Corona virus

[58Miller]

I checked on Sweden’s numbers today. I think from the way Sweden handled the virus, children like here in the US seem to be immune from the virus. Teenagers and adults all the way up to their 50’s do well against the virus. All efforts should be used to protect the elderly and people with underlying conditions, they are the prey of this virus.

Good & The Bad
The Good news is that Sweden’s daily case counts that averaged close to 1,800 a day in the first 3 weeks of June has dropped down. Today the lowest new cases reported in a day with only 283.

The Bad: Many point to the death count in Sweden, if you look closer something will stick out to you. Of the 5,447 deaths, 4,821 were 70 years of age or older.
It’s sounds like many were not admitted to the ICU to leave it available for younger, healthier patients. Very sad.

“Analyzed by categorical age group, older Swedish patients with confirmed COVID-19 were more likely to die than to be admitted to the ICU, suggesting that predicted prognosis may have been a factor in ICU admission,” the researchers write in a study published online for the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2020/07/07/sweden-stayed-open-and-more-people-died-of-covid-19-but-the-real-reason-may-be-something-darker/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

[Peerless]

People can call me selfish but it is not my responsibility to protect vulnerable people, I am just going to carry on living my life as normal as possible. IF I was vulnerable and had health problems then it would be MY RESPONSIBILITY to shield and take extra precautions, no one elses. I wouldn't expect so many people to alter their way of live and risk their jobs for me, I would take it upon myself as an adult to protect myself..

Dude, I can't even believe you would write something like that.. And yet, you talk about the fact that there is a lot of "self-righteousness" going around right now. Hello!

[EddieMac]

This is similar to my point of view and experience. I've kept working the entire time (I'm considered an essential service). I also don't mind trying to do things to keep other people happy and safe, but the little things get to me, especially when people start lecturing about them. For instance:

I was in a grocery store a couple of weeks ago, and this store has arrows on the ground (I hate the arrows because they're irrational, if I'm going to get infected by someone because I'm going the other way in an aisle, than I'm probably going to get it going the same way as them...but I digress) and I was following the arrows, went down one aisle looking for a product my wife wanted, Diet Pepsi, upon seeing they were out of the bottles I took two or three steps back the opposite way to get her Coke Zero, and immediately a lady who works in the store started telling me that I'm not supposed to go against the arrows. I snapped at her a little bit (not really, just fired back at her in a snarky tone) and told her that sometimes people need to take a couple of steps back to get a different product when the one they want is out of stock, and she immediately apologized and walked away.

Those are the things that bother me right now, because it's irrational. Frankly if it were that easy to spread Covid, and someone had it, them doing an unnecessary loop to the end of the aisle, back down another aisle, and then back up the one they were originally in would be a lot more of an issue for spreading it than someone taking a few steps the opposite way.

I had an older lady scream at me about being too close to her... when she wasn’t following the “arrows” aisle after aisle and going totally against the flow... I quite firmly pointed that out to her her and expressed my feeling about her yelling at me....

[Peanut]

You're being level headed... I'll leave it at that, I have some things I wanna say towards the post you quoted, but we'll just stick to the nice CoC friendly "ignoring it exists"

You aren't.

Thank you.

[CanDB]

I checked on Sweden’s numbers today. I think from the way Sweden handled the virus, children like here in the US seem to be immune from the virus. Teenagers and adults all the way up to their 50’s do well against the virus. All efforts should be used to protect the elderly and people with underlying conditions, they are the prey of this virus.

Good & The Bad
The Good news is that Sweden’s daily case counts that averaged close to 1,800 a day in the first 3 weeks of June has dropped down. Today the lowest new cases reported in a day with only 283.

The Bad: Many point to the death count in Sweden, if you look closer something will stick out to you. Of the 5,447 deaths, 4,821 were 70 years of age or older.
It’s sounds like many were not admitted to the ICU to leave it available for younger, healthier patients. Very sad.

“Analyzed by categorical age group, older Swedish patients with confirmed COVID-19 were more likely to die than to be admitted to the ICU, suggesting that predicted prognosis may have been a factor in ICU admission,” the researchers write in a study published online for the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2020/07/07/sweden-stayed-open-and-more-people-died-of-covid-19-but-the-real-reason-may-be-something-darker/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...by-age-groups/

There are many who believe Sweden did it right, but since we all last discussed, I've read multiple articles stating that Sweden was not that wise after all.....especially with protecting their elderly. Two sides I suppose,

In the end, I think those who got it right were the governments who had a strong plan out of the gate, and provided all the support and guidance that was necessary in a pandemic. Lost time, inconsistent message, lack of resources was literally a killer.

[bronx_2003]

Dude, I can't even believe you would write something like that.. And yet, you talk about the fact that there is a lot of "self-righteousness" going around right now. Hello!

I think you will find that the majority of people are just going about their lives without taking ridiculous over-the-top measures, if you have beef with all of them then so be it. Everyone chooses how they want to go about their life and I would never tell anyone how to act, people should live and let live. The self-righteous people are the ones who think they can tell others what they should be doing because its what they want.

Someone earlier made the point about the supermarket arrows being irrational, a ton of stuff has been completely irrational, and the damage to the economy is terrible. All they needed to do was tell vulnerable people how to shield and help them financially, and help the care homes/elderly residential homes, instead of disrupting everyones life for something with such a low serious infection rate.

If you do not approve then so be it, a lot of measure have been crazy and I think your find that a majority feel the same.

[bronx_2003]

There are many who believe Sweden did it right, but since we all last discussed, I've read multiple articles stating that Sweden was not that wise after all.....especially with protecting their elderly. Two sides I suppose,

In the end, I think those who got it right were the governments who had a strong plan out of the gate, and provided all the support and guidance that was necessary in a pandemic. Lost time, inconsistent message, lack of resources was literally a killer.

Many people believe that Sweden's death rate would have been around the same whether they went into a strong lockdown or not, what they haven't done is destroyed their economy and left many out of work, they also haven't vastly increased their populations mental health problems

[CanDB]

Many people believe that Sweden's death rate would have been around the same whether they went into a strong lockdown or not, what they haven't done is destroyed their economy and left many out of work, they also haven't vastly increased their populations mental health problems

I will dig up the articles if I can, but the bottom line is that Sweden is not the utopia that some will try to lead you to believe. Even so, even if they were doing the best (which I doubt rivals South Korea for one), there are likely factors involved that do not transfer from one country to another. For example, Sweden's population may be healthier overall....which I actually believe is a factor. Maybe they have better hygiene/maturity when it comes to dealing with the situation.

But I have definitely read/heard that some wish it had been handled differently.

Bottom line.....good for them in general, because yes, though they will have economic loss (which they are), they did follow their plan, and even if not perfect, it was fairly successful, based on the last I saw. But too many deaths in my opinion.

UPDATE:

Here's just one article. Not a bad story, but one that suggests that the approach was good, but not near perfect. As their head Epidemiologist said:

“If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing precisely what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done.”

Or as a Swedish Professor of infectious medicine stated:

“I know that many countries looked at Sweden as a good example of an open society. We had a relatively low number of cases. And then it started to skyrocket. We understood absolutely nothing,” he told The Washington Post.

As for their economy....

Sweden’s approach hasn’t salvaged its economy which is expected to shrink by seven per cent in 2020 with the finance minister stating the country is headed for “a very deep economic crisis”.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-sweden-admits-it-should-have-tackled-covid19-differently/news-story/7bc4ed32ff27cd42307c3a0960ddd896

[atwaterandstir]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html

CDC states
The number of positive tests in a state is not equal to the number of cases, as one person may be tested more than once.

Is this not problematic with how many are being "updated"?
New cases should mean new cases. It should not mean 1 person who tests positive and then tests again.
One person could theoretically be tested once (positive) once more (confirmation against false positive) once again days later (feeling good with treatment but still positive) and then a few days later (negative).

This person would have been reported numbers wise as 3 positive cases. This is not right and needs to be more transparent. How many of today's "new cases" have already been counted and related to us as a new case on Friday?

How many of today's "new cases" are truly the second test just confirming against a false positive? A third test? A fourth?
We have been told everyone who gets tested (positive) gets another confirmation test before expensive treatments or options are pursued. Does this not create a minimum of 2 positives per case?

[CanDB]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ing-in-us.html
CDC states
The number of positive tests in a state is not equal to the number of cases, as one person may be tested more than once.

Is this not problematic with how many are being "updated"?
New cases should mean new cases. It should not mean 1 person who tests positive and then tests again.
One person could theoretically be tested once (positive) once more (confirmation against false positive) once again days later (feeling good with treatment but still positive) and then a few days later (negative).

This person would have been reported numbers wise as 3 positive cases. This is not right and needs to be more transparent. How many of today's "new cases" have already been counted and related to us as a new case on Friday?

How many of today's "new cases" are truly the second test just confirming against a false positive? A third test? A fourth?
We have been told everyone who gets tested (positive) gets another confirmation test before expensive treatments or options are pursued. Does this not create a minimum of 2 positives per case?

Not sure if that's the process, but to be honest, I don't think the number of cases matters nearly as much as hospitalization rates and deaths. Having said that, having high case rates is a sign that there is work to be done. But conversely, I am quite sure that whatever case number you see reported, the true number of folks who have been infected is probably much higher...even if they are following the methodology you mention.

[Peerless]

I think you will find that the majority of people are just going about their lives without taking ridiculous over-the-top measures, if you have beef with all of them then so be it. Everyone chooses how they want to go about their life and I would never tell anyone how to act, people should live and let live. The self-righteous people are the ones who think they can tell others what they should be doing because its what they want.

Someone earlier made the point about the supermarket arrows being irrational, a ton of stuff has been completely irrational, and the damage to the economy is terrible. All they needed to do was tell vulnerable people how to shield and help them financially, and help the care homes/elderly residential homes, instead of disrupting everyones life for something with such a low serious infection rate.

If you do not approve then so be it, a lot of measure have been crazy and I think your find that a majority feel the same.

Sorry bronx - but comparing your lack of duty or responsibility to protect vulnerable people against the foolishness of supermarket arrow guidelines for throughput is completely irrational, and not even close to the same level. I mean - they are arrows... ARROWS on the floor to help promote throughput and social distancing. What is the big friggin deal? Because someone is telling or guiding others to help promote safety?

You say it's not your job to protect vulnerable people. I'd like for you to tell that to someone in your family, close group of friends, or to a community leader who IS vulnerable.

You don't have to rationalize your statement to me or anyone else here to try and make it "okay." I think both you and I and everyone else here knows that deep down, that that's not the type of person you are - and you would care for those who are at risk.

[Butler By'Note]

Sorry bronx - but comparing your lack of duty or responsibility to protect vulnerable people against the foolishness of supermarket arrow guidelines for throughput is completely irrational, and not even close to the same level. I mean - they are arrows... ARROWS on the floor to help promote throughput and social distancing. What is the big friggin deal? Because someone is telling or guiding others to help promote safety?

You say it's not your job to protect vulnerable people. I'd like for you to tell that to someone in your family, close group of friends, or to a community leader who IS vulnerable.

You don't have to rationalize your statement to me or anyone else here to try and make it "okay." I think both you and I and everyone else here knows that deep down, that that's not the type of person you are - and you would care for those who are at risk.

Do the arrows promote safety though? I know it makes it look like they're doing something, but what do they do to stop the spread? If someone coughs in the air (assuming we accept it's an airborne virus) then the people walking behind are likely to get it, just as people would walking the opposite direction. And in every grocery store I've got in that has them, they don't have them in high traffic areas like the meat department, dairy case and vegetables. So are they effective

The arrows on the ground do nothing to keep people safe, but they make people think that something is being done to keep them safe. But in every grocery store I've gone in that has them, they don't have them in high traffic areas like the meat department, dairy case and vegetables. So if they're keeping people safe why aren't they there? If they're not keeping people safe, why have them?

[CanDB]

Do the arrows promote safety though? I know it makes it look like they're doing something, but what do they do to stop the spread? If someone coughs in the air (assuming we accept it's an airborne virus) then the people walking behind are likely to get it, just as people would walking the opposite direction. And in every grocery store I've got in that has them, they don't have them in high traffic areas like the meat department, dairy case and vegetables. So are they effective

The arrows on the ground do nothing to keep people safe, but they make people think that something is being done to keep them safe. But in every grocery store I've gone in that has them, they don't have them in high traffic areas like the meat department, dairy case and vegetables. So if they're keeping people safe why aren't they there? If they're not keeping people safe, why have them?

As Brent says....what is the big friggin deal? Really, this is a problem? Companies are doing everything they can to encourage safety, changing the way they do things, sanitizing repetitively, re-engineering as required. And this goes for restaurants and most other businesses. They are trying their best. I do think arrows are a tiny bit of a pain, but prior to, people were walking towards and behind, and it was getting cluttered. And some do not understand what 6 feet is when they talk. Still don't. And though we are about a week without a case, I still believe in distancing and masks. In fact, I wear a mask fairly often when going to stores and other tight places. It's actually not much of a sacrifice. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

My question to those here who are not fans of social distancing, etc. (not saying you Butler).....if you ran a business and were responsible for safety and the potential impacts of infections in your business, would you not go the extra mile? Or would you just hope for the best??

[Butler By'Note]

As Brent says....what is the big friggin deal? Really, this is a problem? Companies are doing everything they can to encourage safety, changing the way they do things, sanitizing repetitively, re-engineering as required. And this goes for restaurants and most other businesses. They are trying their best. I do think arrows are a tiny bit of a pain, but prior to, people were walking towards and behind, and it was getting cluttered. And some do not understand what 6 feet is when they talk. Still don't. And though we are about a week without a case, I still believe in distancing and masks. In fact, I wear a mask fairly often when going to stores and other tight places. It's actually not much of a sacrifice. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

My question to those here who are not fans of social distancing, etc. (not saying you Butler).....if you ran a business and were responsible for safety and the potential impacts of infections in your business, would you not go the extra mile? Or would you just hope for the best??

I really have no problem with the arrows (although they're useless) my problem is with the busy bodies who start yelling when you take three steps against the arrow to grab a different product.

As for you wearing a mask, that's awesome, keep it up.

[bronx_2003]

As Brent says....what is the big friggin deal? Really, this is a problem? Companies are doing everything they can to encourage safety, changing the way they do things, sanitizing repetitively, re-engineering as required. And this goes for restaurants and most other businesses. They are trying their best. I do think arrows are a tiny bit of a pain, but prior to, people were walking towards and behind, and it was getting cluttered. And some do not understand what 6 feet is when they talk. Still don't. And though we are about a week without a case, I still believe in distancing and masks. In fact, I wear a mask fairly often when going to stores and other tight places. It's actually not much of a sacrifice. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

My question to those here who are not fans of social distancing, etc. (not saying you Butler).....if you ran a business and were responsible for safety and the potential impacts of infections in your business, would you not go the extra mile? Or would you just hope for the best??

Its just one of many things that are a hassle. Life is hard enough as it is, I work long hours and during my free time I don't want to be queing for everything, wondering if I need a mask to certain places, following stupid arrows around a supermarket so I have to go down literally every single aisle.

I believe that there are a lot of things put in place to appease certain groups of people so the leaders don't get criticised, but many of them don't really make a difference.

Bottom line is I have seen the news and the stats, if I am under 70 and not got bad health problems there is a 0.3 pc chance of me contracting this and getting serious problems in hospital. That is far too low for me to change the way I live, and there is always risk in live. Accidents, illness, and death was around before covid and will be around when its gone. Why should I make my life much worse with such a risiculously piddley chance of having this seriously.