[OFF TOPIC] Coronavirus Pandemic

[Vic Liu 1,581]

44 minutes ago, up and down said:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-pandemic-preparedness-ranked/

 

Countries who are the most prepared to face the pandemic according to ranking.

 

Rank / Country

#1      United States

#2      United Kingdom

#3      Netherlands

#4      Australia

#5      Canada

#6      Thailand

#7      Sweden

#8      Denmark

#9      South Korea

#10    Finland

#11    France
#12    Slovenia   
#13    Switzerland   
#14    Germany   
#15    Spain    
#16    Norway   
#17    Latvia   
#18    Malaysia   
#19    Belgium    
#20    Portugal    

 

I think it's true and objective since China Russia and Iran not on the list

[Agger 1,587]

19 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

 

This is from three weeks ago. Very irrelevant now. Just throw it in the trash. The Swedish non-isolation method seems to be bottoming out hard since last week.

 

Except for the worst cases it's really way too early to make any conclusions about who is doing well or bad until we've been through the full pandemic. 

The Swedish way could end up seeming like the right way when other countries are hit by a second wave. Even Italy, Spain and New York could end up looking better in the statistics in a year (though I doubt the times they're going through will be forgotten). Don't get me wrong. I've also been in favour of more isolation, but simulations show that it's at least as much a question of the behaviour of the people (at least if you're not going to the extremes with curfews). As long as the Swedish health system isn't overloaded, it could be the right decision in the long run.

[heywoodu 13,540]

3 minutes ago, Agger said:

 

Except for the worst cases it's really way too early to make any conclusions about who is doing well or bad until we've been through the full pandemic. 

The Swedish way could end up seeming like the right way when other countries are hit by a second wave. Even Italy, Spain and New York could end up looking better in the statistics in a year (though I doubt the times they're going through will be forgotten). Don't get me wrong. I've also been in favour of more isolation, but simulations show that it's at least as much a question of the behaviour of the people (at least if you're not going to the extremes with curfews). As long as the Swedish health system isn't overloaded, it could be the right decision in the long run.

 

Generally one might say the more a government is making it's decision based on actual scientists and experts (instead of panic, gut-feelings and so on), the better they're doing with the resources they've got. Especially when health systems in a country are not totally overloaded.

Edited April 8, 2020 by heywoodu

[Agger 1,587]

32 minutes ago, OlympicsFan said:

What? Countries like GB, Sweden or the Netherlands are pretty low on the list of ICU beds per 100000. Those countries might have some of the most "cost-effective" health care systems in the world, but certainly not some of the "best prepared" health care systems. Also the US without a doubt has the least "cost-effective" health care system in the world. They are spending the most and still roughly 10 % of their people aren't even insured. If you really think that the american or british health care system is great, then you obviously have no clue.

 

Looking at the index used for it, it has 34 different indicators. USA is first in 18 of these and top 10 in another 8 (they are by the way ranked 175 in healthcare acces). That's also on prevention, detection, response, norms and risk.

I'm not the right one to consider whether the indicators are good or bad or if the US was in fact the potentially best prepared or these, but I can see that some of the strengths are thrown away by Trump and Kushner (or was based on facts that didn't really stand the test). I'm very well aware of the major lacks in the US health care and have seen the numbers of beds and ICU beds plenty of times (one of the few things things I could easily be sceptical about is that it doesn't seem like ICU beds are taken into account (only beds in general are))

Personally I would be careful about making any conclusions about whether it's a good ranking or anything. It is pretty thorough afterall, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't focused on some of the wrong things.

[Monzanator 3,593]

These lists won't solve anything without vaccine. USA can be ranked #1 in gazillion indicators but common sense suggests a country with 330m population will struggle more than a country with 5 million population. I don't need any list to say that USA will struggle more with COVID than let's say Slovakia.

[OlympicsFan 782]

1 hour ago, Agger said:

 

Looking at the index used for it, it has 34 different indicators. USA is first in 18 of these and top 10 in another 8 (they are by the way ranked 175 in healthcare acces). That's also on prevention, detection, response, norms and risk.

I'm not the right one to consider whether the indicators are good or bad or if the US was in fact the potentially best prepared or these, but I can see that some of the strengths are thrown away by Trump and Kushner (or was based on facts that didn't really stand the test). I'm very well aware of the major lacks in the US health care and have seen the numbers of beds and ICU beds plenty of times (one of the few things things I could easily be sceptical about is that it doesn't seem like ICU beds are taken into account (only beds in general are))

Personally I would be careful about making any conclusions about whether it's a good ranking or anything. It is pretty thorough afterall, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't focused on some of the wrong things.

1) You were saying that the US and GB might very well be top 2 in terms of healthcare sytem. If you would tell that to the people in the US (30 million people without health insurance) or GB (ridiculously low number of ICU beds per 100.000 compared to Germany for example) they would probably think that you are joking.

2) I have no problem with making a conclusion about a ranking that has 100 % been proven wrong by reality. The US and GB are top 2 in the ranking, but in reality they are closer to bottom 2 (in terms of dealing with this pandemic). Of course their political leaders also played their part, but the things i mentioned in 1) played a major role and you don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that 10 % of your population not having health insurance or your country having only roughly 1/5th of the ICU beds per 100.000 compared to Germany leaves you pretty vulnerable to a pandemic. I also have absolutely no clue how anyone can think that countries that haven't dealt with an epidemic like this (at least somewhat recently) (GB, the US), would be better prepared than countries (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and to some degree Japan) that have been through this multiple times in the past two decades alone.

 

Edit: Maybe this ranking was based on a pandemic where noone would get sick ... then it might be accurate, but in a scenario were a large number of people get ill at the same time, there is absolutely no way that any expert would think that GB (and to some degree the US) is better prepared than all of Switzerland/South Korea/Japan/Singapore/Germany/Norway/...

Edited April 8, 2020 by OlympicsFan

[up and down 82]

2 hours ago, Vic Liu said:

 

I think it's true and objective since China Russia and Iran not on the list

 

Thank you for your reply.

[Olympian1010 7,470]

8 hours ago, Monzanator said:

CNN won't say a single positive word about Trump, it's the Democrats version of FOX tbh

Please, that’s MSNBC. Even we don’t watch CNN 

[Olympian1010 7,470]

4 hours ago, Monzanator said:

These lists won't solve anything without vaccine. USA can be ranked #1 in gazillion indicators but common sense suggests a country with 330m population will struggle more than a country with 5 million population. I don't need any list to say that USA will struggle more with COVID than let's say Slovakia.

I wouldn’t say that’s true. While it may be easier to consolidate resources in a smaller nation, it may also be harder to put bid larger ones. Larger ones also have a larger population base to keep the economy afloat during rough times. 

[Monzanator 3,593]

21 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

I wouldn’t say that’s true. While it may be easier to consolidate resources in a smaller nation, it may also be harder to put bid larger ones. Larger ones also have a larger population base to keep the economy afloat during rough times. 

 

European Union is big enough to help their members like Slovakia   This will be a big test for these bozos in Brussels! If EU refuses to help its members get out of this economical jam, it will be hundreds times worse than Brexit campaign of lies.