Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Viking Sailor]

Doctor answers questions on Monday 4/20:
https://kcbsradio.radio.com/articles...vid-19-testing


Death is not the only significant consequences of this infection:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...ns/5160552002/


Some interesting curves:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ions-1.4881500

[conachair]

good piece here on the numbers >>
https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aj...ers/index.html

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

However, by locking down the system the governments must support those who need the help. I think that the protests in the US, for example, are caused by the government not lending financial support to those who are locked down.

You're kidding, right?

The U.S. government has pumped money into every residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the U.S.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You're kidding, right?

The U.S. government has pumped money into every residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the U.S.

Have they? How much has the individual worker received? I did see reports of banks seizing the checks. Is that true?

[DeepFrz]

Another review of the Stanford paper debunking the study.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Pv77R3g1E

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Have they? How much has the individual worker received? I did see reports of banks seizing the checks. Is that true?

The U.S. just sent out the biggest stimulus payment to individuals in the history of the U.S., approved record new unemployment benefits, halted foreclosures, and provided record numbers of loans and grants to small, medium, and large employers.

But I can see how it's possible for media reports of the people who missed out on some selected parts of those initiatives to capture the attention of those who were pre-disposed to filter things towards a certain perspective.

As you might expect of any program that large and that fast, there are bound to be some problems that need to be fixed.

Your comment that the U.S. isn't lending financial support for those on lockdown is incorrect.

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Have they? How much has the individual worker received? I did see reports of banks seizing the checks. Is that true?

No

It's never been better for low wage earners than now in the US. Unemployment plus $600 per week. You can't hire anyone for under $25 who is currently unemployed now no matter what. If you happen to have employees laid off and now want to re-open - good effin luck.

The thing is that most are also going nuts at home. So basically if the Stay at home orders are not eased soon, we will have true country-wide riots. I'm not talking months but weeks. Mind you, many don't want to go to work, but fishing and to the bar.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Palarran

No

It's never been better for low wage earners than now in the US. Unemployment plus $600 per week. You can't hire anyone for under $25 who is currently unemployed now no matter what. If you happen to have employees laid off and now want to re-open - good effin luck.

The thing is that most are also going nuts at home. So basically if the Stay at home orders are not eased soon, we will have true country-wide riots. I'm not talking months but weeks. Mind you, many don't want to go to work, but fishing and to the bar.

Keeping people home is not sustainable for long periods of time. We don't even know if it's sustainable for short periods of time -- how much long term social and economic damage it does. But for sure not long periods of time keeping the economy in an "induced coma" as someone and massively disrupting people's lives. It might be necessary in some cases, or it might not even do any good -- we don't really know and won't know for some time. But it is most certainly bad policy to do it light mindedly -- shoot that bullet now and it won't be available later -- put a country in lockdown and watch the explosion of cases when you lift it, which will occur as the economy is in shambles, then just try to repeat it. This lockdown was done on the back of a basically healthy economy with full employment.


God help us all, but especially the policy-makers, in whose shoes I would not want to be at this moment.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

God help us all, but especially the policy-makers, in whose shoes I would not want to be at this moment.

The problem, of course, was that if you didn’t have a shut down you risked having crazy numbers of deaths. Few countries had a reasonable alternative. Sweden may get away with it, but they were optimally positioned going in.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The problem, of course, was that if you didn’t have a shut down you risked having crazy numbers of deaths. Few countries had a reasonable alternative. Sweden may get away with it, but they were optimally positioned going in.

Well, that's what I'm talking about. It might be necessary to avoid a crazy number of deaths, in some countries. That's exactly why I said I wouldn't want to be someone making those decisions, at this moment.

But it's not so few countries who are getting by without a lockdown, and not just Sweden -- whole Nordic region, Denmark, Norway, Finland have never had a lockdown. South Korea squashed its outbreak with social distancing measures similar to Sweden's, no legally mandated social distancing, no lockdowns, no closure of any borders, no restriction of movement. Japan has no lockdown. China locked down only Hubei province. I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm not sure why Sweden gets so much attention.

Lockdowns might be necessary to avoid a "crazy number of deaths", in some particular countries and some circumstances, but query whether lockdowns are being used in some other places where the only necessity is for politicians to play on the fear of the population and look like they are taking bold action, and not to save lives. Because lockdowns will not, by themselves, reduce the number of people who get infected -- merely stretch out the infections in time. If health care systems are far from being overwhelmed and the curve is already flat, what is the point? Furthermore, lockdowns are curve sharpeners, when they are taken off.

Think criticially. Don't just assume that just because it's bold, just because it's painful, it must be the right thing to do. I heard something on NPR yesterday about an antiseptic invented some years ago which was extremely effective, but did not sting. People wouldn't buy it, because they couldn't believe that it worked, if it didn't sting. I say again -- I'm not saying that lockdowns are useless everywhere (although we heard an eminent epidemiologist saying that on the linked YouTube) -- I don't have this knowledge. I'm just asking questions.

[Dockhead]

Great news -- Denmark has just announced that the ban on gatherings of more than 10 people will be raised to 500 people. I hope to God that Finland follows suit. I own a building in Finland which can't function if gatherings of less than 500 people are not allowed.

[Dockhead]

More news from Northern Europe -- the Karolinska Institute has today announced that their study of COVID antibodies in donated blood in Stockholm is giving fully 11% (!) positives, and because the particularly type of quick test gives a considerable number of false negatives, could indicate that up to 15% - 20% of Stockholmers have already had the disease. Officially reported cases are only 14,777 cumulatively as of today in the whole country. 15% of the population of greater Stockholm is 240,000 people.


If these results are confirmed with further study, then this is terrific news -- it means we have massively overestimated the mortality of the disease, and it also means that the pandemic is much further advanced than we thought it was, at least in Sweden, and we got to that stage without coming anywhere near stressing the health care systems.



So this whole thing could be much nearer to running its course, in this region at least, than we thought.



This lines up with similar work in Denmark and Finland showing truly massive undercounting of infections. All these studies are crude and preliminary so far.

[stevensuf]

Numbers? Facts?

China 0.4% healthworkers infected died, 1 in 250
Diamond princess , close to 2% death rate, granted mostly older people 1 in 50

San marino, so far 0.12% death rate nationwide, 1 in 800



So no we are nowhere near heard immunity, if there is such a thing with covid19.


The death rate probably somewhere in between, 2% of older people
1 in 250 healthcare workers.


Lets see what happens when we get figures from the couple of infected aircraft carriers.


Sweden has a death rate of 156 per million


San marino and certain areas of Spain are closer to 1200 per million.


So NO, Sweden and Finland are nowhere near 50% infected.


My best guess so far would be 0.2% in an optimistic guess , which would be
2000 per million.



Probably closer to 0.4 or 0.6% death rate, so 4000 to 6000 per million, depending on the age demographics of the country.


In all, we have a long way to go to reach heard immunity , assuming we can have long lasting immunity.


Overall the country closest to heard immunity is Belgium, having over 500 death per million nationwide. Which at the bottom numbers is still only 25% infected and at the upper numbers 8% infected.


In closing, NO the world is nowhere near heard Immunity, this is going to be a far longer slog.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Numbers? Facts?

China 0.4% healthworkers infected died, 1 in 250
Diamond princess , close to 2% death rate, granted mostly older people 1 in 50

San marino, so far 0.12% death rate nationwide, 1 in 800

So no we are nowhere near heard immunity, if there is such a thing with covid19.

The death rate probably somewhere in between, 2% of older people
1 in 250 healthcare workers.

Lets see what happens when we get figures from the couple of infected aircraft carriers.

Sweden has a death rate of 156 per million

San marino and certain areas of Spain are closer to 1200 per million.

So NO, Sweden and Finland are nowhere near 50% infected.

My best guess so far would be 0.2% in an optimistic guess , which would be 2000 per million.

Probably closer to 0.4 or 0.6% death rate, so 4000 to 6000 per million, depending on the age demographics of the country.

In all, we have a long way to go to reach heard immunity , assuming we can have long lasting immunity.

Overall the country closest to heard immunity is Belgium, having over 500 death per million nationwide. Which at the bottom numbers is still only 25% infected and at the upper numbers 8% infected.

In closing, NO the world is nowhere near heard Immunity, this is going to be a far longer slog.

I come to pretty much exactly the same conclusions as you. But note that 0.2% is almost an order of magnitude less than the WHO and Royal College assumptions, on the basis of which much policy is being made. This is a very serious deviation which may lead to disastrous policy mistakes.


I think you're right that we're still far from herd immunity anywhere, nevertheless there are enough people that have been infected in many places that the spread is being slowed down and curves are flattening even without any policy. Note the very striking fact, mentioned in the YouTube video, that both infection and death rates in Lombardy had taken a sharp turn downwards BEFORE the lockdown there. That would have to be the result of a greater and greater percentage of those people who most spread the disease (people with a lot of contact with a lot of different people) having immunity. That happens well before any kind of real herd immunity is working.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I come to pretty much exactly the same conclusions as you. But note that 0.2% is almost an order of magnitude less than the WHO and Royal College assumptions, on the basis of which much policy is being made. This is a very serious deviation which may lead to disastrous policy mistakes.


I think you're right that we're still far from herd immunity anywhere, nevertheless there are enough people that have been infected in many places that the spread is being slowed down and curves are flattening even without any policy. Note the very striking fact, mentioned in the YouTube video, that both infection and death rates in Lombardy had taken a sharp turn downwards BEFORE the lockdown there. That would have to be the result of a greater and greater percentage of those people who most spread the disease (people with a lot of contact with a lot of different people) having immunity. That happens well before any kind of real herd immunity is working.

I agree with Lombardy, One town tested 44% with antibodies and 25% currently infected, so they are well into heard immunity territory, but the remainder of Italy is far from it, as is most of the rest of the world.


Yes the good news is , it can be over far faster and things can open up far quicker, finding the balance is going to be the difficult part as demographics vary greatly from nation to nation, so it is certainly not a one plan fits all.


Realistically we need information on immunity, some solid hard facts and some good science, if we are going to aim for heard immunity rather than stopping it.


Here in Portugal we have a very low infection rate, which tells me when they try and open back up its going to pandemonium, vs Spain and Italy which are quite far gone, who can open up far quicker, but even at best guess of 0.2% then Spain has at best 25% heard immunity , if it exists.


With exponential growth and all, they will be back to the same place they are just now, but only a few weeks later, that 25% is only going to slow it down by a few weeks, Granted in the 3rd or 4rth wave things will be much slower..


Maybe all these mass hospitals they built, that are sitting unused will be used in the 2nd wave.