That's actually surprisingly easy to explain - almost certainly mostly due to testing differences between the first and second wave. In the US for example:https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1321661890301366272?s=20 …
-
-
Of course. And that's precisely why the daily case numbers should be normalized to number of tests to be meaningful. Looking at raw cases numbers is meaningless. Yet most are doing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer
Sure, but the case:death ratio is pretty meaningless as well. A better indicator is hospitalizations/ICU admissions, which are climbing steeply across Europe and the states. Deaths are a lagging indicator, but in e.g. Sweden are doubling every week or two already
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The cases to deaths ratio are of course meaningless, yet how many people go around calculating a meaningless CFR based on this number of cases? Too many. And a few of them were thought to have 3 digit IQs...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer
Sure, but to the original point I think it's very clear that a) the initial wave had a similar number of cases to what we're seeing now and b) this is a huge epidemic that is overwhelming hospital systems in a similar way across Europe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
a) Of course. b) What's the definition of a deadly pandemic? Deadliest in a decade? Then in some countries yes, it is. Deadliest in the past several decades? No, it is not. In almost every country you will find deadlier years in the current century.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer
I mean, it does depend to an extent on the indicator you're looking at, but my work has demonstrated the very high death rate from COVID-19 i.e. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v7 … The main reason for lower deaths, I'd argue, is lower spread of disease
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So you predict that as the virus keeps spreading 2020 or 2021 will be the deadliest year in the past several decades?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer
Not necessarily, although it's worth noting that since there's been a decreasing trend of 'deadliness' if we went back to 1990s levels it would be a huge number of excess deaths
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We will have to wait and see. I hate to prophesy, but here is one: In ten years from now people will look back at mortality rates of 2020 and won't understand why the world came to a halt.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Or they'll look at the mortality rates and consider that the world halting probably saved a lot of lives! Complex
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @DrEliDavid @asafpeer
In what sense? Sweden seems to have done middle-of-the road on most measures - implemented relatively weak restrictions, saw relatively higher deaths, and is now looking at what they can do to slow a massive epidemic much like the rest of Europe
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.