Sweden avoiding lockdown

AlmightyCushion · 23-09-2020 11:37am

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Take a look who is high risk from flu complications.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/index.htm

The crossover with covid 19 is remarkable. Apart from young children and pregnant women, all the rest would be also be considered high risk for covid 19. So people in this group would benefit from a mild flu season, but would then be at risk from covid 19.

(I'm not advocating covid 19 should be let rip on these groups, they should be shielded until the epidemic is over)

It is easy to say, shield those groups and let everyone else go back to normal. How do you do it though? If this thing is spreading wildly through the community, then how do you stop it getting into these groups eventually? Do these people just lock themselves in their houses until we eventually get a vaccine. They just never get to see another person (unless that person is also one of the affected groups and locking themselves away also). People just stop seeing their parents/grandparents/friends that are in high risk groups. That isn't workable.

The plan is to get the level of covid low enough and keep it there so that we all get to live our lives and see our friends and family including those in high risk groups. There will still be a risk to people in the high risk groups but given the level of covid it will be small. Now, when I say live our lives I don't mean exactly how things were before covid but there is a middle ground between that and total lockdown.

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 12:14pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It is easy to say, shield those groups and let everyone else go back to normal. How do you do it though? If this thing is spreading wildly through the community, then how do you stop it getting into these groups eventually? Do these people just lock themselves in their houses until we eventually get a vaccine. They just never get to see another person (unless that person is also one of the affected groups and locking themselves away also). People just stop seeing their parents/grandparents/friends that are in high risk groups. That isn't workable.

The plan is to get the level of covid low enough and keep it there so that we all get to live our lives and see our friends and family including those in high risk groups. There will still be a risk to people in the high risk groups but given the level of covid it will be small. Now, when I say live our lives I don't mean exactly how things were before covid but there is a middle ground between that and total lockdown.

Its probably too late to try something in Ireland as we might have a vaccine in 6 months time.

But if we did have something like this in future, repeated lockdowns is probably not a good idea. It prolongs rather than shortens the epidemic as it leaves a huge number of susceptible people after lockdown. It causes mass unemployment, severe educational disruption and in general ruins economies. It also means rather than shielding for the couple of months it takes for the majority of the population to be infected and become immune, the elderly have to shield for the 12 months it takes to get a vaccine out there. If you shield the vulnerable and let it rip among the healthy, the epidemic would be done in 3-4 months, instead of the 12 months it would take with lockdowns.

As for ways of doing it, yes there are. Unfortunately governments will always opt for the easier method of lockdown than the more complicated option of shielding people. Lockdowns are logistically easy to do which is why governments opt for them.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 12:32pm

PHG wrote: »

As most left Stockholm, so much so that restaurants close for 3/4 weeks in July here, so don't come plan a trip here at that time of year , and would cause a spread to other areas of the country.

That is pure assumption but seems to make sense.

As for restrictions it would seem odd to bring anything note worthy in as once the darkness sets in in the next 5/6 weeks here the place becomes quieter than normal in the evenings but may be that people are closer in shops, cafes etc.

Thanks for that.
It was just speculation on my part that with Dalarna being a region where southern Swede`s holiday that their was a degree of probability that the drop in numbers in Stockholm during the holiday season and the rise in numbers in Dalarna were perhaps connected.
With the subsequent rise of numbers in Stockholm now that holidays are over, to me at least, that would suggest a higher degree of probability for that speculation.

I can see your point on restriction during winter. Unlike the Irish the Swede`s do not strike me as a race that cram into pubs, or indeed hold boozy house parties during Winter.
One thing I did notice though is that this mention of further restriction came from the Stockholm`s local authority.
I seem to recall ( and from what I have read with not all regions having the same restrictions) that back some time ago that restriction and their enforcement passed to local authorities.

If that is the situation, could that be the reason that Tegnell, unlike I expected him too, did not dismiss the idea straight off ?

I`m sure Sweden is a lovely country, but I`m a bit of a sun lover. Much like Terry Wogan`s answer when asked about travelling by plane of upon entering turn left, with me and holidays it`s turn south.:)

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 12:35pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I don't know if you are accidently or deliberately scaremongering here. You disagree with the Sweden approach, fair enough, but there's no need to exaggerate some things.

1. Long Covid - 3-6 months is not really long term. 5-10 years is long term.

Ha. For a virus only 9 months old your very sure of recovery rates. Even scientists dont know. Hence the caution. They dont even know WHY.the fatigue or what COVID has done to these 'mild' cases.

2. Ages your T-Cells? Any link for this?

Yep. Immunologist i linked to prev. I dont fully understand the science, he does, phd in Tcell immunology,explains it well, its in one of my prev posts.

3. Reinfected every year? Based on what? Declining antibodies? Many people now have zero antibodies but still haven't been reinfected. So obviously some other form of immunity is working.

Based on how every other form of coronavirus, and early signs of reinfection, and tcell being aged and different strains (8 so far) emerging. Hopefully science will win. But caution preferred.

4. kawaski syndrome from covid? I thought that was debunked. You'll have to provide a source including how serious it is for them.

Nope not debunked. In fact many studies showing heart isues in kids with covid
Show me link where debunked?

5. 150,000 with long term covid? Source?

Source swedish gov stats.
Again, long term is 5-10 years, not months. A number of high profile celebrities and sports stars suffered from covid 19. Almost all are now back at work.

And some died (heart attack surprise surprise).and some are still sick. Your point?

6. Luke O'Neill pointed out recently that the death rate is particularly high in care homes and among the immigrant population in Sweden. Care homes we had the same problem even with lockdown. Immigrant populations tend to live in multi generational households. But its likely most are now immune.

Likely? Why are they talking about locking down Stockholm again? Surely they should all be immune by now? Or is it likely they are not?

7. Why would anyone count someone who dies after 30 days? You have to cut off dates at some stage. If I had flu 2 months ago but died of something else today, would you say I died of flu?

Sigh. Because flu doesnt cause blot clots, attacks the organs, infiltrate the brain, cuase seizures, etc. See above. If covid causes a clot or heart issues and you die from that, after being diagnosed with it, then it killed you.

8. They removed 3000 false positives. You'll have to provide more details on this if you believe it was something else.

Why dont you provide proof they were false positives? They have far far more reason to downplay their failed experiment. And i wish it had worked.

9. Zero covid is not achievable in Ireland and many other open countries.
Thats your opinion.

I disagree completely.
With the correct test tracing and attitude we could stamp it out. We may have to longer term anyway and it will cost more to eradicate once endemnic. like polio, smallpox, rabies, no such thing as herd immunity with any of these diseases.

Again with the scaremongering accusations. Im sooo tired of that. Its not scaremongering its fact. Been accused of scaremongering since jan, watching this virus in wuhan make its way here.

'its just the flu' 'stop scaremongering' .. sigh.

Its a pandemic. It is scarey. It doesnt mean we cant fight the virus. But the virus wins if we underestimate it and let it win.

23-09-2020 12:48pm

The restrictions discussed in Stockholm is that if someone in the household has confirmed Covid-19 then that household needs to stay home until no-one in the household has shown any symptoms for two days (if the person with confirmed Covid-19 has no symptoms then after two days that person can return to normal life while the rest of the household gives it a few extra days). It is not talk about lockdowns, facemasks (not what I have heard or that media reports), school closures, ban on visitors to homes, domestic travel, restrictions on time that alcohol can be served etc.

There is no support from the society, the health authorities or the politicians for lockdown like measures so that just won't happen. There are vocal people on social media that are Swedish or live in Sweden and are strongly against the softer approach, but they are a big minority.

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 12:55pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I don't know if you are accidently or deliberately scaremongering here. You disagree with the Sweden approach, fair enough, but there's no need to exaggerate some things.

1. Long Covid - 3-6 months is not really long term. 5-10 years is long term.

Ha. For a virus only 9 months old your very sure of recovery rates. Even scientists dont know. Hence the caution. They dont even know WHY.the fatigue or what COVID has done to these 'mild' cases.

I'm not the one stating long covid is a problem. You're the one making that prediction. Fact is no-one knows. Locking us all down based on speculation of what might happen is the very definition of scaremongering.

3. Reinfected every year? Based on what? Declining antibodies? Many people now have zero antibodies but still haven't been reinfected. So obviously some other form of immunity is working.

Based on how every other form of coronavirus, and early signs of reinfection, and tcell being aged and different strains (8 so far) emerging. Hopefully science will win. But caution preferred.

Immunity from SARS cov 1 is reckoned to be anything up to 15 years. Again with the caution? Are you going to lock yourself away based on caution? Life is about balancing risks.

4. kawaski syndrome from covid? I thought that was debunked. You'll have to provide a source including how serious it is for them.

Nope not debunked. In fact many studies showing heart isues in kids with covid
Show me link where debunked?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/05/no-evidence-of-link-between-covid-19-and-kawasaki-disease/&fj=1

5. 150,000 with long term covid? Source?

Source swedish gov stats.

Again, long term is 5-10 years, not months. A number of high profile celebrities and sports stars suffered from covid 19. Almost all are now back at work.

And some died (heart attack surprise surprise).and some are still sick. Your point?

The small minority who died were mostly in the vulnerable category, elderly, very overweight, etc The young athletes got over this with no issues.

6. Luke O'Neill pointed out recently that the death rate is particularly high in care homes and among the immigrant population in Sweden. Care homes we had the same problem even with lockdown. Immigrant populations tend to live in multi generational households. But its likely most are now immune.

Likely? Why are they talking about locking down Stockholm again? Surely they should all be immune by now? Or is it likely they are not?

They are not talking about locking down Stockholm again and they didnt lock it down the first time. They are talking about shielding old people in care homes. There's a huge difference.

7. Why would anyone count someone who dies after 30 days? You have to cut off dates at some stage. If I had flu 2 months ago but died of something else today, would you say I died of flu?

Sigh. Because flu doesnt cause blot clots, attacks the organs, infiltrate the brain, cuase seizures, etc. See above. If covid causes a clot or heart issues and you die from that, after being diagnosed with it, then it killed you.

Proven in every single case? The vast majority of people recover from covid with zero long term effects. Doesn't fit the scaremongers narrative and you won't see any of their stories on the front page. Why publish a million positive outcomes when you can publish one negative outcome that sells papers?

9. Zero covid is not achievable in Ireland and many other open countries.
Thats your opinion.

I disagree completely.
With the correct test tracing and attitude we could stamp it out. We may have to longer term anyway and it will cost more to eradicate once endemnic. like polio, smallpox, rabies, no such thing as herd immunity with any of these diseases.

Again with the scaremongering accusations. Im sooo tired of that. Its not scaremongering its fact. Been accused of scaremongering since jan, watching this virus in wuhan make its way here.

'its just the flu' 'stop scaremongering' .. sigh.

Its a pandemic. It is scarey. It doesnt mean we cant fight the virus. But the virus wins if we underestimate it and let it win.

I didn't say it was just the flu.
zero covid isn't possible in Ireland, especially as we don't control the entire island. Those diseases have no relevance to coronavirus.

ArthurDayne · 23-09-2020 1:00pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It is easy to say, shield those groups and let everyone else go back to normal. How do you do it though? If this thing is spreading wildly through the community, then how do you stop it getting into these groups eventually? Do these people just lock themselves in their houses until we eventually get a vaccine. They just never get to see another person (unless that person is also one of the affected groups and locking themselves away also). People just stop seeing their parents/grandparents/friends that are in high risk groups. That isn't workable.

The plan is to get the level of covid low enough and keep it there so that we all get to live our lives and see our friends and family including those in high risk groups. There will still be a risk to people in the high risk groups but given the level of covid it will be small. Now, when I say live our lives I don't mean exactly how things were before covid but there is a middle ground between that and total lockdown.

The problem here is that the vista you are claiming to be undesirable (i.e. at risk people having to lock themselves away until there is a vaccine) is more or less not far off what the current Covid strategy involves. Ultimately as well, half of Covid deaths were in care homes, where residents don’t tend to be out and about anyway.

The idea that we can get Covid “low enough” to go back to somewhat of a normality does not appear to be a strategy that is workable in the long term. It took a full and complete lockdown to merely flatten the curve — it now appears that it would take a very sustained and draconian lockdown over a long period of time to actually eliminate the virus and we would need pretty much at least all of Europe then eventually all of the world to do likewise. All it seems to take is a sliver of the virus to survive and then, once again as is happening now, a whole bunch of people who have been in lockdown with no exposure to the virus are suddenly out and about spreading it again.

The fact remains — it is much easier from an ethical perspective to advocate the lockdown approach because it is simply much easier to identify the moral benefit of saving [mostly] elderly people from death. But the longer the lockdown strategy goes on, and it is almost unavoidably a very long road, then other ethical concerns start to pile up. They pile and pile, then snowball to the point where things which might have originally seemed trivial versus the death caused by Covid, like teenagers not being able to go party and socialise, become ethical questions about teenagers missing out on important self-development and their liberty to enjoy their youth as we all did. Even in times of war, this level of deprivation of human and social contact for young people is unprecedented. And that’s only one issue in the entire myriad of socioeconomic consequences which are inherent in the lockdown strategy.

The frustrating thing is that people are still adopting this moral Puritanism towards the Covid question — that the only ethical question worth asking is how to stop mainly old people from dying, which invariably leads to the view that the current approach in Ireland is the only ethical solution. And so, right now, the entire governance of our State is geared utterly and solely to that one ethical question, at the expense of all others.

99nsr125 · 23-09-2020 1:06pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

ZeroCovid is the best approach economically, and health wise. Look aroind the world, the countries that stamped it out quickly and kept tight control on it.are thriving.

This is impossible, it has never worked for any disease ever. Please don't be so deluded to think so.

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 1:10pm

99nsr125 wrote: »

This is impossible, it has never worked for any disease ever. Please don't be so deluded to think so.

Never?
Rubella, TB, polio, rabies,smallpox

Zero policy.

ma003 · 23-09-2020 1:20pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Never?
Rubella, TB, polio, rabies,smallpox

Zero policy.

Those examples are not all eradicated worldwide except smallpox. If they are eradicated in particular countries it is because of vaccination not contact tracing and testing.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 1:28pm

99nsr125 wrote: »

This is impossible, it has never worked for any disease ever. Please don't be so deluded to think so.

Smallpox. Eradicated 40 year ago.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 1:33pm

ma003 wrote: »

Those examples are not all eradicated worldwide except smallpox. If they are eradicated in particular countries it is because of vaccination not contact tracing and testing.

True, but none through acquired immunity despite all the centuries they existed.

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 1:43pm

But we DO know. People are getting sick from this, and STILL not recovered, and they have NO idea whats causing it or when they will recover.
To my mind wanting to go to the pub KNOWING this is a possibility for fit active people is more foolhardy than simple precautions.

Immunity from SARS cov 1 is reckoned to be anything up to 15 years. Again with the caution? Are you going to lock yourself away based on caution? Life is about balancing risks.

Thats just not true... and This is a novel virus, and they KNOW antibodies to this virus start dropping after 3 months. SARs the antibodies were maintained for 2 years. SarsCov2 does not seem to be acting in the same way. But (shrug) who knows.
Among 176 patients who had had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS-specific antibodies were maintained for an average of 2 years, and significant reduction of immunoglobulin G–positive percentage and titers occurred in the third year. Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2020/05/no-evidence-of-link-between-covid-19-and-kawasaki-disease/&fj=1

You maybe right here, its not Kawaski Symdrome thats triggered, its MIS, but thankfully rarely fatal.

Ludvigsson said these children have symptoms similar to that of Kawasaki disease, a rare inflammatory disease, which attacks mainly infants and small children and whose symptoms include high fever, rashes, swollen glands, pink eyes and heart inflammation in serious cases.
"MIS is probably worse. I have seen children with very serious impact on heart, much more than Kawasaki," Ludvigsson was quoted by SVT as saying, "It is a dangerous disease, but deaths are extremely rare."
Inflammation of blood vessels and cardiac damage are much more pronounced in cases suspected of being linked to COVID-19 compared with classic Kawasaki disease, France's public health agency said earlier.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-08/08/c_139275738.htm

The small minority who died were mostly in the vulnerable category, elderly, very overweight, etc The young athletes got over this with no issues.

And the 540 Health Care Workers who died in UK?
Fit enough to work but not to survive COVID19?

They are not talking about locking down Stockholm again and they didnt lock it down the first time. They are talking about shielding old people in care homes. There's a huge difference.

And shielding worked SO WELL the first time didnt it? FFFSS
Todays papers:
Tegnell said that new measures for the capital could not be ruled out. "We have a discussion with Stockholm about whether we need to introduce measures to reduce the spread of infection. Exactly what that will be, we will come back to in the next few days," he said.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/sweden-considers-stockholm-restrictions-as-covid-cases-rise-1018682.html

Why would anyone count someone who dies after 30 days? You have to cut off dates at some stage. If I had flu 2 months ago but died of something else today, would you say I died of flu?

ITS NOT FLU
Seriously? Diagnosed with cancer, but die 2 months later of respiratory failure isnt cancers fault?
Diagnosed with HIV and die from weakened immune system isnt HIV fault?
Cause its beyond 30 days from diagnosis?

Proven in every single case? The vast majority of people recover from covid with zero long term effects. Doesn't fit the scaremongers narrative and you won't see any of their stories on the front page. Why publish a million positive outcomes when you can publish one negative outcome that sells papers?

The herd immunity crowd are gambling on the vast majority of people not being affected, and they are losing. 1% dead and 15% with LongCovid are not great odds.

zero covid isn't possible in Ireland, especially as we don't control the entire island.

..And somehow we managed to eradicate (for animals) foot and mouth, rabies,
polio, TB and smallpox.
And before any smart arse jumps in with the piles of burning cows comments...

Thats what herd immunity looks like, and Im not a fan.

Id prefer isolation, test and trace :-D

cnocbui · 23-09-2020 1:46pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

...

The frustrating thing is that people are still adopting this moral Puritanism towards the Covid question — that the only ethical question worth asking is how to stop mainly old people from dying, which invariably leads to the view that the current approach in Ireland is the only ethical solution. And so, right now, the entire governance of our State is geared utterly and solely to that one ethical question, at the expense of all others.

The moral 'superiority' of lockdown is risible nonsense. Just the other day in the UK a senior police spokesman was interviewed and said the police were extremely concerned at the huge decline in reports of domestic sexual abuse from children, which likely has increased but with far less reporting than even of the more normally prevailing levels of abuse due to a lack of a school environment, which is the main reporting interface.

Then there are the multitude of medical professionals in many countries decrying the downturn in identifying and treating other illnesses with high likelihoods of fatal outcomes due to delay in discovery and treatment.

The upshot is that the extreme response to Covid will lead to far more deaths and human trauma and misery than is avoided. Lockdown is throwing the baby out with the bathwater on a terrifying scale.

jackal · 23-09-2020 2:01pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It is easy to say, shield those groups and let everyone else go back to normal. How do you do it though? If this thing is spreading wildly through the community, then how do you stop it getting into these groups eventually? Do these people just lock themselves in their houses until we eventually get a vaccine. They just never get to see another person (unless that person is also one of the affected groups and locking themselves away also). People just stop seeing their parents/grandparents/friends that are in high risk groups. That isn't workable.

The plan is to get the level of covid low enough and keep it there so that we all get to live our lives and see our friends and family including those in high risk groups. There will still be a risk to people in the high risk groups but given the level of covid it will be small. Now, when I say live our lives I don't mean exactly how things were before covid but there is a middle ground between that and total lockdown.

The problem with Covid is that it seemingly spreads so easily, and in so many different ways (though the science on this is changing daily) - through surface contact, through droplets, and increasingly its looking like through aerosol spread, that it makes every normal activity a potentially dangerous act if the strategy is to suppress this to low levels in the general community so that the vulnerable are not put at risk.

We have been largely living with this through good weather allowing many completely normal activities that would otherwise be cancelled to carry on in some shape or form. That good weather is going to be over soon, and 4-6 months of colder, wetter weather and little daylight outside of working hours is going to require those activities to be performed indoors if they are to continue.

If it is proven to be spread by aerosol, and with your garden variety disposable mask evidently not stopping the spread (given the ever increasing numbers since they were introduced) then to continue the general suppression strategy we will have to close all of the following for the foreseeable future:

1. Restaurants
2. Pubs
3. Gyms
4. Hairdressers
5. Schools
6. Colleges
7. Childcare
8. Offices
9. Cinemas
10. Concerts
11. Indoor classes of any kind
12. Swimming pools
13. Socialising in any indoor setting

Even people working in shops will have to have proper medical grade PPE gear if it is proven to be spread by air circulation.

The current strategy is delay and pray for a vaccine, but I dont think we can last a winter with it. I could be wrong. I am not looking forward to this winter one bit.

ma003 · 23-09-2020 2:02pm

charlie14 wrote: »

True, but none through acquired immunity despite all the centuries they existed.

Fair enough. All viruses are different and most can only be eventually controlled via a vaccine or antiviral.

In the likes of a virus like rubella you will likely have immunity if you get the virus and recover but population wise, acquired immunity would likely not happen.

I think the argument for herd immunity in covids cases can't really be made right now as we don't know enough. It likely took decades to research each of those other viruses and learn how they worked and spread etc. Until the research in that area is done, immunity from a vaccine is the only answer or if there was a treatment with a high rate of success.

There are pros and cons to both sides and I don't know which is better to be honest. Locking down will cause other illnesses to slip through the cracks and destroy the economy and letting it run free will potentially have a huge death rate. There is no good solution and people should look at it from both sides instead of attacking each other with their solution and why they are right. Unfortunately we are in a grey area and compromises on both sides of the argument might have to be tried and tested.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 2:05pm

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Charlie, I know you've posted that at 1.26 AM, but did you mean to say that because they've survived flu in 2019, they arent allowed to die off covid-19? Its not acceptable?

Sometimes when I read into your posts, I get a feeling you think people are immortal, especially when it comes to flu and old age.

Most, if not all, of your posts I have read consist of nothing much more than rambling assertions and made up "facts" that when challenged on result in nothing other than evasion, often with a snarky undertone.

In the last 24 hours alone we have had Giesecke was 100% correct, Sweden had less deaths in the 6 weeks prior to 14th September than the previous year, and Sweden`s strategy had nothing to do with herd immunity.

Your latest appears to be some attempt, (although admittedly it is difficult to tell from your ramblings), to explain away the large disparity in Covid-19 deaths between Sweden and Norway based on a flu season that was mild throughout Europe, while totally ignoring that Covid-19 deaths in Sweden per 100,000 are 57.33 compared to Norway`s 5.01.

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 2:10pm

ma003 wrote: »

Those examples are not all eradicated worldwide except smallpox. If they are eradicated in particular countries it is because of vaccination not contact tracing and testing.

Agreed, isolate test trace to contain the virus until a vaccine is available.

Ginger n Lemon · 23-09-2020 2:12pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Most, if not all, of your posts I have read consist of nothing much more than rambling assertions and made up "facts" that when challenged on result in nothing other than evasion, often with a snarky undertone.

In the last 24 hours alone we have had Giesecke was 100% correct, Sweden had less deaths in the 6 weeks prior to 14th September than the previous year, and Sweden`s strategy had nothing to do with herd immunity.

Your latest appears to be some attempt, (although admittedly it is difficult to tell from your ramblings), to explain away the large disparity in Covid-19 deaths between Sweden and Norway based on a flu season that was mild throughout Europe, while totally ignoring that Covid-19 deaths in Sweden per 100,000 are 57.33 compared to Norway`s 5.01.

Charlie have you not been reading tobefrank123 posts? He clearly shows you the Norway deaths that have been identical over the last 5 years, while Swedish deaths were 2.5k lower in 2019 than in 2018, 2017, 2016.

Flu season was milder in Sweden than Norway in 2019.

Charlie this is very simple.. ?

ma003 · 23-09-2020 2:17pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Agreed, isolate test trace to contain the virus until a vaccine is available.

But I don't believe the infrastructure is there though I could be wrong? The point of the lockdown was to make sure we had the capabilities to do this but I think it was on the news the other night that we are likely going to be swamped by testing and we don't have the capabilities to keep up. In theory I'd like to believe that we could keep it in control through testing and tracing but I don't think the facilities have been put in place like in other countries that have kept cases relatively low. I think zero cases is unlikely but I do think with minor restrictions and testing and people being even just a tiny bit responsible they could be kept relatively low.

mohawk · 23-09-2020 2:23pm

cnocbui wrote: »

The moral 'superiority' of lockdown is risible nonsense. Just the other day in the UK a senior police spokesman was interviewed and said the police were extremely concerned at the huge decline in reports of domestic sexual abuse from children, which likely has increased but with far less reporting than even of the more normally prevailing levels of abuse due to a lack of a school environment, which is the main reporting interface.

Then there are the multitude of medical professionals in many countries decrying the downturn in identifying and treating other illnesses with high likelihoods of fatal outcomes due to delay in discovery and treatment.

The upshot is that the extreme response to Covid will lead to far more deaths and human trauma and misery than is avoided. Lockdown is throwing the baby out with the bathwater on a terrifying scale.

I agree the collateral damage caused by lockdown will do way more harm and cause more deaths as well as hardship and misery to many many more.
Any delay in receiving a cancer diagnosis could mean a dramatic reduction in survival chances.
The waiting lists for surgery’s is going to be astronomical for some conditions. There was a huge impact to mental health of many. As someone who grew up with an abusive alcoholic. We only got a break from him when he was at work or the pub. My heart breaks for what children in abusive homes went through in lockdown. School was my safe place as a child.

I haven’t even touched on the economic impact to the many who lost jobs and will now struggle to pay for a roof over their heads and pay their bills.

Anyone daring to suggest that lockdown did harm is usually told they are selfish and are endangering the lives of the vulnerable. Many people find the restrictions tough to cope with and it’s not always because they are selfish. The longer this goes on the more people will question if tough restrictions are worth it.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 2:23pm

ma003 wrote: »

Fair enough. All viruses are different and most can only be eventually controlled via a vaccine or antiviral.

In the likes of a virus like rubella you will likely have immunity if you get the virus and recover but population wise, acquired immunity would likely not happen.

I think the argument for herd immunity in covids cases can't really be made right now as we don't know enough. It likely took decades to research each of those other viruses and learn how they worked and spread etc. Until the research in that area is done, immunity from a vaccine is the only answer or if there was a treatment with a high rate of success.

There are pros and cons to both sides and I don't know which is better to be honest. Locking down will cause other illnesses to slip through the cracks and destroy the economy and letting it run free will potentially have a huge death rate. There is no good solution and people should look at it from both sides instead of attacking each other with their solution and why they are right. Unfortunately we are in a grey area and compromises on both sides of the argument might have to be tried and tested.

Totally agree, but for me personally, with what increasingly looks more promising on vaccine development in relation to Covid-19, this herd/acquired immunity from some is a jumping the shark argument.

charlie14 · 23-09-2020 2:43pm

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Charlie have you not been reading tobefrank123 posts? He clearly shows you the Norway deaths that have been identical over the last 5 years, while Swedish deaths were 2.5k lower in 2019 than in 2018, 2017, 2016.

Flu season was milder in Sweden than Norway in 2019.

Charlie this is very simple.. ?

Another of your assumptions , or do you know how many died from flu in both countries in 2019 ?

Are you actually attempting, like some recently in Sweden, explain away the disparity of 57.33 deaths per 100,000 in Sweden compared to 5.01 in Norway on 2019 flu deaths ?

Very simple questions.

Ginger n Lemon · 23-09-2020 2:45pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Another of your assumptions , or do you know how many died from flu in both countries in 2019 ?

Are you actually attempting, like some recently in Sweden, explain away the disparity of 57.33 deaths per 100,000 in Sweden compared to 5.01 in Norway on 2019 flu deaths ?

Very simple questions.

Are you denying the fact that Sweden had 2.5k less deaths in 2019 than in 2018?

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 2:52pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Your latest appears to be some attempt, (although admittedly it is difficult to tell from your ramblings), to explain away the large disparity in Covid-19 deaths between Sweden and Norway based on a flu season that was mild throughout Europe, while totally ignoring that Covid-19 deaths in Sweden per 100,000 are 57.33 compared to Norway`s 5.01.

You're just going to ignore that 2019 was a very mild year in Sweden in terms of deaths, 2000 less than normal. Some of it is to do with the flu, but some of it is to do with other factors.

Norway's deaths in the last 5 years have been pretty consistent as I showed. Its very likely a similar number of people died in their flus every year for the last 5 years.

In Sweden meanwhile a large pool of people in the vulnerable category was building up, many of them in nursing homes. Sweden has one of the highest proportions of over 90 year olds in the world, an ideal cohort for covid 19 unfortunately.

Swedens fault (and Italy's too) compared to the likes of Ireland is they have managed through a very good health system compared to our own, to keep a very large number of elderly people alive. Maybe if like Ireland their healthcare system was much poorer and had only 13% elderly, people would be hailing how very few elderly died in Sweden from covid 19.

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 2:55pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Another of your assumptions , or do you know how many died from flu in both countries in 2019 ?

Are you actually attempting, like some recently in Sweden, explain away the disparity of 57.33 deaths per 100,000 in Sweden compared to 5.01 in Norway on 2019 flu deaths ?

Very simple questions.

Here's the stats for Sweden:

In Sweden, 7,928 people were infected with influenza in the 2019-2020 season, compared with 13,758 the season before and 20,686 in the 2017-2018 season, Public Health Agency statistics show. The number of deaths within 30 days of a flu diagnosis was 178 in 2019-2020, compared to 451 the season before and 1,012 in the 2017-2018 season.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200918/can-a-mild-flu-season-really-explain-swedens-high-coronavirus-mortality

Where are you getting 57.33 per 100,000 from that?

And again a mild flu season is only of the reasons why Sweden had fewer deaths in 2019. If you were to be ultra critical of Norway you'd say that about 1000 more people died in 2019 per capita compared to Sweden. And fewer older people means fewer deaths from covid.

Ginger n Lemon · 23-09-2020 2:55pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You're just going to ignore that 2019 was a very mild year in Sweden in terms of deaths, 2000 less than normal. Some of it is to do with the flu, but some of it is to do with other factors.

Norway's deaths in the last 5 years have been pretty consistent as I showed. Its very likely a similar number of people died in their flus every year for the last 5 years.

In Sweden meanwhile a large pool of people in the vulnerable category was building up, many of them in nursing homes. Sweden has one of the highest proportions of over 90 year olds in the world, an ideal cohort for covid 19 unfortunately.

Of course Swedens death rate from covid 19 is going to be higher than Norway for these reasons. Bemused why you'd think otherwise.

Swedens fault (and Italy's too) compared to the likes of Ireland is they have managed through a very good health system compared to our own, to keep a very large number of elderly people alive. Maybe if like Ireland there healthcare system was much poorer and had only 13% elderly, people would be hailing how very few elderly died in Sweden.

Good post. I have a bad feeling Charles will have a come back... something along the lines of "Just because they didnt in 2019, doesnt mean its acceptable they die to covid in 2020, Swedish strategy is bad!". :rolleyes:

tobefrank321 · 23-09-2020 3:45pm

I'm going to take a break from this thread for a couple of days for my own peace of mind as much as anything.

I will summarize what I think.

1. Deaths among the elderly in both Sweden and Ireland proportionally is almost exactly the same. So either lockdown made no difference or else Ireland was headed for a much worse scenario than Sweden if it didn't lock down.

2. Lockdowns are not a sustainable answer. You are just postponing the problem for a couple of months or probably only a couple of weeks.

3. With effective shielding and allowing it rip through the young you're likely to have most of the epidemic over in a few months.

Its summed up nicely in this article and by this Professor:

Boris really needs to start listening to Sunetra Gupta, professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford university and a world authority on infectious diseases. “As many young people as possible need to get the virus before winter,” says Professor Gupta. Not that chaps like Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty are listening to her. Their Scientific Advisory Group is an echo chamber.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/ridiculous-covid-rules-hurting-young-nobody-wants-punished/

4. Norway may claim not to have suffered too much last year from flus and the like. But the stats say otherwise. For Norway, 2019 was a normal year for deaths. For Sweden they had 2000 less deaths than an average year.

Even a quick glance at both countries graphs for excess deaths shows Norway did worse than Sweden last year.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

5. Sweden has done a very good job at keeping a lot of older people alive in into their 80s adnd 90s, more so than most other countries. But like Northern Italy its superior care for the elderly ended up being its Achilles heel once covid 19 struck.

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 4:54pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm going to take a break from this thread for a couple of days for my own peace of mind as much.

Enjoy the break.

1) No country has successfully shielded the vulnerable, when allowing the virus to circulate. It hasnt happened.

2) Tegell is looking for many reasons to downplay the death toll. 2,000 we saved last year and 4,000 we sarcrificed this year? Well, suddenly its all ok now.

3) Apparently they're not all immune in Stockholm yet. Why not?

4) Removal of 30000 test results, 30 day limit to have covid on the death cert, arguing elderly vulnerable populations, all seem to be desperate ploys to justify an unfortunate gamble that didnt pay off.

Japan has an elderly population, how did they manage to protect them?

Honestly, i wish it had worked. But it didnt. Though i hope i am proved wrong and this winter wont be as bad.

SeaBreezes · 23-09-2020 4:55pm

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Here's the stats for Sweden:

https://www.thelocal.se/20200918/can-a-mild-flu-season-really-explain-swedens-high-coronavirus-mortality

Where are you getting 57.33 per 100,000 from that?

And again a mild flu season is only of the reasons why Sweden had fewer deaths in 2019. If you were to be ultra critical of Norway you'd say that about 1000 more people died in 2019 per capita compared to Sweden. And fewer older people means fewer deaths from covid.

Seriously? Ivor Cummings?
The man is being DESTROYED by fact checkers.

Sweden avoiding lockdown

Comments