Sweden avoiding lockdown

Hector Savage

Fair play Sweden, really seems to be working long term ...

bb1234567

patnor1011 wrote: »

There is no second wave. What is being portrayed as "second wave" is in fact just a virus coming to states where population was not yet exposed to the virus. Even Ireland exposure was delayed by lockdown which in fact only prolonged inevitable.

Better explained here:
At the end of May there was a significant breakthrough in understanding of COVID antibodies which was not widely reported: a Swiss study from Zurich led by Professor Onur Boyman demonstrated that a large proportion of the population had a natural immunity through existing antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or cellular immunity (T cells), likely to have been acquired through previous exposure to coronaviruses such as influenza or the common cold (the absence of exposure to previous coronavirus is now thought to explain the opposite effect in 1918).

The study found that that the presence of (IgG and IgM) antibodies generated on infection which tests had previously focused on, were NOT in fact required to defeat the virus and that existing (IgA and T cell) antibodies that gave a natural immunity. Moreover, the population with this natural immunity was demonstrated to be five times greater than those with the IgG and IgM antibodies on which tests had hitherto focused. If this could be substantiated, then the population already exposed to COVID would also be five times greater than previously assumed. In other words, if a population sample showed 10% had IgG and IgM antibodies (which might be subject to decay) then it was likely that at least half of the population had already been exposed to COVID.

It followed that antibody studies that measured only IgG and IgM that were now predicting population-based mortality risk of 0.1% to 0.5% (lower than the 1% in the elderly population aboard the Diamond Princess) could be even further reduced by a factor of five to 0.02% to 0.1% and the level of symptomatic exposure from 20% to below 5% (consistent with the flu season ironically predicted by Fauci in March). Not only would this mean a further similar reduction in the estimated true mortality rate but it meant that there were far fewer people in the population who had never had exposure to the virus, so a far lower number who could potentially catch the virus in the future.

In short, the infamous herd immunity was much closer than previously realised.

This explained why, by July, the virus had all but disappeared in populations like Sweden, New York (Fig. 7) and Wuhan (which reportedly tested its entire population of 11 million and found only 300 cases, all of which were asymptomatic) which were significantly affected by a “first wave”: if the ratio of those with IgA and T cell antibodies to IgG and IgM antibodies across population was confirmed at a factor of five then if 20% of the population had traditional IgG and IgM antibodies (such as New York with 21% and London with 17%) then the virus died out because there was simply no one left for it to infect. It followed that the virus could only survive in population samples where testing showed the presence of IgG and IgM antibodies was below 20% (and allowing for their decay probably well below).

Nobel Prize winning biological scientist Michael Levitt had already come to the same conclusion based on a different approach: he predicted that the virus would “burn out” when it had infected 15-20% of the population though based on a pattern predicted by the “Gompertz curve” which indicated that the number of deaths after the peak is roughly double those from before resulting in Levitt accurately predicting the number of Chinese and Swedish deaths, months in advance. Levitt has recently bravely predicted that US COVID will “be done in 4 weeks [25 Aug] with a total reported death below 170,000”, compared to 149,000 today.

Boyman’s theory on “IgA and T Cell immunity” explained the accuracy of Levitt’s “Gompertz curve” predictions and this was now being backed up by the empirical evidence which showed that the populations which were hit hardest with high initial rates of infection and mortality, were the ones where the virus had almost disappeared.

Almost none of this was reported by a media which choose instead to attach the misnomer “second wave” to outbreaks of COVID infection in populations which had not yet experienced any meaningful “first wave”: the Sunbelt states in the US, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan. The irony was that the vulnerability of populations which had not yet seen meaningful infection outbreaks and therefore the fallacy of lockdown had already been predicted by Levitt and Giesecke. It was also logical that population groups where IgG and IgM antibodies were still significantly below 20% would continue to see infections.

You'd have to wonder at claims like these, are they just scientists looking for a quick buck, saying anything for a claim to fame by saying what people want to hear.

Most of these claims can be easily dismissed by anybody with even some rudimentary knowledge of the facts such as myself.

In hotspots such as New York , it is not consistent level of infection across the city. In working class districts up to 80% of the populations on those nieghbourhoods had antibdoes. It's not as if the often cited 1 in 5 figure was replicated throughout most of the city. Where does this leave this theory then? Why are some cohorts clearly so vulnerable to infection? The information provided appears to glean over this extremely important detail. Unless there is some valid theory given as to why working class people may have lower levels of immunity to other coronaviruses that has allowed such widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the last few months, then it very strongly suggests that there are simply large numbers of peple in these hotspots in other less affected areas still vulnerable to infection.

'It followed that antibody studies that measured only IgG and IgM that were now predicting population-based mortality risk of 0.1% to 0.5% (lower than the 1% in the elderly population aboard the Diamond Princess) could be even further reduced by a factor of five to 0.02% to 0.1% and the level of symptomatic exposure from 20% to below 5%'

Literally dozens of cities have reported that over 0.1%- 0.25% of their entire city populations have died after contracting COVID, from London, Madrid and Milan to New Jersey, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Chicago to Rio, Lima, Santiago and Mexico city. How could it possibly be argued that the mortality risk could be as low as 0.02%? This is magnitudes apart from reality.


Nobel Prize winning biological scientist Michael Levitt had already come to the same conclusion based on a different approach: he predicted that the virus would “burn out” when it had infected 15-20% of the population though based on a pattern predicted by the “Gompertz curve” which indicated that the number of deaths after the peak is roughly double those from before resulting in Levitt accurately predicting the number of Chinese and Swedish deaths, months in advance.
Almost 60% of the population of Bergamo presented with antibodies, why did it not burn out before it hit such a high level of infection then?
Recent antibody studies in parts of Delhi for example also showed that as many as 3/4 of the population of some districts had antibodies.

Regarding prediction of deaths,Brazil hit peak deaths in early June at around 34,000 deaths. Now in August they are at over 92,000 deaths with no decline in death rate within sight within a plateau that has so far lasted over 8 weeks straight, already far more than double the number of deaths reported by the time of the peak. So, just another false theory.

So many just completely erroneous facts contained within this article.

Can anyone point out any further glaringly incorrect 'facts' in the article that I may have missed?

And to top it all off, there have been reported second waves within the same regions of prior outbreaks. Louisianna is a very small state with a smaller populatoion than the rep of Ireland and is now reporting level of cases and deaths higher even than during it's pretty devastating first wave months ago which was for some time quite well maintained.

I actually don't think there is a single claim within the entire piece posted above which holds true in all or even a majority of cases or scenarios worldwide.

Bit cynical

bb1234567 wrote: »

In hotspots such as New York , it is not consistent level of infection across the city. In working class districts up to 80% of the populations on those nieghbourhoods had antibdoes. It's not as if the often cited 1 in 5 figure was replicated throughout most of the city. Where does this leave this theory then? Why are some cohorts clearly so vulnerable to infection? The information provided appears to glean over this extremely important detail. Unless there is some valid theory given as to why working class people may have lower levels of immunity to other coronaviruses that has allowed such widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the last few months, then it very strongly suggests that there are simply large numbers of peple in these hotspots in other less affected areas still vulnerable to infection.

Can anyone point out any further glaringly incorrect 'facts' in the article that I may have missed?

It may be more living and working conditions that account for higher antibodies in working class populations within hotspots than lower levels of prior immunity in these groups.

They will be more exposed to the virus and also more likely to spread it in the initial stages. Living in more crowded conditions and less likely to work in sanitized office environments would mean they are hit first and hardest, but also be the first to acquire some degree of immunity. Therefore their immunity, to the extent it exists is more important that groups leading more isolated lives.

bb1234567

Bit cynical wrote: »

It may be more living and working conditions that account for higher antibodies in working class populations within hotspots than lower levels of prior immunity in these groups.

They will be more exposed to the virus and also more likely to spread it in the initial stages. Living in more crowded conditions and less likely to work in sanitized office environments would mean they are hit first and hardest, but also be the first to acquire some degree of immunity. Therefore their immunity, to the extent it exists is more important that groups leading more isolated lives.

Yes, that is all very true and makes sense and explain why working class communities would have higher rates of infections as you'd expect. But it does not in any way clarify or ensure why or how the rest of the population of the city may have ay kind of existing immunity to the virus as theorised in the article posted earlier.

As I have said the fact that 80-90% of people in some neighbourhoods of New York became infected would suggest that a similar proportion of the population of city overall is vulnerable to infection rather than the theory the author is getting at.

nw1dqsv7amx026

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But Ireland had the same loss of life, its just that most posters cant understand the statistics behind the numbers.

Have the HSE given a recent break down of deaths by age group? I've looked for it several times but didn't find it. I know they gave mean and median.
It certainly would be interesting to compare the deaths as a Percentage of age groups between the various countries.
Unfortunately the cso don't release numbers on the over 80s so we can't compare demographics between Ireland and Sweden.
I know the British have a significantly older population than us.

nw1dqsv7amx026

Has anybody followed interviews with Professor Sunetra Gupta an epidemiologist, who is the wife of Professor Adrian Hill from Oxford. He's the main professor in the Oxford vaccine and has been interviewed on rte.
She suggested a month or two ago that corona had been wide spread in London and wouldn't be an issue there again. She felt the north of England would be next to have a problem.
Seems she was correct.
Btw she too is against lock down.

froog

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But Ireland had the same loss of life, its just that most posters cant understand the statistics behind the numbers.

what statistics are you using to come to that conclusion?

Sweden deaths per 1M population: 568
Ireland deaths per 1M population: 357

bb1234567

froog wrote: »

what statistics are you using to come to that conclusion?

Sweden deaths per 1M population: 568
Ireland deaths per 1M population: 357

I think his point originally was that when you take into account the fact that if we had as high a proprtion of over 65's as Sweden we would likely have a larger number of deaths per capita

But it's silly to say that though, it's just an incorrect statement standalone like that, Sweden has had far more deaths per capita than Ireland. Maybe if Ireland has as old a population we would have had more deaths, but that's nothing more than a theory, no real world evidence to back up this belief. The actual reality is a lot more people died in Sweden from COVID than Ireland both in total number and per capita, this is irrefutable fact

nw1dqsv7amx026

froog wrote: »

what statistics are you using to come to that conclusion?

Sweden deaths per 1M population: 568
Ireland deaths per 1M population: 357

Wasn't my post but assuming you're not being disingenuous I believe he means :-

Sweden has an older age demographic than Ireland. The majority by far of the deaths there, have been in the over 80 age group. My recollection is that median here was 87 or 84?
Your simple statistic does not take that into account.

Personally, I believe that vulnerable people are at risk until there's herd immunity either by vaccine or infection.
Perhaps Sweden has it by the latter.
I don't believe Ireland will have either for a a few years so our vulnerable people are at risk.

MerlinSouthDub

bb1234567 wrote: »

I think his point originally was that when you take into account the fact that if we had as high a proprtion of over 65's as Sweden we would likely have a larger number of deaths per capita

But it's silly to say that though, it's just an incorrect statement standalone like that, Sweden has had far more deaths per capita than Ireland. Maybe if Ireland has as old a population we would have had more deaths, but that's nothing more than a theory, no real world evidence to back up this belief. The actual reality is a lot more people died in Sweden from COVID than Ireland both in total number and per capita, this is irrefutable fact

You think it's just a theory that older people are more likely to die of Covid-19? Every country has seen much higher rates of mortality in older people. The evidence is completely clear.

nw1dqsv7amx026

bb1234567 wrote: »

But it's silly to say that though, it's just an incorrect statement standalone like that, Sweden has had far more deaths per capita than Ireland. Maybe if Ireland has as old a population we would have had more deaths, but that's nothing more than a theory, no real world evidence to back up this belief. The actual reality is a lot more people died in Sweden from COVID than Ireland both in total number and per capita, this is irrefutable fact

How can you make this argument. Have you looked at the numbers.
380 deaths there in the 60-70 group,
1200 on 70-80,
2300 deaths in 80-90 and
1451 in over 90.

That's 96% of their deaths. Its not a theory, its a fact. So demographics matter to the statistics.

bb1234567

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

You think it's just a theory that older people are more likely to die of Covid-19? Every country has seen much higher rates of mortality in older people. The evidence is completely clear.

Nope and I never disputed that.

Saying that Ireland has higher number of deaths per capita than Sweden is still an indisputably wrong statement, however.
If you would like to entertain a discussion about a theoretical /hypoethtical scenario in which Ireland has as high a median age as Sweden and may likely have as a high number of deaths as them for that reason, then it can be discussed separately, but again, it is not reality, those higher number of deaths in Ireland do not actually exist, you know?

nw1dqsv7amx026

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nope and I never disputed that.

Saying that Ireland has higher number of deaths per capita than Sweden is still an indisputably wrong statement, however

Yes, you are correct in this statement.
But their children have not been denied education for five months.

Edit : you said there was no evidence.

'Maybe if Ireland has as old a population we would have had more deaths, but that's nothing more than a theory, no real world evidence to back up this belief'

mcsean2163

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yes, that is all very true and makes sense and explain why working class communities would have higher rates of infections as you'd expect. But it does not in any way clarify or ensure why or how the rest of the population of the city may have ay kind of existing immunity to the virus as theorised in the article posted earlier.

As I have said the fact that 80-90% of people in some neighbourhoods of New York became infected would suggest that a similar proportion of the population of city overall is vulnerable to infection rather than the theory the author is getting at.

Isn't there a higher death rate for BAME infected patients? Are working classes in the us more ethnic and could the antibodies be more prevalent in BAME?

nw1dqsv7amx026

biko wrote: »

80,422 official cases
5,743 officially dead
7.1% of known cases have passed

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

Biko, I've looked at some of your other threats / inputs and you generally ask really pertinent and interesting questions. You certainly seem to add to those threads.

So why this pointless reporting of numbers on Sweden every day without comment?
Surely you could give some analysis or opinions?
We obviously disagree on the danger of covid and the appropriate response.
But surely you could add more than just numbers to the debate?

FintanMcluskey

bb1234567 wrote: »

I think his point originally was that when you take into account the fact that if we had as high a proprtion of over 65's as Sweden we would likely have a larger number of deaths per capita

But it's silly to say that though, it's just an incorrect statement standalone like that, Sweden has had far more deaths per capita than Ireland. Maybe if Ireland has as old a population we would have had more deaths, but that's nothing more than a theory, no real world evidence to back up this belief. The actual reality is a lot more people died in Sweden from COVID than Ireland both in total number and per capita, this is irrefutable fact

When calculatiing the infant mortality rate the data set used is only the population under 1 year of age.

Would you think including the complete population age would return accurate data?

What are you saying nothing more than a theory? its data presented in a way you cant undrstand obviously.

Ill put it a different way

Sweden has a fatality rate of 0.28 % of over 65's

Ireland has a fatality rate of 0.27% of over 65s

Covid is dangerous to a specific identifiable group of citizen's

nw1dqsv7amx026

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

When calculatiing the infant mortality rate the data set used is only the population under 1 year of age.

Would you think including the complete population age would return accurate data?

What are you saying nothing more than a theory? its data presented in a way you cant undrstand obviously.

Ill put it a different way

Sweden has a fatality rate of 0.28 % of over 65's

Ireland has a fatality rate of 0.27% of over 65s

Covid is dangerous to a specific identifiable group of citizen's

How did you obtain these figures?

mcsean2163

Prof Gupta discusses herd immunity and Sweden.

https://reaction.life/we-may-already-have-herd-immunity-an-interview-with-professor-sunetra-gupta/

FintanMcluskey

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

How did you obtain these figures?

Its rough calculations, death rate vs population over 65. Where 95% of deaths occur.

Its not accurate, but I'm making the point that data can be presented in a multitude of ways, and for some reason Sweden is getting bad press when they have done little worse than Ireland.

Belgium have been a disaster but have recieved little attention. Which I'm baffled by

bb1234567

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

When calculatiing the infant mortality rate the data set used is only the population under 1 year of age.

Would you think including the complete population age would return accurate data?

What are you saying nothing more than a theory? its data presented in a way you cant undrstand obviously.

Ill put it a different way

Sweden has a fatality rate of 0.28 % of over 65's

Ireland has a fatality rate of 0.27% of over 65s

Covid is dangerous to a specific identifiable group of citizen's

Fintan you are not stating that Ireland's mortality rate among elderly is the same as Sweden your claim was the false one that Ireland had a larger number of covid deaths per capita than Sweden, Ireland has 357 deaths per million while Sweden has 578 deaths per million.

So do you understand why your statement is wrong? Or are you disputing the validity of these figures? Perhaps change your original post but I am certainly not the one with the misunderstanding among us

FintanMcluskey

bb1234567 wrote: »

Fintan you are not stating that Ireland's mortality rate among elderly is the same as Sweden

It is exactly what I am/always have stated.

bb1234567

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It is exactly what I am/always have stated.

'

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But Ireland had the same loss of life, its just that most posters cant understand the statistics behind the numbers.

Your statements of late have been far more vague.
This statement above is completely wrong, it is irrefutably incorrect. More people have died in Sweden than Ireland per capita. Do you see why there is an issue with making this statement, and why you're being called out for it?

mcsean2163

bb1234567 wrote: »

'
Your statements of late have been far more vague.
This statement above is completely wrong, it is irrefutably incorrect. More people have died in Sweden than Ireland per capita. Do you see why there is an issue with making this statement, and why you're being called out for it?

If you take it in context it's obvious what he is saying.

E.g. "it's improbable I would lose my temper if someone hit me". Unfair quote, the poster said. "I would lose my temper if someone hit me".

bb1234567

mcsean2163 wrote: »

If you take it in context it's obvious what he is saying.

E.g. "it's improbable I would lose my temper if someone hit me". Unfair quote, the poster said. "I would lose my temper if someone hit me".

Surely it's an important clarification.

Sweden has more elderly people,that is a disadvantage in this situation that they must deal with. It needed to do more to prevent widespread transmission because of this issue. It didn't, therefore , more deaths.

Every country has individual circumstances and characterisitcs which make the pandemic more or less manageable for them.

Like where do you draw the line, do we also take the number of deaths caused by obesity into account? Does USA with 40% higher obesity rate and 40% higher deaths per capita mean actually have 'the same death rate' as them when calculating level of death among the non obese population?

FintanMcluskey

bb1234567 wrote: »

Sweden has more elderly people,that is a disadvantage in this situation that they must deal with. It needed to do more to prevent widespread transmission because of this issue. It didn't, therefore , more deaths.

No you still dont understand.

Your pushing this Ireland is more successful than Sweden rhetoric.

Ireland did not protect its citizen's in the over 65 age group any better than Sweden. Absolutely not.

This cow is small, that one is far away.

Bit cynical

Just on the age breakdown in Ireland and Sweden,



This combines Covid-19 data from census population for each country. It is a little hard to interpret as the age brackets are different for Ireland and Sweden. However I plotted some of the data in Excel to produce:


I left out the 85+ and 95+ brackets as these are of different sizes. Looking at the chart, there's not a lot of difference between Ireland and Sweden but it looks like between 70 and 80 you have a lower chance of death by Covid in Sweden than Ireland. Between 60 and 70, a slightly lower chance in Ireland.

There's not a huge amount in the difference but I think we can say that Sweden was not worse in any significant way than Ireland in the treatment of its elderly. Both countries made similar mistakes and Sweden, at least, have admitted to this.

There was someone on here saying he was glad he lived in Ireland because he was 70. But, in fact, it probably does not make a huge amount of difference. If we control for age, Ireland and Sweden have performed roughly the same.

Sources: Ireland population (2016): CSO.ie
Ireland deaths by age bracket: Epidemiology of COVID-19 in Ireland

Sweden Population: SCB.se
Sweden deaths by age: Statistica

FintanMcluskey

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just on the age breakdown in Ireland and Sweden,



This combines Covid-19 data from census population for each country. It is a little hard to interpret as the age brackets are different for Ireland and Sweden. However I plotted some of the data in Excel to produce:



I left out the 85+ and 95+ brackets as these are of different sizes. Looking at the chart, there's not a lot of difference between Ireland and Sweden but it looks like between 70 and 80 you have a lower chance of death by Covid in Sweden than Ireland. Between 60 and 70, a slightly lower chance in Ireland.

There's not a huge amount in the difference but I think we can say that Sweden was not worse in any significant way than Ireland in the treatment of its elderly. Both countries made similar mistakes and Sweden, at least, have admitted to this.

There was someone on here saying he was glad he lived in Ireland because he was 70. But, in fact, it probably does not make a huge amount of difference. If we control for age, Ireland and Sweden have performed roughly the same.

Thank you for putting this data together and demostrating a point I was unable communicate in such a manner.

Sweden is far from a failure when compared to Ireland with the correct data set.

I also want Sweden to be successful to prove restrictions are not an effective tool

Arghus

Sweden has twice our population but its deaths amongst the over 65's were three times as worse per capita. That's a pretty significant difference.

And that doesn't even take into account the differences in reporting between the countries, we know Ireland reports deaths in settings that a lot of countries don't, so you'd wonder if those Swedish figures are actually an underestimate.

It's a myth that Sweden looked after its elderly better. The numbers don't lie: they didn't.

FintanMcluskey

Arghus wrote: »

Sweden has twice our population but its deaths amongst the over 65's were three times as worse per capita. That's a pretty significant difference.

And that doesn't even take into account the differences in reporting between the countries, we know Ireland reports deaths in settings that a lot of countries don't, so you'd wonder if those Swedish figures are actually an underestimate.

It's a myth that Sweden looked after its elderly better. The numbers don't lie: they didn't.

Id say your right.

Sweden also has a higher per capita avalanche death figure over the past 10 year's compared to Ireland.

Its nothing short of a roaring success by Ireland's anti avalanche squad

Arghus

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Id say your right.

Sweden also has a higher per capita avalanche death figure over the past 10 year's compared to Ireland.

Its nothing short of a roaring success by Ireland's anti avalanche squad

The numbers are there Fintan.

Your argument is false.

The fact that you can only answer with gibberish is very telling.