5 ms·

How about we compare Wisconsin to Sweden? The article is about Wisconsin. Wisconsin (pop 5.8 mil, 10.6k cases, 418 deaths). Sweden (pop 10.2 mil, 27.9k cases,

by dtwest 6y ago

How about we compare Wisconsin to Sweden? The article is about Wisconsin. Wisconsin (pop 5.8 mil, 10.6k cases, 418 deaths). Sweden (pop 10.2 mil, 27.9k cases, 3460 deaths).

2rsf 6y ago
How about Oman ? pop 4.829 million, 4,019 cases with only 17 deaths. Or Belgium that does have quarantine rules but still have more cases of deaths. It's not a game, and we don't fully understand how this works so maybe we should stop comparing.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  If we're talking about efficacy of government lockdown policies, universal healthcare, etc., then we absolutely should compare. And a cursory glance at the data suggests that government lockdown policies have minimal effect on the spread of the virus, there seems to be little to no correlation between severity of lockdown and cases/deaths
  - 2rsf 6y ago
    I saw someone else saying that today, do you have a source for that ?
    - HideousKojima 6y ago
      The cases/deaths per million stats by country (and by state in the US) are everywhere. The US is doing decent compared to most of Western Europe, especially Italy and Spain. Though Germany is doing far better than the US. Sweden isn't taking any significant measures to restrict their populace and while they're doing worse than their neighbors like Norway, they're still better than a lot of Europe.
  - sulam 6y ago
    That’s a really weird conclusion to draw looking at what’s happened globally and in local pockets. Look at Singapore and South Korea — full lockdown and great control, and then outbreaks in places where the lockdown put people in close quarters (immigrant labor in Singapore) orwhen restrictions were lifted (bars in South Korea). Look at Wuhan itself, where it took time to establish a lockdown and contact tracing, then they got control of the situation and had better outcomes, then a secondary wave once they lifted restrictions. Look at Italy, where the lockdown means Northern Italy has had a very different experience from the rest of the country. Sweden has had a mostly voluntary lockdown and high death rates compared to the rest of Europe and other very similar countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland) have had stricter lockdowns and better numbers. Also let’s look at the fundamentals. This virus is spread through contact with viral laden particles, either in an aerosol or on a surface. It is obvious that to get the disease you need to come into contact with the virus. Limit contacts and you limit exposure, this is so basic I hesitate to call it science. You have a tough row to hoe if you’re going to try and prove no correlation between lockdowns and cases.
    - 2rsf 6y ago
      The data is here [1], that's [2] Europe's correlation between death rate and restriction and that's [3] worldwide (I didn't collect the data nor did the analysis) [1] https://github.com/ronigold/Covid19-Analysis https://github.com/ronigold/Covid19-Analysis [2] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd03177682d9061.jpg https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd03177682d9061.jpg [3] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd019c5e89dca42.jpg https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd019c5e89dca42.jpg
      - sulam 6y ago
        Sorry, but there is so much confounding an analysis of this sort that I can take a 30s look at it and blow holes a mile wide through it. For instance, there is no correction in there for density. There is also the fundamental problem of attributing cause and effect -- if the lockdowns reduce transmission, then no correlation in the outcomes could be exactly your goal. Put another way, I'd like NYC to have the same case load per capita as rural Utah. If lockdowns achieve that, you would evidentially tell me that rural Utah, with no lockdown, is the same as NYC and therefore the lockdown was useless. That is not a sound analysis. The way to do an analysis of this sort is to find very tightly constrained natural experiments. Sweden and Norway (or Sweden and Finland) is an interesting example. Germany and Austria (picking them randomly, I don't know how well-coordinated their lockdown policies are). Or you can pick city twins, like NYC and Mexico City and compare the results each got from their approach. IOW, in order to say something meaningful about effect of lockdowns, you have to go narrow, not broad.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Wisconsin has a large Swedish immigrant population (immigrants 5 generations ago, not first generation), so that rules out genetic factors to a small extent.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Yeah that was my first thought too -- lots of Scandinavians in the Wisconsin-Minnesota area, lots of snow, etc.

by dtwest 6y ago

How about we compare Wisconsin to Sweden? The article is about Wisconsin. Wisconsin (pop 5.8 mil, 10.6k cases, 418 deaths). Sweden (pop 10.2 mil, 27.9k cases, 3460 deaths).

2rsf 6y ago

How about Oman ? pop 4.829 million, 4,019 cases with only 17 deaths. Or Belgium that does have quarantine rules but still have more cases of deaths. It's not a game, and we don't fully understand how this works so maybe we should stop comparing.

HideousKojima 6y ago
If we're talking about efficacy of government lockdown policies, universal healthcare, etc., then we absolutely should compare. And a cursory glance at the data suggests that government lockdown policies have minimal effect on the spread of the virus, there seems to be little to no correlation between severity of lockdown and cases/deaths
- 2rsf 6y ago
  I saw someone else saying that today, do you have a source for that ?
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    The cases/deaths per million stats by country (and by state in the US) are everywhere. The US is doing decent compared to most of Western Europe, especially Italy and Spain. Though Germany is doing far better than the US. Sweden isn't taking any significant measures to restrict their populace and while they're doing worse than their neighbors like Norway, they're still better than a lot of Europe.
- sulam 6y ago
  That’s a really weird conclusion to draw looking at what’s happened globally and in local pockets. Look at Singapore and South Korea — full lockdown and great control, and then outbreaks in places where the lockdown put people in close quarters (immigrant labor in Singapore) orwhen restrictions were lifted (bars in South Korea). Look at Wuhan itself, where it took time to establish a lockdown and contact tracing, then they got control of the situation and had better outcomes, then a secondary wave once they lifted restrictions. Look at Italy, where the lockdown means Northern Italy has had a very different experience from the rest of the country. Sweden has had a mostly voluntary lockdown and high death rates compared to the rest of Europe and other very similar countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland) have had stricter lockdowns and better numbers. Also let’s look at the fundamentals. This virus is spread through contact with viral laden particles, either in an aerosol or on a surface. It is obvious that to get the disease you need to come into contact with the virus. Limit contacts and you limit exposure, this is so basic I hesitate to call it science. You have a tough row to hoe if you’re going to try and prove no correlation between lockdowns and cases.
  - 2rsf 6y ago
    The data is here [1], that's [2] Europe's correlation between death rate and restriction and that's [3] worldwide (I didn't collect the data nor did the analysis) [1] https://github.com/ronigold/Covid19-Analysis https://github.com/ronigold/Covid19-Analysis [2] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd03177682d9061.jpg https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd03177682d9061.jpg [3] https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd019c5e89dca42.jpg https://rotter.net/User_files/forum/5ebd019c5e89dca42.jpg
    - sulam 6y ago
      Sorry, but there is so much confounding an analysis of this sort that I can take a 30s look at it and blow holes a mile wide through it. For instance, there is no correction in there for density. There is also the fundamental problem of attributing cause and effect -- if the lockdowns reduce transmission, then no correlation in the outcomes could be exactly your goal. Put another way, I'd like NYC to have the same case load per capita as rural Utah. If lockdowns achieve that, you would evidentially tell me that rural Utah, with no lockdown, is the same as NYC and therefore the lockdown was useless. That is not a sound analysis. The way to do an analysis of this sort is to find very tightly constrained natural experiments. Sweden and Norway (or Sweden and Finland) is an interesting example. Germany and Austria (picking them randomly, I don't know how well-coordinated their lockdown policies are). Or you can pick city twins, like NYC and Mexico City and compare the results each got from their approach. IOW, in order to say something meaningful about effect of lockdowns, you have to go narrow, not broad.
bluGill 6y ago
Wisconsin has a large Swedish immigrant population (immigrants 5 generations ago, not first generation), so that rules out genetic factors to a small extent.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Yeah that was my first thought too -- lots of Scandinavians in the Wisconsin-Minnesota area, lots of snow, etc.