Professor Johan Giesecke on Sweden's thinking...

[Swansman]

Do you have the facts to back that up? I don't want to see them by the way but it does look largely assumptive (i.e the demographic is the same, they are all oldies in the care home system, it was the poor care that caused the infections etc). I'm not convinced, another bad day for cases and deaths and for a country with such a dispersed population you seem to be doing a good job in trying to hit the top of the charts.

I hope I am wrong but instinctively it looks like you followed the wrong path and the numbers (at least on the surface) back that up

It is largely assumptive as with most things regarding this disease.

We'll see in a year or two what strategy turned out the best (or "least worst").

The numbers "on the surface" says that our strategy is significantly better than the ones in Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, UK, the Netherlands and Switzerland, since all of these countries have higher death per capita.

However, its far more complicated than that (which is seemingly VERY hard to understand) so I'm not going to say that one strategy is better than the other, because there is no evidence.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Did they actually say that?

My only recollection of the 20k number (which I've just searched back for to verify) was that it was stated that if we kept deaths below 20k then we will have done well. I certainly don't recall a statement that deaths could/would be kept below that figure.

That aside, back to the main point, the problem with all these "it's not actually too bad" lines of reasoning from experts - and this is the most recent of many similar ones - is that they ignore the fact that in the short-term health services will be overwhelmed, and many people will die who might otherwise not, and these deaths will include young and otherwise fit individuals.

This viewpoint may prove to be correct once it has all played out, but that won't mean that the lockdown approach was a wrong one because it does provide protection to health services which does save lives.

Not sure without combing the whole internet but I think it was presented as a "lower range" type number when justifying the lockdown. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to predict the final toll precisely, let alone say we can or will keep it down to that. At the current rate we'll be over that in around a week or so. Anecdotally however (here, in fact, on the "good news" thread) ICU admissions seem to be falling.

Protecting the NHS, not overwhelming ICU, bringing down the "R" (number of people infected by a confirmed person) to 1 or below are all good reasons for the lockdown.

When this is all said and done, though, we should know enough about pandemics to plan much better for another one (or another CV19 wave). One of the questions I'd be asking is "why did a cruise ship stuffed full of old people and viral load and (presumably) without ventilators or PPE have an infection rate of 1 in 3 and fatality rate of 1 in 36 when several Western European countries had a fatality rate of 1 in 8"?

 

[Bozza]

When this is all said and done, though, we should know enough about pandemics to plan much better for another one (or another CV19 wave). One of the questions I'd be asking is "why did a cruise ship stuffed full of old people and viral load and (presumably) without ventilators or PPE have an infection rate of 1 in 3 and fatality rate of 1 in 36 when several Western European countries had a fatality rate of 1 in 8"?

It won't be 1-in-8 though, when everything has played out as there will be a load of people in the UK who have it/had it and didn't know, so weren't tested and aren't included in any stats...

Of the 712 passengers and crew members of the Diamond Princess who tested positive for coronavirus, 331 -- or 46.5% -- were asymptomatic at the time of testing, the CDC said.​

 

[Guinness Boy]

It won't be 1-in-8 though, when everything has played out as there will be a load of people in the UK who have it/had it and didn't know, so weren't tested and aren't included in any stats...

Of the 712 passengers and crew members of the Diamond Princess who tested positive for coronavirus, 331 -- or 46.5% -- were asymptomatic at the time of testing, the CDC said.​

It won't actually be 1 in 8 - agreed. But that's the constant in the statistics earlier on this thread from [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] and we seem to be heading more towards 7 than 9. From that, I would deduce that a) very serious / hospitalized cases have a fatality rate of 1 in 8 and b) our testing was insufficient (yes, with the benefit of hindsight)

 

[Weststander]

Its four entirely different countries with different cultures, different health care systems, different elderly care systems, different. Its impossible to know if its a "direct consequence" when there are many, many factors involved.

Its like saying that UK numbers of 219.22 deaths per million are a direct consequence of going into lockdown because South Korea didnt go into lockdown and only got 4.49 deaths per million people.

Let’s stick to comparisons within Scandinavia. Nations with not dissimilar cultures, direct neighbours and lower population densities than mainland western Europe/UK. Areas of very low population, with occasional towns and cities.

The Swedish PM’s no/limited lockdown strategy has resulted in a far greater per capital death rate than Norway, Finland and Denmark who set early lockdowns. Elderly and the vulnerable have died as a result, the numbers don’t lie.

The reason? Maintain economic strength, herd immunity and continued liberty for the people.

In Norway, Finland and Denmark, avoidable deaths would clearly have been unacceptable.

 

[Swansman]

Let’s stick to comparisons within Scandinavia. Nations with not dissimilar cultures, direct neighbours and lower population densities than mainland western Europe/UK. Areas of very low population, with occasional towns and cities.

The Swedish PM’s no/limited lockdown strategy has resulted in a far greater per capital death rate than Norway, Finland and Denmark who set early lockdowns. Elderly and the vulnerable have died as a result, the numbers don’t lie.

The reason? Maintain economic strength, herd immunity and continued liberty for the people.

In Norway, Finland and Denmark, avoidable deaths would clearly have been unacceptable.

Not very similar either.

No one knows if the lockdown strategy or other factors are the cause of the higher number of deaths per capita.

Neither do anyone know what "unavoidable deaths" are. One could argue that everyone who dies from this was a "avoidable" death or one could argue that none of the dead were avoidable.

We will see by the end of pandemic which strategy worked out the best. Its impossible to tell.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What is the explanation for Germany?

The smaller nation states of the region decided towards the end of the 18th century that they'd fair better if they amalgamated into one larger state.

Oh, sorry, you mean the larger ratio. I don't know. It is falling though, just like almost everywhere else.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you mean 65,000, (not 650,000).

I think you're right.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Many thanks for posting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) his assessments don't add up.

1. My analysis of the daily cases and deaths stats from Johns Hopkins show that the rate of death per rate of cases is increasing which can either mean a fall in the rate of new cases or an increase in the rate of deaths. The latter is incompatible with the vulnerable having already been picked off. The number of vulnerable is massive. Millions will be dead in the UK before his prediction would come to pass. We have about ten million people in the UK aged over 70 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/)

2. His policy to protect only the vulnerable encourages spread of the disease. The only old and frail that would be protected by that are those locked in isolation (and I mean locked).

3. How does he expect fatality to 'turn out' to be 0.1%? This is a percent of what? Of the total UK population that's 650,000! If he means 0.1% of those infected, that is an absurdly different number from the 1 in 8 deaths (12.5%) currently steady in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium and the UK. If he expects half of us to have had the disease and final fatality to be 0.1% that is still 32,000. The direction of fatality worldwide is currently increasing not decreasing (see my spreadsheets) albeit I think this is due to a downturn in new cases rather than the virus becoming more lethal so it needs to turn down dramatically and soon for there to be any chance any of his predictions are correct. Let's hope he's correct.

4. If he thinks that at least 50% of the population has already had COVID, in the UK that is about 32 million people. The total reported cases so far is what, 150,000? (that's a slight overestimate but it makes the maths easier). That means the disease must be asymptomatic in 31,850,000 in our population. That gives a cases per deaths ration of 212. No country is reporting a ratio anywhere like that. The closest is Russia (120) and their data are derided. See the fourth column in data below.

6. If he expects half of us to eventually have had the disease, we can work out how many have had the disease already based on total deaths (13,759 in the UK yesterday) and a final death rate of 0.1%. That give 13,759,000 Brits who have already had the disease, 13,745,241 of whom were asymptomatic. Even if we say that 80% of deaths so far are in a special vulnerable population that will eventually all be killed off changing the death rate when the dust settles, this still means that roughly 2.5 million Brits have had the disease already and remained asymptomatic. It is possible, but.....really?

7. So, the man may be right, but his predictions are dependent on an assumption that between 2.5 and 13 million of us have had an asymptomatic version of COVID, for which there is no evidence. In key areas in a few countries lots of people who are as yet asymptomatic have been tested. If only 0.1% of them go on to get the disease this would already have become headline news. For it to not have been headline news, no country anywhere can yet be testing anyone apart from those expressing symptoms. That is, in effect, no meaningful testing at all, anywhere. Is this really the case?

View attachment 122407

Nobody knows they are all just guessing.
Blah blah f'ing blah several paragraphs boring on about herd immunity for the twelth time this week.

Apologies struggling with the be kind request and tired of seeing the innumerate constantly dismissing any explanation they can't count without taking their socks off.

Thanks for laying this out. Also worth mentioning that in between asymptomatic and terminal, there are a large number of people who have recovered BECAUSE they received the best possible care and treatment. Why don't we send all the critical care folk home as well and tell them to stop wasting their time trying to save the weak ones.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sweden hasn’t had any worse curve in comparison, BUT I think a massive difference is culturally and behaviourally. Sweden is a very different demographic to the UK.

Sweden is also far less densely populated, which is a major factor in restricting the spread of the virus. And it's not like they're not socially distancing too.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sweden is also far less densely populated, which is a major factor in restricting the spread of the virus. And it's not like they're not socially distancing too.

True, at 10m it has the same population as North Carolina in the US.

 

[Bakero]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...as-elderly-pay-price-for-coronavirus-strategy

 

[Swansman]

Sweden is also far less densely populated, which is a major factor in restricting the spread of the virus.

According to?

Close to 60% of this country is forest where no one lives, very few work. We live in cities.

If you are going to do some "scientific conclusions" based on population density and make a comparsion, you also have to include the British Antarctic Territory in the comparison if you are including non-coastal Norrland.

Level of urbanisation, yeah that could have some value, number of single households, population density within cities - things like that could have some value. Overall population density says absolutely nothing.