Sweden avoiding lockdown

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wrong.

Without Sweden, many people might believe that lockdown prevented 100K deaths in Ireland and millions of deaths around the world.

It didn’t, and we have Swedes to thank for providing the proof.

You can criticise them all day long if you want and I couldn’t care less. That’s not my point.

Have a look at the list of Swedish restrictions.......they do and did exist and had a massive impact on their economy. Same as here.
They may not have restricted as tightly as here but they had plenty in place.
If you don't think we would have up to 100k of the population without restrictions you've little appreciation for even the most basic of restrictions that were put in place.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

The fetish that remains over how great Sweden did is bizarre. The Swedes themselves realised they got it wrong but not the fanboys.

Nobody said that they did great. They just showed that there won’t be a huge death toll even without heavy restrictions.

greyday

Frank was more than happy previously to compare Sweden with Ireland and had various reasons for Ireland doing better, not so happy to compare with Nordic neighbours but when he did he kept mentioning the differences between the Nordic Countries using GDP and everything else he could think of, the GDP didn't stack up so he moved on to other reasons why they should not be compared to their nearest neighbours.
Recently he moved on to Countries that were far too late to lockdown to prove Sweden were doing well, very little mention of Ireland against Sweden recently from Frank.

Now low and behold we have Jac stating "Regardless of how anybody feels they done, they have provided us with undeniable proof that lockdowns didn’t prevent some huge number of deaths."

Lets look at the figures for Ireland V Sweden now and Frank can adjust for all the various reasons he has mentioned previously.

Last two weeks Ireland had 66 deaths while Sweden had 674 with not all deaths included in Swedens figures, So jac they have at least 10 times more deaths than Ireland who took the appropriate action just in time.
Last two weeks Sweden has 68,438 confirmed infections while Ireland has 3,406 confirmed infections (close to 20 times our rate of infection), I am sure you know Jac that the more infections you have the more Deaths that follow.
They have more patients in ICU with Covid than we have covid patients in hospital.

They have at the very best been able to slow the increase in confirmed infections but their death rate the last week averaged 55 which is going higher without a doubt.

Maybe Jac you should change your statement "Regardless of how anybody feels they done, they have provided us with undeniable proof that lockdowns didn’t prevent some huge number of deaths." to "Ireland has shown that through lockdown at the appropriate time, Deaths from the virus can be reduced massively"

screamer

sweden is stil in the middle of a **** storm appealing for help today even, nothing is proven till this is all over, them lets compare spuds with swedes and see what worked and what didn't.

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody said that they did great. They just showed that there won’t be a huge death toll even without heavy restrictions.

Even though they brought in restrictions to mitigate the death toll when the realised how wrong they were :pac:

greyday

greyday wrote: »

Frank was more than happy previously to compare Sweden with Ireland and had various reasons for Ireland doing better, not so happy to compare with Nordic neighbours but when he did he kept mentioning the differences between the Nordic Countries using GDP and everything else he could think of, the GDP didn't stack up so he moved on to other reasons why they should not be compared to their nearest neighbours.
Recently he moved on to Countries that were far too late to lockdown to prove Sweden were doing well, very little mention of Ireland against Sweden recently from Frank.

Now low and behold we have Jac stating "Regardless of how anybody feels they done, they have provided us with undeniable proof that lockdowns didn’t prevent some huge number of deaths."

Lets look at the figures for Ireland V Sweden now and Frank can adjust for all the various reasons he has mentioned previously.

Last two weeks Ireland had 66 deaths while Sweden had 674 with not all deaths included in Swedens figures, So jac they have at least 10 times more deaths than Ireland who took the appropriate action just in time.
Last two weeks Sweden has 68,438 confirmed infections while Ireland has 3,406 confirmed infections (close to 20 times our rate of infection), I am sure you know Jac that the more infections you have the more Deaths that follow.
They have more patients in ICU with Covid than we have cover patients in hospital.

They have at the vest best been able to slow the increase in confirmed infections but their death rate the last week averaged 55 which is going higher without a doubt.

Maybe Jac you should change your statement "Regardless of how anybody feels they done, they have provided us with undeniable proof that lockdowns didn’t prevent some huge number of deaths." to "Ireland has shown that through lockdown at the appropriate time, Deaths from the virus can be reduced massively"

You are missing the point. Our own Taoiseach said in March that 250000 Irish people might die.

That was simply never going to happen. Sweden are proof of that.

There may have been more deaths, since we really struggle with protecting nursing homes, but we never would have had that death toll or anything close.

Lockdown is extremely costly both socially and economically and it really didn’t have the huge impact that some people think.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are missing the point. Our own Taoiseach said in March that 250000 Irish people might die.

That was simply never going to happen. Sweden are proof of that.

There may have been more deaths, since we really struggle with protecting nursing homes, but we never would have had that death toll or anything close.

Lockdown is extremely costly both socially and economically and it really didn’t have the huge impact that some people think.

Of course the restrictions had the impact that most people think......
Tens of thousands would have died without the majority of the population adhereing to the various restrictions in place over the course of the past 8 months.

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

Even though they brought in restrictions to mitigate the death toll when the realised how wrong they were :pac:

Again... Leo said in March that 250000 Irish could die.

Sweden have double our population and minimal restrictions and have 7000 deaths.

Proves the point about how wrong the experts were and still are.

Covid is a mild disease. If it wasn’t, Dublin City wouldn’t be half as busy as it is today.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

Of course the restrictions had the impact that most people think......
Tens of thousands would have died without the majority of the population adhereing to the various restrictions in place over the course of the past 8 months.

Yeah sorry... but no.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that.

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah sorry... but no.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that.

How do you figure that?
There's plenty to suggest it....more than the alternative argument. .

kippy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again... Leo said in March that 250000 Irish could die.

Sweden have double our population and minimal restrictions and have 7000 deaths.

Proves the point about how wrong the experts were and still are.

Covid is a mild disease. If it wasn’t, Dublin City wouldn’t be half as busy as it is today.

I dont think you understand the term 'proof'.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah sorry... but no.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that.

I think a lot of the models predicting these sorts of deaths were based on the Imperial College one which is now discredited but is now embedded in peoples heads. So people think that a lot more lives have been saved than is actually the case. These models also predicted 30000 deaths by 1st May when applied to Sweden unless they brought in heavy restrictions which of course did not happen.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Again... Leo said in March that 250000 Irish could die.
Sweden have double our population and minimal restrictions and have 7000 deaths.
Proves the point about how wrong the experts were and still are.
Covid is a mild disease. If it wasn’t, Dublin City wouldn’t be half as busy as it is today.

Where and when did Leo state that?

Sweden (and Ireland) had significant changes in behaviour from the public voluntarily, such as companies complying with health advice to WFH.
So are you comparing figures where society carried on as normal, or how much in the change in behaviour is down to mandatory versus advice versus volunrary.

The threat from covid is how contagious it is, with the potential to overwhlem public health systems - including that in Stockholm, apparently.
Ebola has a 90% case fatality rate, paradoxically it is so severe, so doesn't send large numbers of people all around the globe into ICU with it as an alarming rate.

tobefrank321

pjohnson wrote: »

The fetish that remains over how great Sweden did is bizarre. The Swedes themselves realised they got it wrong but not the fanboys.

They are going to be about 30th in the world by christmas for deaths per million. The 29 above them took the hard lockdown approach.

Who is the success story?

greyday

At the start of the pandemic, I read somewhere that 20% of over 65s that got the virus died from it, we have circa 700k over 65s in Ireland, not sure how many people we have with underlying conditions but its probably close to another 700K, doing nothing and letting it rip was not an option as once the hospitals got over run we would have seen a horrific death rate.

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

They are going to be about 30th in the world by christmas for deaths per million. The 29 above them took the hard lockdown approach.

Who is the success story?

You know well Frank that those Countries took the hard lockdown route when their infection numbers were already out of control.

Bit cynical

greyday wrote: »

At the start of the pandemic, I read somewhere that 20% of over 65s that got the virus died from it, we have circa 700k over 65s in Ireland, not sure how many people we have with underlying conditions but its probably close to another 700K, doing nothing and letting it rip was not an option as once the hospitals got over run we would have seen a horrific death rate.

20% seems very high.

Although not quite the same age, this article suggests that the IFR is 1.7% for people over 60.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-hundreds-of-times-more-deadly-for-people-over-60-than-people-under-40-145510

For people 60 or over, one in every 58 infections resulted in death, an IFR of 1.7%. For comparison, the IFR from influenza in the U.S. among people over 65 years is 0.8%. COVID-19 is approximately 2.5 times more deadly than the flu in this age group.

Risk drops off as age decreases. For middle-aged adults between 40 and 59 years old, the IFR was 0.12% – or one death for every 833 infections.

Bit cynical

greyday wrote: »

You know well Frank that those Countries took the hard lockdown route when their infection numbers were already out of control.

Not all of them. Some of the countries that are passing out Sweden now had very mild first waves due to early (but possibly unsustainable) lockdowns.

Others that did have difficult first waves did bring their rates right down but are now experiencing worse second waves despite this.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of how anybody feels they done, they have provided us with undeniable proof that lockdowns didn’t prevent some huge number of deaths.

well I thank sweet jaysus you are quite obviously not a qualified scientist, or engineer or anything/anyone involved with any sort of controlled experiments which can impact peoples safety!

gives me a good giggle all the same... I can at least thank you for that.

Countries cultures differ, even in the same country if 50% were instructed to wear masks and the others not you cannot compare them, they will act differently. It would need to be full on placebo tests or something along those lines (like having known ineffective masks which look identical), in the same country and make sure there was no way of knowing. This would be unethical of course.

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not all of them. Some of the countries that are passing out Sweden now had very mild first waves due to early (but possibly unsustainable) lockdowns.

Others that did have difficult first waves did bring their rates right down but are now experiencing worse second waves despite this.

To close down late once at the start was understandable, the second time was diabolical but they all had infection rates out of control before they locked down, lessons were not learned by some and complacency was common with others, look how Ireland has handled the second wave for the blueprint on suppressing the virus before it gets out of control, its a pity some saw sweden as a blueprint as the virus took hold in communities before they realsed their stupidity.

greyday

Bit cynical wrote: »

20% seems very high.

Although not quite the same age, this article suggests that the IFR is 1.7% for people over 60.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-hundreds-of-times-more-deadly-for-people-over-60-than-people-under-40-145510

For people 60 or over, one in every 58 infections resulted in death, an IFR of 1.7%. For comparison, the IFR from influenza in the U.S. among people over 65 years is 0.8%. COVID-19 is approximately 2.5 times more deadly than the flu in this age group.

Risk drops off as age decreases. For middle-aged adults between 40 and 59 years old, the IFR was 0.12% – or one death for every 833 infections.

I am talking about march to may when care was not as good as it is now, i will try to find article tomorrow......

FintanMcluskey

greyday wrote: »

To close down late once at the start was understandable, the second time was diabolical but they all had infection rates out of control before they locked down, lessons were not learned by some and complacency was common with others, look how Ireland has handled the second wave for the blueprint on suppressing the virus before it gets out of control, its a pity some saw sweden as a blueprint as the virus took hold in communities before they realsed their stupidity.

Ireland is a blueprint in nothing.

What’s happening in Ireland is what would be seen with or without restrictions when a virus that targets the elderly hits Europe’s youngest nation.

It’s nothing got to do with astute management by NPHET or otherwise.

daithi7

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's even less clear than that...
It's not clear that screenings e.g. for cancer continued in Sweden as normal - cancer screenings paused in Stockholm in spring.
e.g. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7467201 & https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7469079

In Ireland, I have read we may have 2000 undetected cases of cancer, that is not necessarily the same thing as 2000 deaths.

On the other side of the equation...
Crimes against the person dropped in Ireland by 50% during the first lockdown.
Deaths from flu may be significantly down this year.
etc etc

How much of the above do you assign to restrictions, and how much to 'the virus'?

Yup. And even more complicated again e.g.
- deaths with Covid are not the same as deaths because of Covid and recordings of deaths have yet to be standardised internationally

- restricted access to education is linked to behaviours that reduce people's quality of life e.g. the cancelling of the Leaving Cert in 2020 may end up costing people's lives more in the long run than anything else

- the "covid stone" is an anecdotal observation of a population's obesity epidemic which is directly linked to lockdown and may cause more hurt, harm & deaths long term than Covid ever could have done

Etc, etc, etc

So this restrictive behaviour thing is a complicated business.

As I say, the" book on Covid" cannot yet be written, and until it can be & is , everything is just conjecture tbh.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Wrong.

Without Sweden, many people might believe that lockdown prevented 100K deaths in Ireland and millions of deaths around the world.

It didn’t, and we have Swedes to thank for providing the proof.

You can criticise them all day long if you want and I couldn’t care less. That’s not my point.

If Sweden have provided proof that lockdown doesn`t save lives, then why are they using it now. ?

I have never believed Ireland and Sweden could be compared on a like for like basis but seeing as you brought it up. Per head of population Sweden has 75% more deaths than Ireland.
Worldwide there have been to date 1.56 million Covid-19 deaths. As the vast majority of countries worldwide used lockdown then on your Sweden "proof" had they not, that 1.56 million could well be 75% greater at 2.73 million.

Everybody knew from pretty early on that the modelling figures on deaths were inaccurate, but Sweden still used the same modelling principle for herd immunity. Their results were proportionally as far out from the first antibody tests yet they persisted with it still being achievable

Qiaonasen

Is this thread still going? God lads even Sweden has admitted it failed. They have closed schools, 99% ICU full in Stockholm. Tegnell has said he got Herd Immunity wrong. What are we even discussing?

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ireland is a blueprint in nothing.

What’s happening in Ireland is what would be seen with or without restrictions when a virus that targets the elderly hits Europe’s youngest nation.

It’s nothing got to do with astute management by NPHET or otherwise.

Don`t start this rubbish again Fintan about Sweden`s deaths being comparable to Ireland`s because they have a greater percentage aged 65 and over.
Their is no discernible difference between Sweden and the other Nordic countries in 65`s and over (one has an even higher percentage), and Sweden has multiples of their deaths.

Qiaonasen

Qiaonasen wrote: »

Is this thread still going? God lads even Sweden has admitted it failed. They have closed schools, 99% ICU full in Stockholm. Tegnell has said he got Herd Immunity wrong. What are we even discussing?

We are discussing the fact that they didn’t lockdown and still have only 7000 deaths.

It’s a bit strange considering the experts were predicting bodies would be piling up on the streets without lockdown.

Now some are saying they don’t have lots of deaths because they locked down... when they didn’t.

And some are saying they have loads of deaths because they didn’t lock down, which they don’t.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

If Sweden have provided proof that lockdown doesn`t save lives, then why are they using it now. ?

I have never believed Ireland and Sweden could be compared on a like for like basis but seeing as you brought it up. Per head of population Sweden has 75% more deaths than Ireland.
Worldwide there have been to date 1.56 million Covid-19 deaths. As the vast majority of countries worldwide used lockdown then on your Sweden "proof" had they not, that 1.56 million could well be 75% greater at 2.73 million.

Everybody knew from pretty early on that the modelling figures on deaths were inaccurate, but Sweden still used the same modelling principle for herd immunity. Their results were proportionally as far out from the first antibody tests yet they persisted with it still being achievable

I didn’t say it wouldn’t save any lives. Just that it doesn’t save many considering the costs associated.

Sweden have double our population. It’s reasonable to think their deaths would be at least twice ours. Maybe even more since we never really left lockdown.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn’t say it wouldn’t save any lives. Just that it doesn’t save many considering the costs associated.

Sweden have double our population. It’s reasonable to think their deaths would be at least twice ours. Maybe even more since we never really left lockdown.

Sweden when compared to Ireland on GDP and unemployment have fared no better, and their consumer spending when Denmark were in lockdown was not much better.



Sweden have 7,296 deaths, Ireland 2,097.
Sweden`s deaths are not twice our deaths. They are over three and a half times our deaths.
Per capita they have 75% more deaths than Ireland

MadYaker

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ireland is a blueprint in nothing.

What’s happening in Ireland is what would be seen with or without restrictions when a virus that targets the elderly hits Europe’s youngest nation.

It’s nothing got to do with astute management by NPHET or otherwise.

So much nonsense in one post. After all we have seen how you could possibly think this is true?

Viruses can’t target anything, Christ almighty.