Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 10:47 AM Apr 2020

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (Celerity) on Sat Jan 1, 2022, 05:41 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) Celerity Apr 2020 OP
I am so sorry, the news from Sweden really worries me. FM123 Apr 2020 #1
'Herd immunity' is used when talking about acceptable losses in animal herds, 40-60% is sustainable Baclava Apr 2020 #2
Well, my California Governor used the word on Tuesday's press conference. onecaliberal Apr 2020 #5
It isn't limited to animals. It's a common term for a situation The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #6
I doubt there will ever be an effective Covid19 vaccine, none yet for SARS or common cold Baclava Apr 2020 #8
The only way to herd immunity is 90% or more of the population getting it. onecaliberal Apr 2020 #23
that is incorrect, it all depends on the R-naught value, an R-naught of 2.0 would require a 50% Celerity Apr 2020 #40
CDC estimate of 5.7 R0 for COVID-19 - 82% FreeState Apr 2020 #41
Thank you. Still not safe enough. onecaliberal Apr 2020 #45
That's because herd immunity is going to be the approach almost everywhere. Ace Rothstein Apr 2020 #18
no, you are conflating deaths with exposure, if a pathogen has an R-naught of 2.0, then Celerity Apr 2020 #19
My husband is sequestered but I will be forced back to work. onecaliberal Apr 2020 #25
Last I saw they are saying R05.7 Phoenix61 Apr 2020 #28
I've not seen a reliable number that high for the R-naught, the range give is generally 2.0 to 2.5 Celerity Apr 2020 #37
CDC study showing 5.7 FreeState Apr 2020 #42
that R-naught is only calculated for the early Wuhan phase when there was basically no mitigation Celerity Apr 2020 #44
Without strong mitigation efforts this will explode in the next two weeks to unprecendented levels SoonerPride Apr 2020 #3
That's scary. I have to wonder, too, whether it's just a coincidence The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #4
Remind me again, what was Sweden's early response to this crisis? Baitball Blogger Apr 2020 #7
No lockdown. Carry on as usual, forget all that social distancing stuff, normal business Baclava Apr 2020 #9
Don't forget the other great excuse, "Ride it out." Baitball Blogger Apr 2020 #11
Yes, 'let it wash over'... Well, life, The Virus, will find a way Baclava Apr 2020 #14
the no lockdown part is correct, but social distancing was recommended very early on Celerity Apr 2020 #20
I've seen enough evidence, life as normal, carry on, it's what they did Baclava Apr 2020 #26
whilst we (I live in central Stockholm) are not in total lockdown, I can assure you it not the Celerity Apr 2020 #30
3 weeks ago is exactly the time when a lockdown could have helped, the cat has left the bag now Baclava Apr 2020 #32
I think the point is DrToast Apr 2020 #35
Oh I'm sure most are now, no need to be defensive, we were even worse, for months in many places Baclava Apr 2020 #36
if we hit herd immunity then we will be massively better off if/when a 2nd and 3rd wave comes Celerity Apr 2020 #38
My understanding of it was - Swedes will be responsible, Ms. Toad Apr 2020 #10
So incredibly stupid, in retrospect. Baitball Blogger Apr 2020 #12
From the other side of the border (Norway), the seeming hubris of Tegnell KitSileya Apr 2020 #13
I have read that the borders were closed The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #15
Yeah, there's a 14-day quarantine if you go to Sweden. KitSileya Apr 2020 #22
not just Sweden beachbumbob Apr 2020 #16
You know I am a little over half Swedish ismnotwasm Apr 2020 #17
You can't choose your ancestors. Anyhow, these days The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #27
True that ismnotwasm Apr 2020 #31
That's horrible. We know you did not want to be the world's test case for..... KY_EnviroGuy Apr 2020 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author Mendocino Apr 2020 #24
This is exactly what will happen if we reopen the United States too soon vercetti2021 Apr 2020 #29
It's happening already in states with stupid GOP governors. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2020 #33
A second wave is inevitable. Ace Rothstein Apr 2020 #43
Right now, absent a vaccine, herd immunity itself is nothing more than a hopeful speculation. dawg Apr 2020 #34
to know that, we will need to see its mutagenic capabilities Celerity Apr 2020 #39

FM123

(10,053 posts)
1. I am so sorry, the news from Sweden really worries me.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 10:53 AM
Apr 2020

I was just reading a CNN article the other day that said while scientists there are pushing for increased restrictions to slow the coronavirus spread, businesses like restaurants, bars and public spaces largely remain open.

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
2. 'Herd immunity' is used when talking about acceptable losses in animal herds, 40-60% is sustainable
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 10:57 AM
Apr 2020

For herders, economically. It should never be applied to humans, I hate that term

onecaliberal

(32,829 posts)
5. Well, my California Governor used the word on Tuesday's press conference.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:01 AM
Apr 2020

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
6. It isn't limited to animals. It's a common term for a situation
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:04 AM
Apr 2020

that exists when enough people are immune to a disease that it does not spread in a community. It's been often used with respect to the measles vaccine. The catch is that it doesn't work unless something like 90% of the local population is immune, either from having had the disease or having been vaccinated. It does work with measles because the vaccine is effective and a lot of older people have had it, and it's why many schools won't allow unvaccinated children to attend.

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
8. I doubt there will ever be an effective Covid19 vaccine, none yet for SARS or common cold
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:09 AM
Apr 2020

Regular flu vaccines are only 30-40% effective, viruses mutate

onecaliberal

(32,829 posts)
23. The only way to herd immunity is 90% or more of the population getting it.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:52 AM
Apr 2020

If my husband gets it, chances are NOT good. What does that mean? There are plans to open the economy while doing 25 thousand tests a week in a state with 35 million people. That is not comforting. The elderly and vulnerable are expendable I guess.

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
40. that is incorrect, it all depends on the R-naught value, an R-naught of 2.0 would require a 50%
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:29 PM
Apr 2020

infection rate (roughly) to reach her immunity.

see this for a more in-depth discussion on the r-naught value and also how herd immunity is calculated using it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213296027#post37

FreeState

(10,570 posts)
41. CDC estimate of 5.7 R0 for COVID-19 - 82%
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:33 PM
Apr 2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/04/07/the-covid19-coronavirus-disease-may-be-twice-as-contagious-as-we-thought/#3f9f187a29a6

With an R0 of 5.7, approximately 82% of the population needs to be immune to reach herd immunity and stop the disease from spreading easily through the population, the researchers concluded.

onecaliberal

(32,829 posts)
45. Thank you. Still not safe enough.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:57 PM
Apr 2020

Ace Rothstein

(3,160 posts)
18. That's because herd immunity is going to be the approach almost everywhere.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:38 AM
Apr 2020

The virus is too widespread to contain at this point, short of a miracle treatment being found. Remember, flattening the curve was never about squashing the virus but about not overwhelming the hospitals.

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
19. no, you are conflating deaths with exposure, if a pathogen has an R-naught of 2.0, then
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:42 AM
Apr 2020

50% of the population needs to have been exposed to hit herd immunity, an R-naught of 2.5 means 60% needs to be pathogen positive, an R-naught of 3.0 means 67%, and so on.

lets say, for argument's sake that COVID-19 has an R-naught of 3.0.

that means around 6.8 million of us need to be exposed, and if it has a lethality rate of 2% (the entire world, for the most part, is so shit at testing I do not trust the lethality rates given atm that say 5% or more, as there are FAR more people with it that never get tested)

So in theory that would mean 136,000 deaths when herd immunity is reached.

Now, there is a way to lower the herd immunity threshold, and that is to quarantine the most vulnerable and left the healthiest become super spreaders (mainly the schoolchildren and then people in my age group (I am 1996 born)

THAT is what we are doing, that is why the schools are kept open.

When the R-naught of a pathogen goes under 1.0, it dies out, as it cannot find enough non exposed to replicate on.

IF you sequester the at risk groups only, then the lethality rate PLUMMETS, to (they are saying) 0.1%.

So in theory, you could hit herd immunity here in Sweden, with only around 5,000 to 6,000 deaths total. (A bad flu season here is 1000 to 2000 deaths, with 75% of those in the 85 years old and over cohort)

those numbers are really rough, btw

onecaliberal

(32,829 posts)
25. My husband is sequestered but I will be forced back to work.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:54 AM
Apr 2020

I don’t have anywhere to send him to be alone. I am far from a unique circumstance.

Phoenix61

(17,003 posts)
28. Last I saw they are saying R05.7
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:48 PM
Apr 2020

What’s the formula to compute number needed for herd immunity?

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
37. I've not seen a reliable number that high for the R-naught, the range give is generally 2.0 to 2.5
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:16 PM
Apr 2020

so 50 to 60% of the population would need to have the virus to hit true herd immunity. My calculus above pegged it at 3.0 to give a conservative (higher in this case) max death rate.

An average coronavirus patient infects at least 2 others. To end the pandemic, that crucial metric needs to drop below 1 — here's how we get there.

A crucial metric called R0, pronounced R-naught, represents how many people an average person with a virus infects.

The coronavirus has an R0 of roughly 2 to 2.5, meaning that each new person spreads the disease to about 2.2 people on average.
That makes COVID-19 more contagious than the seasonal flu.

But a disease's R0 isn't fixed — it can decrease with the right preventive measures. Bringing it below 1 would end the pandemic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-contagious-r-naught-average-patient-spread-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

A crucial step in reigning in the coronavirus pandemic is determining exactly how contagious it is. That comes down to one crucial metric: the R0 (pronounced R-naught).

R0 refers to the average number of people that one sick person goes on to infect in a group that has no immunity. Experts use it to predict how far and how fast a disease will spread, and the number can also inform policy decisions about how to contain an outbreak.

"R0 is a population-based determination that helps you to decide, is the outbreak taking off, leveling off, or diminishing?" Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a February interview hosted by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The R0 of the coronavirus so far seems to hover around 2 to 2.5, according to the World Health Organization. A study of the poorly contained outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship revealed an R0 consistent with those estimates: 2.2.

That means it's more contagious than the seasonal flu, but less contagious than measles.

"It is a virus that is quite good at transmitting from one person to another," Fauci said.

How R0 works

A given pathogen's R0 value changes with place and time.

"There is no R0 — there is an R0 in a population," Elizabeth Halloran, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington, told Business Insider. A recent CDC study found that the coronavirus's R0 was as high as 5.7 in the early days of its Wuhan outbreak.

An R0 value of 1 means the average person who gets that disease will transmit it to one other person; in that case, the disease is spreading at a stable rate. An R0 of more than 1 means the disease spreads exponentially.

When experts strategize about how to end the pandemic, their goal is to bring the R0 below 1, which would put the coronavirus in decline until it dies out.



snip




What Is R0?: Gauging Contagious Infections

https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number

snip

How is the R0 of a disease calculated?

The following factors are taken into account to calculate the R0 of a disease:

Infectious period

Some diseases are contagious for longer periods than others. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adults with the flu are typically contagious for up to eight days, while children can be contagious for up to two weeks. The longer the infectious period of a disease, the more likely an infected person is to spread the disease to other people. A long period of infectiousness will contribute to a higher R0 value.

Contact rate

If a person who’s infected with a contagious disease comes into contact with many people who aren’t infected or vaccinated, the disease will spread more quickly. If that person remains at home, in a hospital, or otherwise quarantined while they’re contagious, the disease will spread more slowly. A high contact rate will contribute to a higher R0 value.

Mode of transmission

The diseases that spread most quickly and easily are the ones that can travel through the air, such as the flu or measles. Physical contact with an infected person isn’t necessary for the transmission of such conditions. You can catch the flu from breathing near someone who has the flu, even if you never touch them.

In contrast, diseases that are transmitted through bodily fluids, such as Ebola or HIV, aren’t as easy to catch or spread. This is because you need to come into contact with infected blood, saliva, or other bodily fluids to contract them. Airborne illnesses tend to have a higher R0 value than those spread through contact.

What conditions are measured by R0?
R0 can be used to measure any contagious disease that may spread in a susceptible population. Some of the most highly contagious conditions are measles and the common flu. More serious conditions, such as Ebola and HIV, spread less easily between people.

This illustration shows some commonly known diseases and their estimated R0 values.



snip




Volume 25, Number 1—January 2019
Perspective
Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0)


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25/1/17-1901_article

Abstract

The basic reproduction number (R0), also called the basic reproduction ratio or rate or the basic reproductive rate, is an epidemiologic metric used to describe the contagiousness or transmissibility of infectious agents. R0 is affected by numerous biological, sociobehavioral, and environmental factors that govern pathogen transmission and, therefore, is usually estimated with various types of complex mathematical models, which make R0 easily misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misapplied. R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen, a rate over time, or a measure of disease severity, and R0 cannot be modified through vaccination campaigns. R0 is rarely measured directly, and modeled R0 values are dependent on model structures and assumptions. Some R0 values reported in the scientific literature are likely obsolete. R0 must be estimated, reported, and applied with great caution because this basic metric is far from simple.


The basic reproduction number (R0), pronounced “R naught,” is intended to be an indicator of the contagiousness or transmissibility of infectious and parasitic agents. R0 is often encountered in the epidemiology and public health literature and can also be found in the popular press (1–6). R0 has been described as being one of the fundamental and most often used metrics for the study of infectious disease dynamics (7–12). An R0 for an infectious disease event is generally reported as a single numeric value or low–high range, and the interpretation is typically presented as straightforward; an outbreak is expected to continue if R0 has a value >1 and to end if R0 is <1 (13). The potential size of an outbreak or epidemic often is based on the magnitude of the R0 value for that event (10), and R0 can be used to estimate the proportion of the population that must be vaccinated to eliminate an infection from that population (14,15). R0 values have been published for measles, polio, influenza, Ebola virus disease, HIV disease, a diversity of vectorborne infectious diseases, and many other communicable diseases (14,16–18).

The concept of R0 was first introduced in the field of demography (9), where this metric was used to count offspring. When R0 was adopted for use by epidemiologists, the objects being counted were infective cases (19). Numerous definitions for R0 have been proposed. Although the basic conceptual framework is similar for each, the operational definitions are not always identical. Dietz states that R0 is “the number of secondary cases one case would produce in a completely susceptible population” (19). Fine supplements this definition with the description “average number of secondary cases” (17). Diekmann and colleagues use the description “expected number of secondary cases” and provide additional specificity to the terminology regarding a single case (13).

In the hands of experts, R0 can be a valuable concept. However, the process of defining, calculating, interpreting, and applying R0 is far from straightforward. The simplicity of an R0 value and its corresponding interpretation in relation to infectious disease dynamics masks the complicated nature of this metric. Although R0 is a biological reality, this value is usually estimated with complex mathematical models developed using various sets of assumptions. The interpretation of R0 estimates derived from different models requires an understanding of the models’ structures, inputs, and interactions. Because many researchers using R0 have not been trained in sophisticated mathematical techniques, R0 is easily subject to misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misapplication. Notable examples include incorrectly defining R0 (1) and misinterpreting the effects of vaccination on R0 (3). Further, many past lessons regarding this metric appear to have been lost or overlooked over time. Therefore, a review of the concept of R0 is needed, given the increased attention this metric receives in the academic literature (20). In this article, we address misconceptions about R0 that have proliferated as this metric has become more frequently used outside of the realm of mathematical biology and theoretic epidemiology, and we recommend that R0 be applied and discussed with caution.

Variations in R0

snip



Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/

snip

Transmission

Because the first cases of the CoVID-19 disease were linked to direct exposure to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market of Wuhan, the animal-to-human transmission was presumed as the main mechanism. Nevertheless, subsequent cases were not associated with this exposure mechanism. Therefore, it was concluded that the virus could also be transmitted from human-to-human, and symptomatic people are the most frequent source of COVID-19 spread. The possibility of transmission before symptoms develop seems to be infrequent, although it cannot be excluded. Moreover, there are suggestions that individuals who remain asymptomatic could transmit the virus. This data suggests that the use of isolation is the best way to contain this epidemic.

As with other respiratory pathogens, including flu and rhinovirus, the transmission is believed to occur through respiratory droplets from coughing and sneezing. Aerosol transmission is also possible in case of protracted exposure to elevated aerosol concentrations in closed spaces. Analysis of data related to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China seems to indicate that close contact between individuals is necessary. The spread, in fact, is primarily limited to family members, healthcare professionals, and other close contacts.

Based on data from the first cases in Wuhan and investigations conducted by the China CDC and local CDCs, the incubation time could be generally within 3 to 7 days and up to 2 weeks as the longest time from infection to symptoms was 12.5 days (95% CI, 9.2 to 18). This data also showed that this novel epidemic doubled about every seven days, whereas the basic reproduction number (R0 - R naught) is 2.2. In other words, on average, each patient transmits the infection to an additional 2.2 individuals. Of note, estimations of the R0 of the SARS-CoV epidemic in 2002-2003 were approximately 3.

snip



“When will it be over?”: An introduction to viral reproduction numbers, R0 and Re

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-will-it-be-over-an-introduction-to-viral-reproduction-numbers-r0-and-re/

The basic reproduction number

The basic reproduction number is defined as the number of cases that are expected to occur on average in a homogeneous population as a result of infection by a single individual, when the population is susceptible at the start of an epidemic, before widespread immunity starts to develop and before any attempt has been made at immunization. So if one person develops the infection and passes it on to two others, the R0 is 2.

If the average R0 in the population is greater than 1, the infection will spread exponentially. If R0 is less than 1, the infection will spread only slowly, and it will eventually die out. The higher the value of R0, the faster an epidemic will progress.

R0 is estimated from data collected in the field and entered into mathematical models. The estimated value depends on the model used and the data that inform it.

R0 is affected by:

the size of the population and the proportion of susceptible people at the start;
the infectiousness of the organism;
the rate of disappearance of cases by recovery or death, the first of which depends on the time for which an individual is infective;
The larger the population, the more people are susceptible, and the more infective the virus, the larger R0 will be for a given virus; the faster the rate of removal of infected individuals, by recovery or death, the smaller R0 will be.

The zero in “R zero” means that it is estimated when there is zero immunity in the population, even though not everyone will necessarily be susceptible to infection, although that is the usual assumption. In an epidemic with a completely new virus, the earlier the measurements are made the nearer the calculated value is likely to be to the true value of R0, assuming high-quality data. For this reason, it is better to talk about the transmissibility of the virus at the time that it is measured, using a different symbol, Re, the effective reproduction number.

The effective reproduction number, Re

The effective reproduction number, Re, sometimes also called Rt, is the number of people in a population who can be infected by an individual at any specific time. It changes as the population becomes increasingly immunized, either by individual immunity following infection or by vaccination, and also as people die.

Re is affected by the number of people with the infection and the number of susceptibles with whom infected people are in contact. People’s behaviour (e.g. social distancing) can also affect Re.

The number of susceptibles falls as people die or become immunized by exposure. The sooner people recover or die, the smaller the value of Re will be at any given time.

Unfortunately, the symbol R0 is often used in publications when Re is meant. This can be confusing.

Herd immunity

Initial reports suggested that one of the UK Government’s strategies in tackling the pandemic was to allow the virus to spread within the community, in a controlled way, so that immunity, so-called herd immunity, could develop across the population. However, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, later said that this was not part of the UK response to the virus. In contrast, other countries, such as Sweden, have responded to the pandemic in ways that avoid full lockdown. The problem with leaving people to catch the infection spontaneously, leading to herd immunity, is that the death rate would increase as a result. For example, on 10 April, the number of confirmed cases in Sweden was 9685 with 870 deaths (9.0%), compared with Norway with 6219 confirmed cases and 108 deaths (1.7%) and Denmark with 5830 confirmed cases and 237 deaths (4.4%).

R0 predicts the extent of immunization that a population requires if herd immunity is to be achieved, the spread of the infection limited, and the population protected against future infection. To prevent sustained spread of the infection the proportion of the population that has to be immunized (Pi) has to be greater than 1 − 1/R0. The relation between Pi and 1 – 1/R0 is shown in Figure 1.

For example, if R0 = 2, immunization needs to be achieved in 50% of the population. However, if R0 = 5 the proportion rises steeply, to 80%. Beyond that the rise is less steep; an increase in R0 to 10 increases the need for immunization to 90%. Measles has an R0 greater than 10, which is why immunization of a large proportion of the population is so important in preventing the disease.

Thus, if R0 is 10, a child with measles will infect 10 others if they are susceptible. When other children become immune the infected child who encounters 10 children will not be able to infect them all; the number infected will depend on Re. When immunity is 90% or more the chances that the child will meet enough unimmunized children to pass on the disease falls to near zero, and the population is protected.



FreeState

(10,570 posts)
42. CDC study showing 5.7
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:34 PM
Apr 2020
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

We found R0 is likely to be 5.7 given our current state of knowledge, with a broad 95% CI (3.8–8.9). Among many factors, the lack of awareness of this new pathogen and the Lunar New Year travel and gathering in early and mid-January 2020 might or might not play a role in the high R0. A recent study based on structural analysis of the virus particles suggests SARS-CoV-2 has a much higher affinity to the receptor needed for cell entry than the 2003 SARS virus (21), providing a molecular basis for the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2.

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
44. that R-naught is only calculated for the early Wuhan phase when there was basically no mitigation
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:53 PM
Apr 2020

of any import going on for the majority of the studied duration.

see this from the study:

We collected an expanded set of case reports across China on the basis of publicly available information, estimated key epidemiologic parameters, and provided a new estimate of the early epidemic growth rate and R0 in Wuhan.


snip

How contagious SARS-CoV-2 is in other countries remains to be seen. Given the rapid rate of spread as seen in current outbreaks in Europe, we need to be aware of the difficulty of controlling SARS-CoV-2 once it establishes sustained human-to-human transmission in a new population (20). Our results suggest that a combination of control measures, including early and active surveillance, quarantine, and especially strong social distancing efforts, are needed to slow down or stop the spread of the virus.

SoonerPride

(12,286 posts)
3. Without strong mitigation efforts this will explode in the next two weeks to unprecendented levels
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 10:59 AM
Apr 2020

It might be too late.

I'm sorry.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
4. That's scary. I have to wonder, too, whether it's just a coincidence
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:00 AM
Apr 2020

that the other four Nordic countries which are headed by women are also the ones that are managing the pandemic better (along with Germany, Taiwan and New Zealand), or if that is making a difference:

Love

Norway’s Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, had the innovative idea of using television to talk directly to her country’s children. She was building on the short, 3-minute press conference that Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had held a couple of days earlier. Solberg held a dedicated press conference where no adults were allowed. She responded to kids’ questions from across the country, taking time to explain why it was OK to feel scared. The originality and obviousness of the idea takes one’s breath away. How many other simple, humane innovations would more female leadership unleash?

Generally, the empathy and care which all of these female leaders have communicated seems to come from an alternate universe than the one we have gotten used to. It’s like their arms are coming out of their videos to hold you close in a heart-felt and loving embrace. Who knew leaders could sound like this? Now we do.

Now, compare these leaders and stories with the strongmen using the crisis to accelerate a terrifying trifecta of authoritarianism: blame-“others”, capture-the-judiciary, demonize-the-journalists, and blanket their country in I-will-never-retire darkness (Trump, Bolsonaro, Obrador, Modi, Duterte, Orban, Putin, Netanyahu…).

There have been years of research timidly suggesting that women’s leadership styles might be different and beneficial. Instead, too many political organizations and companies are still working to get women to behave more like men if they want to lead or succeed. Yet these national leaders are case study sightings of the seven leadership traits men may want to learn from women.

It’s time we recognized it – and elected more of it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/#49cea0413dec

Stay safe. Why aren't the Swedish authorities looking at these statistics and getting a clue? I don't understand it at all.

Baitball Blogger

(46,700 posts)
7. Remind me again, what was Sweden's early response to this crisis?
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:07 AM
Apr 2020
 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
9. No lockdown. Carry on as usual, forget all that social distancing stuff, normal business
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:12 AM
Apr 2020

Baitball Blogger

(46,700 posts)
11. Don't forget the other great excuse, "Ride it out."
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:13 AM
Apr 2020
 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
14. Yes, 'let it wash over'... Well, life, The Virus, will find a way
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:16 AM
Apr 2020

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
20. the no lockdown part is correct, but social distancing was recommended very early on
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:44 AM
Apr 2020
 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
26. I've seen enough evidence, life as normal, carry on, it's what they did
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:59 AM
Apr 2020
Sweden Plots Controversial Course As Life Goes On Largely Unchanged Amid Pandemic

Sweden has adopted a largely "business-as-usual" approach to the coronavirus pandemic.







https://www.rferl.org/a/life-in-sweden-carries-on-largely-as-normal-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/30513267.html

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
30. whilst we (I live in central Stockholm) are not in total lockdown, I can assure you it not the
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:50 PM
Apr 2020

'totally normal carefree lets run around' slant you are trying to posit (plus your article is 3 weeks old)

A shedload of businesses are shut down, a large majority of us are working from home, public transportation is greatly reduced, mail and package delivery is much, much slower, almost all unis and gymnasieskolor (high schools) are closed (including mine) etc, etc.

In the restos and pubs that do stay open, it is table service only (granted that is very stupid IMHO)

the unrest with the government has vastly increased since that article was published btw and just a few hours ago the Riksdag granted new emergency powers to the government

I (and millions of others) do not think they are doing nearly enough, but it is nothing like the rampaging Trump assholes blatantly breaking all social distancing rules and demanding to run riot as they see fit back in many US states

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
32. 3 weeks ago is exactly the time when a lockdown could have helped, the cat has left the bag now
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:57 PM
Apr 2020

DrToast

(6,414 posts)
35. I think the point is
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:08 PM
Apr 2020

It's not accurate to say there isn't any social distancing going on.

 

Baclava

(12,047 posts)
36. Oh I'm sure most are now, no need to be defensive, we were even worse, for months in many places
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:10 PM
Apr 2020

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
38. if we hit herd immunity then we will be massively better off if/when a 2nd and 3rd wave comes
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:22 PM
Apr 2020

It is/was a huge gamble

only time will tell if they (Tegnell, et al. and the Government and the Riksdag) were right and all of us who disagree were wrong

I hate living in the world's largest scientific experiment atm

Ms. Toad

(34,065 posts)
10. My understanding of it was - Swedes will be responsible,
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:13 AM
Apr 2020

so we're not imposing restrictions.

The government has advised Swedes to work from home when possible and avoid crowded places like bars and restaurants, but it has stopped short of imposing formal restrictions, urging its citizens to "behave like adults" rather than fining them for leaving their homes without good reason.


https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/12/is-sweden-s-covid-19-strategy-working

Pictures from Sweden suggest that many are not behaving like adults.

Baitball Blogger

(46,700 posts)
12. So incredibly stupid, in retrospect.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:14 AM
Apr 2020

But I'm being kind because everyone knew what would happen.

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
13. From the other side of the border (Norway), the seeming hubris of Tegnell
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:15 AM
Apr 2020

is breath-taking. After a month, we are now planning on gradually re-opening schools, though with stringent rules on social distancing upheld. However, that is *after* reducing the R0 to under 1 for at least two weeks, meaning that unless we re-introduce it, the virus is almost beaten down. I hope Norwegians are learning their lesson about not crossing the border, so they don't re-introduce the infection again and again from Sweden.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
15. I have read that the borders were closed
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:23 AM
Apr 2020

and that there was a fourteen-day quarantine for Norwegians re-entering the country. Is that (or was that) correct? Also that barnehagene are opening too?

KitSileya

(4,035 posts)
22. Yeah, there's a 14-day quarantine if you go to Sweden.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:48 AM
Apr 2020

However, 2350 Norwegians were stupid enough to anyway during the Easter holiday, and they were promptly stopped by the police and their name is on the books. Some decided to go more than once, at which point they've broken their quarantine and may face a 15-20,000NOK fine.

The kindergardens are also opening, so we'll see how that goes. The main point is that there's been very little spread of the virus in the last two weeks (hopefully) and that means that there's less chance of it spreading like wildfire when we do open up again - as long as we don't import infected people from abroad, be they foreigners or Norwegians returning home.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
16. not just Sweden
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:26 AM
Apr 2020

ismnotwasm

(41,976 posts)
17. You know I am a little over half Swedish
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:31 AM
Apr 2020

Swedish Homesteaders on my fathers side. Somebody did the genealogy a whole back. Some on my Moms side too.

I used to be kind of proud of that....

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
27. You can't choose your ancestors. Anyhow, these days
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:13 PM
Apr 2020

it's even more embarrassing to be American.

ismnotwasm

(41,976 posts)
31. True that
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:51 PM
Apr 2020

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,490 posts)
21. That's horrible. We know you did not want to be the world's test case for.....
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 11:48 AM
Apr 2020

what happens when little action is taken.

We can only hope the rest of the world learns from your experience and that your leaders soon make a drastic change.

Meanwhile, parts of America are catching hell for supposedly doing too much.....


KY...........

Response to Celerity (Original post)

vercetti2021

(10,156 posts)
29. This is exactly what will happen if we reopen the United States too soon
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:50 PM
Apr 2020

A second wave will hit and it will be just as worse

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
33. It's happening already in states with stupid GOP governors.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 12:58 PM
Apr 2020

Like South Dakota, which is now a hot spot because its stupid GOP governor said it couldn't happen there and did nothing. But it did happen there, and now a major meat packing plant is closed, which of course affects the entire national supply chain.

Ace Rothstein

(3,160 posts)
43. A second wave is inevitable.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:39 PM
Apr 2020

There are too many cases out there and long-term lockdown aren't feasible.

dawg

(10,624 posts)
34. Right now, absent a vaccine, herd immunity itself is nothing more than a hopeful speculation.
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:01 PM
Apr 2020

It's entirely possible that this virus doesn't convey a particularly long period of immunity. We hope it does, but we don't really know yet.

Celerity

(43,330 posts)
39. to know that, we will need to see its mutagenic capabilities
Thu Apr 16, 2020, 01:23 PM
Apr 2020
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...