It's like y2k bug all over again. Because of drastic actions taken the health services are holding up.

This is not hysteria it's the consequences of careful policy. Without that policy you may have seen healthcare systems crumble.

Y2K was precieved in hindsight as a media induce hiysteria without legitimacy because nothing bad happened.

But nothing bad happened because the entire industry took in seriously and did something about it. Geez...

To be clear, by “This is hysteria” I meant the gp’s claim that every healthcare system is overwhelmed. I was not referring to the general response.

However, see Sweden for a clear counter-example to your claim that the services are holding up because of the drastic actions taken. Their services are holding up with far less drastic measures.

>Many health care systems have been well below capacity throughout this. This includes most of the US (e.g. California), it includes places that have not shut down (Sweden), and it includes places that have reopened weeks ago (Georgia).

Sweden has been heavily criticized for its handling of the situation, and Europe is extremely wary of them right now. With good reason. The US does have the chance to be an extremely large country, so transmission is slightly less likely. California has not been overwhelmed through a mix of luck and, would you guess it, self quarantine.

>This is hysteria.

Pretending that doing nothing could not have catastrophic consequences is dangerous. Even with self quarantine (or imposed quarantine), this disease is the number one source of illness related deaths in the year in western countries. And this is only May.

None of what you said here takes away from the fact that your original claim is false. Again, you wrote: “ completely overwhelmed every single health system in the world.” That is not true, not even close.

Now, you write:

> Sweden has been heavily criticized for its handling of the situation

Yes, people have differing opinions. The fact is that Sweden is not an outlier in number of deaths despite keeping its economy essentially open. Perhaps this is what happens when you inform your citizens and then trust them to do the right thing?

> Pretending that doing nothing could not have catastrophic consequences is dangerous.

I agree, and I did not suggest that we should do nothing. But what are the optimal policies? Are the policies we have now optimal or can we do better? We need open and honest discussion to make progress on these questions.

Have you looked at the actual numbers? Sweden is at 6th place in deaths per capita in the world ranking. It has 4 times the deaths per capita than Denmark, and 8 times more than Norway.

I have —- comparing with additional European countries, Sweden deaths per capita are lower than France, the U.K. and Italy, and is followed closely by Spain. Therefore, as I said, Sweden is not an outlier. At least the U.K. and Italy enacted far more restrictive policies than Sweden but achieved worse results. And this is just looking at the health part of the equation, not even discussing the economic benefits of Sweden’s approach.

I think this is enough to at least challenge the common viewpoint that restrictive lockdowns are the only way to deal with this.

That's why I compared to Denmark and Norway: Two countries with comparable wealth, healthcare systems and similar (i.e. social democratic in a wider sense) approaches to societal problems - and here the differences in deaths are quite obvious.

All countries with higher deaths per capita than Sweden are significantly poorer, e.g. the UK has only 67% of Swedens GDP per capita, Spain has less than 50%.

Both France and Italy seem to be past the peak of this wave and have declining active cases, while the number of active cases are still growing in Sweden. I couldn't find the number of active cases for the UK.

What's your theory as to why Sweden is among the worst countries in the world for infection rates and deaths per capita, as opposed to e.g. Germany which implemented effective lockdowns early?

I know the UK royally botched its coronavirus response (waiting until the virus was spreading far too quickly before doing anything at all), although I do not know about France and Italy.

Just a question, but what is the methodology being used to count cases and track outcomes? Are the same methods being used globally so that a fair comparison can even be made? Are there are incentives to potentially 'tweak' those numbers so suit a narrative?

I can only speak for myself, but with the lack of trustworthy information, I find it very difficult to draw any conclusions at all.

My theory is that it’s because they stayed open. The numbers are higher, yes, but it has not been a catastrophic disaster like many predicted. Crucially, the health care systems are not overwhelmed.

So that is an important starting point for a discussion: it is possible to keep things mostly open (with appropriate safety measures) without overwhelming the healthcare system.

Note that it is possible that Sweden’s approach will eventually lead to a comparable number of deaths as its neighbors, but at an accelerated rate. Namely, it is possible that people are getting infected at a higher rate, which explains the higher numbers, but that the mortality rate will eventually be the same because the healthcare system is not overwhelmed. This depends on when and if we will find a vaccine and better treatments, which is an unknown.

On the other side of the equation, there is no mass unemployment, no hours-long lines at food banks, people are not suffering from mental health problems due to isolation, and so on. If Sweden does end up paying a higher price for its policies, it will still enjoy these benefits. They decided that it is worth the trade off. They are trying to prevent covid victims while also trying to protect potential economic victims, whose suffering is not being ignored. Is that wrong?

[*] 88% of deaths in Sweden are people over 70, and I believe many of those were in nursing homes. So it is possible that fine-tuning the policy can significantly reduce the death rate while keeping things open.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...

Comparing numbers between countries is kinda pointless at the moment, different countries report deaths differently. I don't think we will get any meaningful numbers to compare for a long time, and then compare total mortalities over a couple of years and see if Covid-19 had any significant impact. I think real time comparison, country to country or even region to region is completely pointless. But that is just my 5 cents.

Yes, daily numbers are almost completely meaningless. We don't have to wait multiple years to infer meaning from the numbers, though. If countries are very similar, had their infections at the same time, but now have a 800% difference, like Sweden and Norway, that should make us pause and consider the effectiveness of the different approaches.

Total mortality is also already much higher in the EU than in the years before (Edit: Despite the lockdowns!).

Would you be fully confident to claim that the numbers in the other countries will not pick up by the end of the year? If in the fall, the virus returns spreading, would Norway, Denmark and Finland turn again to a strict lockdown? Note that the total number of mortality across all causes have remained close-to-baseline: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ All the time, the hospitals have remained with spare capacity - while the earliest, initial models have suggested much larger impact to ICU.

I understand that the perception of the impact of the virus can be large, when seeing a new virus. But considering that those countries have extremely large average lifespan would tilt the numbers to make the perception of the statistics have larger impact than they are.

I'm not sure what you mean, EuroMomo is showing a distinct rise in excess deaths compared to previous years?

In a country level, the outcome is mixed. See Greece, Estonia’s drop in total mortality. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland show a slight wobble. Some excess deaths, but not drastic NYC-style. Without knowledge of an a priori knowledge of an epidemic I would not have guessed they experience a pandemic.

My comment was also that ICUs have been available for most of Europe - the hospital system was not overwhelmed at all for most of EU counties. If you take away the U.K., Italy, Spain, the rest of hospital infrastructure in EU remained under-utilised. This is good they remained under-utilised and it reveals that there are measures which can avoid a catastrophic event.

Yes, maybe Sweden's policy is bad but that does not change the fact that our Healthcare system was not overwhelmed. The Swedish policy did exactly what our experts thought, slowed down the sprwad just enough to prevent our hospitals from being overwhelmed.

But what it did not take into account was stopping the spread from getting into care homes, which is the most likely explanation for our bad numbers. Our elder care was, unlike our hospitals, entirely unprepared for a pandemic.

I find it disappointing that your claims are not based on true facts.

You can make any claim, but be aware that claims not based on true facts are illogical and not constructive. There have been changes from the status quo to adhere to strict hygienic levels across large portion of the world. Find changes already applied across EU, USA, Asia, Africa, South Africa, etc.

In a circumstance where a person focuses on one area and disregards other areas fully, is a setup for failure. Focusing exclusively on this virus and disregarding everything else is not a recipe for a fulfilment.