Coronavirus Deaths per Capita

Gm0ney

Unicorns salient
Oct 12, 2011
14,428
12,680
Winnipeg
The idea that Louisiana is the only state going through a "second wave" is so cute.

It's like all these other states had a "first wave" and were trending downward and felt like they were passed the first wave. Now they are getting hit hard, causing the scale of graphs to change, and all of a sudden we're acting like it just didn't happen
Leaving aside the "first wave/second wave" semantics, Louisiana got hit pretty hard earlier. But different counties are bearing the brunt of new cases now and the ones afflicted before are not seeing a steep increase - so it seems something is going on. Whether it's because they saw the light in those early hit places, or there's some herd immunity there, or something else, it's hard to say.
 

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,627
2,226
Ottawa
Of course, but policy decisions going forward should of course be based on reality going forward, and not how things were but won't be again. Right?

Its the same in NYC, I assume. From my POV, I think its safe to assume that multiple factors plays a part in the development. People could be slightly more careful in NYC than in states where infections are peaking right now. Compared to the spring, climate are surely less favorable then compared to now for the virus. Its vacation time, less people at work. Etc etc etc.

But its also a fact that in the calculations and policy decisions, immunity was assumed to have a very marginal effect if any at all.

Agreed. Maybe someone should tell Tegnell that.
 

Snauen

Registered User
Dec 27, 2017
1,349
526
I don't think it really explains much of it at all. I looked through the stuff in there, and all it tells me is that Giesecke is sort of the 'godfather' of Swedish epidemiology, and a lot of senior staffers in the public health sector admire him.

It's not illegal for them to get advice from someone they consider a highly competent expert. In fact, I suspect if his advice had been the other direction you would have welcomed it. It's also not obvious at all from all the stuff written that any of it - from his consulting contract with some financial institution to his wife's dealings - played any role in what his advice was. It's shoddy public administrative practice but hardly the root cause of the Swedish strategy.

The root cause of the Swedish strategy is that the leaders who made these decisions had these opinions, and we can say that those opinions are false, that they're due to the arrogance of a few leading men etc. etc. but that just means it's a false strategy as per your or my opinion. Now I would probably say that about a good few other government strategies and that's what elections are for - punish the government for pursuing the wrong strategy. No-one's going to be prosecuted for this, you can just vote them out.
Since you like to know more, as your username tells me. I'll take time to answer the last part of that post too.

In Sweden we have a special legislation/law for people working at authoritys. It's called "ansvarsfrihet", translated to "free from responsibillity". This thing was implemented in the 70's . The cause was said to be that noone would want to take job in theese places if there wasnt this releif for them in responsibillity.

Of course seasoned authority-vets like Giesecke and Tegnell are going to screw things up if responsibillity of an entire nation is handed to them!. After all, they are broilered in a working culture/place where grownups have the same level of responsibillity as small children in real life.

It does not matter who we vote in politicly. Sweden still have thousands of authoritys (yes its true.) . Who have theese 100 of thousands of people working for them. Most of them at "no meaning, bullshit-jobs" and whitout responsibillity. Its a system failiure actually.
 
Last edited:

Big Muddy

Registered User
Dec 15, 2019
8,583
4,085
Here is the argument you made a month ago.

Yeah, that turned out wonderfully for you. You probably didn't think you were the one who was being proven wrong 100% of the time.

You keep selectively trying to use only the data that proves your point.


I just ignore some folks. It seems to the best strategy for those that are constantly wrong, but continue to argue the same points.

There's been so many of these false claims and denials that have ultimately proven to be wrong and have crumbled, I've lost count. I've noticed that a lot of the usual suspects have disappeared though. I guess they've finally figured out how ridiculous they've looked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic

voxel

Testicle Terrorist
Feb 14, 2007
19,961
4,379
Florida
Florida's "first wave" is finally declining - the lockdown happened when there were so few cases (outside of Miami) and the re-opening in June/July caused a spike that lasted 6+ weeks. 10K new cases per day and 150-200 new daily deaths. Finally Florida has fallen under 4K new cases.... of course FDOH also says the data is a week or so old so this actually happened a while back.

Coronavirus: Florida reports 3,899 new cases of coronavirus Sunday

Florida Coronavirus: 573,416 Cases and 9,453 Deaths (COVID-19 ) - Worldometer
 

GreytWun

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
1,738
1,839
Ontario
Florida's "first wave" is finally declining - the lockdown happened when there were so few cases (outside of Miami) and the re-opening in June/July caused a spike that lasted 6+ weeks. 10K new cases per day and 150-200 new daily deaths. Finally Florida has fallen under 4K new cases.... of course FDOH also says the data is a week or so old so this actually happened a while back.

Coronavirus: Florida reports 3,899 new cases of coronavirus Sunday

Florida Coronavirus: 573,416 Cases and 9,453 Deaths (COVID-19 ) - Worldometer

Cases and Deaths always lag on weekends. Usually Monday’s and Tuesdays will be much higher due to this. The rest of the week will let us know where Florida truly is.
 

Refuse

Sin City Soldiers
Aug 23, 2005
2,421
1,070
I hate the concept per capita when it comes to lives lost. Hundreds of thousands lives lost reduced to a per capita number in a morbid success rate virus world cup.
 

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
I hate the concept per capita when it comes to lives lost. Hundreds of thousands lives lost reduced to a per capita number in a morbid success rate virus world cup.

I mean... yeah.

But it is important information. The raw total will tell you the total deaths, but if that's your metric you're discounting the difference between a larger population country vs. a smaller one. You're discounting population density, which can vary in cities and throughout an entire country. You're discounting all kinds of other factors. Granted, per capita doesn't really tell you all of that either. It just expands on the picture a bit more.

Canada, for example, is doing much better than the United States. The raw totals will tell you this, but you can say "Sure, but the US has so many more people." and then you see the per capita number, which has the US as one of the worst in the world. Again, there are some other factors, but it's information that kind of glaringly stands out.

People bring up Sweden and Finland, in large part because they are neighbors, took very different approaches, and the per capita results are wildly different. It isn't the whole picture, but the picture it paints could not be more different.

Edit: This also isn't about who took a wrong approach or who took a right approach. It isn't a competition. It should be an objective look, not a pissing contest.
 
Last edited:

Refuse

Sin City Soldiers
Aug 23, 2005
2,421
1,070
I mean... yeah.

But it is important information. The raw total will tell you the total deaths, but if that's your metric you're discounting the difference between a larger population country vs. a smaller one. You're discounting population density, which can vary in cities and throughout an entire country. You're discounting all kinds of other factors. Granted, per capita doesn't really tell you all of that either. It just expands on the picture a bit more.

Canada, for example, is doing much better than the United States. The raw totals will tell you this, but you can say "Sure, but the US has so many more people." and then you see the per capita number, which has the US as one of the worst in the world. Again, there are some other factors, but it's information that kind of glaringly stands out.

People bring up Sweden and Finland, in large part because they are neighbors, took very different approaches, and the per capita results are wildly different. It isn't the whole picture, but the picture it paints could not be more different.
I see it as both too blunt and dehumanizing. Comparing countries is bizarre in the first place, since densely populated cities with for example subways experience a much faster spread and a higher death toll, and to be frank, some of the countries brought up don't really have any large cities of this type.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matte99

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
I see it as both too blunt and dehumanizing. Comparing countries is bizarre in the first place, since densely populated cities with for example subways experience a much faster spread and a higher death toll, and to be frank, some of the countries brought up don't really have any large cities of this type.

From an emotional standpoint, I agree with you, and it's important to look at the big picture and remember every death is a life lost. Potentially, a family that is being destroyed. We should never be quick to dismiss that.

From an analysis one, I don't. I think you need to be able to objectively look at the data, and see differences between countries and how their approaches have different results. There are a ton of other factors involved, there is no doubt, which is why it's just one small piece to look at.

I try to find a balance between the two, because I don't think we can ignore the former, but we also can't ignore the latter. If one country has remarkable results, you need to look at what they have done. Regardless of whether your cities are the same, or your population is the same, etc... If the results are that strong, you need to ask why, and how it can be implemented. Even if it can, because that isn't always the case. There is nothing wrong with emulation, especially with a novel virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus

Refuse

Sin City Soldiers
Aug 23, 2005
2,421
1,070
From an emotional standpoint, I agree with you, and it's important to look at the big picture and remember every death is a life lost. Potentially, a family that is being destroyed. We should never be quick to dismiss that.

From an analysis one, I don't. I think you need to be able to objectively look at the data, and see differences between countries and how their approaches have different results. There are a ton of other factors involved, there is no doubt, which is why it's just one small piece to look at.

I try to find a balance between the two, because I don't think we can ignore the former, but we also can't ignore the latter. If one country has remarkable results, you need to look at what they have done. Regardless of whether your cities are the same, or your population is the same, etc... If the results are that strong, you need to ask why, and how it can be implemented. Even if it can, because that isn't always the case. There is nothing wrong with emulation, especially with a novel virus.

Ok, let's look at a nordic country that is seen as a success. Finland, has about the same population as say Minnesota, but on an area that is 150% Minnesota's. The capital is 1/5 the size of the Twin Cities, where most of the Minnesota covid deaths have taken place. Minnesota has 1784 deaths from covid-19 with over 60 000 confirmed cases. Finland has 332 deaths from 7842 cases. So the finns have much more room, a lot less spread, and can close their borders as they see fit. A US state can't. It's hard to use that data for anything other than worry for the finns when they do open up their countries with business as usual. In order to learn anything from the data, we can't use incredible vague numbers like comparing whole countries (especially when the numbers aren't collected the same way on a country per country basis), we must compare for example problematic metropolitan areas, elderly care practices, modes of transportation to find what works and what doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoglund and Matte99

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
Refuse, all you're saying is that per capita alone isn't enough data, and there are a lot of other factors to consider, even in that data. I've already said that. I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.

You don't need to jump to any defense here.
 
Last edited:

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
I was addressing that statement. I argue that it's basically no information, and is just causing a lot of baseless assumptions.

It isn't basically no information. It's one piece of a whole picture.

You're looking at it in the context of a state vs. a country, but it's a country vs. country comparison. Different states in the US are worse than others, and it balances out to a whole. Of course, there is a lot of other data to consider, but it's certainly relevant information.

Some countries have a greater population than us, and are more population dense, for example. If their results are better than ours, you'd want to ask why. There are a lot of factors to consider, but to say that the data is worthless is a bit silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prairie Habs

Refuse

Sin City Soldiers
Aug 23, 2005
2,421
1,070
It isn't basically no information. It's one piece of a whole picture.

You're looking at it in the context of a state vs. a country, but it's a country vs. country comparison. Different states in the US are worse than others, and it balances out to a whole. Of course, there is a lot of other data to consider, but it's certainly relevant information.
The difference in countries counting method, geography, demographics, measures taken, regional effect makes it pretty useless. All it does is giving an indication of the alert level. Not entirely meaningless I agree, but it's way too vague.
 

Sojourn

Registered User
Nov 1, 2006
50,523
9,377
The difference in countries counting method, geography, demographics, measures taken, regional effect makes it pretty useless. All it does is giving an indication of the alert level. Not entirely meaningless I agree, but it's way too vague.

I'm not trying to argue that it's a statistic with a lot of meaning just by itself. I don't think it is, for all the reasons you've mentioned. But, it's one of the only metrics we really have to compare different countries in terms of hard results.

With that in mind, it isn't supposed to be used as some sort of pissing contest. It's just a gauge for "This country seems to have been doing a little better" and then taking the next step and asking "Why is that?" The difference could just be due to things like public transportation, population density, and so on. It could also be because they are testing better, and mitigating the spread of the virus, which is leading to fewer people dying. It could even be because they are being dishonest with their data. I think all of these things factor in.

The key here is not to just look strictly at those values. That's ridiculous. But if one country is really high in per capita deaths, and another is really low, I think it's worth looking at why that is the case.

Like you said, and I think it is worth repeating(in fact, I'd reiterate it a lot), there are a lot of other factors. Maybe a country is considering a COVID-19 death differently than another, so they just have more or less deaths as a result of that. But, that's probably still going to be less variable than case numbers, which are so heavily influenced by how much testing you're do, and whether you're trying to test anyone and everyone, or you're only testing severe symptoms, and so on. Which is all also important data, but I think it varies more country to country. I do think some countries are just untrustworthy in terms of data, so I'd ignore them outright.

There really is no data that isn't susceptible to variations from country to country, so I think we need to use what data we have, and try to pull the meaningful aspects of it out.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,181
27,936
Montreal
The difference in countries counting method, geography, demographics, measures taken, regional effect makes it pretty useless. All it does is giving an indication of the alert level. Not entirely meaningless I agree, but it's way too vague.

#cases is too vague
#cases by 100k is too vague
#death is too vague
#death by 100k is too vague
# hospitalization is too vague
# hospitalization by 100k is too vague
#test is too vague
#test by 100k is too vague
#population is too vague
#density is too vague
#median age is too vague
#mean age is too vague


Numbers are too vague.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus

Snauen

Registered User
Dec 27, 2017
1,349
526
#cases is too vague
#cases by 100k is too vague
#death is too vague
#death by 100k is too vague
# hospitalization is too vague
# hospitalization by 100k is too vague
#test is too vague
#test by 100k is too vague
#population is too vague
#density is too vague
#median age is too vague
#mean age is too vague


Numbers are too vague.
I agree whit calling this poster out. Its not "bizarre" to discuss "Deaths per country" . Ultimately its our place where we live in, our country, whos got the responsibillity to try to protect us from bad and fatal things, like diseases . It's super interresting for me to know how my place is doing compared to other places on the planet in this matter.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->