3 ms·

Unfortunately, I don’t think we have any definitive answer as to what those measures really did to prevent covid deaths, nor do i think will we ever (eg: the re

by bsaul 5y ago

Unfortunately, I don’t think we have any definitive answer as to what those measures really did to prevent covid deaths, nor do i think will we ever (eg: the recent debate on sweden handling of covid)

lettergram 5y ago
I don’t think you can ever get anything definitive. But if you compare Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. All in the same region, with very similar cultures, similar diets, similar language, etc etc You can see the difference clear enough to make inferences. There were a lot of people in the scientific community, Perhaps the majority, suggested Sweden’s method was superior to what many other countries were doing. The fact is, people are effectively believing what they want. There wouldn’t be a need for censorship if the truth was clear.
- angelzen 5y ago
  The clarity presupposes that 'cumulative covid deaths / million' is the ultimate measure of a society's worth and achievement. We are incredibly focused on this one metric, to the expense of literally everything else.
- benjaminwootton 5y ago
  You could compare the relative performance of US states for an even better comparator, eg Florida and Texas. I know they are in the news now, but they’ve been open all year and performed better than many more restricted states. Sweden is apparently much more dense in the cities, has larger cities, bigger migrant population etc so apparently making comparisons across Scandinavia isn’t as helpful as you would expect.
gpm 5y ago
I definitely don't think we have a definitive answer yet. I think one day you might be able to get a good definitiveish answer. For instance, you can assume that everyone gets covid in the "no measures" case, and extrapolate death rates using serosurveillance to get the portion of the population infected in reality. Once Covid is "over" you can see the number of people who died in reality. There will always be all sorts of errors in such an estimate. From bad data, to things like death rate depending on your assumptions about variants, vaccines, and the make up of the population. But once we get the "how we did in the end numbers" it's plausible that we can make some sort of comparison to "how we could have done".
benjaminwootton 5y ago
Indeed. Restrictions and deaths seem very loosely correlated. For the most part they delayed things, but there is surprisingly little evidence that the cure is better than the disease.

by bsaul 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago

I don’t think you can ever get anything definitive. But if you compare Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. All in the same region, with very similar cultures, similar diets, similar language, etc etc You can see the difference clear enough to make inferences. There were a lot of people in the scientific community, Perhaps the majority, suggested Sweden’s method was superior to what many other countries were doing. The fact is, people are effectively believing what they want. There wouldn’t be a need for censorship if the truth was clear.

angelzen 5y ago
The clarity presupposes that 'cumulative covid deaths / million' is the ultimate measure of a society's worth and achievement. We are incredibly focused on this one metric, to the expense of literally everything else.
benjaminwootton 5y ago
You could compare the relative performance of US states for an even better comparator, eg Florida and Texas. I know they are in the news now, but they’ve been open all year and performed better than many more restricted states. Sweden is apparently much more dense in the cities, has larger cities, bigger migrant population etc so apparently making comparisons across Scandinavia isn’t as helpful as you would expect.

gpm 5y ago

I definitely don't think we have a definitive answer yet. I think one day you might be able to get a good definitiveish answer. For instance, you can assume that everyone gets covid in the "no measures" case, and extrapolate death rates using serosurveillance to get the portion of the population infected in reality. Once Covid is "over" you can see the number of people who died in reality. There will always be all sorts of errors in such an estimate. From bad data, to things like death rate depending on your assumptions about variants, vaccines, and the make up of the population. But once we get the "how we did in the end numbers" it's plausible that we can make some sort of comparison to "how we could have done".

benjaminwootton 5y ago

Indeed. Restrictions and deaths seem very loosely correlated. For the most part they delayed things, but there is surprisingly little evidence that the cure is better than the disease.