Comments by "ub2bn" (@ub2bn) on "AFP News Agency"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@Podcastforthewin The only thing sweden failed at, was protecting the elderly... just like here in Canada... Lockdowns have nothing to do with flattening the curve, obviously.
I compared Sweden and Italy in regards to testing, cases, and deaths. Adjusting for population, Sweden has nearly 3x the number of confirmed cases, per capita, than Italy, yet only 1/2 the deaths, per capita... showing a higher spread does not corrulate with a higher death toll, necessarily.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macmcleod1188 Cases per million refers to known/confirmed cases. But as serology testing and studies are revealing, many more cases/infections went undetected, meaning cfr, ifr, and % of population infected, are yet to be determined, in any country.
Nevertheless, the majority of fatalities were those in long term care... worldwide, in every major country, in every highly populated area, in every province, state, region, etc., without exception. Age and location simply cannot be ignored, as they are clearly the most significant factors.
Wearing a mask while walking on a beach or recreating in a park does not change this fact. It all keeps coming back to a failure to protect the elderly sick, meaning the time to practice s.d. and wearing a mask, is when one is interacting with the vulnerable. And the vulnerable should also be practising s.d. and wearing a mask. There is simply no denying this. Look at N.Y. , and Quebec, for example; both under lock down.
Sweden is on par with the overall average, showing the result of their decisions is basically no different than other major countries. Simply put, lock downs did not protect the vulnerable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macmcleod1188 so, in other words, you will give your projections after the facts are already in? And you have the nerve to say I know nothing about forecasting? Every prediction you have made has been way off. Now you say, let's wait and see what happens, to see how far off you were, and then go from there?
Sweden's daily +%'s are double what they should have been by now; i.e; ~+1.5% instead of ~ +0.75%; which, coincidentally, would have been right on par with France's daily increases of ~+0.75%, adjusting for the timing of their waves. And the reason for this is clear... they still have not addressed their lack of protecting the elderly sick, nor their long term care facilities' issues... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
https://www.france24.com/en/20200510-sweden-admits-failure-to-protect-elderly-in-care-homes
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-08/sweden-starts-criminal-probe-into-care-home-after-virus-deaths
... ~50% of deaths were in care homes, and an additional ~25% were those being cared for in their own home.
1
-
@macmcleod1188 Their daily rate is going up and down, day to day... just like pretty much everyone else's...
Apr 24-30, avg. of +2.257% daily
May 1-7, avg. of +1.714% daily
May 8-14, avg of +2.129% daily
May 15-21, avg. of +1.329% daily
May 22-28, avg. of +1.414% daily
... Looks to me like it's trending downwards.
You say their death rate is going up, but you are referring to their deaths per million... which can only go up, as it is an accumulative number . The only way it could go down would be if there was a miracle, in the form of a mass resurrection. The best it can do, is stop; but that would require a +0.0% daily increase, which France has yet to achieve, as well.
... Assuming Sweden's daily rate never drops, and remains around +1.5%; which is very unlikely; it will take approximately 6.5 months to reach 80,000 deaths. ( ~4400 deaths and a doubling every ~47 days).
1
-
@macmcleod1188 You clearly have a political bent. My guess is, you do not want to look at the situation in N.Y., due to the Governor, and Mayor, being Democrats. Am I right? And the gov't in Quebec is a Socialist gov't, so...
Moreover, these doctors you're relying on have apparently steered you wrong, time and time again. You take no interest in why Sweden's numbers have remained as high as they have, and choose instead to blame it on their lighter restrictions; all the while ignoring the huge elephant in the room. But hey, 2020 will be the year of hindsight, after all... so have it.
At least I can explain why I underestimated Sweden's number of deaths. Their curve was flattening; perfectly in line with every other major country, regardless of no strict lock downs. Now they have a fatter tail, than expected... and the reason is obvious. But that would demand you accept the fact, lock downs were not the major contributor in initially flattening the curves.
In fact, it can be shown many countries' curves began flattening, i.e; had reached their peak, and began falling, before they locked down, proving the virus had run its natural course, regardless. But hey, feel free to blame everything on those nasty Republicans, while old folks continue to die a slow painful death, under the Socialists' own watch.
1
-
1
-
@macmcleod1188 Comparing Sweden to France... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajectory-per-million?country=FRA~SWE Sweden's curve rose, flattened, and began dropping, just like France's, regardless of implementing lighter restrictions. But then around 45 days since reaching 0.1/mil, Sweden's curve nearly stops dropping, and near flattens, again.
75% of their deaths were the elderly, with serious comorbidities, in long term care. If Sweden had gotten this situation under control, their curve would have continued dropping.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ ... The numbers don't lie.
1
-
@macmcleod1188 If by "shading" you mean not reporting honestly, you are speculating; especially in light of the fact, Sweden's numbers are where they are.
Or perhaps you are just deliberately slandering Sweden's health care authorities... which you have already done several times, with your comments like "murderous" when referring to Tegnell and his policies/approach regarding this virus. If youtube was serious about stopping misinformation and hate speech, such comments would have been deleted.
At the end of the day, Tegnell is an easy target. You should try to be less myopic in your approach, and let the data lead you where it may. That is using the scientific approach, as opposed to an ideological/biased approach, which is rampant these days.
And no, they are not down to 10 deaths a day, on average... not even close. Where are you getting such figures???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macmcleod1188 You and your beloved left wing media continue to misquote Tegnell. He never "admitted their strategy was wrong". That is twisting his words. Anyone capable of actually listening to what he says, knows this.
And now their daily +%'s have dropped to below +1%. But of course, your purely speculative statement, that their citizens are finally embracing more strict social distancing rules, is the only possible reason why, right?
You are so caught up in your own circular reasoning, you have no other choice but to continue speculating. Have you even looked at the charts I provided, or were you too busy looking for anti-Sweden/Tegnell propaganda???
Moreover, your goal of 80,000 deaths has now moved closer to being an entire year away... assuming, of course, the daily +% doesn't continue to fall. Are you willing to bet on whether or not that will happen?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macmcleod1188 may 31st. zero deaths, and now an avg. daily increase of about +0.9%
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Sweden_medical_cases_chart
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
You keep saying... 1) herd immunity didn't happen, 2) they increased their social distancing, out of fear ... Do I really need to spell this out? Hard to achieve 1 if you're doing 2. If Swedes are giving into the fear, they are only shooting themselves in the foot, like those who opted for half assed shutdowns, only delaying the inevitable, and losing the chance at gaining widespread immunity. This is not a failure of the strategy, but rather a failure of the people to trust in that strategy.
As for deaths, yes their older population was indeed ripe for the picking. Dr. Grupta pointed this out. In fact, their death toll was below average at the beginning of the year, then jumped well above the average for about 10 weeks. By week ending June 2nd, they were back to their average weekly death toll.
Moreover, the huge majority of deaths continued to be among the elderly in care... May 29 - June 10: <20 +0, 20-29 +0, 30-39 +0, 40-49 +0, 50-59 +9, 60-69 +43, 70-79 +89, 80-89 +191, >89 +113.
So, increased social distancing may have decreased immunity, and yet made no change to the overall demographics, where deaths are concerned, i.e; > 70 yrs old still account for ~ 88% of deaths.
1
-
@macmcleod1188 So, let me get this right. Your predictions have been grossly exaggerated, from the beginning, and now you claim the actual numbers are low, not because you were wrong, but because Swedes have changed their behaviour, and have increased social distancing? Then how do you explain away the fact Sweden's case numbers have been increasing significantly over the past 2 weeks, while presumably increasing their social distancing???
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102193/coronavirus-cases-development-in-sweden/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ ... scroll down to daily new cases, and click on 7 day avg. at bottom of chart to see the curve of recent increase in cases.
Moreover, you fail to define who is meant by "the young population", then offer up a made up 1 in 500 number that does not reflect the data.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107905/number-of-coronavirus-cases-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/
You are not very good at spin doctoring, and once again your statements are moot.
1
-
@macmcleod1188 well, it only took you a month to figure out the curves were flattening much faster than you were predicting... even though I provided the proof several times, using several sources... Nice to see you have finally stopped grossly over-estimating everything.
As for your ifr figures, I'm not convinced the data based cfr of 0.3%, among those under 50, lines up with your ifr of 0.2% among the same group. That works out to the total number of estimated infections, in the 1 to 49 age group, being only 1.6x the number of confirmed infections, i.e; 63/31,500 estimated vs. 63/19,398 confirmed. Seems rather low.
As for jumping the gun on the zero deaths, I posted that 11 days later. I am not aware of it ever taking that long to adjust the figures. In fact, it's June 12, and all my sources still say 0 deaths for May 31st. Go figure.
1
-
1
-
1