Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

AdamD wrote: »

Look, Sweden may well have messed this up but your point on the economy isn't true. Yes the global economy can push a country into recessions, but not all recessions are the same. Collapsing you SME industry prior to a global recession will absolutely mean your country is worse off.

Sweden`s own Central Bank and their independent Institute for Economic Research are predicting best case scenario the same GDP contraction as European countries that used lockdown. A recent bank survey showed the level of spending was only 4% greater in Sweden than Denmark who used lockdown, so Sweden`s SME`s are not doing much better there either.

biko

40803 known cases
4542 officially dead
11% of known cases have passed

Numbers from FHMs own tracking page
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

charlie14

seamus wrote: »

What it does though is provide evidence of a natural "ceiling" when your restrictions are primarily based on social distancing and hygiene.

If these measures were ineffective, Sweden's daily numbers would still be rising, especially as they increase testing.

But a consistent number of new cases - fairly early on it must be said - suggests that these are very effective measures for limiting spread.

Well their numbers went through the roof today.

Harry Palmr

Have to laugh at "well maybe we'll have been shown to be no worse in a year or two" justification.

The idea that they have front loaded their deaths is presumably based on the failed belief in herd immunity through antibodies. Sweden's population will be as at risk to a further wave as everyone else.

greyday

charlie14 wrote: »

Well their numbers went through the roof today.

Today's numbers cover the weekend also and probably late reporting over the previous month or so, seems to be consistently in the 60-70 per day range when averaged out.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The issue that matters in relation to Sweden is the Coronavirus deaths in Sweden in comparison to their neighbours and the strategies taken.



Something even both the present Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell and his predecessor Annika Linde now have doubts on. Linde now describes the immunity theory as being like a dream with no basis in reality and that lockdown would have saved lives



So tell me, what are these differences that the Swedish strategy has made other than being a warning to anyone else not to go down the same route?

Its just your opinion that the only comparison should be made between Sweden and its neighbours. It's a nonsensical approach.

If your opinion held, then Ireland could only be held in contrast to the UK, and for everything. How could we ever look at the Canadian health system or the Australian road safety policy or Danish environmental initiatives.

Sweden stands as a point of contrast to very country in Europe because it's employing a different strategy. That's why it generates discussion.

The Swedish model is not a warning. Its the model we are all embracing whether you like it or not. In the absence of a vaccine, and if the disease doesn't burn itself out, good luck with lockdown in 3 years time.

JimmyVik

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Have to laugh at "well maybe we'll have been shown to be no worse in a year or two" justification.

The idea that they have front loaded their deaths is presumably based on the failed belief in herd immunity through antibodies. Sweden's population will be as at risk to a further wave as everyone else.

True. And most of those people who have dies know might have preferred not to die for another year or two at least.

ACitizenErased

sweden’s numbers today contained ~1500 healthcare workers who weren’t reported until now

growleaves

Its just your opinion that the only comparison should be made between Sweden and its neighbours.

Yes and the quick invention of this 'rule' came about when it looked like Sweden's death count would be within the EU average, contra modelled predictions.

Then when Sweden looked like it would be worse than Ireland, the posters who insisted on comparisons within Scandanavia only were suddenly making comparisons between Sweden and Ireland.

The only consistent principle seems to be: whatever makes the lockdown look good is permitted and only that.

4068ac1elhodqr

Sweden now with the highest death rate (pm) in the world.

Today, admittance from authorities that they would have done things differently.
Think this summarises the thread well.

blowitupref

So Sweden after many months have finally realised that "test, trace and isolate" is a much better strategy. As for the so called herd immunity. 1000s of people have and will continue to die needlessly in that country.


.

hmmm

It's genuinely unfortunate that the Swedish experiment looks to be faltering. It's still early days however - they went into this thinking a sustained lockdown was not realistic, and so would tolerate a higher level of spread at the early stage instead of flattening curves - let's look back in a year and compare then.

It's doubly unfortunate because Sweden is in many ways the model for what re-opening might look like. If Sweden (who are at our phase 4/5) are in trouble, why wouldn't we see the same result?

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Its just your opinion that the only comparison should be made between Sweden and its neighbours. It's a nonsensical approach.

If your opinion held, then Ireland could only be held in contrast to the UK, and for everything. How could we ever look at the Canadian health system or the Australian road safety policy or Danish environmental initiatives.

Sweden stands as a point of contrast to very country in Europe because it's employing a different strategy. That's why it generates discussion.

The Swedish model is not a warning. Its the model we are all embracing whether you like it or not. In the absence of a vaccine, and if the disease doesn't burn itself out, good luck with lockdown in 3 years time.

What it shows clearly is the the comparative amounts of death as a result of Sweden following a strategy that their neighbours were wise enough not too.
It also shows how following the same strategy originally resulted in the UK having the virus run rampant before they eventually coped on and introduced lockdown, but too late.


Nobody is embracing the Swedish strategy. It was a failed attempt at letting the virus run free to gain herd immunity. Even their present state epidemiologist now grudgingly admits that they got it wrong and his predecessor says it was a dream with no basis in reality.


Do you not get, or are you simply refusing to get, that Sweden`s own figures on antibodies show that it was a dream now proven to have no basis in reality ?

nthclare

Ah the liberal left, scoring an own goal...
They're so so different from the rest of us, what a stupid decision and totally undermines the rest of us.

Looks like they made a big mistake, who's going to take the blame now ???

charlie14

greyday wrote: »

Today's numbers cover the weekend also and probably late reporting over the previous month or so, seems to be consistently in the 60-70 per day range when averaged out.

Unfortunately their numbers of those that passed are consistently in that range, but I was referring too the number of new confirmed cases today.
I see from another poster 1,500 of those are from health care workers, which does not say much for their figures or their testing for the virus.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

What it shows clearly is the the comparative amounts of death as a result of Sweden following a strategy that their neighbours were wise enough not too.
It also shows how following the same strategy originally resulted in the UK having the virus run rampant before they eventually coped on and introduced lockdown, but too late.


Nobody is embracing the Swedish strategy. It was a failed attempt at letting the virus run free to gain herd immunity. Even their present state epidemiologist now grudgingly admits that they got it wrong and his predecessor says it was a dream with no basis in reality.


Do you not get, or are you simply refusing to get, that Sweden`s own figures on antibodies show that it was a dream now proven to have no basis in reality ?

It has been pointed out to you on numerous posts by numerous posters that herd immunity was not the Swedish strategy. Yet you continue to insist it was to suit your agenda.

You seem to take great delight that Swedish antibody testing is showing at 7%. Do you fail to realise that this is also a disaster for Ireland. There was an Irish expert on Prime time recently pointing out that due to our lockdown our level is around 1%, 'a community ripe for infection if there is a second wave' is how he put it.

Will you please, once and for all, explain why Sweden has not had nearly 30K deaths as predicted if they did not embrace lockdown, because you can't have it both ways.

charlie14

growleaves wrote: »

Yes and the quick invention of this 'rule' came about when it looked like Sweden's death count would be within the EU average, contra modelled predictions.

Then when Sweden looked like it would be worse than Ireland, the posters who insisted on comparisons within Scandanavia only were suddenly making comparisons between Sweden and Ireland.

The only consistent principle seems to be: whatever makes the lockdown look good is permitted and only that.

I do not recall that. Posters were making the point that comparing Sweden to it`s neighbours was more on a like for like basis than comparing Ireland to Sweden.
Still is, and the comparison is plain to see between Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries that used lockdown and one that based all its hopes on immunity.

Lux23

charlie14 wrote: »

Do you not get, or are you simply refusing to get, that Sweden`s own figures on antibodies show that it was a dream now proven to have no basis in reality ?

They are too pig-headed to admit they were wrong. If more people could relax their egos and admit they don't always get things right, the world would be a much better place.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you on numerous posts by numerous posters that herd immunity was not the Swedish strategy. Yet you continue to insist it was to suit your agenda.

You seem to take great delight that Swedish antibody testing is showing at 7%. Do you fail to realise that this is also a disaster for Ireland. There was an Irish expert on Prime time recently pointing out that due to our lockdown our level is around 1%, 'a community ripe for infection if there is a second wave' is how he put it.

Will you please, once and for all, explain why Sweden has not had nearly 30K deaths as predicted if they did not embrace lockdown, because you can't have it both ways.

Nobody other than yourself is now buying that Sweden were not attempting herd immunity. Even Tegnell`s predecessor has stated it and that she initially thought it a possibility now accepts it was just a dream with no basis.


I have no delight in the fact that Sweden`s dream was based on false assumptions on immunity. Which btw is only 7.3% for Stockholm. Nationally no better than 5% so their community is every bit as ripe for infection as anywhere else from a second wave. The only difference is their strategy has caused needless deaths. Something even Tegnell admits to now.


Why are you so stuck on finding an answer to projected figures of deaths in Sweden from their strategy when the actual figures are plain to be seen?

paddar

sheepysheep wrote: »

Its just your opinion that the only comparison should be made between Sweden and its neighbours. It's a nonsensical approach.

If your opinion held, then Ireland could only be held in contrast to the UK, and for everything. How could we ever look at the Canadian health system or the Australian road safety policy or Danish environmental initiatives.

Sweden stands as a point of contrast to very country in Europe because it's employing a different strategy. That's why it generates discussion.

The Swedish model is not a warning. Its the model we are all embracing whether you like it or not. In the absence of a vaccine, and if the disease doesn't burn itself out, good luck with lockdown in 3 years time.

But if you want to test whether the Swedish approach has worked or not it makes total sense to compare the Nordic countries. You have 4 countries sharing similar geography, social structures, similar-ish language family (in the case of Norwegian, Danish and Swedish), politics, regional cooperation, history (Skåne was part of Denmark, and Norway only got independent from Sweden in 1905) transport links, diet, family sizes, climate etc etc etc. It removes a lot of variables.
It is almost a perfect experiment if you want to test which approach has worked. Only in this case Sweden is the control group.

Breezin

sheepysheep wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you on numerous posts by numerous posters that herd immunity was not the Swedish strategy. Yet you continue to insist it was to suit your agenda..

Too true. It's like groundhog day. He's utterly mesmerised by the concept, and continues to be because it suits his agenda. At this point, he simply is unable to let it go.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

Too true. It's like groundhog day. He's utterly mesmerised by the concept, and continues to be because it suits his agenda. At this point, he simply is unable to let it go.

There appears to be a pair of you that refuses to accept what even Tegnell`s predecessor now admits was the aim of the strategy.

sheepysheep

paddar wrote: »

But if you want to test whether the Swedish approach has worked or not it makes total sense to compare the Nordic countries. You have 4 countries sharing similar geography, social structures, similar-ish language family (in the case of Norwegian, Danish and Swedish), politics, regional cooperation, history (Skåne was part of Denmark, and Norway only got independent from Sweden in 1905) transport links, diet, family sizes, climate etc etc etc. It removes a lot of variables.
It is almost a perfect experiment if you want to test which approach has worked. Only in this case Sweden is the control group.

Sure, but it's not a controlled laboratory experiment with experimental and control groups.

Why would you limit your data to 4 countries when there are numerous other data points available to you. That makes no sense. There could be an unknown confounding variable that is responsible for low figures in those countries.

I can see no reason why Sweden cant be compared to any other country in Europe.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

There appears to be a pair of you that refuses to accept what even Tegnell`s predecessor now admits was the aim of the strategy.

The aim of the strategy has been clarified on numerous occasions by the person implementing it.

Another opinion on that strategy does not change the strategy, no matter how highly qualified that opinion.

biko

Swedish government is now changing tack.
Seems they realise their laissez-faire approach was the wrong thing to do.

Look how they go "we were ready all along, but the experts said..".

Sweden’s government has been ready to introduce further measures to try and halt the spread of the new coronavirus if recommended by the Public Health Agency, Health Minister Lena Hallengren said on Wednesday.

“The government has been, at all times, prepared to introduce further measures recommended by the expert authority,” Hallengren said in written comment to Reuters.

Earlier, the Public Health Agency’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said that with hindsight, Sweden should have done more to halt the outbreak, which has claimed a higher proportion of lives in Sweden than in neighbouring countries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-tegnell-mea/swedish-government-says-has-been-ready-to-take-wider-measures-if-asked-by-health-agency-idUSKBN23A1MM

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

There appears to be a pair of you that refuses to accept what even Tegnell`s predecessor now admits was the aim of the strategy.

If you care to look at the video interview he gave, reproduced earlier in this thread and extensively referred to in previous groundhog episodes, he said it was a byproduct, not the primary strategy.

The fixed concept of herd immunity gives you a windmill to tilt at. It's much more difficult to defend rigid lockdowns if you maintain the mirage.



Sweden's policy was never seen as perfect, and they are willing and able to adapt. But they are not going to impose an untargetted sledgehammer.

biko

biko wrote: »

COVID-19 deaths per million people
Sweden 88
Denmark 45
Norway 18
Finland 9

My post 7 weeks ago. Let's see how they fared so far.
COVID-19 deaths per million people
Sweden 442
Denmark 100
Norway 44
Finland 58

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

If you care to look at the video interview he gave, reproduced earlier in this thread and extensively referred to in previous groundhog episodes, he said it was a byproduct, not the primary strategy.

The fixed concept of herd immunity gives you a windmill to tilt at. It's much more difficult to defend rigid lockdowns if you maintain the mirage.



Sweden's policy was never seen as perfect, and they are willing and able to adapt. But they are not going to impose an untargetted sledgehammer.

I have seen many video interviews by him and others in charge of their policy and in practically ever one their modelling figures for immunity were thrown in.


So tell me, what was the primary strategy if not herd immunity.
Stopping the spread of the virus ? From their own numbers by any metric a failure.
Protecting the aged and vulnerable ? Ditto.
That Sweden would be better off economically ? Not according to their own central bank.
That their SME`s would fare better ? Not according to a recent bank survey on spending.
So tell me what have I missed that you see to see as a Swedish success ?



Do you really still not get it
There were only ever two possible strategies. Lockdown and attempting immunity.
Sweden tried immunity and it is now too late for them to adopt the other.

bb1234567

Why is the UK lockdown not as effective as the ones in Spain, France, Italy? Along with Sweden they are the only West Europan still consistently reporting very high daily deaths

growleaves

bb1234567 wrote: »

Why is the UK lockdown not as effective as the ones in Spain, France, Italy? Along with Sweden they are the only West Europan still consistently reporting very high daily deaths

Who knows. Nobody has any clue what effect lockdown has anyway, they just know that they like it.