Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

ok - you are the scientist - are all your fellow scientists suggesting a mortality rate of 0.3 for the virus lying ?
is that what you are suggesting.

I have no agenda , just facts, not scaremongering facts that are used to scare an already over frightened public.

I`m not a scientist, but I can do basic mathematics.
You do not have facts. You are simply guessing or uninformed.

The simple facts are that in Ireland at present the ratio of death to confirmed cases is 2.86%.


I`m not guessing, or attempting to scare or frighten anyone. Just posting verifiable facts.
Again, can you point to any country that has a ratio of this 0.3% of deaths to confirmed cases ?

Alf Veedersane

You're comparing different rates.

The higher is the case fatality rate and the lower is the infection fatality rate.

charlie14

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're comparing different rates.

The higher is the case fatality rate and the lower is the infection fatality rate.

I do not know who you are referring to but if you have 71,696 confirmed cases and 2,043 deaths as is the case at present in Ireland, then your fatality rate to confirmed cases is 2.86%

Alf Veedersane

charlie14 wrote: »

I do not know who you are referring to but if you have 71,696 confirmed cases and 2,043 deaths as is the case at present in Ireland, then your fatality rate to confirmed cases is 2.86%

I'm not correcting you. What you're presenting is the case fatality rate.

The other poster appears to be talking about the infection fatality rate.

thebaz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm not correcting you. What you're presenting is the case fatality rate.

The other poster appears to be talking about the infection fatality rate.

Thank you , some people just want to consume and project worst case scenario figures, and thus spread more fear to an already over anxious public. That was my point.

charlie14

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm not correcting you. What you're presenting is the case fatality rate.

The other poster appears to be talking about the infection fatality rate.

Apologies. I wasn`t sure what your point was as it was general rather than addressed to a particular poster.
The other poster made it clear in at least one of his/her posts that the reference was the mortality rate to confirmed cases.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Apologies. I wasn`t sure what your point was as it was general rather than addressed to a particular poster.
The other poster made it clear in at least one of his/her posts that the reference was the mortality rate to confirmed cases.

I stated mortality rate of Covid - i.e. the overall projected mortality rate - the average risk of dying from virus.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

Thank you , some people just want to consume and project worst case scenario figures, and thus spread more fear to an already over anxious public. That was my point.

Your point was that deaths to confirmed cases was 0.3%.
Mine was that you were totally incorrect, and the figure you said that needed to be aired is not 0.3%. For Ireland at present that figure is 2.86% and for Sweden during the first wave it was 6%.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Your point was that deaths to confirmed cases was 0.3%.

I never used that term - I'm done .

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I stated mortality rate of Covid - i.e. the overall projected mortality rate - the average risk of dying from virus.

So you believe that based on your 0.3% that Sweden will have over 30,000 deaths from Covid-19 and Ireland over 15,000.
Is that not a figure that people in both countries should not be anxious about?

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I never used that term - I'm done .

It was the point you were attempting to make, and 0.3% was the figure you used attempting to make it.
You continually stuck with it, even telling me to "cop on" when it had been shown to you as totally incorrect

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

So you believe that based on your 0.3% that Sweden will have over 30,000 deaths from Covid-19 and Ireland over 15,000.
Is that not a figure that people in both countries should not be anxious about?

What are you talking about - the average mortality rate will be around 0.3. %. - Thats it - Whats with the dramatic projections of 15,000 deaths in ireland when ther is only around 72,000 cases in country - and a vaccine due next month - are you winding me up ?

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

What are you talking about - the average mortality rate will be around 0.3. %. - Thats it - Whats with the dramatic projections of 15,000 deaths in ireland when ther is only around 72,000 cases in country - are you winding me up ?

It`s not rocket science.

If you have 10 million plus of a population, similar to Sweden,. then a mortality rate of 0.3% is 30 thousand plus.
Population of 5 million like Ireland then that equates to 15 thousand deaths.
It`s just simple mathematics. That is not based on my figures but on yours.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s not rocket science.

If you have 10 million plus of a population, similar to Sweden,. then a mortality rate of 0.3% is 30 thousand plus.
Population of 5 million like Ireland then that equates to 15 thousand deaths.
It`s just simple mathematics. That is not based on my figures but on yours.

sorry man - I've more to do that argue utter nonsense on boards on a Saturday night - believe what you will , believe we all might die , and some day we will , but I'm not biting any more - take a rest

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

sorry man - I've more to do that argue utter nonsense on boards on a Saturday night - believe what you will , believe we all might die , and some day we will , but I'm not biting any more - take a rest

Well if you have better to do, then go and do it and stop posting utter nonsense wasting peoples time long after you knew you were doing so but still kept insisting you were right.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

but still kept insisting you were right.

thats cause i was

L1m1tless

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s not rocket science.

If you have 10 million plus of a population, similar to Sweden,. then a mortality rate of 0.3% is 30 thousand plus.
Population of 5 million like Ireland then that equates to 15 thousand deaths.
It`s just simple mathematics. That is not based on my figures but on yours.

You assumed 100% of people will get the virus
:pac:

Alf Veedersane

thebaz wrote: »

Thank you , some people just want to consume and project worst case scenario figures, and thus spread more fear to an already over anxious public. That was my point.

Well, not quite. You were saying he was wrong. He wasn't. Just stating a different ratio, which is based on confirmed cases and deaths. That's not worst-case scenario; just the CFR.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

thats cause i was

LOL.No you were not.

Your 0.3% of deaths to confirmed cases was totally incorrect.
Not only did I show how wrong you were, you could not come up with a single country to back it up.
If your 0.3% of overall mortality due to Covid-19 is what you claim, then you are predicting 30,000 plus deaths for Sweden and 15,000 for Ireland. Figures you claimed that should not be looked on with anxiety as regards this virus.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

If your 0.3% of overall mortality due to Covid-19 is what you claim, then you are predicting 30,000 plus deaths for Sweden and 15,000 for Ireland. Figures you claimed that should not be looked on with anxiety as regards this virus.

You are the one predicting dramatic deaths of 15,000 and 30,000 - I said the mortality rate is 0.3 for thiose that get the virus - no ****ing more - stop lying to suit your agenda

charlie14

L1m1tless wrote: »

You assumed 100% of people will get the virus
:pac:

I wasn`t. It was nothing to do with 100% infections. I was pointing out that the the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases of 0.3% was totally incorrect and that if the same 0.3% was applicable nationally then Sweden would have over 30,000 deaths from Covid-19 going forward, and Ireland 15,000.

Ginger n Lemon

Jaysus this thread turned into bareknuckle boxing fight.

I got my money on Baz.

Also, I dont know if posters in this thread think of mortalities as a key statistic when assessing whether a covid strategy is successful or not, but according to total deaths for 2020 Sweden will fare better than 2018. 2017.

As at 13 November anyways. 6 weeks to go.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/




Or is it all about "cases"?

Alf Veedersane

charlie14 wrote: »

LOL.No you were not.

Your 0.3% of deaths to confirmed cases was totally incorrect.
Not only did I show how wrong you were, you could not come up with a single country to back it up.
If your 0.3% of overall mortality due to Covid-19 is what you claim, then you are predicting 30,000 plus deaths for Sweden and 15,000 for Ireland. Figures you claimed that should not be looked on with anxiety as regards this virus.

Since he's likely referring to the IFR, then the ratio is based on deaths as a proportion of the number or actual cases, ie confirmed + those who had it but weren't tested. That won't be the whole population.

An IFR of 0.3 would mean a total of 685,000 people have actually had Covid and for every confirmed case there would be 8 cases that didn't generate a positive test.

thebaz

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Jaysus this thread turned into bareknuckle boxing fight.
?

I wanted to leave - but I won't be lied to - no more

thebaz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Since he's likely referring to the IFR, then the ratio is based on deaths as a proportion of the number or actual cases, ie confirmed + those who had it but weren't tested. That won't be the whole population.

yes, I thought that would be obvious , but obviously not.

Ginger n Lemon

thebaz wrote: »

I wanted to leave - but I won't be lied to - no more

In that case you are unlikely to leave this thread anytime soon.

alias no.9

charlie14 wrote: »

Your point was that deaths to confirmed cases was 0.3%.
Mine was that you were totally incorrect, and the figure you said that needed to be aired is not 0.3%. For Ireland at present that figure is 2.86% and for Sweden during the first wave it was 6%.

Comparing cases from country to country when the criteria for testing people are vastly different is utterly meaningless. In fact just within Ireland comparing cases from March/April with cases from October/November because we've changed the criteria for testing people. The hospitalizations, ICU and mortality rates are a much more reliable basis for comparison.

If you look at the mortality rate by population, 6681 from a population of 10.23million, it certainly looks worse than Irelands 2050 from 4.9million, 65 vs 42 deaths per hundred thousand population, Sweeden had a whopping 56% higher mortality rate.

If you take a step back however and consider the the vast majority of the the unfortunate deaths were amongst the elderly, >90% of mortalities in Ireland have been amongst the over 65's, maybe a better comparison would be mortality rates per population aged 65 and over. When you do this, you get numbers of 327 vs 296 per hundred thousand population over 65 years, Sweeden is now only 10% higher with a very simple demographic correction, you may find the differences to be negligible if you did a full demographic correction but the magnitude of the simple correction should be more than enough to illustrate the point.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

You are the one predicting dramatic deaths of 15,000 and 30,000 - I said the mortality rate is 0.3 for thiose that get the virus - no ****ing more - stop lying

Stop digging.
It was you that claimed the 0.3% that would result in 30,000 and 15,000 deaths. Personally I think it is rubbish tbh.
Do yourself a favour, do a bit of research before wasting peoples time and showing just how ill informed you are. There is nowhere I know of (and after asking numerous times apparently neither do you) where the mortality rate for those that have been infected by this virus is 0.3%
.

Ginger n Lemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

Comparing cases from country to country when the criteria for testing people are vastly different is utterly meaningless. In fact just within Ireland comparing cases from March/April with cases from October/November because we've changed the criteria for testing people. The hospitalizations, ICU and mortality rates are a much more reliable basis for comparison.

If you look at the mortality rate by population, 6681 from a population of 10.23million, it certainly looks worse that Irelands 2050 from 4.9million, 65 vs 42 deaths per hundred thousand population, Sweeden had a whopping 56% higher mortality rate.

If you take a step back however and consider the the vast majority of the the unfortunate deaths were amongst the elderly, <90% of mortalities in Ireland have been amongst the over 65's, maybe a better comparison would be mortality rates per population aged 65 and over. When you do this, you get numbers of 327 vs 296 per hundred thousand population over 65 years, Sweeden is now only 10% higher with a very simple demographic correction, you may find the differences to be negligible if you did a full demographic correction but the magnitude of the simple correction should be more than enough to illustrate the point.

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop digging.
It was you that claimed the 0.3% that would result in 30,000 and 15,000 deaths. Personally I think it is rubbish tbh.
Do yourself a favour, do a bit of research before wasting peoples time and showing just how ill informed you are. There is nowhere I know of (and after asking numerous times apparently neither do you) where the mortality rate for those that have been infected by this virus is 0.3%
.

Charlie14.

It seems like Sweden didnt do that bad afterall :cool:. according to research from no.9

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop digging.
It was you that claimed the 0.3% that would result in 30,000 and 15,000 deaths. Personally I think it is rubbish tbh.

.

Stop ****ing lying - you are the one suggesting dramatic deaths of 15 and 30 thousand.
I said a mortality rate of 0.3 - no ****ing more - you broght up these figures (15,0000 and 30,000 ) - and then said I didnt care. Which is a lie.