Sweden avoiding lockdown

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

The antibody testing results actually vindicate Sweden's policy. Very low percentages infected because the social distancing measures were effective. They may have been wrong in how high they predicted numbers to rise thus far but that could still change.

It might even be evidence that the virus is becoming less contagious as has been suggested by a report from Italy. It in no way shows that their strategy was wrong.

1234 lives in a population of 10 million over 3 months is a drop in the ocean. If it were anything else it would not even merit a mention.

Even continuing on this track for the rest of the year is unlikely to an effect on excess deaths.

Opening Schools: Sounds like Swedish model.
Opening Business: Sounds like Swedish model.

Except, of course, we're months behind. And bankrupt.

Strumms

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.

Sweden shows fûck all in fairness. We are of a completely a different social and sociocultural makeup to Sweden. Our cities are a far more densely populated too.... our sociocultural makeup and the psychology of most of us meant that lockdown, social distancing was absolutely essential, 100% so. There is no need to look further than this island and our borders when deciding what’s in OUR best and safest interest... it’s no good saying, wow look at X country, pubs restaurants still open and most shops / workplaces.... look at HERE, the experts HERE, listen to what’s best for US....if Azerbaijan have pubs open, 70 deaths per 1,000,000 people, great, more power to them... but they are not Irish, their makeup isn’t socially aggressive, socially needy, clingy....their psychologic instinct isn’t to need people, to rebel against authority, that behavior can and is very prevalent here, so the authorities here have the boot on the throats of these dangerous individuals for the time being. It’s going to save lives, it is saving lives.

stay disciplined, stay focused, don’t be distracted by the white noise of the needy fûckwits and the money worshipping asshôles. Disciplined and focused, for us ALL...

growleaves

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.

The UK did have a lockdown, but it was very halfhearted. Of everywhere that had a lockdown, the UK’s was for sure the weakest and most shortlived

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

The antibody testing results actually vindicate Sweden's policy. Very low percentages infected because the social distancing measures were effective. They may have been wrong in how high they predicted numbers to rise thus far but that could still change.

It might even be evidence that the virus is becoming less contagious as has been suggested by a report from Italy. It in no way shows that their strategy was wrong.

1234 lives in a population of 10 million over 3 months is a drop in the ocean. If it were anything else it would not even merit a mention.

Even continuing on this track for the rest of the year is unlikely to an effect on excess deaths.

Opening Schools: Sounds like Swedish model.
Opening Business: Sounds like Swedish model.

Except, of course, we're months behind. And bankrupt.

Lol The antibody tests results vindicate Sweden`s policy.

That thread you are clinging to is getting thinner by the day.


Your comment on the loss of 1234 lives is so far beyond insensitive I will not even dignify it with a comment.


Do yourself a favour. Give up on the, Ireland or anybody else following Sweden`s model line. Nobody is and the figures show very clearly why.


Just an aside, but do you have any idea how much we spent to save the banks ?

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Lol The antibody tests results vindicate Sweden`s policy.

That thread you are clinging to is getting thinner by the day.


Your comment on the loss of 1234 lives is so far beyond insensitive I will not even dignify it with a comment.


Do yourself a favour. Give up on the, Ireland or anybody else following Sweden`s model line. Nobody is and the figures show very clearly why.


Just an aside, but do you have any idea how much we spent to save the banks ?

The antibody testing clearly shows that not many people are been infected. Logically this shows that social distancing measures are working. Why you're laughing I don't know.

Nothing insensitive pointing out that 1250 deaths is a relatively small number in the overall scheme of things, especially when those deaths don't seem to be having any effect on excess deaths. You're showing your true colours with that statement.

You're just too noble to even contemplate statistical death i suppose.

Irish WHO epidemiologist Michael Ryan has clearly stated it to be the case that Sweden represents the future of covid-19 control. This has also been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Why you're so angry with him, I don't know, but he's probably available on twitter, if you want him to clarify his comments.

You'e comment on the banks clearly show that you have no concern for the desperate financial situation we find ourselves in today.

The bank bailout was forced upon the country by a series of catastrophic events.

This lockdown is entirely voluntary. And not a jot of evidence to show that we've even saved a single solitary soul.

Loafing Oaf

sheepysheep wrote: »

1234 lives in a population of 10 million over 3 months is a drop in the ocean. If it were anything else it would not even merit a mention.

Yeah if 1,000 odd people were murdered in Sweden over a three-month period it would barely be noticed...

bb1234567

sheepysheep wrote: »

The antibody testing clearly shows that not many people are been infected. Logically this shows that social distancing measures are working. Why you're laughing I don't know.

Nothing insensitive pointing out that 1250 deaths is a relatively small number in the overall scheme of things, especially when those deaths don't seem to be having any effect on excess deaths. You're showing your true colours with that statement.

You're just too noble to even contemplate statistical death i suppose.

Irish WHO epidemiologist Michael Ryan has clearly stated it to be the case that Sweden represents the future of covid-19 control. This has also been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Why you're so angry with him, I don't know, but he's probably available on twitter, if you want him to clarify his comments.

You'e comment on the banks clearly show that you have no concern for the desperate financial situation we find ourselves in today.

The bank bailout was forced upon the country by a series of catastrophic events.

This lockdown is entirely voluntary. And not a jot of evidence to show that we've even saved a single solitary soul.

Where is this 1250 figure coming from..? 4550 deaths in Sweden as of today. 90,000 people die in Sweden annually, 22500 within the 3 month period in which 4550 extra deaths have been caused by COVID,to say that is insignificant is pretty crazy, if Sweden gets away with less than 10,000 deaths by August it would be doing very well. So of course it will have a large impact on the annual mortality rate

challengemaster

With Sweden coming out and admitting themselves that this was a mistake, I can't see how it's even up for debate anymore. No, Sweden did not have the right approach and even the epidemiologists who drafted the plans don't believe so as it stands now.

manofwisdom

sheepysheep wrote: »

This lockdown is entirely voluntary. And not a jot of evidence to show that we've even saved a single solitary soul.

It was a few restrictions not a lockdown. The objective of the restrictions was to decrease the spread of the virus so our hospitals and ICU wouldn't be filled to capacity as if that happened it would result in much more deaths.

Surely you can figure out if Sweden had a few extra restrictions in place instead holding onto their stubborn strategy for months they would be closer to their neighbours Denmark, Norway death toll from this virus than a 4,542 and rising number.

kaymin

challengemaster wrote: »

With Sweden coming out and admitting themselves that this was a mistake, I can't see how it's even up for debate anymore. No, Sweden did not have the right approach and even the epidemiologists who drafted the plans don't believe so as it stands now.

You should read what Tegnell actually said, for example;

Dr Tegnell, who is Sweden's state epidemiologist and in charge of the country's response to Covid-19, told BBC News in April that the high death toll was mainly because homes for the elderly had been unable to keep the disease out, although he emphasised that "does not disqualify our strategy as a whole".

Kermit.de.frog

kaymin wrote: »

You should read what Tegnell actually said, for example;

Dr Tegnell, who is Sweden's state epidemiologist and in charge of the country's response to Covid-19, told BBC News in April that the high death toll was mainly because homes for the elderly had been unable to keep the disease out, although he emphasised that "does not disqualify our strategy as a whole".

In April.

They have no way out, that's the problem.

Chiparus

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

Good old Swedes Eh?

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/top-epidemiologist-admits-he-got-swedens-covid-19-strategy-wrong

Breezin

Tegnell's statement does not fit with the simplistic but persistent success v. failure message of much of this thread.


He did not admit the Swedish policy was a failure. He admitted it was not a total success, and that in hindsight they would do some things differently.

Here's a good analysis from the always excellent Ben Chu (needs login):
Beware rushing to conclusions about which policies are best for defeating coronavirus

Anders Tegnell, seemed to draw some policy conclusions from this historic natural experiment. “If we would encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did,”

Despite Dr Tegnell’s remarks, attempts to identify a dominant policy explanation for the variation in excess deaths between countries in this pandemic are not (yet) convincing. Many make the case for earlier lockdowns. Yet several countries in Asia that never locked down at all seem to have been hit less hard.
There seems to be an element of randomness in how the disease takes hold in different countries. One explanation for this is that the disease’s transmission is very uneven between different people and the role of “super-spreaders” and super-spreading events is central.

Gruffalux

Breezin wrote: »

Tegnell's statement does not fit with the simplistic but persistent success v. failure message of much of this thread.


He did not admit the Swedish policy was a failure. He admitted it was not a total success, and that in hindsight they would do some things differently.

Here's a good analysis from the always excellent Ben Chu (needs login):
Beware rushing to conclusions about which policies are best for defeating coronavirus

Landing midway between what Sweden did and what others did is a very roundabout way of saying we would have done things differently. Terrible thing to have on his conscience. Who wouldn't try obfuscation in his shoes.
As for the reference in the quote to the mysteries of superspreaders or the virus taking hold in different countries differently, it seems a bit like Mystic Meg stuff, when the analysis can rest quite rationally on things like masks and social restrictions that were taken by people themselves because of cultural habit and earlier experiences with pandemics.

Breezin

Gruffalox wrote: »

Landing midway between what Sweden did and what others did is a very roundabout way of saying we would have done things differently. Terrible thing to have on his conscience. Who wouldn't try obfuscation in his shoes.
As for the reference in the quote to the mysteries of superspreaders or the virus taking hold in different countries differently, it seems a bit like Mystic Meg stuff, when the analysis can rest quite rationally on things like masks and social restrictions that were taken by people themselves because of cultural habit and earlier experiences with pandemics.

He admitted directly, not in a roundabout way, that they would have done things differently. Such honesty can be hard to take in for some of us who live in a spun policy environment, with a PR guy for a health minister.

As for his conscience, it's not a morality play. As the piece says, this is about uncertain science.

Gruffalux

Breezin wrote: »

He admitted directly, not in a roundabout way, that they would have done things differently. Such honesty can be hard to take in for some of us who live in a spun policy environment, with a PR guy for a health minister.

As for his conscience, it's not a morality play. As the piece says, this is about uncertain science.

I agree there was some honesty which is unusual.
There is an aspect of morality in this whole terrible train of events. If one is in a position to influence public policy with respect to a whole population facing a novel contagion then to err on the side of caution is the most moral action. Especially as the science was and is uncertain. This was/is a very unusual health threat and to press ahead against the grain of so many other countries responses and to maintain course while the death rate from the virus was proving much higher than in neighbouring nations was not a morally neutral act. Is any act morally neutral? Does he not act on a public platform? Is not all the world a stage, but especially for public figures? He would have been prepared to accept the plaudits had the picture been rosier - he should accept the opposite also.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

The antibody testing clearly shows that not many people are been infected. Logically this shows that social distancing measures are working. Why you're laughing I don't know.

Nothing insensitive pointing out that 1250 deaths is a relatively small number in the overall scheme of things, especially when those deaths don't seem to be having any effect on excess deaths. You're showing your true colours with that statement.

You're just too noble to even contemplate statistical death i suppose.

Irish WHO epidemiologist Michael Ryan has clearly stated it to be the case that Sweden represents the future of covid-19 control. This has also been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Why you're so angry with him, I don't know, but he's probably available on twitter, if you want him to clarify his comments.

You'e comment on the banks clearly show that you have no concern for the desperate financial situation we find ourselves in today.

The bank bailout was forced upon the country by a series of catastrophic events.

This lockdown is entirely voluntary. And not a jot of evidence to show that we've even saved a single solitary soul.

Your post and reality are increasingly growing further apart.

Tegnell their state epidemiologist wasn`t celebrating that not many people had been infected. He was trying to ass cover that his modelling figures were close to what antibody tests showed when they were actually over 300% off.

Your insensitivity to the number of deaths in Sweden due to Covid-19 is mind boggling. The 1,234 figure is the difference in deaths in Sweden compared to Ireland by population.The number of deaths in Sweden due to Covid-19 as of yesterday was 4,542.

Your attempts to make the deaths of 4,542 as a small thing that don`t seem to have any effect on excess deaths, is quite frankly pathetic. Last years total deaths in Sweden were 88,766. This year up until May 28th. they are 44,470. In Sweden over half lasts years deaths have occured in the first 5 months of this year.

On the economics of the banking crisis you either have not a clue, or the figures do not suit your agenda. The banking crisis according to Eurostat cost the Irish taxpayer 41 Billion plus 15 Billion from from the pension reserve fund. That is a total of 56 Billion euro and a GDP contraction of 25% that did not save "a single solitary soul".

kaymin

Gruffalox wrote: »

I agree there was some honesty which is unusual.
There is an aspect of morality in this whole terrible train of events. If one is in a position to influence public policy with respect to a whole population facing a novel contagion then to err on the side of caution is the most moral action. Especially as the science was and is uncertain. This was/is a very unusual health threat and to press ahead against the grain of so many other countries responses and to maintain course while the death rate from the virus was proving much higher than in neighbouring nations was not a morally neutral act. Is any act morally neutral? Does he not act on a public platform? Is not all the world a stage, but especially for public figures? He would have been prepared to accept the plaudits had the picture been rosier - he should accept the opposite also.

It's not as simple as adding up the covid deaths and whoever is lowest had the best strategy. There are many side effects of Ireland's approach for example which will be felt for years to come, e.g. undiagnosed cancer cases leading to needless deaths, countless operations postponed or cancelled leading to death or lower quality of life, lower wealth leading to poorer health system which leads to unnecessary deaths, lower education standards achieved, mental health issues caused by the extreme shutdown leading to suicide etc

JPMorgan released a study that showed how removing the restrictions generally haven't led to an increase in positive cases and that, with the benefit of hindsight, social distancing and hand washing is really all that was needed from the start.

Breezin

Gruffalox wrote: »

I agree there was some honesty which is unusual.
There is an aspect of morality in this whole terrible train of events. If one is in a position to influence public policy with respect to a whole population facing a novel contagion then to err on the side of caution is the most moral action. Especially as the science was and is uncertain. This was/is a very unusual health threat and to press ahead against the grain of so many other countries responses and to maintain course while the death rate from the virus was proving much higher than in neighbouring nations was not a morally neutral act. Is any act morally neutral? Does he not act on a public platform? Is not all the world a stage, but especially for public figures? He would have been prepared to accept the plaudits had the picture been rosier - he should accept the opposite also.

I'm not sure Tegnell is the kind of person who seeks plaudits. Hopefully, he has priorities other than the stage. In fact, the de-politicisation, and hence de-dramatising, is one of the essential differences of the Swedish approach.

Were the Asian countries mentioned by Chu, that imposed no lockdown, and still were less affected, also acting immorally?

JimmyVik

sheepysheep wrote: »

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?

You draw it out as long as possible.
The chances are higher that there will be a vaccine or at least an effective treatment the longer you can stave it off.
You dont just lay out your old and sick to die at the start. You do whatever you can to protect them until finally you have no choice. And hopefully by the time you get hit really hard the world has learned enough to stop needless deaths.
Sweden chose to let the deaths happen up front.


And btw the Swedish plan cheerleaders in here are sounding very like flat earthers at this stage. Always digging up some obscure reason despite overwhelming evidence to go on supporting their lost cause.

Gruffalux

Breezin wrote: »

I'm not sure Tegnell is the kind of person who seeks plaudits. Hopefully, he has priorities other than the stage. In fact, the de-politicisation, and hence de-dramatising, is one of the essential differences of the Swedish approach.

Were the Asian countries mentioned by Chu, that imposed no lockdown, and still were less affected, also acting immorally?

They would have been if their death numbers increased like Swedens. For what its worth I think the people of Sweden tried to have their own lock down by practising restrictions at individual personal level. One interesting point I saw a while ago is that most official lockdowns were proceeded by the ordinary people doing their own lockdowns about one week before govts. It was some population movement app that noted the public withdrawal from the village square so to speak before officially requested. In many countries. From chatting to a Swedish friend that is what he and his wider family did.

biko

41883 known cases
4562 officially dead
11% of known cases have passed

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

Bit cynical

Gruffalox wrote: »

They would have been if their death numbers increased like Swedens. For what its worth I think the people of Sweden tried to have their own lock down by practising restrictions at individual personal level. One interesting point I saw a while ago is that most official lockdowns were proceeded by the ordinary people doing their own lockdowns about one week before govts. It was some population movement app that noted the public withdrawal from the village square so to speak before officially requested. In many countries. From chatting to a Swedish friend that is what he and his wider family did.

Yes, that was very much the plan in Sweden: have people exercise responsibility themselves with the minimum of government imposed restrictions. This, they felt, would be more sustainable than heavier restrictions for which the government would later come under pressure to lift.

Harry Palmr

1,080 new cases and 20 new deaths, is that another splash of old cases added to the system?

Gruffalux

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes, that was very much the plan in Sweden: have people exercise responsibility themselves with the minimum of government imposed restrictions. This, they felt, would be more sustainable than heavier restrictions for which the government would later come under pressure to lift.

Well whatever was their supposed plan they have admitted now that they should have done it differently. I will take their word for that since they live there.

biko

#oldlivesmatter

Bit cynical

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well whatever was their supposed plan they have admitted now that they should have done it differently. I will take their word for that since they live there.

Very true. Although they accept that their basic approach is sound, they fully admit that they should have done more to isolate nursing home residents.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

Very true. Although they accept that their basic approach is sound, they fully admit that they should have done more to isolate nursing home residents.

The number of deaths in the past few week seem to have little to do with nursing home residents. Tegnell has said they account for around 30 weekly. Going by that the vast majority of death in those weeks are in the general population.

charlie14

Harry Palmr wrote: »

1,080 new cases and 20 new deaths, is that another splash of old cases added to the system?

After the numbers yesterday of old cases added you would imagine not. But then with Sweden reporting it`s difficult to know.


One thing I did notice on Worldometer is a huge rise in the serious or critical numbers, now showing 2,143.

Edit :Now showing 265 which would make more sense..

sheepysheep

As Norway is a constant comparison to Sweden regarding lockdown, here's some Norwegian perspective on their decision now.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/norway-health-chief-lockdown-was-not-needed-to-tame-covid

http://outbreaknewstoday.com/norway-covid-19-widespread-testing-has-no-purpose-health-director-says-lockdowns-were-unnecessary-22365/

Some highlights for those who dislike reality.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health chief, Camille Stoltenberg, said in an interview (computer translated) she warns against such a shutdown again – even if the infection rates should increase somewhat.

“Our assessment now….is that we could possibly have achieved the same effects and avoided some of the unfortunate impacts by not locking down, but by instead keeping open but with infection control measures,” she said.

‘It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1… We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down.’

‘Our assessment now, and I find that there is a broad consensus in relation to the reopening, was that one could probably achieve the same effect – and avoid part of the unfortunate repercussions – by not closing. But, instead, staying open with precautions to stop the spread.’ This is important to admit, she says, because if the infection levels rise again – or a second wave hits in the winter – you need to be brutally honest about whether lockdown proved effective.

in Stoltenberg’s opinion, ‘the academic foundation was not good enough’ for lockdown this time.


Fairly insightful stuff if people were genuinely interested in understanding the situation rather than sticking to a now rather frazzled sacred lockdown script.