5 ms·

If the point of their herd strategy involves front-loading deaths then the higher relative death count at this point is a necessary baked-in expectation, not a

If the point of their herd strategy involves front-loading deaths then the higher relative death count at this point is a necessary baked-in expectation, not a failure.

pedrocr 6y ago
If you have to argue your stats are bad because you've "front-loaded deaths" maybe don't go around saying you are vindicated just yet?
- pmarreck 6y ago
  Ripping the band-aid off certainly hurts less overall than the slow peel, no? :)
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  On the other side of the coin perhaps we shouldn't restrict our fellow humans lives "because we just don't know what the long term effects are!!"
cygx 6y ago
But one would also expect death rates to be higher initially due to our ignorance of the disease, so front-loading could be risky.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > But one would also expect death rates to be higher initially due to our ignorance of the disease, so front-loading could be risky. Yeah, the front loading strategy pretty much presumes that there will be no effective treatment or it will come too late to do any good. That may or may not be true. If an effective vaccine is developed, then Sweden's strategy will be the opposite of vindicated.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    No, it won't. Vaccines are irrelevant, they are far too slow to develop given the timelines of a virus. The virus has come and gone in most of the world and vaccines are still at the stage of being paused because of serious reactions.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > The virus has come and gone in most of the world and vaccines are still at the stage of being paused because of serious reactions. Huh? The virus has not "gone," except perhaps in places that implemented actual lockdowns (not just stay at home orders) and maintain strict travel restrictions, like China. For comparison: China's population is 136 times that of Sweden [1] and it has had fewer COVID deaths in absolute terms than Sweden (4,634 vs 5,846) [2]. Even assuming the true figure in China is 10x what the official number is, that's still far fewer deaths per capita. If China has had an equivalent per capita dealths, it would have had 800,000 dead from COVID [3]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+population https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+population vs https://www.google.com/search?q=china+population https://www.google.com/search?q=china+population [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+covid+deaths https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+covid+deaths vs https://www.google.com/search?q=china+covid+deaths https://www.google.com/search?q=china+covid+deaths [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=(5846+%2F+10.23+million)+*+1.393+billion https://www.google.com/search?q=(5846+%2F+10.23+million)+*+1...
      - thu2111 6y ago
        Deaths dropped to ~zero months ago in much of Europe. There are still many PCR positives occurring, quite why this is the case is unclear as almost none of these people are unwell. Defined using the WHO pre-2009 definition (before they changed it so they could declare swine flu an epidemic), the epidemic is over. What's left is a 'ghost epidemic' of tests set to hair-trigger margins flagging a huge number of false positives where the virus is either not present or not doing anything, but that doesn't matter.
drewcoo 6y ago
I keep trying to back-load my own death. Isn't that rational? Maybe it's only optimistic.

If the point of their herd strategy involves front-loading deaths then the higher relative death count at this point is a necessary baked-in expectation, not a failure.

pedrocr 6y ago

If you have to argue your stats are bad because you've "front-loaded deaths" maybe don't go around saying you are vindicated just yet?

pmarreck 6y ago
Ripping the band-aid off certainly hurts less overall than the slow peel, no? :)
just-juan-post 6y ago
On the other side of the coin perhaps we shouldn't restrict our fellow humans lives "because we just don't know what the long term effects are!!"

cygx 6y ago

But one would also expect death rates to be higher initially due to our ignorance of the disease, so front-loading could be risky.

ardy42 6y ago
> But one would also expect death rates to be higher initially due to our ignorance of the disease, so front-loading could be risky. Yeah, the front loading strategy pretty much presumes that there will be no effective treatment or it will come too late to do any good. That may or may not be true. If an effective vaccine is developed, then Sweden's strategy will be the opposite of vindicated.
- thu2111 6y ago
  No, it won't. Vaccines are irrelevant, they are far too slow to develop given the timelines of a virus. The virus has come and gone in most of the world and vaccines are still at the stage of being paused because of serious reactions.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > The virus has come and gone in most of the world and vaccines are still at the stage of being paused because of serious reactions. Huh? The virus has not "gone," except perhaps in places that implemented actual lockdowns (not just stay at home orders) and maintain strict travel restrictions, like China. For comparison: China's population is 136 times that of Sweden [1] and it has had fewer COVID deaths in absolute terms than Sweden (4,634 vs 5,846) [2]. Even assuming the true figure in China is 10x what the official number is, that's still far fewer deaths per capita. If China has had an equivalent per capita dealths, it would have had 800,000 dead from COVID [3]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+population https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+population vs https://www.google.com/search?q=china+population https://www.google.com/search?q=china+population [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+covid+deaths https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+covid+deaths vs https://www.google.com/search?q=china+covid+deaths https://www.google.com/search?q=china+covid+deaths [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=(5846+%2F+10.23+million)+*+1.393+billion https://www.google.com/search?q=(5846+%2F+10.23+million)+*+1...
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Deaths dropped to ~zero months ago in much of Europe. There are still many PCR positives occurring, quite why this is the case is unclear as almost none of these people are unwell. Defined using the WHO pre-2009 definition (before they changed it so they could declare swine flu an epidemic), the epidemic is over. What's left is a 'ghost epidemic' of tests set to hair-trigger margins flagging a huge number of false positives where the virus is either not present or not doing anything, but that doesn't matter.

drewcoo 6y ago

I keep trying to back-load my own death. Isn't that rational? Maybe it's only optimistic.