Shadow Dancer wrote:
More from Sweden. Their unique approach is not working very well.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-w … yptr=yahoo

While its death rate is higher the infection rate is only around 2/3 of the USA.
Any explanation?

nwprophoto wrote:
While its death rate is higher the infection rate is only around 2/3 of the USA.
Any explanation?

I strongly suspect it's the 'Surstömming', that Swedish people love more than any other food. It's prevalent throughout their entire country as a popular dish. Surströmming is also known as one of the most offensive delicacies in the world, rivaling other objectionable treats like southeast Asia's durian fruit or Norway's lutefisk.

Its aroma - or more accurately, stinky odor - is so pungent that it is banned from many Swedish apartment buildings and most airlines. It's suggested that you eat it outside away from other people.

So . . . my theory is this: If you eat Surströmming on a regular basis, nobody will even think of getting within 6 feet of you anyway, therefore social distancing is not the big issue in Sweden like it is here in the US.

However, once somebody in Sweden does catch Covid-19, their chance of survival is much less than here in the US

nwprophoto wrote:
While its death rate is higher the infection rate is only around 2/3 of the USA.
Any explanation?

Very much an Apples and Oranges comparison no matter how you slice it. There is nothing "Real World" about comparing the two countries.

First, note that "data" below is not all from the same date. Speculation (all you can reasonably obtain from me) based on this data has variables.

Overall premise is supported.

In some cases, finding specific data is more work than I can be bothered with, feel free to pursue further. Stockholm, largest city in Sweden, is spread across 14 islands as well as the mainland.

I am no expert. Best guess would be population density, the combined population of New York City and Los Angeles surpasses the total population of Sweden - 2019    10,327,600
Both of these cities have high population densities and high rates of infection.

NYC = 302.6 square miles
City of Los Angeles = 469 square miles
Sweden = 178,860 square miles. 2 largest cities below.
Stockholm – 1,515,017
Gothenburg – 599,011

One of the links to Sweden that I am quoting. Not my homework assignment, all yours if you want to dig deeper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden

Considerations below, I am not claiming them to be facts. There doesn't seem to be any underlying agenda to the page but that does not insure accuracy. Questioning does not suffice, one needs provable data that may not be forthcoming.

Approximately 85% of the country's population resides in villages with 200 persons or cities.[clarification needed][3] Six out of ten Swedes do not live in an urban system with 50,000+ inhabitants, as defined by OECD.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I strongly suspect it's the 'Surstömming',

I have heard about that stuff

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Very much an Apples and Oranges comparison no matter how you slice it. There is nothing "Real World" about comparing the two countries.

Read the other day 80% of the Canadian deaths occurred in nursing homes.
In Washington state 90% of the deaths were in the over 60 age group.

Given Sweden's lower infection rate I would think it demographics related
rather than their not taking a nanny state approach.
Just a guess on my part though.

nwprophoto wrote:
Read the other day 80% of the Canadian deaths occurred in nursing homes.
In Washington state 90% of the deaths were in the over 60 age group.

Given Sweden's lower infection rate I would think it demographics related
rather than their not taking a nanny state approach.
Just a guess on my part though.

It is demographics related. They have a low population density. That was my point above.

"Nanny state"? Wouldn't that include a Socialist Democracy where taxes are high and medical care is available for everybody, like Sweden?

If you prefer a Libertarian Paradise you could always consider Somalia. It is "do as you please - unless you get killed", freedom from restricting laws, freedom to act as you wish - perfect.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
It is demographics related. They have a low population density. That was my point above.

"Nanny state"? Wouldn't that include a Socialist Democracy where taxes are high and medical care is available for everybody, like Sweden?

If you prefer a Libertarian Paradise you could always consider Somalia. It is "do as you please - unless you get killed", freedom from restricting laws, freedom to act as you wish - perfect.

I was thinking age demographics. But just a guess.

Nanny State from Wikipedia

"Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing."

nwprophoto wrote:
Read the other day 80% of the Canadian deaths occurred in nursing homes.
In Washington state 90% of the deaths were in the over 60 age group.

Given Sweden's lower infection rate I would think it demographics related
rather than their not taking a nanny state approach.
Just a guess on my part though.

Just a guess, it is.  Along with a good dose of a cheap shot. 

A very quick search revealed:     

Care home residents account for nearly half of deaths linked to Covid-19 in Sweden. Some healthcare workers believe an institutional reluctance to admit patients to hospital is costing lives.

Most of the 3,698 people who have died from coronavirus in Sweden so far were over 70, despite the fact that the country said shielding risk groups was its top priority.

Sweden did ban visits to care homes on 31 March. But as in many European countries, relatives, staff and union officials have shared concerns that protective clothing arrived too late, and that some staff may have gone to work at the start of the crisis despite showing symptoms of Covid-19.

Now, increasing numbers of workers are also coming forward to criticise regional healthcare authorities for protocols which they say discourage care home workers from sending residents into hospital, and prevent care home and nursing staff from administering oxygen without a doctor's approval, either as part of acute or palliative (end-of-life) services.

"They told us that we shouldn't send anyone to the hospital, even if they may be 65 and have many years to live. We were told not to send them in,"
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … 4/19904955

In a way it appears, very cursory, that Sweden has embraced an approach much like the one suggested by the Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.  Sacrifice old people.  But that is just a guess, too, at least about what Sweden is doing.  Patrick was clear and continues on a path of sacrificing people.  Now the voters seem to be expendable.  Or maybe I made an irresponsible conclusion based on an insufficient amount of information, because, I admit, I am not really interested in researching this out while you make shallow effortless statements to muddy the waters.

Have you made any real comparisons to Sweden and the US, or parts of the US which may provide a similar sample?  The article in the market watch dot com wasn't exactly an in depth analysis.  More like click bait.

It would require an analysis of who is dying and why.  Comparisons of health care and nursing home residency in the two countries and comparing actions like NY sending sick people to nursing homes, or that the spread in WA seemed to be related to nursing homes, indicating an early infection point.  It would be difficult to render a meaningful comparison, once we made statistical adjustments for population differences, without considering the consequences of individual actions or inactions.

Nanny state?  Is that where tax breaks are given to the rich, so the poor can drown in the subsequent debt, thereby interfering in the right of the people to pursue happiness?    Or are you just opposed to the provision in the Constitution that establishes the common defense as the duty of the federal government?  Wouldn't you consider a response to a nationwide disease part of a common defense? Are you not aware that defense planners have considered bioterrorism scenarios long and hard, but now, in an event that would act very much like bioterrorism, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to the governors and cities, and then proceeded to interfere with the actions of the leaders that were actually doing something?  Is the alternative to a nanny state a corrupt, incompetent and ineffective government?  Because that is sure how our government looks from inside of the pandemic.

Does your wiki definition convey the common usage of the term Nanny State when it is applied by Americans to the American governments?

"Nanny state" seem to dismiss the responsibilities that the individuals of the society HAVE to the society.  I have yet to find any indication in the Constitution, that we do not owe each other our loyalty and unity.  The Declaration of Independence said, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands ..."  It did not say when it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve all responsibility to society.

nwprophoto wrote:
Read the other day 80% of the Canadian deaths occurred in nursing homes.
In Washington state 90% of the deaths were in the over 60 age group.

Yeah, just a bunch of people who got old and in the way.

nwprophoto wrote:
Given Sweden's lower infection rate I would think it demographics related
rather than their not taking a nanny state approach.
Just a guess on my part though.

LOL Nanny State?

That is rich. Sweden is one of THE most highly developed "nanny states" on the continent. It is often touted as a "democratic socialist paradise" by Bernie Sanders.....

edited for clarity: So you call Trump's inconsistent, patchwork, on again off again (non-existent) scheme  a nanny state?

OK.

nwprophoto wrote:
I was thinking age demographics. But just a guess.

[...]

As mentioned, it is nearly impossible to do a fair comparison of the two nations... different size - 10 million versus 330 million, different densities, and different social norms.

quick and dirty data from Wikipedia

Sweden

Approximately 85% of the country's population resides in villages with 200 persons or cities. Six out of ten Swedes do not live in an urban system with 50,000+ inhabitants, as defined by OECD.

population age:
    0-14 years: 17.54% )
    15-24 years: 11.06%
    25-54 years: 39.37%
    55-64 years: 11.67% )
    65 years and over: 20.37% 

32.04% 55 and older

US

The population is highly urbanized, with 82.3% of the population residing in cities and suburbs. Large urban clusters are spread throughout the eastern half of the United States (particularly the Great Lakes area, northeast, east, and southeast) and the western tier states;

population age:
    0–14 years: 18.62%
    15–24 years: 13.12%
    25–54 years: 39.29%
    55–64 years: 12.94%
    65 years and over: 16.03%

28.97% 55 and older

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Have you made any real comparisons to Sweden and the US, or parts of the US which may provide a similar sample?  The article in the market watch dot com wasn't exactly an in depth analysis.  More like click bait.

No, just guessing there is a lot more to it than the Market Watch article.
I think it should be pointed out that Spain, Italy, UK, France and Belgium
all have higher death rates than Sweden.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Nanny state?

.

Commonly used phrase. Did not know it was going to be controversial. Was not intended to be.

rfordphotos wrote:
Yeah, just a bunch of people who got old and in the way.

.

Have read the younger generation refer to the virus as the "boomer remover".

rfordphotos wrote:
Sweden is one of THE most highly developed "nanny states" on the continent.
.

Just in reference to the virus, not the system.

nwprophoto wrote:
Commonly used phrase. Did not know it was going to be controversial. Was not intended to be.

Really?  It is a dog whistle comment.

Do you think social security was some program that rose up without reason?  Are you aware of how many elderly people, widows and children of one or more deceased parents were dying of poverty prior to social security?  Did the government have no responsibility towards them?  Well, no, in theory, but I will circle back around to that after addressing those who did have the responsibility.  The churches were commanded by Christ or God to care for the poor, the widow and orphan, but the care that the poor, widows and orphans got, was abysmal.  That has not changed to this day.  So, at some point, poor laws were created because the government recognized its responsibility to the community and the common good, that it was best for the society, if those that were unfortunate had help.  It didn't make them well off, but the poor laws should have been of help.  The problem is that poor laws arrived so late in this country that they were rejected- oh wait, okay, it was late in the history of the continent, but the poor laws came over with the pilgrims.  But now, it is a @$%^&*%$@ affront to people to help the poor, as if the poor hadn't always been with us and as if their was no civic responsibility until the 1960s or some such dung, to help the poor.  And if you consider the native populations that were here first, they had a community that watched out for one another.  Who else was going to protect them against other nations?  So, the common good has been an issue on this continent for far longer than this country has existed.

OSHA didn't come along because the work places were safe.  Was the ACA something which just popped out of thin air while everyone was able to afford good and reliable health care?  The EPA didn't come along because everyone did whatever they could to not poison the communities around them.  And certainly laws that were designed to prevent voter suppression had nothing to do with poll taxes, literacy tests or racism.  Laws and regulations come about because of actors acting in their own best interest instead of the interest of the community.  It isn't the government taking care of us like we are little kids that can't take care of ourselves, like the term nanny state implies.   It is true that the population cannot stand up to the rich and powerful, who use the courts and violence to destroy and literally kill the citizens.  But that doesn't make the government our nanny.  The government IS US taking care of ourselves.

Now, in this time, in which laws and the rule of law have equalized the population and it is clear that we have rights, as it has been since the founding of our independence, some wish to deprive us of those rights by ridiculing others for endorsing protections that require the scale and power of a government to implement.  Yet some of those that derail "the political bands which have connected them (us) with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" will hold their hands out and rip money from the government and the taxpayer to support their riches while others loose their home and go hungry- or search for food under the disdain of those that feel any person that can't surmount all challenges and provide for themselves in even the most dire of circumstances, are less deserving of the freedoms, protections and rights, than the filthy rich, which find those things justly deserved.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  Can there be any doubt that this country was founded on the principals of promoting the common good?  And it was the common good that sustained this country through strife, civil conflict, and world wars?  And now we are to endure the common good, our very strength, being disdained by the ignorant as they tear the country apart for selfishness and greed?  Where as once we were taught that when one demands your coat, give them also your cloak, we have evolved to the glory of God to respond, "Get the heck away from me, bum."

nwprophoto wrote:
I was thinking age demographics. But just a guess.

Nanny State from Wikipedia

"Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing."

Population density is a big factor in comminicable disease, always has been and always will be.
That said, nobody is safe, anywhere due to the ease of travel and the real possibliity of a non-symptomatic carrier infecting people unknowingly.

I see imbeciles fighting for the right to go unmasked in retail outlets. Private property, nothing to do with the government.
I also see morons gathering in mass on public beaches, unmasked. They are expressing their "freedoms" I suppose.

Yes, denying others the freedom to be a potential death threat to others due to spreading infection by selfishly spewing infected air into their surroundings, that's what nanny states are all about.

Is that all you got, really - regurgitating far right talking points? I posted many pages back about valuing my own life more than I value money. You mentioned that you were being safe, mostly due to isolation.

A visit to our local hardware store might change your perspective. Even though they sell gloves and have them in stock, I no longer go there - too many inconsiderate, selfish, self-absorbed, over-indulgent people who have chosen their right to be a hazard to everybody around them over common sense.

Is that what "Rights" means to you? Because as far as I am concerned - your rights end where they impinge on the safety of other people. We lock up people when they shoot other people or drive cars into crowds and kill or injure others.

Exactly how is this different?

nwprophoto wrote:
Have read the younger generation refer to the virus as the "boomer remover".

yup, and it is a comfort to know that our nation will be in such forward thinking hands....

rfordphotos wrote:
how long do you suppose we have before the first wave of lawsuits against bars, gym, hairstylists etc etc  for "reckless disregard, resulting in injury or death"?

Probably more than a few ambulance chasers scheming on it right now.

Better off to go after something big, like a meat processing plant.

If the bar, gym or hairdresser is part of a chain you might do well too.

Shadow Dancer wrote:

Probably more than a few ambulance chasers scheming on it right now.

Better off to go after something big, like a meat processing plant.

If the bar, gym or hairdresser is part of a chain you might do well too.

ambulance chasers will go after the easy, low hanging fruit--- wont get millions but will make it up with volume,,,,

rfordphotos wrote:

ambulance chasers will go after the easy, low hanging fruit--- wont get millions but will make it up with volume,,,,

We may very well find out before too long.

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

100,000 stinking corpses that really aren't. Can't fool someone as brilliant as you by golly!

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

Most vague and uninformative post in the history of MM.

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

Would suggest you read this for perspective.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Ground- … 0262071460

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

Could you be more specific? When the presidency is being run by a professional con artist, where to begin?

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

Focuspuller wrote:
Could you be more specific?

Specific?!?! Flat-earthers have never been specific about where exactly the earth drops off into nothingness.

P.S. (I'll be frightened and appalled to hear whatever answer he gives.)

David L. Stevens wrote:
Biggest government scam in the history of the US.

You cant make broad statements like this about the Trump administration and not expect to get wild agreement on this forum. His administration has indeed been the biggest scam in US history, run by a con artist soon to run out of term, and immunity from prosecution.

rfordphotos wrote:
how long do you suppose we have before the first wave of lawsuits against bars, gym, hairstylists etc etc  for "reckless disregard, resulting in injury or death"?

The plaintiff would have to prove the bar, gym, hairstylist, etc was where he or she contracted the virus.  Unless this was the absolute only public place the plaintiff had visited, this would be difficult to prove.

The time between infection and symptoms varies between individuals, with many never experiencing symptoms.  So if a hairstylist and a client both test positive within a period of time, who is to say who infected who, or if they were already both infected at the time of the haircut.

Contact tracing only works as well as the honesty of the infected individual.

ethasleftthebuilding wrote:

The plaintiff would have to prove the bar, gym, hairstylist, etc was where he or she contracted the virus.  Unless this was the absolute only public place the plaintiff had visited, this would be difficult to prove.

The time between infection and symptoms varies between individuals, with many never experiencing symptoms.  So if a hairstylist and a client both test positive within a period of time, who is to say who infected who, or if they were already both infected at the time of the haircut.

Contact tracing only works as well as the honesty of the infected individual.

Good observations, it is a complex situation regarding proof, probably insurmountable.