Really? That's not what she said and you might want to take a look at Norway (I believe is the one that didn't lock down) compared to its neighbors. Good lockdown results in the countries that looked down.
It was Sweden, and its death rate is 6th or 8th highest in the world, worse than Holland, Germany, the US and all of Scandinavia so far.
Sunetra Gupta certainly has the credentials, but PP is so desperate to defend her/his idol PINO that s/he is cherry picking just one contrarian expert. Other epidemiologists will look at her work and that of others, weigh the evidence and draw the best conclusions that they can.
Really? That's not what she said and you might want to take a look at Norway (I believe is the one that didn't lock down) compared to its neighbors. Good lockdown results in the countries that looked down.
It was Sweden, and its death rate is 6th or 8th highest in the world, worse than Holland, Germany, the US and all of Scandinavia so far.
Sunetra Gupta certainly has the credentials, but PP is so desperate to defend her/his idol PINO that s/he is cherry picking just one contrarian expert. Other epidemiologists will look at her work and that of others, weigh the evidence and draw the best conclusions that they can.
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
I'm not a theoretical epidemiologist, or even theoretically an epidemiologist, but what the baseline issue is with the pandemic isn't so much virus behaviour but human behaviour. With a virus in the midst, people have to change from their "normal" behaviour to avoid getting/spreading it. And it's not easy nor fast to made wide-sweeping changes in the behaviour of an entire population without some drastic event. So when the virus was largely contained to China, America could have said, "hmmm, that virus is likely to arrive here, but if we all start keeping our distance from each other, avoiding touching common surfaces and washing our hands frequently, we can probably avoid a wide-spread infection." So businesses could have started putting in measures to keep people from being close - spreading tables at restaurants, installing plexiglass screens at check-outs and having people space 6 feet while in the lineup. And people, understanding that the virus could indeed wreak havoc with American health and economy, would have joined right in. They'd have made individual efforts to keep their distance, not piled on each other at beaches and backyard barbeques, kept themselves and their kids slathered in sanitizer, and cancelled their trip to Coachella. Just being aware that the virus would not be contained to China and that Americans could mostly stave it off here by changing their behaviour would bring everyone together in a unified effort and most everything could have stayed open, the economy would be less affected, way fewer people would contract the disease and way fewer would have died. Yep. That's what would have happened. And they would have all lived happily ever after. G'night, kiddies.
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
I expect pp to be along real soon to admit his mistake.
That's what happens when you have socialized medicine. What did you expect?
Also, that is what she said. She said the spread is the same in each country, not the infection mortality rate.
What does socialized medicine have to do with social distancing?
Sweden has 33,000 cases
Denmark has 11,000
Finland has 8,000
Norway has 6,500
Nothing. It has to do with the deaths per million. Haven't you noticed that all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death? OH, and they are buying ventilators from us because they can't make them.
It would be hard to find a better example than these 4 countries. All are similar in lifestyle, population, and location, but Sweden didn't lock down.
Sweden has 4,000 deaths
Denmark has 561
Finland has 307
Norway has 235
Will pp provide an alternative explanation?
The deaths per 1M are:
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
Sweden - 396 (8th worst in the world)
Denmark - 97 (26th worst in the world)
Finland - 55 (35th worst in the world)
Norway - 43 (42nd worst in the world)
US - 299 (12th worst in the world)
I expect pp to be along real soon to admit his mistake.
That's what happens when you have socialized medicine. What did you expect?
Also, that is what she said. She said the spread is the same in each country, not the infection mortality rate.
What does socialized medicine have to do with social distancing?
Sweden has 33,000 cases
Denmark has 11,000
Finland has 8,000
Norway has 6,500
Nothing. It has to do with the deaths per million. Haven't you noticed that all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death? OH, and they are buying ventilators from us because they can't make them.
I get it, you lost your original point, so you change it.
Or are you saying that Norway, with 235 deaths, its social distancing and economic slowdown, made a bad decision to take precautions
based on the fact that wide open Falkland Islands don't have any cases?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
I expect pp to be along real soon to admit his mistake.
That's what happens when you have socialized medicine. What did you expect?
Also, that is what she said. She said the spread is the same in each country, not the infection mortality rate.
What does socialized medicine have to do with social distancing?
Sweden has 33,000 cases
Denmark has 11,000
Finland has 8,000
Norway has 6,500
Nothing. It has to do with the deaths per million. Haven't you noticed that all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death? OH, and they are buying ventilators from us because they can't make them.
I get it, you lost your original point, so you change it.
Or are you saying that Norway, with 235 deaths, its social distancing and economic slowdown, made a bad decision to take precautions
based on the fact that wide open Falkland Islands don't have any cases?
Didn't lose anything. I correlated related issues. Maybe you lost since you can't defend your precious social medicine.
That's what happens when you have socialized medicine. What did you expect?
Also, that is what she said. She said the spread is the same in each country, not the infection mortality rate.
What does socialized medicine have to do with social distancing?
Sweden has 33,000 cases
Denmark has 11,000
Finland has 8,000
Norway has 6,500
Nothing. It has to do with the deaths per million. Haven't you noticed that all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death? OH, and they are buying ventilators from us because they can't make them.
I get it, you lost your original point, so you change it.
Or are you saying that Norway, with 235 deaths, its social distancing and economic slowdown, made a bad decision to take precautions
based on the fact that wide open Falkland Islands don't have any cases?
Didn't lose anything. I correlated related issues. Maybe you lost since you can't defend your precious social medicine.
Like they have in Norway?
What related issues did you "correlate"?
How could all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death, when we are the only western country without socialized medicine and, save a few ties, we have the greatest death rate?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
That's what happens when you have socialized medicine. What did you expect?
Also, that is what she said. She said the spread is the same in each country, not the infection mortality rate.
What does socialized medicine have to do with social distancing?
Sweden has 33,000 cases
Denmark has 11,000
Finland has 8,000
Norway has 6,500
Nothing. It has to do with the deaths per million. Haven't you noticed that all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death? OH, and they are buying ventilators from us because they can't make them.
I get it, you lost your original point, so you change it.
Or are you saying that Norway, with 235 deaths, its social distancing and economic slowdown, made a bad decision to take precautions
based on the fact that wide open Falkland Islands don't have any cases?
Didn't lose anything. I correlated related issues. Maybe you lost since you can't defend your precious social medicine.
Maybe if I ask again
Like they have in Norway?
What related issues did you "correlate"?
How could all of the western countries that have socialized medicine also have a greater rate of death, when we are the only western country without socialized medicine and, save a few ties, WE HAVE the GREATEST DEATH rate?
I'm sure that pp will become a great advocate of medicine for all, now that he has the facts
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
The term "socialized medicine" has been mis-used, mis-applied, and demonized for years. But taking divisive stereotyping out, I'd be interested in somebody explaining what is wrong with all residents in a country to have affordable and accessible healthcare coverage? PP? Want to have a go at it?
The term "socialized medicine" has been mis-used, mis-applied, and demonized for years. But taking divisive stereotyping out, I'd be interested in somebody explaining what is wrong with all residents in a country to have affordable and accessible healthcare coverage? PP? Want to have a go at it?
Agreed. If PP insists on whining s/he should at least get the basic terminology correct. EVERY other developed democracy has single payer. Some are socialized like the VA & UK, most are not like Medicare and Canada.
EACH of these nations gets comparable outcomes for 1/2 to 2/3 the per capita cost.
Plus, he's just not making sense. The US has the 12th worst deaths per 1M population. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
That means that almost all developed democracies and most of the other 169 other nations that also use single payer and where we have a death rate are doing better than we are with the parasitic Big Insurance that PP loves.
... True.