Sweden avoiding lockdown

Vieira82

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Grow up FFS.

Actually... would you grow up FFS? your arguments have been absolutely ridiculous beating a dead horse for months on end. You're practically the only one still arguing about this for no reason at all. You went to the point at calling countries around Sweden non-existent but defending Sweden like a freakin' motherland that is the best country in the world.

It begs to ask you directly... WTF do you want? just argue for the sake of arguing?

Just make a stupid fuss out of nothing like an inane spoiled teenager? Either that or you are being paid to keep this bs going...

So... which one is it?

embraer170

biko wrote: »

Half of elderly that have died so far were not checked by a physician.
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/halften-undersoktes-inte-av-lakare-innan-de-dog/

How does that not get further challenged? You are sick and dying and do not even the chance to see a doctor. I find it absolutely appalling.

tobefrank321

embraer170 wrote: »

How does that not get further challenged? You are sick and dying and do not even the chance to see a doctor. I find it absolutely appalling.

This has happened in virtually every country. Doctors are hard pressed as it is. Its the unfortunate reality of covid 19.
There was a UK ICU expert on the BBC or SKY news yesterday. He said icu doctors have to make decisions on those most likely to survive and pallative care is for some who can't be saved. Its rare that someone over 70 ends up in icu.

Of course biko won't tell you any of this. He thinks palliative care for elderly covid patients only happens in Sweden.

Biko really needs to educate himself about other countries before commenting in future about these things. Everything he has accused Sweden of also happened here. People in glass houses and all that.

biko

It is ironic that Tegnell recently summed up the pandemic year with the word "hobby epidemiologists" when it is the myths that he and his authority have spread that have led to the unique catastrophic deaths that Sweden has,

Tegnell does not even qualify as a hobby epidemiologist

- Gunnar Steineck, senior professor of clinical cancer epidemiology.

https://www.gp.se/debatt/tegnell-kvalificerar-sig-inte-ens-som-hobbyepidemiolog-1.39302498

growleaves

Does anyone have info on Sweden's influenza and pneumonia deaths this winter compared to previous?

mcsean2163

https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/dont-be-too-quick-to-judge-swedens-covid19-policy

embraer170

tobefrank321 wrote: »

This has happened in virtually every country. Doctors are hard pressed as it is. Its the unfortunate reality of covid 19.
There was a UK ICU expert on the BBC or SKY news yesterday. He said icu doctors have to make decisions on those most likely to survive and pallative care is for some who can't be saved. Its rare that someone over 70 ends up in icu.

Of course biko won't tell you any of this. He thinks palliative care for elderly covid patients only happens in Sweden.

Biko really needs to educate himself about other countries before commenting in future about these things. Everything he has accused Sweden of also happened here. People in glass houses and all that.

I am fully aware of the the limited access to critical care for the elderly in the UK and Ireland (and have posted about it in other topics a few times).

The shocking thing in Sweden is that a great number of older people sick or dying in care homes were not even assessed by a doctor. We are not talking about hospitalisation or access to critical care such as ICU, but a simple medical assessment.

That is absolutely shocking whether or not you agree with the Swedish approach to COVID-19.

FintanMcluskey

embraer170 wrote: »

How does that not get further challenged? You are sick and dying and do not even the chance to see a doctor. I find it absolutely appalling.

Doesn’t that happen with elderly folk near end of life in care home settings during normal times?

embraer170

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Doesn’t that happen with elderly folk near end of life in care home settings during normal times?

I would expect at least an assessment by a qualified medical professional before pumping them with morphine to let them choke to death.

FintanMcluskey

embraer170 wrote: »

I would expect at least an assessment by a qualified medical professional before pumping them with morphine to let choke to death.

True.

Although that assessment is usually limited enough for residents in those settings

99nsr125

I don't think anyone is doing good anywhere, lockdown or not. The one thing we do know is sweden avoided the hysteria that swept the rest of the planet till October.

September comes and brings a new strain that can only be airborne or remain alive far longer once exhaled on hard surfaces et al. Despite my skepticism vaccines have been deployed although the efficacy data is still flakey.

The problem now is if a potent new strain only takes 6 months to develop and become dominant does the next strain render the vaccine useless putting us back at square one facing the original premise that we're fighting a losing battle and must take the Spanish Flu / Swedish approach of living with as best we can

biko

tobefrank321 wrote: »

This has happened in virtually every country. Doctors are hard pressed as it is. Its the unfortunate reality of covid 19.
There was a UK ICU expert on the BBC or SKY news yesterday. He said icu doctors have to make decisions on those most likely to survive and pallative care is for some who can't be saved. Its rare that someone over 70 ends up in icu.

Of course biko won't tell you any of this. He thinks palliative care for elderly covid patients only happens in Sweden.

Biko really needs to educate himself about other countries before commenting in future about these things. Everything he has accused Sweden of also happened here. People in glass houses and all that.

Shouldn't you be criticising Ireland for also doing the wrong thing instead of running defence for Sweden?

You have a long history in this thread to run damage control for Sweden, but at the end of the day the numbers show Sweden's strategy isn't working and have caused unnecessary suffering and deaths.
All the while their three neighbours are all doing pretty good.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is doing good anywhere, lockdown or not. The one thing we do know is sweden avoided the hysteria that swept the rest of the planet till October.

September comes and brings a new strain that can only be airborne or remain alive far longer once exhaled on hard surfaces et al. Despite my skepticism vaccines have been deployed although the efficacy data is still flakey.

The problem now is if a potent new strain only takes 6 months to develop and become dominant does the next strain render the vaccine useless putting us back at square one facing the original premise that we're fighting a losing battle and must take the Spanish Flu / Swedish approach of living with as best we can

I do not know where you got the data from that makes you believe vaccine efficacy is "flakey". The EMA did not question the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine when approving nor the FDA on Moderna`s as far as I know.


Neither have I seen any evidence this latest strain is resistant to those vaccines either.

These vaccines were developed using volunteers in countries that had high incidence of this virus. During that time there were numerous mutations, yet the final results showed no change in the efficacy.
Until there is scientific evidence to show otherwise, speculations of this strain being any different I would look at as unnecessary scaremongering.


There is no battle we can win with this virus without vaccines.
2005 estimations for Spanish flu are that it killed 50 million and only petered out because mutation weakened it. As infections increase there is nothing to even suggest this virus is weakening. If anything the complete opposite.
Neither is the Swedish approach of acquired immunity viable. You have only to look at their figures to see that

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

I do not know where you got the data from that makes you believe vaccine efficacy is "flakey". The EMA did not question the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine when approving nor the FDA on Moderna`s as far as I know.


Neither have I seen any evidence this latest strain is resistant to those vaccines either.

These vaccines were developed using volunteers in countries that had high incidence of this virus. During that time there were numerous mutations, yet the final results showed no change in the efficacy.
Until there is scientific evidence to show otherwise, speculations of this strain being any different I would look at as unnecessary scaremongering.


There is no battle we can win with this virus without vaccines.
2005 estimations for Spanish flu are that it killed 50 million and only petered out because mutation weakened it. As infections increase there is nothing to even suggest this virus is weakening. If anything the complete opposite.
Neither is the Swedish approach of acquired immunity viable. You have only to look at their figures to see that

I've looked at the data, the sample groups are too small and it was only tested on young healthy adults exactly the ones that don't need it, vulnerable groups were avoided. Also the EU has asked for more data.

I referenced future strains, so the point is concrete.

Scaremongering is what is currently being done, exactly what I'm opposed to. Sending the message everyone is going to die when the survival rate is ~99.7% is the very definition.

The Spanish flu ended through a mixture of herd immunity (Denmark a good example iirc) and *speculated* mutation not through vaccination, social distancing, masks or lockdowns.

greyday

99nsr125 wrote: »

I've looked at the data, the sample groups are too small and it was only tested on young healthy adults exactly the ones that don't need it, vulnerable groups were avoided. Also the EU has asked for more data.

I referenced future strains, so the point is concrete.

Scaremongering is what is currently being done, exactly what I'm opposed to. Sending the message everyone is going to die when the survival rate is ~99.7% is the very definition.

The Spanish flu ended through a mixture of herd immunity (Denmark a good example iirc) and *speculated* mutation not through vaccination, social distancing, masks or lockdowns.

Where exactly has anyone anywhere said everyone is going to die?
The papers you allegedly read, did you have your internal bias turned off when you read them or are you just making things up?
Thats for the Moderna vaccine, maybe you missed that when you researched its effectiveness.

“Preliminary analysis suggests a broadly consistent safety and efficacy profile across all evaluated subgroups,” the press release states. This means the vaccine appears to work equally well in all populations studied, including the elderly and ethnic minorities, and people with preexisting conditions such as diabetes and heart disease that make them particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19.

And you might point out why your assertion that the vaccine was tested on young healthy adults which is a blatant lie, The Pfizer vaccine FDA data is contained in the link below.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
At least when you try to scaremonger with lies you might try harder to make the lies believable.

99nsr125

greyday wrote: »

Where exactly has anyone anywhere said everyone is going to die?
The papers you allegedly read, did you have your internal bias turned off when you read them or are you just making things up?
Thats for the Moderna vaccine, maybe you missed that when you researched its effectiveness.

“Preliminary analysis suggests a broadly consistent safety and efficacy profile across all evaluated subgroups,” the press release states. This means the vaccine appears to work equally well in all populations studied, including the elderly and ethnic minorities, and people with preexisting conditions such as diabetes and heart disease that make them particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19.

And you might point out why your assertion that the vaccine was tested on young healthy adults which is a blatant lie, The Pfizer vaccine FDA data is contained in the link below.
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
At least when you try to scaremonger with lies you might try harder to make the lies believable.

Our own head of NPHET "Don't meet anyone who you don't want to die"

I read because of bias, "Suggests" is in itself bias, not empirical data.

Contrary to your own internal bias I have already read the fda paper. Even being harsh 80% of the participants were young / healthy / low risk group. If you correlate for risk and age it's 95% of participants.

The at risk group 75+ represents only 5% of the data and even then only in healthy individuals.

The elevated risk group 65 to 75 represents only 15% of data and again only in healthy individuals.

This exscript is very important.

"8.4. Unknown Risks/Data Gaps

Safety in certain subpopulations

There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in
subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals,
and *immunocompromised* individuals."


I've had to prepare empirical analysis and this would never be accepted as anywhere near acceptable in fact you would leave yourself open to ridicule. At best it's preliminary qualitive data to seek larger sample sizes.

biko

biko wrote: »

https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/lakare-portade-aldre-fran-sjukhusvard/
When the pandemic came, a head of department in Bjärred wrote a secret decision that elderly people living at home should not receive care in hospitals.
It concerns 180 people - and that many of them do not know about it.

This is the head of department that blocked 180 elderly from hospital care, Munira Al-Saadi.
Happy to let elderly Swedes die at home.

Munira Al-Saadi has now been found out to have charged for meetings where she blocked old people from hospital care.
The thing is, the meetings never took place and she has acquired thousands fraudulently.
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2021-01-02/lakaren-tog-betalt-for-att-porta-patienter-fran-sjukhusvard

embraer170

biko wrote: »

Munira Al-Saadi has now been found out to have charged for meetings where she blocked old people from hospital care.
The thing is, the meetings never took place and she has acquired thousands fraudulently.
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2021-01-02/lakaren-tog-betalt-for-att-porta-patienter-fran-sjukhusvard

The full story is behind a paywall unfortunately.

biko

Yes, they keep the juiciest bits away from us freeloaders

This is what can be gleaned without an account

The doctor charged for blocking patients from hospital care
The co-owner of Sundet's medical group, Munira Al-Saadi, charged for blocking patients from hospital care.
In a single day, her health center received over one hundred thousand kronor from Region Skåne for meetings that the doctor claimed she had with patients and relatives.

- It is absolutely not possible that she had those meetings, says Rebecka Skalin Christén, manager of the nursing home Lyckliga gatan in Kävlinge.

When the pandemic came, doctor Munira Al-Saadi wrote secret decisions that many elderly people should not be treated in hospitals. This applies, among other things, to people who have home health care in Bjärred.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

I've looked at the data, the sample groups are too small and it was only tested on young healthy adults exactly the ones that don't need it, vulnerable groups were avoided. Also the EU has asked for more data.

I referenced future strains, so the point is concrete.

Scaremongering is what is currently being done, exactly what I'm opposed to. Sending the message everyone is going to die when the survival rate is ~99.7% is the very definition.

The Spanish flu ended through a mixture of herd immunity (Denmark a good example iirc) and *speculated* mutation not through vaccination, social distancing, masks or lockdowns.

You have been very much a critic of vaccines from the outset, yet you have chosen a thread on Sweden avoiding lockdown to express these doubts rather than the dedicated vaccines and testing procedures thread.
I find that rather strange.
The three vaccines that have been approved by either the FDA, the EMA or Britain have had over 100,000 testing participants with high efficacy in all of them. Personally on that basis I will go with the scientific finding rather than the opinion of one random internet posters that the data is "flaky".


Neither do I see anything concrete in your opinion that this latest variant is resistant to these vaccines which were tested in countries with high incidence and various strains yet still reached these high efficacy levels.
Without any scientific data to back up your opinion then rather than "concrete" I do view it as scaremongering.


Your 99.7% looks very impressive at first glance. But that 0.3% is comparing deaths to world population I assume. When comparing deaths to confirmed cases worldwide it is very much less so with the figure being 2.2%.
Should you be tempted to put forward the arguement that many more multiples have already been infected than the figure for confirmed cases show. That was the basis of the failed Swedish attempt of achieving herd immunity and the failed claim by Manaus that they had achieved it with 70% infected.


For the sake of arguement, lets say your theory on Spanish Flu immunity is correct. That epidemic is conservatively credited with being responsible with killing 3% of the worlds then population. Even if it was even possible to achieve herd immunity, (contrary to Sweden`s failed attempt and the Manaus failed claim), in today`s terms the same outcome would result in 235 Million deaths worldwide.
With your disregard for vaccines, is that really your only solution ?

greyday

He is a complete spoofer Charlie, He says the vaccines were only used on young healthy adults and then to prove his point he says only 5% over 75 year olds were included and 15% of 65-75 year olds, not sure he realises that he just proved the lies rather than refuted them .
He then goes on to use the fact
There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in
subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals,
and *immunocompromised* individuals."
Not sure he realises that unless a new medicine is for these vulnerable peoples specific illness that they are routinely left out of clinical trials in the first instance unless there is a clear benefit expected with little risk but may be included in future trials, moreso for a new vaccine.

I think he may have provided numbers for for fantasy football in the past but he knows absolutely nothing about clinical trials.

charlie14

greyday wrote: »

He is a complete spoofer Charlie, He says the vaccines were only used on young healthy adults and then to prove his point he says only 5% over 75 year olds were included and 15% of 65-75 year olds, not sure he realises that he just proved the lies rather than refuted them .
He then goes on to use the fact
There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in
subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals,
and *immunocompromised* individuals."
Not sure he realises that unless a new medicine is for these vulnerable peoples specific illness that they are routinely left out of clinical trials in the first instance unless there is a clear benefit expected with little risk but may be included in future trials, moreso for a new vaccine.

I think he may have provided numbers for for fantasy football in the past but he knows absolutely nothing about clinical trials.

I have always looked on this poster as more anti vaccine and pro naturally acquired herd immunity than just a spoofer.
There are a few anomalies in his post that he either didn`t realise or he conveniently choose to ignore.

According to Statistica and the World Bank 9% of the world population is over 65 years of age so at 15% that age group in the vaccine trials is over represented rather than under.
He also appears to believe that all participants in that age group were healthy in that none of them had any of the underlying health problems that make them highly susceptible to this virus. If he is then that is a completely false representation.

He also appears to have a very poor understanding of "immunocompromised".
Those in that group will not only be unlikely to be able to avail of a vaccine, they will be unable to develop natural acquired immunity.
The advantage to this group is that by reaching the level of herd immunity using vaccines will provide them with a shield with no risks to themselves.
Attempting to reach herd immunity through naturally acquired,Mother Nature or whatever your having yourself methods will do no such thing and has the potential to cause similar if not even greater carnage than the 3% worldwide deaths of the Spanish Flu the poster is fond of quoting.

volchitsa

charlie14 wrote: »

He also appears to have a very poor understanding of "immunocompromised".
Those in that group will not only be unlikely to be able to avail of a vaccine, they will be unable to develop natural acquired immunity.
The advantage to this group is that by reaching the level of herd immunity using vaccines will provide them with a shield with no risks to themselves.
Attempting to reach herd immunity through naturally acquired,Mother Nature or whatever your having yourself methods will do no such thing and has the potential to cause similar if not even greater carnage than the 3% worldwide deaths of the Spanish Flu the poster is fond of quoting.

There's another problem with trying to reach "herd immunity" by sheer numbers of infections and that is that unlike the flu, this virus passes from humans to household pets who can then reinfect other humans.

That means that if we allow the virus to spread throughout society without a vaccine, vulnerable people can never again have dog or a cat. Nor indeed could the rest of us, really. People are already objecting to wearing masks - does anyone really think we'll be able to renforce a law to put down all household pets?

sheepysheep

volchitsa wrote: »

There's another problem with trying to reach "herd immunity" by sheer numbers of infections and that is that unlike the flu, this virus passes from humans to household pets who can then reinfect other humans.

That means that if we allow the virus to spread throughout society without a vaccine, vulnerable people can never again have dog or a cat. Nor indeed could the rest of us, really. People are already objecting to wearing masks - does anyone really think we'll be able to renforce a law to put down all household pets?

Careful. I can definitely see Charlie & Co. being enthusiastic supporters of this proposition.

Why not eliminate all dogs and cats in existence for the betterment of humanity?

I mean, if it saves even one life.

charlie14

volchitsa wrote: »

There's another problem with trying to reach "herd immunity" by sheer numbers of infections and that is that unlike the flu, this virus passes from humans to household pets who can then reinfect other humans.

That means that if we allow the virus to spread throughout society without a vaccine, vulnerable people can never again have dog or a cat. Nor indeed could the rest of us, really. People are already objecting to wearing masks - does anyone really think we'll be able to renforce a law to put down all household pets?

I haven`t given much thought to household pets. If it was just a case of cats being transmitters tbh I would not be heart-broken to see the back of them.

I don`t really get the whole hoopla on face masks.
A lot of it just seems to be contrarians being contrary.
There was one particular poster on this thread until recently as a defender of the original Swedish strategy who was very anti face masks. I came across him on another thread and apparently he came close to dying from lack of oxygen due to having to wear a face mask getting a haircut in Ireland. Few weeks later he was in Paris visiting all the sights and using the metro, all while wearing a face mask without any problem.

Probably just a case of the air in France having much higher levels of oxygen than Ireland.

Wompa1

99nsr125 wrote: »

Our own head of NPHET "Don't meet anyone who you don't want to die"

I read because of bias, "Suggests" is in itself bias, not empirical data.

Contrary to your own internal bias I have already read the fda paper. Even being harsh 80% of the participants were young / healthy / low risk group. If you correlate for risk and age it's 95% of participants.

The at risk group 75+ represents only 5% of the data and even then only in healthy individuals.

The elevated risk group 65 to 75 represents only 15% of data and again only in healthy individuals.

This exscript is very important.

"8.4. Unknown Risks/Data Gaps

Safety in certain subpopulations

There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in
subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals,
and *immunocompromised* individuals."


I've had to prepare empirical analysis and this would never be accepted as anywhere near acceptable in fact you would leave yourself open to ridicule. At best it's preliminary qualitive data to seek larger sample sizes.

Any evidence on what the long term residual effects of having the virus is?

Vieira82

biko wrote: »

Munira Al-Saadi has now been found out to have charged for meetings where she blocked old people from hospital care.
The thing is, the meetings never took place and she has acquired thousands fraudulently.
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2021-01-02/lakaren-tog-betalt-for-att-porta-patienter-fran-sjukhusvard

gotta love how you're trying to glue this on the fact her name is Arabic and probably she's Muslim.

When in reality, eugenics has been part of Swedens health system for more than a century:

Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden

Selling eugenics: the case of Sweden

Sweden pays for grim past

Sweden admits to racial purification

So the fact that faced with a pandemic they choose to not treat the more vulnerable at a national level should not be a surprise to anyone. As this is still the prevalent mentality although there are doctors against this that have since the beginning of the pandemic reported this to international institutions.

The ink is not dry yet and there's a lot to still be written on what is currently hapenning in Sweden...

biko

It's the current ruling party, the Social Democrats that did all that ^^^ and you're right, their history is very bad with many human abuses.
If you want to discuss them or Sweden in general (non-covid discussion) then I suggest you have a look at Current affairs in Sweden.

Vieira82

biko wrote: »

It's the current ruling party, the Social Democrats that did all that ^^^ and you're right, their history is very bad with many human abuses.
If you want to discuss them or Sweden in general (non-covid discussion) then I suggest you have a look at Current affairs in Sweden.

Defo, but if we want to discuss about multiculturalism there's also that other thread where we discussed earlier isn't it?

And there's also plenty of other topics to discuss about political parties and their rule is it not too?

biko

I am not a mod in this forum but please stay on the topic of Sweden and their Covid strategy.