So... I think al their data is pretty compatible. First of all, one needs to be careful about comparing stocks (total number of people ever infected) and flows (number of people infected at any one time). So let's say the *flow* in Stockholm was 2.5% of people infected as of 4/1.
A month is enough time for that 2.5% of cases to spread 5-6 times over. If cases were turning over with an R of 1.3 (maybe what you'd get with relaxed social distancing) that gradually declines because of increasing herd immunity, you'd wind up with something roughly like this:
Generation 0: 2.5% newly infected
Generation 1: 3.3%
Generation 2: 3.7%
Generation 3: 4.1%
Generation 4: 4.3%
Generation 5: 4.2%
Generation 6: 3.9%
Or something like that. Which would get you to 26% infected cumulatively. Actually higher, since some people had it before Gen 0.
Generation 1: 3.3%
Generation 2: 3.7%
Generation 3: 4.1%
Generation 4: 4.3%
Generation 5: 4.2%
Generation 6: 3.9%
Or something like that. Which would get you to 26% infected cumulatively. Actually higher, since some people had it before Gen 0.
Why aren't Stockholm's ICU's overwhelmed? Well, because ICU's being overwhelmed is a function of the *flow* and Stockholm's flow is never that high. Sweden *is* doing a lot of distancing, just not enough to get R < 1. It's the original "flatten the curve" strategy.
By contrast, NYC likely had relatively unmitigated spread at (very rough guesses) an R of 2.5 to 3.0 (maybe even higher) for 2-3 weeks. That can be enough to overwhelm ICUs, even if the share of people who require ICUs is relatively low as a % of all infections.
So what's misunderstood about Sweden
1) They ARE doing a fair amount of distancing even if some high-visibility stuff (e.g. restaurants) remains open.
2) ICU rates from COVID-19 are not all *that* high especially if you have a healthy population that treats its old people well.
1) They ARE doing a fair amount of distancing even if some high-visibility stuff (e.g. restaurants) remains open.
2) ICU rates from COVID-19 are not all *that* high especially if you have a healthy population that treats its old people well.
There's also been a hell of a price. Sweden has death rates (importantly: as a share of the overall population, *not* of infections) 3-7x higher than their neighbors. And I hesitate to think what would happen if we tried this in the US with a less healthy population.
