Sweden avoiding lockdown

daithi7

For instance there's the Dutch model of no full lockdown, but WFH, close schools and only close businesses where social distancing can't be implemented. Good article on it here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...owed-the-rules

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

For instance there's the Dutch model of no full lockdown, but WFH, close schools and only close businesses where social distancing can't be implemented. Good article on it here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...owed-the-rules

That link does not seem to work so I do not know what businesses the Dutch did not close during lockdown, so I do not know what businesses you feel were closed here that could have been left open ?

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

I wouldn't be so certain that is correct either. Measuring for Covid 19 deaths only isn't the full story, there will be many more resultant deaths in countries who went into full lockdown because of things like missed/ postponed elective surgeries,
treatments, screenings for other health conditions, relationship breakdowns and economic hardship (impacts on people's health), not to mention very long term things like the cost of kids missing out on 1/3 of the year at school, leaving cert , college exams, etc. All that will have costs , only some measurable, that may not become anyway apparent for ~10+ years maybe....

It's a complicated thing, epidemiology.

I can get all that, but we were looking at a viral infection that was threatening to overwhelm our health service as it had already did in other countries. Had we not taken steps to prevent that then all other health procedures were going to be null and void anyway. And in all probability for a long period of time.
On the economy, I would be very much with Nana Akufo-Adda the President of Ghana on that. "We know how to bring the economy back to life. What we do not know is how to bring people back to life"

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

That link does not seem to work so I do not know what businesses the Dutch did not close during lockdown, so I do not know what businesses you feel were closed here that could have been left open ?

I reckon nearly everything could have been left open, except nightclubs ... and just out in reasonable measures elsewhere that serve alcohol...

Just practice common sense and dont take unnecessary risks, if you are elderly and or underlying health condition category

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

I reckon nearly everything could have been left open, except nightclubs ... and just out in reasonable measures elsewhere that serve alcohol...

Just practice common sense and dont take unnecessary risks, if you are elderly and or underlying health condition category

Problem was that when the use of common sense was a recommendation it was ignored by many.
That was the main reason behind the decision to use lockdown to protect the elderly, those with underlying health conditions, and prevent our health services from being over-run.

biko

https://fox4beaumont.com/news/nation-world/scientist-admits-sweden-could-have-battled-virus-better

Sweden's chief epidemiologist on Wednesday defended his country's controversial coronavirus strategy, which avoided a lockdown but resulted in one of the highest per capita COVID-19 death rates in the world.

Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Agency denied that "the Swedish strategy was wrong and should be changed. That's not the case."

"We still believe that our strategy is good, but there is always room for improvement. ... You can always get better at this job," Tegnell told a news conference in Stockholm.

He's too far invested now. No way he nor the government will openly admit they did the wrong thing.

"If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing precisely what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done," Tegnell, considered the architect of the unique Swedish pandemic approach, told SR.

Of course he has to say that, it's not like he would say "We'd shut down the country" and thus invalidating his actions so far.

charlie14

biko wrote: »

https://fox4beaumont.com/news/nation-world/scientist-admits-sweden-could-have-battled-virus-better


He's too far invested now. No way he nor the government will openly admit they did the wrong thing.


Of course he has to say that, it's not like he would say "We'd shut down the country" and thus invalidating his action so far.

When I saw those remarks from Tegnell my first thought was the Mandy Rice-Davies quote. "Well he would, wouldn`t he"

Ginger n Lemon

Good to see this thread still going strong.

I, as couple of weeks back, only have 1 question - when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

bb1234567

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Good to see this thread still going strong.

I, as couple of weeks back, only have 1 question - when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

Based on current death rate ^ the annual deaths in Sweden would turn out at around 111,000,compared to annual average of 90,000. The last few months have had an average of 9250 deaths per months compared to an average of 7500.

Ginger n Lemon

bb1234567 wrote: »

Based on current death rate ^ the annual deaths in Sweden would turn out at around 111,000,compared to annual average of 90,000. The last few months have had an average of 9250 deaths per months compared to an average of 7500.

Strange response. Are you suggesting that that last 7 months of the year Sweden will not peak in covid deaths and what we saw in the first 5 months will continue to December?

But more importantly, assuming your laws of averages are incorrect (which no doubt they will be), when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

Problem was that when the use of common sense was a recommendation it was ignored by many.

Or, put another way, collective punishment for all. The easiest route for those of the authoritarian persuasion.

Anyway, it -- the virus and the lockdown logic -- is petering out. We have an attempt at intelligent lockdown set of measures and the sledgehammer has been cast aside. It could be better, but the lessons have been learned. We're all Swedes now.

seamus

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

But more importantly, assuming your laws of averages are incorrect (which no doubt they will be), when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

You're making a pretty large assumption about what's going to happen over the next seven months.

Even if death rates in Sweden were to reset tomorrow to baseline, 2020 would still show an increase of ~10% on 2019. Which is an off-the-charts difference.

But let's explore your assertion that deaths will average out across the year to be about the same as 2019. This would require that deaths for the rest of the year will have to undershoot the average by ~10%.

In effect what one could infer from that is that most of the people who died in the earlier part of the year, would have died later in the year anyway.

But does that make it OK? Is that a defence of Sweden's approach? "Yes, they died, but they only lost out on six months of life anyway".
In order for that price to be worth paying, the benefits would need to be enormous.

And right now, we see no benefits from the approach. Maybe Sweden will see much lower incidence of mental health problems. But that's way off in the future. It cannot be argued right now, and retroactive justification is none at all.

bb1234567

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Strange response. Are you suggesting that that last 7 months of the year Sweden will not peak in covid deaths and what we saw in the first 5 months will continue to December?

But more importantly, assuming your laws of averages are incorrect (which no doubt they will be), when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

I am saying if it was to continue to December as it is doing now since March it would be much higher annual average yes. But nobody knows what will happen. Sweden is maintaing a large number of deaths each week, with very long plateau, much longer than every other country on earth, so it's hard to know when that will end, or if it even will within this year

Ginger n Lemon

seamus wrote: »

You're making a pretty large assumption about what's going to happen over the next seven months.

Even if death rates in Sweden were to reset tomorrow to baseline, 2020 would still show an increase of ~10% on 2019. Which is an off-the-charts difference.

But let's explore your assertion that deaths will average out across the year to be about the same as 2019. This would require that deaths for the rest of the year will have to undershoot the average by ~10%.

In effect what one could infer from that is that most of the people who died in the earlier part of the year, would have died later in the year anyway.

But does that make it OK? Is that a defence of Sweden's approach? "Yes, they died, but they only lost out on six months of life anyway".
In order for that price to be worth paying, the benefits would need to be enormous.

And right now, we see no benefits from the approach. Maybe Sweden will see much lower incidence of mental health problems. But that's way off in the future. It cannot be argued right now, and retroactive justification is none at all.

Really? You think that the only thing Sweden will benefit off is lower incidence of mental health problems?

Does the word economy ring a bell? Do they have 28, 26% unemployment? Will they have 14 % long term unemployment?

Did they suspend cancer screening?

Will they be raising taxes in next years budget?

You see no benefits to their approach because you are not looking enough.

And for crying out can someone answer a simple bloody question when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

bb1234567

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Really? You think that the only thing Sweden will benefit off is lower incidence of mental health problems?

Does the word economy ring a bell? Do they have 28, 26% unemployment? Will they have 14 % long term unemployment?

Did they suspend cancer screening?

Will they be raising taxes in next years budget?

You see no benefits to their approach because you are not looking enough.

And for crying out can someone answer a simple bloody question when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

Yes, they did. All countries did this because cancer patients are particularly vulnerable and COVID was spreading rapidly throughout all hospital environments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has meant that all European countries halted routine mammography screening some weeks ago.

https://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=log&itemID=618774

Why are you so sure that the deaths will be the same for 2020 as 2019? Not saying they won't be , but I don't see how anyone would predict that, if anything it looks likely they will be considerably higher than previous years.

Ginger n Lemon

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yes, they did. All countries did this because cancer patients are particularly vulnerable and COVID was spreading rapidly throughout all hospital environments.
https://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=log&itemID=618774

Why are you so sure that the deaths will be the same for 2020 as 2019? Not saying they won't be , but I don't see how anyone would predict that, if anything it looks likely they will be considerably higher than previous years.

Because I expect certain number of people to die per year. And you really, as much as you may want Sweden to fail or be an example of how horrible govt is or what fools they are for not listening to Neil Ferguson etc you have to admit that 46k deaths after 5 months and 1 week, when 12 months is 92k like. come on. really, "considerably higher"?

Considerably? 8% considerably? 7%? ON grand scale of things, given that i am sure you and multiple others have posted that this is the deadliest pandemic in 100 years, for Sweden to do no lockdown and come out with 7% more deaths than prior years is not "considerably higher deaths" at all.

But I actually think variance will be 5%. max. and for a country to give 2 fingers to WHO and do their own thing and think independently (not follow communist China) and come out 5% worse off is a success in itself... But people here get upset even if 1 person dies so i am aware all the insults coming my way..

PS 5% variance in Irish deaths is also expected for 2020. Well well.....

bb1234567

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Because I expect certain number of people to die per year. And you really, as much as you may want Sweden to fail or be an example of how horrible govt is or what fools they are for not listening to Neil Ferguson etc you have to admit that 46k deaths after 5 months and 1 week, when 12 months is 92k like. come on. really, "considerably higher"?

Considerably? 8% considerably? 7%? ON grand scale of things, given that i am sure you and multiple others have posted that this is the deadliest pandemic in 100 years, for Sweden to do no lockdown and come out with 7% more deaths than prior years is not "considerably higher deaths" at all.

But I actually think variance will be 5%. max. and for a country to give 2 fingers to WHO and do their own thing and think independently (not follow communist China) and come out 5% worse off is a success in itself... But people here get upset even if 1 person dies so i am aware all the insults coming my way..

PS 5% variance in Irish deaths is also expected for 2020. Well well.....

5% variation is significant, there is no doubt about that.
Generally in a 5 month period in Sweden 37,500 would die. So far 46000 have died. That is a 20% variation on a typical year.

Whether the economic damage is worth preventing a variation of that size is another discussion, I think it remains to be seen but so far I think Sweden are balancing it reasonably well,and a lot better than expected, btw not everyone who even slightly disagrees with your point wants permanent lockdown forever the rest of our lives, maybe try replying with a bit less aggression and assumptions about other poster's opinions.

Ginger n Lemon

bb1234567 wrote: »

5% variation is significant, there is no doubt about that.
Generally in a 5 month period in Sweden 37,500 would die. So far 46000 have died. That is a 20% variation on a typical year.

Whether the economic damage is worth preventing a variation of that size is another discussion, I think it remains to be seen but so far I think Sweden are balancing it reasonably well, btw not everyone who even slightly disagrees with your point wants permanent lockdown forever the rest of our lives, maybe try replying with a bit less aggression and assumptions about other poster's opinions.

I take your point on board, believe you me this is not hostility

On a more serious note, is 5% really significant if its the deadliest pandemic in over 100 years? (if not deadliest then idk claimed to be the deadliest, you ll appreciate for the months of March and April, Spanish flue was mentioned 1,000,000 + times across boards.ie)

Doing any sort of variations based on 5 months data is crazy. A bit like if 1000 people die in Sweden tomorrow, do we assume that 365,000 will die in a year? but i am sure thats not where you were going with this

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Really? You think that the only thing Sweden will benefit off is lower incidence of mental health problems?

Does the word economy ring a bell? Do they have 28, 26% unemployment? Will they have 14 % long term unemployment?

Did they suspend cancer screening?

Will they be raising taxes in next years budget?

You see no benefits to their approach because you are not looking enough.

And for crying out can someone answer a simple bloody question when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

Here is a simple answer to your question.
In 2019 total deaths in Sweden were 88,766. In the first 5 months of 2020 there have been 46,282 deaths.
In 2019 the monthly average was 7,398. In 2020 to date it is 9,236.

If your GDP is the same as everyone else then economically you are going to fare no better than anyone else. Sweden`s Central Bank is not sure if they will even manage that.
Their tourism industry alone is not going to attract any visitors for as long as they keep to the strategy they are on.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I take your point on board, believe you me this is not hostility

On a more serious note, is 5% really significant if its the deadliest pandemic in over 100 years? (if not deadliest then idk claimed to be the deadliest, you ll appreciate for the months of March and April, Spanish flue was mentioned 1,000,000 + times across boards.ie)

Doing any sort of variations based on 5 months data is crazy. A bit like if 1000 people die in Sweden tomorrow, do we assume that 365,000 will die in a year? but i am sure thats not where you were going with this

If you think that is crazy then here is something you will find absolutely bonkers.

Sweden said their peak was in April, yet in the last 5 weeks their average daily deaths from Covid-19 has been 60.
Since that peak they have risen to 5th. place in Europe for most deaths per head of population.

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

Here is a simple answer to your question.
In 2019 total deaths in Sweden were 88,766. In the first 5 months of 2020 there have been 46,282 deaths.
In 2019 the monthly average was 7,398. In 2020 to date it is 9,236.

If your GDP is the same as everyone else then economically you are going to fare no better than anyone else. Sweden`s Central Bank is not sure if they will even manage that.
Their tourism industry alone is not going to attract any visitors for as long as they keep to the strategy they are on.

Ahh, I knew you would respond sooner or later. Anyways i am off for another 3 weeks, will revisit this on 1st week of July. In the meantime, remember

Coronavirus: The tourists swapping lockdown for Sweden
Sweden has kept pubs, restaurants and shops open throughout the Covid 19 pandemic.

The more open approach is attracting growing numbers of British and European tourists, who’ve broken national guidelines advising against non-essential global travel in search of a beer or even a haircut.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-52930886/coronavirus-the-tourists-swapping-lockdown-for-sweden

:rolleyes:

fisgon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I, as couple of weeks back, only have 1 question - when total deaths Sweden has in 2020 will be identical or less to 2019, will we say "yeah but couldve been even less if lockdown was implemented!" ?

]

Again, the Sweden fans just making stuff up that suits them - "when total deaths are identical to 2019?" - has that happened yet? No, of course not? Is there any evidence that it will happen? - No, none at all, in fact the total deaths are ahead of average, as another poster has said.

Is there economy in better shape than their neighbours? No, it isn't.

Are there fewer mental health issues in Sweden compared to other countries? There is zero evidence of this - nothing.

Will Sweden benefit in the long run from their policy? The evidence so far is that in many ways they will suffer - much less inward travel is going to hurt their tourism and hotel industries, as people are not going to be rushing into Sweden anytime soon. They also won't be as welcome in other countries if Swedes want to travel abroad.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of something that you desperately want to believe.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Ahh, I knew you would respond sooner or later. Anyways i am off for another 3 weeks, will revisit this on 1st week of July. In the meantime, remember

Coronavirus: The tourists swapping lockdown for Sweden
Sweden has kept pubs, restaurants and shops open throughout the Covid 19 pandemic.

The more open approach is attracting growing numbers of British and European tourists, who’ve broken national guidelines advising against non-essential global travel in search of a beer or even a haircut.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-52930886/coronavirus-the-tourists-swapping-lockdown-for-sweden

:rolleyes:

Did you ?
After your certainty that Sweden was going to do soooo much better economically than anyone else was debunk by Sweden themselves, and your great belief in herd immunity went the same way from Sweden`s own antibody tests I really wasn`t expecting you back.


Any morons that went to Sweden for a beer and a haircut would probably be best advised to stay there as they will not get a great welcome if they decide to return to their own country seeing as nobody wants the Swedes to visit them while the stick to their kamikaze strategy..

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

Did you ?
After your certainty that Sweden was going to do soooo much better economically than anyone else was debunk by Sweden themselves, and your great belief in herd immunity went the same way from Sweden`s own antibody tests I really wasn`t expecting you back.

Sorry to rain on your Sweden schadenfreude parade, but the Riksbank's worst case forecast is that their unemployment could hit 10.1% this year. We had 26% in May.

And still harping on about herd immunity with your fingers in your ears, I see. :rolleyes:

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

Or, put another way, collective punishment for all. The easiest route for those of the authoritarian persuasion.

Anyway, it -- the virus and the lockdown logic -- is petering out. We have an attempt at intelligent lockdown set of measures and the sledgehammer has been cast aside. It could be better, but the lessons have been learned. We're all Swedes now.

I really wish people would cut out this old ****e.
We are not like Sweden. Nobody in Europe is.

Everyone in Europe is lifting restrictions due to getting the numbers down due to lockdown.
Sweden is still recording on average 60 deaths daily and new confirmed cases going through the roof.
In the last few weeks Sweden has passed out Ireland, the Netherlands and France for most deaths per head of population.
Their strategy has them stuck with no plan now that, to quote their prior state epidemiologist on immunity,"It was like a dream with no basis in reality".

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

Sorry to rain on your Sweden schadenfreude parade, but the Riksbank's worst case forecast is that their unemployment could hit 10.1% this year. We had 26% in May.

And still harping on about herd immunity with your fingers in your ears, I see. :rolleyes:

Sorry to burst your bubble. but the Riksbank`s worst case forecast was a GDP contraction of 9.7%. That happens then their economy would be in serious trouble in comparison to most of Europe.



I`m afraid the only one with fingers in their ears are the likes of yourself that do not even wish to hear what Tegnells predecessor had to say on herd immunity, or even Tegnell himself from recent posts here by Biko.

fisgon

Study shows lockdowns reduced infection rate by 81%.

But then, who cares about unimportant things like statistics and facts?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/jun/08/coronavirus-live-news-global-cases-near-7-million-as-saudi-infections-pass-100000?page=with:block-5ede39e78f083999a26dc3fc

is_that_so

fisgon wrote: »

Study shows lockdowns reduced infection rate by 81%.

But then, who cares about unimportant things like statistics and facts?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/jun/08/coronavirus-live-news-global-cases-near-7-million-as-saudi-infections-pass-100000?page=with:block-5ede39e78f083999a26dc3fc

It will be interesting when they dig into data on measures and when in the outbreak they were applied.

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble. but the Riksbank`s worst case forecast was a GDP contraction of 9.7%. That happens then their economy would be in serious trouble in comparison to most of .

The figures I quoted and that you haven't addressed are rather more in the present, and the disparity of a different order.
As for our growth/contraction figures, don't forget to factor in the famous leprechauns. That might take the shine off a little.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

The figures I quoted and that you haven't addressed are rather more in the present, and the disparity of a different order.
As for our growth/contraction figures, don't forget to factor in the famous leprechauns. That might take the shine off a little.

I did, but you do not see to understand GDP. It goes south and employment figures go likewise.
You seem to believe that Swedish not using lockdown has been a great boost to their economy. A recent bank survey showed that consumer spending in Sweden was just 4% greater than Denmark in lockdown. Sounds as if the doors may have been open in Sweden, but nobody was spending.
Btw, if like you, I was a supporter of the Sweden strategy I would be very reticent to mention things like figures "that might take the shine off a little".