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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Perhaps, not so much.
"Stop covid or save the economy? We can do both”

Contrary to what you’ve heard, shutting down the country is also the quickest way to get it started back up again.

by David Rotman, in MIT Technology Revirew ➥ https://www.technologyreview.com/202...=pocket-newtab.

“... In late March, President Donald Trump warned against letting “the cure be worse than the problem itself” and talked of getting the country back to business by Easter, then just two weeks away. Casey Mulligan, a University of Chicago economist and former member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, warned that “an optimistic projection” for the cost of closing nonessential businesses until July was almost $10,000 per American household. He told the New York Times that shutting down economic activity to slow the virus would be more damaging than doing nothing at all.
Eventually the White House released models suggesting that letting the virus spread unchecked could kill as many as 2.2 million Americans, in line with the projections of other epidemiologists. Trump backed off his calls for an early reopening, extending guidelines on social distancing through the end of April. But his essential argument remained: that in the coronavirus pandemic, there is an agonizing trade-off between saving the economy and saving lives.
Evidence from research, however, shows that this is a false dichotomy. The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible ...
... any measures to slow deaths from the virus will have huge downstream economic benefits. Michael Greenstone, an economist at the University of Chicago, finds that even moderate social distancing will save 1.7 million lives between March 1 and October 1, according to disease-spread models done at Imperial College London. Avoiding those deaths translates into a benefit of around $8 trillion to the economy, or about one-third of the US GDP, he estimates, on the basis of a widely accepted economic measure, the “value of a statistical life.” And if the outbreak is less severe than predicted by the Imperial College work, Greenstone predicts, social distancing could still save some $3.6 trillion ...
... “Our choice is not whether we intervene or whether we go back to the normal economy,” says Emil Verner, an economist at MIT’s Sloan School who has recently looked at the flu pandemic of 1918 for insights into today’s outbreak. “Our choice is whether we intervene—and the economy will be really bad now and will be better in the future—versus doing nothing and the pandemic goes out of control and really destroys the economy.” ...
... In a piece called “National Coronavirus Response: A roadmap to reopening,” former FDA director Scott Gottlieb also argued for ramping up testing and then isolating those infected rather shutting in the entire population. Likewise, Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy, called for increasing testing in a New York Times piece called “We Can Safely Restart the Economy in June. Here’s How.” Harvard medical experts, meanwhile, have outlined similar ideas in “A Detailed Plan for Getting Americans Back to Work.”
The proposals differ in details, but all revolve around widespread testing of various sorts to know who is vulnerable and who isn’t before we risk going back to business ...”
More ➥ https://www.technologyreview.com/202...=pocket-newtab




“National Coronavirus Response: A roadmap to reopening,”
➥ https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploa...covering-2.pdf

“We Can Safely Restart the Economy in June. Here’s How”
➥ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/o...s-economy.html

“A Detailed Plan for Getting Americans Back to Work”
➥ https://hbr.org/2020/04/a-detailed-p...s-back-to-work

“Testing for Coronavirus Infections and Antibodies”
➥ http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/

I don't think that any of this contradicts the proposition that this is a hard policy decision -- on the contrary! It's very complicated, and all these sources underline that. Furthermore, there's no easy answer of BOTH saving lives AND saving the economy. However this all turns out, massive economic devastation will result, AND millions of people will die. The best measures will mitigate both of these effects.



This statement is obviously false: "The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible ..." If we spent 100% of the world's wealth on saving every single life, that would achieve the goal of "saving as many lives as possible" but we would destroy everything else, and in fact lives would be lost to other causes and probably more in the long run. So we don't "save as many lives as possible" even in non-pandemic times.


I think there are few things about this pandemic which are obvious and and which are really non-controversial. One of the few ones of those is that just doing nothing at all and just letting the pandemic rip would overwhelm health care systems and lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths. That seems clear to just about everyone by now, notwithstanding some stupid things said by certain world leaders who will remain unnamed, in the early stages of the crisis. But what should be done exactly is much less obvious, and no doubt is different for different countries, different regions, and different cities. Nearly the entire world has taken measures, and the pandemic is slowing down -- the rate of doubling of cases has been reduced almost everywhere and it's starting to look like most countries will get through the pandemic -- get through at least this wave, anyway -- without anywhere near the kind of death rates we had in 1918. But other aspects are not obvious and not non-controversial.

[GordMay]

Let's take a look back, at the economics of the 1918 Flu' pandemic.


"Our choice is not whether we intervene, or whether we go back to the normal economy,” says Emil Verner, an economist at MIT’s Sloan School who has recently looked at the flu pandemic of 1918 for insights into today’s outbreak. “Our choice is whether we intervene—and the economy will be really bad now and will be better in the future—versus doing nothing and the pandemic goes out of control and really destroys the economy.”
Overall, Verner and his coauthors found that the 1918 pandemic reduced national manufacturing output in the US by 18%; but cities that implemented restrictions earlier, and for longer, had much better economic outcomes in the year after the outbreak.
Verner points to the fates of two cities in particular: Cleveland and Philadelphia. Cleveland acted aggressively, closing schools and banning gatherings early in the outbreak and keeping the restrictions in place for far longer. Philadelphia was slower to react and maintained restrictions for about half as long. Not only did far fewer people die in Cleveland (600 per 100,000, compared with 900 per 100,000 in Philadelphia), but its economy fared better and was much stronger in the year after the outbreak. By 1919 job growth was 5% there, while in Philadelphia it was around 2%.
Nevertheless, the cities’ stories are suggestive. Verner says that even a conservative interpretation of the data suggests there is “no evidence that interventions are worse for the economy.” And most likely they had a significant benefit. “A pandemic is so destructive,” he says. “Ultimately any policy to mitigate it is going to be good for the economy.”
Today’s economy is much different—it’s geared more toward services, and far less toward manufacturing than it was 100 years ago.
“Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu” ~ by Sergio Correia, Stephan Luck, & Emil Verner
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561560

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Let's take a look back, at the economics of the 1918 Flu' pandemic.

"Our choice is not whether we intervene, or whether we go back to the normal economy,” says Emil Verner, an economist at MIT’s Sloan School who has recently looked at the flu pandemic of 1918 for insights into today’s outbreak. “Our choice is whether we intervene—and the economy will be really bad now and will be better in the future—versus doing nothing and the pandemic goes out of control and really destroys the economy.”
Overall, Verner and his coauthors found that the 1918 pandemic reduced national manufacturing output in the US by 18%; but cities that implemented restrictions earlier, and for longer, had much better economic outcomes in the year after the outbreak.
Verner points to the fates of two cities in particular: Cleveland and Philadelphia. Cleveland acted aggressively, closing schools and banning gatherings early in the outbreak and keeping the restrictions in place for far longer. Philadelphia was slower to react and maintained restrictions for about half as long. Not only did far fewer people die in Cleveland (600 per 100,000, compared with 900 per 100,000 in Philadelphia), but its economy fared better and was much stronger in the year after the outbreak. By 1919 job growth was 5% there, while in Philadelphia it was around 2%.
Nevertheless, the cities’ stories are suggestive. Verner says that even a conservative interpretation of the data suggests there is “no evidence that interventions are worse for the economy.” And most likely they had a significant benefit. “A pandemic is so destructive,” he says. “Ultimately any policy to mitigate it is going to be good for the economy.”
Today’s economy is much different—it’s geared more toward services, and far less toward manufacturing than it was 100 years ago.
“Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu” ~ by Sergio Correia, Stephan Luck, & Emil Verner
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561560

I think by now it's non-controversial that letting pandemics spread uncontrolled will not lead to optimal results.


However, policies aimed at "saving every life possible" are not followed even in normal times, and can't be, because there are never infinite resources available for saving lives. There is always some balancing involved between saving lives and available resources and other costs. Some good policies are both relatively cheaper AND relatively more effective than some others, or no policy, but it is obvious nonsense that "any policy to mitigate [a pandemic] is going to be good for the economy." Of course not ANY policy. No policymaking works like that with regard to any issue, and certainly not a complex issue like this one.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think by now it's non-controversial that letting pandemics spread uncontrolled will not lead to optimal results.
However, policies aimed at "saving every life possible" are not followed even in normal times, and can't be, because there are never infinite resources available for saving lives ...

That seems, to me, to be an “reductio/argumentum ad absurdum”, or an appeal to extremes.
“The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible”, does NOT mean limiting all economic damage, at any conceivable cost, to save every single life.

For instance:

“Does Social Distancing Matter?” ~ by Michael Greenstone & Vishan Nigam
“... we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits ...”
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561244

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That seems, to me, to be an “reductio/argumentum ad absurdum”, or an appeal to extremes.
“The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible”, does NOT mean limiting all economic damage, at any conceivable cost, to save every single life.

For instance:

“Does Social Distancing Matter?” ~ by Michael Greenstone & Vishan Nigam
“... we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits ...”
➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3561244

Well, reductio ad absurdum is a valid and powerful logical technique, or test of any proposed rule. And it is not correct to say that “'The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible', does NOT mean limiting all economic damage, at any conceivable cost, to save every single life". That is EXACTLY what it means -- "as many lives as possible" means exactly at any conceivable cost -- the only criterion is whether it's "possible" or not.



These kind of statements are wrong and are unhelpful -- leading to unhelpful oversimplification of the policy issues involved. In this case, the balancing of cost and practicality and economic damage where there are very very hard questions for policymakers. The best way to limit the economic damage will be not to just save all possible lives, but rather to take optimal measures which balance practicality and cost with saving lives, bearing in mind the fact that lives have considerable long-term economic value in themselves, so it's not always a dichotomy. But that fact makes the question harder, not simpler.



The statement "The best way to limit the economic damage will be to save as many lives as possible" implies that these difficult policy decisions are easy -- just choose whichever policy will save more lives. But that's wrong. For example, you could make a policy that all businesses are shut down except hospitals and virus research labs, and no one is allowed to leave home for any reason until a vaccine is developed and everyone has been vaccinated. That would clearly be "saving as many lives as possible", by reducing human contacts to the absolute minimum, compared to allowing people to continue to have a certain amount of contact with each other, as all countries presently do to some degree or another. But such a policy would mean total economic collapse, so we don't do it. Even those countries with the strictest lockdowns are balancing short-term economic damage against lives saved, allowing people to encounter each other in grocery stores at the very least, where without any doubt some infections are taking place, and allowing at least certain "essential" businesses to work, although infections are being transmitted there too.


The articles you cite are more or less all directed against an argument which no one really makes any more -- which is that we should do nothing and just let the virus rip through. Some stupid people were saying that a month or so ago, and a lot of voices like the ones you cite spoke up against that. Unfortunately combatting one stupid argument has evoked other stupid arguments on the other side, like you don't need to know anything except save more lives. We need to know a hell of a lot more than that, to make optimal policy decisions. It is immensely unhelpful to suggest that there is nothing to think about.



Other arguments in the sources you cite are trivial -- "does social distancing matter" -- of course social distancing matters, and everyone agrees about that now. Considerable social distancing is taking place in every single country in the world now, and not the least degree of social distancing is taking place in Sweden. Even if much of the social distancing there is advised and not legally obligatory, in contrast to other non-Nordic countries, it is still being done, and the results are visible in the considerable flattening of the curve of new infections there as in the rest of Europe.

[GordMay]

... does NOT mean limiting all economic damage, at any conceivable cost, to save every single life". That is EXACTLY what it means -- "as many lives as possible" means exactly at any conceivable cost -- the only criterion is whether it's "possible" or not...

If we cannot agree on a definition of terms, we have no basis for further discussion.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks, for trying.

[tp12]

Sweden's deaths more than doubled over the last 4 days. Currently sitting at 887. Their rate of deaths is very high. An additional 517 deaths (from 370) at a rate of 9% deaths per infection. One of the highest in the world.



Anyone defending this approach or who thinks the 'jury is still out' has some sort of investment in that position, clearly.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If we cannot agree on a definition of terms, we have no basis for further discussion.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks, for trying.

Well, sure. And you know how much I respect you Gord, and for how many years by now.


But seriously -- what else do you think they are saying? "The best way to limit economic damage is to save as many lives as possible" -- what is that supposed to mean? Why is it phrased like that?



They could have said "Don't forget when trying to balance economic damage with saving lives, that lives also have a great deal of economic value, so don't make a non-optimal policy decision which intends to save economic damage at the expense of some lives, but forgets that the sacrificed lives cause economic damage later on". That would be a true and helpful statement. But that's not what they said -- the actual statement is different and implies that no balancing is needed -- just save more lives. This is wrong and unhelpful.


Note also what is ignored in the cited article -- not all lives have the same economic value. If we're looking at lives in the cold economic way suggested by the article. The median age of COVID 19 dead in the Nordic countries is 84 or 85, and a majority are not only near the end of life in chronological terms anyway, but have underlying health issues, and some are even dying anyway. These are lives which are precious in other ways -- and we must not ignore that -- but which mostly no longer have any economic value at all, and this does considerably reduce the force of the argument, that "saving lives is the best way to limit economic damage".



If you killed off the entire population of Europe over 80 years old -- God forbid, but suppose -- there would be nearly zero economic damage from this, although it would be a horrible tragedy in non-economic, human terms. So the optimum policy from the economic point of view for dealing with this particular pandemic, contrary to the cited article, is most definitely not to simply save the maximum number of lives possible, or even the maximum number which is practical to save. You simply cannot get away from hard policy decisions with some trite oversimplification.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Sweden's deaths more than doubled over the last 4 days. Currently sitting at 887. . .

This fact is not meaningful. Infections were doubling in 4 days, two weeks ago, like in many places. So naturally you can expect that deaths are doubling at a similar rate, now.


Today new infections in Sweden are doubling in 10.5 days, similar to Denmark at 10 days. Two weeks from now, the rate of new deaths will have slowed to the same rate.



And as has been discussed, Sweden, and Denmark, and the rest of the Nordics, have low numbers of deaths per million compared to the rest of Europe.

Originally Posted by tp12

. . . Their rate of deaths is very high. An additional 517 deaths (from 370) at a rate of 9% deaths per infection. One of the highest in the world.. . .

Sweden does have a high rate of deaths compared to the number of infections -- but why do you think that is? And how do you think that can be related to the lockdown policies? I've not heard even a theory about how that could be related.


Death rates compared to number of infections vary widely by country -- Germany's is very low, Spain's is very high. No one really knows why this is the case, but one factor which is clearly at play is how are countries counting COVID-19 deaths -- the criteria vary by country. Another factor is the degree of testing and the criteria for giving tests. Another factor is the quality of intensive care, which is very high in Germany and not so good in Spain, but that can't be a factor in Sweden as the care there is top notch. None of this says anything about social distancing policies.

Originally Posted by tp12

. . . Anyone defending this approach or who thinks the 'jury is still out' has some sort of investment in that position, clearly.

The experts say it will be a year before we know for sure which policies were effective and which were not. As they say -- fools rush in where angels dare to tread.


You are so convinced that Sweden is wrong -- which aspect of Sweden's policy, exactly? There is a great variety of policies in effect in different countries. The four broad categories are: (a) stay at home order; (b) non-essential businesses closed; (c) schools closed; (d) travel restricted.



Sweden has none of these, but a great number of European countries have only implemented one or two of these measures. Countries with no stay-at-home order include all the Nordics, Germany (but some of the German Länder have them), Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland. Countries with no closing of non-essential businesses include Denmark, Norway, Germany, Netherlands. Most European countries have closed schools, but some like Denmark are reopening them.



So why single out the Swedes? The policies in Denmark will be almost the same from next week, although Denmark has more infections per million than Sweden and a slightly higher rate of doubling of new infections. Probably half of European countries have no stay-at-home orders.



All stupid? Really?

[tp12]

"Hard policy decisions" = prioritising the dollar over lives.


I mean, why would we want to save the maximum number of lives possible when we can save an undefined amount of dollars

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This fact is not meaningful.

That's all you needed to say.



Your position is very clear and it's also very clear you'll defend it no matter how many people die, waht the rate of deaths per infection is or even that their number of infections has doubled in the last 4'ish days as well. Certainly not the 10.5 days you've cited. I suggest you check your data - mine's from worldometers.

[tp12]

By the way - the whole flatten the curve thing was to prevent the number of cases getting to the point where care was compromised and that resulted in increased, wait for it, deaths per infection. That was the point of lockdowns. Sweden's position is indefensible.

[tp12]

What really concerns me is how far we've gone as a global society to accept deaths so that we can keep making money. The uncomfortable truth for those who appear so willing to sacrifice 'others' and by that I mean actual people, family members etc, when we're playing a numbers game online is that they wouldn't be nearly so happy with that concept when it was their family or even them staring down the bullet. Where has our compassion and empathy gone? It seems some people have sacrificed it on the altar of the almighty dollar. I really hope I"m wrong on this.

[Montanan]

Obviously a half the world away from Northern Europe is Los Angeles County. This county in the State of California has a population of just over 10 million, comparable say to the population of Sweden, albeit with must greater population density.

LA instituted aggressive lockdown protocols and it appears to be working rather well, so far. Now they need to determine how to progress. Each city and country being a bit of a livestream experiment as to methods and approaches to deal with the pandemic. Recent report regarding LA.

"Los Angeles County health officials warned Friday that the region needs to significantly increase social distancing to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus and that stay-at-home restrictions could remain into the summer.

Even with the dramatic social distancing the county is now seeing, officials forecast that up to 30% of residents could be infected by mid-summer without more behavioral changes, such as reducing shopping trips.

As a result, Los Angeles County is extending the stay-at-home order for California's most populous county through at least May 15.

Officials could not provide a definitive answer as to when the stay-at-home order will ease.

"Everybody wishes we could answer that and answer it definitively, and we can’t. We do know that we will reopen," said Barbara Ferrer, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. "We do know that we will be lifting some of the restrictions and we do hope that we're able to take a hard look this summer at what makes sense for us to be relaxing, in terms of some of the closures right now that are making it impossible, for example, for some people to get back to work. But it really does depend on the data."

While the strict physical distancing measures in L.A. County, which have been in effect for three weeks, have clearly had an effect in saving many lives, models presented by the county Friday show troubling forecasts if officials lifted the stay-at-home order now.

There are still too many people becoming infected with the coronavirus in Los Angeles County, officials said. And there is more than a 50% chance that the current capacity of intensive care unit beds in Los Angeles County, roughly 750 beds now, could be exhausted by late April.

"There's a greater than 50% chance that if we did nothing to increase the number of ICU beds in the county relative to our normal footprint that we would run out of ICU beds near the end of April, or the beginning of May," said Dr. Roger Lewis, a biostatistician and chairman of the emergency medicine department at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Work is underway to increase the county's ICU bed capacity.

Officials outlined the stark paths ahead for Los Angeles County. If the stay-at-home order was quickly rescinded and people resumed their normal habits, an astonishing 95.6% of L.A. County residents would be infected with the coronavirus by Aug. 1, according to projections released by the county.

Staying at the current levels of physical distancing would still result in 29.8% of residents being infected by Aug. 1.

But increasing our efforts to stay apart from one another by one-third could reduce that to just 5.5% of Los Angeles County residents being infected by Aug. 1.

Put another way: Junking the stay-at-home order now would result in 18,000 people needing hospitalization in L.A. County by mid-May, in a county with fewer than 4,000 hospital beds. But maintaining the current level of physical distancing would keep the number of those needing hospitalization under 1,000 by late May, and the number would be significantly lower if we improved our physical distancing.

Officials cautioned that the forecasts will change over time as more data are fed into them. But the data indicate that now is not the time to let up on the stay-at-home order, they said.

"Physical distancing is working. It has worked to date, and it is working now, and it is important that that physical distancing remain in place in order to reduce not just the strain on the hospital system, but more importantly the overall number of infections," said Dr. Christina Ghaly, director of the L.A. County Department of Health Services. "It is absolutely the single most important weapon that we have in our arsenal to fight the virus."

Still, Ghaly said, there are more infections being found every day. On Friday, there were 469 new cases of infection and 19 new deaths reported, putting the cumulative total for Los Angeles County at 8,453 cases and 244 deaths.

"Each person with the infection is still infecting more than one person,” Ghaly said. As long as that happens, the trajectory of coronavirus cases will continue to slope upward.

Even just improving physical distancing by one-third of our current efforts will have a dramatic effect, officials said. Officials are not contemplating new broad-based mandates to close down even more sectors of our society — local authorities across California have already said they think they've largely done all they can without shutting down essential sectors.

But residents can do better. Officials will be looking to see whether a new county order announced Friday requiring the wearing of cloth face coverings at essential businesses will help. And residents who continue to go to the supermarket every day are being urged to cut back on going out.

"For many people the routine is like, 'Well, I can still go to the grocery store,' and I get that ... but we're really telling people, 'No, be very sensible: Limit the amount of time that you're out and about with other people, even to do those essential purchases,'" Ferrer said.

"We’re not talking about some dramatic new set of measures and opportunities to even further close down wholesale parts of our lives," Ferrer added. "We have a lot of that in place. We just are all going to do a better job trying to stay safe, stay home, protect each other and keep our distance."

Based on current data from the county and other communities, roughly 3% of people with COVID-19 require hospitalization. One-third of those patients, or 1% of total cases, will end up in the ICU. The majority of those in intensive care need to be put on a ventilator.

Officials said there are significant activities going on now to increase the total ICU bed capacity in the county, including opening a previously closed hospital and relying on the Navy hospital ship Mercy to take non-COVID-19 patients into its intensive care facilities.

Authorities are optimistic they can increase the number of ICU beds in the coming weeks to meet projected demand. An additional 400 to 500 ICU beds may be needed even if residents continue to physically distance themselves as they have been in the last three weeks, and "I do believe that is a gap we can close," Ghaly said.

The US Navy Hospitals Ship - Mercy, docked in the L.A. area, adds 80 ICU beds and 1,000 total beds; the Los Angeles Surge Hospital, where the shuttered St. Vincent Medical Center campus sits, has 266 beds, a large number of which can be converted into ICU beds; four of the county hospitals run by the Department of Health Services are looking at adding 100 to 150 ICU beds; and the county is working with privately owned hospitals to boost intensive care unit capacity.

Ferrer said she wished she could give a definitive answer when the stay-at-home order can be lifted.

"If the healthcare system can't stay functional, you also will have a lot of increased mortality from other people who will die of other diseases and conditions as well," Ferrer said. "At the point we start seeing some serious significant declines in both the rate of new cases and the rate of deaths, we can talk about what's a reasonable way to particularly get people back to work."

http://https://www.yahoo.com/news/l-...200058369.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

That's all you needed to say.

Your position is very clear and it's also very clear you'll defend it no matter how many people die, waht the rate of deaths per infection is or even that their number of infections has doubled in the last 4'ish days as well. Certainly not the 10.5 days you've cited. I suggest you check your data - mine's from worldometers.

Worldometer says there are 9,685 cases now and were 4,947 cases on 1 April, less than doubling in 10 days. Look again; you are not reading it right.


https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/sweden/


That's 1,005 cases per million. There are 88 cumulative deaths per million in Sweden.



To put into perspective, Denmark has 5,996 cases now and 2,860 cases on March 31, less than doubling in 10 days. The rate slowed a bit more in Denmark yesterday. That's 1,035 cases per million and 45 deaths per million.


France has 124,869 cases today and 59,105 on April 2, doubling in less than 8 days. 1,913 cases per million and 202 deaths per million.


UK has 73,758 cases today and 33,718 on April 2, more than doubling in 8 days, similar to France. That's 1,164 cases per million and 145 deaths per million.


UK and France have steeper curves than Sweden and Denmark, with rates of infection increasing faster at a stage in the epidemic when there are more cases per million. Probably that's why they are locked down tighter -- probably that's a reasonable policy decision.


Within Europe you cannot see a correlation between lockdown policies and rates of infection or rates of increase in infections or rates of death.

That is not to say that lockdown policies have no effect -- obviously social distancing works, and the tighter you lock down, the more you will reduce the rate of infection. But different countries have different underlying dynamics, so as I've said how many times before -- different countries will have different needs and will find different policies to be optimum. The Nordic countries are obviously not doing badly despite their less stringent lockdowns -- probably they have less stringent lockdowns exactly because they are not doing badly. Every country is making its own policy decisions, and there is no way that you or I can say at this point that any country is making stupid decisions, certainly not on the basis of this data.