Sweden avoiding lockdown

Paddy223

Sweden I believe have done reasonably well. Although it was an extremely bold move to keep open for the first wave as at that stage there was very little known about the virus. Also in addition to that like any new virus that appeared in the past it is usually the early stages where it’s out to kill and it had the ability to do more damage to the younger age groups like 40 and 50 year olds. And with that light approach it meant around an extra 3000-4000 lost their lives when they could of survived if there was stricter measures.

But, after that their approach worked well till now. Their testing and tracing system at the moment is under huge strain and they are finding it more difficult to track the virus. Not only does this Increase hospital admissions and deaths but, also it’s mean they are slower to get in contact with people exposed and therefore they could spread it further without knowing. I wouldn’t be surprised if they introduce stronger measures to address these issues.

But, at the end of the day social responsibility plays a huge role and it’s one thing that is very much needed to implement such a system. For example during the first lockdown many of their people limited social contacts and voluntarily acted sensibly during the first wave. I could never see a system like that working as well in Ireland or the U.K. because when you see eejits like the fella getting of a plane from Spain and instead of self isolating he infects 56 people. But, anyway best of luck to the Swedes going forward I just hope they are able to shield the elderly and vulnerable during this second wave.

tobefrank321

Take a look at worldometer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Sweden added 61 deaths or about 15 a day since Friday. There are several countries in Europe posting over 100 a day. Poland is consistantly posting over 300 a day. Switzerland had 121, Portugal 81 and Austria 58 deaths today.

Czechia, with a population slightly more than Sweden has 470,000 cases out of 10.7 million population. It had 71 deaths today.

Most of western Europe now has higher deaths per million than Sweden. Chechia will pass them in the next few days. Other eastern european countries will pass them within weeks on current trends.

Keep believing Sweden failed and everywhere else was a success.

Vieira82

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Take a look at worldometer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Sweden added 61 deaths or about 15 a day since Friday. There are several countries in Europe posting over 100 a day. Poland is consistantly posting over 300 a day. Switzerland had 121, Portugal 81 and Austria 58 deaths today.

Czechia, with a population slightly more than Sweden has 470,000 cases out of 10.7 million population. It had 71 deaths today.

Most of western Europe now has higher deaths per million than Sweden. Chechia will pass them in the next few days. Other eastern countries will pass them within weeks on current trends.

Keep believing Sweden failed and everywhere else was a success.

a) we all always said Sweden has a slight delay than the rest of Europe, it was between 2 weeks and a week.

b) no one said Europe was fairing better, just that Sweden was not a success story and it still isn't that you and so many others keep talking about

c) If trend continues Portugal will by the end of the week reach around 100 deaths and Sweden be at around 80... and I hope it doesn't of course... but judging by the news coming from Portugal, virus is pretty much out of control now and gov is still insisting on not going on lockdown.

the incredible pudding

I still wonder why so many people can't see that there's quite a lot of space between something being a resounding failure and a resounding success.

JimmyVik

the incredible pudding wrote: »

I still wonder why so many people can't see that there's quite a lot of space between something being a resounding failure and a resounding success.

I think most people hoped that Swedens strategy would work (afterall then the rest of the world could copy it if it worked), but felt that Sweden were gambling with their populations lives, rather than playing safe.

Vieira82

JimmyVik wrote: »

I think most people hoped that Swedens strategy would work (afterall then the rest of the world could copy it if it worked), but felt that Sweden were gambling with their populations lives, rather than playing safe.

the problem is herd immunity never works without countless deaths and infected and this is the issue many want to deny. They deny this is a pandemic, they deny this is a deadly virus, and now they even deny the vaccine is going to be effective...


The reality is, just a few weeks ago tobefrank was writing here a vaccine might not ever come and stating this would last forever... well now we got two good candidates for the vaccine and as always with people that believe in things just out of believing, he changes his argument. He continues to ever change his argument to something new refusing to admit he is wrong... so I am curious what he'll come back with next week...

greyday

JimmyVik wrote: »

I think most people hoped that Swedens strategy would work (afterall then the rest of the world could copy it if it worked), but felt that Sweden were gambling with their populations lives, rather than playing safe.

Absolutely correct, Sweden's supporters now also seem fanatical despite the mounting evidence that the strategy has failed miserably. this cherry picking of other Countries with completely different cultures to compare with Sweden is comical when those same people will not compare Sweden to its nearest neighbours.
Tegnell gambled with peoples lives up front without having a clue how it would play out while the vast majority went with the cautious approach,
What Sweden has now shown us is when the message is "could you possibly do this for the public good" it may work at the start but the soft message does not work long term if their figures recently is anything to go by.

greyday

greyday wrote: »

Absolutely correct, Sweden's supporters now also seem fanatical despite the mounting evidence that the strategy has failed miserably. this cherry picking of other Countries with completely different cultures to compare with Sweden is comical when those same people will not compare Sweden to its nearest neighbours.

The neighbouring countries are much smaller with lower population densities. The reality is the countries that locked down hard and early did better than the ones who were late to the party - they did the same or worse as Sweden. Once COVID gets a real hold it's too late to lock down.

Here in Ireland we haven't done much better than Sweden.

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

Absolutely correct, Sweden's supporters now also seem fanatical despite the mounting evidence that the strategy has failed miserably. this cherry picking of other Countries with completely different cultures to compare with Sweden is comical when those same people will not compare Sweden to its nearest neighbours.
Tegnell gambled with peoples lives up front without having a clue how it would play out while the vast majority went with the cautious approach,
What Sweden has now shown us is when the message is "could you possibly do this for the public good" it may work at the start but the soft message does not work long term if their figures recently is anything to go by.

You clearly haven't bothered to check deaths in hard lockdown countries. Poland posted 603 today. France had over 800 for a few days. Belgium consistantly over 200 and Czechia averaging about 150 a day.

You call these "success" stories?

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You clearly haven't bothered to check deaths in hard lockdown countries. Poland posted 670 today. France had over 800 for a few days. Belgium consistantly over 200 and Czechia averaging about 150 a day.

You call these "success" stories?

Are you misrepresenting again Frank?
Where did I call them success stories?

Give it a couple of weeks and you will be saying the dramatic increase in Swedish deaths was manageable and even preferable to alleviate suffering, or you might think of something even better to show why Swedish deaths are permissible.

Long and short of it, Check their nearest neighbours for the real success or otherwise of their strategy.
Check us alongside our nearest neighbours and we have not done as bad as some would like to believe with the caveat we have most certainly been over-counting while others have been under-counting.

At this point in time Swedens infections are nearly 10X that of Ireland when it should be just over X2.
The people in ICU is 5X when again it should be a little over 2X.
Its death rate over over 3X Ireland's and will rise dramatically over the next few weeks.......

Even the local authorities are now ignoring the Health Advise from Tegnell but some on here still think he is a genius as they are on the same wavelength as him

humberklog

It's a pity that a lot of the discourse on this thread contains such prickly one-upmanship on both sides and throw myself into that mix too.

Inquitus

Sweden is abandoning its laisser faire attitude, and going with mandated lockdowns:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/11/18/sweden-coronavirus-surge-policy/

greyday

96 deaths reported today with just over 4000 infections, seems very similar to April but with much higher infections.

https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Take a look at worldometer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Sweden added 61 deaths or about 15 a day since Friday. There are several countries in Europe posting over 100 a day. Poland is consistantly posting over 300 a day. Switzerland had 121, Portugal 81 and Austria 58 deaths today.

Czechia, with a population slightly more than Sweden has 470,000 cases out of 10.7 million population. It had 71 deaths today.

Most of western Europe now has higher deaths per million than Sweden. Chechia will pass them in the next few days. Other eastern european countries will pass them within weeks on current trends.

Keep believing Sweden failed and everywhere else was a success.

Looks like Sweden does not wish to be passed as they reported 96 deaths today, the next month or so will be informative with deaths rising dramatically in Sweden, but shur there will be excuses coming out peoples ears even though many warnings were given that the escalation was going to be far worse than it needed to be because of the asking rather than ordering people to follow the guidelines.

tobefrank321

Inquitus wrote: »

Sweden is abandoning its laisser faire attitude, and going with mandated lockdowns:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/11/18/sweden-coronavirus-surge-policy/

Probably time as a highly effective vaccine is only months from rollout, with trial results better than most could have expected a few months ago.

JimmyVik

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Probably time as a highly effective vaccine is only months from rollout, with trial results better than most could have expected a few months ago.

Tell that to all their dead.
They gambled with lives. Unforgivable.

wakka12

greyday wrote: »

96 deaths reported today with just over 4000 infections, seems very similar to April but with much higher infections.

https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/

It says 11 new deaths in that? Or am I looking at the wrong thing, I can't see 96 new deaths anywhere?

biko

It's not on their official page yet anyway, but they don't update every day anymore
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

tobefrank321

JimmyVik wrote: »

Tell that to all their dead.
They gambled with lives. Unforgivable.

FFS give it a rest - would you say the same about Belgium who have twice the deaths per million?
Or Spain who had 19,000 dead in their nursing homes before they copped something was wrong?

Or Ireland and UK who sent covid positive patients from hospitals to nursing homes without testing them? This really was gambling with lives and may have cost hundreds of lives if not more here.

snowcat

JimmyVik wrote: »

Tell that to all their dead.
They gambled with lives. Unforgivable.

We gambled as well. We gambled billions of euro and lost, we will lose thousands of lives due to delayed cancer diagnosis, enforced poverty, domestic violence depression and lost livlihoods. We still will have had 2k deaths with Covid even with lockdowns and many more to come indirectly due to lockdowns.

tobefrank321

humberklog wrote: »

It's a pity that a lot of the discourse on this thread contains such prickly one-upmanship on both sides and throw myself into that mix too.

There's some knowledgeable people on the Sweden situation. And then there's a few whose knowledge is limited not just about Sweden but what's happening to other countries, and these really are the one-upmanship brigade.

wakka12

snowcat wrote: »

We gambled as well. We gambled billions of euro and lost, we will lose thousands of lives due to delayed cancer diagnosis, enforced poverty, domestic violence depression and lost livlihoods. We still will have had 2k deaths with Covid even with lockdowns and many more to come indirectly due to lockdowns.

A few weeks ago I would have agreed but now with how many are dying in countries like Belgium, Czechia, Slovenia and Bosnia I don't agree at all, these countries look to lose 0.2% of their population to COVID based on current trendds, all seeing up to or greater than 20 deaths per million consistently most days, it's probably more than the number who will die from any of the causes you've listed even in a most pessimistic scenario due to lockdowns

I really don't see how you could look at what;s happening in Europe right now and say our gamble with restrictions was a loss. Of course it's coming with bad side effects but really there's no way of getting around thhe fact that they are still wholly necessary

tobefrank321

snowcat wrote: »

We gambled as well. We gambled billions of euro and lost, we will lose thousands of lives due to delayed cancer diagnosis, enforced poverty, domestic violence depression and lost livlihoods. We still will have had 2k deaths with Covid even with lockdowns and many more to come indirectly due to lockdowns.

Good point. There's no winners from covid. Everyone has lost one way or another.

greyday

wakka12 wrote: »

It says 11 new deaths in that? Or am I looking at the wrong thing, I can't see 96 new deaths anywhere?

Go to daily incidence chart and hover on November 18, by the time you get back the fanboys should be out with their excuses why these deaths are preferable and the armageddon we face in the future for not going the Sweden route.

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

Go to daily incidence chart and hover on November 18, by the time you get back the fanboys should be out with their excuses why these deaths are preferable and the armageddon we face in the future for not going the Sweden route.

If Sweden had proportionally more deaths than us, you'd be right.

The problem is, Sweden has 3 times the number of old people as us and 3 times the number of deaths as us.

And covid 19 is a fatal disease of old people in the main.

You're trying desperately to show Sweden is one of the worst countries in the world, and you keep failing.

They will have done considerably better than many countries from Europe, South America as well as the US. But you won't mention those.

You're not going to include countries if it doesn't suit your narrative.

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

If Sweden had proportionally more deaths than us, you'd be right.

The problem is, Sweden has 3 times the number of old people as us and 3 times the number of deaths as us.

And covid 19 is a fatal disease of old people in the main.

You're trying desperately to show Sweden is one of the worst countries in the world, and you keep failing.

Sweden will likely get the numbers down in time for vaccine rollout and their number of deaths among the elderly will be similar to our own in proportion to the numbers of old people in each country.

And they will have done considerably better than many countries from Europe, South America as well as the US. But you won't mention those.

You have been desperately advocating for the Swedish strategy with a very small pullback recently when the data was starting to pile up against it, you compare with everywhere that has had bad cover experiences but neglect to compare to their nearest neighbours, maybe have a look at why you consistently misrepresent people and post what you want them to say rather than what they actually write.

FintanMcluskey

JimmyVik wrote: »

Tell that to all their dead.
They gambled with lives. Unforgivable.

Gambled with lives?

Where most deaths take place and the age of which they take place it’s hardly the first week of the Somme.

An adult conversation need to take place about death, and the rest of us having some limited quality of life for the next few years.

The way some are talking, people dying well beyond life expectancy is a tragedy not seen since the great China floods.

Vieira82

A small offtopic WHO live atm. This is a Q&A only and Dr. Mike Ryan is explaining right now how many countries have controlled the virus without a vaccine: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=3419599631471666&ref=notif&notif_id=1605715530167856&notif_t=live_video

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

You have been desperately advocating for the Swedish strategy with a very small pullback recently when the data was starting to pile up against it, you compare with everywhere that has had bad cover experiences but neglect to compare to their nearest neighbours, maybe have a look at why you consistently misrepresent people and post what you want them to say rather than what they actually write.

Not true. In the absence of a highly effective vaccine, lockdown for years was not a viable option. Countries had to learn to live with the virus.

Circumstances changed in the last two weeks with clear evidence of two highly effective vaccines. Makes sense to change course when you have new information. Sweden is doing that.

I don't mind comparing to Norway. Norway has only one land border, and would be considered a remote country, even in Scandinavia. The population density of Oslo is 4 times less than Stockholm. Sweden and Stockholm are also likely to have far more multi-generational households due to significant immigration. And its known that while the elderly die from covid, BAME communities are also disproportionally affected. Sweden is renowned for manufacturing - Scania, Volvo, Saab, Ikea. They are also renowned for pharma companies eg AstraZenicaAB - we may need one of their vaccines!
Norway on the otherhand depends hugely on oil and gas exports. Their sovereign wealth fund is estimated to be 1 trillion dollars. When they have a bad year economically they use this wealth fund to make up the difference. Nice comfort blanket to fall back on. They could stay locked down for years if they wanted.
These are just some differences. There are others too.

Still think these two countries are "identical"?

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not true. In the absence of a highly effective vaccine, lockdown for years was not a viable option. Countries had to learn to live with the virus.

Circumstances changed in the last two weeks with clear evidence of two highly effective vaccines. Makes sense to change course when you have new information. Sweden is doing that.

I don't mind comparing to Norway. Norway has only one land border, and would be considered a remote country, even in Scandinavia. The population density of Oslo is 4 times less than Stockholm. Sweden and Stockholm are also likely to have far more multi-generational households due to significant immigration. And its known that while the elderly die from covid, BAME communities are also disproportionally affected. Sweden is renowned for manufacturing - Scania, Volvo, Saab, Ikea. They are also renowned for pharma companies eg AstraZenicaAB - we may need one of their vaccines!
Norway on the otherhand depends hugely on oil and gas exports. Their sovereign wealth fund is estimated to be 1 trillion dollars. When they have a bad year economically they use this wealth fund to make up the difference. Nice comfort blanket to fall back on. They could stay locked down for years if they wanted.
These are just some differences. There are others too.

Still think these two countries are "identical"?

More misrepresenting Frank, why continue when you have been challenged about it repeatedly?
You don't mind comparing to Norway, do you mind comparing with its other neighbours?
Where did I say they were identical? (hint, closest neighbours are not considered identical)
Did you also do a comparison with Denmark and Finland?