4 ms·

1. That's the number of deaths given the restrictions. If there were no restrictions then the numbers would be much higher. 2. What is your source for death ra

1. That's the number of deaths given the restrictions. If there were no restrictions then the numbers would be much higher. 2. What is your source for death rates not fluctuating with cases? In general, deaths have reliably tracked cases, with a delay of a few weeks (because it takes time to progress from diagnosis to death). 3. Shuttering the economy is not binary. With an intelligent approach, and general compliance with measures such as mask wearing, we ought to be able to control the virus without a complete shutdown. Unfortunately we keep making unintelligent tradeoffs and executing inconsistently.

jasonv 6y ago
2 - First image in this collection: https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ 3 - We are asking everyone to adhere to economic and social restrictions when the risks are not equal to everyone. People in certain age groups, and with health risks, are far more at risk than most people.
- rallison 6y ago
  > 2 - First image in this collection: https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ This site seems entirely untethered to reality? E.g. "2) Covid mortality vs. flu mortality" section appears to put IFR for covid of those at age 80 at 0.16%? Yet, we have entire countries that aren't far off from that number for population fatality rates, let alone infection fatality rate. Wait.. I was just assuming this had to be an IFR comparison, because for something like this, anything else would be disingenuous. I should assume less. It looks like it is comparing annual mortality of flu with the current mortality of Covid-19. 1. We're still far from a year into notable spread of Covid-19. 2. Normal flu seasons don't have lockdowns, masks, bans on large events, etc. 3. In digging a bit more, this uses the 2017 flu season as a baseline, which was one of the worst. This site is actually a great example of Covid-19 misinformation. It has a veneer of authority - Swiss Policy Research as a name sounds like it might be credible. And, it presents what, on first glance, appears to be claims grounded in science (and hey, nice graphs and all!). But, one starts digging into the claims, and it starts to become clear the flaws. jasonv: there are a lot of pseudoscientific resources out there with respect to Covid-19. This looks to be one of them. It's more essential than ever to vet what you're linking to these days.
collyw 6y ago
>If there were no restrictions then the numbers would be much higher. There are a lot of claims like this which are very difficult to prove or disprove. Sweden was one of the few places that went very light on it's measures and never got overwhelmed and generally coped with the virus OK so far. (They admit they messed up with care homes, but that is the same as with many other countries who took far harsher measures).
- rallison 6y ago
  It's worth noting that Sweden is actually more strict than a number of states in the US - 50 person limit on any gatherings, and that limit applies to restaurants as well. They were also better positioned than almost any country to potentially tackle the pandemic well - wealthy, very high percentage of single person households, high percentage of jobs amenable to working from home, and yet their deaths per million rate is close to that of the US. That rate is also 5-10x that of their Nordic neighbors. What they did help show was that certain mixes of mitigation (vs suppression) measures could potentially keep R below 1 in certain places. But even there, because of a limited testing strategy, it was hard to confirm this for quite a while in Sweden. It would have been a lot more helpful if there'd been a lot more testing surveillance in Sweden, but alas.

jasonv 6y ago

2 - First image in this collection: https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ 3 - We are asking everyone to adhere to economic and social restrictions when the risks are not equal to everyone. People in certain age groups, and with health risks, are far more at risk than most people.

rallison 6y ago
> 2 - First image in this collection: https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ https://swprs.org/covid-the-big-picture-in-7-charts/ This site seems entirely untethered to reality? E.g. "2) Covid mortality vs. flu mortality" section appears to put IFR for covid of those at age 80 at 0.16%? Yet, we have entire countries that aren't far off from that number for population fatality rates, let alone infection fatality rate. Wait.. I was just assuming this had to be an IFR comparison, because for something like this, anything else would be disingenuous. I should assume less. It looks like it is comparing annual mortality of flu with the current mortality of Covid-19. 1. We're still far from a year into notable spread of Covid-19. 2. Normal flu seasons don't have lockdowns, masks, bans on large events, etc. 3. In digging a bit more, this uses the 2017 flu season as a baseline, which was one of the worst. This site is actually a great example of Covid-19 misinformation. It has a veneer of authority - Swiss Policy Research as a name sounds like it might be credible. And, it presents what, on first glance, appears to be claims grounded in science (and hey, nice graphs and all!). But, one starts digging into the claims, and it starts to become clear the flaws. jasonv: there are a lot of pseudoscientific resources out there with respect to Covid-19. This looks to be one of them. It's more essential than ever to vet what you're linking to these days.

collyw 6y ago

>If there were no restrictions then the numbers would be much higher. There are a lot of claims like this which are very difficult to prove or disprove. Sweden was one of the few places that went very light on it's measures and never got overwhelmed and generally coped with the virus OK so far. (They admit they messed up with care homes, but that is the same as with many other countries who took far harsher measures).

rallison 6y ago
It's worth noting that Sweden is actually more strict than a number of states in the US - 50 person limit on any gatherings, and that limit applies to restaurants as well. They were also better positioned than almost any country to potentially tackle the pandemic well - wealthy, very high percentage of single person households, high percentage of jobs amenable to working from home, and yet their deaths per million rate is close to that of the US. That rate is also 5-10x that of their Nordic neighbors. What they did help show was that certain mixes of mitigation (vs suppression) measures could potentially keep R below 1 in certain places. But even there, because of a limited testing strategy, it was hard to confirm this for quite a while in Sweden. It would have been a lot more helpful if there'd been a lot more testing surveillance in Sweden, but alas.