Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

Widdensushi wrote: »

The vaccine

If that was the case then why did they not do it much earlier ?


22nd. August they announced they would have 18 million doses of the vaccine early 2021.

kippy

tobefrank321 wrote: »

We're comparing strategies. Lockdown has been held up on this thread as the best strategy in almost every case. That has proven to be false. I can and have given dozens of countries who tried the opposite approach to Sweden and ended in absymal failure, ending in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Germany was held up as a great success story. They've had an average of 675 deaths a day for the last week, 20,000 deaths since the start of November, 5000 in icu, 886 deaths yesterday with 31,000 cases, 944 the day before.
Slovenia, Poland, Switzerland, Hungary all followed lockdown approach but its ending in failure and they are on course for a much worse outcome than Sweden. Lockdown does not in the majority of cases give the longterm success people think it does. Now its possible had all these failed countries followed the Swedish approach their deaths would be similar to today. This is exactly the point the Swedes made, that following lockdown was in most cases unlikely to make a difference to deaths.

How do you determine restrictions to be a failure?

Wolf359f

tobefrank321 wrote: »

We're comparing strategies. Lockdown has been held up on this thread as the best strategy in almost every case. That has proven to be false. I can and have given dozens of countries who tried the opposite approach to Sweden and ended in absymal failure, ending in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Germany was held up as a great success story. They've had an average of 675 deaths a day for the last week, 20,000 deaths since the start of November, 5000 in icu, 886 deaths yesterday with 31,000 cases, 944 the day before.
Slovenia, Poland, Switzerland, Hungary all followed lockdown approach but its ending in failure and they are on course for a much worse outcome than Sweden. Lockdown does not in the majority of cases give the longterm success people think it does. Now its possible had all these failed countries followed the Swedish approach their deaths would be similar to today. This is exactly the point the Swedes made, that following lockdown was in most cases unlikely to make a difference to deaths.

If that's true, you're actually saying all those countries who locked down would have had less deaths if they didn't lockdown and if Sweden had locked down they would have had more deaths?

greyday

You have to take Frank with a pinch of salt, his argument falls down on practically everything he puts forward to support his position.
He likes to compare Sweden with Countries that locked down too late or opened too early to show how doing nothing but make suggestions to the population works great, Swedens politicians have come out and said they are doing the same as the rest of Europe and have been since the start when it became obvious their strategy of not suppressing the virus was not working, I am sure people noticed how Swedens closest neighbours were not fair comparisons to Sweden until Denmark starting going downhill and then all of a sudden to Frank it was a fair comparison, that's how disingenuous his whole argument is.
I am sure Frank will start a movement to support those responsible when the official report is published in 2022.

Stormyteacup

charlie14 wrote: »

If that was the case then why did they not do it much earlier ?


22nd. August they announced they would have 18 million doses of the vaccine early 2021.

Why would they have needed to in August?

Like just about every other country they pulled the trigger when their health system began to be threatened.

Think of the lives we would have saved here if we kept everyone within 2k of their homes. Each time we relaxed those extreme restrictions it was because our health system was deemed able to cope.

Vaccine arrival also changes things somewhat, as predicted lives lost are quantifiable in a way they weren’t at the beginning.

charlie14

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Why would they have needed to in August?

Like just about every other country they pulled the trigger when their health system began to be threatened.

Think of the lives we would have saved here if we kept everyone within 2k of their homes. Each time we relaxed those extreme restrictions it was because our health system was deemed able to cope.



Vaccine arrival also changes things somewhat, as predicted lives lost are quantifiable in a way they weren’t at the beginning.

I do not get how some appear to believe the change of policy on lockdown had anything to do with vaccines, when even the Swedish authorities are not claiming that.

Are you not just avoiding the point that all the championing of some on Sweden`s Public Health Authority strategy was based on the Swedish premise that it was so superior too every other countries approach that lockdown was a useless blunt tool ?
Prominent members of that authority were still touring Europe and giving interviews internationally preaching the same not long before Sweden started using lockdown themselves.

The positive news on vaccines had nothing to do with the about face on the Public Health Authority strategy.
That was due to the regional authorities from the 1st. October having the power to make their own decisions on how to deal with the pandemic.


In October Tegnell was saying everyone was in agreement with the strategy and announcing the opening of care homes to visitors and the increase of those allowed at public gatherings. The regional authorities recognising that with rising numbers a strategy that originally was supposed to result in herd immunity within a few months, and when that didn`t pan out was then supposedly to give high levels of immunity for a second wave, was a total failure.


Uppsala was the first to announce a local lockdown, which when quickly followed by the other regions, left the government no options but to sideline the Public Health Authority strategy and follow the wishes of the regional authorities on lockdown.


It had nothing to do with vaccines. It was a recognition that the Public Health Authority strategy was a failure

mcsean2163

charlie14 wrote: »

If that was the case then why did they not do it much earlier ?


22nd. August they announced they would have 18 million doses of the vaccine early 2021.

Something that might work versus something passed by the EU as safe and effective are very different things.

charlie14

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Something that might work versus something passed by the EU as safe and effective are very different things.

I think we may be at cross purposes.
I was not asking why the did not start vaccinations sooner.

I was asking the poster if Sweden using lockdown was due to them knowing in August they would have 18 million doses early next year, then why did they not use lockdown sooner than they did.

mcsean2163

charlie14 wrote: »

I think we may be at cross purposes.
I was not asking why the did not start vaccinations sooner.

I was asking the poster if Sweden using lockdown was due to them knowing in August they would have 18 million doses early next year, then why did they not use lockdown sooner than they did.

Apologies, I thought I was clear, the doses in August were hypothetical, I was unknown whether they would work. Now that Sweden know they will work it's easier to contemplate lock down as the vaccine allows a defined exit.

charlie14

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Apologies, I thought I was clear, the doses in August were hypothetical, I was unknown whether they would work. Now that Sweden know they will work it's easier to contemplate lock down as the vaccine allows a defined exit.

No[problem.
As I said, (and why) in my recent post 7719 Sweden now using lockdown has nothing to do with vaccines.
In fact, far as I know, even they haven`t claimed it has.

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

I do not get how some appear to believe the change of policy on lockdown had anything to do with vaccines, when even the Swedish authorities are not claiming that.

I think the reasoning might be that lockdowns are good short term solutions but not good long term solutions. If it were the case that the earliest vaccine shots were five years away then it would not be in the best interest of any country to keep everyone in harsh lockdown until that time since lockdowns in themselves are damaging and the longer they go on the more damaging.

If, on the other hand, we knew that a vaccine would be available in quantity next month, then it would make sense to impose a very short term limited lockdown since the damaging effects would not have much time to manifest.

The difference is that in the second scenario there is an exit strategy.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the reasoning might be that lockdowns are good short term solutions but not good long term solutions. If it were the case that the earliest vaccine shots were five years away then it would not be in the best interest of any country to keep everyone in harsh lockdown until that time since lockdowns in themselves are damaging and the longer they go on the more damaging.

If, on the other hand, we knew that a vaccine would be available in quantity next month, then it would make sense to impose a very short term limited lockdown since the damaging effects would not have much time to manifest.

The difference is that in the second scenario there is an exit strategy.

But that is not what the Swedish government or their Public Health Authority did.

They were well aware that the were likely to be one of the few countries in the world, through their relationship with AstraZeneca plus being part of the EU multi vaccines deal, to have enough doses to vaccinate their entire population earlier than most.

While regional authorities were calling for lockdown, Tegnell was still saying everyone agreed with his strategy and was even announcing public gatherings would be increased to 500, had relaxed restrictions on care home visits and was telling the aged and vulnerable there was no longer any need for them to isolate. Tegnell and the Public Health Authority rather than admitting what was obvious to the regional authorities - that the strategy had failed - were too pigheaded and proud to do so.

Lockdown came about in Sweden for no other reason than the local authorities imposing their own local lockdowns which forced the government`s hand to support them and thus sideline Tegnell.

It had nothing to do with vaccines. Neither the local authorities or the Government said it did. It was simply the local authorities seeing from the rising numbers that Tegnell`s predictions on large scale immunity due to the first wave, were the same BS as Tegnell and Giesecke`s predictions on herd immunity.

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

It had nothing to do with vaccines. Neither the local authorities or the Government said it did. It was simply the local authorities seeing from the rising numbers that Tegnell`s predictions on large scale immunity due to the first wave, were the same BS as Tegnell and Giesecke`s predictions on herd immunity.

However there's also the issue of sustainability and this is something Tegnell had talked about. There's no point in implementing a harsh lockdown early on in the pandemic if you can't sustain it. When you are forced to lift the lockdown cases start to increase once again possibly at an increased rate due to public backlash. Plus there's increased resistance to the re imposition of restrictions later on and as time goes on people find ways around the measures rendering them less effective.

On the other hand, with the vaccine in sight, a sprint finish may be a viable option. The danger, of course, is that there may be delays or other problems with vaccine rollout and the Swedes may not be able to sustain restrictions, but this is the opposite problem to that normally raised by critics.

kippy

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there's also the issue of sustainability and this is something Tegnell had talked about. There's no point in implementing a harsh lockdown early on in the pandemic if you can't sustain it. When you are forced to lift the lockdown cases start to increase once again possibly at an increased rate due to public backlash. Plus there's increased resistance to the re imposition of restrictions later on and as time goes on people find ways around the measures rendering them less effective.

On the other hand, with the vaccine in sight, a sprint finish may be a viable option. The danger, of course, is that there may be delays or other problems with vaccine rollout and the Swedes may not be able to sustain restrictions, but this is the opposite problem to that normally raised by critics.

Early on in this a set of rigid restrictions was the safest thing to do... You are dealing with a virus that, at the time, very little was known about. Indeed, it is obvious that increased restrictions work so long as they are adhered to. They are the only option vaccine or no vaccine. But getting the balance right has been difficult.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there's also the issue of sustainability and this is something Tegnell had talked about. There's no point in implementing a harsh lockdown early on in the pandemic if you can't sustain it. When you are forced to lift the lockdown cases start to increase once again possibly at an increased rate due to public backlash. Plus there's increased resistance to the re imposition of restrictions later on and as time goes on people find ways around the measures rendering them less effective.

On the other hand, with the vaccine in sight, a sprint finish may be a viable option. The danger, of course, is that there may be delays or other problems with vaccine rollout and the Swedes may not be able to sustain restrictions, but this is the opposite problem to that normally raised by critics.

It`s unavoidable truths at this point that what Tegnell and Giesecke talked about turned out to be nothing other than bull manure.
Or that anyone in authority in Sweden has even suggested the change in policy had anything to do with vaccines.


With rising numbers Tegnell willfully choose to ignore his strategy had failed.
He attempted to stay the same course while doing further harm by lifting restrictions on care homes, increasing numbers for public gathering and telling the aged and vulnerable there was no need for them to isolate.

The local authorities saw it for the madness it was and started imposing their own local lockdowns forcing the government to back them and sideline Tegnell and his strategy.

SeaBreezes

https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1343535713699172354?s=19

josip

As few as one in 20 suspected coronavirus patients had physically seen a doctor. Several regions had issued guidelines ordering that no care home residents should receive hospital treatment for any illness or injury at all. Some doctors had recommended palliative care without even looking at patient records.

The above is from the Guardian article posted earlier.
It doesn't appear that the Swedes overlooked the care homes, it looks more like wilful neglect at an organisational level.
Did they take that approach to prevent their hospitals being overrun or was it just an application of normal protocols?

Someone was explaining to me back in May that some countries, including Ireland, are less likely that others to transfer deteriorating elderly from nursing homes to hospitals.
The doctors in the nursing homes make a decision if there's any point or not.
Does anyone know if that's the reality or just hearsay?

sydthebeat

SeaBreezes wrote: »

https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1343535713699172354?s=19

That, as they say, is that..... End of thread

greyday

https://www.thelocal.se/20201228/swedens-new-pandemic-law-could-come-into-force-in-two-weeks

Sweden is starting to look like a lockdown Country, pity they listened to Frank Tegnell at the start.

Yellow_Fern

Instead of deaths per a million there should be some sort of lost years count taking into account a covid death of a 20 year old is more lost time than a 80 year old. The metric should also take into account age structure of the population. Is there anything like this?

charlie14

SeaBreezes wrote: »

https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1343535713699172354?s=19

That is legislation they were saying would take as long as next Summer to have in place. Then it would be March before it would be possible. Now it seems the local authorities have put the heat to their feet.

If passed by parliament it will apply from the 10th. January.
It also appears to sideline the Public Health Authority even further in that it is up to the government or the local authorities to make the decisions on how it will be used.

GT89

greyday wrote: »

https://www.thelocal.se/20201228/swedens-new-pandemic-law-could-come-into-force-in-two-weeks

Sweden is starting to look like a lockdown Country, pity they listened to Frank Tegnell at the start.

Sweden do have rules to prevent covid and with the obivous omission of face masks they are not too different to here. There are limits on gatherings and households visits in Sweden, shops can limit access in to ensure social distancing, capacity limits on public transport, perspex partitions in shops etc. The only main difference with here is they don't close any businesses and they don't wear masks but there are still some restrictions and social distancing.

FintanMcluskey

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Instead of deaths per a million there should be some sort of lost years count taking into account a covid death of a 20 year old is more lost time than a 80 year old. The metric should also take into account age structure of the population. Is there anything like this?

Well it would certainly be worthwhile data to have.

Similarly, using deaths per 100k population as opposed to deaths per 100k over 65 can give misconceptions that countries with young populations have protected their citizens very well

tobefrank321

sydthebeat wrote: »

That, as they say, is that..... End of thread

Thread should have ended months ago! As soon as it was obvious Sweden would end up mid table. Why there isn't a thread about the 30 or so countries likely to end up worse is bizarre. I may have to start one to even things up.

FintanMcluskey

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Thread should have ended months ago! As soon as it was obvious Sweden would end up mid table. Why there isn't a thread about the 30 or so countries likely to end up worse is bizarre. I may have to start one to even things up.

Frank I can’t understand this.

Sweden’s approach should have been causation for citizens to die on the streets for a myriad of reasons.

Turns out Sweden aren’t even the worst country in Europe

But the Swedes get all the attention. Rather unusual

Perhaps lockdowns are a token gesture to combat an illness that discriminates against the elderly?

sydthebeat

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Thread should have ended months ago! As soon as it was obvious Sweden would end up mid table. Why there isn't a thread about the 30 or so countries likely to end up worse is bizarre. I may have to start one to even things up.

Well that was never ever what the thread was about, was it.

It was about sweden being different to most other countries by not enacting a lock down.

And now they are making laws to enforce a lockdown, so patently their early decisions failed....and their lassie faire approach actively inhibited their ability to encourage a lockdown when it was eventually needed.

In the fall out of all this Sweden will be viewed alongside the USA, Brazil etc in that they had the ability to do much, better but failed.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Frank I can’t understand this.

Sweden’s approach should have been causation for citizens to die on the streets for a myriad of reasons.

Turns out Sweden aren’t even the worst country in Europe

But the Swedes get all the attention. Rather unusual

Perhaps lockdowns are a token gesture to combat an illness that discriminates against the elderly?

Well Fintan if lockdown is a token, it`s a token that Sweden are now cashing in and no longer avoiding as per the title of this thread.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Thread should have ended months ago! As soon as it was obvious Sweden would end up mid table. Why there isn't a thread about the 30 or so countries likely to end up worse is bizarre. I may have to start one to even things up.

It probably should have ended ever further back when it was obvious the main plank of the strategy, herd immunity, had failed. Even then there were some still maintaining that come a second wave Sweden would have large numbers immune. Even though there was nothing from Sweden`s own antibody test results to even suggest it. So on it went.


I suppose in fairness the title of this thread is Sweden avoiding lockdown, not Sweden`s herd immunity strategy, but now that, (even for those that are attempting to ignore it with sidetracks), it can no longer be denied that Sweden are using lockdown, this thread really has ran its course.

JimmyVik

I remember Luke O'Neill being asked about Swedens strategy right at the start.
He said maybe Sweden are doing the right thing, we dont know yet (This was at the start of Irelands lockdown).

He put it like this.
Here comes a killer virus that we know swa about. But we know people are dying from it and it is very contagious.

Do we
a) Take a careful path and lockdown until at least we know enough about the virus to make an informed decision. Hopefully saving lives, if it does turn out to be a bad virus.

b) Throw caution to the wind and who dies, dies.

Bit cynical

JimmyVik wrote: »

I remember Luke O'Neill being asked about Swedens strategy right at the start.
He said maybe Sweden are doing the right thing, we dont know yet (This was at the start of Irelands lockdown).

He put it like this.
Here comes a killer virus that we know swa about. But we know people are dying from it and it is very contagious.

Do we
a) Take a careful path and lockdown until at least we know enough about the virus to make an informed decision. Hopefully saving lives, if it does turn out to be a bad virus.

b) Throw caution to the wind and who dies, dies.

Certainly the way it seemed at the start but I don't think we really knew back then how much the thing would drag on. There was a sense that if we shut down hard enough we could more or less eradicate the virus and we could get back to normal even though a vaccine might take a bit longer.

I think the other thing is that we thought the likes of Sweden would have far greater deaths than they ended up having.