4 ms·

Come on, it was pretty obvious from very early on (during the Wuhan outbreak, then validated in Italy soon after) that the disease did not kill 1%, the symptoms

Come on, it was pretty obvious from very early on (during the Wuhan outbreak, then validated in Italy soon after) that the disease did not kill 1%, the symptoms for the vast majority of those that get sick are mild (to even being asymptomatic), moreover that the age skew was extremely strong. The median age of death is over 80! All these factors together were used to decide on the strategy. Subscribing it to luck is unfair. It is more about expertise or lack thereof. A bureaucrat with little practical expertise is less likely to take risks since they are afraid of being exposed as lacking knowledge. Anders Tegnell most certainly was not afraid of going against the grain. Introducing lockdowns in nursing homes early on would have avoided probably 60%-80% of deaths. This applies to Sweden and other countries as well.

dmurray 6y ago
> Come on, it was pretty obvious from very early on (during the Wuhan outbreak, then validated in Italy soon after) that the disease did not kill 1% I don't think this was that obvious. Without widespread testing it was hard to tell how many people had got the virus. In China, 1 in 20 people who tested positive have died. In Italy it's a shocking 1 in 7. That's using today's figures: it was even more back then. I remember respectable bodies estimating 0.5% or 1% mortality rate, though I can't find a WHO source that is more committal than "it appears to be worse than seasonal influenza". I'd call it a calculated risk.
- mamon 6y ago
  To know the actual mortality rate you would have to test every single person in a country. Right now is more of the cultural thing: How likely is the person experiencing flu-like symptoms to go and test for coronavirus? Seems that in Italy only seriously sick people would go and take test, that's why you have this shocking 1 in 7 rate - because most of the mild cases go undetected.
RobertoG 6y ago
"[..] that the disease did not kill 1%" This is new for me. My understanding is that the current total mortality estimation is a little below 1% but, as you say, very skewed to old people. That is: for old people is a lot more that 1% Can you share any data that contradict that?

dmurray 6y ago

> Come on, it was pretty obvious from very early on (during the Wuhan outbreak, then validated in Italy soon after) that the disease did not kill 1% I don't think this was that obvious. Without widespread testing it was hard to tell how many people had got the virus. In China, 1 in 20 people who tested positive have died. In Italy it's a shocking 1 in 7. That's using today's figures: it was even more back then. I remember respectable bodies estimating 0.5% or 1% mortality rate, though I can't find a WHO source that is more committal than "it appears to be worse than seasonal influenza". I'd call it a calculated risk.

mamon 6y ago
To know the actual mortality rate you would have to test every single person in a country. Right now is more of the cultural thing: How likely is the person experiencing flu-like symptoms to go and test for coronavirus? Seems that in Italy only seriously sick people would go and take test, that's why you have this shocking 1 in 7 rate - because most of the mild cases go undetected.

RobertoG 6y ago

"[..] that the disease did not kill 1%" This is new for me. My understanding is that the current total mortality estimation is a little below 1% but, as you say, very skewed to old people. That is: for old people is a lot more that 1% Can you share any data that contradict that?