Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Run the numbers in terms of future life years lost in Sweden. It's removing the old:

Upwards of 70% of the Covid19 death toll in Sweden has been people in elderly care services (as of mid-May 2020). We summarize the Covid19 tragedy in elderly care in Sweden, particularly in the City of Stockholm. We explain the institutional structure of elderly care administration and service provision. Those who died of Covid19 in Stockholm’s nursing homes had a life-remaining median somewhere in the range of 5 to 9 months. Having contextualized the Covid19 problem in City of Stockholm, we present an interview of Barbro Karlsson, who works at the administrative heart of the Stockholm elderly care system. Her institutional knowledge and sentiment offer great insight into the concrete problems and challenges. There are really two sides to the elderly care Covid19 challenge: The vulnerability and frailty of those in nursing homes and the problem of nosocomial infection—that is, infection caused by contact with others involved in the elderly care experience. The problem calls for targeted solutions by those close to the vulnerable individuals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369443/

As you enter your senior years, I say, meh, he was never that useful anyways.

Not surprisingly, deaths are disproportionately among the old (and other vulnerable populations) almost everywhere. But even if you're ready to dismiss 2/3 of the deaths as "eh, it's just Mom", Sweden is still a shitshow worse than most other shitshows. And that 5-9 month median remaining life - what bullshit is that? There is virtually no age at which remaining life is that short. Look at an actuarial table. Future life expectancy doesn't get that short until you are well past 100 years old. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html(But now I see what you did - that article is written by a sociologist - e.g., someone with no relevant expertise and little understanding of either stats or healthcare).


And besides the deaths, this is a disease that leaves many of those who contract it with lifelong impairments that will have social and personal costs. The toll will be felt for several decades.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As you enter your senior years, I say, meh, he was never that useful anyways.

Not surprisingly, deaths are disproportionately among the old (and other vulnerable populations) almost everywhere. But even if you're ready to dismiss 2/3 of the deaths as "eh, it's just Mom", Sweden is still a shitshow worse than most other shitshows. And that 5-9 month median remaining life - what bullshit is that? There is virtually no age at which remaining life is that short. Look at an actuarial table. Future life expectancy doesn't get that short until you are well past 100 years old. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html(But now I see what you did - that article is written by a sociologist - e.g., someone with no relevant expertise and little understanding of either stats or healthcare).


And besides the deaths, this is a disease that leaves many of those who contract it with lifelong impairments that will have social and personal costs. The toll will be felt for several decades.

Life expectancy once you're in a nursing home has to be lower than the overall age cohort, though.

That said, Minnesota is running at about 74% of deaths in long term care facilities, so Sweden is doing slightly worse on non-long term care deaths than Minnesota.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

As you enter your senior years, I say, meh, he was never that useful anyways.

But life years lost is significant measurement. Metastatic melanoma or triple negative breast cancer are quite rare, but in terms of life years taken, because they often target the young, they outpace far more common cancers like CLL or colon.

And besides the deaths, this is a disease that leaves many of those who contract it with lifelong impairments that will have social and personal costs. The toll will be felt for several decades.

That will be an interesting facet of this going forward. The cardiac impacts I'm reading about could force a lot of people into very costly procedures and therapies they'd otherwise have avoided. I think that's a very big unknown unknown here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Did I see CDC numbers that only 10% of the infected get tested?

How could they know? Where does that denominator come from?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dude, you're a PI guy. i know you can do the math in your sleep. 25 million.

Said Johns Manville to its insurers after the first lawsuit.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How are you so sure? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mar...ing-2020-08-24

7th Highest death rate.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yeah, I was wrong.

But even at a loss of two million lives, statistically, it's not enormous: .00608273 (2mil/328.2mil)

Then you have to factor in how many of those deaths were among the significantly aged, to assess life years lost. Increasingly, you get a picture, particularly in Sweden, of a disease that has hunted the old and co-morbidity-riddled most perniciously.

Is that acceptable here (as it is among policy makers in Sweden)? Most would say if it were preventable, no. If this was not preventable save pre-emptive actions that had to have been taken long ago and could not be taken fast enough when we were caught flat footed, you'd have to list those deaths as largely unpreventable. They'd be sad consequences of policy inaction. But netted against them must be the offset for life years lost, and when you consider this disease thankfully does not end many young lives or healthy lives with many future life years to look forward to, you see a reason to make the argument, "This is not good, and not acceptable, but it's also not an apocalypse, and people should be a bit less alarmist and more circumspect in their thinking about the situation."

"But we must do all at any cost to save lives!" is a comment I hear a lot. It's a great emotive response to someone asserting that we need a balanced approach that takes the economy and the value of preserving some normalcy into account. I'd say wearing masks and observing social distancing while the scientists develop more therapies and hopefully a vaccine seems a reasonable way to approach life right now. I have no patience for anyone who refuses to wear a mask. It's ludicrous. But I also have no patience for anyone who asserts that this was entirely preventable or that we should engage in national or even regional lockdowns bacause "lives!!!"

This is bad. But as grandmother (mine lived thru the 1918 flu) would have said, "stiff upper lip." It doesn't take much to be careful. Do so.

That's only if masks and social distancing doesn't work.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How could they know? Where does that denominator come from?

fuck, I don't know. I just read it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

fuck, I don't know. I just read it.

You and your blogs. SMH.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

fuck, I don't know. I just read it.

I think the epidemiologists have models and ways to speculate, but I haven't heard any of them say anything with great confidence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Trump is trying his utmost to fuck things up.

The CDC was instructed by higher-ups within the Trump admin to modify its coronavirus testing guidelines this week to exclude people who do not have symptoms of Covid-19 — even if they have been recently exposed to the virus.

NYT via Twitter

Seriously, WTF?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hope you can stay safe, RT.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

7th Highest death rate.

We shall see. Their current infection and death rate is very low right now. If they have achieved some sort of herd immunity, their ranking by death rate should plummet.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

We shall see. Their current infection and death rate is very low right now. If they have achieved some sort of herd immunity, their ranking by death rate should plummet.

Am I on ignore?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Am I on ignore?

Well, not per se.