The Corona Virus

[Peelee]

So .. I'm reasonably sure no one is waiting with baited breath for the latest news from Denmark - but I'll give it anyways, because I find it relevant.

Last week we have had zero dead, and one new case.

I can't claim to know why - but since why the hell not, I'll give an opinion: It's because we're such good little children, and going nicely along with the guidelines. We've largely reopened society, and we cannot seem to create an uptick in contagion pressure.

I have no better explanation. And if I'm right, it's interesting, because it seems that the virus is fairly managable - under certain given circumstances. Such as going along with the guidelines, combined with maybe climate, general health, population density and so on.

Oh, it's fairly manageable under certain given conditions, such as as going along with the guidelines? That's fantastic. If only that's what everyone was saying to begin with and you were dismissing it as if people were saying it's the end of days. Here, these see quotes just from page one of this thread:

it's totally harmless to the vast majority of everyone - but if you're old and/or infirm, maybe be a little more careful than usual.

"A little more careful than usual" is a far cry from "fairly manageable under certain given conditions."

When this is all over, and it is - once again - not a big deal, just remember I said: It's just the flu.

This is at least the third time the WHO and other authorities have kicked up a major scare over nothing. They will be embarassed about it. And sooner or later - and I'm just going to say, it's going to happen this time - they'll settle on how convenient it will be to claim they averted disaster by firm, fast action ... rather than admit they were wrong, again, and it was a huge mass hysteria over nothing at all.

These two comments managed to age like fine milk. WHO is most certainly not embarrassed. All this is far from being over. And it has been a significantly big deal. Everything you said here has been completely and totally wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, if you're unhappy that people are taking you to task for trivializing something as a knee-jerk reaction to your apparent belief that countries were powering up the air-raid sirens and blasting the airwaves with warnings of the apocalypse, just maybe you could have not tried to dismiss this whole thing as "just the flu, won't you all feel silly when nothing happens" trivialities and instead listened to what the media was actually saying instead of a hyper-radicalized version of it that I, to date, have not found anywhere except in the arguments of those who decried it. You are the one who said "I'm no doctor, listen to doctors on this" and then spent the entirety of every post arguing against what the vast majority of doctors across the world have said, and then tried to play it all off as "take the precautions that WHO has been recommending for five months now" when it turns out that, shockingly, the doctors knew what they were talking about.

You don't get to sit on both sides of the fence. You not only sat firmly on one side, you set up a lawn chair, sun umbrella, cooler full of drinks, ottoman, and spent the afternoon talking about how silly the other side of the fence is, only to now try to claim that's where you have been all along. I'm not going to let that just slide without calling you out in it.

You'll have to forgive me for being somewhat passionate about this, but you are fortunate enough to be able to say things like "it's just the flu" and "the vast majority of the global medical community is being silly, and clearly I, a non-medically-trained person, know better," while living in a place that has managed to curb the virus regardless. I, however, am not so lucky. On a daily basis I get to hear people in person spouting off crazy conspiracy theories and downplaying the entire thing while our numbers are rising like crazy. So I get pretty dang upset when I go online and hear someone saying these things while living somewhere that has succeeded in spite of that person.

[Forum Explorer]

So .. I'm reasonably sure no one is waiting with baited breath for the latest news from Denmark - but I'll give it anyways, because I find it relevant.

Last week we have had zero dead, and one new case.

I can't claim to know why - but since why the hell not, I'll give an opinion: It's because we're such good little children, and going nicely along with the guidelines. We've largely reopened society, and we cannot seem to create an uptick in contagion pressure.

I have no better explanation. And if I'm right, it's interesting, because it seems that the virus is fairly managable - under certain given circumstances. Such as going along with the guidelines, combined with maybe climate, general health, population density and so on.

Sure. Denmark is a good example of taking the disease seriously, and thus having a good time of it. A good comparison is Sweden, who from what reports I heard, did not take the disease that seriously at first, and had a much rougher time of it. AFAIK, Sweden and Denmark share a lot of demographics. Similarly robust health care systems, similar age demographics, that sort of thing.

Denmark took it seriously, handled it well, and are pretty much in the clear (and yes, I do like hearing the news from other nations.)

Sweden did not take it as serious, and even though they are now in a relatively good spot, they still had around 6 times the infections, 9 times the deaths, and over ten times the daily new infections that Denmark has.

Places that refused to take it seriously or could not are ongoing disasters with lots of casualties and no signs that things are getting better any time soon.

Basically, in short, take COVID-19 seriously. It is possible to keep this virus under control, multiple nations have done so. But it's also possible to mess it up, and having COVID-19 spread uncontrollably. We've seen that too, and we've seen how many more people die as a result.

[Razade]

You keep asserting this but I haven't seen any actual evidence to back it up. Not to mention.

1. We're at the start of this outbreak. Not the middle. Not the end. The start. It's got a ways to go before we're even at the peak of this particular problem so to fold your arms and go "it's not even bad as most flu" is absurd at best.

2. You're not a doctor. You're not a member of the medical profession whatsoever. You've not only stated that clearly, you've stated that people should listen to medical professionals. Then you go around and "contest" things that are just your opinion as if it has some actual merit. I'm happy you seem to have had less symptoms and less aggressive symptoms and are mostly recovered but that doesn't mean your opinion counts for more than just opinion. I am, and I'll sadly never really know 100% because testing in the U.S is absurd, fairly certain I also had COVID. I had all the major symptoms save respitory issues and...I don't think I had a fever but I rarely get sick as it is, I honestly don't know what one feels like anymore. If I had it, and I'm fairly confident I did since other people I work with had it and had it confirmed they had it, I got lucky too. Plenty of people my age aren't getting lucky and people much older than me are getting it worse.

3. Medical professionals are saying this is worse than the regular flu. You can disagree with it all you want, you can even disagree with them all you want, but the fact remains that they're saying it's not just a normal flu and we need to do what we're doing.

4. You want to go to brute rationalism over fear and hysteria. Me too. It's rational to lock down with a highly contagious disease, especially when near half the people who get it never show symptoms. Otherwise you're just risking massive spread and a lot of dead. We've seen distancing and aggressive testing puts this thing dead in its tracks. We've seen it in other countries. Not taking these steps is the irrational thing to do. Not listening to the professionals is irrational.

It's almost like someone was shouting this at Cpt. Keen literal months ago {Scrubbed}

[Kaptin Keen]

Um, that's not consistent with any source I can find. Via https://www.worldometers.info/corona...untry/denmark/ and https://www.coronatracker.com/country/denmark/

July 6th had 46 new cases and 1 death

July 7th had 10 new cases and 2 deaths

July 8th had 12 new cases

Sorry - your source is crap. Edit: Hey, or maybe mine is. It's in every news media here, but maybe someone lied to them.

Oh, it's fairly manageable under certain given conditions, such as as going along with the guidelines?

Yea. We're a little more careful than usual. That's what. No masks, no isolation, open restaurants, open workplaces - but a little more careful. It's not precisely what I meant at the time, but it's similar enough.

And when everyone jumps on me, whenever I report something that's simply just 100% factual, the fact that everyone jumps at me frothing at the mouth confirms how ... it's all just me.

[NichG]

Sorry - your source is crap. Edit: Hey, or maybe mine is. It's in every news media here, but maybe someone lied to them.

I believe this is where the numbers came from originally, but I can't read it: https://www.sst.dk/da/corona/tal-og-overvaagning

I see a '12' for July 8th on there, but the other numbers seem different (still more than 2 cases though).

They also link to this: https://www.ssi.dk/sygdomme-beredska...9-overvaagning

But that doesn't seem to have past data.

Edit: Here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control's Covid data: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data...ronavirus-data

For Denmark, they have 10 cases on July 8th, 46 on July 7th, 17 for July 4th. So it's a bit offset from the other numbers (I guess maybe 1 day delay?), but consistent.

[Forum Explorer]

Yea. We're a little more careful than usual. That's what. No masks, no isolation, open restaurants, open workplaces - but a little more careful. It's not precisely what I meant at the time, but it's similar enough.

And when everyone jumps on me, whenever I report something that's simply just 100% factual, the fact that everyone jumps at me frothing at the mouth confirms how ... it's all just me.

...Denmark closed it's schools back in March. That's a quite a bit more then just a little more careful. Or are you talking about now?

And dude, we can literally look at what you said. If Canada had taken the same attitude as you did way back then, we'd likely be in the same boat as the States are now.

Or we can again compare Denmark to Sweden. Sweden basically took your attitude on the disease. Treating it like it was a flu, and putting the responsibility on it's civilians to take care of themselves. And nine times as many people died as they did in Denmark. This is not a coincidence.

[georgie_leech]

Maybe I'm crazy, but it sure looks like lockdown measures were implemented in Denmark, and relatively early, compared to more... West-of-the-Atlantic places. Checking the sources (translated because I don't speak danish), it sure looks like official policy. After the initial lockdown to flatten the curve, focus was put on testing, quarantine, and contact tracing. Part of the lockdown was significant travel restrictions, and while 14 day quarantines weren't mandated, they were encouraged by government and worker organisations alike. Specific quarantine facilities were even set up for that purpose.

Keen, perhaps you're underestimating the official response, or over estimating what the guidelines really are? Because from the outside, it sure looks an awful lot like Denmark did the thing where they responded to the concerns of experts, put measures in place to reduce spread, and successfully flattened the curve enough that things never spun out of control, even if the disease isn't 100% eliminated yet like New Zealand managed. It doesn't, however, bear much resemblance to your dismissive "just be a little more careful than usual."

[Razade]

And when everyone jumps on me, whenever I report something that's simply just 100% factual, the fact that everyone jumps at me frothing at the mouth confirms how ... it's all just me.

When the whole world is against you, you either dig your heels in when the facts are in your favor or maybe you're the one whose wrong.

You don't get to say you've been 100% factual when you haven't presented any facts. Anyone reading along to be convinced ought to know that too. You're giving your opinion based on..who knows. You don't believe in giving sources so we don't know either. I feel you don't want to give your sources because if you do we'll see they're not great and if you don't you can still sit there and turn your nose up to everyone else's.

[Kaptin Keen]

Maybe I'm crazy, but it sure looks like lockdown measures were implemented in Denmark, and relatively early, compared to more... West-of-the-Atlantic places. Checking the sources (translated because I don't speak danish), it sure looks like official policy. After the initial lockdown to flatten the curve, focus was put on testing, quarantine, and contact tracing. Part of the lockdown was significant travel restrictions, and while 14 day quarantines weren't mandated, they were encouraged by government and worker organisations alike. Specific quarantine facilities were even set up for that purpose.

Keen, perhaps you're underestimating the official response, or over estimating what the guidelines really are? Because from the outside, it sure looks an awful lot like Denmark did the thing where they responded to the concerns of experts, put measures in place to reduce spread, and successfully flattened the curve enough that things never spun out of control, even if the disease isn't 100% eliminated yet like New Zealand managed. It doesn't, however, bear much resemblance to your dismissive "just be a little more careful than usual."

No, you're right. We were quick to close down basically everything. At the time, I considered it an overreaction. Less so now, but I still think it would have been better to do something akin to the swedish approach. In case you don't know, they had a much more limited lockdown, but tried to protect risk groups. They failed, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done right.

So .. from the outset, sure, I underestimated covid-19. But not hugely. My claim has always been that large groups of the population have little to fear from it - while others are at quite significant risk. With that profile, my approach would be to quarentine risk groups, and let the rest of us get infected in a controlled manner. 'Get infected'. You know, keep infection pressure to managable levels.

That's been my opinion all along - it still is. And by the way, there have been experts all along who have the same view. Point in case, Sweden (although they didn't really hit the ball), and one of the two men in charge of the whole virus defense here in Denmark. It's not like I'm the only person in the world who feels this way, or I'm just a random dude who thinks I'm smarter than the experts. No. I side with a minority of experts who recommend another strategy.

Sweden f***** it up. No doubt. The vast majority of their cases are from retirement homes. Because they didn't protect those people well enough. How, I sadly don't know. But I maintain that a sufficiently tight protection would have been possible.

But now we're talking about a different situation. Or I am. Because now we're reopening, and like I said: We cannot seem to raise the infection pressure. I think the goal is to be around 0,2?! I don't recall the number, but despite opening more and more, the figure keeps dropping. Which is interesting. And which is why I say that - for a given set of circumstances, what we're doing right now, works. I can't swear it's universally applicable, but for our climate, population density, and so on - it works.

Oh and I looked up the newspapers source for the information I gave above. They misquoted, so ... I was wrong, too, obviously. But still. The correct info is: For the past week (of statistics, to be exact) there has been zero deaths, zero ICU patients, and only 1 committed to hospital. Now, that's straight from the source, but SSI do daily updates, so I can't see a week back. For that bit I still have to rely on the news.

[Forum Explorer]

No, you're right. We were quick to close down basically everything. At the time, I considered it an overreaction. Less so now, but I still think it would have been better to do something akin to the swedish approach. In case you don't know, they had a much more limited lockdown, but tried to protect risk groups. They failed, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done right.

So .. from the outset, sure, I underestimated covid-19. But not hugely. My claim has always been that large groups of the population have little to fear from it - while others are at quite significant risk. With that profile, my approach would be to quarentine risk groups, and let the rest of us get infected in a controlled manner. 'Get infected'. You know, keep infection pressure to managable levels.

That's been my opinion all along - it still is. And by the way, there have been experts all along who have the same view. Point in case, Sweden (although they didn't really hit the ball), and one of the two men in charge of the whole virus defense here in Denmark. It's not like I'm the only person in the world who feels this way, or I'm just a random dude who thinks I'm smarter than the experts. No. I side with a minority of experts who recommend another strategy.

Sweden f***** it up. No doubt. The vast majority of their cases are from retirement homes. Because they didn't protect those people well enough. How, I sadly don't know. But I maintain that a sufficiently tight protection would have been possible.

But now we're talking about a different situation. Or I am. Because now we're reopening, and like I said: We cannot seem to raise the infection pressure. I think the goal is to be around 0,2?! I don't recall the number, but despite opening more and more, the figure keeps dropping. Which is interesting. And which is why I say that - for a given set of circumstances, what we're doing right now, works. I can't swear it's universally applicable, but for our climate, population density, and so on - it works.

Oh and I looked up the newspapers source for the information I gave above. They misquoted, so ... I was wrong, too, obviously. But still. The correct info is: For the past week (of statistics, to be exact) there has been zero deaths, zero ICU patients, and only 1 committed to hospital. Now, that's straight from the source, but SSI do daily updates, so I can't see a week back. For that bit I still have to rely on the news.

It's a pretty tough argument to swallow. What Denmark did, worked. What Sweden did, failed. Or at least, was worse than what Denmark did.

Could Denmark's response have been more optimal? Almost certainly. But responses to a disease are hard to fine tune and not going far enough is much worse than going too far. So it's a tough sell to say that they should've done less.

Could Sweden's plan have worked? Theoretically, yes. But it didn't. And I am unaware of any examples of where it did work somewhere else. So it's hard to convince people that Sweden made a good choice in comparison to Denmark.

Basically, people are going to look back and praise places that closed quickly like Denmark and New Zealand did. And that will be the benchmark and tactics used against the next pandemic. Not Sweden.

[Kaptin Keen]

It's a pretty tough argument to swallow. What Denmark did, worked. What Sweden did, failed. Or at least, was worse than what Denmark did.

Could Denmark's response have been more optimal? Almost certainly. But responses to a disease are hard to fine tune and not going far enough is much worse than going too far. So it's a tough sell to say that they should've done less.

Could Sweden's plan have worked? Theoretically, yes. But it didn't. And I am unaware of any examples of where it did work somewhere else. So it's hard to convince people that Sweden made a good choice in comparison to Denmark.

Basically, people are going to look back and praise places that closed quickly like Denmark and New Zealand did. And that will be the benchmark and tactics used against the next pandemic. Not Sweden.

Well ... what Sweden did failed in a reasonably specific way: They did not do enough to protect risk groups.

That doesn't mean that protecting risk groups is impossible.

But yes, it's highly unfortunate that we now seem to have The Answer (TM). Because we do not. We have some statistics, things on which we can build, and form further experience and statistics. But I doubt that's what's going to happen. Instead, all the more adult places around the world will look what was done in the most lightly affected places - and mimic that. And personally I remain unconvinced that's the correct approach. Not that it's the wrong approach - it's worked well, so that's good. But as I've made clear, I feel other ways forward exist, and some are better still.

[Wardog]

I quoted a source. Tell them.

Was that the source you linked to a few posts previously? Because I've searched that, and I don't see any claim that the 18% fatality rate is "low".

Mortality increased substantially when combining increasing age with increasing number of comorbidities (Figure 3). Among 60-69-year old cases and 70-79-year old cases with no comorbidities the mortality was relatively low (1% and 5%), however, increasing to 9% and 28%, respectively among those with ≥4 comorbidities. Among the oldest old cases mortality was high regardless of number of comorbidities (Figure 3)

(My emphasis).

On figure 3, the 18% mortality for 80-89 year-olds with no comorbidities is coloured orange, the second worse colour. And it goes up to 44% for 90+.

[Tyndmyr]

A quick google check suggests that New York City has a higher population than the entire country of denmark, so that may be a contributing factor.

Likely. In addition, the average population density is low compared to our hotspots. Rural areas with low population density in the US and elsewhere have generally had a lot fewer infections than population dense areas.

The daily new cases in Denmark show it past its peak, but also definitely not entirely gone. It seems to be between 10-50 new cases a day. A big improvement over earlier, but certainly still reasonable cause for concern.

After all, so long as a virus is actively spreading, there is a chance of resurgence if caution is abandoned too early. The rate of replication is what it is based on current conditions. It's fine to roll back mitigation efforts that turned out to not work, of course, but if you roll back the ones that do too early, you can have R >1, and boom, back to another wave. This appears to have already happened in some places.

Sorry - your source is crap. Edit: Hey, or maybe mine is. It's in every news media here, but maybe someone lied to them.

Worldometers sources its claims, and in this case, it sources to the Danish Health Authority.

And when everyone jumps on me, whenever I report something that's simply just 100% factual, the fact that everyone jumps at me frothing at the mouth confirms how ... it's all just me.

As shown just now, what you're posting significantly contradicts the official numbers. If you're saying that all the medical folks are wrong, and you're 100% correct, well...I would expect at least a very thorough explanation of why we ought to believe that's the case.

No, you're right. We were quick to close down basically everything. At the time, I considered it an overreaction. Less so now, but I still think it would have been better to do something akin to the swedish approach. In case you don't know, they had a much more limited lockdown, but tried to protect risk groups. They failed, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been done right.

Perhaps Sweden's approach could have been done better. Protecting risk groups is certainly a good thing, but attempting to prevent the spread of the disease in general does have merits. Particularly when at risk groups include such a large proportion of the population.

However, even looking at your history, it seems you begrudgingly accept that you misjudged the risk. Is it not possible that you are still doing so?

Sweden f***** it up. No doubt. The vast majority of their cases are from retirement homes. Because they didn't protect those people well enough. How, I sadly don't know. But I maintain that a sufficiently tight protection would have been possible.

If you can prevent the virus from gaining a foothold in the general population, perhaps by very early detection, isolation, closing of travel, etc....you can certainly prevent many diseases from spreading. This has worked with other diseases, but that window was largely missed for Corona. By the time most places addressed it, it had already gained enough of a foothold that stopping entry on a regional basis was insufficient for containment.

Pretty much everyone wishes that wasn't the case, but once you're there, you can't go back. There's also a certain amount of trial and error. Perhaps not every effort works as well as we might wish. So, there is significant risk in doing only one or two mitigation efforts. If your region is unfortunate, and chooses methodologies that do not end up performing well, by the time you notice that, the situation might be quite bad indeed.

But all in all, Sweden doesn't appear to have been the model to pursue. Different areas pursing different strategies is interesting in that it gives us more information, but Sweden's results have not been great so far. The knowledge gleaned from that is mostly cautionary. Still useful, but not...ideal. We should learn from it, sure, but we probably shouldn't strive to copy it.

[Kaptin Keen]

Worldometers sources its claims, and in this case, it sources to the Danish Health Authority.

Danish Health Authority is my source. Via news media, but no matter. It's straight from SSI, which is the people in charge of tracking the virus. Everyone is so hellbent on sources, so here, have one: https://www.ssi.dk/sygdomme-beredska...9-overvaagning

The line that says zero, zero, zero, is the relevant one (for this context - I suppose they're all relevant). Sadly, it's a snapshot, so I have only the word of the news media to assure me it's been that way for a week.

I haven't made any claim that isn't correct. I've voiced opinion you and others disagree with - but I have delivered zero claims that aren't true.

[Friv]

Danish Health Authority is my source. Via news media, but no matter. It's straight from SSI, which is the people in charge of tracking the virus. Everyone is so hellbent on sources, so here, have one: https://www.ssi.dk/sygdomme-beredska...9-overvaagning

The line that says zero, zero, zero, is the relevant one (for this context - I suppose they're all relevant). Sadly, it's a snapshot, so I have only the word of the news media to assure me it's been that way for a week.

I scrolled down to the "Death" section of the page, which tracks deaths by day, and figured it out. It appears that there were deaths on June 28th, then none until July 5th at which time there was one, then two more on July 7th. Since July 5th was a Sunday, that death is probably the one that Tyndmyr found for July 6th.

This means that it would have been nearly accurate for Danish news media to say that there had been no deaths in a week, because there was a six-day period in which there were no COVID deaths, and some of the news media probably hadn't gotten the Sunday report yet when they made the one-week claim.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Instead, all the more adult places around the world will look what was done in the most lightly affected places - and mimic that. And personally I remain unconvinced that's the correct approach. Not that it's the wrong approach - it's worked well, so that's good. But as I've made clear, I feel other ways forward exist, and some are better still.

I am generally a fan of scientific expertise. So I find this kind of thinking somewhat baffling:

"The evidence I know about all says this very specific thing. But even though I know of no evidence for it, and I am aware of at least some evidence against it, I think a better result is achievable with a fundamentally different approach. We ought to consider that alternative framework."

Saying that you think the approach works, but claiming there's a vague "better" out there somewhere does not need to be said. Making the claim that you think things could be improved is not a unique thought, nor is it contrary to what others have said. The discussion is about how improvement can occur, and on the level of frameworks, that requires the consideration of evidence. Not speculation.

Saying that there's a "better" out there to justify throwing out the framework which you have evidence in support of to consider a different framework with no evidentiary basis is not a scientific approach. I think power plants could be designed better. Therefore I think cold fusion ought to be considered.

If there is a fundamentally better framework that has yet to be discovered, that discussion is best had among experts in the field. It is a discussion that non-experts would not likely be able to understand because having it would require delving into minutiae. You have already said that you're a non-expert, and for that matter, so am I. So why even talk about this hypothetical alternative "better" in the context of discussing science?

I wish this was the only topic I've seen this line of reasoning about.

[Kaptin Keen]

I scrolled down to the "Death" section of the page, which tracks deaths by day, and figured it out. It appears that there were deaths on June 28th, then none until July 5th at which time there was one, then two more on July 7th. Since July 5th was a Sunday, that death is probably the one that Tyndmyr found for July 6th.

This means that it would have been nearly accurate for Danish news media to say that there had been no deaths in a week, because there was a six-day period in which there were no COVID deaths, and some of the news media probably hadn't gotten the Sunday report yet when they made the one-week claim.

Ah. I will admit this: I don't double-check the news. So long as I can find the same info at the source - SSI in this case - I figure they propably got it right.

I mean, it's a good thing that there are few (alright, not zero!) deaths in Denmark. But on the other hand the population of our entire nation is a good deal smaller than that of New York. So while it's interesting in terms of statistics and how we got so lucky, it doesn't carry a lot weight otherwise.

I am generally a fan of scientific expertise. So I find this kind of thinking somewhat baffling:

"The evidence I know about all says this very specific thing. But even though I know of no evidence for it, and I am aware of at least some evidence against it, I think a better result is achievable with a fundamentally different approach. We ought to consider that alternative framework."

Saying that you think the approach works, but claiming there's a vague "better" out there somewhere does not need to be said. Making the claim that you think things could be improved is not a unique thought, nor is it contrary to what others have said. The discussion is about how improvement can occur, and on the level of frameworks, that requires the consideration of evidence. Not speculation.

Saying that there's a "better" out there to justify throwing out the framework which you have evidence in support of to consider a different framework with no evidentiary basis is not a scientific approach. I think power plants could be designed better. Therefore I think cold fusion ought to be considered.

If there is a fundamentally better framework that has yet to be discovered, that discussion is best had among experts in the field. It is a discussion that non-experts would not likely be able to understand because having it would require delving into minutiae. You have already said that you're a non-expert, and for that matter, so am I. So why even talk about this hypothetical alternative "better" in the context of discussing science?

I wish this was the only topic I've seen this line of reasoning about.

I'm sorry. I do not feel opinions to the contrary is a bad thing. That thing A works doesn't actually do anything to prove that thing B doesn't.

There is an ongoing debate in Denmark about how imprisonment doesn't work. The argument goes that it doesn't serve to reduce crime, it doesn't make criminals less criminal, there is no deterrent. All the statistics back this up. So there's really nothing to talk about, right?

And yet, simple common sense dictates that there's more to it. Because if you didn't have prison, not for any crime - surely no one will expect that to reduce crime, right?

And conversely, if you have lifetime for any and all crime (!!!), surely that will work to reduce crime somewhat.

So there has to be something else going on - something not in the numbers.

Same for Covid. Denmark is living proof that social distancing works, if we go about it diligently. But just social distancing isn't enough to protect those +60's with two or more comorbidities. But ... surely, even though the swedish failed to do so, no one is really arguing that it cannot be done???

So .. while I certainly respect that what we've done here in Denmark has worked very well, I argue that other solutions might have worked even better.

And why anyone would want to dismiss that idea out of hand - other than having an ingrained dislike of me personally - well, I can't really see that. I have no argument against disliking me, everyone is more than welcome to. But I do not feel my argument is a bad one, nor a superfluous one.

Certainly an argument many will disagree with. And I'm not asking you to agree with me either.

[Forum Explorer]

Well ... what Sweden did failed in a reasonably specific way: They did not do enough to protect risk groups.

That doesn't mean that protecting risk groups is impossible.

But yes, it's highly unfortunate that we now seem to have The Answer (TM). Because we do not. We have some statistics, things on which we can build, and form further experience and statistics. But I doubt that's what's going to happen. Instead, all the more adult places around the world will look what was done in the most lightly affected places - and mimic that. And personally I remain unconvinced that's the correct approach. Not that it's the wrong approach - it's worked well, so that's good. But as I've made clear, I feel other ways forward exist, and some are better still.

The thing is the less restrictions you place on your populace, the harder it is to prevent infections in risk groups. For example, keeping parties. A nurse from a carehome decides to go to a party after a long week with her friends. She catches COVID-19, but doesn't notice as she isn't expressing any symptoms. She goes back to work, and ends up infecting most of her patients. And now you have an outbreak in a vulnerable population.

If you aren't banning gatherings above a certain size, that sort of thing is extremely difficult to prevent.

There is an ongoing debate in Denmark about how imprisonment doesn't work. The argument goes that it doesn't serve to reduce crime, it doesn't make criminals less criminal, there is no deterrent. All the statistics back this up. So there's really nothing to talk about, right?

And yet, simple common sense dictates that there's more to it. Because if you didn't have prison, not for any crime - surely no one will expect that to reduce crime, right?

And conversely, if you have lifetime for any and all crime (!!!), surely that will work to reduce crime somewhat.

So there has to be something else going on - something not in the numbers.

Have you never heard of punishment theory? Deterrence isn't the only reason we punish someone.

I've heard everything from 3-5 reasons, but basically they are:

Deterrence: To prevent future crimes.
Rehabilitation: To teach the criminal a better way.
Retribution: To satisfy the need in society that a criminal suffer for breaking the law.
Incapacitation: To prevent the criminal from committing crimes.
Restoration: To replace what the criminal took/destroyed if possible.

So while prison time might not be serving as an adequate deterrent, it can still serve to work with the other reasons we punish someone.

[BeerMug Paladin]

And yet, simple common sense dictates that there's more to it.

Citing common sense as if it were evidence is usually not productive.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Kaptin Keen]

The thing is the less restrictions you place on your populace, the harder it is to prevent infections in risk groups. For example, keeping parties. A nurse from a carehome decides to go to a party after a long week with her friends. She catches COVID-19, but doesn't notice as she isn't expressing any symptoms. She goes back to work, and ends up infecting most of her patients. And now you have an outbreak in a vulnerable population.

If you aren't banning gatherings above a certain size, that sort of thing is extremely difficult to prevent.

I believe this is precisely why it failed in Sweden. And the solution is ... obvious: If you're working with risk groups, clearly much harder restrictions need to apply to you, than the rest of the general population.

And that would have worked.

[Ibrinar]

Btw I haven't been paying attention, how much of the US increase in daily cases is from more testing? Because that is a substantial increase. Death seem to be on the rise again too but not by that much yet

[Forum Explorer]

I believe this is precisely why it failed in Sweden. And the solution is ... obvious: If you're working with risk groups, clearly much harder restrictions need to apply to you, than the rest of the general population.

And that would have worked.

And how do you enforce that? If private gatherings are allowed, then there is no way to stop these people from going to parties and the like. If public gatherings like restaurants and clubs are allowed, then it is impractical to expect them to somehow identify which people are nurses or even just custodians for the elderly.

And you can't expect these people to isolate themselves or else Sweden's method would have worked.

[Kaptin Keen]

And how do you enforce that? If private gatherings are allowed, then there is no way to stop these people from going to parties and the like. If public gatherings like restaurants and clubs are allowed, then it is impractical to expect them to somehow identify which people are nurses or even just custodians for the elderly.

And you can't expect these people to isolate themselves or else Sweden's method would have worked.

It would have worked here. That's the point. With a population who goes along with the rules like good little soldiers - it would work.

Anything else and it breaks down, obviously. But it's interesting. It's interesting that our little population of 6 million people are somehow so well behaved - or call it so domesticated, if you prefer - that we could easily make that work.

Obviously, that's just opinion on my part, supported only by the fact that we're opened now up to gatherings of 100 people - and we still cannot push the infection pressure upwards.

[NichG]

Btw I haven't been paying attention, how much of the US increase in daily cases is from more testing? Because that is a substantial increase. Death seem to be on the rise again too but not by that much yet

In past data, deaths tend to lag infections by 20 days, so this is about what you'd expect.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Btw I haven't been paying attention, how much of the US increase in daily cases is from more testing? Because that is a substantial increase.

Little to none. The positivity rate has gone up, indicating that there are more cases per test being done. It is not a case of previously unknown cases being discovered, it is new cases.

Grey Wolf

[snowblizz]

Little to none. The positivity rate has gone up, indicating that there are more cases per test being done. It is not a case of previously unknown cases being discovered, it is new cases.

Grey Wolf

Last I heard another important measure is the number of people being hospitalised for covid-19 is also increasing. That is not an artefact of more testing. More people so sick of covid-19 they end up in hospitals is a bad indicator, regardless. Either the decease is getting more serious, or more people are getting it. Neither option is good.

[Rockphed]

[

Last I heard another important measure is the number of people being hospitalised for covid-19 is also increasing. That is not an artefact of more testing. More people so sick of covid-19 they end up in hospitals is a bad indicator, regardless. Either the decease is getting more serious, or more people are getting it. Neither option is good.

Here in Maryland the hospitalization number is down 90% from the peak, but I don't keep track of other states.

I have heard, though I haven't looked hard enough to tell, that if somebody is admitted to the hospital for reasons unrelated to the wuhan and it turns out they have it that they are counted as a covid hospitalization, even though their treatment is not for covid. This is similar to some reports of people dying from things completely unrelated to coronavirus (like getting hit by a bus or a drug overdose) and still getting reported as a coronavirus death.

[Kaptin Keen]

I just read in danish news media that ... well, the headline was 'covid-19 runs amok in the US - but now experts are wondering why there is no upswing in deaths'.

Obviously I have no idea whether that's true, I couldn't even read the article because it was behind a pay wall. But still - if it has anything to it other than a catchy headline, that too is interesting.

[Friv]

I just read in danish news media that ... well, the headline was 'covid-19 runs amok in the US - but now experts are wondering why there is no upswing in deaths'.

Obviously I have no idea whether that's true, I couldn't even read the article because it was behind a pay wall. But still - if it has anything to it other than a catchy headline, that too is interesting.

It sure would be, if it was true, which it is not.

COVID deaths in the United States briefly stabilized even while cases were going up. This is because when the outbreak began, it was heavily focused in New York and New Jersey, overwhelming their medical system and disproportionately targeting hospitals and long-term care homes. As cases went down in New York and went up everywhere else, there was a period in which this meant that the total amount of medical apparatus taking care of COVID was much higher and the number of people being hospitalized with better chances of survival went up, which meant a greater likelihood of surviving hospitalization. Because of this, throughout May and early June, the number of new daily cases in the country as a whole was fairly stable and the number of new daily deaths was trending downwards.

Since mid-June, this has not been the case. Cases in the United States are rapidly trending upwards, and death rates are following a few days behind, as you would expect.

{Scrubbed}

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is similar to some reports of people dying from things completely unrelated to coronavirus (like getting hit by a bus or a drug overdose) and still getting reported as a coronavirus death.

What reports are those? Because excess deaths number suggests that, if anything, the number of covid-caused deaths are significantly underreported, rather than over-reported. I doubt, for example, anyone run over by a bus will have their autopsy bother to check for the virus. Sounds like conspiracy theory crafting to me.

Grey Wolf