Sweden avoiding lockdown

bb1234567

douglashyde wrote: »

Your comment particular resonates.

I was very worried at the start of this. Reports back in March that the death rate was north of 5%, that it effected everyone and that it spread super easy.

The vast vast majority of the Irish public were onboard and the govt approach was the right thing to do given the information at hand.

Now, I would like to see the govt once again, do the right thing with the information at hand .5% death rate with that been massively skewed by the elderly w/ severe underlying health conditions.

To be fair, that was your own problem if you thought those things, nobody misleed you. Media never said that, government certainly never said it, and the age and health of victims in China was well established with countless studies and data published and analysed globally. If you thought the death rate was 5% and affected everyone, you were ignorant to the facts that were freely available to everyone to read. There was a bit of lack of consensus on IFR but it was pretty much always estbalished as less than 2% even by early March. Personally I was not afraid for my own health even back in March as I was aware and following this since February

Bit cynical

bb1234567 wrote: »

To be fair, that was your own problem if you thought those things, nobody misleed you. Media never said that, government certainly never said it, and the age and health of victims in China was well established with countless studies and data published and analysed globally. If you thought the death rate was 5% and affected everyone, you were ignorant to the facts that were freely available to everyone to read. There was a bit of lack of consensus on IFR but it was pretty much always estbalished as less than 2% even by early March. Personally I was not afraid for my own health even back in March as I was aware and following this since February

This is true. I think rates like 5% and above came from the early days when testing was minimal. By March countries like South Korea were doing extensive testing and the rate was less than 1% CFR thereby establishing an upper limit on the IFR. Having said that, I do think there was a widespread belief that it was a much more deadly disease that persisted long after evidence became available to the contrary. This belief meant that political support was there for lockdowns as people were scared anyway to leave their homes.

douglashyde

bb1234567 wrote: »

To be fair, that was your own problem if you thought those things, nobody misleed you. Media never said that, government certainly never said it, and the age and health of victims in China was well established with countless studies and data published and analysed globally. If you thought the death rate was 5% and affected everyone, you were ignorant to the facts that were freely available to everyone to read. There was a bit of lack of consensus on IFR but it was pretty much always estbalished as less than 2% even by early March. Personally I was not afraid for my own health even back in March as I was aware and following this since February

WSJ reporting on March 9th: https://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-with-elderly-population-has-worlds-highest-death-rate-from-virus-11583785086

"Coronavirus has killed 5% of known cases, even higher in the worst-affected region, versus a global average of 3.5%"

Similar: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200901/what-changing-death-rates-tell-us-about-covid

Upward of 25% DR%.

My point? There was vastly different reports at the time coming out in March/April We were all ignorant to the facts , nobody knew wtf was going on so it was fair for people to side with caution.

Now IFR is claimed to be .6% and evidence forming that it will be a lot lower again when true number of cases is actually determined. New data, new approach which should focus on protecting the at-risk and letting the rest of us return to life (imo).

Suggest you read some of those 'free articles' you talk about.

AlmightyCushion

douglashyde wrote: »

WSJ reporting on March 9th: https://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-with-elderly-population-has-worlds-highest-death-rate-from-virus-11583785086

"Coronavirus has killed 5% of known cases, even higher in the worst-affected region, versus a global average of 3.5%"

Similar: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200901/what-changing-death-rates-tell-us-about-covid

Upward of 25% DR%.

My point? There was vastly different reports at the time coming out in March/April We were all ignorant to the facts , nobody knew wtf was going on so it was fair for people to side with caution.

Now IFR is claimed to be .6% and evidence forming that it will be a lot lower again when true number of cases is actually determined. New data, new approach which should focus on protecting the at-risk and letting the rest of us return to life (imo).

Suggest you read some of those 'free articles' you talk about.

It was estimated back in February or march that the death rate was less than 1% and it was reported widely.

Even in both the articles you link to it says the real rate is lower because we haven't detected all cases. In the second article, you claim it says up to 25% which is misleading. It actually says it's from less than 0.1% to 25% and in the very next sentence it says that the higher numbers come from us massively underestimating case numbers.

Ginger n Lemon

Not looking to question above mortality rates above - but didnt WHO post their "estimated mortality rate of covid 19 at 3.4%" in March on their website?

Diarmuid

Here you go from March 17
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Taking account of historical experience, trends in the data, increased number of infections in the population at largest, and potential impact of misclassification of deaths gives a presumed estimate for the COVID-19 IFR somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.*

Data from COVID deaths in Gangelt, Germany, suggests an IFR of 0.37%. A random sample of 1,000 residents of Gangelt found that 14% were carrying antibodies (2% were detected cases), which led to the lowering of the IFR estimates

is_that_so

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Not looking to question above mortality rates above - but didnt WHO post their "estimated mortality rate of covid 19 at 3.4%" in March on their website?

It started out at about that but all in all depended on how well countries could manage the number of cases. Germany, for example, always had the ability to deal with it and theirs was very low.

LeBash

The fact we have a public health service (regardless of what anyone thinks of the functionality within it) every government we form has a vested interest in the countries overall health.

0.5% (assuming that's correct from the poster above) still means 1 in 200 die but how many need treatment or time from a state employed doctor, lost of revenue from extra sick days etc, etc.

We just need an unemotional led decision from government based of facts and figures. Something like, we can handle X in hospitals, to keep at X or below we need to implement Y. Its in the world now, its so wide spread that we just have to accept it for now.

Whatever the implementations are, anyone breaking them, should have an extremely severe penalty.

I think masks should be mandatory coming into flu season so that we don't overload the hospitals. People are still getting serious illness like cancer for example. If we have a flu season, combined with Covid we will end up with a much bigger number of needless dead than just the ones counted on the 6 o'clock news as Covid.

thebaz

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is true. I think rates like 5% and above came from the early days when testing was minimal. By March countries like South Korea were doing extensive testing and the rate was less than 1%

I remember me and others getting hammered here on boards around April for suggesting the death rate would be under 1% , ther were people here suggesting that the death rate would be around 10 % - Draconian measures would be needed for such, but thankfully that has not happened , but many of the same people are now happy to see the Dublin enter a lockdown today, and why I ask after 6 months are the hospitals not better prepared for the second wave, why could we not have created more ICU beds through the summer ?
Meanwhile our economy is being destroyed along with many people mental and social health - banning school sport for school children makes zero sense to me , if we are really concerned about our nations well-being.

douglashyde

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It was estimated back in February or march that the death rate was less than 1% and it was reported widely.

Even in both the articles you link to it says the real rate is lower because we haven't detected all cases. In the second article, you claim it says up to 25% which is misleading. It actually says it's from less than 0.1% to 25% and in the very next sentence it says that the higher numbers come from us massively underestimating case numbers.

Different figures were knocked around back then, I'm sure we could each find a news source saying whatever numbers suit us - The most conservative article I can find (BCC) places it at 2-5% in early March.

This is my point. No data/information outside of China THEN. The death rate was unknown and we had widely fluctuating numbers. But I think almost every citizen in Ireland back then was worried about this unknown disease from China.

Thankfully the data is becoming increasing available and clear ; the DR% has been downgraded to approx. .6%

Anders the top Swedish fella running their health care system estimated the other day that diagnosed cases there account for 10-15% of actual cases, this would lead the death rate to be even lower still. Time will tell.

What we do know is comorbidity is super high - I believe 98% (HSE data) and the average age of death is 83 (average life expectancy in Ireland is 82). All death is tragic, but think about what story those numbers tell.

douglashyde

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Not looking to question above mortality rates above - but didnt WHO post their "estimated mortality rate of covid 19 at 3.4%" in March on their website?

They did, with experts saying it would actually be a lot lower as time goes on; As per above article posted.

As they say 'perception is reality' .... when major news articles and the Director-General of WHO come out and give a number, the general public will generally not question it.

tobefrank321

thebaz wrote: »

I remember me and others getting hammered here on boards around April for suggesting the death rate would be under 1% , ther were people here suggesting that the death rate would be around 10 % - Draconian measures would be needed for such, but thankfully that has not happened , but many of the same people are now happy to see the Dublin enter a lockdown today, and why I ask after 6 months are the hospitals not better prepared for the second wave, why could we not have created more ICU beds through the summer ?
Meanwhile our economy is being destroyed along with many people mental and social health - banning school sport for school children makes zero sense to me , if we are really concerned about our nations well-being.

The Irish government definitely messed up their calculations.

For example, the national lockdown and subsequent lockdowns is likely to cost at least 20 billion.

To increase ICU beds to 1000 would probably cost no more than a billion or 1 million per bed. Thousands of nurses came home from abroad many with ICU experience.

To put in place huge safety and control measures around care homes to limit the spread probably another billion.

Encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and/or work from home as well as teaching supports eg laptops for kids with vulnerable parents another billion.

Would this eliminate deaths? Of course not. But it would keep deaths to the bare minimum, ie at normal flu death levels.

All these measures could be done for 5 billion in total. But as we know from successive Irish governments, why spend 5 billion when you can burn through 20 billion and destroy jobs and the economy?

douglashyde

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The Irish government definitely messed up their calculations.

For example, the national lockdown and subsequent lockdowns is likely to cost at least 20 billion.

To increase ICU beds to 1000 would probably cost no more than a billion or 1 million per bed. Thousands of nurses came home from abroad many with ICU experience.

To put in place huge safety and control measures around care homes to limit the spread probably another billion.

Encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and/or work from home as well as teaching supports eg laptops for kids with vulnerable parents another billion.

Would this eliminate deaths? Of course not. But it would keep deaths to the bare minimum, ie at normal flu death levels.

All these measures could be done for 5 billion in total. But as we know from successive Irish governments, why spend 5 billion when you can burn through 20 billion and destroy jobs and the economy?

Very misleading article / statement coming from HSE Chief, a political play for more cash.

It initially reads as if hospitals are under pressure because of CV19. However there are currently 79 cases in hospital in the state (with the vast majority having other aliments) - these are fraction of the total number of beds in hospitals -- hospital beds come under pressure every year due to a lack of funding and hiring of front line staff + a bloated and ineffective administrative civil service.

I have no doubt that CV19 cases will increase but evidence and data coming from other EU countries is suggesting it will be a fraction of what they're afraid will happen.

cnocbui

douglashyde wrote: »

Different figures were knocked around back then, I'm sure we could each find a news source saying whatever numbers suit us - The most conservative article I can find (BCC) places it at 2-5% in early March.

This is my point. No data/information outside of China THEN. The death rate was unknown and we had widely fluctuating numbers. But I think almost every citizen in Ireland back then was worried about this unknown disease from China.

Thankfully the data is becoming increasing available and clear ; the DR% has been downgraded to approx. .6%

Anders the top Swedish fella running their health care system estimated the other day that diagnosed cases there account for 10-15% of actual cases, this would lead the death rate to be even lower still. Time will tell.

What we do know is comorbidity is super high - I believe 98% (HSE data) and the average age of death is 83 (average life expectancy in Ireland is 82). All death is tragic, but think about what story those numbers tell.

The virus overwhelmingly plays a part in the death of people who are arguably already on borrowed time. Governments flailing around in a tangle of political correctness have little to no chance of altering the eventual outcome, but every chance of making the final outcome far worse, factoring in the damage to young healthy people's lives.

biko

Since my last update 2 weeks ago only another 30 dead, that's great by Swedish measures.

88,237 known cases
5,865 officially dead
Numbers from FHMs own tracking page
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

Bit cynical

biko wrote: »

Since my last update 2 weeks ago only another 30 dead, that's great by Swedish measures.

Also quite good by EU standards at the moment.

Bit cynical

thebaz wrote: »

I remember me and others getting hammered here on boards around April for suggesting the death rate would be under 1% , ther were people here suggesting that the death rate would be around 10 % - Draconian measures would be needed for such, but thankfully that has not happened , but many of the same people are now happy to see the Dublin enter a lockdown today, and why I ask after 6 months are the hospitals not better prepared for the second wave, why could we not have created more ICU beds through the summer ?
Meanwhile our economy is being destroyed along with many people mental and social health - banning school sport for school children makes zero sense to me , if we are really concerned about our nations well-being.

I remember posting on this forum back in early March that the IFR was likely to be lower than 1% based on North Korean figures, but generally it was not widely reported that the figure was that low. You needed to do a bit of digging to find the answers.

dubrov

Bit cynical wrote:

I remember posting on this forum back in early March that the IFR was likely to be lower than 1% based on North Korean figures, but generally it was not widely reported that the figure was that low. You needed to do a bit of digging to find the answers.

The media only ever publish the worst estimates.

Bit cynical

dubrov wrote: »

The media only ever publish the worst estimates.

Or show pictures of mass graves in New York ignoring the fact that that city has always had burials of this type.

The problem is then that the politicians pander to the public's unfounded fears when a balanced, science-based approach is required.

MerlinSouthDub

biko wrote: »

Since my last update 2 weeks ago only another 30 dead, that's great by Swedish measures.

88,237 known cases
5,865 officially dead
Numbers from FHMs own tracking page
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

Sweden is the bright spot in Europe at the moment. Strange how things are working out. I don't agree with the approach they took, but they may have been right all along.

dubrov

In retrospect, it is looking like the correct approach would have been to lock down initially before much was known about Covid. But given what is known now, the Swedish model siesta to be the way to go.

That is unless an effective vaccine can be rolled out in the next 6 months which is unlikely

mcsean2163

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The Irish government definitely messed up their calculations.

For example, the national lockdown and subsequent lockdowns is likely to cost at least 20 billion.

To increase ICU beds to 1000 would probably cost no more than a billion or 1 million per bed. Thousands of nurses came home from abroad many with ICU experience.

To put in place huge safety and control measures around care homes to limit the spread probably another billion.

Encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and/or work from home as well as teaching supports eg laptops for kids with vulnerable parents another billion.

Would this eliminate deaths? Of course not. But it would keep deaths to the bare minimum, ie at normal flu death levels.

All these measures could be done for 5 billion in total. But as we know from successive Irish governments, why spend 5 billion when you can burn through 20 billion and destroy jobs and the economy?

I'm guessing you're not living in the city with young kids. Lockdown was dreadful for primary school kids, guidelines against meeting friends unless they played 2m apart. If you think any kids play 2m apart...

douglashyde

cnocbui wrote: »

The virus overwhelmingly plays a part in the death of people who are arguably already on borrowed time. Governments flailing around in a tangle of political correctness have little to no chance of altering the eventual outcome, but every chance of making the final outcome far worse, factoring in the damage to young healthy people's lives.

Western society with zero tolerance of death compared to previous generations.

We need creative and intensive ways of protecting the vast vast majority that can be determined as the high risk of complications & death of this virus. The rest of us need to learn to live with it.

bb1234567

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The Irish government definitely messed up their calculations.

For example, the national lockdown and subsequent lockdowns is likely to cost at least 20 billion.

To increase ICU beds to 1000 would probably cost no more than a billion or 1 million per bed. Thousands of nurses came home from abroad many with ICU experience.

To put in place huge safety and control measures around care homes to limit the spread probably another billion.

Encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and/or work from home as well as teaching supports eg laptops for kids with vulnerable parents another billion.

Would this eliminate deaths? Of course not. But it would keep deaths to the bare minimum, ie at normal flu death levels.

All these measures could be done for 5 billion in total. But as we know from successive Irish governments, why spend 5 billion when you can burn through 20 billion and destroy jobs and the economy?

Oh god this is depressing when you think about it, how much more sense this makes than a lockdown

kippy

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The Irish government definitely messed up their calculations.

For example, the national lockdown and subsequent lockdowns is likely to cost at least 20 billion.

To increase ICU beds to 1000 would probably cost no more than a billion or 1 million per bed. Thousands of nurses came home from abroad many with ICU experience.

To put in place huge safety and control measures around care homes to limit the spread probably another billion.

Encouraging the vulnerable to stay at home and/or work from home as well as teaching supports eg laptops for kids with vulnerable parents another billion.

Would this eliminate deaths? Of course not. But it would keep deaths to the bare minimum, ie at normal flu death levels.

All these measures could be done for 5 billion in total. But as we know from successive Irish governments, why spend 5 billion when you can burn through 20 billion and destroy jobs and the economy?

Absolutely no idea of the nuances involved in adding 600 additional ICU beds in the course of a few weeks but I doubt it would have been that simple.

Ginger n Lemon

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Sweden is the bright spot in Europe at the moment. Strange how things are working out. I don't agree with the approach they took, but they may have been right all along.

On that in bold, I am curious, could you please say why you didnt agree with their approach?

UK were on course for Swedish approach until mad Neil Ferguson predicted 500k + deaths in UK and BBCs and the Telegraph started to report this "prediction".

Lockdown strategy came from countries like China. So straight away you'd have to ask questions - can China be trusted? answer is obvious. China is not even a democracy. Doctor who leaked the info about covid subsequently "died from covid", he did not seem to be over 65 and its highly unlikely he had any underlying conditions.

I genuinely think that the strategy of putting healthy people into quarantine for months on end because China have locked down Wuhan, was a mistake of epic proportions. Books will be written about this, movies will be filmed about this. And as early as next year actually, when Sweden report less deaths in 2020 than 2019.

On a side note it is very unfortunate that a lot of people in Ireland are poorly educated and are full of stereo types and think of our nation as some sort of country of idiots who cant be trusted and who would lick every door handle if "restrictions" were removed (not talking about you btw), when relentlessly refusing to admit superiority of the Swedish strategy. "oh that wouldnt work here"... last time I checked people in Sweden have 2 arms and 2 legs. Same as in Ireland.

growleaves

Bit cynical wrote: »

I remember posting on this forum back in early March that the IFR was likely to be lower than 1% based on North Korean figures, but generally it was not widely reported that the figure was that low. You needed to do a bit of digging to find the answers.

Do you mean South Korean figures? I don't think figures out of North Korea are considered trustworthy due to the nature of the regime there.

I also said it would be under 1% and when you asked people what evidence they had that this would be one of history's worst diseases they could only say that the future is unknown, which is a non-answer.

kippy

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

On that in bold, I am curious, could you please say why you didnt agree with their approach?

UK were on course for Swedish approach until mad Neil Ferguson predicted 500k + deaths in UK and BBCs and the Telegraph started to report this "prediction".

Lockdown strategy came from countries like China. So straight away you'd have to ask questions - can China be trusted? answer is obvious. China is not even a democracy. Doctor who leaked the info about covid subsequently "died from covid", he did not seem to be over 65 and its highly unlikely he had any underlying conditions.

I genuinely think that the strategy of putting healthy people into quarantine for months on end because China have locked down Wuhan, was a mistake of epic proportions. Books will be written about this, movies will be filmed about this. And as early as next year actually, when Sweden report less deaths in 2020 than 2019.

On a side note it is very unfortunate that a lot of people in Ireland are poorly educated and are full of stereo types and think of our nation as some sort of country of idiots who cant be trusted and who would lick every door handle if "restrictions" were removed (not talking about you btw), when relentlessly refusing to admit superiority of the Swedish strategy. "oh that wouldnt work here"... last time I checked people in Sweden have 2 arms and 2 legs. Same as in Ireland.

You don't have to look to far to find strong evidence that, for whatever reason, we have our fair share of idiots.
There are a lot of cultural differences between both countries and major attitude differences - it's not just a matter of more idiots here.

Ginger n Lemon

kippy wrote: »

You don't have to look to far to find strong evidence that, for whatever reason, we have our fair share of idiots.
There are a lot of cultural differences between both countries and major attitude differences - it's not just a matter of more idiots here.

I can assure you Sweden and Ireland had roughly same amount of idiots in 2019 based on sizes of population. In 2020, unfortunately, due to lack of education of Irish children, predicted grading of their final year exams (that they only do once in their lifetime actually) and continuing lack of education through questionable compromises such as "distant learning" for primary, secondary schools and colleges, amount of idiots in this country will go through the roof. And covid is not responsible for that.

Attitude towards health is the same in every country. You dont exactly hear of hundreds of Irish dying during red weather warnings while hearing that no Swedes have ever died in bad weather?

kippy

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I can assure you Sweden and Ireland had roughly same amount of idiots in 2019 based on sizes of population. In 2020, unfortunately, due to lack of education of Irish children, predicted grading of their final year exams (that they only do once in their lifetime actually) and continuing lack of education through questionable compromises such as "distant learning" for primary, secondary schools and colleges, amount of idiots in this country will go through the roof. And covid is not responsible for that.

Attitude towards health is the same in every country. You dont exactly hear of hundreds of Irish dying during red weather warnings while hearing that no Swedes have ever died in bad weather?

Attitude towards health, government, personal responsibility, the actions of the state etc etc are not the same in every country.

There's plenty "well educated" idiots out there.