Sweden avoiding lockdown

tobefrank321

metricspaces wrote: »

Age is not the sole criteria in Ireland for getting into ICU. Ireland has not taken this approach, yet.

You've swallowed HSE lies I'm afraid.

During the first wave, the average age of those in ICU was 62. The average age of those who died in general, mostly in nursing homes, was something like 84.

If age wasn't a factor the average age in icu would also be in the 80s. Up to recently and perhaps still only 8 people over 85 were treated in ICU.

Its accepted that the very elderly are unlikely to survive ventilation so little point bringing them there.

GreeBo

Any numbers for Sweden on patients who survived but have not made a complete recovery?
If we just look at deaths I think we risk missing real impacts to people's lives.

Bit cynical

Just on the topic of deaths, if we look at a graph of cumulative deaths per 100,000 of Sweden and the EU as a whole the picture is quite interesting.



For a large portion of last year, Sweden was indeed worse for deaths than the EU generally, but as we came into winter things started to change. Deaths did indeed rise in Sweden but they rose at a faster rate for the EU as a whole and now they are pretty much neck and neck. Of course this is only deaths directly connected with covid-19. Other problems due to lockdowns will be lower in Sweden than the EU generally as for most of the period they have had fewer restrictions.

I think one of the reasons people might think Sweden is way ahead in cumulative deaths is that they did indeed spend a lot of time ahead of most other European countries therefore they still have a reputation built up which, though no longer valid, is hard to shift. The other thing is that since they only report numbers certain days of the week, the numbers they do report on those days will on average be higher. It does not make any difference in the long run but it allows critics wishing to besmirch Sweden to pick a particular day (often a Tuesday, the first day of reporting in the week) and compare that artificially high figure with one from a country that reports every day of the week.

Obviously it is going to seem very unfair that the EU, with its widespread restrictions and lockdowns (and associated longterm resulting problems), is no better proportionately speaking than Sweden, but perceived unfairness is not an excuse for distorting the facts as I think critics of Sweden have been doing.

biko

GreeBo wrote: »

Any numbers for Sweden on patients who survived but have not made a complete recovery?
If we just look at deaths I think we risk missing real impacts to people's lives.

I did a search for you but there isn't anything useful for Sweden, yet.
One source says "it can take months to recuperate after covid" which is what I heard from Irish sources too.

tobefrank321

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just on the topic of deaths, if we look at a graph of cumulative deaths per 100,000 of Sweden and the EU as a whole the picture is quite interesting.



For a large portion of last year, Sweden was indeed worse for deaths than the EU generally, but as we came into winter things started to change. Deaths did indeed rise in Sweden but they rose at a faster rate for the EU as a whole and now they are pretty much neck and neck. Of course this is only deaths directly connected with covid-19. Other problems due to lockdowns will be lower in Sweden than the EU generally as for most of the period they have had fewer restrictions. The really successful countries succeeded not because of lockdowns but because or border controls.

I think one of the reasons people might think Sweden is way ahead in cumulative deaths is that they did indeed spend a lot of time ahead of most other European countries therefore they still have a reputation built up which, though no longer valid, is hard to shift. The other thing is that since they only report numbers certain days of the week, the numbers they do report on those days will on average be higher. It does not make any difference in the long run but it allows critics wishing to besmirch Sweden to pick a particular day (often a Tuesday, the first day of reporting in the week) and compare that artificially high figure with one from a country that reports every day of the week.

Obviously it is going to seem very unfair that the EU, with its widespread restrictions and lockdowns (and associated longterm resulting problems), is no better proportionately speaking than Sweden, but perceived unfairness is not an excuse for distorting the facts as I think critics of Sweden have been doing.

Good post.

From what I can see lockdowns are an utterly useless longterm strategy if they are not combined with strict border controls. Norway shuts its border with Sweden when there's a peak and I believe they have now brought in hotel quarantines for those travelling from abroad. This has worked so well in NZ and Australia they have been able to open up again with businesses, shops and sports events back to normal.

Sweden have proved that lockdowns are unlikely to make much difference to deaths in the long term if there's no strict border controls to stop new waves coming. The mistake the Swedes made was the same as most other countries, they failed to secure their borders or else decided that closing borders and quarantining travellers in hotels was a price too high to pay.

j@utis

Great posts here. What are irish numbers like? Or it's probably on the other thread. Good luck finding it now but I'll try.

Bit cynical

j@utis wrote: »

Great posts here. What are irish numbers like? Or it's probably on the other thread. Good luck finding it now but I'll try.

Ireland is currently doing very well on deaths compared to most European countries but this has been at the expense of fairly comprehensive restrictions for long periods of time.

bocaman

Sweden's Coivd policy has failed utterly. The went for herd immunity and it has been a disaster.

niallo27

bocaman wrote: »

Sweden's Coivd policy has failed utterly. The went for herd immunity and it has been a disaster.

Not by the graph just posted, they are in line with the European average without having shut down most of the year.

Drumpot

niallo27 wrote: »

Not by the graph just posted, they are in line with the European average without having shut down most of the year.

How are they in comparison to their Nordic Neigbours? That’s their benchmark as those countries have far more in common with Sweden.

Swedens death ratio has been just about 10 times that of Norway and Finland. That suggests that there are variables in this Scandinavian area that has allowed these countries to protect their populations far better then the rest of Europe.

Ireland has just under half the deaths per million in comparison to the UK. Imagine the Uk had 10 times our death ratio but they had done more consistantly a Swedish open up approach and have even less restrictions then they had. Nobody in Ireland would be looking at them positively.

FintanMcluskey

I think at this stage to say the UK have 10 times Ireland’s death rate is totally inaccurate and its something I see the media continue to use despite the fact it’s misleading.

95% of deaths occur in the over 65 age groups.

Population demographics is a huge factor in the number of vulnerable citizens a country has at risk.

The Uk has about twice Ireland’s death rate per 100 in the over 65 category but the fact Ireland has Europe’s youngest population is a massive natural advantage when accounting for Covid deaths

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

How are they in comparison to their Nordic Neigbours? That’s their benchmark as those countries have far more in common with Sweden.

Swedens death ratio has been just about 10 times that of Norway and Finland. That suggests that there are variables in this Scandinavian area that has allowed these countries to protect their populations far better then the rest of Europe.

Ireland has just under half the deaths per million in comparison to the UK. Imagine the Uk had 10 times our death ratio but they had done more consistantly a Swedish open up approach and have even less restrictions then they had. Nobody in Ireland would be looking at them positively.

Ireland, Finland and Norway have obvious geographical and population advantages over other countries. All 3 are small countries on the periphery of Europe with only one land border of note. Norways borders with Russia and Finland are in the artic circle. Norway closed its land border with Sweden and now demands travellers stay in hotels for two weeks. I'm fairly sure the Finnish border with Russia for historical reasons is tightly controlled with few crossings while their more important border with Sweden probably now has restrictions.

In reality Sweden and Ireland should also have quarantined visitors in hotels and if they did, they'd be in a far better place today. But it would be deeply unpopular.

Based on current trends, Ireland's deaths will take a dramatic upswing starting from next Tuesday onwards and we are bound to see days with 30 or 40+ deaths on a regular basis.

Drumpot

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Ireland, Finland and Norway have obvious geographical and population advantages over other countries. All 3 are small countries on the periphery of Europe with only one land border of note. Norways borders with Russia and Finland are in the artic circle. Norway closed its land border with Sweden and now demands travellers stay in hotels for two weeks. I'm fairly sure the Finnish border with Russia for historical reasons is tightly controlled with few crossings.

In reality Sweden and Ireland should also have quarantined visitors in hotels and if they did, they'd be in a far better place today. But it would be deeply unpopular.

Based on current trends, Ireland's deaths will take a dramatic upswing starting from next Tuesday onwards and we are bound to see days with 30 or 40+ deaths on a regular basis.

Swedens approach in scandanavia led to 10 times the amount of deaths their neighbours either side of them. There is no way of getting around this fact. Might aswell say Europe is great cause it’s average is less then USA who had a mish mash load of bollox way of handling this. Its reasonable to hypothesise that If the rest of Europe had the Swedish approach the death numbers we are seeing wouid be a multiple of what we have had.

I don’t understand how people can think having a more open society the last year would of somehow equated to less deaths. There is no logic to this thinking. When we reopened back in August why weren’t people able to be responsible or more careful after being locked down for 5 months? If people didn’t get the message that we need to be more responsible after a 5 month lockdown in what planet do people think that then being asked to be more careful would of worked?

There’s a real belligerence mindset that asking people to be responsible (and we will keep pubs open etc) would of worked. The evidence in December categorically proved it would of been a disaster. There is literally no evidence that we can get from the last 8 months that Irish people would of been more responsible/careful with less restrictions and more the honor system.

Drumpot

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think at this stage to say the UK have 10 times Ireland’s death rate is totally inaccurate and its something I see the media continue to use despite the fact it’s misleading.

95% of deaths occur in the over 65 age groups.

Population demographics is a huge factor in the number of vulnerable citizens a country has at risk.

The Uk has about twice Ireland’s death rate per 100 in the over 65 category but the fact Ireland has Europe’s youngest population is a massive natural advantage when accounting for Covid deaths

Pick any country in Europe in the top 20 deaths and none of them are 10 times off another. Again, Sweden have 10 times the death of their neighbours, what’s explains this difference? Is it not primarily how they managed the spread of the virus ?

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

Swedens approach in scandanavia led to 10 times the amount of deaths their neighbours either side of them. There is no way of getting around this fact. Might aswell say Europe is great cause it’s average is less then USA who had a mish mash load of bollox way of handling this. Its reasonable to hypothesise that If the rest of Europe had the Swedish approach the death numbers we are seeing wouid be a multiple of what we have had.

I don’t understand how people can think having a more open society the last year would of somehow equated to less deaths. There is no logic to this thinking. When we reopened back in August why weren’t people able to be responsible after being locked down for 5 months? If people didn’t get the message that we need to be more responsible after a 5 month lockdown in what planet do people think that then being asked to be more careful would of worked?

There’s a real belligerence mindset that asking people to be responsible (and we will keep pubs open etc) would of worked. The evidence in December categorically proved it would of been a disaster. There is literally no evidence that we can get from the last 8 months that Irish people would of been more responsible with less restrictions and more the honor system.

We're back to the "because they're in the same region they must be the same" argument. Canada and the US are in the same region. Did they end up with the same death rate? And if not why not? Ireland and UK are in the same region. You pointed out yourself they are doing worse than us. Their current lockdowns have been in place even longer than ours.

I note also you don't use Denmark as a comparison. Why is that? Because their deaths have also started to rise?

FintanMcluskey

Drumpot wrote: »

Pick any country in Europe in the top 20 deaths and none of them are 10 times off another. Again, Sweden have 10 times the death of their neighbours, what’s explains this difference? Is it not primarily how they managed the spread of the virus ?

You haven’t understood my point at all

Drumpot

tobefrank321 wrote: »

We're back to the "because they're in the same region they must be the same" argument. Canada and the US are in the same region. Did they end up with the same death rate? And if not why not? Ireland and UK are in the same region. You pointed out yourself they are doing worse than us. Their current lockdowns have been in place even longer than ours.

I note also you don't use Denmark as a comparison. Why is that? Because their deaths have also started to rise?

Why is it ok to benchmark Sweden to Ireland who have a lot less in common with them then their scandanvian counterparts?

Again, Finland and Norway took an approach closer to the rest of Europe then that of Sweden.

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

Pick any country in Europe in the top 20 deaths and none of them are 10 times off another. Again, Sweden have 10 times the death of their neighbours, what’s explains this difference? Is it not primarily how they managed the spread of the virus ?

Its got little to do with lockdowns in any case. If lockdowns were a great success, you wouldn't see 24 countries ahead of Sweden in deaths per million.

The countries who did best in the spring wave were those who kept their borders tightly controlled, eg Czechia, NZ, Taiwan, Austailia.

The countries who did worst in the Autumn/Winter wave were those who had open borders, and Norway, NZ, Austrailia weren't those. Czechia opened their borders in the summer and once expats and tourists visited their numbers shot up. Same for most of the eastern, central and southern countries now doing badly.

There is no reason why a small country like Slovenia should have the 3rd worst deaths in the world, despite having regular lockdowns. Once you lockdown, its way too late and we and other countries are seeing that now. The horse has long since bolted and its going to take months to get numbers down and even that will be a short term lull.

Drumpot

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You haven’t understood my point at all

I understand your point with regards to Ireland and the UK but how does that play out with every other country in Europe? Or how does that play out between Sweden , Finland and Norway? What was the reason for 10 hold difference in deaths if not how the three managed the spread?

Ginger n Lemon

Seweryn wrote: »

It should. And here are the numbers:




It is an average year for Sweden in terms of deaths and you could find worse years in the past, i.e. 2015, 2016, 2017, etc. The 2019 brings the calculated five year average down a good bit though.

Figured I'd just reply to this post.

Top quality.

Was there a deadly pandemic in 2015 that I dont know about?

Drumpot

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Its got little to do with lockdowns in any case. If lockdowns were a great success, you wouldn't see 24 countries ahead of Sweden in deaths per million.

The countries who did best in the spring wave were those who kept their borders tightly controlled, eg Czechia, NZ, Taiwan, Austailia.

The countries who did worst in the Autumn/Winter wave were those who had open borders, and Norway, NZ, Austrailia weren't those. Czechia opened their borders in the summer and once expats and tourists visited their numbers shot up. Same for most of the eastern, central and southern countries now doing badly.

There is no reason why a small country like Slovenia should have the 3rd worst deaths in the world, despite having regular lockdowns.

Of course it was restrictions. How else do you explain the 10 fold difference in deaths between Finland, Norway and Sweden?

And if you are wondering why I keep repeating myself it’s because you can’t or won’t answer the question. If it wasn’t restrictions, what explains the difference in deaths between these 3?

Oh and explain to me how not having restrictions would of resulted in the same or better numbers? I hear you say it but I don’t see any rational explanation on how this would of worked. So again, Ireland was closed and opened back up on September, how come numbers rose? Why didn’t we learn to manage our behavior after the lockdown? How do you believe had we not brought in the lockdown measures that things would of been better?

Our CMO was asking us for months to reduce our contacts. We had our chance to adapt to this and we failed. There is nothing you can say that proves Irish people would of been more responsible had they been offered an alternative because we had that chance between sept and October and it didn’t work.

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

Of course it was restrictions. How else do you explain the 10 fold difference in deaths between Finland, Norway and Sweden?

And if you are wondering why I keep repeating myself it’s because you can’t or won’t answer the question. If it wasn’t restrictions, what explains the difference in deaths between these 3?

Oh and explain to me how not having restrictions would of resulted in the same or better numbers? I hear you say it but I don’t see any rational explanation on how this would of worked. So again, Ireland was closed and opened back up on September, how come numbers rose? Why didn’t we learn to manage our behavior after the lockdown? How do you believe had we not brought in the lockdown measures that things would of been better?

Our CMO was asking us for months to reduce our contacts. We had our chance to adapt to this and we failed. There is nothing you can say that proves Irish people would of been more responsible had they been offered an alternative because we had that chance between sept and October and it didn’t work.

Lockdowns don't work without border controls

NZ and Austrailia today are 99% the same as they were before covid, with only rare localised lockdowns - thats because of their strict border controls. If they didnt have those controls they'd be no better than most european countries with long running lockdowns.

They had lockdowns but more importantly they had border controls and that's why they kept cases and deaths down - same for other successful countries.

Lockdowns by themselves are next to useless - even Germany is seeing that now - over 1000 deaths a day several times now.

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

Why is it ok to benchmark Sweden to Ireland who have a lot less in common with them then their scandanvian counterparts?

Again, Finland and Norway took an approach closer to the rest of Europe then that of Sweden.

Your arguments are all over the place.

So Norway and Finland took the approach closer to the rest of Europe. Well then Norway and Finland should have ended up with sh1t results because that's exactly what happened in the rest of Europe. Except they didn't. Because Norway and Finland have obvious geographical advantages as well as a low population density. Norway has some of the tighest restrictions around travel in Europe. So that is different to the rest of Europe.

Do you accept most lockdown countries in Europe are doing terribly?

Drumpot

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Your arguments are all over the place.

So Norway and Finland took the approach closer to the rest of Europe. Well then Norway and Finland should have ended up with sh1t results because that's exactly what happened in the rest of Europe. Except they didn't. Because Norway and Finland have obvious geographical advantages as well as a low population density. Norway has some of the tighest restrictions around travel in Europe. So that is different to the rest of Europe.

Do you accept most lockdown countries in Europe are doing terribly?

Exactly, Norway and Finland had geographical advantages that Sweden Shared and yet Sweden's deaths have been deplorable in comparison. Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden have the lowest population density in Europe and sweden has come out the worst in terms of deaths. Interestingly you mentioned Denmarks numbers earlier, they have one of the highest population densitys in Europe. So Sweden had that advantage and made a balls of it.

I think Europe has handled this very poorly, but I think Sweden handled it even worse proportionate to the advantages they shared with their neighbours.

Bit cynical

I think Sweden did quite well given that they neither closed their borders nor did they have extreme restrictions. I think the reason they are doing better than the likes of France, Spain, Italy etc. is that they went for measures that could be sustained for as long as needed rather than more severe restrictions that must be lifted after a certain period of time.

When these more extreme measures are inevitably lifted there's an inevitable public overreaction leading to higher cases and deaths. In addition in these countries there's very little chance for immunity to develop in the otherwise healthy population thus compounding the problems when people are allowed back onto the streets.

tobefrank321

Drumpot wrote: »

Exactly, Norway and Finland had geographical advantages that Sweden Shared and yet Sweden's deaths have been deplorable in comparison. Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden have the lowest population density in Europe and sweden has come out the worst in terms of deaths. Interestingly you mentioned Denmarks numbers earlier, they have one of the highest population densitys in Europe. So Sweden had that advantage and made a balls of it.

I think Europe has handled this very poorly, but I think Sweden handled it even worse proportionate to the advantages they shared with their neighbours.

Sweden has a border with Norway and a bridge connection to Denmark and they are much closer to the European mainland than either Finland or Norway. They have a higher population density than both, bigger population, bigger immigrant community, Stockholm has 4 times the density of Oslo, they have a higher age profile than Norway, and there are several other differences too. Over 60% of Norways exports are oil and gas for example, whereas Sweden exports services and manufactured goods. They are not the "twins" some would have us believe or even in many regards that similar. As I said just because two countries share a region doesnt mean all that much, eg Ireland and UK, Canada and US, north Korea and south korea.

FintanMcluskey

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Sweden did quite well given that they neither closed their borders nor did they have extreme restrictions. I think the reason they are doing better than the likes of France, Spain, Italy etc. is that they went for measures that could be sustained for as long as needed rather than more severe restrictions that must be lifted after a certain period of time.

When these more extreme measures are inevitably lifted there's an inevitable public overreaction leading to higher cases and deaths. In addition in these countries there's very little chance for immunity to develop in the otherwise healthy population thus compounding the problems when people are allowed back onto the streets.

I often think we underestimate the effects of what you allude to.

After suppression of citizens during 1918, didn’t the 1920s see massive rises in opiate and other dependancies?

ie citizens don’t respond well to suppression long term

Drumpot

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Sweden has a border with Norway and a bridge connection to Denmark and they are much closer to the European mainland than either Finland or Norway. They have a higher population density than both, bigger population, bigger immigrant community, Stockholm has 4 times the density of Oslo, they have a higher age profile than Norway, and there are several other differences too. Over 60% of Norway's exports are oil and gas for example, whereas Sweden exports services and manufactured goods. They are not the "twins" some would have us believe or even in many regards that similar. As I said just because two countries share a region doesnt mean all that much, eg Ireland and UK, Canada and US, north Korea and south korea.

Sweden's Population density is more then half that of the majority of europe. If you want to benchmark them with Europe and are highlighting Population density as a factor thats helped Norway/Finland, then the same factor applies to them. Sweden's population density is still more comparable or close to their neighbours then the rest of Europe. Indeed in comparison to ireland, we have 3 times their population density, so we cant really be compared on the same level in this important factor.

I am curious as to what effect you feel Sweden's exports had on the spread of the virus ? I appreciate it is a difference seperating them from Norway but to what degree to you feel this is relevant in the topic of COVID ? (perhaps from a reliance on Europe POV ?).

I agree that its not exactly a like for like comparison, which is why I find it hard to understand how people are still trying to hold up Sweden as some positive example of how to manage this.

In terms of Ireland and Sweden's response, what exactly are you comparing? Sweden didnt close its borders, so you aren't highlighting that part of the Swedish response. I am presuming you feel if we had a less restrictive lockdown it might of worked, but why ? I do not understand how you think it would of been better for us, why do you think people would of been more compliant or that our numbers wouldn't of been worse ?. As I said, we didnt adapt after the first or second lockdown, why do you think it would of been different or better had they just not had a lockdown and asked everybody to be more responsible ?

charlie14

j@utis wrote: »

Great posts here. What are irish numbers like? Or it's probably on the other thread. Good luck finding it now but I'll try.

Here you go.
January 3rd. Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 of population.
Sweden 87.83. Ireland 46.06.

The other three Nordic countries. Finland 10.24. Denmark 23.66. Norway 8.43.

j@utis

charlie14 wrote: »

Here you go.
January 3rd. Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 of population.
Sweden 87.83. Ireland 46.06.

The other three Nordic countries. Finland 10.24. Denmark 23.66. Norway 8.43.

I couldn't care less for covid19 deaths. I mean, excess deaths is the only interesting one really.