Sweden avoiding lockdown

growleaves

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

The effectiveness is mostly assumed. Like you said we all hate the lockdown, in which case we should look for definite proof backed by thorough scientific investigation instead of getting emotional in favour of lockdown.

The modelled predictions for un-locked-down countries - Sweden, Japan, several US states like the Dakotas - was deaths in the 100,000s. If these corpses had appeared I would not be questioning lockdown. Since they haven't, I would like to see this highly damaging and controversial policy questioned. I wonder why it has such passionate defenders - before and now.

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.

and sweden is belting on a high rates so it doesn't seem to be slowing where as it's at tiny numbers in surrounding countries and here and has been stymied in countries where it was out of control before lockdown


hard to see what you are trying to say


all evidence indicates lockdown works


no matter where you are the global lockdown is affecting your numbers

bb1234567

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?

In theory perhaps but in reality is just not working , in Brazil infections are mainly among the younger cohort due to them not being concerned about the virus but it is still leading to a high number of deaths.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejakartapost.com/amp/news/2020/05/22/in-brazil-covid-19-hitting-young-people-harder.html

At least 10,000 people under 60 in Brazil have died of covid . While the risk is a lot smaller for those under 65 it is still there, I would imagine just off these deaths that have happened so far it has had a noticeable impact on Brazilian life expectancy

Not saying that's justification for a lockdown but I don't think a reality where the younger sector of society get on with life care free without consequence or impacting the more at risk sector is ever going to really work. We need a careful and aware society that works in a coordinated effort to social distance and practice good hygiene while still maintaining the economy as best as we can. Despite swedens relatively high number of deaths unfortunately it is the best compromise anyone has come up with.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

The effectiveness is mostly assumed. Like you said we all hate the lockdown, in which case we should look for definite proof backed by thorough scientific investigation instead of getting emotional in favour of lockdown.

The modelled predictions for un-locked-down countries - Sweden, Japan, several US states like the Dakotas - was deaths in the 100,000s. If these corpses had appeared I would not be questioning lockdown. Since they haven't, I would like to see this highly damaging and controversial policy questioned. I wonder why it has such passionate defenders - before and now.

no the effectiveness tracks the timeline of the lockdown


how else do you explain it are we talking 5g ere



the population density etc doesn't change over time

Sweden have done really well. You have to factor in that they won’t have lots of future deaths due to months and months of no cancer screening and not detecting other very serious illnesses. Their economy will also be much stronger and people won’t be left paying a hefty bill for years.

Short term pain for long term gain is always the best approach.

We’ve sacrificed everyone’s future and wellbeing to try save a few extra lives now.

MadYaker

growleaves wrote: »

The effectiveness is mostly assumed. Like you said we all hate the lockdown, in which case we should look for definite proof backed by thorough scientific investigation instead of getting emotional in favour of lockdown.

The modelled predictions for un-locked-down countries - Sweden, Japan, several US states like the Dakotas - was deaths in the 100,000s. If these corpses had appeared I would not be questioning lockdown. Since they haven't, I would like to see this highly damaging and controversial policy questioned. I wonder why it has such passionate defenders - before and now.

What modelling did you examine for independant states? You are taking too simplistic a view of it. The reason NY had so many cases and the likes of South Dakota didn't was because of the millions of international travellers who pass in and out of New York every week. They had thousands of cases before they even realised they had a problem so its an apples and oranges comparison.

Nobody is getting emotional. The lockdown measaures implemented successfully by many countries were largely based off the WHO guidelines which are based on (guess what) science.

There is irefutable evidence from every country which implemented a lockdown, they all witnessed a dramatic drop in cases 2 weeks afterwards which just happens to be the incubation period for this virus. Do you think that was a coincidence?

Ill say it again. The virus spreads when people are together, the lockdown keeps people apart therefore it stops the spread. I don't see how anyone could not see this.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

You can bury your head in the sand all you wish. Doesn`t change the figures when you compare like for like or Sweden`s on antibody test results Taken together they show just how wrong Sweden was in the strategy they followed.

That, as you so delicately termed it, "shag all difference". In comparative population terms of Covid-19 deaths between Ireland and Sweden as of today is 1234 lives lost and that number increasing by the day.

Neither is Sweden "quite good" compared to other European countries.
Of the 44 countries in Europe Sweden has now passed France and is the 5th worst per million population for Covid-19 deaths.

Stop fooling yourself. Nobody is moving towards the Sweden model.

growleaves

The lockdown measaures implemented successfully by many countries were largely based off the WHO guidelines which are based on (guess what) science.

Can you point to the scientific studies that the WHO guidelines were based off of? I don't think the WHO have as much credibility now in may people's eyes than they did a few months back. The University of Southampton posited that travel bans from China, against WHO advice, could have prevented 95% of deaths.

There is irefutable evidence from every country which implemented a lockdown, they all witnessed a dramatic drop in cases 2 weeks afterwards which just happens to be the incubation period for this virus. Do you think that was a coincidence?

Its not whether I think its a coincidence or not. In science when you have a correlation between something that has occurred and your assumptions that's a cue to begin investigating it - to try and confirm whether what you think you know to be true is true or not. Terrible wrong use of the word 'irrefutable'.

the.red.baron

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sweden have done really well. You have to factor in that they won’t have lots of future deaths due to months and months of no cancer screening and not detecting other very serious illnesses. Their economy will also be much stronger and people won’t be left paying a hefty bill for years.

Short term pain for long term gain is always the best approach.

We’ve sacrificed everyone’s future and wellbeing to try save a few extra lives now.

It's not over for them, so hardly short term

They are still in recession and this could last longer than others who have locked down

vid36

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sweden have done really well. You have to factor in that they won’t have lots of future deaths due to months and months of no cancer screening and not detecting other very serious illnesses. Their economy will also be much stronger and people won’t be left paying a hefty bill for years.

Short term pain for long term gain is always the best approach.

We’ve sacrificed everyone’s future and wellbeing to try save a few extra lives now.

The economy in Sweden is not better, they will decline between 8-10% and the rest of their health service had the same problems as ours, you cannot treat cancer with Covid19 in your system.
Catalonia has a population just a little more than the island of Ireland and the death total there is 12,000 and still climbing. Herd immunity requires 30,000 to 40,000 deaths in Ireland with a 1% fatality rate.Not just a few lives, that is eugenics.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

Can you point to the scientific studies that the WHO guidelines were based off of? I don't think the WHO have as much credibility now in may people's eyes than they did a few months back. The University of Southampton posited that travel bans from China, against WHO advice, could have prevented 95% of deaths.



Its not whether I think its a coincidence or not. In science when you have a correlation between something that has occurred and your assumptions that's a cue to begin investigating it - to try and confirm whether what you think you know to be true is true or not. Terrible wrong use of the word 'irrefutable'.

What are you trying to prove here?

It's safe science

That exactly what it is, you don't looking for mad outliers either that just don't make any sense

All the countries that locked down its worked

For those that didn't it's been shut

Even those that tried to ignore like the UK, it's still shot because they left it too long

A travel ban is a type of lockdown

paddar

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

Sure but if you have a specific question ''is a full lockdown or Swedish approach better in terms of Covid deaths?'' then comparing a group of broadly similar (e.g not much genetic/cultural/geographical differences) countries who have implemented/not implemented lockdown will give you a pretty rough and fast answer if its working or not.
If you start introducing a lot more countries then you have to consider regional differences , e.g is a warmer climate a factor, are cultural things such as kissing on the cheek important? etc etc. Then the question will take a lot longer to analyse and you will probably still end up with the same answer.

Considering we are still in the midsts of a pandemic, where time is important I think just looking at the Nordics as a group is valid when assessing the pros/cons of the Swedish response.
Hell even the regional variations in Sweden, where Skåne is the least affected (likely due to its connection/influence with Denmark in my opinion) has Anders Tegnell scratching his head.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

Can you point to the scientific studies that the WHO guidelines were based off of? I don't think the WHO have as much credibility now in may people's eyes than they did a few months back. The University of Southampton posited that travel bans from China, against WHO advice, could have prevented 95% of deaths.



Its not whether I think its a coincidence or not. In science when you have a correlation between something that has occurred and your assumptions that's a cue to begin investigating it - to try and confirm whether what you think you know to be true is true or not. Terrible wrong use of the word 'irrefutable'.

You are like a flat earthed, look you can't 100% prove the world isn't flat

It could be an optical illusion

You can't prove they went to moon cause they faked the whole thing

growleaves

What are you trying to prove here?

What am I trying to prove? I am saying that I will not assume the effectiveness of lockdown unless/until it is proved by a rigorous scientific investigation - not a correlation between the institution of the lockdown and the peak of the virus two weeks later.

Since there is no benefit to lockdown otherwise, and it is very harmful, I wonder why this is not everyone's position? No one has any reason to cheer-lead for this destructive policy and all of us have a reason to scrutinise it.

For those that didn't it's been shut

I don't understand what this means. However like I said, states that didn't lock down have avoided large-scale deaths.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

What am I trying to prove? I am saying that I will not assume the effectiveness of lockdown unless/until it is proved by a rigorous scientific investigation - not a correlation between the institution of the lockdown and the peak of the virus two weeks later.

Since there is no benefit to lockdown otherwise, and it is very harmful, I wonder why this is not everyone's position? No one has any reason to cheer-lead for this destructive policy and all of us have a reason to scrutinise it.



I don't understand what this means. However like I said, states that didn't lock down have avoided large-scale deaths.

It autocorrected ****

Only because of the general lockdown and the lockdown in the effected areas, they were ahead of the other states and isolated by them, they can't travel to the worse affected states the ones people travel to

You do get this

It's logical to say that a lockdown would be effective before it happened and then the results matched the logic

There's nothing else to say

No magic other cause

Jinglejangle69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sweden have done really well. You have to factor in that they won’t have lots of future deaths due to months and months of no cancer screening and not detecting other very serious illnesses. Their economy will also be much stronger and people won’t be left paying a hefty bill for years.

Short term pain for long term gain is always the best approach.

We’ve sacrificed everyone’s future and wellbeing to try save a few extra lives now.

Strange how their government said they would do things differently if given the chance again.

the.red.baron

growleaves wrote: »

What am I trying to prove? I am saying that I will not assume the effectiveness of lockdown unless/until it is proved by a rigorous scientific investigation - not a correlation between the institution of the lockdown and the peak of the virus two weeks later.

Since there is no benefit to lockdown otherwise, and it is very harmful, I wonder why this is not everyone's position? No one has any reason to cheer-lead for this destructive policy and all of us have a reason to scrutinise it.



I don't understand what this means. However like I said, states that didn't lock down have avoided large-scale deaths.

You were even linking to something advocating a travel lockdown

Madness

growleaves

the.red.baron wrote: »

You are like a flat earthed, look you can't 100% prove the world isn't flat

It could be an optical illusion

You can't prove they went to moon cause they faked the whole thing

Lol

I'll say it again:

A correlation between a cause-and-effect assumption and an apparent result is not 'Case Closed' on a controversial scientific hypothesis.

There is no comparison to flat-earthism since it is an indisputable fact that the world is round. It is not an indisputable fact that lockdown prevents 100,000s or millions of deaths from a droplet-transmitted virus.

MadYaker

growleaves wrote: »

Lol

I'll say it again:

A correlation between a cause-and-effect assumption and an apparent result is not 'Case Closed' on a controversial scientific hypothesis.

There is no comparison to flat-earthism since it is an indisputable fact that the world is round. It is not an indisputable fact that lockdown prevents 100,000s or millions of deaths from a droplet-transmitted virus.

So you dont agree that the virus spreads when people are together? How does it spread so?

growleaves

A travel ban is a type of lockdown

You were even linking to something advocating a travel lockdown

Madness

There are of course different definitions of 'lockdown' which is a new concept anyway. Obviously you consider travel bans an element of lockdowns. However travel bans to prevent diseases have been used for centuries, they are one of the most-established and least-novel methods of disease control.

growleaves

So you dont agree that the virus spreads when people are together? How does it spread so?

I didn't say that.

It could be that hand hygiene and some measure of distancing are adequate to prevent most transmission. Virologists are looking into this question.

Droplet-transmitted viruses can perhaps be transmitted in other ways.

The absolute necessity for restrictions on in-person meetings and commerce to prevent transmission is not proved. The further assumption that such restrictions prevent 100,000s of deaths is also not proved.

MadYaker

growleaves wrote: »

I didn't say that.

It could be that hand hygiene and some measure of distancing are adequate to prevent most transmission. Virologists are looking into this question.

Droplet-transmitted viruses can perhaps be transmitted in other ways.

The absolute necessity for restrictions on in-person meetings and commerce to prevent transmission is not proved. The further assumption that such restrictions prevent 100,000s of deaths is also not proved.

Every country that implemented a lockdown saw a significant drop in cases 2 weeks later. Why do you think that might have happened? Keep in mind that the virus spreads when people are together as we already established.

Social distancing and hand washing may be enough if you have enough advance warning. When a country has hundreds or thousands of cases before they even realise whats happening washing hands and social distancing won't cut it.

mcsean2163

the.red.baron wrote: »

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

I certainly wouldn't want to see anything raging through a cohort of the community but neither do I want our kids to be locked up indefinitely.

It seems from the Swedish stats that under 40 is generally ok.

From the literature many are not even affected by the virus. We see figures for general populations. Why not investigate the severity in under 40's? Maybe it is a risk most are willing to accept as certainly seems from any walk around Dublin.

growleaves

MadYaker wrote: »

Every country that implemented a lockdown saw a significant drop in cases 2 weeks later. Why do you think that might have happened? Keep in mind that the virus spreads when people are togetehr as we already established.

I'm sorry but I've already explained and can't keep repeating myself.

The seeming cause-and-effect between the implementation of lockdowns and a significant drop in cases 2 weeks later is called a correlation. In university science one of the first things you learn in your first term is 'correlation does not imply causation'.

When you have what looks like a strong coincidence you are ready to begin a scientific investigation so you can establish the truth of a matter. That's how it works.

The contagion and spread is something that virologists are looking into at the moment.

That's all I have to say now, otherwise I'll be here all night.

charlie14

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't want to see anything raging through a cohort of the community but neither do I want our kids to be locked up indefinitely.

It seems from the Swedish stats that under 40 is ok.

From the literature many are not even affected by the virus. We see figures for general populations. Why not investigate the severity in under 40's? Maybe it is a risk most are willing to accept as certainly seems from any walk around Dublin.

The problem would be that although they might not be that affected by the virus, it would not mean that they could not infect others in the community that could be very adversely affected.

sheepysheep

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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

Like Ireland? No?

twowheelsonly

growleaves wrote: »

I didn't say that.......

The absolute necessity for restrictions on in-person meetings and commerce to prevent transmission is not proved. The further assumption that such restrictions prevent 100,000s of deaths is also not proved.

Of course it's not proven, but how do you go about proving or disproving it ?

Allow everything to continue and when we get to 10, 20 or 50 thousand deaths we'll analyse it then ?

IMO we err on the side of caution until such a time as various theories are proven or disproven and remedies and their effectiveness are tried and tested in controlled circumstances.

biko

Sweden has a limit of 50 people gatherings.
Tonight they had a gathering of thousands for George Floyd.
Expect a spike two weeks from now.

fisgon

growleaves wrote: »

I'm sorry but I've already explained and can't keep repeating myself.

The seeming cause-and-effect between the implementation of lockdowns and a significant drop in cases 2 weeks later is called a correlation. In university science one of the first things you learn in your first term is 'correlation does not imply causation'.

.

One correlation does not imply causation, but when it happens over and over again, then that is strong evidence.

It is not complicated; the countries that locked down have seen a massive fall in cases and deaths. The idea that this is a coincidence is just silly. The earlier countries locked down, the fewer cases they have had. It has happened literally everywhere.

sheepysheep

growleaves wrote: »

I'm sorry but I've already explained and can't keep repeating myself.

The seeming cause-and-effect between the implementation of lockdowns and a significant drop in cases 2 weeks later is called a correlation. In university science one of the first things you learn in your first term is 'correlation does not imply causation'.

When you have what looks like a strong coincidence you are ready to begin a scientific investigation so you can establish the truth of a matter. That's how it works.

The contagion and spread is something that virologists are looking into at the moment.

That's all I have to say now, otherwise I'll be here all night.

Interestingly Paul Moyahan (not sure of spelling) from Maynooth Uni was on with Matt Cooper earlier making the very point that we (Ireland) got very little from lockdown.

He made the case that most of the benefits were apparent in the data from the measures taken pre-lockdown such as hand-washing etc.

Also advocated moving reopening along at a faster pace.

As an aside, it's remarkable how many discussions on reopening business tends to revolve around pubs/restaurants (cooper), as if there weren't hundred's of different types of business affected.

On the economic side of the argument: 26% unemployment. Over 50% unemployment for under 24 year olds. 6 billion May deficit. 1980's style recession hitting here in 6 months according to Paschal.

But don't on any account question the lockdown or an academic study of 30 countries which questions it's effectiveness.