4 ms·

You seem to falsely assume that all the deaths Sweden has suffered so far would have happened at some point regardless. Given the development of better treatmen

by rndmio 6y ago

You seem to falsely assume that all the deaths Sweden has suffered so far would have happened at some point regardless. Given the development of better treatments already some of those who died would, if they had caught it later, have survived. Given three GDP hot is similar to their neighbours all they've done is needlessly kill some of their population.

twblalock 6y ago
Lockdowns are a rate limit, not a cure. Flattening the curve does not reduce the area under the curve, it just spreads it out over time to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded. So yes, most of the deaths would have happened anyway, but over a longer period of time. The improvement in treatments has not been substantial. Most of the deaths in Sweden were among high-risk groups, such as elderly people in care homes, who probably could not be saved if they got the virus today rather than several months ago. Sweden intentionally set themselves up with a policy they can sustain for a long haul. They were betting that the pandemic will last a long time, certainly longer than a lockdown can be sustained.
- rndmio 6y ago
  That's only true if nothing changes. Discovering that dexamethasone can reduce mortality means that from that point onward the area under the curve is reduced. Once we have a viable vaccine again the area is reduced. Given the economic impact Sweden is facing they have the worst of both options.
- jandrese 6y ago
  If you can spread it out to the point where you can develop a vaccine then it will absolutely save lives. Or at least flatten it to the point where you're not overwhelming hospitals or running out of PPE/cleaning supplies then you save lives in the long run. And remember Sweden has first class healthcare. A similar strategy in the US would have been absurdly expensive and resulted in mass bankruptcy in addition to mass deaths.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Flattening the curve does not reduce the area under the curve, it just spreads it out over time to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded. In fact, Yes it does. Flattening the curve means that less people die because hospitals are unable to deal with a sudden flood of cases in a narrow period of time. Moreover, as doctors have more time to focus into figthing against covid damage instead to give priority to just keep as many people alive as possible, sequels are also less serious Less people died means that area under the curve represents a lower value now. The problem is that the common people are not always familiar with statistics. Both curves have a total area of 100 of course but this is a percent from a value. Not the value on itself. 50% of 10 is not the same as 50% of 3000. > most of the deaths would have happened anyway But not all of those, and this is a big difference

by rndmio 6y ago

twblalock 6y ago

Lockdowns are a rate limit, not a cure. Flattening the curve does not reduce the area under the curve, it just spreads it out over time to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded. So yes, most of the deaths would have happened anyway, but over a longer period of time. The improvement in treatments has not been substantial. Most of the deaths in Sweden were among high-risk groups, such as elderly people in care homes, who probably could not be saved if they got the virus today rather than several months ago. Sweden intentionally set themselves up with a policy they can sustain for a long haul. They were betting that the pandemic will last a long time, certainly longer than a lockdown can be sustained.

rndmio 6y ago
That's only true if nothing changes. Discovering that dexamethasone can reduce mortality means that from that point onward the area under the curve is reduced. Once we have a viable vaccine again the area is reduced. Given the economic impact Sweden is facing they have the worst of both options.
jandrese 6y ago
If you can spread it out to the point where you can develop a vaccine then it will absolutely save lives. Or at least flatten it to the point where you're not overwhelming hospitals or running out of PPE/cleaning supplies then you save lives in the long run. And remember Sweden has first class healthcare. A similar strategy in the US would have been absurdly expensive and resulted in mass bankruptcy in addition to mass deaths.
pvaldes 6y ago
> Flattening the curve does not reduce the area under the curve, it just spreads it out over time to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded. In fact, Yes it does. Flattening the curve means that less people die because hospitals are unable to deal with a sudden flood of cases in a narrow period of time. Moreover, as doctors have more time to focus into figthing against covid damage instead to give priority to just keep as many people alive as possible, sequels are also less serious Less people died means that area under the curve represents a lower value now. The problem is that the common people are not always familiar with statistics. Both curves have a total area of 100 of course but this is a percent from a value. Not the value on itself. 50% of 10 is not the same as 50% of 3000. > most of the deaths would have happened anyway But not all of those, and this is a big difference