Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Ulf Nereng]

Thanks for the responses guys but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I can see that a higher infection rate would follow from the lack of lockdowns, but the much much higher mortality rate (10 times?) in Sweden, and the considerably higher recovery rate (3 times) in Australia, defies belief. Sweden is a very advanced country with very high standards of health care.

Perhaps it's an artifact of testing. If Aus has tested very much more than Sweden then their confirmed cases number is closer to the actual number of infected persons. If Sweden has tested relatively few, say only those who turn up in hospital, then the rate of confirmed to deaths would be lower, giving a higher mortality rate.

 

[JesseCuster]

Perhaps it's an artifact of testing. If Aus has tested very much more than Sweden then their confirmed cases number is closer to the actual number of infected persons. If Sweden has tested relatively few, say only those who turn up in hospital, then the rate of confirmed to deaths would be lower, giving a higher mortality rate.

this seems much more likely to me than the half-baked speculation about Southern Europeans being more susceptible or there being a more virulent strain here or there, etc.

I’m going to make a prediction:

As time goes on and the disease spreads more, and more widespread testing is done, those mortality rates will start to even out amongst different areas of the world. Public policy and healthcare infrastructure will play important roles in how fast it spreads and how it’s coped with, but silly ideas like Italians having genetic susceptibility hence why it’s spreading there and in New York (with lots of Italian Americans) won’t hold any water (that's just one of the silly ideas I've seen touted).

 

[novaphile]

I'd like to point out that I've seen arguments in this thread (and others perhaps) that say Australia is doing well because:

(a) it is humid here (and that makes the virus not travel as far in the air; and,
(b) it is not humid here (and that means that the virus can't survive as long outside the body.

Needless to point out, I'm not convinced by these arguments.

It is well recognised now that the best way to manage this outbreak is to reduce the number of cases that are being handled in hospital, at any one time, as much as possible. That is why everyone is talking about flattening the curve.

It means that less people are infected, and those that are infected can be treated.

 

[JesseCuster]

Thanks for the responses guys but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I can see that a higher infection rate would follow from the lack of lockdowns, but the much much higher mortality rate (10 times?) in Sweden, and the considerably higher recovery rate (3 times) in Australia, defies belief. Sweden is a very advanced country with very high standards of health care.

The case fatality rate in Sweden is a lot higher than in Australia, the actual infected mortality rate isn't necessarily that much different.

"Cases" here refers to people confirmed to have the disease via testing. As has been pointed out, if some places are testing more than others, then the "confirmed cases" totals will be all out of whack compared with the actual number of people with the disease.

Also, some places have simply been hit earlier than others. Pandemics spread. I've no doubt that public policy with regards to lockdown, school closures, etc. play an important role, but I think people are fretting too much about situations here and there in the world, forgetting that it's early days yet, and one reason as to why Country A is doing so badly at the moment and Country B isn't doing so badly, might be that Country was simply hit by the virus first (among other factors).

Watch those "mortality rates" and amount of confirmed cases change very rapidly over the coping weeks and months to something approaching the actual mortality rates and infected cases.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps it's an artifact of testing. If Aus has tested very much more than Sweden then their confirmed cases number is closer to the actual number of infected persons. If Sweden has tested relatively few, say only those who turn up in hospital, then the rate of confirmed to deaths would be lower, giving a higher mortality rate.

Latest numbers
Australia 11203 tests per mil
Sweden 3654 tests per mil

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Latest numbers
Australia 11203 tests per mil
Sweden 3654 tests per mil

There we have the answer, then!

 

[JesseCuster]

Latest numbers
Australia 11203 tests per mil
Sweden 3654 tests per mil

Ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[EHocking]

There we have the answer, then!

But the importance is not the mortality rate per test.

The mortality rate per million people in each country is :
Australia : 1
Sweden : 35

Cases per million may tie-in with the testing rate of 3:1
Australia : 214
Sweden : 607
But doesn’t necessarily explain the mortality rate.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

But the importance is not the mortality rate per test.

The mortality rate per million people in each country is :
Australia : 1
Sweden : 35

Because Sweden has so far had many more infected. (Seems to me to be the only logical answer)

 

[JesseCuster]

People can take weeks to die of COVID-19. The virus spread in some countries and regions before others (e.g. it probably spread in Sweden before it spread in Australia). People are dividing one thing by another in a way that I'm not sure means a lot, and comparing those numbers between regions and I don't think the conclusions are valid.

I suspect it will simply take time for the true numbers to become apparent.

 

[novaphile]

Because Sweden has so far had many more infected. (Seems to me to be the only logical answer)

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but WHEN you get the number of cases is also important.

We had two months between importing and treating the first four cases (and isolating suspects) and next daily spike (which was only 72 cases).

During that time a lot of preparations were being made (despite the federal government's breath-taking lack of foresight).

This is one of the benefits of a federal system I guess.

By comparison, Sweden was hit by an avalanche of cases (no pun intended).

Locally, we ramped up testing at an incredible rate, and this helped with identifying, isolating and treating cases. Again, Sweden probably could have done this with two months between the first case, and the next batch.

I cannot explain why Sweden has not brought in social distancing measures though. I would expect that to cause the overall number of cases to be much worse over time.

Treatment outcomes depend on medical services not being overwhelmed.

There are some very good graphs out there that show the rate of progress from case 1 onwards, or case 100 onwards, unfortunately I haven't been able to find one that includes Sweden.

 

[The Atheist]

Broadly similar to New Zealand. Keep it up.
We should go down an alert in 2.5 weeks and businesses with easy to achieve social spacing should reopen.
From the algo I am using.

I have to confess I agree we should be down an alert level at the end of the 4 weeks. Like Aussie, we're just not ticking up.

Claims of china ordering hundreds of thousands of body bags from taiwan. Is China in Focus a reputable source?

Dunno, but YouTube usually isn't.

And the idea is it's caused by TBC vaccines, which were mandatory in the East for much longer (till 2010 in Czech Republic). The mechanism is unclear, but that so called BCG vaccine is known to boost immune system in general. Netherlands is about to start blind study on medical personnel.
Another example is Portugal vs. Spain. Portugal used TBC vaccines, Spain did not.

That is bloody interesting!

Needless to point out, I'm not convinced by these arguments.

I'm not either, although I still think there's merit in the vitamin D position.\

What I don't buy for a second is that Australia is more efficient than other countries.

Hundreds of our cases came from Aussie - it's clearly been rampant there for some time and there's something completely different in play.

Another reason to discount Aussie's famed efficiency is NZ. Our approach has been utterly disorganised and has only got serious in the past 2 or 3 days and we're even doing better than you.

Aussie has five times the population of NZ, and cases are almost exactly in proportion to the populations, yet your deaths are five times higher.

 

[EHocking]

Because Sweden has so far had many more infected. (Seems to me to be the only logical answer)

I thought your only logical answer was number of tests.

Latest numbers
Australia 11203 tests per mil
Sweden 3654 tests per mil

Ding ding! We have a winner!

But again, Sweden does not have "many more infected".
Number of cases;
Australia : 5,550
Sweden : 6,131

So, 10% more cases but 1,193% more deaths (or is it 193% ?).
Either way - a disproportionate number of deaths per case or per capita or per tests run.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

****** Fauci is on PBS news tonight finally admitting asymptomatic people can spread the virus. He claims it is because "new information is coming in". No it isn't. That information is not new at all. Unbelievable. He's either incompetent or a liar.

He is also denying health care workers are going without proper PPE.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Fauci has fallen for Trump, as does everyone who works with Trump because they need something he will only give if he thinks you respect him.

It is unconscionable how much cover he is giving to Trump, given that his only obligation is to provide the best information available.
He isn't a politician or spin doctor, and working as one can only hurt the efforts to deal with the epidemic.

 

[JesseCuster]

But again, Sweden does not have "many more infected".
Number of cases;
Australia : 5,550
Sweden : 6,131

Those numbers are representative of a combination of:

1) The amount of testing done in those regions.

2) The amount of people infected in those regions.

Sweden has 10% more people test positive than Australia, it doesn't mean it has 10% more infections.

What do those numbers really tell us about the number of people in Australia and Sweden who are actually carrying the virus?

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Thanks for the responses guys but it still doesn't make sense to me.

I can see that a higher infection rate would follow from the lack of lockdowns, but the much much higher mortality rate (10 times?) in Sweden, and the considerably higher recovery rate (3 times) in Australia, defies belief. Sweden is a very advanced country with very high standards of health care.

Could it simply be that the death rates are in fact similar, but the numbers of cases are vastly underestimated for Sweden due to lack of testing?

Today Sweden has 6131 confirmed cases, 358 deaths, but has only done around 37,000 tests.

Australia has a broadly similar 5500 confirmed cases, 30 deaths, but has done 285,000 tests, almost 8 times as many.

Are the hospitals in Sweden noticeably overrun? Are Sweden people more stoic, and would tend to recover at home rather than bother the hospitals?

 

[EHocking]

Those numbers are representative of a combination of:

1) The amount of testing done in those regions.

2) The amount of people infected in those regions.

Sweden has 10% more people test positive than Australia, it doesn't mean it has 10% more infections.

What do those numbers really tell us about the number of people in Australia and Sweden who are actually carrying the virus?

Since Sweden is not testing - who the **** knows?

To quote yourself.

I don't think the conclusions are valid.

 

[Samson]

Because Sweden has so far had many more infected. (Seems to me to be the only logical answer)

Social spacing is a mechanical notion.
As Joseph Heller famously said

Don't force anything mechanical.

Sweden is in cloud cuckoo land excuse the wrong allusion.

 

[The Atheist]

What do those numbers really tell us about the number of people in Australia and Sweden who are actually carrying the virus?

Once you start to get into the percentage rates without a decimal point in front of them, it does give us some information.

While the samples aren't representative at tiny percentages, they become reliable the more tests that are done, because you'd be catching wild infections just by chance.

Aussie is starting to get near that kind of critical mass, with 1% tested. Once they hit half a million - 2% of the entire population, I think you can consider them an accurate picture of what's going on.