Official Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Fairview4Life]

Sweden let a bunch of people leave their country, travel to Italy and France, get infected and come home to spread the disease. If that didn't happen they could have reacted a lot more like Taiwan and South Korea and let things be relatively open when cases were really low and test/centrally quarantine the people that did get sick.

I am also not sure where I said that "lockdowns" don't have human costs either. Can you link me to that post? I couldn't find it just by skimming a few pages. Anyway, "lockdowns" don't have to last forever. When cases drop a lot, you can actually open things up a bit. I am living in a province that is doing that right now. There are a whole lot of places in the United States where that would be insane, because they have lost control of their case numbers.

[Vaclac]

Sweden let a bunch of people leave their country, travel to Italy and France, get infected and come home to spread the disease. If that didn't happen they could have reacted a lot more like Taiwan and South Korea and let things be relatively open when cases were really low and test/centrally quarantine the people that did get sick.

I am also not sure where I said that "lockdowns" don't have human costs either. Can you link me to that post? I couldn't find it just by skimming a few pages. Anyway, "lockdowns" don't have to last forever. When cases drop a lot, you can actually open things up a bit. I am living in a province that is doing that right now. There are a whole lot of places in the United States where that would be insane, because they have lost control of their case numbers.

You have said in the past that anyone who questions the wisdom of the lockdowns just doesn't value human life, which implies that there is no human cost to them. And you have claimed that the economic damage can simply be fixed by printing money. I do not agree with you that printing money has no cost, but even if you do have that view, that wouldn't be the end of the story if you do acknowledge there are other costs to the lockdown.
As to your province, less populated places do better naturally than ones with very large cities - even in the US the states with smaller populations are doing relatively better.
As to the US, actually those places you consider insane have already passed their peak despite not locking down. It would be insane to now lockdown Arizona, Florida and Texas, since the damage is done. They have stumbled awkwardly to a Sweden outcome, rendering their previous attempt at lockdown a catastrophic waste.
There are tradeoffs between the Swedish approach and a well executed containment approach, and I can certainly understand countries that have successfully contained the virus like New Zealand remaining committed to that approach. But for places that have already missed the chance to be in the latter group, they just get the worst of both worlds by trying to stay locked down. That is what happened in the US - I think there is no serious question that their lockdown ended up being a catastrophically costly measure that achieved nothing in the long term, they are not on pace to do any better than Sweden despite incurring those lockdown costs.

[Fairview4Life]

You have said in the past that anyone who questions the wisdom of the lockdowns just doesn't value human life,

I have? That's interesting. I didn't see any post like that either. Are you sure you aren't conflating me with someone else in your rush to be declared right in an argument?


As far as the lockdown discussion goes, I think there's a lot being handwaved away in the lockdown shorthand in the first place. For example,. saying the US didn't achieve anything with their lockdown ignores the fact that there was no national response. Cities, counties, states all did their own things at different times. Saying the US locked down their country is essentially a meaningless statement. I also don't think Arizona, Florida and Texas are out of the woods at all. You seem to be arguing they have reached herd immunity? You're basically now arguing that nothing can be done and the faster people get infected the faster everything will be normal? That is enormously myopic. You're just going to end up with a whole lot more dead people from not only Covid but also a lot of other preventable deaths that won't be treated well. And that isn't going to actually help the economy, as evidenced by the fact the economic numbers in places like Texas and Florida started tanking as case numbers rose before they implemented their limited forms of shelter in place or whatever. The virus spreading causes the economy to tank, not lockdowns.

My position has always been that step 1 has to be getting the case numbers under control which can be accomplished by keeping everyone at home, wearing masks, etc., then testing the hell out of everyone and quarantining sick people.

[execoftheyear]

Sweden let a bunch of people leave their country, travel to Italy and France, get infected and come home to spread the disease. If that didn't happen they could have reacted a lot more like Taiwan and South Korea and let things be relatively open when cases were really low and test/centrally quarantine the people that did get sick.

I am also not sure where I said that "lockdowns" don't have human costs either. Can you link me to that post? I couldn't find it just by skimming a few pages. Anyway, "lockdowns" don't have to last forever. When cases drop a lot, you can actually open things up a bit. I am living in a province that is doing that right now. There are a whole lot of places in the United States where that would be insane, because they have lost control of their case numbers.

You have said in the past that anyone who questions the wisdom of the lockdowns just doesn't value human life, which implies that there is no human cost to them. And you have claimed that the economic damage can simply be fixed by printing money. I do not agree with you that printing money has no cost, but even if you do have that view, that wouldn't be the end of the story if you do acknowledge there are other costs to the lockdown.
As to your province, less populated places do better naturally than ones with very large cities - even in the US the states with smaller populations are doing relatively better.
As to the US, actually those places you consider insane have already passed their peak despite not locking down. It would be insane to now lockdown Arizona, Florida and Texas, since the damage is done. They have stumbled awkwardly to a Sweden outcome, rendering their previous attempt at lockdown a catastrophic waste.
There are tradeoffs between the Swedish approach and a well executed containment approach, and I can certainly understand countries that have successfully contained the virus like New Zealand remaining committed to that approach. But for places that have already missed the chance to be in the latter group, they just get the worst of both worlds by trying to stay locked down. That is what happened in the US - I think there is no serious question that their lockdown ended up being a catastrophically costly measure that achieved nothing in the long term, they are not on pace to do any better than Sweden despite incurring those lockdown costs.

hospitals have been ordered to send all their patient information straight to the white house rather than the CDC. Since this move, cases "coincidentally" started to decline. I wouldn't trust any data coming out of the states going forward.

https://globalnews.ca/video/7186031/coronavirus-white-house-addresses-decision-to-divert-data-collection-from-cdc#autoplay

[Vaclac]

You have said in the past that anyone who questions the wisdom of the lockdowns just doesn't value human life,

I have? That's interesting. I didn't see any post like that either. Are you sure you aren't conflating me with someone else in your rush to be declared right in an argument?

You described considering the economic costs of lockdown as a "let's sacrifice a bunch of people for stock prices" plan. You are correct that it was Kevin Willis who said it quite as bluntly as saying the only reason someone could be opposed is that they don't value human life, but the idea that the only reason anyone could oppose lockdowns is because they want to see people die to benefit their stock prices seems like the same idea.

[Fairview4Life]

You have said in the past that anyone who questions the wisdom of the lockdowns just doesn't value human life,

I have? That's interesting. I didn't see any post like that either. Are you sure you aren't conflating me with someone else in your rush to be declared right in an argument?

You described considering the economic costs of lockdown as a "let's sacrifice a bunch of people for stock prices" plan. You are correct that it was Kevin Willis who said it quite as bluntly as saying the only reason someone could be opposed is that they don't value human life, but the idea that the only reason anyone could oppose lockdowns is because they want to see people die to benefit their stock prices seems like the same idea.

The US has sacrificed a large number of meat processing plant workers, predominantly because they didn't value their specific lives, so I can see it in that sense.

[Vaclac]

As far as the lockdown discussion goes, I think there's a lot being handwaved away in the lockdown shorthand in the first place. For example,. saying the US didn't achieve anything with their lockdown ignores the fact that there was no national response. Cities, counties, states all did their own things at different times. Saying the US locked down their country is essentially a meaningless statement. I also don't think Arizona, Florida and Texas are out of the woods at all. You seem to be arguing they have reached herd immunity? You're basically now arguing that nothing can be done and the faster people get infected the faster everything will be normal? That is enormously myopic. You're just going to end up with a whole lot more dead people from not only Covid but also a lot of other preventable deaths that won't be treated well. And that isn't going to actually help the economy, as evidenced by the fact the economic numbers in places like Texas and Florida started tanking as case numbers rose before they implemented their limited forms of shelter in place or whatever. The virus spreading causes the economy to tank, not lockdowns.

My position has always been that step 1 has to be getting the case numbers under control which can be accomplished by keeping everyone at home, wearing masks, etc., then testing the hell out of everyone and quarantining sick people.

I agree that there was no national response, but that even those red states did shut things down for a time, then they lifted it and got the surge anyway, so that initial lockdown there was totally wasted. The places that were hit the hardest like NYC and Boston had huge rates of infection and death despite their lockdown efforts. They did not manage to avoid hitting herd immunity. And yes, I am saying that Arizona, Florida, and Texas have hit herd immunity, using the actual definition of herd immunity - that the number of cases has turned the corner from increasing to decreasing, as a result of a large proportion of the population having gotten exposed, rather than as a result of effective lockdown measures. Of course they only just hit their peaks and the curves are roughly symmetric, so I wouldn't exactly say they are "out of the woods", but rather just a little more than halfway through. But I would say that their cases will continue to decline from here just based on so many people having gotten it rather than from the effect of any restrictions.
I am not arguing that people should intentionally go get infected to be done with this faster - I have never said that and don't believe that, so not sure where you got that from. Your concern about other preventable deaths not being treated depends on the hospital system not being able to accommodate them anymore, which is not the case. That was true in Milan and came close in NYC at its worst. That was the original justification for flattening the curve, and I agreed with it for that limited purpose - it made sense to keep NYC locked down until hospitals stopped being overcapacity.
As to this economy point again, of course there will be reduced economic activity even without lockdowns from people voluntarily withdrawing from activity. Lockdowns add on top of that by restricting activity even further, preventing even those who would otherwise engage in more economic activity from doing so. Just because the economy would be worse than normal even without lockdowns does not somehow mean that lockdowns don't make it even worse.

[execoftheyear]

As far as the lockdown discussion goes, I think there's a lot being handwaved away in the lockdown shorthand in the first place. For example,. saying the US didn't achieve anything with their lockdown ignores the fact that there was no national response. Cities, counties, states all did their own things at different times. Saying the US locked down their country is essentially a meaningless statement. I also don't think Arizona, Florida and Texas are out of the woods at all. You seem to be arguing they have reached herd immunity? You're basically now arguing that nothing can be done and the faster people get infected the faster everything will be normal? That is enormously myopic. You're just going to end up with a whole lot more dead people from not only Covid but also a lot of other preventable deaths that won't be treated well. And that isn't going to actually help the economy, as evidenced by the fact the economic numbers in places like Texas and Florida started tanking as case numbers rose before they implemented their limited forms of shelter in place or whatever. The virus spreading causes the economy to tank, not lockdowns.

My position has always been that step 1 has to be getting the case numbers under control which can be accomplished by keeping everyone at home, wearing masks, etc., then testing the hell out of everyone and quarantining sick people.

I agree that there was no national response, but that even those red states did shut things down for a time, then they lifted it and got the surge anyway, so that initial lockdown there was totally wasted. The places that were hit the hardest like NYC and Boston had huge rates of infection and death despite their lockdown efforts. They did not manage to avoid hitting herd immunity. And yes, I am saying that Arizona, Florida, and Texas have hit herd immunity, using the actual definition of herd immunity - that the number of cases has turned the corner from increasing to decreasing, as a result of a large proportion of the population having gotten exposed, rather than as a result of effective lockdown measures. Of course they only just hit their peaks and the curves are roughly symmetric, so I wouldn't exactly say they are "out of the woods", but rather just a little more than halfway through. But I would say that their cases will continue to decline from here just based on so many people having gotten it rather than from the effect of any restrictions.
I am not arguing that people should intentionally go get infected to be done with this faster - I have never said that and don't believe that, so not sure where you got that from. Your concern about other preventable deaths not being treated depends on the hospital system not being able to accommodate them anymore, which is not the case. That was true in Milan and came close in NYC at its worst. That was the original justification for flattening the curve, and I agreed with it for that limited purpose - it made sense to keep NYC locked down until hospitals stopped being overcapacity.
As to this economy point again, of course there will be reduced economic activity even without lockdowns from people voluntarily withdrawing from activity. Lockdowns add on top of that by restricting activity even further, preventing even those who would otherwise engage in more economic activity from doing so. Just because the economy would be worse than normal even without lockdowns does not somehow mean that lockdowns don't make it even worse.

with data going straight to the white house rather than CDC, I don't think the data is accurate. There are also reports of people paying for negative tests to avoid having to quarantine.

[Fairview4Life]

with data going straight to the white house rather than CDC, I don't think the data is accurate. There are also reports of people paying for negative tests to avoid having to quarantine.

The https://covidtracking.com/ people don't think their numbers have been affected. So the declining case numbers this week might be a real and good thing.

[dohboy_24]

Ouch... those aren't very good odds now are they?

"Four Ukrainian service members died after COVID-19 vaccine trials, said LPR People's Militia press service officer Alexander Mazeikin.

The total of 15 volunteers were exposed to the vaccine and medication produced by Americal virologists in the Kharkov region. Eight of the volunteers were soon transferred to intensive care units, three were put on ventilation."

SOURCE: http://en.lug-info.com/news/one/four-ukrainian-army-servicemen-die-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-21136

Since I know some here struggle with math, 4 of 15 is 26.66% of the trial participants, a number far greater than any associated with this outbreak.

[dohboy_24]

Thankfuly "antibody tests point to lower death rate for the coronavirus than first thought" so you probably don't have to worry about a vaccine thats more likely to kill you than the disease it's meant to thrawt.

"For Menachemi and his team, it was like finally getting a glimpse of the entire coronavirus iceberg, instead of just the part above the water.

And the data allowed them to calculate something called the infection fatality rate — the odds that an infected person will die. Previously, scientists had relied on what's known as the case fatality rate, which calculates the odds that someone who develops symptoms will die."

SOURCE: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

[Vaclac]

Ouch... those aren't very good odds now are they?

"Four Ukrainian service members died after COVID-19 vaccine trials, said LPR People's Militia press service officer Alexander Mazeikin.

The total of 15 volunteers were exposed to the vaccine and medication produced by Americal virologists in the Kharkov region. Eight of the volunteers were soon transferred to intensive care units, three were put on ventilation."

SOURCE: http://en.lug-info.com/news/one/four-ukrainian-army-servicemen-die-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-21136

Since I know some here struggle with math, 4 of 15 is 26.66% of the trial participants, a number far greater than any associated with this outbreak.

That article doesn't indicate which vaccine was being used, so I doubt it is one of the major ones getting the attention right now. Of course vaccines need to go through trials and prove their safety before they are given more broadly, that is why the trials process is so important even though it is of course time consuming. I believe that the FDA requires phase 3 trials to have 30,000 participants, so a vaccine that actually had rates of death or other severe adverse consequences like that would not get through.
I actually agree that vaccines need to be carefully evaluated, an idea that sometimes gets lost in a simplified pro vs anti vaccine debate that just characterizes all vaccines as inherently safe or inherently dangerous. But this data point seems to be scaremongering since it is not related to the actual major vaccines going through the process and ignores the fact that people won't get the vaccines anyway until it has gone through the large scale trials which will pick up if the vaccine candidate causes serious adverse effects in a significant proportion of people.

[execoftheyear]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-ojo-former-florida-state-center-dies-age-27/

scary stuff. Recovered from Covid and then had a heart attack during training.

[shmoosicle]

Ouch... those aren't very good odds now are they?

"Four Ukrainian service members died after COVID-19 vaccine trials, said LPR People's Militia press service officer Alexander Mazeikin.

The total of 15 volunteers were exposed to the vaccine and medication produced by Americal virologists in the Kharkov region. Eight of the volunteers were soon transferred to intensive care units, three were put on ventilation."

SOURCE: http://en.lug-info.com/news/one/four-ukrainian-army-servicemen-die-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-21136

Since I know some here struggle with math, 4 of 15 is 26.66% of the trial participants, a number far greater than any associated with this outbreak.

"There’s no evidence that a US COVID-19 vaccine killed 5 Ukrainians"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/30/facebook-posts/theres-no-evidence-us-covid-19-vaccine-killed-5-uk/

[Johnny Bball]

Ouch... those aren't very good odds now are they?

"Four Ukrainian service members died after COVID-19 vaccine trials, said LPR People's Militia press service officer Alexander Mazeikin.

The total of 15 volunteers were exposed to the vaccine and medication produced by Americal virologists in the Kharkov region. Eight of the volunteers were soon transferred to intensive care units, three were put on ventilation."

SOURCE: http://en.lug-info.com/news/one/four-ukrainian-army-servicemen-die-in-covid-19-vaccine-trial-21136

Since I know some here struggle with math, 4 of 15 is 26.66% of the trial participants, a number far greater than any associated with this outbreak.

https://nationalpost.com/health/support-grows-for-deliberately-exposing-vaccine-trial-subjects-to-covid-19-with-oxford-team-leading-the-way

32,000 volunteers.

[Johnny Bball]

If the Swedes hadn't let people go skiing in the alps in March, they probably could have had exceptional numbers and we'd all be touting what geniuses they were and pointing to whatever policy preferences we like that they implemented as the sole reason for it. But they did, and then they decided to let the virus spread and it caused a whole lot more people to die. That's not really in dispute. The best comparison we can make today is to it's immediate and fairly comparable neighbours. Sweden is heavily export reliant as well, so their GDP was more than likely going to take a big hit regardless of what they did. But the fact they aren't actually doing better economically, their own internal financial people are saying they are going to be screwed anyway because of how dependent they are on exports, and the fact that a whole lot of their citizens are now dead that didn't need to be, and I really don't see why you're trying to spike the football here.

I've pointed to the fact that they actually are doing better than their neighbours economically, but sure you can just keep asserting the opposite.
I'm not spiking the football - I'm just pointing to further evidence that the herd immunity threshold of 60-70% that people think of is wildly inaccurate, and that has policy implications, at the very least in all those places already hard hit and having a large percentage of their population already having gotten it. Continuing to lockdown in those places for fear that it could be so much worse, despite having actually evidence that a place that never locked down actually didn't do worse is madness. And your idea that lockdowns just don't have human costs is insanity, but go on believing that if you like I suppose.
I also don't understand your theory of the virus when you say their numbers could have been great if people didn't go skiing. Is your theory that if they did that, then Sweden would have locked down like everyone else instead of the strategy they actually pursued? If not, then those people would eventually get infected anyway, since what stops the spread is either the lockdowns, or herd immunity. If you don't lockdown forever you will eventually reach herd immunity. This is the other advantage of never going into lockdown - you don't have to worry about how you exit it. Whereas if you succeed via the lockdown then you have to worry about reopening - whenever you do, cases will pick back up again because you don't have a substantial proportion of the population being immune yet.

This is not fact in any substantial way unless you're comparing them to Germany Spain France. Their economy is predicted to contract similar to the rest of Scandinavia, which are their neighbors. Their unemployment is higher than their Scandinavian neighbors in late July. They will not be allowed to travel as freely last I heard. The majority of swedes do not support how it was handled.

Sorry but everyone likes to use Sweden as an example but it's more of a study in failure and slow response. They suffered an unnecessarily high number of deaths early on and lead the area in deaths and rank relatively high in the world still. They are also not pursuing herd immunity like some want to believe (not sure that's a point just saying)

They also did not keep everything open and did not avoid wearing masks en mass like some other folks that make this argument want to believe, and have recently recommended it but not yet mandated it. They social distanced, worked from home where possible, avoided public gatherings and transport, closed some schools but not all. They banned large gatherings (50), encouraged only outside eating socially and limited LTC home visits. They interact socially far less. They are also a far more orderly society than most you are used to. Pretty much everything we did early on with the one exception of some schools.

As for herd immunity they studied their immune response and at most 6% of people had antibodies which is not even close.

Just saying... it's not really a valid argument.

[Vaclac]

If the Swedes hadn't let people go skiing in the alps in March, they probably could have had exceptional numbers and we'd all be touting what geniuses they were and pointing to whatever policy preferences we like that they implemented as the sole reason for it. But they did, and then they decided to let the virus spread and it caused a whole lot more people to die. That's not really in dispute. The best comparison we can make today is to it's immediate and fairly comparable neighbours. Sweden is heavily export reliant as well, so their GDP was more than likely going to take a big hit regardless of what they did. But the fact they aren't actually doing better economically, their own internal financial people are saying they are going to be screwed anyway because of how dependent they are on exports, and the fact that a whole lot of their citizens are now dead that didn't need to be, and I really don't see why you're trying to spike the football here.

I've pointed to the fact that they actually are doing better than their neighbours economically, but sure you can just keep asserting the opposite.
I'm not spiking the football - I'm just pointing to further evidence that the herd immunity threshold of 60-70% that people think of is wildly inaccurate, and that has policy implications, at the very least in all those places already hard hit and having a large percentage of their population already having gotten it. Continuing to lockdown in those places for fear that it could be so much worse, despite having actually evidence that a place that never locked down actually didn't do worse is madness. And your idea that lockdowns just don't have human costs is insanity, but go on believing that if you like I suppose.
I also don't understand your theory of the virus when you say their numbers could have been great if people didn't go skiing. Is your theory that if they did that, then Sweden would have locked down like everyone else instead of the strategy they actually pursued? If not, then those people would eventually get infected anyway, since what stops the spread is either the lockdowns, or herd immunity. If you don't lockdown forever you will eventually reach herd immunity. This is the other advantage of never going into lockdown - you don't have to worry about how you exit it. Whereas if you succeed via the lockdown then you have to worry about reopening - whenever you do, cases will pick back up again because you don't have a substantial proportion of the population being immune yet.

This is not fact in any substantial way unless you're comparing them to Germany Spain France. Their economy is predicted to contract similar to the rest of Scandinavia, which are their neighbors. Their unemployment is higher than their Scandinavian neighbors in late July. They will not be allowed to travel as freely last I heard. The majority of swedes do not support how it was handled.

Sorry but everyone likes to use Sweden as an example but it's more of a study in failure and slow response. They suffered an unnecessarily high number of deaths early on and lead the area in deaths and rank relatively high in the world still. They are also not pursuing herd immunity like some want to believe (not sure that's a point just saying)

They also did not keep everything open and did not avoid wearing masks en mass like some other folks that make this argument want to believe, and have recently recommended it but not yet mandated it. They social distanced, worked from home where possible, avoided public gatherings and transport, closed some schools but not all. They banned large gatherings (50), encouraged only outside eating socially and limited LTC home visits. They interact socially far less. They are also a far more orderly society than most you are used to. Pretty much everything we did early on with the one exception of some schools.

As for herd immunity they studied their immune response and at most 6% of people had antibodies which is not even close.

Just saying... it's not really a valid argument.

As I already pointed out, unemployment rates are a poor way to measure economic effect of the pandemic when you have different policy solutions that can result in wildly different unemployment rates even if they are actually very similar in true economic substance. Some countries have pursued additional unemployment insurance payments for people laid off by employers while others have paid employers their employees wages even though those employees are not working. Either way the people are not working, but are getting paid, but the stated unemployment rates are wildly different. Therefore, especially in this pandemic context, GDP is a better measure of economic growth (or relative decline, really) than unemployment rate. And Sweden's Q1 GDP did in fact decline less than its neighbour peers. And Q2 declined less than expected and less than major European economies. As far as I know, the Norway, Denmark and Finland Q2 GDP numbers haven't come out yet, but I'm happy to revisit this when they do. Judging by your comments I'm guessing you think they won't be any worse than Sweden's. I doubt that, but if it turns out to be true, I will admit that Sweden's economy did not do worse than its immediate neighbours thus far through the pandemic. Again, as I already stated, of course the economy would be hurt even without any lockdowns or social restrictions, but that doesn't mean that somehow such restrictions can't make the bad economic situation ever worse.
It is also true that Sweden took some measures to reduce spread in response to the virus - I don't believe I have ever claimed otherwise. But, they certainly took less harsh measures than nearly anywhere else, not closing schools or businesses.
I'm really not sure where you got those antibody numbers from just by looking at Wikipedia I find a study showing that 10% of people in Stockholm infected during or prior to late March. Now, again according to Wikipedia or Worldometers there's been a lot of infections since March, so that number should be a lot higher by now. Of course I'd be interested in more recent studies, but very curious where your figure comes from - it seems seriously at odds with this earlier study at any rate. And again the whole point of my discussion was that this herd immunity threshold is much lower than commonly thought, due to heterogeneity, so not sure how you can assert that a number is "way off" without addressing that issue. Finally, there is a data fit issue. If the proportion of the Swedish population that has been infected hasn't actually had a major role in reducing the transmission rate, then what has? Cases there peaked in late June and deaths in mid April. There is no timing of changes in restrictions that could possibly explain these observed curves, but simply the natural progression of a disease through a population fits it quite well. And again, this isn't just Sweden, every place that has had a large percentage of the population (say 10%) be infected has had a similar decline occurring at a time which simply does not fit a story that that decline was caused by social distancing restrictions alone.

[Johnny Bball]

As I already pointed out, unemployment rates are a poor way to measure economic effect of the pandemic when you have different policy solutions that can result in wildly different unemployment rates even if they are actually very similar in true economic substance. Some countries have pursued additional unemployment insurance payments for people laid off by employers while others have paid employers their employees wages even though those employees are not working. Either way the people are not working, but are getting paid, but the stated unemployment rates are wildly different. Therefore, especially in this pandemic context, GDP is a better measure of economic growth (or relative decline, really) than unemployment rate. And Sweden's Q1 GDP did in fact decline less than its neighbour peers. And Q2 declined less than expected and less than major European economies. As far as I know, the Norway, Denmark and Finland Q2 GDP numbers haven't come out yet, but I'm happy to revisit this when they do. Judging by your comments I'm guessing you think they won't be any worse than Sweden's. I doubt that, but if it turns out to be true, I will admit that Sweden's economy did not do worse than its immediate neighbours thus far through the pandemic. Again, as I already stated, of course the economy would be hurt even without any lockdowns or social restrictions, but that doesn't mean that somehow such restrictions can't make the bad economic situation ever worse.
It is also true that Sweden took some measures to reduce spread in response to the virus - I don't believe I have ever claimed otherwise. But, they certainly took less harsh measures than nearly anywhere else, not closing schools or businesses.
I'm really not sure where you got those antibody numbers from just by looking at Wikipedia I find a study showing that 10% of people in Stockholm infected during or prior to late March. Now, again according to Wikipedia or Worldometers there's been a lot of infections since March, so that number should be a lot higher by now. Of course I'd be interested in more recent studies, but very curious where your figure comes from - it seems seriously at odds with this earlier study at any rate. And again the whole point of my discussion was that this herd immunity threshold is much lower than commonly thought, due to heterogeneity, so not sure how you can assert that a number is "way off" without addressing that issue. Finally, there is a data fit issue. If the proportion of the Swedish population that has been infected hasn't actually had a major role in reducing the transmission rate, then what has? Cases there peaked in late June and deaths in mid April. There is no timing of changes in restrictions that could possibly explain these observed curves, but simply the natural progression of a disease through a population fits it quite well. And again, this isn't just Sweden, every place that has had a large percentage of the population (say 10%) be infected has had a similar decline occurring at a time which simply does not fit a story that that decline was caused by social distancing restrictions alone.

I don't care if you don't like it but it's one measure and the second was GDP projections. Ignore it all you want. There is nothing that puts them head and shoulders above Scandinavian and for half a page of text you've provided nothing. And now those nations have locked Sweden out of traveling.

I said they bungled it early on... then they started taking precautions like everyone else did and it started dropping. It was NOT because more had been infected. Following what the rest of the world is what started the rates dropping. And it is not just social distance. I gave you most of what they did. It is also closing things not closed in the US (depending on timing). Sweden was no shining example no matter how you want to spin it.

Herd immunity is not 6% lmao ... it's like 70-90%. It's not going to decline significantly at 10% and the US is very likely startling proof of that. And herd immunity was NEVER stated by them as their goal. You can die on this hill all you want but they did a piss poor job of it and reacted too slowly. Maybe not as bad as some nations like the US, but worse than their neighbors, and for no benefit.

And Stockholm isn't all of Sweden and the BBC is where it's from. Maybe read something impartial. Type in "Sweden antibody 6%" and google it. Here's the first link... how about you not pretend that I'm not telling the truth here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-sweden-immunity/around-6-in-sweden-have-developed-covid-19-antibodies-swedish-health-agency-idUSL8N2DV3N2#:~:text=STOCKHOLM%2C%20June%2018%20(Reuters),Tegnell%20told%20a%20news%20conference.

[Vaclac]

Herd immunity is not 6% lmao ... it's like 70-90%.

Ok, this was really my main point all along, 70-90% is just way too high, and based on a totally simplified model. Those high thresholds depend on the assumption that every person infects every other person at exactly the same rate, which is just false. Evidence of superspreaders is enormous, that a tiny proportion of people are responsible for 80%+ of the spread. This fact is simply inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the simple model that gives estimates in the range you provide. This clearly observed heterogeneity has huge implications for the mathematical model of the herd immunity threshold. If you model out its extremely clear, but you don't have to take my word for it - epidemiologists say the very same thing https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3. Unless of course you think based on no evidence whatsoever that this and the Atlantic article I cited discussing the same paper just must not be "impartial".

[Johnny Bball]

Herd immunity is not 6% lmao ... it's like 70-90%.

Ok, this was really my main point all along, 70-90% is just way too high, and based on a totally simplified model. Those high thresholds depend on the assumption that every person infects every other person at exactly the same rate, which is just false. Evidence of superspreaders is enormous, that a tiny proportion of people are responsible for 80%+ of the spread. This fact is simply inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the simple model that gives estimates in the range you provide. This clearly observed heterogeneity has huge implications for the mathematical model of the herd immunity threshold. If you model out its extremely clear, but you don't have to take my word for it - epidemiologists say the very same thing https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v3. Unless of course you think based on no evidence whatsoever that this and the Atlantic article I cited discussing the same paper just must not be "impartial".

There is enough out there including in vaccine work to say that antibodies will not be forever. The fact that you even believe and are still discussing herd immunity for covid is nothing but ignorance. The fact that you would be willing to risk sacrificinig 3 .5+ million in the US to get there is past sociopathic and shows zero empathy for the vulnerable. Go tell you parents and your grandparents what you want to happen before you continue to try and tell strangers. And your post is pretty much a non sequitur to everything before it without the comedic value.

Impartial? Yes... I'm sure you are described that way often by those that know you.

I'll give you more than an abstract. Then you can tell me 60-85% is substantially different than 70-90% but not 6%.

https://theconversation.com/herd-immunity-wont-solve-our-covid-19-problem-139724