Sweden avoiding lockdown

is_that_so

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.

Unpreparedness causes large scale deaths. They didn't lock down care homes and that went badly for them, by their own admission. It's really not been enough of an unqualified success for any other country to have a go at it as a strategy.

tobefrank321

is_that_so wrote: »

Unpreparedness causes large scale deaths. They didn't lock down care homes and that went badly for them, by their own admission. It's really not been enough of an unqualified success for any other country to have a go at it as a strategy.

One of the reasons I got involved in this thread (not sure why I should have bothered) was posts like this and others that try to single out Sweden for doing one thing or another when we and almost every other european country did exactly the same.

In Ireland and the UK, coronavirus infected patients were sent from hospitals to care homes without covid tests. It very likely happened in most other european countries.

This needs to be remembered.

Your post like many here is finger pointing from one country who did dismally with care homes at another.

You should remind yourself of the facts before you finger point in future.

62% of Irelands deaths came in care homes. Less than 50% of Swedens.

Ireland finger pointing at Sweden re care homes.

You couldn't make it up. At this stage this thread should be renamed to "Ireland finger pointing at Sweden"

tobefrank321

sydthebeat wrote: »

Anders Tegnell did

FFS. It gets worse.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

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.

Drop those goalposts before you do yourself an injury.
It is not a fair comparison between Sweden and it`s Nordic neighbours yet now it is fine when it is between Ireland and Sweden`s Nordic neighbours.

As you have said yourself Frank, you cannot have it both ways.

On deaths of those 65 and over, with Ireland`s 65`s and over being 14% of the population compared to Sweden at 20%, when Swedish deaths were 42% greater than Ireland`s a case could have been made that it was due to the percentage difference in 65`s and over.
With Swedish deaths per capita now 75% greater that is just not feasible.

is_that_so

tobefrank321 wrote: »

One of the reasons I got involved in this thread (not sure why I should have bothered) was posts like this and others that try to single out Sweden for doing one thing or another when we and almost every other european country did exactly the same.

In Ireland and the UK, coronavirus infected patients were sent from hospitals to care homes without covid tests. It very likely happened in most other european countries.

This needs to be remembered.

Your post like many here is finger pointing from one country who did dismally with care homes at another.

You should remind yourself of the facts before you finger point in future.

62% of Irelands deaths came in care homes. Less than 50% of Swedens.

Ireland finger pointing at Sweden re care homes.

You couldn't make it up. At this stage this thread should be renamed to "Ireland finger pointing at Sweden"

Eh, I didn't point a finger, Tegnell said it himself!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717

Do you even read posts you decide to pick on?

sydthebeat

It would be so funny to point out that the swedes themselves have admitted they made the wrong move with regard to covid, yet you still have posters on here who will argue tooth and nail that theirs was the correct path.

It would be funny, but it's not, because that decision by Sweden directly led to unnecessary deaths.

tobefrank321

So much for the rest of Scandinavia doing well.

Today Norway reported 21 deaths, their highest ever daily total.

Denmark reported 3132 cases, their highest ever daily cases and 14 deaths.

Finland reported 840 cases, their highest ever number of daily cases and 9 deaths.

FintanMcluskey

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?

Schadenfreude is a disgusting trait.

FintanMcluskey

tobefrank321 wrote: »

So much for the rest of Scandinavia doing well.

Today Norway reported 21 deaths, their highest ever daily total.

Denmark reported 3132 cases, their highest ever daily cases and 14 deaths.

Finland reported 840 cases, their highest ever number of daily cases and 9 deaths.

It really appears seasonal and restrictions seem futile

FintanMcluskey

is_that_so wrote: »

Unpreparedness causes large scale deaths. They didn't lock down care homes and that went badly for them, by their own admission. It's really not been enough of an unqualified success for any other country to have a go at it as a strategy.

You could be talking about Ireland or Sweden here

kippy

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It really appears seasonal and restrictions seem futile

Despite much evidence to suggest otherwise.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

Despite much evidence to suggest otherwise.

Sweden didn’t lockdown or have heavy restrictions. Ireland had the longest restrictions in Europe.

Look at the graphs for both countries. Very similar peaks etc.

How did Sweden get cases down without lockdown or heavy restrictions?

There is plenty of evidence that this is peaking at the same time everywhere regardless of restrictions.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

One of the reasons I got involved in this thread (not sure why I should have bothered) was posts like this and others that try to single out Sweden for doing one thing or another when we and almost every other european country did exactly the same.

In Ireland and the UK, coronavirus infected patients were sent from hospitals to care homes without covid tests. It very likely happened in most other european countries.

This needs to be remembered.

Your post like many here is finger pointing from one country who did dismally with care homes at another.

You should remind yourself of the facts before you finger point in future.

62% of Irelands deaths came in care homes. Less than 50% of Swedens.

Ireland finger pointing at Sweden re care homes.

You couldn't make it up. At this stage this thread should be renamed to "Ireland finger pointing at Sweden"

I know of nobody that has claimed Ireland did well with nursing homes.
Based on your figures care homes in Ireland had 1,312 deaths (62% of 2,117) compared to Sweden`s 3,672 (50% of 7354).

When you factor in the difference in population and Sweden`s 20% of 65`s and over compared to Ireland`s 14%, the equivalent figure for Ireland would be 3,748.
Unless my maths are out, very little difference in care home deaths.

Problem for Sweden is the remaining 3,672 deaths compared to the remaining 805 Ireland deaths other than care homes.
Allowing for population size that means, unless my maths are incorrect, that other than care homes, Sweden`s deaths in the general population are 220% greater than those of Ireland.

If that is correct, then there is no question as to where that finger should be pointing.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden didn’t lockdown or have heavy restrictions. Ireland had the longest restrictions in Europe.

Look at the graphs for both countries. Very similar peaks etc.

How did Sweden get cases down without lockdown or heavy restrictions?

There is plenty of evidence that this is peaking at the same time everywhere regardless of restrictions.

I have asked this before, but perhaps you missed it.
If lockdowns are such a failure, then why are Sweden using it now?

They are even working on legislation that would legally allow them to introduce harsher restrictions than the can at present.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

I have asked this before, but perhaps you missed it.
If lockdowns are such a failure, then why are Sweden using it now?

They are even working on legislation that would legally allow them to introduce harsher restrictions than the can at present.

Well there are vaccines now. I assume that was a factor in their decision making. And it’s easy to point the finger at them now. But the reality is, if vaccines had of taken longer, we’d all have been forced to move to their approach as finances collapsed.

I do believe that lockdowns have helped with Covid. But I don’t believe it’s to the extent that people think or anywhere close. And they are extremely costly and destructive.

Following Covid, hopefully more scientific research is done to find better solutions and see what actually worked.

biko

Nurse at the nursing home:
Suspected infected received palliative care without covid test

https://www.dn.se/sverige/sjukskoterska-pa-aldreboendet-misstankt-smittade-fick-palliativ-vard-utan-covidtest/

One patient per ward was tested. If they were positive then any patients in the same ward with a cough or cold was given palliative care without a test.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Well there are vaccines now. I assume that was a factor in their decision making. And it’s easy to point the finger at them now. But the reality is, if vaccines had of taken longer, we’d all have been forced to move to their approach as finances collapsed.

I do believe that lockdowns have helped with Covid. But I don’t believe it’s to the extent that people think or anywhere close. And they are extremely costly and destructive.

Following Covid, hopefully more scientific research is done to find better solutions and see what actually worked.

That really doesn`t explain the change from going from no lockdown to using lockdown.
Especially if no lockdown up until recently was supposedly so successful, why change for such a short period of time seeing as Sweden with help from a backdoor deal will be among the first in Europe to begin vaccinations.
That just does not make sense.

Could it not have a lot to do with the Swedish Public Health Authority no lockdown strategy, that some here were so mad keen on, not having the same appeal for regional authorities in Sweden with rising numbers as soon as they had the authority to do something about it ?
Early October Tegnell was saying sail on we are all on the same page. A few days later Uppsala introduced a local lockdown quickly followed by the other regional authorities.

What you think on lockdown does not stand up when the comparison is made with the Nordic countries that used it from the beginning, and the one that did not.
In GDP and employment Sweden did no better than Ireland, and in consumer spending no better than Denmark.

bb1234567

kippy wrote: »

Despite much evidence to suggest otherwise.

There is conflicting evidence. As you probably know I've been quite supportive of restrictions but the fact that cases peaked in about a dozen mid western US states recently at almost the exact same time regardless of any resictions in place is hard to disregard. And some places like chicago had a lot of restrictions nd 99% mask usership, still peaked same time

greyday

bb1234567 wrote: »

There is conflicting evidence. As you probably know I've been quite supportive of restrictions but the fact that cases peaked in about a dozen mid western US states recently at almost the exact same time regardless of any resictions in place is hard to disregard. And some places like chicago had a lot of restrictions nd 99% mask usership, still peaked same time

Did the seasons suddenly change in these states at the same time or did behavioural change kick in?
Most of Europe are suffering badly because they allowed infections to get too high before locking down while we are getting away lightly this time by closing down just in time, the politicians didn't want to be the first to lockdown at the time but are happily taking credit now for acting early.

odyssey06

bb1234567 wrote: »

There is conflicting evidence. As you probably know I've been quite supportive of restrictions but the fact that cases peaked in about a dozen mid western US states recently at almost the exact same time regardless of any resictions in place is hard to disregard. And some places like chicago had a lot of restrictions nd 99% mask usership, still peaked same time

Is that post Thanksgiving?
I think our second peak was seeded in the August holidays.

The restrictions are about the height the peak is allowed to get to, and flattening it when it does.

JimmyVik

charlie14 wrote: »

That really doesn`t explain the change from going from no lockdown to using lockdown.
Especially if no lockdown up until recently was supposedly so successful, why change for such a short period of time seeing as Sweden with help from a backdoor deal will be among the first in Europe to begin vaccinations.
That just does not make sense.

Could it not have a lot to do with the Swedish Public Health Authority no lockdown strategy, that some here were so mad keen on, not having the same appeal for regional authorities in Sweden with rising numbers as soon as they had the authority to do something about it ?
Early October Tegnell was saying sail on we are all on the same page. A few days later Uppsala introduced a local lockdown quickly followed by the other regional authorities.

What you think on lockdown does not stand up when the comparison is made with the Nordic countries that used it from the beginning, and the one that did not.
In GDP and employment Sweden did no better than Ireland, and in consumer spending no better than Denmark.

Sweden resisted as long as they could.
Until they could no longer justify their original strategy.

They have now seen that their original strategy was a mistake.
Everyone n the world (including the Swedes) can see now. They have said this. Its just one or two in this thread who cant seem to grasp it now.
This thread serves no purpose anymore tbh.
You just have Frank arguing for arguments sake, wasting everyones time, trying to convince him he is wrong, when he will never be convinced. Its like arguing with a flat earther.

Just leave the thread to him and let him on.

ArthurDayne

JimmyVik wrote: »

Sweden resisted as long as they could.
Until they could no longer justify their original strategy.

They have now seen that their original strategy was a mistake.
Everyone n the world (including the Swedes) can see now. They have said this. Its just one or two in this thread who cant seem to grasp it now.
This thread serves no purpose anymore tbh.
You just have Frank arguing for arguments sake, wasting everyones time, trying to convince him he is wrong, when he will never be convinced. Its like arguing with a flat earther.

Just leave the thread to him and let him on.

At least the flat earthers are consistent on what they believe, as wild as it is.

All I see on this thread are people who have utterly rewritten the narrative on what lockdown was supposed to avoid, and are therefore claiming victory on the most simplistic of premises : “lockdown meant more lives saved in the other Nordic countries versus Sweden so therefore the debate is over”. Adding into that now is the apparent the belief that, for some reason, Sweden “avoiding” lockdown means that Sweden believes that lockdowns and restrictions can never be justified ever. So any ramping up of measures is a great “ah ha!” moment for an argument that has been extracted from one’s rectum. It is of no more value than claiming that Ireland opening up for December means that it has abandoned lockdown.

I also see people making morally puritanical arguments on the sanctity of life, and how preventing the loss of life justifies the most severe of restrictions. Not a single person among them will be making similar arguments in respiratory illness season next year, they will have dug the goalposts up again and moved them back to their original position : that lockdown wasn’t about a zero sum competiton of who could save the most lives, it was intended as a proportionate response to very specific fears of extremely high thresholds of death that would also debilitate the health service for a sustained period.

But yes Tony, leave us to it. I look forward to seeing your thread next year calling for lockdowns in Ireland during the cold months to save lives. Or is it that lockdown is a most extreme measure intended as a weapon against the most extreme of risks, and to be used only in the most extreme dire need? Where are your goalposts today?

tobefrank321

JimmyVik wrote: »

Sweden resisted as long as they could.
Until they could no longer justify their original strategy.

They have now seen that their original strategy was a mistake.
Everyone n the world (including the Swedes) can see now. They have said this. Its just one or two in this thread who cant seem to grasp it now.
This thread serves no purpose anymore tbh.
You just have Frank arguing for arguments sake, wasting everyones time, trying to convince him he is wrong, when he will never be convinced. Its like arguing with a flat earther.

Just leave the thread to him and let him on.

Take a look at worldometer. In every important category, Sweden is mid table.

Total deaths - 31st
Number in ICU - 45th
Deaths per million - 25th

The ICU one is a particular standout. They have 252 in ICU.
Germany have 4339 in ICU
Italy 3300
France 3960
Romania 1288
Belgium 657
Hungary 610
Austria 572


All those countries are LOCKDOWN countries.

I'll ask you, Charlie and all the other pro hard lockdown supporters once more - are the lockdown countries I've listed success stories?

tobefrank321

ArthurDayne wrote: »

At least the flat earthers are consistent on what they believe, as wild as it is.

All I see on this thread are people who have utterly rewritten the narrative on what lockdown was supposed to avoid, and are therefore claiming victory on the most simplistic of premises : “lockdown meant more lives saved in the other Nordic countries versus Sweden so therefore the debate is over”. Adding into that now is the apparent the belief that, for some reason, Sweden “avoiding” lockdown means that Sweden believes that lockdowns and restrictions can never be justified ever. So any ramping up of measures is a great “ah ha!” moment for an argument that has been extracted from one’s rectum. It is of no more value than claiming that Ireland opening up for December means that it has abandoned lockdown.

I also see people making morally puritanical arguments on the sanctity of life, and how preventing the loss of life justifies the most severe of restrictions. Not a single person among them will be making similar arguments in respiratory illness season next year, they will have dug the goalposts up again and moved them back to their original position : that lockdown wasn’t about a zero sum competiton of who could save the most lives, it was intended as a proportionate response to very specific fears of extremely high thresholds of death that would also debilitate the health service for a sustained period.

But yes Tony, leave us to it. I look forward to seeing your thread next year calling for lockdowns in Ireland during the cold months to save lives. Or is it that lockdown is a most extreme measure intended as a weapon against the most extreme of risks, and to be used only in the most extreme dire need? Where are your goalposts today?

Its hard to get across to people why unsustainable lockdowns don't always work. For them to acknowledge that would require a large amount of independent thinking as well as an analysis of the data. Lockdowns have only been a success in some countries who at the same time have tightly controlled their borders for the whole of this - NZ, Australia, China, Taiwan etc

For everyone else, the numbers just bounce back once you lift lockdown and usually worse than ever.

The fact Sweden is mid table demonstrates that countries who did far better than them in the Spring such as Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Switzerland, etc bounced back and will probably end up far worse than them.

TonyMaloney

ArthurDayne wrote: »

At least the flat earthers are consistent on what they believe, as wild as it is.

All I see on this thread are people who have utterly rewritten the narrative on what lockdown was supposed to avoid, and are therefore claiming victory on the most simplistic of premises : “lockdown meant more lives saved in the other Nordic countries versus Sweden so therefore the debate is over”. Adding into that now is the apparent the belief that, for some reason, Sweden “avoiding” lockdown means that Sweden believes that lockdowns and restrictions can never be justified ever. So any ramping up of measures is a great “ah ha!” moment for an argument that has been extracted from one’s rectum. It is of no more value than claiming that Ireland opening up for December means that it has abandoned lockdown.

I also see people making morally puritanical arguments on the sanctity of life, and how preventing the loss of life justifies the most severe of restrictions. Not a single person among them will be making similar arguments in respiratory illness season next year, they will have dug the goalposts up again and moved them back to their original position : that lockdown wasn’t about a zero sum competiton of who could save the most lives, it was intended as a proportionate response to very specific fears of extremely high thresholds of death that would also debilitate the health service for a sustained period.

But yes Tony, leave us to it. I look forward to seeing your thread next year calling for lockdowns in Ireland during the cold months to save lives. Or is it that lockdown is a most extreme measure intended as a weapon against the most extreme of risks, and to be used only in the most extreme dire need? Where are your goalposts today?

Pardon?

I'd be delighted to see our public health figures recommend mask wearing in Autumn/Winter in public spaces to help combat more regular respiratory infections. I hope they're more vocal in asking us to stay home if we're sick etc.

And of course if there's another deadly epidemic I'd want to see restrictions applied in order to save lives. Doesn't necessarily require a "lockdown".
I'd like to think the post-covid generation can use what we've learned in the pandemic to improve society generally. Could be wrong. You'd no doubt see public health advice as assault on your civil liberties.

You keep repeating the same stuff so you must really feel you're onto something and it's just not getting through to us. I understand what you're saying. I just think that it's a hollow fallacy.

You're pointing at a country in the grip of a once in a generation emergency and saying "we should have done what they've done".

TonyMaloney

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The fact Sweden is mid table demonstrates that countries who did far better than them in the Spring such as Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Switzerland, etc bounced back and will probably end up far worse than them.

Frank, I can handle to you being obstinate. I'll get through eventually.

But these constant groundless projections of yours are just bloody lazy.
Do a bit of research before posting this stuff. Please. So I don't have to.

ArthurDayne

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Pardon?

I'd be delighted to see our public health figures recommend mask wearing in Autumn/Winter in public spaces to help combat more regular respiratory infections. I hope they're more vocal in asking us to stay home if we're sick etc.

And of course if there's another deadly epidemic I'd want to see restrictions applied in order to save lives. Doesn't necessarily require a "lockdown".
I'd like to think the post-covid generation can use what we've learned in the pandemic to improve society generally. Could be wrong. You'd no doubt see public health advice as assault on your civil liberties.

You keep repeating the same stuff so you must really feel you're onto something and it's just not getting through to us. I understand what you're saying. I just think that it's a hollow fallacy.

You're pointing at a country in the grip of a once in a generation emergency and saying "we should have done what they've done".

Well yes, it’s easy to call something a fallacy when you tiptoe around addressing it rather than actually addressing it. You have not answered my question — you have instead just given an answer to a question you wish you had been asked, because it allows you to keep sounding like your views are sustainable and consistent. Oh, and yes, it also allows you to keep calling peoples’ arguments fallacies and declaring the debate to be over.

I have asked you, quite simply, whether you will advocate a lockdown next winter (regardless of whether there is any epidemic) to save lives from respiratory illness in the colder months? Such a measure across Europe would probably save many many thousands of lives, right?

So let’s say that Ireland does not take such a measure next year, and let’s say that Sweden does. It would be fairly inevitable that, in the course of the winter, it is likely that Sweden would save a lot more lives from respiratory illness (and perhaps even more from the lesser strain on the health services). So would you therefore say that Ireland would have been better off locking down, or would you agree that lockdowns are not about an outright zero sum numerical issue of saving lives but about preventing cataclysmic loss of life and overwhelmed health services — even if it meant a lot more dead people per capita in Ireland than Sweden next year?

If I am repeating myself, which I no doubt am, it would appear to be only because of a now very distinct hesitance on the part of some people on here to acknowledge how the justification for lockdown has changed from one thing to another thing entirely.

greyday

https://www.thelocal.se/20201211/sweden-to-send-mass-text-banging-home-christmas-covid-rules

Rules should not be seen as voluntary............

tobefrank321

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Frank, I can handle to you being obstinate. I'll get through eventually.

But these constant groundless projections of yours are just bloody lazy.
Do a bit of research before posting this stuff. Please. So I don't have to.

As you can see Sweden are at a later stage, no mystery there. More importantly their increase in cases is much lower. Again no mystery. They are slightly ahead currently but nowhere near where some of the others were. From that graph, Czechia were almost 30 times more cases than Sweden back in mid October. I think you'll agree Swedens increase is much more gradual.

To me Sweden's graph looks sustainable, the others do not.

I think you keep missing the point. Lockdown countries may or may not get numbers down. When they do that, they will open up again and we start the cycle all over again, except it will be more steep spikes.

Think of it like a bicycle race. One group breaks away and is away all day but run out of steam at the end. Then come the main group and the race is won by someone from the main group.

So far we're about 3/4s way through the race. Lets see who comes where at the end.

tobefrank321

greyday wrote: »

https://www.thelocal.se/20201211/sweden-to-send-mass-text-banging-home-christmas-covid-rules

Rules should not be seen as voluntary............

Are there penalties for rule breaks?