Sweden avoiding lockdown

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would expect deaths to rise a bit more than at present though perhaps not as much as people might imagine.

They have not even stabilised infections, its not going to go well for them, just look at Northern Ireland to see what happens when you allow the virus to spread.

greyday

Put it this way, they have over 20 times our infection rate, 6 times our ICU covid patients, its going to get very bad over there over the next month or two.

Thats me

We need to prepare to the time when all of them will die. Ireland has a right on their lands since it was occupied by Vikings for a long time!

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

Put it this way, they have over 20 times our infection rate, 6 times our ICU covid patients, its going to get very bad over there over the next month or two.

We won't be far off those rates come January and February when we will have to go back into lockdown again.
Its lucky the vaccine is around the corner otherwise we'd be in near permanent lockdown.
Opening up after lockdown is a particularly dangerous time as people relax, think the worst is over, start to travel more and think its ok to go back to normality.

bb1234567

I'm more worried about infections when vaccine begins to be distributed, I imagine once it begins in hospitals everyone will act like the virus is gone now when it will take weeks (or months?) to vaccinate large amounts of the population. It's important not to fall at the last hurdle if countries like Belgium and Italy go through a third wave for that reason sure there's probably almost need for vaccine probably majority would have already caught it by that stage

tobefrank321

tobefrank321 wrote: »

We won't be far off those rates come January and February when we will have to go back into lockdown again.

What do you propose? Lock down until January and then open up when everyone is back at work and the schools are back and can't see their families?

I'll take a lockdown in Jan or Feb as a good tradeoff for seeing my family over Christmas.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you propose? Lock down until January and then open up when everyone is back at work and the schools are back and can't see their families?

I'll take a lockdown in Jan or Feb as a good tradeoff for seeing my family over Christmas.

It is one of the problems with enforced measures. The stricter they are the more backlash against them when they are lifted. Strict lockdowns create the need for continued strict lockdowns.

There's also the immunity aspect: strict lockdowns mean that few healthy people get mild exposure during the lockdown and therefore are more susceptible to becoming spreaders when the lockdown is lifted. Again, strict lockdowns create the need for continued strict lockdowns.

Geuze

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/friday-assorted-links-289.html


3. “Sweden has reported 397 Covid deaths in the past nine days, more than either Norway or Finland — each with about half the population — have announced during the entire pandemic. Such figures led the normally cautious and measured state broadcaster SVT to declare that Sweden’s strategy looked increasingly like “a failure”.” FT link.

bb1234567

Geuze wrote: »

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/friday-assorted-links-289.html


3. “Sweden has reported 397 Covid deaths in the past nine days, more than either Norway or Finland — each with about half the population — have announced during the entire pandemic. Such figures led the normally cautious and measured state broadcaster SVT to declare that Sweden’s strategy looked increasingly like “a failure”.” FT link.

And slovenia with a population of 2 million has reported 425 deaths in the last 9 days!!

I don't understand the obsession with trying to make Sweden look so bad by comparing to just norway and finland which are the best performing(and only well performing) countries in europe

It clearly worked reasonably well for them but where my personal opinion on this discussion differs is that it's quite clear this approach doesnt and hasnt worked in many, most ,other countries. Usually anyone upholding this policy is quite deceivingly trying to claim this would work in *insert whatever country* when clearly it's just not having anywhere near as desirable effect in many other regions with relaxed restrictions and I dont agree with this at all but I dont think we have crucify Swedish policy in order to have these discussions

thebaz

greyday wrote: »

Sweden will be over 100 daily deaths in next two weeks, they will do well to keep it under 200 after that going by their rate of infections.

People have been saying this for 4 weeks now, thankfully it has not happened , and hopefully doesnt - Sweden asking public to behave like adults , and take necessary precautions , adults probably are behaving like adults and doing the sensible thing , unlike the militant lockdowns elsewhere , like Ireland , where we are dictated to by the likes of NPHET.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is one of the problems with enforced measures. The stricter they are the more backlash against them when they are lifted. Strict lockdowns create the need for continued strict lockdowns.

There's also the immunity aspect: strict lockdowns mean that few healthy people get mild exposure during the lockdown and therefore are more susceptible to becoming spreaders when the lockdown is lifted. Again, strict lockdowns create the need for continued strict lockdowns.

Non-enforced measures were not doing anything in Sweden at keeping numbers down. Neither are their new restriction for that matter.


With vaccinations, especially in Sweden, not that far off, if the authorities in Sweden put the welfare of their citizens ahead of their own selfish pride they would use lockdown to get the numbers under control and save lives.



So there is no such thing as long Covid health problems, but somehow you can get this mild Covid in lockdown and you will still be capable of infecting others for up to 6 weeks later when lockdown is lifted.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

People have been saying this for 4 weeks now, thankfully it has not happened , and hopefully doesnt - Sweden asking public to behave like adults , and take necessary precautions , adults probably are behaving like adults and doing the sensible thing , unlike the militant lockdowns elsewhere , like Ireland , where we are dictated to by the likes of NPHET.

Have you actually seen the daily number of new infections in Sweden!
With twice our population, today they reported 6,774. 44,834 for the week.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Have you actually seen the daily number of new infections in Sweden!
With twice our population, today they reported 6,774. 44,834 for the week.

I have given up long time ago obsessing about number of cases , what intrests me is the study that says this second wave is 90% less fatal than first wave , nothing is said about this , since headlined a week ago by RTE -

The other figure that interest me is fatalities , and my point was , that for 4 weeks people here having been saying in 2 weeks Sweden will have huge increases , thankfully this has not happened , and I believe the Swedish public are behaving sensibly with what they are told to do, and hopefully this large predicted increase wont happen.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I have given up long time ago obsessing about number of cases , what intrests me is the study that says this second wave is 90% less fatal than first wave , nothing is said about this , since headlined a week ago by RTE -

The other figure that interest me is fatalities , and my point was , that for 4 weeks people here having been saying in 2 weeks Sweden will have huge increases , thankfully this has not happened , and I believe the Swedish public are behaving sensibly with what they are told to do, and hopefully this large predicted increase wont happen.

With those numbers I really do not see where there is any evidence that the Swedish public are behaving that sensibly. Even with new restrictions their numbers are higher than they were in the first wave.


I have not seen anything that suggests this virus has become less potent. Fatalities may or may more not be lower for this wave, but that will be down to the advances in medical care and who becomes infected.Young and healthy less deaths than older and vulnerable.

One thing we do know is rising numbers of infections lead to rising deaths and those death can be 6-8 weeks or more after becoming infected.
The best method of keeping the number of deaths low is to keep the number of infections low.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

I have not seen anything that suggests this virus has become less potent. Fatalities may or may more not be lower for this wave, but that will be down to the advances in medical care and who becomes infected.Young and healthy less deaths than older and vulnerable.

One thing we do know is rising numbers of infections lead to rising deaths and those death can be 6-8 weeks or more after becoming infected.
The best method of keeping the number of deaths low is to keep the number of infections low.

This from RTE states that second wave is 90% less fatal :-

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1119/1179261-daily-virus-figures/

very little else has been said about it , either it was false and the Minister was lying and RTE would take it down , obviously I dont think that is the case so why is no one else in the main media discussing this all we get is more and more fear to an already over anxious public, ther are other serious medical issues facing country too.

greyday

thebaz wrote: »

This from RTE states that second wave is 90% less fatal :-

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1119/1179261-daily-virus-figures/

very little else has been said about it , either it was false and the Minister was lying and RTE would take it down , obviously I dont think that is the case so why is no one else in the main media discussing this all we get is more and more fear to an already over anxious public, ther are other serious medical issues facing country too.

In Ireland it may have declined by 90% but Sweden has not denied by anything like that.

thebaz

greyday wrote: »

In Ireland it may have declined by 90% but Sweden has not denied by anything like that.

I dont understand what you mean -surely the second wave should be a lot less fatal also in Sweden.
Swedish medical system is probably better than Ireland , I also believe they substantially increased ther ICU facilities in summer.

Lets see in another 2 weeks

greyday

thebaz wrote: »

I dont understand what you mean -surely the second wave should be a lot less fatal also in Sweden.
Swedish medical system is probably better than Ireland , I also believe they substantially increased ther ICU facilities in summer.

Lets see in another 2 weeks

They have had over 50 deaths the last 3 days and have 221 people in ICU, maybe its because Tegnell signalled the Virus was a minor inconvenience and really nothing to be worried about, they are also seeing over 6K infections per day.
In another 2 weeks Sweden will have over 100 deaths per day.

See how well they are handling the virus....
https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/

thebaz

greyday wrote: »

They have had over 50 deaths the last 3 days and have 221 people in ICU, maybe its because Tegnell signalled the Virus was a minor inconvenience and really nothing to be worried about, they are also seeing over 6K infections per day.
In another 2 weeks Sweden will have over 100 deaths per day.

See how well they are handling the virus....
https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/

I am no expert, so we will see in 2 weeks, hopefully your projected deaths don't happen , but lets see in 2 weeks time.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

This from RTE states that second wave is 90% less fatal :-

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1119/1179261-daily-virus-figures/

very little else has been said about it , either it was false and the Minister was lying and RTE would take it down , obviously I dont think that is the case so why is no one else in the main media discussing this all we get is more and more fear to an already over anxious public, ther are other serious medical issues facing country too.

I saw that but I haven`t seen any data to back up that claim. As I said if all, or the vast majority, of cases are off those young and health he may well be correct. I which case lockdown here would in all likelihood be a major factor in that.
If substantial numbers are aged or vulnerable, then I would very much doubt it as I have not seen anything to suggest this virus has weakened.
The last wave here killed 3% of those infected, so a bit of anxiety may not be such a bad thing.


There are indeed many other serious medical issues, but if your hospitals are being over-run with Covid-19 cases it`s the last place you would wish to be if you are suffering from an underlying medical condition.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I dont understand what you mean -surely the second wave should be a lot less fatal also in Sweden.
Swedish medical system is probably better than Ireland , I also believe they substantially increased ther ICU facilities in summer.

Lets see in another 2 weeks

If a country had a high level of immunity from the first wave you would expect the second wave to be less fatal, but from their antibody test results and the number of present infections there is nothing to indicate that is the case in Sweden.


Sweden`s medical system is probably better than Ireland`s, but they had increased their ICU capacity early on during the first wave and it was never overrun. Their ratio of deaths then to confirmed cases was still over 6%.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

The last wave here killed 3% of those infected, so a bit of anxiety may not be such a bad thing.

The mortality rate of Covid is not 3 % , it is been reported as around 0.4 % and possibly lower , figures like that are what cause undue anxiety.

Perhaps it was 3% back in April/March when testing had just started , and probably only sick people were getting tested.

topper75

charlie14 wrote: »

One thing we do know is rising numbers of infections lead to rising deaths ...

A cursory glance at the death rate and infection rate curves for pretty much any European nation reveals this assertion to be a nonsense. The relationship you are claiming might have held for a brief period around March or April or so.

We know a lot more now.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

The mortality rate of Covid is not 3 % , it is been reported as around 0.4 % and possibly lower , figures like that are what cause undue anxiety.

Perhaps it was 3% back in April/March when testing had just started , and probably only sick people were getting tested.

I did not say the overall mortality rate was 3%.
I said the mortality rate to confirmed cases in Ireland during the first wave was 3% and in Sweden it was 6%.
If you are unfortunate enough to become infected with this virus, then those are figures that would in all probability cause you anxiety.

charlie14

topper75 wrote: »

A cursory glance at the death rate and infection rate curves for pretty much any European nation reveals this assertion to be a nonsense. The relationship you are claiming might have held for a brief period around March or April or so.

We know a lot more now.

It is not a nonsense. It is simple statistical fact easily calculated.

In Ireland for the first wave the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases was 3%. In Sweden 6%.
Currently in Ireland we have 71,696 confirmed case and 2,043 deaths.
That is a ratio of deaths to confirmed cases of 2.86% by my calculations but feel free to do your own and then tell me if it is nonsense or not

If none of the present confirmed cases pass it will remain at that percentage. If not then the percentage will increase.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

I did not say the overall mortality rate was 3%.
I said the mortality rate to confirmed cases in Ireland during the first wave was 3% and in Sweden it was 6%.
If you are unfortunate enough to become infected with this virus, then those are figures that would in all probability cause you anxiety.

Throwing out figures like 6% and 3 % are what cause over-anxiety in the population - many people will not read the small print , and think the mortality rate is such , which it is not - the figure that needs to be aired for anyone unfortunate to get the virus, is the actual mortality rate - which seams to be around 0.3% - this is quite low, given that back in March many were expecting a mortality rate of over 1% , some even here were talking 10% .

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

Throwing out figures like 6% and 3 % are what cause over-anxiety in the population - many people will not read the small print , and think the mortality rate is such , which it is not - the figure that needs to be aired for anyone unfortunate to get the virus, is the actual mortality rate - which seams to be around 0.3%- this is quite low, given that back in March many were expecting a mortality rate of over 1% , some even here were talking 10% .

I was not "throwing out figures". I gave you the percentage figure for deaths to confirmed cases for both Ireland and Sweden during the first wave.

From your, " the figure that needs to be aired for anyone unfortunate to get the virus, is the actual mortality rate - which seems to be around 0.3%.-" if you are talking about just Ireland during the first wave you have misplaced the decimal point.
The mortality rate for those that were confirmed as having the virus was 3%. Not 0.3%

It is now 2.86%. If you do not believe me then do the calculations yourself and then tell me what the figure "that need be aired" is.

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

I was not "throwing out figures". I gave you the percentage figure for deaths to confirmed cases for both Ireland and Sweden during the first wave.

From your, " the figure that needs to be aired for anyone unfortunate to get the virus, is the actual mortality rate - which seems to be around 0.3%.-" if you are talking about just Ireland during the first wave you have misplaced the decimal point.
The mortality rate for those that were confirmed as having the virus was 3%. Not 0.3%

It is now 2.86%. If you do not believe me then do the calculations yourself and then tell me what the figure "that need be aired" is.

Oh the mortality rate in Ireland 2.85% , and in the rest of the world is 0.3 % - cop on - Why frighten people more by given this figure from last March/April when only the sick were being tested - are all the scientists saying mortality rate is now around 0.3 % lying ?

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

Oh the mortality rate in Ireland 2.85% , and in the rest of the world is 0.3 % - cop on - Why frighten people more by given this figure from last March/April when only the sick were being tested - are all the scientists saying mortality rate is around 0.3 % lying ?

Are you incapable of doing even the most basic mathematical calculations, or do you just wish to ignore them because they does not suit whatever agenda you have ?

In Ireland to date we have 71,696 confirmed cases with 2,043 deaths. That is a mortality rate of those as you termed " unfortunate to get the virus" of 2.86%.

Can you actually name any country that has a mortality rate to confirmed cases of 0.3%
I have not been able to find one

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Are you incapable of doing even the most basic mathematical calculations, or do you just wish to ignore them because they does not suit whatever agenda you have ?

In Ireland to date we have 71,696 confirmed cases with 2,043 deaths. That is a mortality rate of those as you termed " unfortunate to get the virus" of 2.86%.

Can you actually name any country that has a mortality rate to confirmed cases of 0.3%
I have not been able to find one

ok - you are the scientist - are all your fellow scientists suggesting a mortality rate of 0.3 for the virus lying ?
is that what you are suggesting.

I have no agenda , just facts, not scaremongering facts that are used to scare an already over frightened public.