Sweden avoiding lockdown

ArthurDayne

odyssey06 wrote: »

I dont see how left v right comes into this.
Sweden has the highest rate of single dwellings in the EU and one of the lowest population densities.
Their approach doesnt scale.

Sweden in any other discussion would not be held up as a right wing model so why would they be here? In no way is their current approach based on any fundamentally right wing principles.

If I search on google I see Trump tweets critical of the Swedish approach.

I think you are misunderstanding my point — and in fairness Trump was an inaccurate example. But the association of Sweden’s approach with the right is not just one I have dreamt up, there are a fair few examples of the phenomenon (for example, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/26/welcome-to-libertarian-covid-fantasy-land-thats-sweden-to-you-and-me).

I’m not saying Sweden’s approach is a right wing model, I’m simply saying that many of the politicians, commentators and media outlets that have praised Sweden’s approach have been on the Right, while many of the critics have been on the Left.

Edit : not sure if that link is working properly but if you google “The Guardian Sweden fantasy land” you should get the Guardian article

charlie14

humberklog wrote: »

Also something that gets missed a lot in this thread is that Sweden's government hasn't got the constitutional right to implement the same measures of lockdown that other western countries have. I think it's got mentioned way back in the thread but that fairly important point has got lost among the noise.

Sweden's playing the hand it's dealt rather than (as some would have you believe) relying on the minds of mad men and forging new ground in a crazy biological experiment.

The Swedish Government had perhaps more powers during the first wave than you realise
The Communciable Diseases Control Act allows for measures such as placing people or buildings in quarantine.
The Public Order Act gives the police and government the power to limit public assembly.
The Coronavirus Act 16th. April allowed the government to close shops, restaurants, schools and businesses without having to go to parliament for approval.


20th.Oct Swedish Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren said the government had decided that existing infection disease and public order legislation did not give it sufficient powers to properly handle the epidemic, but it would be as late as Summer 2021 before any law could be enacted to change that.
Due to their constitution Sweden may need that length of time to pass that law, but for me anyway why they left it until now, or why they let the Act of April 16th.just lapse on June 30th. cannot just be blamed on the constitution.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding my point — and in fairness Trump was an inaccurate example. But the association of Sweden’s approach with the right is not just one I have dreamt up, there are a fair few examples of the phenomenon (for example, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/26/welcome-to-libertarian-covid-fantasy-land-thats-sweden-to-you-and-me).

I’m not saying Sweden’s approach is a right wing model, I’m simply saying that many of the politicians, commentators and media outlets that have praised Sweden’s approach have been on the Right, while many of the critics have been on the Left.

I don`t believe we have a hard right or hard left of any significance in Ireland. Majority would be slightly right of center if anything, and I honestly haven`t sen anything like a majority here in favour of the Swedish strategy.
The polling figures on lockdown would would also strongly point too that

FintanMcluskey

charlie14 wrote: »

I don`t believe we have a hard right or hard left of any significance in Ireland. Majority would be slightly right of center if anything, and I honestly haven`t sen anything like a majority here in favour of the Swedish strategy.
The polling figures on lockdown would would also strongly point too that

Charlie, have you read the post you are responding too?

I don’t think you have

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Charlie, have you read the post you are responding too?

I don’t think you have

I did Fintain, and I do not see why a majority perhaps being slightly right of center politically is a viable, even half assed conspiracy theory, as to why the majority here do not favour the Swedish strategy or indeed why they support the latest lockdown.

SeaBreezes

Long thread worth a read.

https://twitter.com/celinegounder/status/1320721908850139142?s=20

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

I did Fintain, and I do not see why a majority perhaps being slightly right of center politically is a viable, even half assed conspiracy theory, as to why the majority here do not favour the Swedish strategy or indeed why they support the latest lockdown.

Yeah I don’t think you are getting what I’m saying at all. Possibly my own fault if I haven’t explained well but I don’t think the point is worth lingering on.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yeah I don’t think you are getting what I’m saying at all. Possibly my own fault if I haven’t explained well but I don’t think the point is worth lingering on.

I believe that unlike a few here I did get what you were saying.


Your point was that those that praised Sweden`s approach were from the Right, whereas those that didn`t were from the Left.
I pointed out the the majority in Ireland were if anything slightly Right of center, and I did not see any majority support in Ireland for Sweden`s approach.



Polls with the majority supporting the latest lockdown would also point to that.

humberklog

@charlie14 I'm not going to get into a back and forth with on this. But your post quoting mine is a decent post.

For some reason I can't at the moment quote the page I want to, one I read back in June but it's easily googleable- Lars Jonung 18th June 2020. It's 4 months since I read it but on a quick scan it reads about as right as I remember it.

There's been that article plus numerous other Swedish commentators I've been reading and listening too since Sweden became *interesting* back in April (?) that have also voiced the nuances of Sweden's constitution and probably more importantly the Swedish general public's expectation of it being upheld.

The Swedes aren't out on the street demanding a change in policy to their government's approach to this virus.

charlie14

humberklog wrote: »

@charlie14 I'm not going to get into a back and forth with on this. But your post quoting mine is a decent post.

For some reason I can't at the moment quote the page I want to, one I read back in June but it's easily googleable- Lars Jonung 18th June 2020. It's 4 months since I read it but on a quick scan it reads about as right as I remember it.

There's been that article plus numerous other Swedish commentators I've been reading and listening too since Sweden became *interesting* back in April (?) that have also voiced the nuances of Sweden's constitution and probably more importantly the Swedish general public's expectation of it being upheld.

The Swedes aren't out on the street demanding a change in policy to their government's approach to this virus.

No problem. It can be a pain finding articles read some time ago.
My post really was nothing to do with the nuances of the Swedish constitution or the Swedish public`s expectations of it being upheld.

It was making the point that the Swedish government recently said they need to change the law because they do not believe they "have the tools in the toolbox" to properly handle this pandemic under existing infection disease and public order legislation, but it will take until Summer 2021 to do so.
I would have thought that it would have been an idea to have your tools in the toolbox when you need them, rather than having to wait at least 6 months for them to turn up. Letting the April 16th. Coronavirus act lapse on June 30th. makes no sense either when their Public Health Authority was projecting close to a further 4,000 Covid-19 deaths from a second wave.
The changes in recommendations in October on care homes as well as the elderly and vulnerable make very little sense either imo.

99nsr125

Bit cynical wrote: »

5k fewer deaths with Covid-19 does not imply 5k fewer deaths overall for the year.

Exactly, if deaths trend to average it means you are balancing existing medical needs with Covid

99nsr125

Vieira82 wrote: »

huh... no

If you got a country with 80k deaths of all other causes AND you got a specific cause that IS 5k and that total will ALWAYS be 85K.

Now of course you could go and discern all the other deaths in the year and say cancer deaths where 10k or Aids deaths where 1k. Or deaths by the flu where 3k, or deaths by Hearth Disease where 15k... but that does not undercut that deaths by covid where 5k....

Now if in a normal year they have 90k deaths AND in this year they would have 80k deaths that means all other causes of death where reduced yearly by 10k.

Now if you add to that 5k deaths by Covid it still means 5k people died of covid and it means a grand total of 85k.

So no, those deaths WOULD NOT happen anyway, it means that other causes of death improved (which ones we don't know as we have no data) and still those 5k deaths add to that lower number.


What you are saying is against the simplest of maths. You are saying is you got 10 apples. You take 2 apples and someone gives you 2 bananas. What you're saying is that you still got 10 apples when in reality you got 8 apples and 2 bananas...

Is it that hard to understand this? xD

Oh, an before you say it they didn't die of covid. You realize it's the Swedish authorities reporting them as covid deaths right? It's not some convoluted conspiracy theory to make Sweden look bad. IT IS what they reported. You can't choose whatever you want to believe from Swedish sources to suit your narrative .

Well the deaths would happen anyway, the time at which they occur is the only question.

You're using flawed logic
You're proposing a figure of 80k as factual and then adding back in Covid attributed deaths.

The figure you should be using is the long term average as that is statistically correct and encompasses pre covid.

If deaths trend _significantly_ above the trailing average variation, they would be excess deaths. However you will have excess deaths anyway as Covid is a new variable but the prescient point is you must allocate resources to minimise impact. This may simply mean saving a Covid patient at the expense of a heart disease patient.

We will only know some time in the future. What we do know for certain is people who needed medical treatment before Covid still need it in a Covid scenario and denial of their treatment would also lead to excess deaths just not from Covid

Vieira82

99nsr125 wrote: »

Well the deaths would happen anyway, the time at which they occur is the only question.

You're using flawed logic
You're proposing a figure of 80k as factual and then adding back in Covid attributed deaths.

The figure you should be using is the long term average as that is statistically correct and encompasses pre covid.

If deaths trend _significantly_ above the trailing average variation, they would be excess deaths. However you will have excess deaths anyway as Covid is a new variable but the prescient point is you must allocate resources to minimise impact. This may simply mean saving a Covid patient at the expense of a heart disease patient.

We will only know some time in the future. What we do know for certain is people who needed medical treatment before Covid still need it in a Covid scenario and denial of their treatment would also lead to excess deaths just not from Covid

You cannot dilute a new cause of death because of previous years statistics. That's now how statistics work... if that logic would be correct then no one dies of anything and only the total matters.

Cancer deaths ... dont matter, heart attack deaths don't matter, car crash deaths don't matter

Because, according to you, it will only matter the grand total...

So according to you if in a year there's 5000 more deaths by car accident, it does not matter because it it does not impact the overall decade long average it's not a problem xD

This is completely flawed, ilogical and 100% not how statistics work or how they are used too... xD

I'd strongly suggest you take maths classes again....

Bit cynical

Vieira82 wrote: »

So according to you if in a year there's 5000 more deaths by car accident, it does not matter because it it does not impact the overall decade long average it's not a problem xD

In fairness an increase of 5000 car accidents probably would impact quite strongly the excess deaths for the year because they do not depend on underlying conditions.

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Its now 4 days since friday!

Thats 2500 per day. Many countries of a similar size are seeing 10,000 or more per day. Swedes will probably take extra precautions for a few weeks.

Apologies, its 28th to 30th that over 10K infections reported, Sweden usually under reports for weekends.

Vieira82

Bit cynical wrote: »

In fairness an increase of 5000 car accidents probably would impact quite strongly the excess deaths for the year because they do not depend on underlying conditions.

Again, you are relying on data you are making up. You have absolute zero proof all of the deaths reported from Sweden are caused by underlying conditions. As well, there is no proof that people only die of covid if they have an underlying condition. You are simply making information that suits your narrative.

Additional to that, what I've already mentioned multiple times: https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-comorbidities.html

"deadly medical complications can be the immediate cause of death when in fact a virus is the ultimate culprit, as is evident with HIV/AIDS. More than 32 million people worldwide have died so far of HIV/AIDS, for instance, but the disease itself isn't usually the immediate cause of death. Dr. Shahnaz Azad, an infectious disease expert in Olympia Fields, Illinois, told Franciscan Health, "It's not HIV that kills you. HIV kills your immunity, and then you become susceptible to all kinds of infections and cancers."

A death certificate might list a primary cause of death as Kaposi's sarcoma, for instance, but in fact, that patient would never have acquired the otherwise rare type of cancer if they hadn't been infected with HIV. The HIV virus is still what ultimately killed the person. "

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

Apologies, its 28th to 30th that over 10K infections reported, Sweden usually under reports for weekends.

Yeh most countries do in fairness.

Bit cynical

Vieira82 wrote: »

Again, you are relying on data you are making up. You have absolute zero proof all of the deaths reported from Sweden are caused by underlying conditions. As well, there is no proof that people only die of covid if they have an underlying condition. You are simply making information that suits your narrative.

You think underlying conditions (obesity, age related illnesses etc.) don't impact covid-19 deaths?

Vieira82

Bit cynical wrote: »

You think underlying conditions (obesity, age related illnesses etc.) don't impact covid-19 deaths?

That's not what I said, so please, trying to twist the words to make an argument does not suit you at all...

You stated clearly that deaths by covid only happen with underlying conditions and I asked you for proof.

The fact you reply with this clearly shows you have nothing and you're just saying things for arguments sake...

So thanks for proving my point

Vieira82

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Yeh most countries do in fairness.

Got to admit, agreeing with most of your latest replies in this thread. Glad that in this is the case and to be able of finding some common ground.

Bit cynical

Vieira82 wrote: »

You stated clearly that deaths by covid only happen with underlying conditions and I asked you for proof.

I don't think I said that in fairness.

Vieira82

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think I said that in fairness.

...

In fairness an increase of 5000 car accidents probably would impact quite strongly the excess deaths for the year because they do not depend on underlying conditions.

SeaBreezes

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

This thread is just nominally Sweden avoiding lockdown. In reality its Charlie14 and Viera82 echo chamber bashing Tegnell, ignoring the total deaths in Sweden being in line with prior years, quoting covid deaths from Asian countries and ofcourse trying to claim that most of Sweden is in complete lockdown with people being unable to buy children clothes in the shops.

Its very tough read some of the posts. Bizarrely enough, if Sweden finish with 89k deaths for 2020 (which is something that is still very much on course) you ll see posts in this thread claiming that Sweden wouldve have 83k deaths if they went into lockdown and avoided having any covid deaths at all.

I suppose some people will never change their views. They are still in March/April hysteria. Hopefully they ll come out of it eventually.

And other posters blithely ignoring the Covid death toll, health and ecomonic disaster that Tegnell allowed.

Norway deaths: 250, Finland Deaths: 350.
Sweden: 6,000 4,000 assisted, 150,000 with longhaulcovid

Both Norway and Finland fared better economically too.
Sweden no 7 in the world for deaths per capita.
No herd immunity there either. 2nd wave climbing.

Tegnell deserves to be lambasted. The buck stops there.

SeaBreezes

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

Total Swedish deaths at 30th October 2020 for 2020 :75,644
On average 250 deaths per day.

If this continues (as it has been continuing since July....) to 31 December, they ll finish on 91,122 deaths.

Look at their deaths in 2018.

Deadly Covid pandemic indeed :rolleyes:

Tegnell - hats off.

HA. IF this continues?

Now THIS is the stupidest post I have read on this thread.

Your also forgetting the 150,000 with longhaulcovid the 70 kids with MISC.. .

I guess you're ok with that sacrifice?

I thought you were going to holiday in Sweden. Booked that trip yet?

Ginger n Lemon

SeaBreezes wrote: »

HA. IF this continues?

Now THIS is the stupidest post I have read on this thread.

Your also forgetting the 150,000 with longhaulcovid the 70 kids with MISC.. .

I guess you're ok with that sacrifice?

I thought you were going to holiday in Sweden. Booked that trip yet?

What are you on about? Got any links other than tweets or some rubbish?

Will you still be hysterical once Sweden finishes this year with less deaths than last year? Or its the longhaulcovid nonsense you ll be spamming here then?


BTW I see you need reassurances, that trend WILL continue. There you go.

Bit cynical

Sweden will likely have below the EU average Covid-19 deaths per capita by the new year but the real benefits will be in the next couple of years as collateral damage from lockdowns in other countries becomes manifest.

Vieira82

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

What are you on about? Got any links other than tweets or some rubbish?

Will you still be hysterical once Sweden finishes this year with less deaths than last year? Or its the longhaulcovid nonsense you ll be spamming here then?


BTW I see you need reassurances, that trend WILL continue. There you go.

obviously the king of missinformation does not believe in covid long haulers... why I'm not surprised... anyway here's some info for those that care to read (I know you won't, you'll just pretend to argue by insulting others as always...

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/from-back-pain-to-coughing-life-with-long-haul-covid-19

https://time.com/5897992/long-haul-coronavirus-me-cfs/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771111

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haulers-covid-19-recognition-support-groups-symptoms/615382/

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0928/1167831-covid-long-term-effect/

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/long-haul-covid/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/11377/?utm_source=gquery&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=gquery-home

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRJ5_bMggWQ

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/09/03/citizen-scientists-take-on-the-challenge-of-long-haul-covid-19/

https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/new-post-covid-19-clinic-helps-long-suffering-long-haul-patients/2020/10

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/30/long-term-covid-19-symptoms-have-implications-colleges

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/long-covid-symptoms-hospitalised-long-haulers-three-months-study-b693848.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctors-working-crack-mystery-long-haul-covid-19/story?id=72862670

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/coronavirus-long-haul-symptoms-quarter-of-pregnant-people/

OH WAIT LET ME GUESS! all of the links above are fake but those videos form youtube you linked are the reality... of course

Now Let's wait for Ginger N Lemons next round of insults as he has no other arguments

ROLL ON INSULTS IN 3...2...1.... ::D

d161

Vieira82 wrote: »

obviously the king of missinformation does not believe in covid long haulers... why I'm not surprised... anyway here's some info for those that care to read (I know you won't, you'll just pretend to argue by insulting others as always...

This is an example of misinformation? 20 or so links which look impressive unless you actually open them?
I looked at 4 or 5 of these links and saw 2 patients and a lot of articles written by journalists.

Is there a single scientific paper there? If so I'd love to read it because I am genuinely interested.

I have heard anecdotally of 2 people who are suffering long term affects.
But where's the data. An article from RTE is not data.

greyday

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30330-8/fulltext

Considering we are only 8 months in to it, there is only testimonies from health care professionals so far.

Vieira82

d161 wrote: »

This is an example of misinformation? 20 or so links which look impressive unless you actually open them?
I looked at 4 or 5 of these links and saw 2 patients and a lot of articles written by journalists.

Is there a single scientific paper there? If so I'd love to read it because I am genuinely interested.

I have heard anecdotally of 2 people who are suffering long term affects.
But where's the data. An article from RTE is not data.

Well done in proving you have not opened one single of the links. They range from news websites, to science news websites, news youtube channels and governmental sources and even national geographic... but what gives? it's all a lie of course!

Here's a few more untrustworthy sources:

An article from Neurology.org, obviously fake news, neurology is probably the science of studying cabbages I suppose: https://n.neurology.org/content/95/13/559

Another fake news website: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

And another too: https://chicagohealthonline.com/in-covid-19-long-haul-syndrome-symptoms-continue-for-months/

phew! boy oh boy am I glad I got all my info from youtube and facebook regular joes and don't fall for the lies in all those complicated links with complicated jargon