Standard advice is 10 from positive test being taken and lack of fever 24 hours plus and improving symptoms if any.
This seems to be conflating two situations. If there are symptoms, then it’s 10 days from the onset of symptoms (assuming that’s before the test).
The 10 days from the positive test is for when there are no symptoms.
This can’t be right – so, let’s say I’m in the hospital for three weeks, coughing, barely able to breathe – since it has been more than 10 days since the onset of symptoms, I’m OK to interact with?
It can be right. Although you also need to have no fever and have symptoms improving, as DSeid said. My point was just that where there are symptoms, then you count the 10 days from the onset of symptoms.
The general idea is that the virus only grows for about 10 days, and after that point even if it’s still present in your system and making you sick it can’t be transmitted to someone else. See e.g. How long is someone with COVID-19 contagious?
Interesting. Thanks!
So back to the non-scientific experiment of the compare and contrast of Sweden and Denmark, relatively well matched other than Denmark having taken a more aggressive approach and doing it fairly early, while Sweden decided to be less aggressive, aware that they’d have more of a hit early but believing that (as long as they did not overwhelm their health system capacity) doing so would put them in better position for a next surge, believing that hard restrictions long term were not sustainable.
Sweden peaked at 104 new cases/million/d as their 7-day rolling daily average and is now at 24 and is staying pretty flat. In comparison Denmark’s initial peak 7-day was only 56 new cases/million/d … but is now 64, higher than it have ever been before, on a sharp upward trajectory over the past ten days.
I (still) have no idea whether or not Denmark will have death rates follow that rise over the next weeks (too early to see yet), whether or not they will get broad societal cooperation with reimposition of greater stringency* sustained for however long it takes, whether or not, if accomplished, such will be enough to keep a lid on it as the seasons change progresses. I (still) have no idea whether or not Sweden’s initial surge has resulted in enough with enough immune protection that their lesser (and more “voluntary”) level of stringency (along with lessons learned on protecting the elderly better) will allow them to continue to keep any surge of new case and new fatality rates relatively blunted as the season change progresses.
Despite so many here who repetitively and loudIy in large font bolded caps that Sweden “fucked up” from the very beginning, I thought it was too early to pass judgement at the start of April and I think so now. I remain of the belief that we can only know in retrospect on the other side of the winter to come.
But if had to be living in one of those two countries right now based on COVID-19 and that alone, I’d locate myself in Sweden.
.
.
.
*So far not much stringency compared to the first version (no more than 10 in a public gathering and shutting down mostly all but pharmacies and grocery stores), despite the rates now being higher than they were at their past peak.
One thing I’d note, looking at Google mobility data in the linked tweet below, it’s not clear that Denmark, Sweden, or Norway behaved all that differently anyway, at least not in terms of going out to social venues. Finland’s slowdown does look more intensive.
[is there a way to link the graphic in the tweet to here without linking the tweet itself? I know some people abhor twitter]
So in today’s news Region Stockholm has announced that the downwards trend is over and they are seeing signs of increased infection in Stockholm. This was brought up at the daily FHM press conference and Mr Tegnell himself answered.
Via Google Translate, :
“During the press conference, Anders Tegnell opens up for further local restrictions in Stockholm in response to the increased spread of infection in the region.
- We see a movement in some other regions as well. But there is a difference when you have a limited outbreak within a certain group where you can try to deal with it in the first place. In Stockholm and also other regions, there is a more general spread in society and then you may need a different type of restriction in place.”
Also, I think it’s very odd that people look to Sweden and say “why don’t we do that?” when Sweden is the developed country probably most like the US in terms of legal reactions to covid. We never actually “locked down” in most states. We maybe shut down restaurants and gyms, but most everything else could operate on a modified basis. And Sweden issued advise that included most of the modifications we imposed. Or so I understand.
But… I’ll be curious to see the mortality data. Mortality from covid seems to have dropped. Is that just because victims are younger? Because we are catching more non-serious cases? Or is some of it better treatment of the ill? I’ve been looking for data, and haven’t seen any. Because of the issues with changes in testing, I think the best data would be to compare mortality of hospitalized patients by age cohort, early in the pandemic and now.
I bet it’s improved. And I bet your odds of recovering if you catch it are better now than they were in April. But… I’d love to see data.
I’m 100% sure that data doesn’t exist nationally, less sure about individual states. I’ll poke around, but if anyone knows of such data, I’m glad to do the work.
I’m very much aligned with that point of view. I wonder, though, if even this measure might be confounded in ways – if, say, some places have figured out that they don’t need to hospitalize certain kinds of cases.
Have you seen many who have said that?
Yes. Haven’t you?
One thing I really admire about Sweden is how open, and humble, they have been about their shortcomings. From the very beginning they were candid about how they failed to protect their care homes. I remember how those first public admissions were met immediately with the fiercest scorn, as though even they admitted that their entire approach was a failure. I’m not sure I can think of one single example of any other country or even municipality being so forthright about their failures. You’re starting to hear some places say they can’t lock down again, but I think that’s still a stretch removed from saying they wished they hadn’t in the first place.
At any rate, Sweden appears to have figured some things out with regard to their care homes now, and I think that’s wonderful. I watched a recent Tegnell interview where he talked about different care home approaches they have considered, and I was pleased to see him take into consideration the immense toll that severe isolation efforts take in that population. And of course, thrilled to hear that they are resuming visits soon (if they haven’t already).
Their entire approach just shows a humanity that isn’t on display in many other places. And a humility. I think it’s clear – far, far more clear than the @DMC mantra that they royally screwed it all up – that they are gaining more and more admirers all the time. Yeah, I imagine there are a lot of places that would trade with them right now.
No. A very few.
In fact it reminds of the op itself, which asked why so many held them up as a model and which was responded to with a chorus of posters and links to media highlighted scorn of what Sweden was doing.
Denmark is not yet quite to Sweden’s 7-day average daily infection peak, but at 91.9/million and rising it is bearing down on Sweden’s 104.1 hit back in June. Meanwhile Sweden’s Fall surge (37.1 today’s 7 d average) is a blunted 40% of Denmark’s current rate.
Denmark still not enacting very stringent measures, restaurants and bars open (closing after 10PM), still allowing gatherings up to 50 people. Pretty Sweden-like … may they learn for Sweden’s huge mistake and do a much better job with nursing homes and the otherwise keeping the highest risk better protected. Further measures being considered. One gets the impression that there is hesitancy return to how they locked down before, that they now think such is not sustainable.
Not a great sign: Scotland puts them on the list.
Wait what? ICELAND? This Iceland? The one that “beat the coronavirus”?
Dang. 7 day daily average on a tear and currently 129.8/million … yeah higher than Sweden’s ever was.
Caveats duly noted: Iceland’s testing rate is very high and positivity rate very low; at its peak infection rate numbers Sweden’s positivity was high as well. Iceland’s numbers are likely a pretty good reflection of true infection rate while Sweden was likely a very significant underestimate at that time. And we have to wait a few weeks to see if Iceland and Denmark keep death rates low but so far so good.
From post 455 in this thread on June 26.
If people were four times less likely to die at the end of June than in April, hopefully the recovery rates have continued to improve since then.
Paywall, but the headline does answer the question. Thanks. And that’s from June. I wonder what we are seeing now.
It would be answering the question if they matched by patient demographics (age, race, SES, comorbidity) and for severity of illness at admission. They did not.
It would be surprising if there has not been some, even some significant improvements in survival rates for such matched populations over time as experience has been gained. But that study fails to demonstrate that such had occurred then or now.
I doubt anyone has statistically significant quantities of data in that detail. I’ve been looking for “hospitalized by age” and “died by age” as the most likely useful data comparison.