Sweden avoiding lockdown

99nsr125

JimmyVik wrote: »

Have you been keeping up with the news at all?

Did you read the FT article

I'm lucky enough to have a subscription to quality reporting and news.

JimmyVik

99nsr125 wrote: »

So yes you agree that a disease we can and do vaccinate against still circulates.

Ok
This was the original point, covid is not going away, lockdown will not eradicate it and over zealous lockdown measures will cause more deaths than the disease itself.

Lockdown is not a treatment, it is not a plan, it's what you do when you have no plan, you run from the problem.

We can't run from it, because sooner or later you have to stop running then you have to face it the way you should have in the first place. Only you've lost all the time in-between for nothing.

Also vaccines are not 100-percent effective some people do not have a strong enough immune response

ah give over. Its painful. Sorry for even engaging with you.

99nsr125

Graham wrote: »

The main point of flattening the curve was to make sure our health services were not overwhelmed.

Try parking 3 cars in the sam parking space at the same time, then compare that to parking 3 cars in the same space at different times. You'll see how it works.

I know, that's why I cited the choice made in health budgets everyday that pit one life against another.

But none of that changes the number of covid cases. We cannot change the cumalative number of covid cases without a prophylaxis and we simply don't have one. So the number of cases will be the same in the end and the number who succumbe too

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

Changing the goalposts to leave out the rest of the world does not remove the existence of a disease.

We reduced them through vaccination, proven, safe and effective vaccination but they are still with us, we are still vulnerable to them and we live with them.

Your pitch has no goal posts.
One minute it`s herd immunity and no vaccines for decades, the next its vaccinations proven safe and effective.

99nsr125

JimmyVik wrote: »

ah give over. Its painful. Sorry for even engaging with you.

Don't be sorry the idea of debate is to highlight points that are lost in arguments

That are significant but don't get enough attention.

Questions get asked that need to be asked

greyday

99nsr125 wrote: »

I'm perfectly relaxed, I just do not approve or find it constructive that people are being sold this story that they'll be a vaccine "by the Autumn" , "in time for the election" "by early 2021".

You can't live your life based on a future event that may or may not happen. You can only live based on current circumstances.

Elderly and vulnerable people have to live based on current circumstances which involves society elongating the curve as much as possible, possibly until they die naturally.
You seem to miss the point that elongating the curve will lead to a great many people living a lot longer than they would if the virus was allowed rip.

sheepysheep

Vieira82 wrote: »

Dude... read the article I linked!!! Measles came back because of anti-vaxxers in the last decade! Polio, Smallpox. Rabies eradicated in Europe, Rubella is also practically on the way out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Europe

Typical to call a troll when you have zero arguments, as always When there's no arguments all you lot can achieve is cheap attacks without any basis. Feel free to continue to talk I'll be happy to prove you wrong once more.

I'd say you use the word practically a lot somehow.

You made up a fact and are now pretending that the world outside Europe doesn't exist to suit whatever agenda you have.

One virus, smallpox has got the chop.That's it.

When will Rabies, Rubella and Measles be eradicated worldwide. By wednesday, practically? or Wednesday 2050?

If I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong I'd say that's a strong argument.

Anyway, enough about vaccines here. This is the Sweden thread.

Hqrry113

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is Sweden's healthcare system handling it ok? I'm not sure it is given the number of deaths so far.

Which is officially 870 off just 9,000 + cases.

A figure of ten percent seem strangely high, are you sure them figures are correct?

sheepysheep

JimmyVik wrote: »

I think you are the one moving the goal posts.


Just as one example. Noone has to live with measles if they dont want to.

Choice?

In developing countries where measles is common, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two doses of vaccine be given, at six and nine months of age. The vaccine should be given whether the child is HIV-infected or not.[60] The vaccine is less effective in HIV-infected infants than in the general population, but early treatment with antiretroviral drugs can increase its effectiveness.[61] Measles vaccination programs are often used to deliver other child health interventions as well, such as bed nets to protect against malaria, antiparasite medicine and vitamin A supplements, and so contribute to the reduction of child deaths from other causes.

It's great that you think these people are living with measles, HIV, malaria, parasites, hunger and malnutrition by choice.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Hqrry113 wrote: »

A figure of ten percent seem strangely high, are you sure them figures are correct?

Your quoting from April. At that time in Sweden their head was so far in the sand you basically needed to be in icu to get a test.

They with twice the population we had had done about a quarter of the tests (off the top my head from April not necessarily the same date).

Graham

99nsr125 wrote: »

I know, that's why I cited the choice made in health budgets everyday that pit one life against another.

But none of that changes the number of covid cases. We cannot change the cumalative number of covid cases without a prophylaxis and we simply don't have one. So the number of cases will be the same in the end and the number who succumbe too

I didn't say flattening the curve reduced cumulative cases, you're arguing a point nobody made.

Again. Flattening the curve is about not overwhelming our health services.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

*You* are ignoring reality of vaccine development.

Several of the trials have already been halted as has been the case for other vaccine development in the past.

https://www.ft.com/content/6ea4c5e4-abc8-4b7a-8fe2-64ad22ea3978

Early prospects only very rarely make it all the way.

I quoted a mixture of bacterial and viral afflictions which in the case of the virus's confer immunity after recovery.

New people are born without antibodies providing reserves or hosts for the continual presence of them. That's why we vaccinate to protect those without antibodies and limit the number of hosts that allow disease to persist.

Actually we have residual boosted immunity protection from HIV courtesy of smallpox/plagues in Europe.

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-15.html#:~:text=Experts%20argue%20over%20whether%20smallpox%20or%20plague%20should%20take%20the%20credit.&text=Devastating%20epidemics%20that%20swept%20Europe,Europeans%20resistant%20to%20HIV%20infection.

Please stop with the nonsense on herd immunity.
The latest straw you are grasping is not only ridiculous it drives a coach and four through you own herd immunity theory.
Smallpox has been around for over 2,000 years, The Black Plaque for over 650 years and somehow or other one of the two may prevent HIV infection for just 10%.
At that rate it would take a minimum of another 4,000 years to reach herd immunity. And no evidence it would even occur after all that time.

If you seriously wish to debate vaccines as opposed to your herd immunity, rather than throwing around innuendos on vaccines, tell us, of the hundreds of ongoing vaccine trials how many are presently halted by regulators.

Vieira82

sheepysheep wrote: »

I'd say you use the word practically a lot somehow.

You made up a fact and are now pretending that the world outside Europe doesn't exist to suit whatever agenda you have.

One virus, smallpox has got the chop.That's it.

When will Rabies, Rubella and Measles be eradicated worldwide. By wednesday, practically? or Wednesday 2050?

If I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong I'd say that's a strong argument.

Anyway, enough about vaccines here. This is the Sweden thread.

Congratulations on... being proved WRONG and having no other arguments going exactly on what I meant before, insults and sarcasm... typical of who has nothing else with consistence to say. I'd recommend you just stop typing you're now just making a fool of yourself

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

Please stop with the nonsense on herd immunity.
The latest straw you are grasping is not only ridiculous it drives a coach and four through you own herd immunity theory.
Smallpox has been around for over 2,000 years, The Black Plaque for over 650 years and somehow or other one of the two may prevent HIV infection for just 10%.
At that rate it would take a minimum of another 4,000 years to reach herd immunity. And no evidence it would even occur after all that time.

If you seriously wish to debate vaccines as opposed to your herd immunity, rather than throwing around innuendos on vaccines, tell us, of the hundreds of ongoing vaccine trials how many are presently halted by regulators.

It would bode well if you read the what you are replying to first.

I highlighted the only outcome possible without vaccination and the reason why diseases survive *even* in populations with immunity. The trend is only towards herd immunity.

Children are not born with a fully loaded immune system they acquire some of it from their mothers the rest either through exposure or vaccination. We create herd immunity artificially through vaccination but in the time between vaccination or exposure that person remains a vector for transmission.

It is the exposure and impact in the past that has left a significant portion of the European population with one or two copies of the ccr5 gene. One copy conveys somee resistance, two copies convey very high resistance/cure and this was discovered through bone marrow transplants.

https://www.thebodypro.com/article/genetic-mutation-behind-hiv-cure

As above, I previously included a link from the FT detailing the halting of vaccine trials.

Covid is not going away even with a vaccine.

Lockdown has never been a solution, has never worked and is a blinkered approach. Extra capacity, doing the most you can to elevate symptoms while crossing your fingers afflicted patients are strong enough to pull through is the reality of our limitations.

99nsr125

Graham wrote: »

I didn't say flattening the curve reduced cumulative cases, you're arguing a point nobody made.

Again. Flattening the curve is about not overwhelming our health services.

I originally made the point that flattening the curve would not change the number of cases or deaths, that point was refuted but was conflated with resource pressure which is non specific to covid.

You could argue during flu season we should lockdown
or all stop driving because of the accidents, injuries and fatalities attributed to both. But we don't because there is an acceptance that we cannot control the flu and the benefits of driving outweigh the risks.

Graham

So you're saying flattening the curve to keep covid hospitalisations manageable is unnecessary because flu and car accidents.

I'm sure that's a compelling argument somewhere.

Joe_ Public

If you want to understand what can happen if the virus is allowed to spread, consider the NW of England where an estimated 50 non covid patients are contracting the virus in hospitals every day.

https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/fifty-people-each-day-catching-covid-in-regions-hospitals/7028691.article

Also, according to the HSJ, there are currently more covid patients in hospitals in the NW than at anytime in the spring. They are close to approaching breaking point and have two choices - either start opening up extra "surge" capacity to cater for new influxes or cancel and suspend other treatments. They have chosen the latter option because opening up new capacity simply strains staff resources too much.

That's the reality. Maybe in Sweden and Germany with big spends and decent health systems, they can cope in those situations. But not everywhere can. Lockdowns are not a longterm solution and i don't know where anyone is arguing they are, but when everything else has failed and hospitals are in danger of being overwhelmed, there might not be any choice as the alternative is not just a spike in covid deaths, but in other illnesses as well.

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If you want to understand what can happen if the virus is allowed to spread, consider the NW of England where an estimated 50 non covid patients are contracting the virus in hospitals every day.

https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/fifty-people-each-day-catching-covid-in-regions-hospitals/7028691.article

Also, according to the HSJ, there are currently more covid patients in hospitals in the NW than at anytime in the spring. They are close to approaching breaking point and have two choices - either start opening up extra "surge" capacity to cater for new influxes or cancel and suspend other treatments. They have chosen the latter option because opening up new capacity simply strains staff resources too much.

That's the reality. Maybe in Sweden and Germany with big spends and decent health systems, they can cope in those situations. But not everywhere can. Lockdowns are not a longterm solution and i don't know where anyone is arguing they are, but when everything else has failed and hospitals are in danger of being overwhelmed, there might not be any choice as the alternative is not just a spike in covid deaths, but in other illnesses as well.

However Sweden at the outset had one of the lower provisions of ICU beds by EU standards but expanded capacity by a factor of three and, moreover, used most of that capacity. Yes, this would have cost a lot of money but this has to be weighed against the economic cost of a lockdown.

Countries like Spain who used the lockdown approach will need to make cutbacks in years to come to pay for their lockdown now and this will cost lives too.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

It would bode well if you read the what you are replying to first.

I highlighted the only outcome possible without vaccination and the reason why diseases survive *even* in populations with immunity. The trend is only towards herd immunity.

Children are not born with a fully loaded immune system they acquire some of it from their mothers the rest either through exposure or vaccination. We create herd immunity artificially through vaccination but in the time between vaccination or exposure that person remains a vector for transmission.

It is the exposure and impact in the past that has left a significant portion of the European population with one or two copies of the ccr5 gene. One copy conveys somee resistance, two copies convey very high resistance/cure and this was discovered through bone marrow transplants.

https://www.thebodypro.com/article/genetic-mutation-behind-hiv-cure

As above, I previously included a link from the FT detailing the halting of vaccine trials.

Covid is not going away even with a vaccine.

Lockdown has never been a solution, has never worked and is a blinkered approach. Extra capacity, doing the most you can to elevate symptoms while crossing your fingers afflicted patients are strong enough to pull through is the reality of our limitations.

Where do you think Covid-19 is going without a vaccine ?
Following your "trend towards herd immunity"?

After 2,500 years "a significant portion of the European population" do not have herd immunity for the HIV virus.
Even if, (and it`s an if), this gene does give immunity it is not "significant" where herd immunity is concerned, it`s 10% . In herd immunity terms sweet f. a.
So what are you proposing. We sit around for 2,500 years for a level of immunity that would still be nowhere even close to herd immunity.?
Do you even know the percentage required for herd immunity ?

I don`t subscribe to the FT, and with the links you have been posting I would not look on it as money wisely spent to subscribe to see what you believe you read there.
You threw in innuendos on vaccines being halted. Seeing as you have your subscription why do you not clear it up for us.
As I asked you previously, how many of the hundreds of vaccine trials presently underway are halted by regulators ?

tobefrank321

99nsr125 wrote: »

It would bode well if you read the what you are replying to first.

I highlighted the only outcome possible without vaccination and the reason why diseases survive *even* in populations with immunity. The trend is only towards herd immunity.

Children are not born with a fully loaded immune system they acquire some of it from their mothers the rest either through exposure or vaccination. We create herd immunity artificially through vaccination but in the time between vaccination or exposure that person remains a vector for transmission.

It is the exposure and impact in the past that has left a significant portion of the European population with one or two copies of the ccr5 gene. One copy conveys somee resistance, two copies convey very high resistance/cure and this was discovered through bone marrow transplants.

https://www.thebodypro.com/article/genetic-mutation-behind-hiv-cure

As above, I previously included a link from the FT detailing the halting of vaccine trials.

Covid is not going away even with a vaccine.

Lockdown has never been a solution, has never worked and is a blinkered approach. Extra capacity, doing the most you can to elevate symptoms while crossing your fingers afflicted patients are strong enough to pull through is the reality of our limitations.

This is the key point in bold. The covid eradication train has long since left the station. It will be with us for decades.

Even now looking at vaccines in trial, they are unable to trial them on pregnant women, one of the high riak groups!

I'm as pro vaccine as anyone but its bizarre that some people think the vaccine will solve this problem overnight or even within a year when you have high risk groups like pregnant women excluded.

And that's before you even discuss sterilising immunity. If they don't provide sterilising immunity the only way we become immune is by being infected. The problem is those who will do best from a vaccine were only ever going to have mild symptoms in any case.

The vaccine may at best lessen this problem by 50%. As you say its going to be around for years. And as Charlie pointed out it only takes a relatively small number of anti vaxxers to cause it to flare up especially among groups who are immuno compromised and may not be able to take vaccine.

Bit cynical

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The vaccine may at best lessen this problem by 50%. As you say its going to be around for years. And as Charlie pointed out it only takes a relatively small number of anti vaxxers to cause it to flare up especially among groups who are immuno compromised and may not be able to take vaccine.

The problem is that the virus, regardless of harm caused or lack thereof, has become politically unacceptable in itself. Therefore if, after a vaccination programme, infection rates have been reduced by 99%, that residual 1% will still be unacceptable and require lockdowns and restrictions even though the measures at this point cause far more harm than the virus.

Joe_ Public

Bit cynical wrote: »

However Sweden at the outset had one of the lower provisions of ICU beds by EU standards but expanded capacity by a factor of three and, moreover, used most of that capacity. Yes, this would have cost a lot of money but this has to be weighed against the economic cost of a lockdown.

Countries like Spain who used the lockdown approach will need to make cutbacks in years to come to pay for their lockdown now and this will cost lives too.

I'd agree extending capacity was and is a good thing. Of course, to increase bed capacity you also need to increase staff capacity which i imagine was less of an issue for Sweden than for places already suffering from acute staff shortages, even before the pandemic struck.

As for lockdowns, whatever about Sweden, are we forgetting where countries like Spain and Italy were back in early/mid march? Hard to begin to even contemplate the carnage they would have reaped had they not taken the actions they did, along with lots of other countries, and which would have wrecked their economies all the same.

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'd agree extending capacity was and is a good thing. Of course, to increase bed capacity you also need to increase staff capacity which i imagine was less of an issue for Sweden than for places already suffering from acute staff shortages, even before the pandemic struck.

However if we take Ireland, we paid for private hospitals to be used as overflow for the public hospitals but this capacity was never used and a lot of staff ended up sitting around.

As for lockdowns, whatever about Sweden, are we forgetting where countries like Spain and Italy were back in early/mid march? Hard to begin to even contemplate the carnage they would have reaped had they not taken the actions they did, along with lots of other countries, and which would have wrecked their economies all the same.

It is true that a fairly strict lockdown was necessary in these countries in the early days. The problem is that this method is not sustainable and can only temporarily halt the progress of the virus. When the lockdown in Spain was inevitably lifted, areas that the virus had not reached in the earlier stages were suddenly exposed and the daily numbers shot up again. A more balanced approach would have worked better, imo.

Joe_ Public

Bit cynical wrote: »

However if we take Ireland, we paid for private hospitals to be used as overflow for the public hospitals but this capacity was never used and a lot of staff ended up sitting around.It is true that a fairly strict lockdown was necessary in these countries in the early days. The problem is that this method is not sustainable and can only temporarily halt the progress of the virus. When the lockdown in Spain was inevitably lifted, areas that the virus had not reached in the earlier stages were suddenly exposed and the daily numbers shot up again. A more balanced approach would have worked better, imo.

I don't know is it entirely accurate to say the private capacity here was never used, unless you mean specifically citywest. It wasn't used fully, it is true, but if you were hse back in february/march looking at the escalating situation heading their way, I'm not sure what alternatives there were. The most relevant stat is Ireland had and has one of the lowest icu bed rates in the oecd and there will inevitably be consequences for that in a time of crisis.

I don't entirely disagree about Spain or lockdowns in general. If you are heading for a lockdown beyond the first wave then it's very likely it's due in no small part to failures in your overall response, complacency even. There are countries who managed to contain and get back on track without severe economic damage. Some even did so without lockdowns. With no disrespect to Sweden whatsoever, they're the examples i personally would want to be copying.

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

This is the key point in bold. The covid eradication train has long since left the station. It will be with us for decades.

Even now looking at vaccines in trial, they are unable to trial them on pregnant women, one of the high riak groups!

I'm as pro vaccine as anyone but its bizarre that some people think the vaccine will solve this problem overnight or even within a year when you have high risk groups like pregnant women excluded.

And that's before you even discuss sterilising immunity. If they don't provide sterilising immunity the only way we become immune is by being infected. The problem is those who will do best from a vaccine were only ever going to have mild symptoms in any case.

The vaccine may at best lessen this problem by 50%. As you say its going to be around for years. And as Charlie pointed out it only takes a relatively small number of anti vaxxers to cause it to flare up especially among groups who are immuno compromised and may not be able to take vaccine.

Pregnant women may eventually get the vaccine when there is enough data from others to support the risk of putting the mother AND unborn baby at risk..

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem is that the virus, regardless of harm caused or lack thereof, has become politically unacceptable in itself. Therefore if, after a vaccination programme, infection rates have been reduced by 99%, that residual 1% will still be unacceptable and require lockdowns and restrictions even though the measures at this point cause far more harm than the virus.

No it won't, that will be more than acceptable.

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

However if we take Ireland, we paid for private hospitals to be used as overflow for the public hospitals but this capacity was never used and a lot of staff ended up sitting around.It is true that a fairly strict lockdown was necessary in these countries in the early days. The problem is that this method is not sustainable and can only temporarily halt the progress of the virus. When the lockdown in Spain was inevitably lifted, areas that the virus had not reached in the earlier stages were suddenly exposed and the daily numbers shot up again. A more balanced approach would have worked better, imo.

Agree, however you have seemed to be against lockdowns throughout the thread, we are paying now for not having the hospital service we pay a lot for, I hope Swedens approach pays off but we can see from other Countries that at the very least Politicians are afraid of what the Scientists are telling them will happen if people do not change behaviours radically..

FintanMcluskey

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem is that the virus, regardless of harm caused or lack thereof, has become politically unacceptable in itself. Therefore if, after a vaccination programme, infection rates have been reduced by 99%, that residual 1% will still be unacceptable and require lockdowns and restrictions even though the measures at this point cause far more harm than the virus.

The moral compass has been calibrated to 0 Covid deaths and the restrictions are implemented to chase that unicorn.

That simply won’t be achievable with a vaccine alone in the next number of years.

An adult conversation needs to take place about deaths and Covid and living our lives.

greyday

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The moral compass has been calibrated to 0 Covid deaths and the restrictions are implemented to chase that unicorn.

That simply won’t be achievable with a vaccine alone in the next number of years.

An adult conversation needs to take place about deaths and Covid and living our lives.

No they are not, we were on course to open up further if we kept infections below 100 per day, you do the right thing at the right at the right time, morally it was not right for old people to be exposed as they were, people in care homes had the virus introduced to them by people tasked in some way to work/protect them.

FintanMcluskey

greyday wrote: »

No they are not, we were on course to open up further if we kept infections below 100 per day, you do the right thing at the right at the right time, morally it was not right for old people to be exposed as they were, people in care homes had the virus introduced to them by people tasked in some way to work/protect them.

On course to open up further??

Where were you living this Summer when Ireland had its hospitality sector restricted this Summer while having 10-20 cases a day.

Essentially, with a vaccine, restrictions will be required until the metric for implementing those restrictions is changed drastically.