5 ms·

Sweden has a higher rate. The theory is that the bulge in death rate is bigger up front vs a prolonged one that continues for months. It will be interesting to

Sweden has a higher rate. The theory is that the bulge in death rate is bigger up front vs a prolonged one that continues for months. It will be interesting to see long term results. Sweden also seems to have the same problem with long term care homes that many other nations (France, Canada, etc) are having.

Ma8ee 7y ago
I don’t think the up front deaths are in any way intentional. It’s very hard to compare strategies since there’s many other factors that control the outcome. Like Sweden had school holidays ending with a lot of people coming home from skiing in Italy just when the situation there exploded. And as you mentioned, the virus got into a lot of the nursing homes.
- marvin 7y ago
  Just for reference, Norway's epidemic also started with a large influx of cases from Italy and Austria. But the countries have used different strategies from that point on.
marvin 7y ago
Sad to say, I'm completely unsurprised that countries with rampant Covid19 spread have a lot of deaths in their retirement homes. It's practically deterministic. People are contagious in the pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic case. So all that's needed is that one employee of the retirement home gets sick and goes to work before they know, and the game is up. Dead patients everywhere. I'm sure this is discussed and considered on the highest levels of policy in the jurisdictions that have been the most proactive in getting a handle on the epidemic early, and missed in most others. I'm sure a strict face mask policy could have helped slow things down, but that's sadly been a hotly contested topic.
- m4rtink 7y ago
  Many retirement homes here in Czech Republic have had the care takers voluntarily locking themselves up together with the people living there. Some have been there like this for many weeks, only taking in supplies in a safe way & communicating electronically. Thats some serious dedication & very prudent one, give all the tragic cases elsewhere.
atourgates 7y ago
This is one of the things I wondered when I saw the "flatten the curve" charts and simulations a few weeks ago. Is there a valid statistical model for letting COVID-19 spread quickly, and "getting it over with", compared to flattening the curve and letting it create fewer mortalities over a longer time? I suppose even if the total number of mortalities is projected over time, there's real hope that we could find more effective treatments over time.
- Spellman 7y ago
  The problem is that depending on your medical capacity, "getting it over with" overloads your medical system causing even MORE deaths. So the total number of deaths goes way, way up. Because in addition to the deaths from COVID-19, you get extra deaths from hospitals not having beds or able to handle other common injuries/sickness/accidents that are still happening every day but wouldn't normally lead to death because they could get full attention and care. Now, if we had infinite medical capacity, then actually "getting it over with" could, from a number of deaths perspective, be advantageous. No lockdowns! No economic distress! However, you also overshoot a little. You would have deaths due to more of the population being exposed than required for herd immunity. Of course, if you're a no lives lost at any cost, you'd still want to reduce deaths by slowing the spread until something like herd immunity or a vaccine. But most don't seem to have that sort of political or economic calculus.
  - dijit 7y ago
    There will be an economic crisis if 2-3% of people lose their lives in a span of a few weeks.
    - atourgates 7y ago
      Absolutely there would be. On the other hand, the results from the recent antibody testing in California[1] (if they're accurate) would suggest a much lower death rate - around 0.1% - 0.2%. I fully agree that social distancing is the right move with the current data, but I wonder if that will continue to be the case as we come to understand the virus and its actual infection-fatality-rate more. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Ma8ee 7y ago

I don’t think the up front deaths are in any way intentional. It’s very hard to compare strategies since there’s many other factors that control the outcome. Like Sweden had school holidays ending with a lot of people coming home from skiing in Italy just when the situation there exploded. And as you mentioned, the virus got into a lot of the nursing homes.

marvin 7y ago
Just for reference, Norway's epidemic also started with a large influx of cases from Italy and Austria. But the countries have used different strategies from that point on.

marvin 7y ago

Sad to say, I'm completely unsurprised that countries with rampant Covid19 spread have a lot of deaths in their retirement homes. It's practically deterministic. People are contagious in the pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic case. So all that's needed is that one employee of the retirement home gets sick and goes to work before they know, and the game is up. Dead patients everywhere. I'm sure this is discussed and considered on the highest levels of policy in the jurisdictions that have been the most proactive in getting a handle on the epidemic early, and missed in most others. I'm sure a strict face mask policy could have helped slow things down, but that's sadly been a hotly contested topic.

m4rtink 7y ago
Many retirement homes here in Czech Republic have had the care takers voluntarily locking themselves up together with the people living there. Some have been there like this for many weeks, only taking in supplies in a safe way & communicating electronically. Thats some serious dedication & very prudent one, give all the tragic cases elsewhere.

atourgates 7y ago

This is one of the things I wondered when I saw the "flatten the curve" charts and simulations a few weeks ago. Is there a valid statistical model for letting COVID-19 spread quickly, and "getting it over with", compared to flattening the curve and letting it create fewer mortalities over a longer time? I suppose even if the total number of mortalities is projected over time, there's real hope that we could find more effective treatments over time.

Spellman 7y ago
The problem is that depending on your medical capacity, "getting it over with" overloads your medical system causing even MORE deaths. So the total number of deaths goes way, way up. Because in addition to the deaths from COVID-19, you get extra deaths from hospitals not having beds or able to handle other common injuries/sickness/accidents that are still happening every day but wouldn't normally lead to death because they could get full attention and care. Now, if we had infinite medical capacity, then actually "getting it over with" could, from a number of deaths perspective, be advantageous. No lockdowns! No economic distress! However, you also overshoot a little. You would have deaths due to more of the population being exposed than required for herd immunity. Of course, if you're a no lives lost at any cost, you'd still want to reduce deaths by slowing the spread until something like herd immunity or a vaccine. But most don't seem to have that sort of political or economic calculus.
- dijit 7y ago
  There will be an economic crisis if 2-3% of people lose their lives in a span of a few weeks.
  - atourgates 7y ago
    Absolutely there would be. On the other hand, the results from the recent antibody testing in California[1] (if they're accurate) would suggest a much lower death rate - around 0.1% - 0.2%. I fully agree that social distancing is the right move with the current data, but I wonder if that will continue to be the case as we come to understand the virus and its actual infection-fatality-rate more. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0