Sweden avoiding lockdown

biko

Finland opens up it's borders to its neighbours.
Well, not Sweden..

Breezin

Breezin wrote: »

Here is an interesting and balanced assessment of Sweden's strategy, saying that its problem has not necessarily been absence of a hard lockdown - the jury is still out - but austerity and privatisation putting the elderly in mortal danger. On this, unfortunately, we have been fully in step with the Swedes.

Nothing in that is interesting or balanced. It doesn't even address Sweden's strategy at all.


Why are you being dishonest about an article?


That articles only points are



a) Older people die in disproportionate numbers in every affected company due to covid



b) A minority of workers tended to be on precarious contracts (but it doesn't say what form those contracts take)


c) There is a global lack of PPE


Therefore



d) The reason so many have died in Sweden is because of austerity


It's a downright dumb article. It presents no evidence, no comparisons, nothing. It's just a thinly disguised attack at Swedish austerity (and rightfully so, austerity is a pox) using the coronavirus as a pretext.


And then we have you, being dishonest about the article because it suits your bias on Sweden's lockdown strategy


🙄

charlie14

growleaves wrote: »

Lockdown was always an extreme policy, with adverse consequences, which was supposed to prevent 100,000s to millions of projected deaths.

The "its a bit better than not locking down" defense isn't much of a recommendation, which may be why the Irish government have already said we won't be locking down the next time there's a wave of this virus.

If you compare the graphs of Sweden and Belgium of deaths due to Covid-19, it`s very clear as to what lockdown achieved in Belgium while in the same time-frame deaths and new cases in Sweden just rolled on unabated.



It`s a better than nothing defense which is what Swedens strategy is.


The intention with lockdown here,(and everywhere else for that matter) was to ensure that our health services were not over-run and too lower the numbers to a level that if there is a second wave, or if the numbers should rise, to have the space to target where they arise by use of faster testing results, contact tracing and quarantine.
Something that was impossible before we locked down.

daithi7

charlie14 wrote: »

If you compare the graphs of Sweden and Belgium of deaths due to Covid-19, it`s very clear ......

If you're only comparing deaths due to Covid 19, you're only looking at half the picture and can deduce nothing of interest really

E.g. deaths in locked down Ireland due to undetected cancers due to no screenings during lockdown will likely surpass the total deaths due to Covid on their own (source: the top oncologist in Ireland). Add those deaths to the additional avoidable deaths due to untreated cardiac & stroke victims and also those whose health will fail due to cancelled elective surgeries & other treatments.

So in summary, it's total excess deaths in various countries that you need to measure and compare, not just Covid deaths, cos lockdown causes a whole load of deaths from untreated other conditions such as cancer, cardiac, stroke & diabetes, etc, etc, etc

the.red.baron

daithi7 wrote: »

If you're only comparing deaths due to Covid 19, you're only looking at half the picture and can deduce nothing of interest really

E.g. deaths in locked down Ireland due to undetected cancers due to no screenings during lockdown will likely surpass the total deaths due to Covid on their own (source: the top oncologist in Ireland). Add those deaths to the additional avoidable deaths due to untreated cardiac & stroke victims and also those whose health will fail due to cancelled elective surgeries & other treatments.

So in summary, it's total excess deaths in various countries that you need to measure and compare, not just Covid deaths, cos lockdown causes a whole load of deaths from untreated other conditions such as cancer, cardiac, stroke & diabetes, etc, etc, etc

That's bull**** of course, that's a projection taken out of someones hole

But is this the supposed deaths with or without the lockdown just so we can be exact with the bull****

daithi7

the.red.baron wrote: »

That's bull**** of course, that's a projection taken out of someones hole

But is this the supposed deaths with or without the lockdown just so we can be exact with the bull****

And you're just rude,

So look it up yourself tool!!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lockdown-will-mean-1-800-extra-deaths-from-cancer-in-ireland-9w0bpp85n

bb1234567

daithi7 wrote: »

If you're only comparing deaths due to Covid 19, you're only looking at half the picture and can deduce nothing of interest really

E.g. deaths in locked down Ireland due to undetected cancers due to no screenings during lockdown will likely surpass the total deaths due to Covid on their own (source: the top oncologist in Ireland). Add those deaths to the additional avoidable deaths due to untreated cardiac & stroke victims and also those whose health will fail due to cancelled elective surgeries & other treatments.

So in summary, it's total excess deaths in various countries that you need to measure and compare, not just Covid deaths, cos lockdown causes a whole load of deaths from untreated other conditions such as cancer, cardiac, stroke & diabetes, etc, etc, etc

Cancer rates long term yeh. But not the increase cardiac/stroke deaths, there was no increase in excess mortality in several northern european countries which had small outbreaks but strict lockdowns, so it's not true at all that lockdown is killing a lot of other people, it's just a theory that doesn't appear to be true.

daithi7

bb1234567 wrote: »

Cancer rates long term yeh. But not the increase cardiac/stroke deaths, there was no increase in excess mortality in several northern european countries which had small outbreaks but strict lockdowns, so it's not true at all that lockdown is killing a lot of other people, it's just a theory that doesn't appear to be true.

Do you think cancer screening programs work?

Well then what happens when you cancel them??

What happened with cervical cancer in Ireland over the past few years when the testing program produced false negatives?

What do you think happens when there are no results from over 3 months of no tests???

Are other cancer treatments key in treating the disease? So what do you think happens when these treatments are postponed or do not go ahead??

You try to say this is 'only a theory', but its absolute common sense that when you cancel cancer screenings, treatments and post pone surgeries , mortalities due to that disease go way up.

Ditto for stroke, cardiac , diabetes, serious mental health and many other critical &/or chronic diseases.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lockdown-will-mean-1-800-extra-deaths-from-cancer-in-ireland-9w0bpp85n

https://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-covid-19-5088912-May2020/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/six-month-coronavirus-lockdown-could-21917382

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/healthcare-on-hold-i-cannot-see-through-my-right-eye-1.4254323

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-facing-a-tsunami-of-mental-health-problems-1.4273850

bb1234567

daithi7 wrote: »

Do you think cancer screening programs work?

Well then what happens when you cancel them??

What happened with cervical cancer in Ireland over the past few years when the testing program produced false negatives?

What do you think happens when there are no results from over 3 months of no tests???

Are other cancer treatments key in treating the disease? So what do you think happens when these treatments are postponed or do not go ahead??

You try to say this is 'only a theory', but its absolute common sense that when you cancel cancer screenings, treatments and post pone surgeries , mortalities due to that disease go way up.

Ditto for stroke, cardiac , diabetes, serious mental health and many other critical &/or chronic diseases.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lockdown-will-mean-1-800-extra-deaths-from-cancer-in-ireland-9w0bpp85n

https://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-covid-19-5088912-May2020/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/six-month-coronavirus-lockdown-could-21917382

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/healthcare-on-hold-i-cannot-see-through-my-right-eye-1.4254323

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-facing-a-tsunami-of-mental-health-problems-1.4273850

Lol, I said cancer rates would go up yeh,it does make sense and it's why I agreed . Not ditto for stroke and heart attack otherwise we would have seen an immediate and noticeable rise in excess death in Northern European countries which also had strict lockdown , but we didn't. So lockdown is not causing higher rates of cardiac deaths

fisgon

bb1234567 wrote: »

Lol, I said cancer rates would go up yeh,it does make sense and it's why I agreed . Not ditto for stroke and heart attack otherwise we would have seen an immediate and noticeable rise in excess death in Northern European countries which also had strict lockdown , but we didn't. So lockdown is not causing higher rates of cardiac deaths

For some people, lockdown is actually much less stressful, and will lead to an actual decrease in heart problems. There is less commuting, less rushing kids to get out in the morning, a lot of people have more time on their hands.

This was never the purpose of lockdown, of course, but it is an unintended consequence.

There was also a report in the Irish Times this week that the number of babies born underweight in the country has reduced massively in the last few months; again linked to lockdown. This will have long-term positive consequences (again, none of this was intended, but if you are going to talk about the extra health negatives of lockdown, the positives also need to be mentioned.)

Billgirlylegs

bb1234567 wrote: »

Lol, I said cancer rates would go up yeh,it does make sense and it's why I agreed . Not ditto for stroke and heart attack otherwise we would have seen an immediate and noticeable rise in excess death in Northern European countries which also had strict lockdown , but we didn't. So lockdown is not causing higher rates of cardiac deaths

I'm not sure about this.
Early on the message that went out terrified a lot of people. The perception was that you stay away from Hospital or GP,

Hard to believe that all those people got immediate treatment.

In relation to Sweden.
Was it not a given that their "rates" would be higher this year, but it would benefit in the longer term?
They won't suffer a "second surge", or face the uncertainty of opening up after lockdown.

In fairness all of these scientist and medical people are making decisions with their fingers crossed, and hoping for the best. They don't know what will happen, which is why there is such disagreement.
And it's not something they would have expected to deal with in later parts of their careers.

daithi7

fisgon wrote: »

For some people, lockdown is actually much less stressful, and will lead to an actual decrease in heart problems. There is less commuting, less rushing kids to get out in the morning, a lot of people have more time on their hands.

This was never the purpose of lockdown, of course, but it is an unintended consequence.

There was also a report in the Irish Times this week that the number of babies born underweight in the country has reduced massively in the last few months; again linked to lockdown. This will have long-term positive consequences (again, none of this was intended, but if you are going to talk about the extra health negatives of lockdown, the positives also need to be mentioned.)

Fair enough, I would accept that there have been a few positive effects also, but do you really think these would outweigh the negative ones!?

Total extra deaths is imho the only proper bell weather to assess pandemic management, well that and that huge elephant in the room: The enormous cost to the economy, people's livelyhoods, unemployment, the nations wealth and debt levels. These will all have negative , long term health affects also btw, as well as things like disruption to education, relationship breakdown, etc, etc, etc

StefanFal

biko wrote: »

Finland opens up it's borders to its neighbours.
Well, not Sweden..

That's not a bad thing Pity about Norway though. No cycling in the mountains this year.

StefanFal

s1ippy wrote: »

Also Belgium did try to introduce a lockdown but like what happened in Ireland, their nursing homes got overwhelmed.


Was your daughter attending school? Is your family ok, will you be tested?


I have a relative living there and they're the same, I don't know if they genuinely believe the rhetoric they spout or if they fear rejection from the society if they criticise anything about it. It's like brainwashing to me, they're a completely different person to who they were ten years ago when they lived in Ireland. Fanatical.


That's beginning to happen here now as well. People in general aren't respectful of other people's risk thresholds. We had family over to our garden yesterday and they were insulted when we told their six year old to keep back from us a small bit. But they were also encroaching into our space and couldn't sit still. We're going to have to tell them we're not comfortable with them coming over anymore. I know they're going to take it badly but it's our right to decide what level of contract we're comfortable with.

Yes school term finished today as normal. No one sick, no testing.

JimmyVik

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Nearly 1500 cases yesterday, is that another example of old stats being made known?
Today it's back down to just 200 odd with 19 deaths declared.

The last week has been a bad one overall regardless

I really think form the start Sweden are trying to obscure their figures as best they can.

the incredible pudding

JimmyVik wrote: »

I really think form the start Sweden are trying to obscure their figures as best they can.

That's not really the case. They weren't really doing much testing before, so the "daily rates" are kind of useless in terms of assessing where they're at / more importantly where they were at with regards to active cases. They've been pretty damn transparent as to how they're running things and it's been mentioned many, many times in this thread. You'll see the death rate / infection rate change hugely over the coming weeks as they're offering free tests to those with symptoms & antibody tests from this coming Monday.

Again, I'm not saying I'm fully in favour of how they've gone about things (but neither am I in agreement with some of they hyperbolic nonsense stated here). Death rates are dropping but still have a way to go yet.

fisgon

daithi7 wrote: »

The enormous cost to the economy, people's livelyhoods, unemployment, the nations wealth and debt levels. These will all have negative , long term health affects also btw, as well as things like disruption to education, relationship breakdown, etc, etc, etc

First of all, Sweden's economy, people's livelihoods there, unemployment and debt levels are all negatively affected, as has been stated here many times. Their economic forecast is not good - they haven't had a full lockdown but they have taken some measures, all of which drag the economy down. There is also the international situation, which you cannot escape, no matter how non-locked-down your society is.

Secondly, look at the American stock markets yesterday. They fell steeply on the back of rising COVID numbers again. Stock market falls equal a hit to the economy and to people's wealth. And why are the US's COVID numbers rising again? - because they have opened up too quickly. There are calls in some states for more closure - Arizona, for example, is nearing hospital limits, and Texas is having the highest rate of infection since the start.

biko

49684 official cases
4854 officially dead
10% of known cases have passed

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


Sweden has gone from 12 to 10% deaths of known cases.
They are finally trying to ramp up testing
Sweden's coronavirus tests hit new high, but still fail to reach target

daithi7

fisgon wrote: »

First of all, Sweden's economy, people's livelihoods there, unemployment and debt levels are all negatively affected, as has been stated here many times. Their economic forecast is not good - they haven't had a full lockdown but they have taken some measures, all of which drag the economy down. There is also the international situation, which you cannot escape, no matter how non-locked-down your society is.

Secondly, look at the American stock markets yesterday. They fell steeply on the back of rising COVID numbers again. Stock market falls equal a hit to the economy and to people's wealth. And why are the US's COVID numbers rising again? - because they have opened up too quickly. There are calls in some states for more closure - Arizona, for example, is nearing hospital limits, and Texas is having the highest rate of infection since the start.

Whatever about the dubious merits of the rest of your post, a one day drop of 7% in a 8 week rising market does not even nearly equate to the long term effects of 25% unemployment, 50% of the workforce being paid by the state, taking on 40 odd billion more of national debt, shutting down all of a country's retail, hospitality, restaurants, pubs, b&bs, guesthouses, hotels, tourist attractions , creches, schools, university's, pubic amenities ,private health care and hospitals.

I mean that's just mad Ted!!

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

Whatever about the dubious merits of the rest of your post, a one day drop of 7% in a 8 week rising market does not even nearly equate to the long term effects of 25% unemployment, 50% of the workforce being paid by the state, taking on 40 odd billion more of national debt, shutting down all of a country's retail, hospitality, restaurants, pubs, b&bs, guesthouses, hotels, tourist attractions , creches, schools, university's, pubic amenities ,private health care and hospitals.

I mean that's just mad Ted!!

What would have been mad Ted was the alternative.


Doing what Sweden did and are still doing.

You only have to look across the water to our nearest neighbours and see what initially following the Swedish strategy before they wised up has caused.

Second, but most likely, highest number of death per population in Europe due to Covid-19.

Tea drinker

daithi7 wrote: »

Whatever about the dubious merits of the rest of your post, a one day drop of 7% in a 8 week rising market does not even nearly equate to the long term effects of 25% unemployment, 50% of the workforce being paid by the state, taking on 40 odd billion more of national debt, shutting down all of a country's retail, hospitality, restaurants, pubs, b&bs, guesthouses, hotels, tourist attractions , creches, schools, university's, pubic amenities ,private health care and hospitals.

I mean that's just mad Ted!!

Have you got a link for that daithi

John McCarthy, chief economist in the finance ministry, said Ireland’s public debt would rise to €218bn by the end of 2020, up from €204bn before the pandemic.

https://www.ft.com/content/27b22971-5da3-4b3e-83fa-9127016e859b

daithi7

charlie14 wrote: »

.
....
Second, but most likely, highest number of death per population in Europe due to Covid-19.

Have you factored in the number of deaths due to lockdown in your calculating!?!

No....... thought so!!

average_runner

daithi7 wrote: »

Have you factored in the number of deaths due to lockdown!?!

No, thought so!!

So can you provide us the exact number due to lockdown?

People seem to forget that the ICU were close to their max in a lockdown with staff from all departments working hard.

Now no lockdown would of still meant hospitals closed down but a bigger spread rate and higher death rate.

daithi7

average_runner wrote: »

.... no lockdown would of still meant hospitals closed down but a bigger spread rate and higher death rate.

Whether no lockdown would have meant hospitals had to close down is highly debatable tbh....


As for the higher death rate that is really debatable tbh. Why? Because lockdown also has,
is and will cause deaths now & well into the future. How?

Well if you suspend cancer screenings, elective surgeries, treatments for cancer, diabetes , mental health and other chronic conditions you let people die unnecessarily. Add those deaths to those from people not going to their doctors or hospitals and not reporting mild stroke, cardiac and other serious conditions v and even stuck in the mud vision commentators like you might finally cop on that the health cost of lockdown was likely higher than its benefits.....

average_runner

daithi7 wrote: »

Whether no lockdown would have meant hospitals had to close down is highly debatable tbh....


As for the higher death rate that is really debatable tbh. Why? Because lockdown also has,
is and will cause deaths now & well into the future. How?

Well if you suspend cancer screenings, elective surgeries, treatments for cancer, diabetes , mental health and other chronic conditions you let people die unnecessarily. Add those deaths to those from people not going to their doctors or hospitals and not reporting mild stroke, cardiac and other serious conditions v and even stuck in the mud vision commentators like you might finally cop on that the health cost of lockdown was likely higher than its benefits.....

Because cancer treatments would of been still suspended. The staff were used in the covid wards. We saw how quickly it spread before lockdown and look at other countries.

Our ICU dept is small

Sweden has a better health system, no lockdown and still cancelled cancer treatments

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

Have you factored in the number of deaths due to lockdown in your calculating!?!

No....... thought so!!

The part of my post you choose to reply too was related to Britain and the consequences of them following the Swedish no lockdown strategy before they wised up. But no matter, I see where you are attempting to go with this. The old how long is a piece of string argument.


No one can factor in the exact number of lives saved by using lockdown either. But by comparing the statistics of other countries that used lockdown to the likes of Sweden, it is plain to see that from their lockdowns once they reached their peaks, deaths declined. Sweden`s just carried on in the same vein.

To somehow imagine that without using lockdown our deaths from Covid-19 would have been no different and that all other health services would have just carried on as normal is just pie in the sky I`m afraid.

Covid-19 deaths when looked at as a national figure can mask the effects of the areas that were hardest hit. Dublin was our epicenter. Research from the University of Limerick and Maynooth University found that for April 2020 , (the peak of deaths from Covid-19) Dublin recorded 1,200 as opposed to the previous average of 690. For Monaghan 80 as opposed to 31 and Cavan 125 as opposed to 54.


Just a coincidence that for three of the area hardest hit for Covid-19 that deaths practically doubled for April before the numbers declined after lockdown ?

daithi7

charlie14 wrote: »

......
Just a coincidence that for three of the area hardest hit for Covid-19 that deaths practically doubled for April before the numbers declined after lockdown ?

Ehh, firstly lockdown was in March iirc, so the doubling of deaths in April shows that deaths doubled even after lockdown was introduced....

Anyway, my beef here, which is not really with you, is people who take the comparisons of deaths directly due to Covid 19 between countries, and use that comparison to simplistically & incorrectly try to judge the effectiveness of Ireland's approach versus Sweden versus the UK versus The Netherlands, etc, etc

If you accept the effectiveness of any countries approach must be the prevention of the maximum number of unnecessary extra deaths & sickness this year , then logically one must also take into account deaths from lock down measures into your total death tolls e.g. cancers not picked up by abandoned screenings, cancer, heart, stroke, diabetes & mental health treatments cancelled, elective surgeries cancelled, private hospitals taken over & effectively shut down for 3 months , removal of private care, etc, etc, etc

Anyone not looking at total extra deaths this year versus other years (or an average year say) is not looking at nearly the whole picture, and this is clearly incorrect.

P.s. On lockdown specifically, How did South Korea get on without lockdown!?! The Netherlands??

Lockdown was far from the panacea that it's brainwashed cheerleaders would have you believe!!

P.p.s the only things that are proven to work combating covid 19 are 1. Hygiene (hands, coughing, facemasks) 2. Physical Distancing & 3. TTI (Test, Trace & Isolate).

All the rest is complete bollocks imho. I.e. the closure of schools, universities, creches, workplaces & retail were all massively expensive overkill imho....

I may be wrong of course, but research backs up my contentions unlike those of trying to counter my arguments here.

the incredible pudding

average_runner wrote: »

Sweden has a better health system, no lockdown and still cancelled cancer treatments

Do you have a source for that by any chance? It's not something I've heard of here so quite curious.

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

Ehh, firstly lockdown was in March iirc, so the doubling of deaths in April shows that deaths doubled even after lockdown was introduced....

Anyway, my beef here, which is not really with you, is people who take the comparisons of deaths directly due to Covid 19 between countries, and use that comparison to simplistically & incorrectly try to judge the effectiveness of Ireland's approach versus Sweden versus the UK versus The Netherlands, etc, etc

If you accept the effectiveness of any countries approach must be the prevention of the maximum number of unnecessary extra deaths & sickness this year , then logically one must also take into account deaths from lock down measures into your total death tolls e.g. cancers not picked up by abandoned screenings, cancer, heart, stroke, diabetes & mental health treatments cancelled, elective surgeries cancelled, private hospitals taken over & effectively shut down for 3 months , removal of private care, etc, etc, etc

Anyone not looking at total extra deaths this year versus other years (or an average year say) is not looking at nearly the whole picture, and this is clearly incorrect.

P.s. On lockdown specifically, How did South Korea get on without lockdown!?! The Netherlands??

Lockdown was far from the panacea that it's brainwashed cheerleaders would have you believe!!

P.p.s the only things that are proven to work combating covid 19 are 1. Hygiene (hands, coughing, facemasks) 2. Physical Distancing & 3. TTI (Test, Trace & Isolate).

All the rest is complete bollocks imho. I.e. the closure of schools, universities, creches, workplaces & retail were all massively expensive overkill imho....

I may be wrong of course, but research backs up my contentions unlike those of trying to counter my arguments here.

Lockdown is to control the spread of the virus and thus deaths. Which the figures show it clearly did. That is apparent from other countries in the fall of from two weeks after lockdown in many countries. The reason it took a few weeks longer here was due to care homes

There is no point in making comparisons between countries that have little in common. But you are stretching credibility when it comes to countries that have many similarities such as Norway and Finland with Sweden and claim that the vast differences in Covid-19 deaths is unrelated to lockdown.

The Netherlands closed bars, restaurants, clubs, cafes, universities, schools, nurseries and any business that involved touching such as hairdressers and beauticians. The only real difference from here was they advised people to social distance and to stay at home other that to shop for food and get fresh air. A survey showed that there was 99% complied with social distancing and 93% stayed home as much as possible.

Given the same advice, we ignored it and packed pubs, clubs and beaches which left lockdown the only option to prevent our health services being over-run.


South Korea were prepared for the pandemic. They had completely re-configured their health service after the MERS outbreak in 2015 and were able to do large volume testing and had a regime in place for quick tests results, contact tracing and quarantine. None of which we or many others had the capability then for doing.




Something you seem unaware off in that you believe along with your 1. Hygiene, 2.Social Distancing and 3.Test, Trace and Isolate should have been our alternative to lockdown.
We did not have 3. We did not have the test kits, we had no capability for quick test results, there was a worldwide shortage of reagent and we had no means of contact tracing. For Meatloaf two out of three might not be bad. For us to go with just two without lockdown would have been carnage.


I have already given you the figures for three heavily effected areas, Dublin, Monaghan and Cavan where deaths for April 2020 were practically double those for April 2019. To attempt to say that such a huge increase is not Covid-19 related is patent rubbish imho.

charlie14

the incredible pudding wrote: »

Do you have a source for that by any chance? It's not something I've heard of here so quite curious.

I`m not sure if the did, but I would imagine they may have.
A report in the Swedish newspaper the Local stated they had cancelled hospital appointments for pregnant women as they felt they were high risk for contracting the virus. I would not see people being treated for cancer and having suppressed immunity being any less so.