Sweden's liberal pandemic strategy questioned as Stockholm death toll mounts

[Tippit]

Well, it's like if you don't test, you don't have any cases.

It’s almost like, if you had this deadly virus but you don’t test and everything else is more or less equal except for the insane responses from the media and everyone around you, it’s not really that deadly!

Imagine suffering from a “deadly” virus that requires testing to know you’ve contracted it! Deadly indeed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dann]

And of course, I live on an island and it's managing to make Scandinavia look good. When it gets the data correct.

Most of Scandinavia doesn't look so bad, actually.

 

[dann]

Well, it's like if you don't test, you don't have any cases.

And if you don't have any cases, no restrictions are necessary because nobody gets sick and dies. What's not to like?!

 

[Tippit]

...the pivot from " YOU NEED TO SACRIFICE 29,000 (not 30,000, we must be accurate here) LIVES TO THE ALTER OF THE COVID GODS OR YOUR ECONOMY WILL DIEEEE!!!" to "Well it looks like both your economy is doing as well as it could and you did that without losing many lives, but you are an island so its easy and YOU DON'T MATTER ANY MORE" really is a sight to behold.

No one wants to sacrifice 30k people. I’m pretty sure the .6% rate is a case fatality rate which means that the number would likely be substantially lower unless you expect 100% of New Zealanders to get infected. Then when you consider that the covid death statistics are massaged by governments who have vested interests in keeping their innumerate citizens completely terrified, it puts that rate into even more perspective (think, skydivers with covid whose parachutes failed to open, counted as covid fatalities, plus countless other examples of retarded co-morbidities).

In a world of 7.8 billion people we have had 35 million “cases” (how many completely asymptomatic? Hmmm.....) and we’ve had just over one million deaths (all presumably due to covid, which you would have to be a fool to believe) for a supposed absolute death rate of... you might want to be sitting down for this, 0.012%.

We should hang our collective heads in shame for being a globe of innumerate cowards, completely unskeptical of media and government lies.

I’ve yet to have known a single person who has succumbed to this disease, the only reference being my friend’s 92 year old godfather who had a laundry list of co-morbidities and one foot in the grave. Such deadly!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

Most of Scandinavia doesn't look so bad, actually.

Indeed

And notice where South Korea sits too.

And Israel, which nearly got the virus under control down to about 10 cases a day, then relaxed and is now an object lesson in both

 

[zooterkin]

It’s almost like, if you had this deadly virus but you don’t test and everything else is more or less equal except for the insane responses from the media and everyone around you, it’s not really that deadly!

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Despite not counting a lot of tests recently, the UK death rate is back up to around 40 a day now, and rising; tell the friends and family of those people it's not really that deadly.

 

[Tippit]

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Despite not counting a lot of tests recently, the UK death rate is back up to around 40 a day now, and rising; tell the friends and family of those people it's not really that deadly.

It has to do with significance. 616,000 people died in the UK in 2018, at a rate of 1688 per day. Whats 40 more? I recognize the non-stop virtue signaling that is required to apologize for this nonsense, and the effort to portray me as evil, uncaring, and unsympathetic. I am not. I am sympathetic to the victims of any disease or accident, but I’m also pragmatic, and recognize that there are costs associated with preventing deaths, and in this case they appear to greatly exceed the benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob]

It has to do with significance. 616,000 people died in the UK in 2018, at a rate of 1688 per day. Whats 40 more? I recognize the non-stop virtue signaling that is required to apologize for this nonsense, and the effort to portray me as evil, uncaring, and unsympathetic. I am not. I am sympathetic to the victims of any disease or accident, but I’m also pragmatic, and recognize that there are costs associated with preventing deaths, and in this case they appear to greatly exceed the benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's growing at a near-exponential rate - that's the problem.

ETA:

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Despite not counting a lot of tests recently, the UK death rate is back up to around 40 a day now, and rising; tell the friends and family of those people it's not really that deadly.

Now more like 50

 

[dann]

It has to do with significance. 616,000 people died in the UK in 2018, at a rate of 1688 per day. Whats 40 more?

That's not a real question, is it? 40 more are 40 more! And as always, you leave out the long-haulers, the people whose health may be ruined for the rest of their lives.

I recognize the non-stop virtue signaling that is required to apologize for this nonsense, and the effort to portray me as evil, uncaring, and unsympathetic.

The effort is all yours.

I am not.

If you say so.

I am sympathetic to the victims of any disease or accident,

What's 40 more?!

but I’m also pragmatic, and recognize that there are costs associated with preventing deaths, and in this case they appear to greatly exceed the benefits.

Except that you have never seriously tried to calculate those costs, and you are in complete denial for the health-care costs and other costs for the long-haulers. You just claim that costs are there as if all the costs were "associated with preventing deaths." (It would be so much cheaper if we simply got rid of hospitals alltogether!)

You constantly confuse the costs of the virus with the costs of restrictions to slow down the spread of the virus. Sweden is not a good example of the 'free-of-restrictions=free-of-charge' idea that you seem to think it is.
Your QALY idea was a bad joke. It still is.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Imagine suffering from a “deadly” virus that requires testing to know you’ve contracted it!

 

[dann]

Newly reported cases in the last 24 hours:
(...)
Sweden 0

Since Sweden's Public Health Agency doesn't present the new numbers till tomorrow afternoon, let's see what else we've got:

Stockholms avloppsvatten visar att coronaviruset ökar snabbt i regionen. Virussmittan har fördubblats i september och närmar sig de höga nivåerna i våras enligt forskarna på KTH.
– Vi kan i studien konstatera att vi ser en mycket tydlig ökning av antalet fall av covid-19 i samhället, som inte beror på att fler har testats, säger Zeynep Cetecioglu Gurol, universitetslektor och KTH-forskare.
Avloppsvattnet visar att virusmängderna ökar kraftigt i Stockholm (DagensNyheter.se, Oct. 5, 2020)

Stockholm’s sewage water shows that the coronavirus is increasing fast in the region. The virus contagion has doubled in September and is approaching the high levels from spring this year, according to the researchers at the KTH.
In the study, we can see a very clear increase in the number of Covid-19 cases, which isn’t due to more tests, says Zeynep Cetecioglu Gurol, university lecturer and KTH researcher.
Sewage water shows that the amount of virus is rising massively in Stockholm

 

[jimbob]

Imagine suffering from a “deadly” virus that requires testing to know you’ve contracted it!

Like HIV?

 

[dann]

Imagine suffering from a “deadly” virus that requires testing to know you’ve contracted it! Deadly indeed.

The ignorance is so palpable that no test is required to detect it.
The fatal Covid-19 cases don't require testing to show that people died from a deadly disease, but long before they die people are tested in order to decide how they should behave and how they should be treated:
If they have the common cold, a long period of quarantine isn't necessary. If they have the coronavirus, it is.
If they are seriously ill, they shouldn't be taken to the Covid-19 ward if they don't have the coronavirus. If they have the coronavirus, they should.

The principle isn't very different from other diseases: If you have cancer, the treatment depends on the kind of cancer you have.

That diseases require testing to make sure what kind of disease a patient has is so bloody obvious that it is embarrassing to have to explain the concept to you. As an argument against the disease being "deadly" (in quotation marks) it is beyond moronic.

 

[dann]

Like HIV?

Yes, exactly like HIV!

It’s almost like, if you had this deadly virus but you don’t test and everything else is more or less equal except for the insane responses from the media and everyone around you, it’s not really that deadly!

I personally don't know "a single person who has succumbed to" HIV so it must have been a media hoax!

 

[dann]

Are you aware that Trump just came down with the psychosis?! He must have been reading too many fake news stories ...

 

[Tippit]

It's growing at a near-exponential rate - that's the problem.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjboIReWAAEfnJA?format=png&name=small[/qimg]

ETA:



Now more like 50

Exponential growth bias works both ways, in people who don’t understand doubling rates, but also in people who think exponential growth (especially in microbes) lasts forever. It doesn’t. But even if we take the case fatality rate of .6% by the global population of 7.8 billion people and assume an infection rate of 100%, we’re talking about 46.8 million people dead. This would be a monumental tragedy, but still, clearly, not the end of the world.

My hypothesis is that the case fatality rate is grossly overstated due to financial conflicts of interest and co-morbidity, and that the vast majority of covid victims were on borrowed time anyway. This means that the growth rate while exponential, is eventually going to slow as high risk hosts die. For every ten year old who dies from the disease, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of high risk elderly who die.

It’s worth mentioning that the case fatality ratio in the UK is one of the worst in the entire world. I forget the number, but they’ve done an exceptionally poor job, or have been exceptionally unlucky or both. So their curves are going to look exceptionally bad. Contrast this to the US, where we have one of the highest infection rates but lowest case fatality rates in the world.

So do you really believe that this is going to end with close to 50 million dead? I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Childlike Empress]

Are you aware that Trump just came down with the psychosis?! He must have been reading too many fake news stories ...

You mean that 74 years old obese guy who lives on fast food and diet coke? Is he dead yet?

 

[dann]

My hypothesis is that the case fatality rate is grossly overstated due to financial conflicts of interest and co-morbidity, and that the vast majority of covid victims were on borrowed time anyway. This means that the growth rate while exponential, is eventually going to slow as high risk hosts die. For every ten year old who dies from the disease, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of high risk elderly who die.

Your hypothesis might have been interesting if you had explained why you think the case fatality rate in grossly overstated due to financial conflicts of interest and what it has got to do with co-morbidity. And why don't you try to find out how many 10-year-olds die in comparison to the number of "high risk elderly"?

So let's hear you explain in a little more detail:

1) What is your evidence for the case fatality rate being grossly overstated?
2) What does this idea have to do with financial conflicts of interest?
3) And what does it have to do with co-morbidities?
4) What is the importance of 10-year-olds in comparison to the high-risk elderly? It doesn't seem to bother you that old people die, but what about people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s?
5) And why do you, as always, seem to be in denial about the long-haulers - of all ages? (Many of them appear to be relatively young.) Unlike the dead, they aren't simply out of sight, out of mind. They are still here, but you probably won't seen them at fancy coffee houses.

 

[Tippit]

Your hypothesis might have been interesting if you had explained why you think the case fatality rate in grossly overstated due to financial conflicts of interest and what it has got to do with co-morbidity. And why don't you try to find out how many 10-year-olds die in comparison to the number of "high risk elderly"?

So let's hear you explain in a little more detail:

1) What is your evidence for the case fatality rate being grossly overstated?

I've read a lot that suggests this. I'm not prepared to make a formal hypothesis, so I may or may not go back and re-source everything I've read. This is a computer forum, not a peer review. If you think that there may be a possibility that the data is corrupt, then feel free to investigate on your own.

2) What does this idea have to do with financial conflicts of interest?

The conflicts include specific government subsidies for covid diagnoses and deaths. There are direct financial incentives to overstate such deaths.

3) And what does it have to do with co-morbidities?

You really need this spelled out for you, I see. It has to do with co-morbidities to the extent that many people die "with covid", but not necessarily because of covid. People like you just automatically assume that all of the data you obtain is good.

4) What is the importance of 10-year-olds in comparison to the high-risk elderly? It doesn't seem to bother you that old people die, but what about people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s?

I was illustrating the fact that exponential growth in death rates will decline as high risk patients die, obviously. It bothers me that anyone has to die. It just bothers me more that people like you want to overturn society in the name of safety and caution, as we pay through the nose.

5) And why do you, as always, seem to be in denial about the long-haulers - of all ages? (Many of them appear to be relatively young.) Unlike the dead, they aren't simply out of sight, out of mind. They are still here, but you probably won't seen them at fancy coffee houses.

I was never in denial of long-haulers. The costs born by Covid-ARDS survivors would be reflected in a QALY-based analysis, like every other cost associated with this disease and the interventions, and not reflected in your go-to mortality statistics!

Even more reason to look at the aggregate costs of this thing, and less reason to focus on mortality.

 

[dann]

Durrrrr. First of all, HIV is a virus, which causes autoimmune disease:

About AIDS

This is nonsense:

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, is an autoimmune disease that is the final stage of human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which attacks the immune system similar to other autoimmune diseases and leaves the body susceptible to other diseases and infections.

Autoimmune diseases don't attack the immune system. Autoimmune diseases are when the immune system attacks the body!

An autoimmune disease is a condition arising from an abnormal immune response to a functioning body part.
Autoimmune disease (Wikipedia)

Second, symptoms and stages of the disease present both immunodeficient and autoimmune characteristics, see:

Some infectious disease may trigger autoimmune reactions, even the common flu:
Viruses and Autoimmunity: A Review on the Potential Interaction and Molecular Mechanisms (US National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health, Aug. 2019)
SARS-CoV-2 is suspected of doing something similar in children:
Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases following COVID-19 (Nature, June 4, 2020)

This does not mean that influenza and Covid-19 are autoimmune diseases.

Third, the second clause of your first sentence is patently false, as AIDS is responsible for a laundry list of distinct autoimmune disorders, as documented by the nih link above:

You don't seem to understand what your own sentence means: AIDS is not an autoimmune disorder! AIDS triggers autoimmune disorders!!!

There is no need to switch threads, as I just settled this.

You settled nothing whatsoever. You just managed to prove that you don't know what you are talking about.