Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

The statement of the previous state epidemiologist that she was originally of the opinion that it was possible, but now accepts that it was a pipe-dream puts a large hole very close to the water line.


I have just post this question but perhaps you might also like to have a go at just what you seem to believe the primary strategy was and how effective it has been.

bb1234567

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

The UK never really had a lockdown. It was so half-hearted as to be almost not worth bothering. I follow a neighbourhood group where I used to live in london (nextdoor.co.uk), and the chat right from the start showed frustration with how many people there were out and about. And for a month now, it has just been jammed with people everywhere.

greyday

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

They were too late to lockdown, it was so widespread that the lockdown would take far longer to have an effect.

charlie14

biko wrote: »

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..".


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

I did say earlier when someone brought up who might possibly get the blame in Sweden for the numbers, that if there is one thing politicians are universally adapt at it`s when the proverbial hits the fan they will not be standing in front of it when there is a viable alternative standing on the stage

growleaves

The UK never really had a lockdown.

They were too late to lockdown

One poster says the UK didn't have a lockdown. The poster immediately below says they were too late going into lockdown.

They can't both be right.

Like I said, nobody knows what the effects of lockdown are. So all we have are contradictory guesses.

France collected €8.5 million in fines from people who broke the 100km travel limit. So that was not a flawless, strict lockdown either.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The statement of the previous state epidemiologist that she was originally of the opinion that it was possible, but now accepts that it was a pipe-dream puts a large hole very close to the water line.


I have just post this question but perhaps you might also like to have a go at just what you seem to believe the primary strategy was and how effective it has been.

It does no such thing. It blows a hole in her own opinion and nothing else. Her being of the opinion that herd immunity was the strategy does not make it so. You constantly reiterating it doesn't either.

Could you please first explain why Sweden does not have at least another 25k deaths due to not implementing an apparently essential lockdown.

greyday

No one had a complete lockdown, essential workers still travelled to work and there was a fairly wide definition of what an essential worker was.
The tube in the UK was a huge contributor to the spread and although it was a slimmed down service after lockdown, it was/is still a risky mode of travel.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

It does no such thing. It blows a hole in her own opinion and nothing else. Her being of the opinion that herd immunity was the strategy does not make it so. You constantly reiterating it doesn't either.

Could you please first explain why Sweden does not have at least another 25k deaths due to not implementing an apparently essential lockdown.

She is the previous state epidemiologist. She admitted she knew of the herd immunity plan. She even initially agreed it was a possibility until she saw the antibody test results


Again, why go searching for mathematical modelling figure answers on Swedish deaths due to not having lockdown, when the actual figures for not doing so are there for all to see.
Have you questioned why Tegnell`s immunity modelling figures on herd immunity were so far off ?


Now again, what is it I am missing in the Swedish strategy that you seem to believe was the primary reason for it, and how successful you seem to believe it has been ?

Loafing Oaf

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

Surely only a disaster if herd immunity is our ultimate objective?

bb1234567

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

If our immunity is only at 1%, then we never even had a first wave. Why is this such a bad thing in your eyes? Why is it better to have a first wave with lots of deaths and to be less 'ripe' for a second wave? Both are bad, the latter example just had the bad event occur earlier. No guarantee we will definitey have another large outbreak before a vaccine comes

sheepysheep

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Surely only a disaster if herd immunity is our ultimate objective?

Disaster was too strong a word.

What is our ultimate objective?

charlie14

hmmm wrote: »

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?

Hopefully when we get to phase 4/5 we will not have the number of deaths or active confirmed cases that Sweden has now and we can control, (should there be any spikes in numbers), the virus from spreading.
Unfortunately something it looks too late now for Sweden to do.

sheepysheep

bb1234567 wrote: »

If our immunity is only at 1%, then we never even had a first wave. Why is this such a bad thing in your eyes? Why is it better to have a first wave with lots of deaths and to be less 'ripe' for a second wave? Both are bad, the latter example just had the bad event occur earlier. No guarantee we will definitey have another large outbreak before a vaccine comes

I think that's fairly obvious. It is seen as a bad thing because there is no even small herd barrier to slow transmission.

A second wave, I think most people would agree, if overwhelming, is a far worse situation.

Do you really fell positive about implementing a second lockdown? Do you think it would have public support next time?

uptherebels

growleaves wrote: »

One poster says the UK didn't have a lockdown. The poster immediately below says they were too late going into lockdown.

They can't both be right.

Like I said, nobody knows what the effects of lockdown are. So all we have are contradictory guesses.

France collected €8.5 million in fines from people who broke the 100km travel limit. So that was not a flawless, strict lockdown either.

You do understand the difference between "didn't" and "didn't really".

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

She is the previous state epidemiologist. She admitted she knew of the herd immunity plan. She even initially agreed it was a possibility until she saw the antibody test results


Again, why go searching for mathematical modelling figure answers on Swedish deaths due to not having lockdown, when the actual figures for not doing so are there for all to see.
Have you questioned why Tegnell`s immunity modelling figures on herd immunity were so far off ?


Now again, what is it I am missing in the Swedish strategy that you seem to believe was the primary reason for it, and how successful you seem to believe it has been ?

I'm looking for an explanation because you claim that a Lockdown works, i.e saving lives. You have no evidence that it has saved even a single life.

It's a claim that you can only make by referencing a model, which Simon Harris did and which you are happy to agree with, i.e how many lives would have been lost in the event of no lockdown. In this case 12000.

I guess if you had an explanation, you would have stated it by now. We in Ireland, with good hygiene practice, social distancing and closing large indoor events could have achieved the same outcomes without lockdown. Sweden shows that.

growleaves

uptherebels wrote: »

You do understand the difference between "didn't" and "didn't really".

Er yes I do thank you.

My original points stands, which is that we have an entire spectrum of strict to loose lockdowns for countries which don't line up with the apparent results of said lockdowns in terms of deaths. Since it is a novel theory no one can actually say why that is in lieu of scientific investigation.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

I'm looking for an explanation because you claim that a Lockdown works, i.e saving lives. You have no evidence that it has saved even a single life.

It's a claim that you can only make by referencing a model, which Simon Harris did and which you are happy to agree with, i.e how many lives would have been lost in the event of no lockdown. In this case 12000.

I guess if you had an explanation, you would have stated it by now. We in Ireland, with good hygiene practice, social distancing and closing large indoor events could have achieved the same outcomes without lockdown. Sweden shows that.

How many times have I got to say it.
To see how lockdown saves lives rather than the Swedish model all you have to do is look at the figures for the other Nordic countries and compare them to Sweden`s.


What is it you do not understand in that the reason we have lockdown was because too many refused to listen too the recommendations on social distancing and large indoor crowds in pubs and clubs.
Even in Sweden where there is generally good compliance with government recommendations it has not worked.

greyday

sheepysheep wrote: »

I'm looking for an explanation because you claim that a Lockdown works, i.e saving lives. You have no evidence that it has saved even a single life.

It's a claim that you can only make by referencing a model, which Simon Harris did and which you are happy to agree with, i.e how many lives would have been lost in the event of no lockdown. In this case 12000.

I guess if you had an explanation, you would have stated it by now. We in Ireland, with good hygiene practice, social distancing and closing large indoor events could have achieved the same outcomes without lockdown. Sweden shows that.

The lockdown works in reducing deaths, the Swedish strategy may well be what we move to without resorting to peoples common sense to do the right thing, they are right that you cannot lockdown indefinitely but the lockdown should be used to reduce deaths and then open up slowly with the intention of at least keeping the death rate flat.
People behaviours will be key to opening up without seeing an appreciable increase in deaths.
At best Sweden has kept the death rate flat at a very high number, we on the other hand are in single digits and are better placed to now revert towards the Swedish model but with more stringent rules that must be adhered to if we are to eventually eradicate the virus which only seems likely if a vaccine works in the next few years.

joe40

I could be wrong on this but is there any evidence that getting the disease confers immunity. If the answer is no, does that mean that herd immunity may not exist.
That is, people who had it before just as likely to get it again.

Loafing Oaf

sheepysheep wrote: »

Disaster was too strong a word.

What is our ultimate objective?

To suppress spread of the virus and keep it that way until we get a vaccine. Okay in theory a higher proportion of people with antibodies will further this but if you're talking about the difference between say 4% and 2% in a context where the transmission rate is very low, common sense would say that will have only a marginal benefit.

greyday

joe40 wrote: »

I could be wrong on this but is there any evidence that getting the disease confers immunity. If the answer is no, does that mean that herd immunity may not exist.
That is, people who had it before just as likely to get it again.

There has not so far been any definitive evidence that you can catch it a second time within the timescale we have had the virus, the WHO say some level of immunity is expected but it is too early to say how many people will have immunity or how long the immunity will last, it seems people that get the less severe form of the virus are less likely to have long lasting immunity.
It is only when widespread reliable antibody testing is rolled out that we will get a better picture of what immunity people have.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

How many times have I got to say it.
To see how lockdown saves lives rather than the Swedish model all you have to do is look at the figures for the other Nordic countries and compare them to Sweden`s.


What is it you do not understand in that the reason we have lockdown was because too many refused to listen too the recommendations on social distancing and large indoor crowds in pubs and clubs.
Even in Sweden where there is generally good compliance with government recommendations it has not worked.

Well, you can say it as many times as you want, but you don't get to pick the data subset you like to make your argument.

Compared to one subset of data, Sweden looks bad. Compared to other Europen countries, quite good sometimes. Compared to Ireland, shag all difference.

The Swedish numbers are quite good really. 4k over this time period won't even register much on the excess deaths charts at the end of the year, if at all.

Again. Ireland, as per WHO top dog Ryan, is moving towards the Swedish model. If Sweden was moving to the Irish model i'd say they failed. So why not admit it, if the WHO already has.

growleaves

Compared to one subset of data, Sweden looks bad. Compared to other Europen countries, quite good sometimes. Compared to Ireland, shag all difference.

Sweden sits amongst locked-down countries in tables of deaths per million (ones which had similar nursing home failures).

Similarly, in the US eight States which avoided lockdown - Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Utah, and Wyoming - had lower deaths-per-million than California, Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, which were all locked-down.

However we are told that lockdown is a trivial factor next to similarities of geography, culture, language, history, custom, population density and distribution etc., etc.

If lockdown is only one factor of many, a seemingly trivial one, and only prevents (maybe) a few deaths then it should be discredited now considering how much hassle and damage it involves. We know in future to have special protections in place for nursing homes, meat processing plants, public transport etc. and hand hygiene and other measures for everyone else. Lesson learned.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

Sweden sits amongst locked-down countries in tables of deaths per million (ones which had similar nursing home failures).

Similarly, in the US eight States which avoided lockdown - Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Utah, and Wyoming - had lower deaths-per-million than California, Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, which were all locked-down.

However we are told that lockdown is a trivial factor next to similarities of geography, culture, language, history, custom, population density and distribution etc., etc.

If lockdown is only one factor of many, a seemingly trivial one, and only prevents (maybe) a few deaths then it should be discredited now considering how much hassle and damage it involves. We know in future to have special protections in place for nursing homes, meat processing plants, public transport etc. and hand hygiene and other measures for everyone else. Lesson learned.

of course lock down works


what are you on about


of course geography and population density make a difference


one doesn't contradict the other

MadYaker

growleaves wrote: »

Sweden sits amongst locked-down countries in tables of deaths per million (ones which had similar nursing home failures).

Similarly, in the US eight States which avoided lockdown - Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Utah, and Wyoming - had lower deaths-per-million than California, Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, which were all locked-down.

However we are told that lockdown is a trivial factor next to similarities of geography, culture, language, history, custom, population density and distribution etc., etc.

If lockdown is only one factor of many, a seemingly trivial one, and only prevents (maybe) a few deaths then it should be discredited now considering how much hassle and damage it involves. We know in future to have special protections in place for nursing homes, meat processing plants, public transport etc. and hand hygiene and other measures for everyone else. Lesson learned.

So you dont think the italians should have implemented a lockdown as their hospitals were overwhelmed with covid patients?

Do people not understand how this virus spreads? It spreads when people are together. Lockdown keeps people apart. It stops the spread. I understand that we all hate the lockdown but you shoudn't let that cloud your ability to see its efectiveness.

mcsean2163

Here are the Swedish figures by Age:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

Of 4,542 deaths, 22 were under the age of 40.

That suggests relatively little risk to those under 40.

Surely most under 40 could now go about their life as normal (haircuts etc.) and the onus being on those over 40 (and potentially under) who are at risk to take appropriate precautions and especially when dealing with those under 40?

Loafing Oaf

sheepysheep wrote: »

Compared to one subset of data, Sweden looks bad.

Yeah, a subset of about 97% of countries...

growleaves

the.red.baron wrote: »

of course lock down works


what are you on about


of course geography and population density make a difference


one doesn't contradict the other

Locked-down states are in the same ballpark as non-locked-down states in terms of mortality. (Including Sweden but not just Sweden.)

To the extent that we say that geography and population density (and distribution) are more signifcant than locking down in preventing deaths - we are therefore minimising lockdown itself as a factor in said prevention. It is a logical necessity.

the.red.baron

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Here are the Swedish figures by Age:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

Of 4,542 deaths, 22 were under the age of 40.

That suggests relatively little risk to those under 40.

Surely most under 40 could now go about their life as normal (haircuts etc.) and the onus being on those over 40 (and potentially under) who are at risk to take appropriate precautions and especially when dealing with those under 40?

We knew this 3 months ago


how practical is that? have it raging through the under 40's, do you think it wouldn't spread on

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

Locked-down states are in the same ballpark as non-locked-down states in terms of mortality. (Including Sweden but not just Sweden.)

To the extent that we say that geography and population density (and distribution) are more signifcant than locking down in preventing deaths - we are therefore minimising lockdown itself as a factor in said prevention. It is a logical necessity.

so how do you choose where to lockdown before this happens, whats the cut off?


its grand after the fact


I mean you have travel lock down either way from these affected areas and these areas are ahead of the curve just by the nature that no one can be arsed going there in the first place


You have sweden norway and finland, and lockdown is a bigger factor than geography there


how do you explain that