Today in is social distancing worth it, lets check in on Sweden.
I think its important to have an educated discussion about social distancing and its value, I tried to do that yesterday and think it was somewhat successful and I'm going to keep trying. I should note, if you watched plandemic and think it made some good points just don't bother posting, you are stupid and your views are worthless. Now that we've gotten that out of the way lets check in the natural experiment Sweden has provided to see if the partial re-openings many states are moving towards right now have a strong evidence of support.
For comparison purposes throughout I will compare Sweden to Norway, Denmark, and Finland since those countries most closely resemble Sweden in terms of culture, density, average health of citizens, and economy which provides a good baseline of comparison. Trying to make Sweden look bad by comparing it to South Korea doesn't make much sense from a natural experiment, neither does trying to make it look good by comparing it to Italy.
First lets check on the economic impact. Obviously one of the arguments about re-opening is it is necessary to save the economy. Recognizing that we live in a global economy every economy was going to shrink, including Sweden's regardless of what they did. However, with more domestic activity the hope would be that Sweden's economy shrank by less and showed lower unemployment than its neighbors. That is could things being open with social distancing provide enough economic value to those places to really matter. Lets check the numbers.
Sweden: GDP expected to shrink by 7%
Norway: GDP expected to shrink by 5%
Finland:GDP expected to shrink by 6%
Denmark: GDP expected to shrink by 6.5%
So not a great start but I haven't done all the research and maybe Sweden had a uniquely export based economy even relative to its neighbors. However, at the very least Sweden's economy is not doing significantly better than its neighbors as the result of staying partially open.
So lets move on to the public health impact. Since total positives is really a testing driven number, the most accurate way to track the virus's impact is through deaths and deaths per million.
Sweden: 3,175 deaths and 314 deaths per million
Norway: 217 deaths and 40 deaths per million
Finland: 260 deaths and 47 deaths per million
Denmark: 522 deaths and 90 deaths per million
So these are pretty ugly numbers. Sweden has 3x the number of deaths as Norway, Finland, and Denmark combined. It is pretty clear from these numbers that aggressive social distancing has an impact on the total number of deaths in a country. Whether that trade-off in deaths is worth it for what society is giving up can be debated, whether or not it saves lives can't really be.
There is going to be a lot of retrospective looks at things once this is all over and much of the story has yet to be written including the potential of a second wave, but for now the natural experiment that Sweden and its nordic neighbors provide has given us these numbers. In my opinion its pretty clear that in a globalized economy, staying partially open isn't enough to have a meaningful impact on the economy and it does cost lives. In contrast to Sweden, Norway announced today a plan to essentially re-open the entire economy by June 15th, meanwhile Sweden had more deaths yesterday than Germany.
Lockdown ends, not when the curve is flattened, but the virus is suppressed--when we drive down infections to the point where testing/trace/quarantine keeps it under control.
That is what S. Korea did. No reason, other than lack of will, that it cannot be done in the U.S. In fact, many parts of the U.S. are already close to achieving suppression of the virus.
If those areas could ramp up testing a bit more, they could uses test/trace/quarantine and basically re-open with little risk of things getting out of control
I firmly believe we don’t need a vaccine to end the lock down. And no we don’t need a vaccine to reduce total deaths. The only way that’s true is if every person on earth is infected no matter what. I don’t see why that’s inevitable.
Double post
Any analysis that leaves out statistical data that refutes your claims is cherry picking. Sweden has a similar size population as Michigan. Using your statistical model how does that work out? Spoiler, it's not going to back up the claim that social distancing is worth it. We don't even know if the data sets are the same which makes statistical analysis impossible.
I honestly believe it is worth it to practice social distancing and common sense.
The problem with the Sweden example is that even if they turn out to have done the right thing for their country, it in no way says that it would have worked as well in the U.S. There are massive differences between the two populations and health care systems.
I'm not saying that as an attack on the OP who raises interesting points. I am saying that the people supporting going for herd immunity in the U.S. should not be pointing to Sweden as a reason why that would have worked here.
There is more variation between different regions of the US than there is between some places in Sweden and some places in the US. Stockholm has more in common with NYC than either does with my smallish Arkansas hometown.
I would go one step beyond comparing health care systems and compare eating habits and style of living. Those unhealthy habits here contribute to the "pre-existing conditions" that make COVID-19 so deadly. I'm not saying vegetarians are immune from the deadly aspects of the disease, but I would think some of our numbers would be better if people took better care of their bodies before this happened.
I might be in the minority, but maybe it's a good thing we're rationing out meat now and forces to look at more plant-based foods in our diet. And I'm speaking as someone who will grill outside in the snow.
Swedes are very healthy overall and they have a robust public health system and social safety net.
People there don't avoid the doctor because they're not worried about the bill.
We're practically a 3rd world country in comparison.
First of all, I acknowledge the stats and believe we need to social distance. However, these posts are getting exhausting. Most of us know how grim things are, and those who don’t are choosing to look the other way. No information at this point is going to change the mind of a single human being. People have already picked their sides.
I disagree with that
there is new information every day about this disease. Antibody studies showing 1/10th the fatality rate that was initially suspected
plus The idea of unemployment and furloughing that seemed palatable 2 months ago are becoming a little more scary for people who are seeing a countdown clock of benefits for 3-4 more months in a disease that will be here for 2 years
polls are showing weekly small incremental decreases in the support of current lockdown measures to continue. Minds are changing, and will continue to change when reality Ultimately presents itself to each individual person
It's a mess out there now. Hard to discern between what's a real threat and what is just simple panic and hysteria. For a small amount of perspective at this moment, imagine you were born in 1900.
On your 14th birthday, World War I starts, and ends on your 18th birthday. 22 million people perish in that war. Later in the year, a Spanish Flu epidemic hits the planet and runs until your 20th birthday. 50 million people die from it in those two years. Yes, 50 million.
On your 29th birthday, the Great Depression begins. Unemployment hits 25%, the World GDP drops 27%. That runs until you are 33. The country nearly collapses along with the world economy.
When you turn 39, World War II starts. You aren't even over the hill yet. Between your 39th and 45th birthday, 75 million people perish in the war.
Smallpox was epidemic until you were in your 40's, as it killed 300 million people during your lifetime.
At 50, the Korean War starts. 5 million perish. From your birth, until you are 55 you dealt with the fear of Polio epidemics each summer. You experience friends and family contracting polio and being paralyzed and/or die.
At 55 the Vietnam War begins and doesn't end for 20 years. 4 million people perish in that conflict. During the Cold War, you lived each day with the fear of nuclear annihilation. On your 62nd birthday you have the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tipping point in the Cold War. Life on our planet, as we know it, almost ended. When you turn 75, the Vietnam War finally ends.
Think of everyone on the planet born in 1900. How did they endure all of that? When you were a kid in 1985 and didn't think your 85 year old grandparent understood how hard school was. And how mean that kid in your class was. Yet they survived through everything listed above. Perspective is an amazing art. Refined and enlightening as time goes on. Let's try and keep things in perspective. Your parents and/or grandparents were called to endure all of the above – you are called to stay home and sit on your couch.
Each generation has a timeline of drama/trauma attached to their life experience. It's important for us to always remember that, and honor the wealth of experience and awareness they have gathered along the way.
and to the OP...yeah well...there was once a quote about opinions and assholes...
Seems it takes a special kind of stupid to copy/paste a litany of how many people died in major world events throughout the 1900s then have your punchline be " Yet they survived through everything listed above."
No, millions of them did not.
He actually had me somewhat in agreement (a rare occurrence at that!) with him until his ending "... opinions and assholes" .
Sweden is an interesting case. Comparing them to their Scandinavian neighbors is reasonable, but their population densities are different. They are also very different from the US. There was an interesting article about this several weeks ago.
Their population is, overall, healthier than ours. They already largely work from home. Half of their households are single-person. As stated in the linked article, they dramatically cut back on travel. To some extent, they social distanced without it having been mandated. But it seems that, as was predicted, not radically social distancing is costing them lives lost.
I disagree. Not protecting their nursing homes is what is causing their high death count.
Its what is causing ours as well, even with more strict social distancing.
I thought "plandemic" was just a term that was coined until recently.
All I can say is that we're in an age where people are hungry for information and we have to vet it for ourselves before claiming it as gospel.
OK, let's see what the scientists say (as we hit 14.7% unemployment):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/320275.pdf?casa_token=cv-EzS5H…
"Hence, the magnitudes of the crime-unemployment effects presented here relative to overall movements in crime rates are substantial and suggest that policies aimed at improving the employment prospects of workers facing the greatest obstacles can be effective tools for combating crime. Moreover, given that crime rates in the United States are considerably higher in areas with high concentrations of jobless workers (many inner-city communities, for example) and the fact that those workers with arguably the worst employment prospects (young African-American males) are the most likely to be involved with the criminal justice system, employment-based anticrime policies contain the attractive feature of being consistent with a wide range of policy objectives."
I truly fear that, driven by the admirable goal of fighting this virus and "saving lives," our policymakers have completely lost sight of the far-reaching consequences of these strategies. Yes, we 100% would be suffering economically without lockdowns. But I think most reasonable people agree it would be nowhere near this bad. And we will be paying for it in innumerable ways long after this virus is no longer a critical public health concern...
Again, the premise of your entire post is a product of our hyperpartisan society. You've set up a false dichotomy: we either practice extreme social distancing and tank the economy (driving up unemployment, which then drives up all sorts of other negatives like crime) OR we reopen the economy (and we have more Rona deaths).
Unemployment does not directly drive up crime - poverty, not being able to put food on the table directly drives up crime. Have you ever read or seen Les Miserables?
Persistent unemployment does not drive up crime if it is mitigated economically through government-sponsored welfare or individual-facilitated charity.
I'm a left-leaning liberal. I am not picketing on capitol lawns while wearing an AR-15. I voted for Whitmer before, and will probably vote for her again. So, partisanship is not driving this.
That being said, one of the greatest lessons learned in any decent public policy course is "the law of unintended consequences." We are seeing a lot of people who truly mean well and want to save lives not completely considering and/or perceiving these unintended consequences right now. When shit hits the fan over the next 5-10 years, we will hear a lot of, "but we had to do this..." That will be a post-hoc rationalization.
This swings both ways. The number of people saying we didn’t need to do this because there were no ICU shortages is nothing short of staggering. Also, the unintended consequences of inaction could be staggering. It’s the easiest thing in the world to complain about the down side of actions taken, and forget about the cost of the other path. In this case, likely hundreds of thousands of lives and impossible to estimate economic impact. A society paralyzed by fear is not a productive society.
And we stood idly by and let them continue to do this, even in the face of mounting data.
Everyone in the world is going to have 20/20 hindsight on this. Lots of information out there, but nobody knows for sure what the best path is. I don't envy public officials jobs trying to determine the best course of action
Let's use our deductive skills to guess which two countries were prepared for a pandemic, have a well-coordinated, unified responses, and are taking physical distancing seriously.
I added Sweden this AM after seeing this post. Donny gonna be mad that we aren't #1 in death rate.
Data from JHU as of this AM.
Another cherry picker. How confident are you in all of those countries accurately reporting the same data sets. Are NZ and India counting anyone who dies and tests positive? Is New York doing the opposite of China and falsely reporting higher numbers for financial gain? Who knows but statistically speaking, none of the statistics people keep using are worth even analyzing. They are however great for people who like to create things to be mad about.
What is your evidence that New York is reporting higher numbers? That is a pretty bold assertion.
New Zealand data is reliable. No idea if India data is reliable.
But even if you thought that the NZ data were somewhat flawed, do you really think that would explain the enormous death per million difference between the U.S. and NZ?
Yea, that's some serious cherry-picking of data. Why not include: Italy, Spain, France, UK, Belgium, etc.?
It is not important to have a discussion on this topic on this blog. The OP's presentation/regurgitation of information and analysis is not important. This thread will have no positive effect, other than making the OP feel good about his/herself.
My general approach on this board has always been to skip board posts/threads that don't interest me. I used to disagree with the folks that wanted strict guidelines for topics, using the "if I am not interested, I don't read" line of thinking. However, we have now gotten to the point that just seeing the topic headings is annoying as fuck. If I wanted to filter through a bunch of pseudo informed discussion and parroting of information on this topic, there are lots of other places I could go.
If we can't have strict guidelines and enforce them, can we at least have separate message boards? Setting aside the sadly likely technical difficulties in implementing a simple concept, if all board posts were divided into 4 topics, this problem could be solved. The 4 topics could be: M football and basketball, all other sports, current events, whimsical stuff. I believe that the members of this board would successfully self-police on this basis and the need for mods would be minimal.
I will now resume ignoring threads which I have no interest in reading.
This seems like a very logical idea and a great improvement.
Which of those categories would your post fall into? I am guessing “whimsical stuff.”
Another great day on Covid-19goblog.
While there are many factors to consider, I think population density is a key one.
Sweden ranks 50th out of 53 in Europe at 20 per square kilometer. Italy ranks 14th at 192 per square mile. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html
The comparison for Stockholm is less stark where the population density is 5012 per km square. Milan for comparison is 7519 per km sq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density
If you look at the hardest hit areas in the US, 3 of the top 4 (by deaths per capita) are amongst the top 5 in population density (Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts). The other two top states in the US in deaths per capita are: New York (who’s numbers are largely driven by NYC, the densest and most populous city in the US) and Louisiana (which is a bit of an outlier with only the 23rd highest population density in the US). Rhode Island and Maryland which round out the top 5 states in the US in terms of population density are 8th and 10th in deaths per capita.
If you look at the areas least hard hit in the US, 3 of the bottom 4 (Wyoming, Alaska and Montana) are the three least dense states. The other two in the bottom 5 (Hawaii and Utah are 13th and 41st in population density respectively).
While the top 5 and bottom 5 each have an outlier (Louisiana on the top and Hawaii on the bottom), it seems both logical and supported by the data that population density matters. Low population density is a natural social distancer. Sweden and some US states took advantage of that fact, that doesn’t mean it is applicable everywhere.
And Hawaii is easily explained, because, despite the population density, it's geographically isolated in a way that the rest of the US isn't.
A lot of good looking women in Sweden.
Lots of good metal bands too.
I think your analysis is significantly undercounting the impact of the loss of Swedish meatball sales through IKEAs across the world. That has to be worth at least 3-4% of their GDP alone....
totally true, and those meatballs also account for 3-4% of global carbon emissions after they hit the digestive track
I guess I will refrain from my take today, but I agree with you AK47
I was really hoping to see some Swedish Girl pics in here, but you guys are serious today
You realize flatten the curve is intended to delay the cases not eliminate them entirely, right? The fact that Sweden has more cases now just means they will have fewer cases in the future. They will get over the hump faster than their peers and be able to fully re-open much sooner.
And can't say this enough, but you're the dumbest guy on this board. By all rights, you should have been banned a long time ago.
Neither of your first two statements is necessarily true. Whether or not the third is, I don't follow this board enough to know.
Easy now - all the Maizen accounts and that anti-mask guy from yesterday are clearly worse in the bigger scheme of things.
As for AK-47 - please provide your qualifications because unless you are Anthony freaking Fauci or an equivalent, you have no more idea what is going on than anyone else here. (Yes I know you are “friends” with a virologist- need more than that..)
Once you have done that —- please explain how likely I am to get this disease from a random person in a store etc. if I wear a mask, avoid crowds/social distance, and practice good hand-washing/hygiene.... no matter what the other idiots out there choose to do or not do in their own lives.
If this number is higher than 0.25%-0.5% I would be stunned and will immediate subscribe to your newsletter and support a full lock down until 2030. Heck we should probably postpone all elections and just keep all current governments in place as well until that time....
I've never claimed to be an expert but one thing to be clear about is wearing a mask doesn't protect you from the virus unless it is an n95 or equivalent mask you are 100% sure has a seal to your face, that means no beard and properly fitted.
So if someone sick coughs on you wearing a cloth mask you can still very easily get the disease. Now if you don't come into contact with anyone you aren't going to get a respiratory disease but it would be impossible to re-open and maintain that. People use public transit, they work in proximity to each other, operating at 25% capacity doesn't provide enough revenue for restaurants to pay rent or wait staff to pay bills
Thankfully you aren't an expert on these matters.
Good job. As GDP and unemployment rates are not cleanly correlated, I’d like to see the unemployment numbers to get a better idea of the economic impact.
It's difficult to compare unemployment rates across economies in normal times, given different ways of defining an unemployed person. Now that different governments are taking different approaches to preserving jobs, where people would otherwise be unemployed, it gets even more difficult if not pointless.
any perpetual lockdowners wanna tackle this? Especially those still employed
estimated 75,000 deaths of despair due to suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse
not to mention bankruptcy,domestic violence, child abuse, crime, poverty, loneliness,and untreated medical issues
A lot (too many?) people ignore this fact. They think unemployment is just a minor nuisance.
I already did upthread. The fedgov should be paying them 80% of their prepandemic salary.
Most of those issues are directly caused by people not having enough money. So give them money. We apparently have plenty.
That not only doesn’t address anything in the article or post, it would make a terrible situation catastrophic with hyperinflation. See Germany post ww1 with the Weimar Republic printing money to pay for war reparations
Why is that hyperinflation only come up when we're talking about giving money to regular people? We're running something like a 4T deficit this year (and it was over 1T prepandemic in a "great" economy). We could give every adult 2k per month, for a year, for way less than that.
so you have a problem with excessive federal spending? Cool me too. Your solution to 33 million on unemployment is to print trillions and UBI? Short answer:no. Long answer hell no. I’ll tell you what though. One way to get money directly to people would be to eliminate payroll tax forever but I’ll settle for just during this crisis.