I agree - but the risk is that people relax now and another rise begins. Although a lockdown is clearly not the right path atm, we have to remain vigilant for a turn around in cases.

Positivity seems to be staying around 25-30%. It'd be nice to see that begin to fall.

...but still one of the highest current infection rates in the world. and a rapidly increasing death toll coupled with overloaded health care personnel that could have been prevented by decisive earlier action.

Depends on where you are and how you define lockdown. Gva has lockdown. Most in the French speaking part have partial lockdown. Main difference is mandatory schooling open for in person classes. Certain commerces are open/closed depending on canton.

Still much more than here, CHF 20 for a bottle of wine that I can buy here for CHF 5.

Tom

And as we know, infection rates on their own mean little. Stop spinning the same alarmist record, it's overused and untrue, move on.

probably CHF 5 with discount
in Sweden there is no discount on alcohol. ever
however, my favorite Chateauneuf-du-Pape Mont-Redon 2015 costs ~ 28 CHF in Sweden and 34 CHF in CH and its 2016 in CH

There's a lockdown where it matters: Genève, Valais, Jura.




https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/geneva-...kdown/46134304

Why did you cut off the rest of the quote that talks about death toll? You talk about the infection rates meaning little on their own then left out the bit were they talk about death toll...which I imagine adds the context you were looking for.

edit: edit added after quoted

Because it's not true either. The most recent data for excess deaths in CH that I managed to find is around 2%. Btw, did you all notice how excess deaths seems to be no longer even communicated? Makes one wonder why?

So leave it in the quote and talk about how that isn't true either with data to back it up

No, I wanted to distinguish between a quantitative statement (infection rate) and the purely subjective qualitative comments ("rapidly increasing death toll coupled with overloaded health care personnel") which could be true in ones mind depending on mindset as they are subjective.

This is insightful, thanks! So, no excess deaths <65 years and an increase from 1200 to 1500 for the >65 years. This is pretty steep as it suggest a 25% increase in excess deaths for that age group.

Which all gives further credence to the oft-repeated statement: let the <65 roam, work, live normally and ask the >65 to stay at home. Simples.

Didn't look very hard, did you. Easily available, I even posted it in this thread a couple of days ago. BTW this is calculated 2 weeks in arrears so ghe big jumps over the last 2 weeks aren't even included yet.

In any event, deaths are no good as a planning tool as there is a 4 to 5 week lag after infection. You HAVE to use infections and try to work out the R from that.

How is talking about an increasing death toll (1 to over 60 per day in about a month) purely subjective? Would you prefer one talk about the death rate instead?

Well, they are declining, so you're making another wrong point. Not your day is it?

It's too early to draw conclusions. The r-rate is still too high. The government needs to take more measures.

It's not over yet.

Of course it's not over yet, nobody said that. But the current measures seem to be working quite well, so no need for alarmism and panic, this was my point.

Which conveniently ignores the fact that that approach doesn't work. Sweden tried and failed miserably.

Also ignores the issue of long covid which very definitely is a problem for under 65s.

You've been trying very hard to hint just that. But ignore the truth that with an R still close to 1 the infections and thus increased deaths remain far too high.

The improvements in the infection rate come most strongly from cantons that introduced heavier lockdown measures btw.

Edit..from the BAG presser right now:

...acknowledging a probable underestimate.

Edit 2, R estimated at 0.86, still above target of below 0.80