You and your team is so sick in the head. They hate that a country without locking down the low risk and without masks has a lower percent positive than... Germany ( your pick for best response) Italy France Spain Netherlands Switzerland Austria https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/germany?country=DEU~ITA You would think they would be saying.. how is this happening? Is it only temporary? Real reporting actual real current comparisons, instead of your bullshit fear and propaganda everyday.
A lengthy article on the study -- worth reading for the information. Generally across first world countries we are seeing the COVID mortality rate decline due to better medical care, proper utilization of drugs/steroids that are actually effective (not HCQ), and a younger cohort of people being infected. However the mortality rate can rise rapidly again if hospitals get overrun. COVID-19 mortality rate declines significantly in Sweden https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...ty-rate-declines-significantly-in-Sweden.aspx A new observational study by Swedish researchers shows a significant decline in death rates among hospitalized patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Their study titled, "Decline in mortality among hospitalized covid-19 patients in Sweden: a nationwide observational study," was released online as a preprint on the medRxiv* server. (Much more at above url)
Sweden sets another daily COVID-19 case record as hospitals feel strain https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-posts-daily-covid-19-132308401.html Sweden, which has shunned lockdowns throughout the pandemic, registered 2,820 new coronavirus cases on Oct. 28, the highest since the pandemic began and the third record number in a matter of days, Health Agency statistics showed on Thursday. A steady rise in new cases has appeared to be gaining momentum in Sweden in recent weeks though the resurgence of the disease has come later than in wide swaths of Europe and not so far hit the kind of peaks recorded in countries such as France. The increase compares with a record set only the previous day, a figure that was revised up to just over 2,400 cases on Thursday. The Health Agency has said the peak during the spring probably ran much higher but went unrecorded due to a lack of testing. "We're beginning to approach the ceiling for what the healthcare system can handle. Together, as during the spring, we can push down this curve and avoid the strain on healthcare," Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell told a news conference. The Health Agency also moved to tighten pandemic recommendations for three additional regions, including Sweden's biggest cities Stockholm and Gothenburg, saying infection rates were rising sharply in these areas. Sweden has relied primarily on voluntary measures, largely uninforced but still widely adhered to. The new tighter local recommendations, already introduced in two regions with surging infections, included advice to avoid indoor environments such as shops and gyms. Stockholm authorities said separately that the number of Covid-19 patients in need of care in the region had risen about 60% over the past week after a near 80% surge in recorded infections. Sweden registered 7 new deaths, taking the total to 5,934. Sweden's death rate per capita is several times higher than Nordic neighbours, but lower than some larger European countries, such as Spain and Britain.
Sweden's coronavirus failure - why COVID-19 herd immunity is dangerous, deadly and might not even work https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...dangerous-deadly-and-might-not-even-work.html White House advisers have made the case recently for a "natural" approach to herd immunity as a way to reduce the need for public health measures to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic while still keeping people safe. This idea is summed up in something called the Great Barrington Declaration, a proposal put out by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank. The basic idea behind this proposal is to let low-risk people in the US socialize and naturally become infected with the coronavirus, while vulnerable people would maintain social distancing and continue to shelter in place. Proponents of this strategy claim so-called "natural herd immunity" will emerge and minimize harm from SARS-CoV-2 while protecting the economy. Another way to get to herd immunity is through mass vaccinations, as we have done with measles, smallpox and largely with polio. A population has achieved herd immunity when a large enough percentage of individuals become immune to a disease. When this happens, infected people are no longer able to transmit the disease, and the epidemic will burn out. As a professor of behavioral and community health sciences, I am acutely aware that mental, social and economic health are important for a person to thrive, and that public health measures such as social distancing have imposed severe restrictions on daily life. But based on all the research and science available, the leadership at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and I believe this infection-based approach would almost certainly fail. Dropping social distancing and mask wearing, reopening restaurants and allowing large gatherings will result in overwhelmed hospital systems and skyrocketing mortality. Furthermore, according to recent research, this reckless approach is unlikely to even produce the herd immunity that's the whole point of such a plan. Vaccination, in comparison, offers a much safer and likely more effective approach. An uncertain path to herd immunity Herd immunity is an effective way to limit a deadly epidemic, but it requires a huge number of people to be immune. The proportion of the population required for herd immunity depends on how infectious a virus is. This is measured by the basic reproduction number, R0, how many people a single contagious person would infect in a susceptible population. For SARS-CoV-2, R0 is between 2 and 3.2. At that level of infectiousness, between 50 percent and 67 percent of the population would need to develop immunity through exposure or vaccination to contain the pandemic. The Great Barrington Declaration suggests the US should aim for this immune threshold through infection rather than vaccination. To get to 60 percent immunity in the US, about 198 million individuals would need to be infected, survive and develop resistance to the coronavirus. The demand on hospital care from infections would be overwhelming. And according to the WHO estimated infection fatality rate of 0.5 percent, that would mean nearly a million deaths if the country were to open up fully. The Great Barrington Declaration hinges on the idea that you can effectively keep healthy, infected people away from those who are at higher risk. According to this plan, if only healthy people are exposed to the virus, then the US could get to herd immunity and avoid mass deaths. This may sound reasonable, but in the real world with this particular virus, such a plan is simply not possible and ignores the risks to vulnerable people, young and old. You can't fully isolate high-risk populations The Great Barrington Declaration calls for "allowing those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally … while protecting those who are at highest risk." Yet healthy people can get sick, and asymptomatic transmission, inadequate testing and difficulty isolating vulnerable people pose severe challenges to a neat separation based on risk. First, the plan wrongly assumes that all healthy people can survive a coronavirus infection. Though at-risk groups do worse, young healthy people are also dying and facing long-term issues from the illness. Second, not all high-risk people can self-isolate. In some areas, as much as 22 percent of the population have two or more chronic conditions that put them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. They might live with someone in the low-risk group and they still must shop, work and do the other activities necessary for life. High-risk individuals will come in contact with the low-risk group. So can you simply guarantee that the low-risk people who interact with the high-risk group are uninfected? People who are infected but not showing symptoms may account for more than 30 percent of transmission. This asymptomatic spread is hard to detect. Asymptomatic spread is compounded by shortcomings in the quality of testing. Currently available tests are fairly good, but do not reliably detect the coronavirus during the early phase of infection when viral concentrations can be low. Accordingly, identifying infection in the low-risk population would be difficult. These people could go on to infect high-risk populations because it is impossible to prevent contact between them. Sweden's herd immunity failure Without sharp isolation of these two populations, uncontrolled transmission in younger, healthier people risks significant illness and death across vulnerable populations. Both computer models and one real-world experiment back up these fears. A recent UK modeling effort assessed a range of relaxed suppression strategies and showed that none achieved herd immunity while also keeping cases below hospital capacity. This study estimated a fourfold increase in mortality among older people if only older people practice social distancing and the remainder of the population does not. But epidemiologists don't have to rely on computer models alone. Sweden tried this approach to infection-based herd immunity. It did not go well. Sweden's mortality rate is on par with Italy's and substantially higher than its neighbors. Despite this risky approach, Sweden's economy still suffered, and on top of that, nowhere near enough Swedes have been infected to get to herd immunity. As of August 2020, only about 7.1 percent of the country had contracted the virus, with the highest rate of 11.4 percent in Stockholm. This is far short of the estimated 50 percent-67 percent required to achieve herd immunity to the coronavirus. Exposure versus vaccination There is one final reason to doubt the efficacy of infection-based herd immunity: Contracting and recovering from the coronavirus might not even give immunity for very long. One CDC report suggests that "people appear to become susceptible to reinfection around 90 days after onset of infection." The potentially short duration of immunity in some recovered patients would certainly throw a wrench in such a plan. When combined with the fact that the highest estimates for antibody prevalence suggest that less than 10 percent of the US population has been infected, it would be a long, dangerous and potentially impassable road to infection-based herd immunity. But there is another way, one that has been done before: mass vaccination. Vaccine-induced herd immunity can end this pandemic the same way it has mostly ended measles, eradicated smallpox and nearly eradicated polio across the globe. Vaccines work. Until mass SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, social distancing and use of face coverings, with comprehensive case finding, testing, tracing and isolation, are the safest approach. These tried-and-true public health measures will keep viral transmission low enough for people to work and attend school while managing smaller outbreaks as they arise. It isn't a return to a totally normal life, but these approaches can balance social and economic needs with health. And then, once a vaccine is widely available, the country can move to herd immunity.
Sweden has now dropped to 51st in the number of total confirmed cases of Kung Flu per 1 million population.
Sweden has now dropped to number 17 on the list of countries in the category "deaths per 1 million population" from Kung Flu.
You just put your on editorial spin on a simple article. And implied you were summarizing the article.... especially your little spin about HCL... so passive aggressive of you to do that. The article really just looked at the data and explained what the data was showing. They seem to stop short of explaining why the mortality rate went down. here is the conclusion of the article.. Conclusions and implications This study reveals that there has been a decline in the mortality rates among hospitalized Swedish COVID-19 patients with time over the pandemic. This decline is independent of the pre-existing comorbidities among the patients. Authors call for further research to understand the reasons behind this decline. Authors write, "The changing covid-19 mortality should be taken into account when management and results of studies from the first pandemic wave are evaluated."
more fear mongering bullshit. Look at the mortality rate today... after their strategy was put in place. There mortality rate right not is the same or better than almost everywhere in Europe.
Let's go look at an article that outlines COVID-19 and deaths in detail... https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-covid-chronicles.351321/page-7#post-5237669 Be sure that not to miss the bolded text at the 3/4 point in the article stating - "As much as doctors have uncovered things that help Covid-19 patients, they also tried a lot of things that— at best — failed to help, and at worst, harmed patients, King College’s Mateen pointed out. (Think of early ventilation, or hydroxychloroquine.)" Hydroxychloroquine not only failed to provide any treatment benefit for COVID-19; it also killed a large number of patients.
Had you placed you summary of this article over that article it would have made more sense. We could have read that article and seen how accurate your summary was.