Death Per Capita: US - .00064 Sweden - .00059 US deaths - 214,000 US population - 330,000,000 Sweden deaths - 5,900 Sweden population - 10,000,000 US death rates are higher according to the current numbers.
Death rate (CFR/IFR) and Per Capita are two different statistics. Per Capita doesn’t take count for number of cases and can be swayed by total population. So it’s disingenuous to say 5-10 times higher. There’s a reason CFR/IFR are used.
Ok. But death per capita is relevant as well, no? As it in effect factors in cases and fatality rate of those cases, on a population adjusted basis.
I would think CFR/IFR indicates how good you are at treating patients, how healthy the population is in general, and also how much you test (since if you test more asymptomatic cases you'll have lower deaths as a percentage of cases). Per capita deaths indicate both how well you've done on infection spread and the above items. Since this is talking about Sweden's efforts to contain spread, I would think per capita deaths are the relevant factor? I think the population of the Nordic countries is pretty homogenous and of similar health profile (i.e, vs US where we have a lot more diabetes, heart disease, etc). So seems like comparing those stats between the Norway/Sweden/Finland would be interesting. Just a hunch and obviously not a epidemiologist
Yeah I can agree that it’s relevant but not in a negative way. Per capita, Covid is a non factor .0006 is pretty small. That was my premise to begin with, yes there have been deaths. I don’t want to be insensitive about them.....but it’s not a widespread super killer. In fact, death totals as a whole are down from 2019 in the US overall. I’ve read a bunch of studies about excess deaths but they don’t actually match with totals reported. If, and I could be wrong, the numbers show it’s not as deadly as thought to be and not more deadly than countries that have had nation wide shutdowns then I would much rather not have shutdowns is all.
CFR I would say shows the level of medical ability. IFR factors in the asymptomatic cases as it compares to the age groups that are confirmed. Most scientists agree it’s somewhere between 10-20 times more cases than have been confirmed. The per capita statistic is a decent statistic but it does have flaws. Like you said, most of those Northern European countries are homogenous. That in itself is a benefit to a like minded thought process for the country overall, not many different cultures wanting to act in different ways for treatment purposes. Where it falls short is it’s just a counting statistic and doesn’t factor in for population density, land size, urban sprawl. It’s not apples to apples imo. Simple fact is Sweden has done less to mitigate the virus than almost any other country that has been somewhat widespread. If it is as viral and deadly as they say, they should be among the worst hit. They aren’t. And is almost gone so to speak in that country as they go back to normal.
quick google does not show total deaths down. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ki...ears/501-2aacbd08-466a-4d17-8452-e059df9aa6f3 I was just noting death per capita was perhaps relevant to your conversation about Sweden vs other countries. as for the US death rate per capita ... yeah it isn’t end of the world bad obviously. Some of which is due to the measures taken. Obviously CFR is worse. I don’t know that number but somewhere around 200k/4 million so 5%. That’s not good. then factor in death isn’t everything. Seems like as many people with meaningful issues as death. Now you’re talking about meaningful number.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate My apologies, virtually identical to last year. CFR is the number that is super contradictory too as far as media narratives go. They want you to believe that it is both deadly and viral at the same time. The numbers only support one or the other, like you said. It’s either spreads like crazy or it doesn’t. Which means IFR is probably more likely.
the article I quoted had basically the same number as last year ... plus the covid deaths. Isn’t virality effected by mitigation efforts put in place so far? Certainly seems like - albeit anectodally - in situations where there isn’t mitigation and folks are doing “dumb” stuff... we see high virality. which maybe leads us back full circle to Sweden. Where they didn’t do full lockdowns but still certainly put mitigation efforts in place and where they seem to have higher death per capita than their neighboring comparable countries. Fortunately there is a pretty solid and extremely recent review of the Swedish approach here: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6513/159 I’m not sure there’s a clear takeaway at the end of the day. But it’s a solid read.
Sweden had very few mitigating factors and didn’t outpace countries that had extreme mitigating protocols (UK, US and quite a few others). They are also almost fully open and never shut down schools, gyms and other supposed “super spreaders”. The totals deaths in US are commiserate with natural growth rates, the myth that “excess deaths” are attributed to Covid is not true. There’s been a down tick in quite a few other causes of death. Either way, the death totals aren’t out of the norm. We can compare Sweden to its neighbors and yes their numbers are higher. But when compared to other European countries they are lower without extreme measures. And when compared to the world they are lower than several countries without going the extreme route.
That link specifically says 2020 numbers are projections and doesn't include covid19 deaths. "Note: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus."
You’re saying a lot of things that don’t really foot 100% to the very in-depth overview of what happened/is happening in Sweden noted in the article I posted. I’ll go with the article.
I read the entire article, it says pretty much everything I said. Even with it being a piece from the “22” or the detractors of Sweden’s approach.
And those projections matchup perfectly to the totals mathematically. The growth rate in totals is commiserate with the increases from year to year and hasn’t jumped up out of the natural progression. Edit* With a jump in the graph line in March-April that has since flattened out.
What numbers are you getting to make this conclusion? From what I can see from the CDC weekly death data, 2020 deaths noticeably outstrips 2019 deaths even accounting for the year to year growth. Also notice the second hump from the surge in CA, FL, and TX earlier in the summer I downloaded the weekly death data and graphed it. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-and-Select-Causes/muzy-jte6. There are 3 lines. 2020 deaths, 2019 deaths, and 2019 deaths increased by 1.11% (I used the death rate in the site you linked which shows an increase in deaths of 1.12% from 2019 to 2020). Keep in mind that CDC doesn't record a death until a death certificate has been submitted and processed by the CDC which can take one to eight or more weeks according to the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm If you have different numbers or interpretations, I'm all ears.
Lemme find the graphs I was looking at. It did have similar spikes in March-April but has since gone below expectation and tracking below-similar to this graph dropping significantly in recent weeks. With most of these graphs/trends the entire year needs to be graphed to get a true read. So I could be wrong, the data I was looking at could be incomplete. Regardless, still don’t think the virus response is equal to the numbers shown. Even the worst possible projections are low when compared to the population.
I guess if you’re not one of the approximate 5000 lives that could have been saved if the country did take extreme measures, their approach was was worth it.
I don't think hurting the country considerably more in order for a few more 90 year old people to live to be 91 is worth it. That may sound callous, but you have to weigh everything against the cost. As it stands, of the 200k that died with COVID-19, 100k were over 75 and an additional 60k were over 65. Most were at the age where they were likely to die soon anyway or had serious health conditions that would eventually kill them fairly soon, so even without COVID-19 they weren't celebrating many more birthdays.
Emotion is the enemy of logic. Average of 2.7 comorbidities that doesn’t include old age in US. I imagine that is similar across the globe. There is no guarantee that they would be alive if they didn’t catch Covid, any number of sickness can kill with multiple comorbidities and old age. It is terrible that anyone has died, but it happens. The numbers say you are extremely and overwhelmingly going to make it through this sickness.
[NPR] Scientists Confirm Nevada Man Was Infected Twice With Coronavirus A 25-year-old was infected twice with the coronavirus earlier this year, scientists in Nevada have confirmed. It is the first confirmed case of so-called reinfection with the virus in the U.S. and the fifth confirmed reinfection case worldwide. The cases underscore the importance of social distancing and wearing masks even if you were previously infected with the virus, and they raise questions about how the human immune system reacts to the virus. The two infections in the Nevada patient occurred about six weeks apart, according to a case study published Monday in the medical journal The Lancet. The patient originally tested positive for the virus in April and had symptoms including a cough and nausea. He recovered and tested negative for the virus in May. But at the end of May, he went to an urgent care center with symptoms including fever, cough and dizziness. In early June, he tested positive again and ended up in the hospital. "The second infection was symptomatically more severe than the first," the authors of the study write. The patient survived his second bout with COVID-19. This is the second confirmed case of coronavirus reinfection in which the patient was sicker the second time. A patient in Ecuador also suffered a more serious case of COVID-19 the second time they were infected with the virus. Scientists are unsure why this might be. In theory, the body's immune system should make antibodies after the first infection that help it combat the virus more effectively if the person is exposed to the same virus again. "There are many reasons why a person might get sicker the second time around," explains Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology at Yale University who was not involved in the Nevada study. For example, "they may have been exposed to a lot higher levels of the virus the second time around," she says, or the immune response from the first infection might be making the disease worse rather than better. But, she stresses, "this is all very speculative" because scientists still have very little information about the mechanisms at play. One of the biggest outstanding questions is how widespread reinfection might be. It's difficult to confirm cases in which a person is infected twice. Scientists must have the nasal swabs from both the first and second infection in order to compare the genomes of both virus samples. Only the most advanced hospital and laboratory facilities have the equipment and personnel to do the genome sequencing and analyze the results. As a result, most cases of reinfection are likely going undetected. Danny Altmann, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, says it seems that about 90% of people who have experienced "a clear, symptomatic infection" have the antibodies to fight off another infection, "perhaps for about a year." "Of course, that leaves 10% who don't" have sufficient antibodies to fight off a second infection, he wrote in an email to NPR. "[T]hey have precisely the same risk as anyone out there, thus a small but significant number of reinfections." The authors of the new study also raise the possibility that cases of people being infected multiple times could have implications for the efficacy of a coronavirus vaccine, since some people exposed to the virus may not be mounting sufficient immune responses to protect themselves from a second infection. But Iwasaki says such cases have no bearing on the efficacy of a future vaccine. The virus can deploy proteins to get in the way of the immune response, whereas a vaccine has none of those proteins, she explains. "The good thing about a vaccine is that it can induce much better immunity, a much longer lasting immunity, than the natural exposure to the the virus," she says.
