Sweden avoiding lockdown

jibber5000

sydthebeat wrote: »

"Probably"....

When I see this is a statement it makes what comes afterwards worthless

We know for a fact that in Ireland >90% of those that died have 0% chance of 10 year survival.

No reason why would be different there.

Glenomra

Becoming more obvious every day that Sweden avoided the hysteria and implemented a sensible policy.

biko

It's way too early to tell if Sweden's policy is good or not for their economy.

Bobeagleburger

Glenomra wrote: »

Becoming more obvious every day that Sweden avoided the hysteria and implemented a sensible policy.

How?

Ireland death rate peaked 10 days ago. Restrictions will be relaxed in a few weeks. Ireland have handled it brilliantly imo.

sydthebeat

jibber5000 wrote: »

We know for a fact that in Ireland >90% of those that died have 0% chance of 10 year survival.

No reason why would be different there.

What a very, very strange statement to pull directly out of your hole.

When did we start triaging cases on a "likely to live more than ten years" basis??

Do you work for a pension company by any chance??

wakka12

Glenomra wrote: »

Becoming more obvious every day that Sweden avoided the hysteria and implemented a sensible policy.

I dont see how this is obvious at all, over 1050 people have died in Sweden in the last 14 days

sydthebeat

Glenomra wrote: »

Becoming more obvious every day that Sweden avoided the hysteria and implemented a sensible policy.

Not if what the WHO said today turns out to be correct.

If "Herd immunity" turns out not to work, then their approach will have been spectacularly wrong

zerosugarbuzz

biko wrote: »

It's way too early to tell if Sweden's policy is good or not for their economy.

Well it definitely won’t damage their economy

zerosugarbuzz

wakka12 wrote: »

I dont see how this is obvious at all, over 1050 people have died in Sweden in the last 14 days

All of them very old or compromised in other health issues

Del Griffith

biko wrote: »

https://c19.se/
13329 cases
1442 dead
death rate 10.8%

This shows how ludicrous it is trying to call a death rate % with totally inadequate data

alchemist33

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

All of them very old or compromised in other health issues

That would make their population unique

MadYaker

Cyrus wrote: »

What will become apparent is that the number of deaths in 2020 is probably not any higher than many other recent years

Some regions in the UK have seen a 30% increase in deaths in march 2020 compared to march 2019 so I think what you're saying is clearly nonsense. Of course deaths will increase because of this, how could they not?

sydthebeat

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Well it definitely won’t damage their economy

Its ALREADY damaging their economy.....

They are predicting a similar downturn to the 2008 financial crash.

Do some research, its not hard to find this information

wakka12

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

All of them very old or compromised in other health issues

And? A fraction of that number of people who are old and with health issues would have died within the last two weeks in a typical year, influenza and pneumonia kills 1000 swedes in an entire year, this has done more than that in 14 days

Though it does have to be said Ireland has lost considerably more citizens in the last 14 days to COVID than would die from influenza in an entire year also despite the lockdown

But personally I dont care, even if Sweden turned out to be 'right' I am still happy with the decision Ireland took. It seemed liked the best idea, Sweden took an incredibly big risk that imo was not worth it. Great for them if it works, but I dont think it was ever worth the risk.

Akrasia

sydthebeat wrote: »

"Probably"....

When I see this is a statement it makes what comes afterwards worthless

Why?

Probably means 'most likely' so its something that is very likely to happen but not guaranteed

Given that the future is not certain, you should be more concerned by someone saying something will definitely happen because 99% of the time they are overstating the likelyhood

According to many, Liverpool were 'definitely' gonna win the premiership this year but now its uncertain if there will be any winner this year, it could be decided by lawyers

Breezin

Good perspective here on Sweden taking the longer view, from a Brit living there:

Asked about the Danish government's closing of their borders (and most dramatically The Bridge connecting the two countries), Carlson answered that it was a political decision that makes no difference epidemiologically. In other words, it was political gesturing. (As a footnote, whereas in the UK it is Downing Street holding daily press conferences, in Sweden it is the Public Health Agency.)

As in many countries, politics in Sweden is usually a tiresome round of point scoring. But not now. Despite the fragility of the present coalition, the other parties are showing a fairy-tale level of unanimity. The opposition could easily win a few points by comparing the number of deaths in Sweden to other Nordic countries – the differences are significant – but they don't.

Kermit.de.frog

If this is success i'd hate to see what failure looks like

zerosugarbuzz

wakka12 wrote: »

And? A fraction of that number of people who are old and with health issues would have died within the last two weeks in a typical year, influenza and pneumonia kills 1000 swedes in an entire year, this has done more than that in 14 days

Though it does have to be said Ireland has lost considerably more citizens in the last 14 days to COVID than would die from influenza in an entire year also despite the lockdown

The people who have died were very old or in poor health or exposed to huge volumes of the virus. No need for the whole economy to be shut down, ridiculous over reaction with huge mental health and financial consequences for the majority who would have gotten over the virus with relative ease by the looks of things.

zerosugarbuzz

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If this is success i'd hate to see what failure looks like

Add in Spain, Italy, USA and China’s real figures and post again

Kermit.de.frog

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Add in Spain, Italy, USA and China’s real figures and post again

So, your argument is that Sweden has not implemented the same level of lock down measures (they actually do have counter measures incidentally) and that somehow this has restricted transmission to a greater extent than those who have?

Is that your argument?

sydthebeat

Akrasia wrote: »

Why?

Probably means 'most likely' so its something that is very likely to happen but not guaranteed

Given that the future is not certain, you should be more concerned by someone saying something will definitely happen because 99% of the time they are overstating the likelyhood

According to many, Liverpool were 'definitely' gonna win the premiership this year but now its uncertain if there will be any winner this year, it could be decided by lawyers

Because, in the context of the post I quoted, the poster is basing it on nothing but opinion.

I have no problem with someone saying "x will probably because (insert evidence for argument).... In your case above, Liverpool would probably have won the league because they were 25 points ahead.
Leinster would probably have won the pro 14 as they were unbeaten.

But it give a bland statement based on a "probably" with no reason for the opinion, then it renders the statement worthless.

ALL previous pandemics increased the death rate.... Why would this one be any different.

Assuming it won't, means EVERYONE who dies from it would have died anyway this year....

jibber5000

sydthebeat wrote: »

What a very, very strange statement to pull directly out of your hole.

When did we start triaging cases on a "likely to live more than ten years" basis??

Do you work for a pension company by any chance??

Now stay with me here.
9% of those who have died here did so in Intensive care units.
Thus 91% died in wards or community.

When assessing whether a patient should go to ICU a score called the charlson comorbidity index is used. If that score is 0% 10 year survival, a patient will not be intubated.
In fact an anesthesist will likely not even assess the patient.
This will be assessed when a patient comes into ED with a likely covid infection.

So approx 91% of those who died were assessed by some medical professional and felt due to age and co morbidities that they were not fit for ICU. This should be done by using the CCMI.

Does that makes sense?

MadYaker

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Add in Spain, Italy, USA and China’s real figures and post again

??? Spain and Italy were both absolute disasters and the US isn't far behind? Weve no idea what the real numbers are from china.

biko

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So, your argument is that Sweden has not implemented the same level of lock down measures (they actually do have counter measures incidentally) and that somehow this has restricted transmission to a greater extent than those who have?

Is that your argument?

They don't have an argument, they just want you to add numbers for countries with high death rates.

Comparing a country with its neighbours isn't enough.

wakka12

jibber5000 wrote: »

Now stay with me here.
9% of those who have died here did so in Intensive care units.
Thus 91% died in wards or community.

When assessing whether a patient should go to ICU a score called the charlson comorbidity index is used. If that score is 0% 10 year survival, a patient will not be intubated.
In fact an anesthesist will likely not even assess the patient.
This will be assessed when a patient comes into ED with a likely covid infection.

So approx 91% of those who died were assessed by some medical professional and felt due to age and co morbidities that they were not fit for ICU. This should be done by using the CCMI.

Does that makes sense?

It makes sense but there is not any great proof of that yet

wakka12

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

The people who have died were very old or in poor health or exposed to huge volumes of the virus. No need for the whole economy to be shut down, ridiculous over reaction with huge mental health and financial consequences for the majority who would have gotten over the virus with relative ease by the looks of things.

How could you possibly know that

Youve no way of knowing what this virus would have done without lockdown. Iran is an example of probably the country with the worst implemented lockdown in the world and it is estimated to have a higher death toll than Italy and Spain, despite it being one of the youngest average aged countries in the world. Ecuador also a very young country experiencing thousands of deaths above monthly average

That is what happens when you dont have a lockdown. It is a myth to say Sweden isnt implementing any measures, there are no public gatherings and most swedes are working from home, over 70's are staying home and people are washing their hands and ensuring good hygiene, which will have a massive effect

Akrasia

sydthebeat wrote: »

Because, in the context of the post I quoted, the poster is basing it on nothing but opinion.

I have no problem with someone saying "x will probably because (insert evidence for argument).... In your case above, Liverpool would probably have won the league because they were 25 points ahead.
Leinster would probably have won the pro 14 as they were unbeaten.

But it give a bland statement based on a "probably" with no reason for the opinion, then it renders the statement worthless.

ALL previous pandemics increased the death rate.... Why would this one be any different.

Assuming it won't, means EVERYONE who dies from it would have died anyway this year....

So your issue was that the word 'probably' was misused rather than the use of the word itself

It was a statement of opinion rather than a statement of probability

That poster did justify their opinion in the claim that most of those dying from the virus were old with preexisting conditions and some of them could have been already on deaths door, but that in no way creates a strong enough case to justify a claim that a global pandenic involving a life threatening illness probably won't increase the overall death rate for the year

Akrasia

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am just surprised Greta Thunberg is not more vocal? "How dare you how dare you" etc, etc. Or is she pleased because because there are less cars on the roads or what's the craic?

Greta is utterly irrelevant to this conversation, why bring her up?

You might as well ask why Adam Sandler isnt speaking out more

Bobeagleburger

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If this is success i'd hate to see what failure looks like

Hmm, I wonder what measures are best...

Akrasia

biko wrote: »

They don't have an argument, they just want you to add numbers for countries with high death rates.

Comparing a country with its neighbours isn't enough.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare countries with similar population demographics, health systems, geographical features and cultures

The differences in infection and death rates between similar closely connected countries can be more readily attributable to political choices than by just comparing them to the worst hit countries