30 Mar 20
@no1marauder saidOf course we have death rates, but still those people need to test positive to get counted. There could be other uncounted deaths.
My post didn't say anything about "infection rates".
We have deaths and those in serious/critical conditions on that website. We also have hospitalizations though that data is a bit harder to find.
Your statement that "All we have is test positive rates" is false.
30 Mar 20
@petewxyz saidStockholm is the biggest city with a population of approximately 1.6 million in the urban area so that makes it a risk zone, Gothenburg second. We may be naive as is often considered the case, and I don't understand the strategy either. Self isolate is something not all can do, myself for instance. But I do what I can.
@Torunn This could be based on ignorance but I think the population density is quite a bit lower in Sweden, but I don't know if that applies to cities. Maybe they feel that makes social distancing a more realistic option? Mind you as I write that it makes no sense to me because winter viruses must pass through Swedish cities the same as anywhere else. If it were me I would b ...[text shortened]... ven self isolate for a few weeks until it becomes clearer whether they have got the approach wrong??
30 Mar 20
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt is: Norway has about 1/2 the population of Sweden, but it has only 97 serious/critical cases of the virus, compared to Sweden's 306. Moreover, since yesterday Norway has had 6 deaths and an increase of 6 in the s/c cases while Sweden has had 36 deaths and an increase of 51 in s/c cases. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
31 Mar 20
@torunn saidIt very well may be that governments interfering by closing down businesses results in no better outcomes from countries like yours that don't
Stockholm is the biggest city with a population of approximately 1.6 million in the urban area so that makes it a risk zone, Gothenburg second. We may be naive as is often considered the case, and I don't understand the strategy either. Self isolate is something not all can do, myself for instance. But I do what I can.
We shall see.
Either way, people either have common sense like you or they don't.
My guess is that there will be very little difference.
31 Mar 20
@whodey saidWell we can take the "guess" of rabid, ignorant right wing internet posters or the advice of public health experts.
It very well may be that governments interfering by closing down businesses results in no better outcomes from countries like yours that don't
We shall see.
Either way, people either have common sense like you or they don't.
My guess is that there will be very little difference.
Tough choice.
31 Mar 20
@no1marauder saidSo what is your answer to the problem other than elect dementia Joe who did not want to stop immigration from China after the world realized the reality of the virus?
Well we can take the "guess" of rabid, ignorant right wing internet posters or the advice of public health experts.
Tough choice.
01 Apr 20
I'm not going to engage in the morbid practice of updating these stats every day but Sweden's daily death toll was 34 and her serious/critical case load increased by 52. Norway, on the other hand, had 7 deaths and exactly the same number of serious/critical cases as yesterday. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
It seems rather clear which strategy for stopping the spread of the virus is superior.
01 Apr 20
@whodey saidInfection rates are likely going to be the same.
It very well may be that governments interfering by closing down businesses results in no better outcomes from countries like yours that don't
My guess is that there will be very little difference.
The question is does the health system have the capacity to deal with
its population getting seriously sick over a short time? Or can it cope
better if those cases are spread out over several months?
01 Apr 20
@wolfgang59 saidWhy would infection rates be the same? The goal of shutting down certain businesses is to prevent the spread of the virus by minimizing contact between persons; are you suggesting this isn't a sound strategy?
Infection rates are likely going to be the same.
The question is does the health system have the capacity to deal with
its population getting seriously sick over a short time? Or can it cope
better if those cases are spread out over several months?