> Rather more people than need ICU are being hospitalised. True, but being in an ICU in Sweden also doesn't mean you're necessarily hooked up to a ventilator.

> Rather more people than need ICU are being hospitalised. True, but being in an ICU in Sweden also doesn't mean you're necessarily hooked up to a ventilator. You'll be hooked up to the machine that goes bing, and you'll probably be hooked up to oxygen. It's a pretty iffy proxy measurement for the amount of people who will suffer long-term health effects, but it's probably in the same ballpark. And we haven't quantified the severity of those health effects. For some it means getting winded more easily for up to a year after being sick, and for others it means having to amputate a limb because you developed a blood clot while in a ventilator coma. One of these is not like the other. >> And since the number of actual cases is probably at least a magnitude higher than the confirmed cases > That (probably) isn't true, or at least is not confirmed. I would expect most symptomatic cases to be tested now Ok, doing the numbers for July for Sweden which is when testing finally reached acceptable levels: 10487 new confirmed cases. 62 new ICU patients. Assuming the age distribution is the same as for the full period, people in their 40's make up 16.7% of the cases and 11.2% of the ICU patients. That's 1751 cases and 7 of the ICU patients, which results in a hospitalization rate of 0.4%. That's a lot closer to my estimates than yours. > Being male is also a risk group. If you're a man, most stats look worse compared to women at a ratio of about 2-1. Fair enough, and it's actually 3-1 for Sweden. Still, that doesn't bring the number anywhere near 1-in-20. 1-in-100, tops.