One of the more remarkable things (to American ears, at any rate) Dr. Giesecke says in the video is that social distancing has not been the cause of observed declines in case mortality rates. Instead, he claims that “flattening the curve” has been caused by the dying off of the most vulnerable members of society.
That is a somewhat gruesome observation, but it makes sense. I continue to expect that as the true scientific picture of Covid-19 emerges, it will turn out to be a very different disease than the one we have been imagining.
At first blush and relying on your summation, this appears to be utter nonsense. As bad as 40,905 deaths so far is, it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the tens of millions of vulnerable people in this country. At least, based on who science says is most vulnerable – the old, the obese, cancer survivors, people with transplants, those suffering from other diseases.
Just one example, we have approximately 500,000 people kept alive by dialysis. This is a particularly vulnerable group since their bodies are weakened and they must frequently come in contact with other people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The problem with the “loss of the vulnerable” theory is that there’s still plenty of vulnerable still around.
But, Sweden has a huge stockpile of seeds stored in ice caves. What do they care?
Or, was that Norway?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/15664298/svalbard-global-seed-vault-norway-doomsday-climate-change
Oh well, we’re all screwed!
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “The problem with the ‘loss of the vulnerable’ theory is that there’s still plenty of vulnerable still around.”
Could be, but it isn’t a strong counterargument. Remember that the frame of reference we are all using is the case mortality rate. That being the case it matters very much who is presenting for diagnosis and in what numbers.
It is logical to assume that the cohort of “vulnerables” is over-represented among the population of those presenting for diagnosis, such that any downturn in their numbers (whether natural or causative), would produce effects on the total death rate that are ambiguous with respect to other factors, such as social distancing effects.
In other words, it could be true that “loss of the vulnerable” isn’t the proximate cause of a downturn in the case mortality rate, but unless you can rule it out it also could be the cause.
LikeLike
@Roberts
Re: “In other words, it could be true that “loss of the vulnerable” isn’t the proximate cause of a downturn in the case mortality rate, but unless you can rule it out it also could be the cause.”
There is that “math thingy” again. You always seem to struggle with it.
The number of deaths in relation to the number of the vulnerable is such a tiny fraction that mathematically it cannot be the cause of the curve flattening. To have that effect the number of the vulnerable would have to have been severely eroded by the deaths. It hasn’t been.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The number of deaths in relation to the number of the vulnerable is such a tiny fraction that mathematically it cannot be the cause of the curve flattening.”
The Swedish doctor would disagree, but since you claim to have superior knowledge, what specific numbers are you using?
LikeLike
@Roberts
What numbers?
40,000 deaths versus 100 million or more in the various vulnerable categories.
Aged over 65 = 50 million
Obese = 70 million
Chronic lung disease = 37 million
You can do the math from here right? Maybe not.
Lets assume that there is enough overlap that the vulnerable population is 100.0 million.
If EVERY death so far is from that group (they aren’t) that still leaves 99.96 million vulnerable people. It is self evident that flattening of the curve cannot come from such a small difference in the number of those vulnerable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sweden has a higher deaths per million than we do: 156 v 126.
They have 5 times as much as Norway, 3 times as much as Germany and 2 1/2 times Denmark.
They just had 40 more deaths yesterday, that would be like us having about 1500 more. We had 1200.
So the jury is out.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you ask John, it is no big deal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Naw, it’d be “so what”….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ooooh, ya know what would be cool? If COV2 goes latent. Imagine surviving an infection, and 5 years later BAM you’re dead! Kinda like chicken pox and shingles, only worse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Inside your head must be a dark place….
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s a sick world and I’m a happy fella!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, most people say that the area is dark where my head is. Well, I’m assuming it’s dark since the sun don’t shine there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Self deprecating humor? Seriously, Nancy? You do have your moments.
LikeLike