Denmark and Sweden: An apples to apples comparison

[S209]

The actual death toll in minuscule relative to population (double the pop. of Denmark).  No country in the world would shut down for three months to save 1500-2000 lives. If you wanted to do that you could do that any other year and save the lives lost in motor vehicle crashes. The relevant question is extrapolating the numbers going forward. Will Sweden suffer such a heavy toll in the long run versusvs Denmark Of the magnitude that would justify destroying the economy? What gives you any confidence that going forward Sweden will suffer a heavy loss of life versus Denmark that would justify having shut down the economy?

I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt that you didn’t know this but Sweden has not had a year with more than 324 traffic fatalities in the last decade. It is a very safe country with around 10 million citizens (one sixth the size of Italy, smaller than many US States).

In the last 6 weeks more people have died in Sweden of COVID than have died in Sweden of car accidents from 2011-2019. Another ~100 a day have been dying pretty consistently for a while, and it’s not showing many signs of stopping any time soon.

As I said

The only question remaining is will the other countries catch up at some point, and how devastating the impacts of lockdown are in the other countries vs. Sweden (which obviously sustained some serious economic blows as well).

[S209]

It is really premature for people to prognosticate based on the numbers we are seeing now. Kind of like calling a marathon for the guy who is sprinting I head in the 1st mile versus the guy who is pacing himself. We will have to wait a while down the road to reach any valid conclusions. This has little to do with Trump opening his mouth. Anyone watching the way the politicians are playing with facts and numbers shouldn’t put any more stock in Trump than in Cuomo or Murphy. All of them play with numbers that are open to interpretation.

The actual death toll in Sweden as of now is  minuscule relative to population (double the pop. of Denmark).  I don’t believe that any country in the world would shut down for three months and destroy their economy to save 1500-2000 lives (many of whom are aged or co-morbidities and have a limited life expectancy to begin with. (Of course every life is precious but the staggering cost has to be weighed in the balance)

If you wanted to save a couple of thousand lives you could do that any other year and save the lives lost in motor vehicle crashes, workplace accidents, violent crime etc. The relevant question is extrapolating the numbers going forward. Will Sweden suffer such a heavy toll in the long run versus  Denmark of such magnitude that would justify destroying the economy to prevent it? That is a very open question going forward. What gives you any confidence that going forward Sweden will suffer a massive loss of life versus Denmark of the magnitude that would justify having shut down the economy?

I see you edited your post but are you telling me you thought we/they should not shut down at all? They knew the death toll would be large, just not how much, and there was a chance it could have been much higher based on early data we had.

Based on information we know now I do think we should be working very actively to reopen cautiously, and I don’t think many dispute that. I’ll ask you a how you-know-question too- How do you know the harsh measures we adopted didn’t save 500K+ lives?

[Yard sale]

Close to 4000 people suffer accidental deaths in Sweden each year though mostly not from auto accidents. My illustration was exaggerated but the idea is true. What is the casualty level that justifies the economic pain we are seeing?  Is it saving 10 elderly people in the last stages of dementia? Obviously not. How about 500 people with minimal life expectancy? 3000 with some healthy individuals ? I don’t know what the magic number is but it’s silly to see that Sweden was not justified before seeing how things go in the long term

[Lurker]

Close to 4000 people suffer accidental deaths in Sweden each year though mostly not from auto accidents. My illustration was exaggerated but the idea is true. What is the casualty level that justifies the economic pain we are seeing?  Is it saving 10 elderly people in the last stages of dementia? Obviously not. How about 500 people with minimal life expectancy? 3000 with some healthy individuals ? I don’t know what the magic number is but it’s silly to see that Sweden was not justified before seeing how things go in the long term

4000 people a year is 333 a month. They just lost 2500 in 2 months. Trust me, you're gonna want to drop that comparison and make your point some other way.

[Yard sale]

I see you edited your post but are you telling me you thought we/they should not shut down at all? They knew the death toll would be large, just not how much, and there was a chance it could have been much higher based on early data we had.

Based on information we know now I do think we should be working very actively to reopen cautiously, and I don’t think many dispute that. I’ll ask you a how you-know-question too- How do you know the harsh measures we adopted didn’t save 500K+ lives?

There is actually no way to know that right now. Flattening the curve, strictly speaking, by definition does not save lives. It simply means that those who get infected are strung out over a longer period of time with waves or seasonal outbreaks. . Eventually deaths catch up just the same.

There are a few scenarios in which flattening the curve will potentially save lives. One is if  a steep curve would have resulted in a shortage of Ventilators and other equipment and medical resources, and that is mitigated by flattening the curve,  that is where lives would be saved.

However, dire predictions of medical shortages by the various models were wildly exaggerated so It is unclear if lives were saved in that sense.

Another scenario is if flattening the curve actually results in eradication of the virus rather than stringing out the casualties. That is something that is unlikely.

The third is if a vaccine is developed before the recurrent waves of virus succeed in infecting the rest of the population. In that case to flatten the curve comes out a winner, At least in terms of lives lost. It is unclear if any vaccine will be developed in enough time to make that happen.

[S209]

Close to 4000 people suffer accidental deaths in Sweden each year though mostly not from auto accidents. My illustration was exaggerated but the idea is true. What is the casualty level that justifies the economic pain we are seeing?  Is it saving 10 elderly people in the last stages of dementia? Obviously not. How about 500 people with minimal life expectancy? 3000 with some healthy individuals ? I don’t know what the magic number is but it’s silly to see that Sweden was not justified had absolutely no case before seeing how things go in the long term

FTFY

I don’t think they’re justified at all. Of course it’s silly not to agree that they had a case but it’s a case that every other country in the world abandoned at some point, for good reason. I think it was morally bankrupt and the end does not justify the means. This thing has been really deadly and is still far less deadly than many projections showed. Even if they get lucky, it was a poor decision at the time, based on the evidence.

[S209]

There is actually no way to know that right now. Flattening the curve, strictly speaking, by definition does not save lives. It simply means that those who get infected are strung out over a longer period of time with waves or seasonal outbreaks. . Eventually deaths catch up just the same.

There are a few scenarios in which flattening the curve will potentially save lives. One is if  a steep curve would have resulted in a shortage of Ventilators and other equipment and medical resources, and that is mitigated by flattening the curve,  that is where lives would be saved.

However, dire predictions of medical shortages by the various models were wildly exaggerated so It is unclear if lives were saved in that sense.

Another scenario is if letting the curve actually results in eradication of the virus rather than stringing out the casualties. That is something that is unlikely.

The third is if a vaccine is developed before the recurrent waves of virus succeed and infecting the rest of the population. In that case to flatten the curve comes out a winner. It is unclear if any vaccine will be developed in enough time to make that happen.

You left out 2 very important points, among others.

1) Time to develop great, good, or at least better treatment protocols

2) Time to adapt and understand how the virus spreads, and WHO is most vulnerable, so we can contain it better and actually protect the most vulnerable

[avromie7]

Another point on the Sweden side is human nature, it's impossible to keep people locked up forever and it's impossible to keep people away from old people forever. I think as time goes on people will be less cautious (we already see many more people walking around NY and it will only continue) putting the elderly population at much greater risk.

[CountValentine]

Even if they get lucky, it was a poor decision at the time, based on the evidence.

Little unfair since everyone has their own evidence. I disagree with what they are doing.

[AsherO]

Another point on the Sweden side is human nature, it's impossible to keep people locked up forever and it's impossible to keep people away from old people forever. I think as time goes on people will be less cautious (we already see many more people walking around NY and it will only continue) putting the elderly population at much greater risk.

As time goes by, the risk diminishes. Not to say it’s no longer risky, but these are outliers/exceptions that hopefully won’t move the needle.

[S209]

Another point on the Sweden side is human nature, it's impossible to keep people locked up forever and it's impossible to keep people away from old people forever. I think as time goes on people will be less cautious (we already see many more people walking around NY and it will only continue) putting the elderly population at much greater risk.

But at that point we hopefully understand enough about the virus and how to treat it that it isn’t nearly the problem it was on day one. Just letting it rip through a population with no care for or knowledge of the consequences or proper treatment seems excessively callous. I think medicine has learned a lot about the virus in the last few weeks, though there’s clearly a lot more to be learned.

[aygart]

Little unfair since everyone has their own evidence. I disagree with what they are doing.

You are starting to sound like a discussion about alternative facts.

[CountValentine]

You are starting to sound like a discussion about alternative facts.

No I am giving real facts. Some evidence showed 100-200k would die. Then that evidence showed less than 60k. Now that evidence shows way more than that. Nothing is known at this point and is a best guess.

One side has the evidence we have done more testing than any other country.
Another side has the evidence we have test less per capita than other countries.
Not alternative facts, just facts!!!

[S209]

No I am giving real facts. Some evidence showed 100-200k would die. Then that evidence showed less than 60k. Now that evidence shows way more than that. Nothing is known at this point and is a best guess.

One side has the evidence we have done more testing than any other country.
Another side has the evidence we have test less per capita than other countries.
Not alternative facts, just facts!!!

Didn’t every single other country have access to the same evidence and eventually come to the same conclusion, albeit some far too late?

[Lurker]

No I am giving real facts. Some evidence showed 100-200k would die. Then that evidence showed less than 60k. Now that evidence shows way more than that. Nothing is known at this point and is a best guess.

One side has the evidence we have done more testing than any other country.
Another side has the evidence we have test less per capita than other countries.
Not alternative facts, just facts!!!

Models aren't evidence or facts.

[aygart]

No I am giving real facts. Some evidence showed 100-200k would die. Then that evidence showed less than 60k. Now that evidence shows way more than that. Nothing is known at this point and is a best guess.

One side has the evidence we have done more testing than any other country.
Another side has the evidence we have test less per capita than other countries.
Not alternative facts, just facts!!!

You just gave a great explanation of the term "Alternative facts"

[CountValentine]

Didn’t every single other country have access to the same evidence and eventually come to the same conclusion, albeit some far too late?

Not sure I agree with that. Are you saying the US acted way late?

[CountValentine]

You just gave a great explanation of the term "Alternative facts"

You don't understand what "alternative facts" mean.

These are facts, PERIOD!!!

One side has the evidence we have done more testing than any other country.
Another side has the evidence we have test less per capita than other countries.

[S209]

Not sure I agree with that. Are you saying the US acted way late?

Yup

[KSMH]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1.full.pdf