Sweden avoiding lockdown

daithi7

[QUOTE=pjohnson;113770149.

Some here really are disgusted that we kept the death rate low.[/QUOTE]

Do you know how many have died?

And will die from preventable cancers, diabetes, cardiac, stroke, renal and other serious conditions for which lockdown meant treatments & screenings were cancelled!?

Nope, I thought not.

You simply don't know the truth, but that doesn't stop you (& others) repeatedly illustrating your ignorance. ..... try thinking next time, I'd recommend it.

kippy

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll try and keep it simple, just for you.

It's a pandemic, the virus is endemic in the population. When people cease hiding in their houses, the rate of infection starts to climb again. This has happened in almost every instance of lock-down let-up, barring NZ.

The Swedes have probably concluded that most of those in a society subject to a pandemic, who are medically susceptible, will die, and that lock-down just delays the inevitable.

We started with the sensible aim of flattening the curve, but there are a bunch people who have not quite grasped what flattening the curve originally meant and instead think it means wiping out the virus and being virus free.

Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis.

The Swedes have basically said let the inevitable happen now. This is what happened unintentionally in Italy. They had a virus conflagration which killed the susceptible in a short space of time. Of course they just get sympathy for an accident whereas some target the Swedes as if their approach amounts to deliberately killing people who wouldn't otherwise have died.

You misunderstand what flattening the curve is about.
Look at the initial reports from Italy and now what is emerging in parts of Asia to see what happens when the health system gets overloaded.

What Username Guidelines

daithi7 wrote: »

Do you know how many have died?

And will die from preventable cancers, diabetes, cardiac, stroke, renal and other serious conditions for which lockdown meant treatments & screenings were cancelled!?

Nope, I thought not.

You simply don't know the truth, but that doesn't stop you (& others) repeatedly illustrating your ignorance. ..... try thinking next time, I'd recommend it.

Has Sweden maintained full screenings for other conditions throughout? I understand they’ll avoid some economic damage relative to others, along with other lockdown issues such as mental health and addiction problems, but won’t they have a similar issues to other European countries with their health service being focussed on covid?

daithi7

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Has Sweden maintained full screenings for other conditions throughout? I understand they’ll avoid some economic damage relative to others, along with other lockdown issues such as mental health and addiction problems, but won’t they have a similar issues to other European countries with their health service being focussed on covid?

I honestly don't know.

Bridge93

Sweden maintained emergency and trauma capacity and most essential cancer surgery. Almost everything else was postponed. They werent quite as strict as ourselves or others but certainly had to put off a huge amount too

is_that_so

Polar101 wrote: »

People keep laughing at the prediction for some reason, and yet we reached 15,000 cases on April 19th, and that was with restrictions. So that sounds like one prediction that would have easily come true.

It was a very blunt mathematical exercise with little to no data available and gave the wrong impression entirely about the likely progress of the disease. At 33% growth and completely unmitigated as the basis it's not what happened. That's what makes it ridiculous. Nearly 2m people infected was also bandied about off those numbers.

charlie14

the results of 50,000 antibody tests taken over the last 6 weeks for Stockholm alone show just 14% have developed antibodies.
With Stockholm being the epicenter of Sweden`s Covid-19 infections, when compared to the likes of Spain and France, I cannot see the national figure being anything more than 10%. If even that.

Similar testing in Italy, who used lockdown, this month showed 57% had developed antibodies in Bergamo the epicenter of their infections

JimmyVik

charlie14 wrote: »

the results of 50,000 antibody tests taken over the last 6 weeks for Stockholm alone show just 14% have developed antibodies.
With Stockholm being the epicenter of Sweden`s Covid-19 infections, when compared to the likes of Spain and France, I cannot see the national figure being anything more than 10%. If even that.

Similar testing in Italy, who used lockdown, this month showed 57% had developed antibodies in Bergamo the epicenter of their infections

I heard on the radio the other day that the drug companies are running out of places to test the vaccine candidates as its suppressed in most places that locked down. That lot of the companies are setting up tests in Sweden, uk and Brazil now.
So Swedens strategy may work out for the rest of the world in the long run.

bb1234567

charlie14 wrote: »

the results of 50,000 antibody tests taken over the last 6 weeks for Stockholm alone show just 14% have developed antibodies.
With Stockholm being the epicenter of Sweden`s Covid-19 infections, when compared to the likes of Spain and France, I cannot see the national figure being anything more than 10%. If even that.

Similar testing in Italy, who used lockdown, this month showed 57% had developed antibodies in Bergamo the epicenter of their infections

When were the latest antibody tests taken?

cnocbui

kippy wrote: »

You misunderstand what flattening the curve is about.
Look at the initial reports from Italy and now what is emerging in parts of Asia to see what happens when the health system gets overloaded.

What is your understanding of the meaning of 'flattening the curve' then?

Mine is that it is reducing the rate of infection over time so that the peak number of cases is not greater than your medical resources can cope with at any point in time.

What it does is it changes the shape of the area under the curve, it doesn't reduce or eliminate it, which seems to be what people now think it means - the bastardised-version I referred to. In other words the number of cases requiring treatment isn't actually reduced, it's spread over a greater length of time.

Sars-2 is exceedingly infectious. Combined with asymptomatic spread and long incubation period, it means eliminating the virus is probably an impossibility. Look what just happened in NZ, FFS. They were completely free of it and then two infected brits bring it in on almost the first flight possible. You couldn't make this up as fiction and be believed.

June 17, 2020 BERLIN (AP) — Regional officials in western Germany said Wednesday that the number of new COVID-19 cases linked to a large meatpacking plant has risen to 657, a significant regional spike for a country that has recorded nationwide infections in the low hundreds lately.

Boom - and we're off again.

We can't lock-down for long enough, or comprehensively enough, to truly eliminate the virus without causing significantly greater long term harm than the virus otherwise would.

In almost every instance where lock downs have eased, there have been new outbreaks of virus. Without a vaccine or self isolation, not whole society isolation, those most at risk of dying probably will, because the virus isn't going away and we don't have the means to make it.

kippy

cnocbui wrote: »

What is your understanding of the meaning of 'flattening the curve' then?

Mine is that it is reducing the rate of infection over time so that the peak number of cases is not greater than your medical resources can cope with at any point in time.

What it does is it changes the shape of the area under the curve, it doesn't reduce or eliminate it, which seems to be what people now think it means - the bastardised-version I referred to. In other words the number of cases requiring treatment isn't actually reduced, it's spread over a greater length of time.

Sars-2 is exceedingly infectious. Combined with asymptomatic spread and long incubation period, it means eliminating the virus is probably an impossibility. Look what just happened in NZ, FFS. They were completely free of it and then two infected brits bring it in on almost the first flight possible. You couldn't make this up as fiction and be believed.



Boom - and we're off again.

We can't lock-down for long enough, or comprehensively enough, to truly eliminate the virus without causing significantly greater long term harm than the virus otherwise would.

In almost every instance where lock downs have eased, there have been new outbreaks of virus. Without a vaccine or self isolation, not whole society isolation, those most at risk of dying probably will, because the virus isn't going away and we don't have the means to make it.

In your original post that I was responding to you said:
"Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis."
Between both posts you've clarified what you mean, but I disagree.
If the curve is flattened, it saves a lot more people from the virus and also from other health issues that could have killed them had the health service been overrun but criticilly it also buys time. Time for more research, treatments to improve and perhaps a vaccine becoming available, all of which may save those that might not have been saved otherwise.

I understand it's not about erradicating the virus - that ship has sailed.

biko

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The linear death graph is only flattening in the most gentle manner, it took 17 days to go from 3000 to 4000 dead
I'd say 5000 will be hit in the week of June 14 to 21st.

You were right.
Sweden is now at 5053 officially dead and it's the 18th of June

charlie14

bb1234567 wrote: »

When were the latest antibody tests taken?

Reports just say 50,000 tests taken in the last 6 weeks for Stockholm alone show just 14% had developed antibodies.

In a radio interview this Wednesday Tegnell said he was at a loss to explain why they were so low.

cnocbui

biko wrote: »

You were right.
Sweden is now at 5053 officially dead and it's the 18th of June

Belgium is at 9,683, but lets tie Sweden to stake and burn them.

seamus

cnocbui wrote: »

Belgium is at 9,683, but lets tie Sweden to stake and burn them.

It's not about vilifying any particular country for their numbers. Belgium took an absolute beating here because of its position as a travel hub in Europe.

It's about effectiveness in suppressing the virus. In the same period that Belgium's death toll has grown by 6.6%, Sweden's grew by 25%. Despite both countries peaking around roughly the same time.

Nobody is denying that Belgium has been badly hit. But for all intents and purposes they have it under control and suppressed, bringing their daily deaths down to single figures. While Sweden is still struggling to keep the death rate down under half of the peak.

namloc1980

A city in northern Sweden is taking matters into its own hands and looking to impose some lockdown measures due to "uncontrolled and socially dangerous spread" of the virus. The link is in Swedish but google will translate it.

https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/06/17/gallivare-drar-i-nodbromsen-okontrollerad-och-samhallsfarlig-spridning-av-covid

biko

cnocbui wrote: »

Belgium is at 9,683, but lets tie Sweden to stake and burn them.

Belgium's numbers are so incredibly high because they count anyone remotely suspicious as a covid death - overcounting.
Sweden, while having the most deaths in the Nordics by far, are counting only cases that are determined to have the virus - undercounting.

Hence, Belgium probably has less cases than you think.
And Sweden probably has more cases than you think.

yosemitesam1

charlie14 wrote: »

Reports just say 50,000 tests taken in the last 6 weeks for Stockholm alone show just 14% had developed antibodies.

In a radio interview this Wednesday Tegnell said he was at a loss to explain why they were so low.

There's research showing a large amount of people only have antibodies present in mucous.

Really to gain an understanding of how close things are to herd immunity, antibodies to other respiratory diseases should be looked for

cnocbui

kippy wrote: »

In your original post that I was responding to you said:
"Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis."
Between both posts you've clarified what you mean, but I disagree.
If the curve is flattened, it saves a lot more people from the virus and also from other health issues that could have killed them had the health service been overrun but criticilly it also buys time. Time for more research, treatments to improve and perhaps a vaccine becoming available, all of which may save those that might not have been saved otherwise.

I understand it's not about erradicating the virus - that ship has sailed.

If the curve is flattened, it does not save more people. The area under the curve stays the same. You are assuming the greater capacity of the health system with a flattened curve will lead to saved lives when it doesn't, really. Ventilators don't really improve outcomes. Basically there has been no effective life saving treatment for severe cases. Italy's ICUs were overwhelmed and they were reserving ventilators for people under 60, and the poor medical workers were utterly distraught about having to make such decisions, but as it turns out, the ventilators made next to no difference so they were feeling guilt over nothing.

The Uk ICU's have never been overwhelmed - the amazing large capacity nightingale facility only ever had something like 6 patients. It remained empty - and yet their death rate is 621 per million. The overwhelmed Italian numbers are 570 per million, so ICU treatment quality or capacity has no bearing on the death rate in critical cases - you could leave them at home with no treatment at all and the numbers would hardly differ.

Flattening the curve does not reduce deaths, it pushes them out the tail end of the curve.

Now apparently Dexamethasone has proved to be effective in a third of case.

biko

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Really to gain an understanding of how close things are to herd immunity, antibodies to other respiratory diseases should be looked for

See if you can find Tegnell's number. I'm sure he's in the phone book
Tbh, since it's Sweden he probably is.

JimmyVik

cnocbui wrote: »

Now apparently Dexamethasone has proved to be effective in a third of case.

I dont think its as high as a third.


But say it is a third. As of today 1/3 less people in icu will die.
Now would you rather be in ICU last month or would you rather have locked down til now and ended up in ICU today where your chances of survival are much higher?


Thats what time does for you. The more you buy the better the outcomes.

charlie14

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There's research showing a large amount of people only have antibodies present in mucous.

Really to gain an understanding of how close things are to herd immunity, antibodies to other respiratory diseases should be looked for

Why would they look for antibodies to other respiratory diseases ?

These tests were carried out specifically for the purpose of determining the antibody levels present for Covid-19 and found that from 50,000 people tested only 14% had developed antibodies .
It was carried out over 6 weeks in the Stockholm region only. Sweden`s epicenter of infections, which would leave the national level, based on national antibody tests in Spain and France, at around 10% at most.

If national herd immunity was based on just the percentage in epicenters with antibodies, then Italy would be much much closer than Sweden to attaining it. Result for Bergamo, Italy`s epicenter, show 57% of those tested have antibodies. 4 times higher than Stockholm.



In April 22nd.Tegnell in an interview said he expected that within a few weeks Stockholm would have herd immunity.
Two months later 14% is a long long way off herd immunity for Stockholm, let alone Sweden nationally.

yosemitesam1

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would they look for antibodies to other respiratory diseases ?

These tests were carried out specifically for the purpose of determining the antibody levels present for Covid-19 and found that from 50,000 people tested only 14% had developed antibodies .
It was carried out over 6 weeks in the Stockholm region only. Sweden`s epicenter of infections, which would leave the national level, based on national antibody tests in Spain and France, at around 10% at most.

If national herd immunity was based on just the percentage in epicenters with antibodies, then Italy would be much much closer than Sweden to attaining it. Result for Bergamo, Italy`s epicenter, show 57% of those tested have antibodies. 4 times higher than Stockholm.



In April 22nd.Tegnell in an interview said he expected that within a few weeks Stockholm would have herd immunity.
Two months later 14% is a long long way off herd immunity for Stockholm, let alone Sweden nationally.

60-70% of the population needing antibodies in their blood to give herd immunity is a purely theoretical figure.
Other respiratory diseases move through the population in a somewhat similar way to covid, so could give an indication of what real herd immunity actually looks like, which isn't 60+% of the population getting antibodies to every new strain of cold and flu

kippy

cnocbui wrote: »

If the curve is flattened, it does not save more people. The area under the curve stays the same. You are assuming the greater capacity of the health system with a flattened curve will lead to saved lives when it doesn't, really. Ventilators don't really improve outcomes. Basically there has been no effective life saving treatment for severe cases. Italy's ICUs were overwhelmed and they were reserving ventilators for people under 60, and the poor medical workers were utterly distraught about having to make such decisions, but as it turns out, the ventilators made next to no difference so they were feeling guilt over nothing.

The Uk ICU's have never been overwhelmed - the amazing large capacity nightingale facility only ever had something like 6 patients. It remained empty - and yet their death rate is 621 per million. The overwhelmed Italian numbers are 570 per million, so ICU treatment quality or capacity has no bearing on the death rate in critical cases - you could leave them at home with no treatment at all and the numbers would hardly differ.

Flattening the curve does not reduce deaths, it pushes them out the tail end of the curve.

Now apparently Dexamethasone has proved to be effective in a third of case.

See Jimmy's post.
Buying time saves lives and would save lives of those that would have otherwise died.

bb1234567

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

60-70% of the population needing antibodies in their blood to give herd immunity is a purely theoretical figure.
Other respiratory diseases move through the population in a somewhat similar way to covid, so could give an indication of what real herd immunity actually looks like, which isn't 60+% of the population getting antibodies to every new strain of cold and flu

Well it's obviously at least up that region if it reached 57% of the population in Bergamo. Any further outbreaks in bergamo would be very blunted by this level of infection, so 60% or slightly above seems completely reasonable. I think the 60% figure has been thrown around for a while now for a reason.

Although it clearly doesn't move through the populations in consistent ways . It is moving rather slowly through Sweden's population with Stockholm apparently only at 14% immunity after 3.5 months while 1 in 3 New Yorkers became infected in a short few weeks.

charlie14

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

60-70% of the population needing antibodies in their blood to give herd immunity is a purely theoretical figure.
Other respiratory diseases move through the population in a somewhat similar way to covid, so could give an indication of what real herd immunity actually looks like, which isn't 60+% of the population getting antibodies to every new strain of cold and flu

The principle of herd immunity is simple enough.

There are enough people immune to protect those that cannot achieve immunity themselves due to suppressed immunity but can achieve it through vaccination (aged and vulnerable). Those that generally cannot be vaccinated are the very young and those being treated for various forms of cancer.
As there is no vaccine at present, then that 60-70% would appear be the minimum level required for herd immunity.


Theoretical or not, does it really matter in Sweden`s case.
When two months after their suppose peak and with their claim that their RO is 0.85 then 14% in Stockholm alone, is nowhere close to any theoretical herd immunity figure and will not be for a very long time, if ever.

Charles Babbage

biko wrote: »

You were right.
Sweden is now at 5053 officially dead and it's the 18th of June

Reporting +1,481 cases today, which is more than the UK.
Now there may be a midweek effect and likely more testing has identified some clusters, but it will take weeks to get things to a similar level of control as neighbours Norway or Sweden or indeed Ireland.

rubadub

cnocbui wrote: »

Congratulations on living up to yourself and proving the truth of Godwin's law - clap... clap... clap.

And congrats to you for giving a textbook example as to why Godwin himself criticizes the term.

Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[10] Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate, hyperbolic comparisons.

The fact that quote was your entire/sole response speaks volumes.

Ce he sin

cnocbui wrote: »

.......

Flattening the curve does not reduce deaths, it pushes them out the tail end of the curve.

Now apparently Dexamethasone has proved to be effective in a third of case.

No, it's been reported that the mortality rate for those on ventilators fell from 40% to 28% and for those receiving oxygen without ventilation from 25% to 20%. Not all those in ICU, never mind in normal wards, are on ventilation or oxygen and are not though to benefit from the drug.

biko

https://www.expressen.se/tv/nyheter/tegnell-var-coronastrategi-har-fungerat-valdigt-bra/
Tegnell: Our strategy have worked very well.

Jesus wept