291–300 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During the peak of crisis in NYC, the death rate was ~6 times normal. If those extra deaths weren't from COVID-19, what were they from?
You won't like the answer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kIngGuof9E0
The first debunking of it I found:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any death is unacceptable. vs. > what an acceptable death rate might be Maybe you just misspoke?
I did not misspeak. I will try to clarify this once more: from an high level/abstract point of view, all deaths (I am now specifically referring to the coronavirus, but this works for deaths in general) should be avoided. This is obviously not possible in practice, hence some deaths have to be accepted. What can be considered acceptable is relative, but it helps to look at the countries that have managed to keep thei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the same as "no strategy", because this level of decentralization is how nation-states work today. It's also, incidentally, how the EU works. There are open borders between member states — and while some member states "closed" their borders, this has been largely unenforceable in land crossings because there are no border patrol agents between every single land crossing between EU member states. Border enf…
In the EU, land crossings were re-manned on many borders and during the main lockdown (which is now mostly over) passenger travel on many land borders was stopped. On many borders (though not all) physical border checkpoints still exist even if they're widely open almost always, and the legal and administrative framework for controlling land borders is still maintained. Of course, it is now much easier to cross the b…
Yes, but police with guns are pretty effective at overriding constitutional protections in an emergency situation.
It is mostly advisory but at least people I know are following required test and/or quarantine practices in going to Maine for example.
Also, the higher death rate is normal and acceptable, in a tradeoff against deaths caused by confinement and the unnecessary prolongation of the epidemic. Herd immunity will arrive earlier, and lockdown-caused deaths will perhaps make Swedes survive more and better.
Now vote me down.
You have to look at the excess deaths figures. That is, how many usually dies from January to June in a normal year and compare that to how many extra that died in 2020. For Sweden the excess deaths almost exactly matches the number of Covid deaths, give or take 10%. That is not the case for many other countries. For example, the UK had almost twice the number of excess deaths as Covid deaths in a few weeks in April.…
This is an important observation. In the Netherlands, where I live, I've had a number of people look at me with great surprise and mistrust when I mentioned that the Dutch have done a terrible job with this epidemic. The Guardian plots show that the Netherlands is one of the worst when it comes to under-reporting. This is not to say however that the Swedes have done a good job. While their numbers are credible, their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the criteria for defining an acceptable number of deaths?
I would generally go for "as few as possible given the circumstances". Given how much higher they are over other nations—even taking into account excess deaths—I would say they have failed that metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the pandemic is expected to continue for many months, isn't it a bit premature to talk about current death rates as a metric for success? Given Sweden's 'herd immunity' plan, higher death rates at the beginning would seem to be a given. They didn't flatten their curve. But as they approach something like herd immunity, the number of possible carriers should plummet permanently (assuming immunity is a thing with CO…
Herd immunity cannot be considered the plan given that herd immunity has not been proven to be possible
Fewer infected is always good news[1], in Sweden or anywhere else--it means fewer dead now, more infections pushed until later when treatment will probably be better, etc. It's weird to see low infection rates twisted around as if they were bad, "evidence that herd immunity may not be possible". This is particularly true when the prevalence is compared to herd immunity from a model assuming a well-mixed, homogeneous population, which we know overestimates the herd immunity threshold (though not by how much, since estimates of the heterogeneity of the coronavirus are even more uncertain than those of R0).
Finally, herd immunity is a gradual process. Even in a crude homogeneous SIR model, you may approach it asymptotically but never get there. This is good--the only case where a disease "burns itself out" abruptly is when there's big overshoot, which implies many avoidable deaths. Perhaps that kind of overshoot could be desirable in a population of young people, if the small excess mortality in the young people were more than offset by their decreased ability to spread it later; but that's a narrow needle to thread.
For the avoidance of doubt, I believe Sweden did a bad job protecting elder care facilities (though many places that locked down did too), and I disagree with their position on masks. Their response otherwise seems reasonable to me, not obviously better than stricter approaches but also not obviously worse.
1. Unless you know the death count and you're looking for the denominator for your IFR, since more infected then means lower IFR. That was true early in the epidemic, before the first high-quality serosurveys, but not anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Casually weighing human life against economic cost is not acceptable in what we might call a civilized society. The reality is quite different. We accept a risk of death to ourselves and others in everything we do. You do it, too. Everything. You even risk death by doing nothing. You could say "if it cost $1b to save this life, we should do it". But how many lives could be saved at $1b each before we run out of mon…
> You could say "if it cost $1b to save this life, we should do it". This a common, yet unrealistic, hypothetical. In reality, of course, death is inevitable regardless of the economic costs. Past a certain point everybody, so far, has died. The amount of things that we can do in order to prevent any given death doesn't scale with the economic cost, past a certain (quite low) point. Spending 1B on a person won't get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>All preventable deaths should be prevented What's a preventable death? Everybody dies eventually, there's no such thing as a preventable death. There's delaying death, but everyone dies. Period.
I feel that in this thread people are quite stubborn about interpreting things literally, or misinterpreting them all together. I will give it my best shot at clarifying: Preventable refers to what a given society can be expected to manage given its limited resources and given other moral constraints, such as not impinging on people's freedoms unnecessarily. A number of the terms I have used have vague meanings that…
> in this thread people are quite stubborn about interpreting things literally, or misinterpreting them all together.
My complaint is a bit different. I'd say "preventable deaths should be prevented" and people will interpret that as if it said "all". I reply that if I meant "all" I would have said "all".
Your case is a bit different, because you said "all" but did not mean "all".
The jury is still out on "economic failure." The evidence cited on the economy is thin at best. The main piece of evidence is that "Sweden’s central bank expects its economy to contract by 4.5 percent this year, a revision from a previously expected gain of 1.3 percent." Economic forecasts are ridiculously unreliable. In the US, economists forecast (on average) that 8 million jobs would be lost in May. Instead there…