4 ms·
Yes, it looks like "Sjukdomsfall per dag" is more correctly translated as "Disease cases per day". Though to point out, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#C
by dalke 6y ago
Yes, it looks like "Sjukdomsfall per dag" is more correctly translated as "Disease cases per day".
Though to point out, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Concepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Concepts says "many cases, terms such as disease, disorder, morbidity, sickness and illness are used interchangeably" and "The terms illness and sickness are both generally used as synonyms for disease;" so I'm not clearly wrong.
It then goes on to make your point "however, the term illness is occasionally used to refer specifically to the patient's personal experience of his or her disease. In this model, it is possible for a person to have a disease without being ill."
As you can see from my earlier comments, I agree that the "sharpening" of Swedish recommendations is nowhere the big deal that the referenced article implies it is, and the local media is not making a big deal of it. It's preparations for any local outbreaks, ahead of time so people can be prepared, and knowing that existing practices are no longer as effective.
But, why the emphasis on "without a microscope"? Isn't early the right time for things like this?
- tinus_hn 6y agoIn other countries the hospitalizations, transfers to Intensive Care and ultimately fatalities quickly followed the rise in infections. How long should we wait before we can accept that the increase here is tiny and much smaller than elsewhere?
- dalke 6y agoIsn't that what we see in the Folkhälsomyndigheten site I linked to? There's roughly 4x the number of reported cases since 1 September, roughly 4x the number of hospitalizations, and roughly 4x the number of deaths. Again, eyeballed numbers, but you make it sound like something is significantly different. Isn't the goal to keep the numbers from getting larger, like we see elsewhere?
- tinus_hn 6y agoThe goal cannot be to keep the numbers from getting larger. The goal must be to keep the disease under control and prevent overloading the hospitals. Don’t forget that you can’t take prevention measures without causing other effects; if you keep people locked into their homes they will become unhealthier, if the economy crashes they will have a lack of food and health care.
- dalke 6y agoAbstractly, sure, there's a possible limit. And concretely, sure, there are other effects. I want to be able to jump on the train to visit friends, but don't because it's not necessary travel. But as is very well known - it's the topic of this HN posting! - we here in Sweden aren't locked into our homes, even with these new recommendations in place. So since this posting and conversation is about Sweden, I don't really see what you're getting at. Are you expressing frustrations you have with the restrictions where you live? I don't think it's impossible to keep the Swedish economy going, with enough food and health care, while also keeping the infection rate low by being a bit more mindful of what we do when there are local outbreaks. And I think the 4x rate since 1 September is enough cause to be more mindful. Otherwise, it'll be 10x in a month, and more after that.