Sweden avoiding lockdown

coppergrass

charlie14 wrote: »

Apologies. I ended his surname with o rather than d, but the is the guy. Uppsala`s equivalent of Tegnell, who announced those measures and called them a local lockdown.

Seems Tegnell is not the flavour of the month in Uppsala.
Uppsala Region Director of Healthcare Mikael Kohler on the 22nd.Oct. opened a press conference by rebutting comments made by Tegnell earlier that day that the situation "may have already started to turn around in Uppsala" pointing out that the positivity for test results in Uppsala was 8%.

I see three more regions have now joined Uppsala and Skane in their approach to tackling the spread of the virus. Stockholm, Vastra Gotaland and Ostergotland.

It's interesting that officials are starting to disagree with him, he's seen as a real hero here - only the UKIP-like Sweden Democrats have voiced any real opposition to his policies so far.

These new areas bring to 6.3 million out of 10.2 million Swedes living under the increased restrictions. In the same article the epidemiologist for Stockholm, Maria Rotzén Östlund, says that Swedes should go back to the level of compliance with the rules that there was in the Spring. I wonder is a fatigue setting in of even the relatively light restrictions here.

greyday

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

No it was a blunt exercise to prevent healthcare services becoming overwhelmed.

Sweden increased ICU capacity as intended and it’s not been under any significant pressure yet

As goes without saying, high infections eventually results in a health service that can't cope, Sweden didn't suffer from this badly in the first wave after making the decision to provide end of life care to many elderly rather than health care.
There are many testimonies from Swedish families lamenting their elderly relatives were not given any chance at recovery, of course it happened elsewhere when health services were overrun but we are told Sweden coped very well indeed, nothing to be proud of IMO.

bb1234567

Was really surprised to see Tegnell declaring 'rapid deterioration of situation' in Sweden today. That is some pretty alarming language to use and pretty out of character with his relaxed attitude to most issues. But, cases were what only 3k today? It's not a small caseload, but it's still much less than most other European countries, and it doesnt seem like it's just down to small levels of testing either as deaths remain relatively low. Am I missing something here or why is Tegnell seemingly so worried about this development? Were they seriously expecting no increase in cases in Autumn? That seemed stunningly over optimistic if so seeing as pretty much every country has had or is having a second wave of infections by now

charlie14

coppergrass wrote: »

It's interesting that officials are starting to disagree with him, he's seen as a real hero here - only the UKIP-like Sweden Democrats have voiced any real opposition to his policies so far.

These new areas bring to 6.3 million out of 10.2 million Swedes living under the increased restrictions. In the same article the epidemiologist for Stockholm, Maria Rotztlund, says that Swedes should go back to the level of compliance with the rules that there was in the Spring. I wonder is a fatigue setting in of even the relatively light restrictions here.

In Sweden it appears that people, and even the media are very loath to question the official line. It seems to be looked on as unpatriotic.

From a post here recently by the incredible pudding regarding Stockholm and how uncomfortable he/she felt due to the crowds, and a recent article I saw on Malmo where more people are now visiting some areas there than even prior to Covid-19 I`m not sure it is just fatigue.
It looks to me as if the Public Health Authority, and the likes of Giesecke and Tegnell in particular, played down this virus to the degree, plus all the speculation of immunity, that people now believe they are either immune or the virus is harmless.

To me it now looks as if regional health authorities recognise neither is true and that to continue doing what they did during the first wave as advised by the Public Health Authority, i.e, Tegnell, will just not reduce the new case numbers and subsequent deaths.
There have been a few utterance by the Public Health Authority on crowd sizes and the elderly and vulnerable that may have spooked some local authorities as well.

tobefrank321

bb1234567 wrote: »

Was really surprised to see Tegnell declaring 'rapid deterioration of situation' in Sweden today. That is some pretty alarming language to use and pretty out of character with his relaxed attitude to most issues. But, cases were what only 3k today? It's not a small caseload, but it's still much less than most other European countries, and it doesnt seem like it's just down to small levels of testing either as deaths remain relatively low. Am I missing something here or why is Tegnell seemingly so worried about this development? Were they seriously expecting no increase in cases in Autumn? That seemed stunningly over optimistic if so seeing as pretty much every country has had or is having a second wave of infections by now

I'm convinced at this stage that population density plays a huge role in determing how countries fare from covid and how rapid the deteriation is. I'd be more worried about 3000 daily cases in a high density country than a relatively low one like Sweden. Norway is one of the least dense countries in Europe and this has been a big help to them. Then you look at Netherlands, UK and Belgium and it usually rapidly gets out of control there with deaths.

It will be interesting to see if Tegnell opts for a proper national lockdown. He seems to be ideologically opposed to it, saying it would make no difference in the long run. On the otherhand he might think with vaccine rollout only weeks or months away a short lockdown is acceptable.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm convinced at this stage that population density plays a huge role in determing how countries fare from covid and how rapid the deteriation is. I'd be more worried about 3000 daily cases in a high density country than a relatively low one like Sweden. Norway is one of the least dense countries in Europe and this has been a big help to them. Then you look at Netherlands, UK and Belgium and it usually rapidly gets out of control there with deaths.

It will be interesting to see if Tegnell opts for a proper national lockdown. He seems to be ideologically opposed to it, saying it would make no difference in the long run. On the otherhand he might think with vaccine rollout only weeks or months away a short lockdown is acceptable.

According to Eurostat in 2016 over 50% of Swedish households were single occupancy. I would have thought that would be a major help in keeping the numbers down compared to some other countries.


It may not be down to Tegnell on national lockdown. 5 regions with over half the total population have now decided to do their own thing regardless of Tegnell. At the minute he looks to be running to catch up.

JimmyVik

bb1234567 wrote: »

Was really surprised to see Tegnell declaring 'rapid deterioration of situation' in Sweden today. That is some pretty alarming language to use and pretty out of character with his relaxed attitude to most issues. But, cases were what only 3k today? It's not a small caseload, but it's still much less than most other European countries, and it doesnt seem like it's just down to small levels of testing either as deaths remain relatively low. Am I missing something here or why is Tegnell seemingly so worried about this development? Were they seriously expecting no increase in cases in Autumn? That seemed stunningly over optimistic if so seeing as pretty much every country has had or is having a second wave of infections by now

Now they have to choose again. Leave the old people to die again, or try and save them this time.

FintanMcluskey

JimmyVik wrote: »

Now they have to choose again. Leave the old people to die again, or try and save them this time.

Similar to Ireland, yet again the nursing homes in Ireland have not been protected.

ArthurDayne

odyssey06 wrote: »

You're bringing 'moral superiority' into it when someone observes that people here were not following the restrictions, were not acting like 'good' Swedes and that led to a surge in cases? Pretty clear your argument has no foundation.

It's an infectious disease. You can't just have the one day of normality.
Not when the next day they go into work, schools, visit family and friends and pass it on.

If you think you can rely on the voluntary compliance of Irish people to be enough to keep this virus in check you are living in a fantasy land.
60% of the cases here are traced back to a virus strain that only developed in Spain during the summer. That's a lot of Irish people ignoring the quarantine guidelines.

It's great if we have a lot of people voluntary following the restrictions, it clearly and obviously has not been enough.
We wouldn't have needed to back up the levels had that been the case.

When people point all all this you retreat into an attack on them for being nosy neighbours and a foul mouthed rant about the media?

Good luck to the Swedes. We are not they and we need more than luck and voluntary compliance to get through this.

Not following restrictions or guidelines does not invariably make someone irresponsible — if the measures themselves are inconsistent, lacking in sense, or are not proportionate to the threat they are designed to mitigate. Because of the lack of sense and consistent rationale behind the government’s messaging, people are acting not in accordance with overcooked guidelines but with what they can see is the risk factor — that they must behave appropriately and with care around the old and vulnerable.

The “surge of cases” has not corresponded to a surge in deaths for this very reason. And should it happen — look no further for a target for blame than the officials who utterly failed to apply the data emanating from Italy, where it was clear as day that the risk factor lay mainly with the very old. In the panic to avoid public criticism, in the rush to save careers, the entire population was locked up and prevented from contracting either Covid or the early manifestations of other seasonal respiratory illnesses in the warmer months ...and now we march into winter where young people will be contracting those illnesses and spreading them amongst eachother with even greater frequency. We essentially built a dam for illness in the summer, which could never be sustained, with the inevitable consequence that the dam gets set loose in the winter. The people who have been pointing this out for months and questioning the wisdom of an unsustainable lockdown that would only minimise compliance in the long term, and prolong the agony, were given the “what would you know” treatment.

Even the now famous Imperial College report, oft-cited but not-so-oft-read, contains the admission that their model did not take into account the expectation that peoples’ behaviour would change. Their model was, by their own word in the report, based on an assumption that in the context of a deadly virus killing old people by the bucketload ....people would simply behave normally. That is the fallacy upon which this virus has been elevated in peoples’ minds from a dangerous threat to an all-out existential crisis justifying the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the plunging of deprived areas into prolonged socioeconomic misery, the long term indebtedness of our country, and the future inability to properly fund important healthcare.

All of these things will cause misery, death, sickness, poverty for years to come....and I do not imagine many of the moralisers on here will shout proudly : “I support what is happening now because we had to stop an illness that mainly killed people at life expectancy age”.

SeaBreezes

Bit cynical wrote: »

On the "lockdown" thing:

“It’s more of a lockdown situation—but a local lockdown,” Dr. Johan Nojd, who leads the infectious diseases department in the city of Uppsala, told the Telegraph.

In a statement provided to TIME, however, a spokesperson for the Public Health Agency of Sweden rejected that characterization.

“It is not a lockdown but some extra recommendations that could be communicated locally when a need from the regional authorities is communicated and the Public Health Agency so decides,” the spokesperson said.

URL="https://time.com/5901352/sweden-local-lockdowns/"]source[/URL

Just from looking at the context it looks like Nojd was trying to say that Uppsala was "more lockdown" than before, rather than already moved to full lockdown like other countries. This was then clarifed by the Public Health Agency. Not a lockdown.

https://twitter.com/DrKatrin_Rabiei/status/1321936012390649868?s=20

Wompa1

greyday wrote: »

Tegnell is great, The WHO criticizes Sweden's strategy and immediately Tegnell gets Deaths to drop, Mr Nojo describes a local lockdown in Uppsala and Tegnell comes out and says its no such thing, what will Tegnell do next to try and preserve his credibility?
If Sweden is anything like Ireland he will be long dead before the truth comes out, at least he better hope he is

WHO actually said they hoped Sweden's strategy would be a template for others after they dealt with their first wave....

Wompa1

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm convinced at this stage that population density plays a huge role in determing how countries fare from covid and how rapid the deteriation is. I'd be more worried about 3000 daily cases in a high density country than a relatively low one like Sweden. Norway is one of the least dense countries in Europe and this has been a big help to them. Then you look at Netherlands, UK and Belgium and it usually rapidly gets out of control there with deaths.

It will be interesting to see if Tegnell opts for a proper national lockdown. He seems to be ideologically opposed to it, saying it would make no difference in the long run. On the otherhand he might think with vaccine rollout only weeks or months away a short lockdown is acceptable.

Clearly but also check our figures now. Galway has had one of the highest incidence rates for the last 3 weeks. Galway is not densely populated but we had a bunch of eejits throw caution to the wind. Now we've got people in ICU again and a nursing home with all but 3 of the staff out sick and most of the patients testing positive.

A denser population is obviously going to result in a quicker and potentially more devastating spread but cramming people together for one off events in a not so densely populated place can also result in high cases.

Joe_ Public

Wompa1 wrote: »

Clearly but also check our figures now. Galway has had one of the highest incidence rates for the last 3 weeks. Galway is not densely populated but we had a bunch of eejits throw caution to the wind. Now we've got people in ICU again and a nursing home with all but 3 of the staff out sick and most of the patients testing positive.

A denser population is obviously going to result in a quicker and potentially more devastating spread but cramming people together for one off events in a not so densely populated place can also result in high cases.

Very true. Outside of London one of the uks worst hit areas during the first wave was Cumbria which isn't one of the most densely populated so it's not always clear why the virus spreads the way it does. In Italy, the north was hammered while the south escaped remarkably unscathed by comparison. The south is getting it a bit harder alright in the second wave but still nowhere near as severe as further north. We can make guesses and assumptions as to why this might be so, but will be months or even years, I'd guess, before all this is fully understood.

charlie14

Wompa1 wrote: »

WHO actually said they hoped Sweden's strategy would be a template for others after they dealt with their first wave....

The English Independent newspaper yesterday quoted Tegnell from an interview he gave to the German newspaper Die Zeit where he said it was futile and immoral to seek herd immunity as a protection from a pandemic, and the transmission of an infection like Covid-19 cannot be fully halted without a vaccine.
Looking up at the underside of that bus I have a feeling today Giesecke has a more salty term to describe Tegnell than "my boy"

bb1234567

Wompa1 wrote: »

Clearly but also check our figures now. Galway has had one of the highest incidence rates for the last 3 weeks. Galway is not densely populated but we had a bunch of eejits throw caution to the wind. Now we've got people in ICU again and a nursing home with all but 3 of the staff out sick and most of the patients testing positive.

A denser population is obviously going to result in a quicker and potentially more devastating spread but cramming people together for one off events in a not so densely populated place can also result in high cases.

Yes that's occurring in some rural parts of the US where they thought they were impervious to the effects because of their low population density and the fact it hadnt yet spread there when places like NY were being decimated . Remarkably North Dakota is well on it's way to having one of the highest deaths per capita in the US, North Dakota has a population density of 4 people per kilometer squared. Obviously if the population heeds even an ounce of caution then low population density is an enormous advantage

greyday

Wompa1 wrote: »

WHO actually said they hoped Sweden's strategy would be a template for others after they dealt with their first wave....

The WHO had hoped that when Countries had limited their infections that with the proper measures which are similar in every Country then society could get back to a type normal with people taking responsibility for their actions, they did not agree with Sweden's strategy of doing very little to limit the number of infections leading to far higher death rates than their neighbours. they did however agree with Sweden that lockdownn was unsustainable in the long term.

ArthurDayne

Vieira82 wrote: »

It's the same point I've been making since the beginning and is very explicit in all my posts including this one.

Sadly you forcefully are unwilling to understand what I wrote. I suggest you actually read what I wrote and not just read the first two lines of my post.

Secondly, if you're waiting to see bodies pile up to take this seriously you are so dearly wrong. We don't live in 13th century Europe but in 21st century Europe where we have effective ways to deal with masses of dead people like we've seen in the first wave.

The problem is people like you will only take this seriously when it hits home. Like some other thread talkers here that have since left because either his sons school got cases or his grandmother died of it.

So let's see when you start taking this seriously.

And yes, Sweden still had around 5k more dead than it's neighboring countries and that's really bad. But according to your logic, since there's no rivers of blood and bodies rotting on the street they did well.

Well according to this logic everyone is doing fine of course then xD

Did you see any of the hundreds of dead per day in the US, UK, Italy, Spain? No. Did those countries did ok too then?

Like I said, flawless logic through which nothing I could write will dissuade you from it except again if you will be unfortunate enough to have someone close to you get it and be severely sick or die.

I genuinely hope that doesn't happen to you or anyone but it honestly seems to be the only way some egocentric people will stop thinking only of themselves...

You literally ignored everything I wrote, could not give a flying toss about what I linked and then come back with question marks.

Do yourself a favor and read ok? We can talk later once you actually have arguments

Nice ending to that post — very mature and not at all arrogant.

I did actually read your post in full and watched the video and, as I said, all understood. But you’re taking this as being some definitive point of truth when really there are two edges to that particular sword. Yes, there are ways in which classification of death can operate to artificially reduce the impact of one illness, but this can work “in favour” of Covid statistics and “against”. It can just as easily be argued that the fact that Covid is killing mainly older people with comorbidities and very often approaching or exceeding life expectancy is indicative of the fact that the lethality of the virus in and of itself has been exaggerated — and that this is further demonstrated by the fact cases have grown rapidly with a far less steep climb in serious cases or deaths.

Either way, it doesn’t change the fundamental flaw in your argument. The fundamental flaw is that, regardless of how the virus is classified in terms of cause of death, and regardless of whether deliberately or otherwise it was being downplayed...there would still have to be very high numbers of people dying of all manner of other illnesses to be indicative that something is fishy — and hospitals in Sweden would at the very least be showing signs of strain.

I am perfectly capable of reading my friend. I just think that (1) your argument is nowhere near as ‘explicit’ as you seem to think it is and (2) you have only thought it through halfway, because I don’t see any compelling empirical weight that would prevent someone from saying that the opposite can also be true. Simply put — you’re putting forward an argument that may well be valid and may well be true....but all that actually matters is the net damage which is being done and the extent to which the Swedes would be able to just explain away a crisis by saying that people are simply dying of something else.

Vieira82

I think this needs to be very clear.

No one in this thread is advocating for long lockdowns at all. What we're saying is that lockdowns are a last resort measure when everything else failed.

Sadly as we're seeing across Europe, European governments failed completely in how to manage this. From the 25th of January, almost two months before the lockdown across Europe WHO had warned the world to get ready for this virus. Literally, no one in Europe or the Americas cared to get ready. We do know today that countries in Asia started to get ready, maybe also because they started to have the first cases.

So how could we gotten ready back in January?

Start getting PPEs for healthcare workers and ensure hospitals had capacity for an unusual influx of patients. That was it. Most countries only started doing this in March when everything was starting to blow in their faces.

Not only it completely blew in everyones faces while countries like SK for example was controling the pandemic being that and other countries and example that we should have followed.

We didn't.

We ended up locking down. And yes the Irish lockdown was longer than many other countries, and this shows one thing, how the Irish government has very little faith in the citizens that put them in power. Portugal, Germany, Denmark all opened up on the beginning of May, Ireland partially opened up in the middle of June? And only in September fully opened up for... two weeks...

But before this, Ireland reach a magical number of having single digits infections a day. Something very few countries around the world managed. While Portugal kept having hundreds of cases for example and Germany outbreaks in factories, Ireland was reporting less than 10 cases daily...

But what did we do in this interregnum? Did we started to get ready for a second wave? No. We continued to ignore any advice from WHO, about betting on effective contact tracing, on strengthening National Health Systems, on providing a clear strong and effective message about wearing a mask, social distancing, washing of hands, avoiding big gatherings. Governments across Europe, completely ignored most of this and put all their eggs in re-opening the economy, in avoiding the dreadful recession (that because of the first lockdown was already a given) . This, again, despite WHO daily briefings keeping insisting on:

- Getting ready for a second wave
- Bet on effective contact tracing
- Always insisting on social distancing, mask wearing and effective personal hygiene

But most important, one thing they always said since the beginning:

- That countries should be cooperating between themselves, helping each other out during this situation.

Naturally, the cases kept rising and we're now deep in the second wave in Europe. If you look around, Ireland is the only country on a downward trend in regards to daily infections.

Literally Ireland is today the only country with a kind of a lockdown and cases going down, cases across Europe keep rising and hundres dying per country. Countries like Portugal for example are still avoiding lockdown and have now around 4k cases a day and over 40 dead per day as the situation is now quickly getting out of control.

So again, if anyone would listen to WHO we could even have avoided the first lockdown... or worst case scenario have a short 2 week to 3 weeks lockdown, keep this under control and we'd all be out and about.

So summing things up, no one, is advocating for months long lockdowns as the only solution for this nor this should ever be the first action to control it...

KindOfIrish

Vieira82 wrote: »

I think this needs to be very clear.

No one in this thread is advocating for long lockdowns at all. What we're saying is that lockdowns are a last resort measure when everything else failed.

.

A last resort measure against what? Two people sneeze and three cough? Anyone with a half of mathematical brain can see that the virus affects 1% of population. Lockdowns around Europe are nothing else but crime against humanity. Unfortunately, the only people who will not pay for that are whose who introduced it.

Vieira82

KindOfIrish wrote: »

A last resort measure against what? Two people sneeze and three cough? Anyone with a half of mathematical brain can see that the virus affects 1% of population. Lockdowns around Europe are nothing else but crime against humanity. Unfortunately, the only people who will not pay for that are whose who introduced it.

Thanks for your comment, please show me proof that if no country did nothing it would definitely affect 1% of the population. Many thanks

Bit cynical

Vieira82 wrote: »

Thanks for your comment, please show me proof that if no country did nothing it would definitely affect 1% of the population. Many thanks

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine estimates that the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) lies between 0.1% and 0.35%.
Updated data: 7th Oct 2020

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

A study in Manaus, Brazil based on blood donation samples put it at 0.17%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194787v1

"In Manaus the overall fatality ratio (IFR) was 0.17% and 0.28%, considering PCR confirmed COVID-19 deaths and probable COVID-19 deaths based on syndromic identification, respectively; whereas in São Paulo, the global IFRs were 0.46% and 0.72%, respectively.The difference may be explained by an older population structure in São Paulo (Fig. S1). Supporting this inference, the age-specific IFRs were similar in the two cities, and similar to estimatesbased on data from Wuhan, China25(Fig. S1B)."

bb1234567

Bit cynical wrote: »

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine estimates that the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) lies between 0.1% and 0.35%.
Updated data: 7th Oct 2020

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

A study in Manaus, Brazil based on blood donation samples put it at 0.17%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194787v1

"In Manaus the overall fatality ratio (IFR) was 0.17% and 0.28%, considering PCR confirmed COVID-19 deaths and probable COVID-19 deaths based on syndromic identification, respectively; whereas in São Paulo, the global IFRs were 0.46% and 0.72%, respectively.The difference may be explained by an older population structure in São Paulo (Fig. S1). Supporting this inference, the age-specific IFRs were similar in the two cities, and similar to estimatesbased on data from Wuhan, China25(Fig. S1B)."

Death is not the only 'effect' though, that other poster said it only 'affects' 1% of the population. The later part of that passage says IFR in Sao Paolo is between 0.46-72% because of it's relatively 'old age' in South America. Well Ireland has an older population again so IFR here and certainly on mainland Europe will be a lot higher, roughly 1%. Only 7% of Sao Paolos population is over 65, 13.5% of Irish people are over 65, so you'd imagine the IFR is double the Sao Paolo IFR.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sao-Paulo-1.pdf

This doesnt account for those who will suffer from effects that require hospitalisation without dying .Nothing like the original 20% hospitalisation rate that was thought but clearly the population at risk in Ireland of severe complications is far larger than 1%, perhaps around 3-4%, hospitlisations in most Western countries are usually about 3-5x times higher than the number of deaths.
New York by late June had 30k deaths and almost 100k hospitalisations for example, so it's a good ballpark I think.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109685/new-york-state-covid-cumulative-hospitalizations-us/

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine estimates that the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) lies between 0.1% and 0.35%.
Updated data: 7th Oct 2020

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

A study in Manaus, Brazil based on blood donation samples put it at 0.17%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194787v1

"In Manaus the overall fatality ratio (IFR) was 0.17% and 0.28%, considering PCR confirmed COVID-19 deaths and probable COVID-19 deaths based on syndromic identification, respectively; whereas in São Paulo, the global IFRs were 0.46% and 0.72%, respectively.The difference may be explained by an older population structure in São Paulo (Fig. S1). Supporting this inference, the age-specific IFRs were similar in the two cities, and similar to estimatesbased on data from Wuhan, China25(Fig. S1B)."

Would you be OK with 25,000 old/vulnerable people dying from the virus?

Bit cynical

greyday wrote: »

Would you be OK with 25,000 old/vulnerable people dying from the virus?

No but I think it is necessary to put into perspective how many actually die from the virus and bearing in mind that lockdowns also have their costs.

greyday

Any idea how many infections Sweden had Yesterday, we had just over 400 today which would be 1/8th of what Sweden had on one day during the week.

Bit cynical

greyday wrote: »

Any idea how many infections Sweden had Yesterday, we had just over 400 today which would be 1/8th of what Sweden had on one day during the week.

Sweden averaging about 19 per 100,000 per day; Ireland 16 per day over the last 7 days. Higher but I don't think 8 times higher. Daily deaths about 3 times higher in Ireland over the last 7 days per capita.

I think what people fail to take into account is that Sweden report on 4 days of the week so for example Tuesday will report four days worth of deaths (Saturday to Tuesday) in comparison to another country that reports every day. Also people fail to take into account that Sweden has twice the population as Ireland.

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sweden averaging about 19 per 100,000 per day; Ireland 16 per day over the last 7 days. Higher but I don't think 8 times higher. Daily deaths about 3 times higher in Ireland over the last 7 days per capita.

I think what people fail to take into account is that Sweden report on 4 days of the week so for example Tuesday will report four days worth of deaths (Saturday to Tuesday) in comparison to another country that reports every day. Also people fail to take into account that Sweden has twice the population as Ireland.

Sweden Had over 3200 infections in one day during the week with cases rising quickly, Ireland had just over 400 today with cases reducing over the last week.

greyday

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1321826539286208514?s=19

And over 2000 the previous day, more than 5000 in two day with infections rising.

Bit cynical

greyday wrote: »

Sweden Had over 3200 infections in one day during the week with cases rising quickly, Ireland had just over 400 today with cases reducing over the last week.

greyday wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1321826539286208514?s=19

And over 2000 the previous day, more than 5000 in two day with infections rising.

Sure, but averaged out over a week to take into account weekly reporting cycles, Sweden is about 18% higher than Ireland not 8 times higher.

I agree that cases are still rising in Sweden whereas they are falling or at least stable in Ireland but we should not compare a single day's figure from Sweden with one from Ireland as they do not represent the same thing.

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, but averaged out over a week to take into account weekly reporting cycles, Sweden is about 18% higher than Ireland not 8 times higher.

I agree that cases are still rising in Sweden whereas they are falling or at least stable in Ireland but we should not compare a single day's figure from Sweden with one from Ireland as they do not represent the same thing.

We will check in again next week........It looks like a crisis situation to me but Tegnell might find a way to reduce the numbers again.