sweden was doing fine all summer. Their case rate is still the lowest in Europe. They never locked anything down.

This is factually incorrect.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

[nastynice]

As I said, Sweden was doing fine all summer. Their case rate is still the lowest in Europe. They never locked anything down.

And your point is?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

Do some research on the Russian Flu of 1889-90. It is thought to have actually been a Coronavirus and it lasted about 2 years. It was very deadly and wiped out neighborhoods.

I’m glad you mentioned the Russian Flu. What would your perception be if you read a large segment of the population back then though the flu was fake and did nothing to curb its spread? What would you think of those people?