-
No thats what concerns me (well not only for sweden but for the world). It would have been much better if the virus had a large spread everywhere all rdy (obviously since lower death rate) but also like u say, that makes u wonder about our 30% with antibodies in stockholm since this was a projection from a rather small group of testing in comparison to the spain survey for instance. But they have been in complete lockdown since late march or similar? So i still have some hope that the stockholm numbers can hold somewhat true when they release the next test results after the weekend.
There was also that german study of village that found 15%? had had it and only a mortality rate of about .3% or similar which makes one wonder how it can differ so much. Are the tests they used in spain not reliable perhaps? not picking up on every case?
Theres also places like india that leaves me somewhat puzzled.. how can the slum of the big cities in india not produce massive deaths way way higher than beeing reported.
Its like there are factors in this virus that are not yet understood at all. There is otherwise no logic or way to little accurate data at least.
-
It is a weird virus in a way that so many people can get it and have no symptoms, if you get lots of people like that and few that get it into the lungs your mortality won't be as high.
There's a nice video on scishow on youtube explaining a bit about the virus, how it differs from other viruses and why they think it behaves like that.
But right now they only know about the risk factors such as age/cardiovascular issues/lung issues etc.
India may not have mass testing, poor reporting or a slower outbreak? I am not sure, have not looked at it indepth. Excess death figures may help? If those are low too, that's interesting.
Blood tests in the Netherlands about 6%
I don't understand why they have such a high % rate of antibodies in Stockholm tests...