Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
ittepa
That seems to be the plan yes, we can only hope it works out.
But I am very sceptic as to what degree the lockdowns has actually kept the spread rate down. I think other factors are much more important, such as how many sick people you go in to begin with. My main reasons for this are that UK, Belgium, and a few other countries have more dead per capita, even though they had strong measures for a long time. The other thing is that Stockholm has been hit, but what about the rest of Sweden? If the lockdown is what keeping Norway from getting hit badly, why hasn't it happened to the rest of Sweden?
Yes, that is what we are hoping. New Zealand and South Korea have had success that I hope is continued, so that their models can be adopted by other countries seeking exit strategies.
You are correct in that the percentage of sick people directly affects the time it’ll take for the lower R0 to start reflecting in the actively-infected percentage. This is for example, why the lockdown in the UK has been less successful than in other countries, and why their lockdown will take longer than other countries. But considering the pressure on the NHS, it seems necessary to prevent the otherwise high number of excess deaths (above those already recorded.) from starting to skyrocket away.
The average time to death is 23.8 days, roughly. This means that we are currently reflecting upon the 6-8th of April, where infection was still rather contained to Stockholm. But we’re seeing rises in both infections and intensive care patients outside of Stockholm as we get closer to Easter being reflected in death totals. This will likely continue to accelerate in places such as Västra Götaland to reflect periods of sunshine and the relaxing of measures due to fatigue and a seemingly plateauing death-rate. This is what my interpretation of the situation is, I may be wrong.