7 ms·

It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. According to most experts, we're looking at the end of 2021 for the whole thing t

by m0zg 6y ago

It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. According to most experts, we're looking at the end of 2021 for the whole thing to play itself out. Take a look at the steep incline the curves have taken on in the countries which previously were "better" than the US and Sweden. In the US deaths are declining (in spite of slight rise in cases), in Sweden hardly anyone is dying at all. Take a look at countries that were "worse" too - Italy for example. Exponential growth in cases. Deaths will lag, as they usually do. My prediction is that unless a miracle happens and an amazing vaccine (or a therapeutic) is developed, Swedish strategy will "win" this one. The curves aren't looking good at all for other European countries heading into winter, and their economies are decimated, so they can't tolerate full shutdown anymore. It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact.

phreeza 6y ago
Treatments are already much better than they were in the early phase of the pandemic, and they are unlikely to get worse over time. Also mortality is likely to rise with hospital load. So it follows that stretching your infections over a longer time is beneficial.
iso1210 6y ago
Cases started growing in Sweden on Sep15, that's not long enough for them to reach the most vulnerable, to catch it, to go to hospital, and to die Sweden's GDP in Q2 was down 8%. Germany's was down 10%.
threatripper 6y ago
> It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. Correct. Mortality doesn't say very much now. The true IFR would be a better indicator but since testing availability is very inconsistent it is hard to compare the number of infected across countries or time. The mortality numbers are also inconsistent in many places (which is why we looked at all-cause mortality in the first place). > It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact. This is plainly wrong. Vaccines have decreased the severity of many viral diseases and in some cases even eradicated the virus completely. Even without a vaccine, some countries have driven down the infection numbers almost to zero. Even the countries that could not eradicate it will only see 10-80% of the population infected in the long run. > Swedish strategy will "win" this one. For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. The Swedish strategy may work very well in Sweden. But that doesn't mean that it would have worked in countries with a different social structure, population density or climate.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > This is plainly wrong. At a minimum, this is not "plainly" wrong: there's no vaccine against any other coronavirus, and vaccine against the flu (next most fatal thing on the table) is not great. Also, a vaccine does not prevent _infection_. It merely gives your body antibodies to deal with it when you get it. Sometimes those antibodies work, sometimes they do not. The initial estimates for C19 vaccines seem to put it at 50% effectiveness. People seem to be expecting a silver bullet. It's not going to happen, especially not this quickly. But irrespective of whether we have a vaccine, yes, everyone will get it eventually. > For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. My point exactly. That's why I'm not declaring them the winner. They are experiencing an uptick in cases, too, though nowhere near as dramatic as e.g. France, Spain, Italy or the UK.
  - tatersolid 6y ago
    > The initial estimates for C19 vaccines seem to put it at 50% effectiveness. Even at 50% effectiveness, a vaccine would drive R(t) well below 1.0 and end the pandemic fairly quickly. https://rt.live https://rt.live
    - m0zg 6y ago
      You're assuming everyone takes it. That's also not going to happen.

by m0zg 6y ago

phreeza 6y ago

Treatments are already much better than they were in the early phase of the pandemic, and they are unlikely to get worse over time. Also mortality is likely to rise with hospital load. So it follows that stretching your infections over a longer time is beneficial.

iso1210 6y ago

Cases started growing in Sweden on Sep15, that's not long enough for them to reach the most vulnerable, to catch it, to go to hospital, and to die Sweden's GDP in Q2 was down 8%. Germany's was down 10%.

threatripper 6y ago

> It's dumb to do this analysis now, when we're in the _middle_ of the epidemic. Correct. Mortality doesn't say very much now. The true IFR would be a better indicator but since testing availability is very inconsistent it is hard to compare the number of infected across countries or time. The mortality numbers are also inconsistent in many places (which is why we looked at all-cause mortality in the first place). > It's a virus. It's endemic. _Everyone_ will get it eventually, if not now, then a month or two from now. There's really no way around this simple fact. This is plainly wrong. Vaccines have decreased the severity of many viral diseases and in some cases even eradicated the virus completely. Even without a vaccine, some countries have driven down the infection numbers almost to zero. Even the countries that could not eradicate it will only see 10-80% of the population infected in the long run. > Swedish strategy will "win" this one. For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. The Swedish strategy may work very well in Sweden. But that doesn't mean that it would have worked in countries with a different social structure, population density or climate.

m0zg 6y ago
> This is plainly wrong. At a minimum, this is not "plainly" wrong: there's no vaccine against any other coronavirus, and vaccine against the flu (next most fatal thing on the table) is not great. Also, a vaccine does not prevent _infection_. It merely gives your body antibodies to deal with it when you get it. Sometimes those antibodies work, sometimes they do not. The initial estimates for C19 vaccines seem to put it at 50% effectiveness. People seem to be expecting a silver bullet. It's not going to happen, especially not this quickly. But irrespective of whether we have a vaccine, yes, everyone will get it eventually. > For one, it is too early to declare a winner. We have to wait. My point exactly. That's why I'm not declaring them the winner. They are experiencing an uptick in cases, too, though nowhere near as dramatic as e.g. France, Spain, Italy or the UK.
- tatersolid 6y ago
  > The initial estimates for C19 vaccines seem to put it at 50% effectiveness. Even at 50% effectiveness, a vaccine would drive R(t) well below 1.0 and end the pandemic fairly quickly. https://rt.live https://rt.live
  - m0zg 6y ago
    You're assuming everyone takes it. That's also not going to happen.