Sweden avoiding lockdown

FintanMcluskey

SeaBreezes wrote: »

If every 65 year old plus got infected yes. Then we might expect the ratios.

But in Ireland we went into lockdown to stop our young people spreading it to our over 65s.

Would hate to be over 65 in Sweden.

Utter nonsense.

A 65 year old is just as safe in Sweden as Ireland.

You dont understand how thats calculated is the issue

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

Lads or lassies ye can dance around here all you like highlighting deaths of over 65`s saying on one hand you do not believe they are expendable, yet at the same time they are because Sweden has more over of their population over 65 than we do.

If you really do not believe 65`s and over are expendable, then the simple facts are that population wise Sweden has a very minimum of 62% more deaths than Ireland

Ah here. This is also rambling.

Bottom line is a citizen over 65 is as safe in Ireland as Sweden

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

Either he can't understand or won't consider that.

Why would I make exception for over 65 deaths ?



Especially when the point these posters are attempting to make carries no weight when applied on a like for like basis to Sweden`s Nordic neighbours.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ah here. This is also rambling.

Bottom line is a citizen over 65 is as safe in Ireland as Sweden

Are they as safe or safer in Sweden`s Nordic neighbours who have much more in common with Sweden than we do ?

nw1dqsv7amx026

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ah here. This is also rambling.

Bottom line is a citizen over 65 is as safe in Ireland as Sweden

Fintan, if Michae Levitt is correct then you too are correct.
By his theory, that would assume all people prone to infection in both countries have been infected.

If his theory is incorrect, I'd say a 70 year old is safer in Sweden than Ireland.

nw1dqsv7amx026

This took a lot of effort, you don't do this a lot I guess.

When I get near a pc, I'll have a look and maybe draw a graph for a few years to see the trends.

Could be that you're correct and they have under reported the deaths due to covid.
Or could be that the previous year had a mild winter or mild flu season.
Or could be your numbers are wrong. I'll come back to you.

nw1dqsv7amx026

This took a lot of effort, you don't do this a lot I guess.

When I get near a pc, I'll have a look and maybe draw a graph for a few years to see the trends.

Could be that you're correct and they have under reported the deaths due to covid.
Or could be that the previous year had a mild winter or mild flu season.
Or could be your numbers are wrong. I'll come back to you.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

This took a lot of effort, you don't do this a lot I guess.

When I get near a pc, I'll have a look and maybe draw a graph for a few years to see the trends.

Could be that you're correct and they have under reported the deaths due to covid.
Or could be that the previous year had a mild winter or mild flu season.
Or could be your numbers are wrong. I'll come back to you.

Actually I do it quite a lot. The calculations are not exactly rocket science



They are not my numbers. They are Statista`s numbers.

Their numbers show deaths for the previous 10 years and are pretty consistent year on year.

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Actually I do it quite a lot. The calculations are not exactly rocket science



They are not my numbers. They are Statista`s numbers.

Their numbers show deaths for the previous 10 years and are pretty consistent year on year.

I meant write reports and communicate information effectively.

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would I make exception for over 65 deaths ?

Especially when the point these posters are attempting to make carries no weight when applied on a like for like basis to Sweden`s Nordic neighbours.

Do you not understand why everybody here is referencing age.
Its not because they don't care about the elderly but because the virus affects the elderly more.

It's not even the over 65s who are most at risk but the over 80s.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

I meant write reports and communicate information effectively.

You doubted my post. I gave you the source and even did the calculations for you. I don`t know what else you expect.

nw1dqsv7amx026

Charlie
I wanted you to cite your source, reference the relevant part and explain your numbers.
That they took at least 3 requests and you didn't even do it properly. Honestly, this is a basic requirement in any sort of scientific analysis.

That said, although we disagree on whether the Swedes are correct or not, I am open to your belief that they under reported their deaths.
I certainly think we over reported our deaths.

What, I do believe and hope is that the virus has run its course in Sweden and that deaths will slow down there.

I think we still have a lot of vulnerable people here who will eventually get the virus and possibly die. That's not because I don't care about them.
I think if I was vulnerable and of course I or my kids could be, then Sweden is a much safer place because I believe the virus has run its course there.
I believe the virus is maybe twice as dangerous as regular flu but much more contagious.

I think you are ignoring deaths from non covid causes and the social impact of lockdown.
I think the Swedes will fare better with their approach.
I think it will be at least another year before any sort of vaccine is available. I also expect a large percentage of people to be reluctant or refuse to take it.
Personally, this time next year I'd prefer the Russian vaccine as it will have been well tested.

I don't believe our approach is sustainable.

Lastly, I don't think it's right to do what had been done to young people when they are not at risk.

So, please don't come back with Swedish neighbours death rate or lack of antibodies.

Address the societal impact of lock down versus the Swedish approach.

It could be that effective therapeutics or even a vaccine happen soon and then the Swedes were wrong. But open your mind to the possible scenario where their death rate continues to fall and ours rise.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

Do you not understand why everybody here is referencing age.
Its not because they don't care about the elderly but because the virus affects the elderly more.

It's not even the over 65s who are most at risk but the over 80s.

I fully understand why some here are referencing the over 65`s.
To me a death due to Covid-19 is a Covid-19 death irrespective of age.
They appear to believe their view, based on statistics for over 65 deaths, is justification for the large number of Swedish deaths.
I do not believe it is.


I also find it very curious that they are putting forward this view in relation to two countries that have very little in common rather than for four neighbouring countries that have much in common.
Perhaps you have a view as to why that is ?

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

I fully understand why some here are referencing the over 65`s.
To me a death due to Covid-19 is a Covid-19 death irrespective of age.
They appear to believe their view, based on statistics for over 65 deaths, is justification for the large number of Swedish deaths.
I do not believe it is.


I also find it very curious that they are putting forward this view in relation to two countries that have very little in common rather than for four neighbouring countries that have much in common.
Perhaps you have a view as to why that is ?

I don't know the demographics of the Nordic countries. But age and ethnicity is definitely a factor in deaths. I know Sweden has significantly more immigrants than other Nordiv/Scandinavian countries.
I agree with you that the Swedish death rate is higher because they didnt lock down.
I don't understand your obsession with comparing Sweden to Norway but not to the UK or Ireland.
I wrote a long post above so maybe address that.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

Charlie
I wanted you to cite your source, reference the relevant part and explain your numbers.
That they took at least 3 requests and you didn't even do it properly. Honestly, this is a basic requirement in any sort of scientific analysis.

That said, although we disagree on whether the Swedes are correct or not, I am open to your belief that they under reported their deaths.
I certainly think we over reported our deaths.

What, I do believe and hope is that the virus has run its course in Sweden and that deaths will slow down there.

I think we still have a lot of vulnerable people here who will eventually get the virus and possibly die. That's not because I don't care about them.
I think if I was vulnerable and of course I or my kids could be, then Sweden is a much safer place because I believe the virus has run its course there.
I believe the virus is maybe twice as dangerous as regular flu but much more contagious.

I think you are ignoring deaths from non covid causes and the social impact of lockdown.
I think the Swedes will fare better with their approach.
I think it will be at least another year before any sort of vaccine is available. I also expect a large percentage of people to be reluctant or refuse to take it.
Personally, this time next year I'd prefer the Russian vaccine as it will have been well tested.

I don't believe our approach is sustainable.

Lastly, I don't think it's right to do what had been done to young people when they are not at risk.

So, please don't come back with Swedish neighbours death rate or lack of antibodies.

Address the societal impact of lock down versus the Swedish approach.

It could be that effective therapeutics or even a vaccine happen soon and then the Swedes were wrong. But open your mind to the possible scenario where their death rate continues to fall and ours rise.

Seriously, first time you asked I gave you, not just the numbers but the source. I don`t see why I should be expected to take you by the hand through the numbers. They are not that complicated.


There is no evidence that the virus has run its course in Sweden or anywhere else. Nor is there any evidence that Sweden has reached the herd immunity their strategy was based on. They do not appear to believe it themselves with their projections on deaths if there is a second wave.



You are new around here. The societal angle has been flogged to death and I have no overwhelming urge to go back over it again. Other than perhaps one area that has become more prominent in the meantime.
The very real possibility of serious societal health problems going forward for those that have been infected by this virus.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

I don't know the demographics of the Nordic countries. But age and ethnicity is definitely a factor in deaths. I know Sweden has significantly more immigrants than other Nordiv/Scandinavian countries.
I agree with you that the Swedish death rate is higher because they didnt lock down.
I don't understand your obsession with comparing Sweden to Norway but not to the UK or Ireland.
I wrote a long post above so maybe address that.

Ireland has much in common with the U.K., but both have a lot less in common than the Nordic countries have with each other.
In other words if you are comparing countries it should be on a like for like basis.

The point being made was not on immigrants. It was on over 65`s.

Take a look at the percentage of over 65`s in all four of the Nordic countries and let me know what you then think on this over 65`s comparisons that were being made between Ireland and Sweden.

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Seriously, first time you asked I gave you, not just the numbers but the source. I don`t see why I should be expected to take you by the hand through the numbers. They are not that complicated.

No, you didn't but park that. Certainly you didn't do it in any scientific way.

There is no evidence that the virus has run its course in Sweden or anywhere else. Nor is there any evidence that Sweden has reached the herd immunity their strategy was based on. They do not appear to believe it themselves with their projections on deaths if there is a second wave.

All the scientists are avoiding the term second wave since it doesn't seem to apply to this virus.
It's normally associated with seasonal viruses and this one does not seem to be seasonal.

That said I expect that when the weather is cold and people are inside it will spread more.

But the numbers show the virus causing less death in Sweden so I believe it is fair to assume some sort of immunity.

You are new around here. The societal angle has been flogged to death and I have no overwhelming urge to go back over it again. Other than perhaps one area that has become more prominent in the meantime.
The very real possibility of serious societal health problems going forward for those that have been infected by this virus.

No, I've been following the thread but I dont log on to boards or respond because I end up losing a few days on it.

I don't believe our approach is sustainable.
This is the crux of the issue.

I expect our numbers to increase both in deaths and infections and it will be interesting to see how the politicians respond.

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Seriously, first time you asked I gave you, not just the numbers but the source. I don`t see why I should be expected to take you by the hand through the numbers. They are not that complicated.

No, you didn't but park that. Certainly you didn't do it in any scientific way.

There is no evidence that the virus has run its course in Sweden or anywhere else. Nor is there any evidence that Sweden has reached the herd immunity their strategy was based on. They do not appear to believe it themselves with their projections on deaths if there is a second wave.

All the scientists are avoiding the term second wave since it doesn't seem to apply to this virus.
It's normally associated with seasonal viruses and this one does not seem to be season.

That said I expect that when the weather is cold and people are inside it will spread more.

But the numbers show the virus causing less death in Sweden so I believe it is fair to assume some sort of immunity.

You are new around here. The societal angle has been flogged to death and I have no overwhelming urge to go back over it again. Other than perhaps one area that has become more prominent in the meantime.
The very real possibility of serious societal health problems going forward for those that have been infected by this virus.

No, I've been following the thread but I dont log on to boards or respond because I end up losing a few days on it.

I don't believe our approach is sustainable.
This is the crux of the issue.

I expect our numbers to increase both in deaths and infections and it will be interesting to see how the politicians respond.

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Ireland has much in common with the U.K., but both have a lot less in common than the Nordic countries have with each other.
In other words if you are comparing countries it should be on a like for like basis.

The point being made was not on immigrants. It was on over 65`s.

Take a look at the percentage of over 65`s in all four of the Nordic countries and let me know what you then think on this over 65`s comparisons that were being made between Ireland and Sweden.

If you're comparing fashion, sports, diet or tv, then yes compare us to UK.
But this virus doesn't care if we watch bbc or Swedish TV.

I will engage a bit.
Transmission or contagion then yes social behaviour matters. But once you get it then your age, health and ethnicity seems to matter.

I've spent time on Sweden and Finland. They behave dfferently.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

No, you didn't but park that. Certainly you didn't do it in any scientific way.



All the scientists are avoiding the term second wave since it doesn't seem to apply to this virus.
It's normally associated with seasonal viruses and this one does not seem to be season.

That said I expect that when the weather is cold and people are inside it will spread more.

But the numbers show the virus causing less death in Sweden so I believe it is fair to assume some sort of immunity.



No, I've been following the thread but I dont log on to boards or respond because I end up losing a few days on it.

I don't believe our approach is sustainable.
This is the crux of the issue.

I expect our numbers to increase both in deaths and infections and it will be interesting to see how the politicians respond.

Our rates of infections and deaths are still lower than Sweden. Same with others so why not assume they also have developed immunity.
There is nothing to show Sweden have developed immunity.
The Swedish authorities have been warning of a second wave for a few weeks now. Not saying there will be. But it appears to be theie view there will be.
You do realise other than pubs not being open there is no difference in the restrictions here and in Sweden don`t you.
I don`t see how their approach is any more sustainable than ours.
Ours more-so perhaps if there are large scale heath problems in the future for those that have been infected

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

Our rates of infections and deaths are still lower than Sweden. Same with others so why not assume they also have developed immunity.
There is nothing to show Sweden have developed immunity.
The Swedish authorities have been warning of a second wave for a few weeks now. Not saying there will be. But it appears to be theie view there will be.
You do realise other than pubs not being open there is no difference in the restrictions here and in Sweden don`t you.
I don`t see how their approach is any more sustainable than ours.
Ours more-so perhaps if there are large scale heath problems in the future for those that have been infected

My battery is about to die.

Now there is little difference in our lockdown other than the pubs and our rates are low just like theirs. So why not do this here months ago?
They haven't changed.

What health problems in the future from Covid do you expect?

You don't expect mental health issues or missed cancers or cutbacks in government spending?
I think it would be foolish to believe there are no consequences from lock down.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

If you're comparing fashion, sports, diet or tv, then yes compare us to UK.
But this virus doesn't care if we watch bbc or Swedish TV.

I will engage a bit.
Transmission or contagion then yes social behaviour matters. But once you get it then your age, health and ethnicity seems to matter.

I've spent time on Sweden and Finland. They behave dfferently.

All well and good, but have you checked the percentage of those over 65 in the Nordic countries in relation to the attempts that were being forwarded to explain the high deaths from Covid-19 in Sweden.
How does the argument that was forwarded in relation to Sweden and Ireland stack up in explaining the high deaths in comparison to those countries ?

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

I fully understand why some here are referencing the over 65`s.
To me a death due to Covid-19 is a Covid-19 death irrespective of age.
They appear to believe their view, based on statistics for over 65 deaths, is justification for the large number of Swedish deaths.
I do not believe it is.

Im going to start using your argument style now, its the only way to engage this muck and lack of understanding you continue to display

Im disgusted at the fact Ireland has flushed away the futures of its children, and murdered citizens by postponing cancer screening (and some treatments), all to appease the perpetually offended.

I dont know how you can justify what has happened in Ireland

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

My battery is about to die.

Now there is little difference in our lockdown other than the pubs and our rates are low just like theirs. So why not do this here months ago?
They haven't changed.

What health problems in the future from Covid do you expect?

You don't expect mental health issues or missed cancers or cutbacks in government spending?
I think it would be foolish to believe there are no consequences from lock down.

Our numbers came down due to lockdown. Their numbers are dropping after a large number of deaths.


Sweden had also cut back on their clinical services. Even pregnancy screenings were cancelled.
There are increasing number of reports on those who have been infected having lung, heart, kidney etc. problems that likely will be ongoing

nw1dqsv7amx026

charlie14 wrote: »

All well and good, but have you checked the percentage of those over 65 in the Nordic countries in relation to the attempts that were being forwarded to explain the high deaths from Covid-19 in Sweden.
How does the argument that was forwarded in relation to Sweden and Ireland stack up in explaining the high deaths in comparison to those countries ?

I said it before. I agree that there have been higher deaths in Sweden due to them not locking down.
What is interesting is the death rate by over 70/80 between the countries.
There are difficulties in us calculating these numbers since the cso don't give stats except over 65. Plus the government here have not given a breakdown of death by age.

I'm speculating that they have already lost the vulnerable but we haven't.
In the end or rates will be similar but it will take 18 months here.

ceadaoin.

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

I said it before. I agree that there have been higher deaths in Sweden due to them not locking down.
What is interesting is the death rate by over 70/80 between the countries.
There are difficulties in us calculating these numbers since the cso don't give stats except over 65. Plus the government here have not given a breakdown of death by age.

I'm speculating that they have already lost the vulnerable but we haven't.
In the end or rates will be similar but it will take 18 months here.

Exactly. In countries that locked down, the vulnerable population is still vulnerable to infection. As lockdown isnt sustainable in the long term, the chances are that they will get infected at some stage unless there is a vaccine. In the likes of Sweden or New York City or Lombardy where the virus already burned through the place, the vulnerable have either been infected and recovered (and almost certainly immune now) or been infected and sadly died. The CDC estimate that infections are 10-12 times the official numbers. Thats a lot of immune people.

Deaths in those places will fall off quickly once its done. In other places, this process will take longer, but the end result will be the same.

mcsean2163

Interesting paper with comment on serological testing.

Persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in non-hospitalized COVID-19 convalescent health care workers

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.30.20164368v1

These results suggest caution in use serological testing to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.

So Sweden may have a higher infection rate than suggested by serological studies meaning Anders Tegnell may still be correct in his assertions. However, this may still mean very little if the virus mutates or another factor influences deaths etc.

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

Lads or lassies ye can dance around here all you like highlighting deaths of over 65`s saying on one hand you do not believe they are expendable, yet at the same time they are because Sweden has more over of their population over 65 than we do.

If you really do not believe 65`s and over are expendable, then the simple facts are that population wise Sweden has a very minimum of 62% more deaths than Ireland.

When compared to their Nordic neighbour. They have 12 times the deaths of Norway, 10 times the deaths of Finland and 5 time those of Denmark.
Those are the harsh facts folks and no amount of playing around with numbers changes them.

Any of you care to give a reason why there is such a huge disparity in numbers for 4 neighbouring countries that have otherwise so much in common ?

Give it a rest ffs. No-one is saying anyone is expendable. We're just pointing out flaws in your belief that Ireland is doing better than Sweden re the elderly. Pro rata we are doing exactly the same.

So when someone like you says straight out Sweden are treating their elderly as expendable you have to say the same about Ireland otherwise its just more of the usual finger pointing hypocrisy.

We can't as a country point fingers at anyone. Most countries including Ireland failed to protect their elderly.

I'm more interested in how we go forward at this stage. Sweden seem to have flattened the curve without a general lockdown. So they seem to be correct in the view that a lockdown only delays the inevitable and is not sustainable.

charlie14

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

I said it before. I agree that there have been higher deaths in Sweden due to them not locking down.
What is interesting is the death rate by over 70/80 between the countries.
There are difficulties in us calculating these numbers since the cso don't give stats except over 65. Plus the government here have not given a breakdown of death by age.

I'm speculating that they have already lost the vulnerable but we haven't.
In the end or rates will be similar but it will take 18 months here.

I would doubt your speculation that Sweden have already lost their vulnerable. But lets say you are correct. On this theory now being put forward that Sweden`s deaths are so high in relation to ours because of their greater number over 65, then would it not follow that we have lost all our vulnerable at this stage as well.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Im going to start using your argument style now, its the only way to engage this muck and lack of understanding you continue to display

Im disgusted at the fact Ireland has flushed away the futures of its children, and murdered citizens by postponing cancer screening (and some treatments), all to appease the perpetually offended.

I dont know how you can justify what has happened in Ireland

Fintan, you give off an air of being perpetually offended regardless, so any change of style would be an improvement.


Neither ourselves or Sweden have anything to boast about when it comes to protecting the over 65`s and I get this theory that Sweden`s deaths are much higher than ours because of their greater numbers in that age group rather than it having anything to do with us using lockdown.


Question is, how does this theory hold up in relation to, lets say Finland where 22% are 65 or older ?
Or if you prefer Denmark with 20%. Even Norway with 17.5% if you prefer either of those.