Sweden avoiding lockdown

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

Finland is 2% higher than Sweden and Denmark the same, so proportionally the four Nordic countries are the same for those 65 and over.

I have always believed a comparison between Nordic countries is more apt than one between Ireland and the three Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Denmark.
Using your comparison of our deaths being 4 times higher as opposed to Sweden`s 7 times higher, then it`s not such a poor an advert for lockdown.
It`s 75% less deaths.

As I said before, because two countries are in the same region and use the same approach, it doesn't always follow they will have the same outcome. Even slight variances might throw things off.

To take one example - Stockholm is 400% more dense than Oslo. The economies of both countries appear to be vastly different - 62% of Norway's exports are from oil and gas, Sweden meanwhile depends more on manufacturing. Sweden is in the EU, Norway is not. Swedes despite their reputation for living along are more likely to work collaboratively while Norwegians tend to work alone when problem solving.

To be honest Charlie, we're both Irish people, sitting in our armchairs, trying to be experts on life in Scandanavia. Which is why I always set more store by what Swedish posters contribute on here.

tobefrank321

TonyMaloney wrote: »

He's clearly quite obstinate, but I think one thing I said might have got through to him the other day - why would your deaths suddenly start declining while you have steadily rising cases?

I could well be wrong, but I think I saw a chink of light. A flicker of understanding.

Tony, this thread is full of obstinate people. You are unlikely to change your opinion at this stage and neither am I.

I tend to stick to facts mostly, rather than opinion or vague notions that Sweden failed. A lot of nations failed and failed worse than Sweden. I'm sure even you accept that.

As I keep repeating - Sweden is mid table and certainly nowhere near the worst. They'll be about 30th in deaths/million by Christmas. Ireland will be about 40th and fortunately for Ireland they have nowhere near the number of elderly as Sweden.

tobefrank321

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Frank, your projections for where Sweden will finish in your favoured 'Deaths per Million' ranking chart are very unsound.

They're currently ranked 25th worst (including micro-states), but because of how Sweden reports deaths versus every other country - that ranking is essentially comparing every other country's death figures per million with Sweden's death stats as of two weeks ago. And it's been a bad fortnight or so in Sweden.
A conservative estimate would be that there's been another 1,000+ deaths as yet unreported.
If they reported in the same manner as every other country then they'd be in around 18th currently.

Added to this is that most of the countries with similar death tolls per million have experienced the peak of their second wave and deaths are on the decline. While in Sweden things are getting very much worse with no end in sight.

So all in all I can conclude with a lot of confidence that your projection is bogus and the opposite is far more likely to be true. Sweden will climb the table by Christmas, while still being more than 14 days out of date.

Please, bookmark this post. Set a reminder. I'll log in over Christmas and we can see who had a better handle on it all.

Tony, they appear to be reporting notified deaths the same as everyone else. According to a chart you linked to the other day, there is probably a mean delay in reporting deaths of about 7 days. Some are less, some are more than that, but the mean is about 7 days. It would be similar to here I'd imagine.

The difference is not when they report deaths, its how they add them on statistically. We don't go back to when the death occurs and add it to that day. The Swedes do.

As long as overall notified deaths are counted, that's the main thing.

I will bookmark it.

TonyMaloney

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Tony, this thread is full of obstinate people. You are unlikely to change your opinion at this stage and neither am I.

I tend to stick to facts mostly, rather than opinion or vague notions that Sweden failed. A lot of nations failed and failed worse than Sweden. I'm sure even you accept that.

As I keep repeating - Sweden is mid table and certainly nowhere near the worst. They'll be about 30th in deaths/million by Christmas. Ireland will be about 40th and fortunately for Ireland they have nowhere near the number of elderly as Sweden.

Frank, unless they find a cure for covid in the next week, it would be impossible for them to be in 30th by Christmas.
They already have loads more deaths just waiting to be reported on.

The current peak on November 24th has grown from 64 to 66 btw. As I said, incomplete data.
By all means keep basing your projections on incomplete data. I'll keep pointing out that it's crazy to do so.

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

For perspective, they only have 7000 deaths in a country of 10M. That’s less than 0.1% of their population.

Where is your limit? At one percent? Five?
How many dead before you think "hang on, that's too many dead people for a country that size.."

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

Using your comparison of our deaths being 4 times higher as opposed to Sweden`s 7 times higher, then it`s not such a poor an advert for lockdown.
It`s 75% less deaths.

Charlie - Ireland's deaths are per capita 4 times higher than the other 3 Scandanavia countries combined.

Ireland has 50% less elderly per capita than the other 3 countries combined.

Ireland proportionally has had 6 times more deaths of its elderly than the other 3 nations combined.


This is a disease of the elderly.

The point is we did sh*t.

Anyone who at this stage holds up our lockdown as a model of success is having a laugh.

And the race isn't even run - we are opening up for christmas. How do you think that will end.

So lets remove Ireland from the list of nations who were a "success".

That leaves only Norway, Finland and Denmark in Northern Europe who were a success. And 2 of those 3 are the most remote on the continent of Europe. Norway has one border to close. Finlands border with Sweden is in the far north and its other border is with Russia.

Sweden meanwhile is in the EU where closures of borders was not even considered by most countries early on in and if it happened it was for a short while that made NO DIFFERENCE.

tobefrank321

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Frank, unless they find a cure for covid in the next week, it would be impossible for them to be in 30th by Christmas.
They already have loads more deaths just waiting to be reported on.

The current peak on November 24th has grown from 64 to 66 btw. As I said, incomplete data.
By all means keep basing your projections on incomplete data. I'll keep pointing out that it's crazy to do so.

You're alleging that Sweden are holding back the reporting of deaths.

This happens in every country. Its called a delay in notification. We do it here. It allows Doctors to examine and come to a conclusion as to the cause of death.

In Ireland today, there might have actually been 10 deaths, but only 0 notified. Last Thursday, there might have been 5 deaths that particular day. We'll never know, because Ireland does not provide the stats for the day a person died or if they do, its not reported widely on the news for example. It may be possible to find it somewhere though.

Sweden on the otherhand has stats for the day a person died. We do not.

So the only stat you can reliably compare the two countries on is overall deaths.

biko

tobefrank321 wrote: »

So lets remove Ireland from the list of nations who were a "success".

That leaves only Norway, Finland and Denmark in Northern Europe who were a success.

I doubt you'll find anyone in this thread or forum that have disagreed with this ever.

tobefrank321

biko wrote: »

Where is your limit? At one percent? Five?
How many dead before you think "hang on, that's too many dead people for a country that size.."

1%?

No country will come close to 1% by the time this is done.

The worst countries are currently at 0.15%.

The US is still a bit off 0.1%.

Even if Sweden added 100 deaths a day for the next 100 days, they'd be at 0.17%

greyday

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You're alleging that Sweden are holding back the reporting of deaths.

This happens in every country. Its called a delay in notification. We do it here. It allows Doctors to examine and come to a conclusion as to the cause of death.

In Ireland today, there might have actually been 10 deaths, but only 0 notified. Last Thursday, there might have been 5 deaths that particular day. We'll never know, because Ireland does not provide the stats for the day a person died or if they do, its not reported widely on the news for example. It may be possible to find it somewhere though.

Sweden on the otherhand has stats for the day a person died. We do not.

So the only stat you can reliably compare the two countries on is overall deaths.

Compare Sweden with Ireland for the last 6 weeks, its not hard to see which approach has been a success, most Countries failed first time around but Ireland are standing out at present as being bang on target second time around, don't for a second think because Ireland opens up for Christmas that our numbers will be worse than other Countries, they too will be opening up and their infection and death rates will also rise, the difference is we will be doing it from a low base while most others will be doing it from a far higher base, we have stuck to the roadmap of lowering infections as much as possible before opening up again, others have not and will suffer far far worse than Ireland come january.

odyssey06

tobefrank321 wrote: »

That leaves only Norway, Finland and Denmark in Northern Europe who were a success. And 2 of those 3 are the most remote on the continent of Europe. Norway has one border to close. Finlands border with Sweden is in the far north and its other border is with Russia.

Sweden meanwhile is in the EU where closures of borders was not even considered by most countries early on in and if it happened it was for a short while that made NO DIFFERENCE.

Not sure what you mean by "Sweden meanwhile is in the EU"?
Denmark and Finland are in the EU.
And Denmark has a land border with Germany.

TonyMaloney

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You're alleging that Sweden are holding back the reporting of deaths.

This happens in every country. Its called a delay in notification. We do it here. It allows Doctors to examine and come to a conclusion as to the cause of death.

In Ireland today, there might have actually been 10 deaths, but only 0 notified. Last Thursday, there might have been 5 deaths that particular day. We'll never know, because Ireland does not provide the stats for the day a person died or if they do, its not reported widely on the news for example. It may be possible to find it somewhere though.

Sweden on the otherhand has stats for the day a person died.

I'm not alleging anything. I'm telling you what Sweden themselves tell us they do.
And yes by definition this means that Sweden are holding back on the reporting of deaths. Of course their stated intent is not to deceive, but to put out less alarming and more accurate data (it is very accurate beyond 14+ days).

NPHET acts within WHO guidance for the notification of deaths and cases.
Essentially for deaths, they gather a 24 hour tally from all relevant hospitals and homes and release the figure on a daily basis.
This leads to loads of inaccuracies from a historical perspective, but gives a decent picture of recent growth.
The HPSC put out charts subsequently using the Swedish method. You can find them here.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/

Sweden on the other hand do not put out how many deaths they've been notified of. Instead they only put out stats based on the actual date of death. Liaising with hospitals and homes to determine this (and other things) is time consuming, and as a result there is a lag. This lag grows when there are a lot of deaths simply because the volume of work grows for those gathering the data. Currently the lag is greater than 14 days and growing.

Sweden isn't doing anything that most if not all other countries are doing. It's that they're NOT doing something that all other countries are doing.

As for their intent with all this, well I'm a little suspicious but don't have any proof so will keep it to myself.
But, if any of this is sinking in, I'm sure you of all people can agree that the method they're employing is at best very confusing.

tobefrank321

odyssey06 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "Sweden meanwhile is in the EU"?
Denmark and Finland are in the EU.
And Denmark has a land border with Germany.

A small land border!
One difference between Sweden and Norway I think I was referring to.
Finland is in the EU, but its a pretty remote country.
Its only land border with the EU is Sweden in the far north and it does have a border with Norway up in Lapland!

TonyMaloney

odyssey06 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "Sweden meanwhile is in the EU"?
Denmark and Finland are in the EU.
And Denmark has a land border with Germany.

And Norway's in the schengen area and single-market.

biko

tobefrank321 wrote: »

1%?

No country will come close to 1% by the time this is done.

The worst countries are currently at 0.15%.

The US is still a bit off 0.1%.

Even if Sweden added 100 deaths a day for the next 100 days, they'd be at 0.17%

I'll pose a similar Q to you as I did to jacdaniel2014.
At what number will you say Sweden's strategy has failed miserably and their leadership must step down?
Will I jot you down for 10.000? One million?

tobefrank321

TonyMaloney wrote: »

I'm not alleging anything. I'm telling you what Sweden themselves tell us they do.
And yes by definition this means that Sweden are holding back on the reporting of deaths. Of course their stated intent is not to deceive, but to put out less alarming and more accurate data (it is very accurate beyond 14+ days).

NPHET acts within WHO guidance for the notification of deaths and cases.
Essentially for deaths, they gather a 24 hour tally from all relevant hospitals and homes and release the figure on a daily basis.
This leads to loads of inaccuracies from a historical perspective, but gives a decent picture of recent growth.
The HPSC put out charts subsequently using the Swedish method. You can find them here.
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/

Sweden on the other hand do not put out how many deaths they've been notified of. Instead they only put out stats based on the actual date of death. Liaising with hospitals and homes to determine this (and other things) is time consuming, and as a result there is a lag. This lag grows when there are a lot of deaths simply because the volume of work grows for those gathering the data. Currently the lag is greater than 14 days and growing.

Sweden isn't doing anything that most if not all other countries are doing. It's that they're NOT doing something that all other countries are doing.

As for their intent with all this, well I'm a little suspicious but don't have any proof so will keep it to myself.
But, if any of this is sinking in, I'm sure you of all people can agree that the method they're employing is at best very confusing.

I don't think that's true. They reported 58 deaths today. Now of course they will start allocating them to the days they happened which means today or more likely yesterday there was 21 deaths and the other deaths will be added for other days.

I agree it can be confusing and takes getting used to. The Swedes have taken an unorthodox approach to this pandemic.

Personally comparing stats from Sweden and lets say Ireland is a bit like applies and oranges. The main think I look at for Sweden these days is overall deaths.

biko

biko wrote: »

Where is your limit? At one percent? Five?
How many dead before you think "hang on, that's too many dead people for a country that size.."

I’m not some kind of God, I don’t get to decide how many die of a respiratory illness or not.

For what we are told is a once in a lifetime global pandemic and a deadly disease, I would say 7000 deaths is very low for a 10M population.

Especially considering their elderly population.

biko

My prediction - Sweden will reach 10.000 dead before their close neighbour Norway will reach 1000.

tobefrank321

biko wrote: »

I'll pose a similar Q to you as I did to jacdaniel2014.
At what number will you say Sweden's strategy has failed miserably and their leadership must step down?
Will I jot you down for 10.000? One million?

There you go again, making leaps from 10,000 to one million.

We both know one million isn't going to happen.
We both know 100,000 isn't going to happen.
We both know vaccine rollout is likely to start in January in Sweden and the most vulnerable will be vaccinated by May at the latest.
Someone said there's a prediction for 20,000 by April. That might happen without mitigation.
Its likely they will reach about 9000 by years end and probably 12-15,000 by the time this is done.
They will still be very much mid table.
So regards, your question, WHEN they reach 20,000 or WHEN they enter the top ten in the world for deaths per million thats when they should step down. They are a long way off both currently.

Where else have prime ministers or health chiefs stepped down by the way as a result of this? I think in NZ a health minister was fired?

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m not some kind of God, I don’t get to decide how many die of a respiratory illness or not.

I'm just asking where your breaking point is. How many dead before you stop defending Sweden's strategy?
I can't get a straight answer out of Frank but maybe you will have a limit.

tobefrank321

biko wrote: »

My prediction - Sweden will reach 10.000 dead before their close neighbour Norway will reach 1000.

That's great for Norway if it happens.

Just to add, 1000 in Norway is the equivalent of 2000 in Sweden.

tobefrank321

biko wrote: »

I'm just asking where your breaking point is. How many dead before you stop defending Sweden's strategy?
I can't get a straight answer out of Frank but maybe you will have a limit.

You got your answer.

biko

biko wrote: »

I'm just asking where your breaking point is. How many dead before you stop defending Sweden's strategy?
I can't get a straight answer out of Frank but maybe you will have a limit.

I haven’t defended Sweden’s strategy. I don’t know enough about the various circumstances to comment.

I only pointed out that Sweden have proved that strict lockdown doesn’t prevent large scale deaths.

Sweden didn’t lockdown and their death toll is not too bad.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m not some kind of God, I don’t get to decide how many die of a respiratory illness or not.
.

Anders Tegnell did

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Anders Tegnell did

He decided how many died? How many did he pick in the end?

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

He decided how many died? How many did he pick in the end?

its hasnt ended yet obviously....

but you could start at a pro rata level of deaths over swedens closest neighbours to figure out how many extra died because of the actions he pushed.

TonyMaloney

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I don't think that's true. They reported 58 deaths today. Now of course they will start allocating them to the days they happened which means today or more likely yesterday there was 21 deaths and the other deaths will be added for other days.

I agree it can be confusing and takes getting used to. The Swedes have taken an unorthodox approach to this pandemic.

Personally comparing stats from Sweden and lets say Ireland is a bit like applies and oranges. The main think I look at for Sweden these days is overall deaths.

The "main thing" is not overall deaths because their figure is over two weeks out of date, and it's been a very bad two weeks.

biko

Remember when Sweden's top epidemiologists said the virus wouldn't come to Sweden?
Good times.

TonyMaloney

tobefrank321 wrote: »

There you go again, making leaps from 10,000 to one million.

We both know one million isn't going to happen.
We both know 100,000 isn't going to happen.
We both know vaccine rollout is likely to start in January in Sweden and the most vulnerable will be vaccinated by May at the latest.
Someone said there's a prediction for 20,000 by April. That might happen without mitigation.
Its likely they will reach about 9000 by years end and probably 12-15,000 by the time this is done.
They will still be very much mid table.
So regards, your question, WHEN they reach 20,000 or WHEN they enter the top ten in the world for deaths per million thats when they should step down. They are a long way off both currently.

Where else have prime ministers or health chiefs stepped down by the way as a result of this? I think in NZ a health minister was fired?

Sorry, I'm not picking on you, but actually their covid vaccination program is in considerable doubt because the Swedes are a nation of vaccine-phopes.

The reason they are that way is because back in 2009 Tegnell rushed a swine-flu vaccine which used a booster that was banned in the US and UK. This resulted in over 500 children getting narcolepsy.

In a recent survey only 46% of Swedes said they'd take a vaccine. And god knows how long it will take to get to all those that are willing. They'll be from a multitude of different categories in terms of vaccine priority.

tobefrank321

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven’t defended Sweden’s strategy. I don’t know enough about the various circumstances to comment.

I only pointed out that Sweden have proved that strict lockdown doesn’t prevent large scale deaths.

Sweden didn’t lockdown and their death toll is not too bad.

Mid table at the moment. Some people would have you believe its the worst in the world! Its not the best, its not the worst, very much mid table. To the consternation of many who assured us Sweden would be the worst.