I don't like that, an extremely dense urban area is a bad place for a pandemic.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
It isn't pointless, it's critical in contact tracing which will be what is required to suppress this over a longer period of time. Most Asian countries put people into two week quarantine post arrival into the country now, which is the right approach in managing the case load.
I read that Dyson are producing vast numbers of Ventilators.
Hope the NHS staff are preparing themselves to deal with the most awkwardly designed Ventilators known to man.
It'll likely have about 6,7 needless button functions while being able to click-klank into a underwhelming hoover.
Hope the NHS staff are preparing themselves to deal with the most awkwardly designed Ventilators known to man.
It'll likely have about 6,7 needless button functions while being able to click-klank into a underwhelming hoover.
They also have very little clean water and electricity for only 4 hours a day.
It will be a massacre.
Add in the poverty and it’s extremely frightening. I’m really worried about the Indian cities too.
You've gotten completely confused here @Kentonio mate. No-one thinks we aren't going to be affected, absolutely no-one, we already massively are. My point was that we won't become an Italy because of many reasons, not least the density of population, but even our culture compared to Italien culture.
And my point wasn't regarding land mass, my entire point is that compared to Italy we have much less people and massively more spread out. Put the same map you did of Sweden side by side with the Italien one and you'll laugh at your own point.
For example, Sweden has 9 "cities" over 100,000 people. Italy has 47 cities/towns with over 100,000 people.
It's frankly a ridiculous retort to my original post.
Bang on the money.
Folk in here love lockdowns though and seem to think they are some kind of answer to everything. Apparently again country not doing it immediately are gambling with people's lives.
For those interested, this is a great link for Sweden only updates: https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/
Last edited:
The majority of epidemiologists and experts in pandemics will say you need to act first, then assess later. Modelling is useful but almost impossible in a crisis like this with incomplete data, and no knowledge of how incomplete the data is. The costs for acting later is much, much higher than for acting earlier. A lockdown + overrun medical system is much worse than lockdown only. And with such high uncertainty, you have to go for the lower risk option.
This is especially salient when testing is an issue, you’re only detecting a small number of the total cases resulting in exponential increase and a very, very quick peak. No health system can cope with that.
Sweden is substantially more urbanised than Italy Reg. I think that your cities are relatively less dense though.
lolz
47 italien cities over 100,000. 9 in Sweden.
Our big cities are miles smaller too, so how are you working this out mate?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...g-tsunami-of-coronavirus-patients-overwhelmed
Seems like your favoured tactic is not working too well for the UK. Their lockdown came waaaay too late, which will become more and more evident.
Lolz, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country
Turns out each country has its own definition of urbanised. My bad.
Yeah, our country had the same experience, I wrote a post few pages back. Considering we don't have many cases yet they aren't doing much testing because testing itself is complicated and the tests aren't reliable 100%, many times they show false negatives so they have to check every test more times.
87% of 9 million compared to 70% of 60 million.
top maths.
42,000,0000 urbanized Italiens.
7,830,000 urbanized Swedes.
There are over 100 clinical trials now. I'll try to summarize later. Hopefully several are successful.
Their hand dryers are good.
Also Henry ventilators would probably be a bit distasteful.
Italy has 6 times the population, but less than 6 times the number of large cities. Urbanization is relative to population.
You’re having a mare here, mate.
Well, the rest of the world doesn't care about Yemen as long as the Saudis pays and Iran is the one that is indirectly impacted negatively. The problem is that the average person in Yemen is the one taking the direct impact.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
In the context of what we’re talking about here, that is Sweden becoming like Italy, it’s absolute nonsense as shown by the numbers below, you’re talking 34 million more Italians living in urbanized areas than Swedes, 34 million.
My god that's a dumb response.
Anyway, my actual error was in supposing that the definition of urban was standardised. It isn't - so countries can't really be compared using that metric.
What was your point with it then Ekkie?
My original point that’s been responded to so often here was simply that Sweden is nothing like Italy in terms of how many people live on top of each other and in close populations. I even added the fact that we very rarely live at home with parents or even flat share, the statistics that even you sent show that there are 34 million more Italians living in close urbanized areas, so what was your point with that statistic?
Italy has a population of over 60m people. Sweden has just over 10m, or 1/6th of the population. If you wanted to use number of cities as a comparison (which you shouldn't because its terrible), Sweden would have 54 cities over 100,000 with a comparable population.
Number of cities is kind of dumb though as everything above 100,000 is treated the same. Rural population percentage is a much better metric. In Sweden in 2015 only 14% of people lived in rural areas. In Italy that figure is 29.56%.
Basically yes you have a vast amount of landmass, but most people aren't living out there, the vast majority are in the south and tend to be congregated in and around the cities. You're quite right about the culture stuff though.
But anyway this isn't the right thread for stuff like this. Let's leave it here.
So if 6 million people die in Italy but ALL of Norway’s 5,5 million die, you’d say that Italy’s situation is worse than ours?
Your reasoning is weird as feck, dude.
I'm going to try educate myself on diagnostic tests for viral infections but in other diagnostic fields tests are not even close to 100% accurate. Some of the most used cancer tests are woeful and can be in the 70% range depending on the population. I'm really intrigued how these tests are developed and validated. From what I can gather it must be a totally different exercise to the cancer tests. We always have to prove accuracy of the entire process (e.g. blood draw to analysis to report) versus a gold standard (e.g. surgically confirmed cancer vs benign condition). I'm almost positive none of the tests released have done that from start (swab) to finish (report). Off the top of my head I can think of many things that could interfere with test performance that couldn't possibly have been tested yet.
On the way out of Thailand, they tested my temperature just before I entered airport. There was an army soldier standing nearby.
If I had a temperature above a certain number (not sure what that is), they wouldn't have let me travel, and would probably have sent me to a 'Government facility' to be quarantined. Which I was surprised by, as surely most countries want non citizens to go home, so they can concentrate helping their own.
Not sure if that is happening at UK airports for outbound international flights.
Last edited:
Hmm...! Ventilators that later can be turned into something else, Dyson maybe on to something there.
Why on earth would we want to show the benefits of the EU? Surely doing so would be a fate much worse than death? I'm sure given the offer of a ventilator acquired due to out EU membership, most asphyxiating gammon would stubbornly turn it down in favour of an honourable death.
Probably some of their own citizens either working on the planes or having to use them for essential travel. Also maybe they're not total dicks who only care about their own population?
What the feck are you on about man
My reasoning is simple, that with 34 more million people living in Italy in urbanized areas than Sweden then the risk of this virus spreading as quickly as it did in Italy and as disastrously, including the culture differences is enourmous compared to Sweden.
Even in a time of global crisis, can't forget the optics
You seem to just be ignoring that with your much smaller population you have far fewer people for it to actually spread to. And the people you do have mostly live quite close together geographically.What the feck are you on about man
My reasoning is simple, that with 34 more million people living in Italy in urbanized areas than Sweden then the risk of this virus spreading as quickly as it did in Italy and as disastrously, including the culture differences is enourmous compared to Sweden.
Yeah but having 42 towns with over 100,000 people living in them is a bigger problem here. There's a reason London is the epicentre in the UK.
The smaller the areas and towns (less populated), the less likely a disastrous rate of spread. Italy just has an outrageous amount more potential hot spots. And their culture of living with parents, living with Grandma etc makes it doubly worse as they take the brunt of the ICU.
My point was actually made moot by the difference in definitions, not by your calculation that (wait for it) Italy has a larger population. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would imply that even if everyone in Sweden lived in one flat they'd still not be living on top of each other as much as the Italians. That's daft.
Your talking absolute numbers when it's obvious that we're dealing in proportions. If the definitions were standard (my error) and 70% of Italians live in towns while 80% of Swedes do then proportionally more Swedes live on top of each other than do Italians. Number of cities and overall population size would be irrelevant to that fact.
You're right that the average household size is about 10-20% larger in Italy.
I’ve not touched on culture, and the fact that the elder more often live in with their relatives, those are fair points, but the spread doesn’t have to be as crazy to cover fewer people. I don’t think that point is as strong as you think it is. A bigger percentage of Swedes live in cities than do Italians.What the feck are you on about man
My reasoning is simple, that with 34 more million people living in Italy in urbanized areas than Sweden then the risk of this virus spreading as quickly as it did in Italy and as disastrously, including the culture differences is enourmous compared to Sweden.
So you disagree that 42 towns with 100,000 or more are more likely to be virus hot spots than 9?
Of that Italy with a 65+ population of 13.76m is on a completely different level to Sweden when it comes to risk groups and ICU requirements? Sweden has 2m.
In much smaller towns though, that's the difference, and the towns are more spread out.
Italy was a ticking time bomb with the age demographic and this virus, coupled with their population and culture. That anyone is even trying to put forward an argument to my statement that Sweden will absolutely not go like Italy due to a tonne of reasons is beyond daft.
In Lombardy alone they have the population of Sweden and people over 65 years old represent the 21.6% of that population.
That's more +65's than ALL OF SWEDEN, just in Lombardy. But do carry on folk, you absolute nutters.
I’d agree that you guys aren’t in danger of going the way of Italy, so don’t get me wrong on that point. But I do think you’re overestimating just how much the spread is contained merely by it being less dense. That’s all I was speaking to.