Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Again, no reflection on the consequences of lockdown as a strategy.

If you're going to advocate a strategy you have to be prepared to take ownership of the consequences of it, whether that be suicides, cancers, or worse.

Again, the fact that you can only address this issue by making derogatory remarks like above says everything about you. You can allege conspiracy theories about Swedish officials manipulating figures all day, but no a solitary sentence about impending disaster caused by the strategy you endorse.

These are real people dying because the world chose lockdown as an overarching strategy rather than as a tactic along with hygiene and social distancing.

Lockdown as a strategy has failed miserably all over the world form USA to Peru to Argentina, France, Spain etc.

It is a strategy which will eventually cause far more deaths than it saves. The fact that children dying is an unfortunate debating statistic for you is your problem.

If am octogenarian dies in Sweden you're poor auld heart is broken. 100,000 kids in Africa not so much.

The Swedes chose a set of tactics that have yielded pretty much the exact same results as most of Europe. Nothing wrong with that.

If you think it's all the Tories fault, try this.

https://www.concern.net/donate/hunger-pandemic-appeal

You appear to have some idea that posters who were opposed to Sweden`s lockdown strategy should now defend lockdown when the last hold-out in Europe is now using lockdown.


That on its own was bizarre enough, without you throwing in a proposal by the British governments Department for International Development where the prior holder of the portfolio, Priti Patel, believed Ireland should be starved into submission as a legitimate argument against lockdown.

charlie14

bb1234567 wrote: »

Total deaths in Sweden have increased a lot lately, it was looking to be just a bit higher than a normal year a few weeks ago but now looks like it will be significantly higher than all other years of the last decade. Looks like Sweden will end the year with at least 95,000 deaths vs 10 year average of 90,500.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

About a 5% increase on normal year, it's quite a jump but to be fair it's a lot better than for example the UK or Spain which will see deaths in 2020 at least 12-15% higher than the last ten year average.

Average daily deaths in Sweden before Covid-19 were 250 a day, so that figure will not be far off imo.


What would be more telling as too the effects of Covid-19 on excess deaths, is the overall figure on a years basis from when each country had its first Covid-19 death.
All we will see from that statista model will only cover around 9 months.
Statista also do a weekly deaths graph for Sweden which could be used to calculate that, but I`m not sure if they do it for all countries.

Stormyteacup

charlie14 wrote: »

Average daily deaths in Sweden before Covid-19 were 250 a day, so that figure will not be far off imo.


What would be more telling as too the effects of Covid-19 on excess deaths, is the overall figure on a years basis from when each country had its first Covid-19 death.
All we will see from that statista model will only cover around 9 months.
Statista also do a weekly deaths graph for Sweden which could be used to calculate that, but I`m not sure if they do it for all countries.

The overall figures from 12 months of first death in any country is of no use save to compare countries with each other. Granted it will be revealing - still won’t see Sweden at the top. With vaccine rollout due to begin at different times the data will be muddied by start time of rollout and number of doses received and administered.

Like it or not a certain number of people are expected to die each year and the only useful method for comparison is on past years all-cause mortality or an average of past years.

pjohnson

charlie14 wrote: »

Am I missing something here, or have I stumbled into a Twilight Zone version of Boards.ie .


Are we really talking about a hard right Tory government proposal to suspend international aid, using lockdown as an excuse, that recently doled out billions to Northern Ireland unionist to buy their vote on Brexit, on a thread titled Sweden avoiding lockdown, with Irish posters where Ireland has not even suggested doing the same ?

It seems that they have completely ran out of excuses for the original failed Swedish policy so are now resorting to this tactic.

Its well known there was no starvation or poverty until lockdown started :pac:

pjohnson

pjohnson wrote: »

It seems that they have completely ran out of excuses for the original failed Swedish policy so are now resorting to this tactic.

Its well known there was no starvation or poverty until lockdown started :pac:

Ah sure people have always starved... what’s another 100000? They have poor quality lives anyways, right?

OMG! There is a respiratory illness killing mainly very sick elderly people. They have poor quality health. We need to do everything in our power to stop this

Loafing Oaf

Deleted User wrote: »

OMG! There is a respiratory illness killing mainly very sick elderly people. They have poor quality health. We need to do everything in our power to stop this

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

100K kids told they are going to starve to death. That’s ok though, they’d have had a poor quality life in our opinions anyways.

sheepysheep

sheepysheep wrote: »

Enjoy your schadenfreude reading about the poor and the starving caused by lockdown.

How does enjoying a bit of a schadenfreude at head-in-the-sand evidence-denying posters = enjoying schadenfreude in any other way?

Not Covid. Lockdown.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/25/uk-foreign-aid-budget-cut-chancellor-announces

For those who can't or won't or just plain refuse to accept the devestating cost of lockdown, a cash strapped UK has cut overseas aid by 5 billion.

How is that relevant to either Ireland or Sweden?

Andrew Mitchell, a former Conservative international development secretary, said the aid cuts “will be the cause of 100,000 preventable deaths, mainly among children."

Still irrelevant

By way of comparison, Ireland spends $151 per capita or .94 billion in $
The granny destroying Swedes chime in at $701 per capita or 5.4 billion in $

This is irrelevant too but regardless, Ireland has an outsized foreign aid NGO sector.
Total personal contributions to charities in Ireland (domestic & foreign oriented) = €350m. For Sweden, €150mil. Ireland's charities (again, domestic & foreign oriented) recorded an income of €14,500m last year.
Our direct foreign aid is lower because our government chooses to funnel a lot of it through NGOs.

Bearing in mind that if the 5 billion UK cuts equates to the above stated 100k deaths of mainly children, then Irelands 46 billion spend on lockdown over the next 2 years would equate to a saving of 900k childrens lives.

Still irrelevant.

Why is saving children's lives from hunger, disease, malnutrition and starvation deemed less desireable than delaying deaths of people in their 80's who are dying of old age, lying in nursing home beds, bed-bound, minds gone from dementia, oblivious to their loved ones and surroundings? It is a complete inversion of the everyday moral code we all live by that children come first.

Still irrelevant.

This is a new and weird twist in the ''anti-restriction' brigade.

P.S. I've never argued for a stringent-countrywide lockdown. Quite the opposite.

Wow, 100k children’s deaths considered “irrelevant “ by those that deem themselves to be supporters of saving lives...

Pathetic.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, 100k children’s deaths considered “irrelevant “ by those that deem themselves to be supporters of saving lives...

Pathetic.

Britain's foreign aid is clearly irrelevant to a thread looking at Sweden's response to the coronavirus.


The only thing pathetic is that the Irish education system has failed to such an extent that it's let people like you and the others infesting this thread slip through the cracks.

You deserved better from the system, but we deserve better as a society than you.

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow, 100k children’s deaths considered “irrelevant “ by those that deem themselves to be supporters of saving lives...

Pathetic.

Maybe you need a new thread about how lockdown alone has created poverty?

Banana Republic 1

frillyleaf wrote: »

Does Sweden have the right approach to this and how is their healthcare system being able to manage Covid19 cases?

What are the differences between Sweden and Ireland and why can’t we continue similar to how Sweden is managing Covid19?

I’m not suggesting either is right or wrong. I would just like to know how Sweden can continue as normal and other countries can’t. Thanks 😊

Maybe you don’t keep up with the news but Sweden is in a right mess at the moment.

Stormyteacup

Deleted User wrote: »

Britain's foreign aid is clearly irrelevant to a thread looking at Sweden's response to the coronavirus.


The only thing pathetic is that the Irish education system has failed to such an extent that it's let people like you and the others infesting this thread slip through the cracks.

You deserved better from the system, but we deserve better as a society than you.

It may be an extreme example but it is showcasing the tunnel vision for only things Covid this year.

The response to Covid may have been proportionate if we genuinely could have expected deaths as predicted in March. There’s a strong case to be made from observing Sweden that we could have managed this with fewer restrictions and far less damage economically and socially. This was evident with the revised down CFR since May, and with early data collected on vulnerable settings.

We have 9,000 die of cancer per year - throw billions at mRNA research for effective cancer treatments and see how many lives are saved. I get people are proud of saving lives just by taking some basic precautions - it’s directly evident from daily figures. Satisfying to see results in a short space of time from collective action. But some perspective is badly needed.

Stormyteacup

Stormyteacup wrote: »

It may be an extreme example but it is showcasing the tunnel vision for only things Covid this year.

It isn't doing any such thing.

The response to Covid may have been proportionate if we genuinely could have expected deaths as predicted in March. There’s a strong case to be made from observing Sweden that we could have managed this with fewer restrictions and far less damage economically and socially. This was evident with the revised down CFR since May, and with early data collected on vulnerable settings.

The evidence suggests that Sweden's economy suffered almost as badly as its peers that went with initial heavy restrictions. You're also putting forward the counterfactual that anyone in this thread is suggesting that the correct way to have dealt with the coronavirus is an unlimited restriction (both in scope, and in time).

We have 9,000 die of cancer per year - throw billions at mRNA research for effective cancer treatments and see how many lives are saved. I get people are proud of saving lives just by taking some basic precautions - it’s directly evident from daily figures. Satisfying to see results in a short space of time from collective action. But some perspective is badly needed.

You haven't actually suggested what we need perspective on?

This is a thread about a narrow topic and you're wading in and saying "Why isn't anyone talking about things that are clearly outside the scope of this thread?" as if it's somehow evidence as to the viewpoints and opinions of people who have had long-running issues with Sweden's approach. I have a lot of issues with Ireland's approach to the coronavirus, but it's not relevant to a thread specifically about Sweden's approach. How could it be?

What is relevant to this thread is that Sweden still advises against mask-wearing.

charlie14

Stormyteacup wrote: »

The overall figures from 12 months of first death in any country is of no use save to compare countries with each other. Granted it will be revealing - still won’t see Sweden at the top. With vaccine rollout due to begin at different times the data will be muddied by start time of rollout and number of doses received and administered.

Like it or not a certain number of people are expected to die each year and the only useful method for comparison is on past years all-cause mortality or an average of past years.

Practically all European countries did not have their first Covid-19 death until March. When using a comparison on all-cause mortality a baseline of the average death for a 5 or even 10 years is used to determine excess mortality.
Using a January to December mortality figure this year will not show an all- cause figure. It will only include at most 10 months for those that passed due to Covid-19.

Other than perhaps Britain who have begun vaccinations, I do not see where it will necessarily skew mortality rates to any great degree to use from March 2020- March 2021 figures for at least the rest of Europe, as I cannot see vaccinations elsewhere prior to until March 2021 unfortunately having any degree of lowering deaths from Covid-19 before that time.

TonyMaloney

Unintended consequences of a deeply stupid plan. I'm increasingly of the view that Sweden needs to go into a strict lockdown soon or face a disaster.

"A survey by broadcaster TV4 showed that in 13 of Sweden’s 21 regions, resignations in the health-care profession are now up from a year ago, at as many as 500 a month."

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-12-12/swedish-covid-workers-are-quitting-leaving-icus-short-staffed?__twitter_impression=true

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Britain's foreign aid is clearly irrelevant to a thread looking at Sweden's response to the coronavirus.


The only thing pathetic is that the Irish education system has failed to such an extent that it's let people like you and the others infesting this thread slip through the cracks.

You deserved better from the system, but we deserve better as a society than you.

Not at all.
If you are going to claim that lockdown is the correct approach, is it not fair to consider the thousands of kids that will die as a result of counties cutting funding?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all.
If you are going to claim that lockdown is the correct approach, is it not fair to consider the thousands of kids that will die as a result of counties cutting funding?

What other country has cut funding other than Britain, who less than a month ago announced an additional military spend of 16.5bn Sterling on top of an already budget spend of 41.5bn Sterling ?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

What other country has cut funding other than Britain, who less than a month ago announced an additional military spend of 16.5bn Sterling on top of an already budget spend of 41.5bn Sterling ?

Well, one of the main arguments against lockdown has been the cost and economic destruction. The bill for this is going to be huge.

And how will we pay it? Likely through increased revenue (more taxes) and spending cuts.

The UK is just one example of how thousands of children will potentially die as a result of huge spending cuts.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg really. What do you think happens when you have large youth unemployment and no funding for resources such as community centres, football pitches etc... things don’t end well. Crime, depression, addiction, suicide etc.

Lots of you are very quick to look at Sweden and criticise them because they have some more deaths per million than other countries.

But It seems like nobody is willing to look into the very real damage that lockdowns are going to cause for many years to come.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, one of the main arguments against lockdown has been the cost and economic destruction. The bill for this is going to be huge.

And how will we pay it? Likely through increased revenue (more taxes) and spending cuts.

The UK is just one example of how thousands of children will potentially die as a result of huge spending cuts.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg really. What do you think happens when you have large youth unemployment and no funding for resources such as community centres, football pitches etc... things don’t end well. Crime, depression, addiction, suicide etc.

Lots of you are very quick to look at Sweden and criticise them because they have some more deaths per million than other countries.

But It seems like nobody is willing to look into the very real damage that lockdowns are going to cause for many years to come.

Your point was that due to the expense of lockdown Britain was proposing to cut international aid.
The fact that Britain just added another 16.5 Billion Sterling too an already 41.5 Billion Sterling military spending budget makes a nonsense of that.

Lots of us criticise some in Sweden not just for not using lockdown, but also for using no lockdown as a means to pursue an immoral herd immunity experiment on their own population. And lie while they were doing it.
In the end those people had to be dragged and screaming by their own regional authorities to abandon their no lockdown strategy, yet you and a few others appear to believe we should all follow the failed no lockdown approach that Sweden has abandoned.


Like Britain`s supposed shortage of cash because of lockdown, it`s another load of nonsense.

charlie14

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Unintended consequences of a deeply stupid plan. I'm increasingly of the view that Sweden needs to go into a strict lockdown soon or face a disaster.

"A survey by broadcaster TV4 showed that in 13 of Sweden’s 21 regions, resignations in the health-care profession are now up from a year ago, at as many as 500 a month."

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-12-12/swedish-covid-workers-are-quitting-leaving-icus-short-staffed?__twitter_impression=true

I do not know if it is related, but two days ago a report by Sveriges Radio found that the regions of Jonkoping, Stockholm and Ostergotland have been forced to cut down on testing asymptomatic staff who share a household with a Covid-19 patient due to a lack of testing capacity.


Camilla Johansson head of elderly care in Jonkoping said this could be a problem because " we know that you can be infected without feeling a single symptom"
With elderly care could be is over optimistic imo


I see the Swedish authorities are appealing to private health care providers for staff which will help if they get them, but as to what that number could be I have no idea. Far as I know around 10% of Swedes have private health insurance as opposed to nearly 50% here, but hopefully there will be enough private health care staff released to make a difference.

biko

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tegnelled

tegnelled
Lying to others in a particularly confident and shameless manner.
I told you all the death toll was 60 a day but I was actually 90 all along.
And you believed me. I tegnelled you so bad.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

It takes a special kind of person to pontificate about their desire to protect 85+ year olds who are in poor health while at the same time admitting you couldn’t give a toss about kids starving to death.
Their countries are full of suffering so what do we do?
F*ck it, let them starve. At least it’s not us.
A disgraceful attitude that sums up most of the pro restrictions crowd I’ve spoken to. I’m working from home and still getting a full salary so screw anyone that’s lost their job/business or that needs our help such as starving children.

What a post of absolute bankrupt - moral and intellectual - whataboutery .

Donated money to a charity which cared for old people in Ireland?
Paid for a medicine to ease your discomfort of a non fatal illness?
What an utterly morally bankrupt degenerate you are.

That money could have saved the life of some fictonal child in the Third World that you didn't give two hoots about until you could reference them in some outburst of fictional moral outrage on a boards.ie thread.

All spending on over 85s (sure why 85s, why not 80s, or 70s ???) in Ireland must cease with immediate effect. All funding should go to our foreign aid budget to fund palaces for Third World dictators (or shiny new tanks for their enforcers) instead.
You read it here first.

If we let one OAP die in Ireland, we could save 10 cute kids somewhere in Africa you've never heard of.

Apparently, we're not allowed to spend money to protect our own anymore.

All because Sweden adopted a failed strategy for covid.

Stormyteacup

odyssey06 wrote: »

What a post of absolute bankrupt - moral and intellectual - whataboutery .

Donated money to a charity which cared for old people in Ireland?
Paid for a medicine to ease your discomfort of a non fatal illness?
What an utterly morally bankrupt degenerate you are.

That money could have saved the life of some fictonal child in the Third World that you didn't give two hoots about until you could reference them in some outburst of fictional moral outrage on a boards.ie thread.

All spending on over 85s (sure why 85s, why not 80s, or 70s ???) in Ireland must cease with immediate effect. All funding should go to our foreign aid budget to fund palaces for Third World dictators (or shiny new tanks for their enforcers) instead.
You read it here first.

If we let one OAP die in Ireland, we could save 10 cute kids somewhere in Africa you've never heard of.

Apparently, we're not allowed to spend money to protect our own anymore.

All because Sweden adopted a failed strategy for covid.

We’ll have spent about 30 billion to save at most 5,000 lives when we could have spent a quarter of that if measures had been targeted properly. I can’t be the only one thinking that’s madness.

charlie14

Stormyteacup wrote: »

We’ll have spent about 30 billion to save at most 5,000 lives when we could have spent a quarter of that if measures had been targeted properly. I can’t be the only one thinking that’s madness.

Average yearly deaths in Ireland are 31,000. Saving 5,000 is quite an achievement I would have thought.

It cost 64 billion to bail out Irish banks and that didn`t save a single life.

odyssey06

Stormyteacup wrote: »

We’ll have spent about 30 billion to save at most 5,000 lives when we could have spent a quarter of that if measures had been targeted properly. I can’t be the only one thinking that’s madness.

Could our spending have been more targeted?
Probably.
Had we entered lockdown (or shut down foreign travel) a week earlier how many lives could we have saved?

If we hadn't entered lockdown in first wave, and our ICU was overwhelmed, our extra deaths would be more than 5000.

And in the context of this thread, how much did Sweden spend?
20 billion euros?
https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-finance/central-government-budget/economic-measures-in-2020-in-response-to-covid-19/

greyday

The lads are willing to sacrifice our elderly but not willing to sacrifice themselves to get the ball rolling, ye are very brave to take the decision to allow our elderly die when they are of no more use to you, big brave lads.

bb1234567

https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1337899269219446784

I know it's kind of obvious now with the resurgence in COVID cases but the very low flu activity in Sweden just reinforces that there is/was a lot of social distancing occuring that led to low COVID cases before and not because of higher immunity than other european countries

charlie14

bb1234567 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1337899269219446784

I know it's kind of obvious now with the resurgence in COVID cases but the very low flu activity in Sweden just reinforces that there is/was a lot of social distancing occuring that led to low COVID cases before and not because of higher immunity than other european countries

It was pretty obvious end of June from the results of Spain`s large scale antibody tests, that Sweden had no higher immunity levels than anywhere else.

Thats me

I think the deaths/million map telling itself (image):

(article) - west and east neighbours of Sweden are showed in much lighter colours than even Ireland. Something obvoiously wrong with this country in between.