Sweden avoiding lockdown

Danno

Danno wrote: »

But Sweden is a fully fledged open borders advocate of the EU!

Sweden suffered no less bad than Portugal, Spain, France, Italy etc... who had all implemented severe restrictions on their citizens. Sweden didn't crucify their own. Yet their mortality rate is not much different than those aforementioned states. Why is that?

If liberal Sweden had to curb or eliminate international travel and let the virus run out of ground last summer then they would have avoided the situation they are in now.

They kept re-importing the disease owing to open border policies!

It's a seasonal virus and if any nation wants to stop it, you close your borders. Then one of two things happen after that: you either eliminate it within, or you let it run rampant within - and you have to time that second-choice action with precision.

Sweden played both games and lost as in they expected the disease to hit critical mass without accounting for imported disease and it's variants.

Sweden fared very badly in comparison to their most close and relevant comparators

Denmark (over 3 times bettter) , Finland and Norway 10 times better

the biggest distinction on the restriction policy differences was not border control but internal restrictions

it's actually hilarious

you have people like you trying to prove points on border control and sunshine and neo-lib travel insurance through Sweden

and on the otherhand tulips like Fintan who wants to keep the airports open but will deny that Sweden has failed soley so as not to admit that lockdowns could be a useful tool

completely opposite sides of the spectrum yet each with a proxy aganda for Sweden and not willing to admit that Sweden have failed in their policy

liking each other's posts for no other reason than there is some agenda involving Sweden even though the agendas have nothing in common

:pac:

Ginger n Lemon

glasso wrote: »

couldn't give a flute about your travel insurance conspiracies to be honest

haha

glasso wrote: »

oh deer

the tinfoil is strong here

glasso wrote: »

i've no clue what you're on about really

you're obviously a bit deranged

glasso wrote: »

and on the otherhand tulips like Fintan

Are you ok?

Have you gone completely mad in our 3rd lockdown?

What's your sweden agenda lol

Pretty obvious one I see...

Sweden has failed to offer any support for it.

That's highly annoying for you

Get over it

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

That all looks very colourful and impressive until you get to the section on countries in northern Europe and take a look at that bone.

"Countries in northern Europe have generally experiences much lower mortality rates.Some Nordic countries have experiences almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continents least restrictive social-distancing measures during the first wave."


When you look at the weekly deaths rate comparisons for northern Europe per 100,000 people, (especially when you hit the absolute button) it really stops looking impressive.

No one cares if it 'looks impressive' or about the colour of the fonts. That's just you.

Data is either informative in it's own right or not.

This data is impressive because it reveals that the excess deaths for Sweden is remarkable unremarkable in comparison to both the initial 140k death predictions and in comparison to other countries.

It's just good revealing analysis that doesn't suit your agenda.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Why compare Sweden to countries in North and South America when that Economist article compares Sweden to countries in it`s own bailiwick of Northern Europe on excess deaths due to Covid

If you have any issue with the Bona Fides of the data I suggest you contact The Economist and make your concerns known to them. They printed it so I'm confident that they will stand over it.

The researcher compiled a list of excess deaths for 45 countries including Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. and gave the deaths per 100k for each of them. Why? Well I suppose for comparison, because that's what good science is. Create as large a data set as possible to reveal the whole rather than partial truths.

Of course, you don't really like science, so better off to create another Strawman.

sheepysheep

glasso wrote: »

even just the calendar year of 2020 was the worst year in over 100 years for excess mortality per capita and excess deaths

where are the lads with the 4th class primary Excel table sheets claiming an average year for Sweden gone?

You seem to be under the impression that the fact that Sweden has the largest excess death since 1919 is some kind of 'drop the mike' moment. However, it's not remotely surprising at all. There are countries all over the world having historic levels of excess deaths. If you have any actual scientific interest in the subject you might compile a spreadsheet for comparison for the rest of us.

Meantime, you can compare Sweden's excess death's to the other countries as kindly supplied by the Economist.

I would love to hear an explanation why ending up in the top 33% in Europe, population wise, is considered a failure.

You can either engage with the data and provide a fact based response rather than opinion based narrative, reply with more poorly worded invective, or, in your case, being the adoring monarchist you appear to be be, astral project yourself into the head of King Gussie again and find out what he has against Bulgaria.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

If you have any issue with the Bona Fides of the data I suggest you contact The Economist and make your concerns known to them. They printed it so I'm confident that they will stand over it.

The researcher compiled a list of excess deaths for 45 countries including Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. and gave the deaths per 100k for each of them. Why? Well I suppose for comparison, because that's what good science is. Create as large a data set as possible to reveal the whole rather than partial truths.

Of course, you don't really like science, so better off to create another Strawman.

Why do you believe I have a problem with the Economist data
And what is this Strawman thing of me not liking science and having an agenda all about
I`m major fan of both science and creditable data.


In fact I find both generally the bane of people with agendas.
Especially when they jump all over a headline attempting to further their agenda, rather than reading the complete data when it shows it is actually at variance with their agenda.


That Economist data includes a section devoted to Northern Europe where it specifically refers to Sweden in relation to it`s Nordic neighbours, and graphically compares the scale of their Covid deaths to other Northern European countries.
Admittedly it does not look good, but that is no reason for you getting antsy with me.

After all it is data you posted, and it is what it is.
The old "look over there" distract attempt of North and South America, Africa, Asia etc. is not going to change that.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Why do you believe I have a problem with the Economist data
And what is this Strawman thing of me not liking science and having an agenda all about
I`m major fan of both science and creditable data.


In fact I find both generally the bane of people with agendas.
Especially when they jump all over a headline attempting to further their agenda, rather than reading the complete data when it shows it is actually at variance with their agenda.


That Economist data includes a section devoted to Northern Europe where it specifically refers to Sweden in relation to it`s Nordic neighbours, and graphically compares the scale of their Covid deaths to other Northern European countries.
Admittedly it does not look good, but that is no reason for you getting antsy with me.

After all it is data you posted, and it is what it is.
The old "look over there" distract attempt of North and South America, Africa, Asia etc. is not going to change that.

Your posts revel a different history regarding you being a fan of science and data.

This is an copy and paste of one of your earlier views on science.


"Your original point was that I did not understand the difference between IFR and CFR.
Did you cut my post because you did not really understand the difference that CFR is a simple verifiable mathematical equation, whereas IFR is mathematical goobbledygook based on the principal of "whatever you`re having yourself" where in the three instances it has been attempted, using different base percentages, it has been shown a complete failure."

Here is the WHO scientific brief on both CFR and IFR calculations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

You're happy to label established scientific practice (IFR) goobbleygook. Sounds like an alt-right anti-science ploy to me.

In addition, someone who is a 'fan' of science doesn't pollute the narrative with fake data, only seeking to confuse people.

As pointed out before you invented a vaccine for malaria as well as claiming that it was on the verge of eradication. Feel free to post your scientific research basis for such claims or just come clean and admit that you made it up to suit your agenda.

Yes, the Economist does provide a brief notation on Northern Europe and, yes, Sweden's figures do indeed look poor in comparison. However, just because the researcher made no further comparison to the rest of Europe does not mean that one is neither impossible or inappropriate. When a comparison is made to the rest of Europe Sweden looks remarkably good, as it does in comparison to N&S America.

One can hardly attempt to distract from the data by inviting someone to look at all of it. The only deflection is yours, attempting to narrow the data to a limited subset that suits your particular agenda.

More bad science and to be expected from you by this stage.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Your posts revel a different history regarding you being a fan of science and data.

This is an copy and paste of one of your earlier views on science.


"Your original point was that I did not understand the difference between IFR and CFR.
Did you cut my post because you did not really understand the difference that CFR is a simple verifiable mathematical equation, whereas IFR is mathematical goobbledygook based on the principal of "whatever you`re having yourself" where in the three instances it has been attempted, using different base percentages, it has been shown a complete failure."

Here is the WHO scientific brief on both CFR and IFR calculations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

You're happy to label established scientific practice (IFR) goobbleygook. Sounds like an alt-right anti-science ploy to me.

In addition, someone who is a 'fan' of science doesn't pollute the narrative with fake data, only seeking to confuse people.

As pointed out before you invented a vaccine for malaria as well as claiming that it was on the verge of eradication. Feel free to post your scientific research basis for such claims or just come clean and admit that you made it up to suit your agenda.

Yes, the Economist does provide a brief notation on Northern Europe and, yes, Sweden's figures do indeed look poor in comparison. However, just because the researcher made no further comparison to the rest of Europe does not mean that one is neither impossible or inappropriate. When a comparison is made to the rest of Europe Sweden looks remarkably good, as it does in comparison to N&S America.

One can hardly attempt to distract from the data by inviting someone to look at all of it. The only deflection is yours, attempting to narrow the data to a limited subset that suits your particular agenda.

More bad science and to be expected from you by this stage.

I would have thought by now you would have realised I don`t play the "look over there" distraction attempt game. In fact pretty sure I mentioned that. If you wish to discuss IFR and CFR we can do that, even vaccinations if you have a problem with them, but rather than running off at tangents, lets deal with your claims first shall we ?

"Although, since this data is scientific and addresses all of Europe rather than being an opinion on Sweden alone, you will probably find a way to ignore it"
Your quote, and I did not ignore the data. I read it, whereas you apparently jumped all over the headlines and believed it validated your agenda .


The data did not just "provide a brief notation on Northern Europe" nor did it treat Europe as a whole. It provides data on excess deaths according to four distinct areas. Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe and Northern Europe.
The Economist does not say why it divided Europe into those four areas, but I believe safe to assume that the countries in these areas had more in common with each other than the other three areas. Something incidentally many here have pointed out in relation to Sweden and it`s neighhbours.


On Northern Europe it states. "Countries in Northern Europe have generally experiences much lower mortality rates. Some Nordic nations hve experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continents least restrictive social distancing measures during the first wave."



So no,the data does not as you suggested, deals with all of Europe as a whole in relation to Sweden.
It deals with Sweden directly in relation to its Northern neighbours.
It did not give an opinion on Sweden, but then it didn`t need to.
It pointed out that Sweden was the exception in excess deaths and provided the graphs to show just how much an exception it is.


If the data you posted shows anything it is that it backs up the comparisons many here have made on Sweden and its Northern neighbours as regards Covid deaths and restrictions rather than what you appeared to believe it did.
But then that is a hole of your own making. Digging deeper will not solve that

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The data did not just "provide a brief notation on Northern Europe" nor did it treat Europe as a whole. It provides data on excess deaths according to four distinct areas. Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe and Northern Europe.
The Economist does not say why it divided Europe into those four areas, but I believe safe to assume that the countries in these areas had more in common with each other than the other three areas. Something incidentally many here have pointed out in relation to Sweden and it`s neighhbours.


On Northern Europe it states. "Countries in Northern Europe have generally experiences much lower mortality rates. Some Nordic nations hve experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continents least restrictive social distancing measures during the first wave."



So no,the data does not as you suggested, deals with all of Europe as a whole in relation to Sweden.
It deals with Sweden directly in relation to its Northern neighbours.
It did not give an opinion on Sweden, but then it didn`t need to.
It pointed out that Sweden was the exception in excess deaths and provided the graphs to show just how much an exception it is.


If the data you posted shows anything it is that it backs up the comparisons many here have made on Sweden and its Northern neighbours as regards Covid deaths and restrictions rather than what you appeared to believe it did.
But then that is a hole of your own making. Digging deeper will not solve that

This is the entirety of the discussion on Northern Europe.

Countries in northern Europe have generally experienced much lower mortality rates. Some Nordic nations have experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continent’s least restrictive social-distancing measures during the first wave.

Whether this is brief or not is a matter of opinion. It's less than 50 words, which I would consider qualifies as brief and the researcher draws no conclusions.

The report does break Europe down into 4 regions but this is to analyse the progress of the disease over time. He notes for instance that the effects are worst in Europe the farther east you go over time.

It is Western Europe however where your ship of nonsense hits the rocks. The researcher here begins by making a comparison between North America and Europe.

At the same time that covid-19 was devastating New York, cities in western Europe were also suffering severe outbreaks.

If it is acceptable to compare New York to Montana and Idaho to California and to compare North America to Europe, it would seem axiomatic that Sweden should also be available for comparison to other European countries.

When that appropriate comparison is made, it looks far better than many.

The trouble with you is that you 'believe' that in the absence of facts to suit your agenda you're allowed to invent stuff as demonstrated numerous times.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I would have thought by now you would have realised I don`t play the "look over there" distraction attempt game. In fact pretty sure I mentioned that. If you wish to discuss IFR and CFR we can do that, even vaccinations if you have a problem with them, but rather than running off at tangents, lets deal with your claims first shall we ?

I have no wish to discuss CFR or IFR with you. You clearly don't understand the difference between these concepts.

Nor do i have an issue with vaccinations, just alt-right fake news merchants who invent stuff about them, like yourself. Another predictable Strawman.

I merely brought them up to demonstrate your lack of respect for Science when it suits you, as reposted below.

This is an copy and paste of one of your earlier views on science.

"Your original point was that I did not understand the difference between IFR and CFR.
Did you cut my post because you did not really understand the difference that CFR is a simple verifiable mathematical equation, whereas IFR is mathematical goobbledygook based on the principal of "whatever you`re having yourself" where in the three instances it has been attempted, using different base percentages, it has been shown a complete failure."

Here is the WHO scientific brief on both CFR and IFR calculations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...-from-covid-19

You're happy to label established scientific practice (IFR) goobbleygook. Sounds like an alt-right anti-science ploy to me.

In addition, someone who is a 'fan' of science doesn't pollute the narrative with fake data, only seeking to confuse people.

As pointed out before you invented a vaccine for malaria as well as claiming that it was on the verge of eradication. Feel free to post your scientific research basis for such claims or just come clean and admit that you made it up to suit your agenda.

I can see why you don't want to look over there. It's a fake news anti-science self reflection.

piwyudo0fhn57b

Interesting read on Sweden's take on COVID-19

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

This is the entirety of the discussion on Northern Europe.

Countries in northern Europe have generally experienced much lower mortality rates. Some Nordic nations have experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continent’s least restrictive social-distancing measures during the first wave.

Whether this is brief or not is a matter of opinion. It's less than 50 words, which I would consider qualifies as brief and the researcher draws no conclusions.

The report does break Europe down into 4 regions but this is to analyse the progress of the disease over time. He notes for instance that the effects are worst in Europe the farther east you go over time.

It is Western Europe however where your ship of nonsense hits the rocks. The researcher here begins by making a comparison between North America and Europe.

At the same time that covid-19 was devastating New York, cities in western Europe were also suffering severe outbreaks.

If it is acceptable to compare New York to Montana and Idaho to California and to compare North America to Europe, it would seem axiomatic that Sweden should also be available for comparison to other European countries.

When that appropriate comparison is made, it looks far better than many.

The trouble with you is that you 'believe' that in the absence of facts to suit your agenda you're allowed to invent stuff as demonstrated numerous times.

And the trouble for you is in your rush to to support your agenda you did your own analysis of the Economist research data comparing Sweden to countries where it was favourable to your agenda from the four regions in Europe identified in the research article.
Something at complete variance with the report and the representation of the data in it.



A large part of that data covered the four European regions and gave extensive graphical examples of countries in each regions regarding excess Covid deaths.

The only mention of Sweden in the entire written text is in the foreword to graphic representation of excess deaths for Northern.
"Countries in northern Europe have generally experience much lower mortality rates. Some Nordic countries have experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continents least extensive social-distancing measures during the first wave".
The graphs show just how exceptional those deaths are compared to their northern European neighbours.

Rather than that Economist report supporting your agenda, it instead supports the point made by many here on the comparison of Sweden to it`s neighbours in Covid deaths, and the reason why..

thebaz

I have been doing my best to avoid the Covid news of late - How is Sweden doing ?
No reports of over-crowded hospitals or ICU in Sweden in the main media , or of horrific excesive deaths, I know it has not done as well as other Nordic countrys , but I assume other serious health issues are getting better treated in Sweden and a better overall mental health within its population.

the incredible pudding

ICU numbers are down a good bit, as are the general daily rates of death and infection (though not a steep fall and it's gotten flatter, it's at least a lot better than Christmas).
Life hasn't changed much here other than alcohol not being served from 8pm and most shops having someone keep track of the number of people within (as there's now legal requirements per number of persons allowed per space of the place).
Mask wearers are still in the minority from what I've experienced, even on public transport during the times that they're now being "recommended".

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I have been doing my best to avoid the Covid news of late - How is Sweden doing ?
No reports of over-crowded hospitals or ICU in Sweden in the main media , or of horrific excesive deaths, I know it has not done as well as other Nordic countrys , but I assume other serious health issues are getting better treated in Sweden and a better overall mental health within its population.

It would depend on what you look on as horrific.
Sweden annual deaths 2019 were 88,766, For 2020 deaths were 97,741. A
10.4% increase.

Like every other country when there are large numbers in hospitals due to Covid, Sweden postpones many screening and surgical procedures..

sheepysheep

thebaz wrote: »

I have been doing my best to avoid the Covid news of late - How is Sweden doing ?
No reports of over-crowded hospitals or ICU in Sweden in the main media , or of horrific excesive deaths, I know it has not done as well as other Nordic countrys , but I assume other serious health issues are getting better treated in Sweden and a better overall mental health within its population.

They've ended up doing quite well as shown by these excess deaths figures. Top half of the table by a considerable bit.

Sweden per 100k of population had a figure of 94, up to early Feb.

This figure betters Bulgaria, Lithuania, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Britain, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary, Netherlands, Italy, Austria and France. A total of 15 countries as of 3 days ago.

To put some meat on the bones of this data. When you total the populations of these countries you get a grand figure of 468 million European citizens out of a total population of 741 million. This figure includes the 80% of Russian population which are considered European.

In other words the 10 million citizens of Sweden (protected by their government's pandemic response) have fared better than 63% of the continent's population.


https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...deaths-tracker

FintanMcluskey

the incredible pudding wrote: »

ICU numbers are down a good bit, as are the general daily rates of death and infection (though not a steep fall and it's gotten flatter, it's at least a lot better than Christmas).
Life hasn't changed much here other than alcohol not being served from 8pm and most shops having someone keep track of the number of people within (as there's now legal requirements per number of persons allowed per space of the place).
Mask wearers are still in the minority from what I've experienced, even on public transport during the times that they're now being "recommended".

Thanks for the updates.

Really appreciated

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

I have no wish to discuss CFR or IFR with you. You clearly don't understand the difference between these concepts.

Nor do i have an issue with vaccinations, just alt-right fake news merchants who invent stuff about them, like yourself. Another predictable Strawman.

I merely brought them up to demonstrate your lack of respect for Science when it suits you, as reposted below.

This is an copy and paste of one of your earlier views on science.

"Your original point was that I did not understand the difference between IFR and CFR.
Did you cut my post because you did not really understand the difference that CFR is a simple verifiable mathematical equation, whereas IFR is mathematical goobbledygook based on the principal of "whatever you`re having yourself" where in the three instances it has been attempted, using different base percentages, it has been shown a complete failure."

Here is the WHO scientific brief on both CFR and IFR calculations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...-from-covid-19

You're happy to label established scientific practice (IFR) goobbleygook. Sounds like an alt-right anti-science ploy to me.

In addition, someone who is a 'fan' of science doesn't pollute the narrative with fake data, only seeking to confuse people.

As pointed out before you invented a vaccine for malaria as well as claiming that it was on the verge of eradication. Feel free to post your scientific research basis for such claims or just come clean and admit that you made it up to suit your agenda.

I can see why you don't want to look over there. It's a fake news anti-science self reflection.

You went nitpicking through my posts and accused me of not understanding the difference between IFR and CFR.


I replied to that, (highlighted above). A reply you have copy and pasted here a number of times but mysteriously with the question mark removed each time.
Any explaination for that ? ( btw in case you are not aware ? denotes a question mark.

And now after all the copy and pasting you do not want to discuss it.
From that I can only assume you have no answer to the question, or you are very aware of the mathematical goobbledygook IFR is.


You have also been quite mouthy of me being anti science and vaccines.

Laughable from someone who did such a forensic trawl of my posts where from the beginning of this thread and others including, the vaccination thread, I have made it very clear as far as I was concerned the only way out of this was through vaccines.
Doubly laughable from someone who has backed Sweden`s scientifically immoral strategy of naturally acquired herd immunity and their position on face masks. A position that was at variance with the advice of their own Royal Academy of Science and their premier research institute, the Karolinska Institute. Even when that institute had mandated face masks for all staff and students.
And you call me a strawman poster

Ginger n Lemon

the incredible pudding wrote: »

ICU numbers are down a good bit, as are the general daily rates of death and infection (though not a steep fall and it's gotten flatter, it's at least a lot better than Christmas).
Life hasn't changed much here other than alcohol not being served from 8pm and most shops having someone keep track of the number of people within (as there's now legal requirements per number of persons allowed per space of the place).
Mask wearers are still in the minority from what I've experienced, even on public transport during the times that they're now being "recommended".

You have no idea how jealous I am of all of that.

Here in Ireland we are akin to smeagol in that opening scene of lord of the rings where he slowly turns into gollum. We forgot the joy of travel, and the taste of eating out, we have even forgotten how our friends and relatives look.

whippet

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

You have no idea how jealous I am of all of that.

Here in Ireland we are akin to smeagol in that opening scene of lord of the rings where he slowly turns into gollum. We forgot the joy of travel, and the taste of eating out, we have even forgotten how our friends and relatives look.

But at least I know my elderly mother in Ireland has so far escaped this virus and her nursing home managed to keep COVID from it’s doors.

While my bother in Sweden has had to bury his mother in law due to COVID

whippet

whippet wrote: »

But at least I know my elderly mother in Ireland has so far escaped this virus and her nursing home managed to keep COVID from it’s doors.

While my bother in Sweden has had to bury his mother in law due to COVID

While this is regrettable, plenty of people in Ireland and all across Western Europe have had to bury their mothers, fathers, mother in laws etc too, and in many cases far more of them per head of population than Swedes have. And in Ireland we have spectacularly failed to protect our nursing homes, which we could have with simple measures like daily rapid antigen testing, focused protection, and earlier in the pandemic by controlling visits not moving patients from hospitals with COVID outbreaks into them - over 4000 of them, both measures overseen by NPHET and the HSE.

My 94 year old aunt contracted COVID in a nursing home, luckily she barely got sick, but several other residents died.

What's your point exactly?

The argument about Sweden goes like this. Someone wants to prove homeschooling is a disastrous policy for education (in itself a terrible starting point from a scientific viewpoint - better to try to actively disprove your hypothesis). They pick a very wealthy family with 4 kids. 3 of the kids are sent to private schools, while the 4th kid is homeschooled.

The 3 privately educated kids all get 600 points and become brain surgeons, nobel prize winners etc. The 4th kid gets 550 points and becomes an engineer in a MNC.

The authors of the study conclude that homeschooling is a complete failure and should never be used in any circumstances. Does this sound like "science" to anyone with half a brain?

SheepsClothing

Deleted User wrote: »

The argument about Sweden goes like this. Someone wants to prove homeschooling is a disastrous policy for education (in itself a terrible starting point from a scientific viewpoint - better to try to actively disprove your hypothesis). They pick a very wealthy family with 4 kids. 3 of the kids are sent to private schools, while the 4th kid is homeschooled.

The 3 privately educated kids all get 600 points and become brain surgeons, nobel prize winners etc. The 4th kid gets 550 points and becomes an engineer in a MNC.

The authors of the study conclude that homeschooling is a complete failure and should never be used in any circumstances. Does this sound like "science" to anyone with half a brain?

A more apt analogy would be, there a group of students, some with study plan A (Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore), One with study plan B (Sweden).

The students who follow study plan A are the top performing kids in class, on every metric (Social, economic, health), the student that followed study plan B, is middle of the road on those same metrics.

For some reason a not insignificant cohort of the public and "experts" want their kids to follow study plan B rather than A, despite A being more beneficial under every measurable metric.

DylanJM

SheepsClothing wrote: »

A more apt analogy would be, there a group of students, some with study plan A (Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore), One with study plan B (Sweden).

The students who follow study plan A are the top performing kids in class, on every metric (Social, economic, health), the student that followed study plan B, is middle of the road on those same metrics.

For some reason a not insignificant cohort of the public and "experts" want their kids to follow study plan B rather than A, despite A being more beneficial under every measurable metric.

And we in Ireland are plan C. We are performing no better than Sweden despite considerably more restrictions.

SheepsClothing

SheepsClothing wrote: »

A more apt analogy would be, there a group of students, some with study plan A (Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore), One with study plan B (Sweden).

The students who follow study plan A are the top performing kids in class, on every metric (Social, economic, health), the student that followed study plan B, is middle of the road on those same metrics.

For some reason a not insignificant cohort of the public and "experts" want their kids to follow study plan B rather than A, despite A being more beneficial under every measurable metric.

In your analogy, plan A is actually plan C, which needs to be followed from the time the students are 4 years old (swift measures at the start of the pandemic to prevent spread and keep infections out of your country).

Plan A is not giving the kids any education at all until they are 12 (allow the virus to spread widely and become endemic with ineffective or nonexistent measures) and then locking them in the classroom, blaming them for their stupidity and beating the lessons into them every day (massive societal, economic and health damage that no one is talking about) until they are 18 (Ireland's current strategy - and interestingly quite similar to Ireland's ACTUAL strategy in educational institutions for much of our history, but I digress).

Plan B is rationally explaining to the kids what they have to do to live a successful life and giving them the chance to learn (Sweden). Sure it won't be as good as plan C but it's a damn sight better than Plan A. And EVEN if it was say 10% worse than Plan A in terms of COVID deaths - which all evidence suggests it isn't - it would arguably still be worth it, as Plan A causes many more non-COVID deaths and huge suffering.

SheepsClothing

DylanJM wrote: »

And we in Ireland are plan C. We are performing no better than Sweden despite considerably more restrictions.

Good thing, there's a plan we can follow that is considerably better than Sweden's then.

SheepsClothing

SheepsClothing wrote: »

Good thing, there's a plan we can follow that is considerably better than Sweden's then.

It's too late for Plan C. Plan C needed to be implemented back last February.

charlie14

whippet wrote: »

But at least I know my elderly mother in Ireland has so far escaped this virus and her nursing home managed to keep COVID from it’s doors.

While my bother in Sweden has had to bury his mother in law due to COVID

A very stressful time for anyone with elderly loved ones. Especially if they are residents of nursing homes. With residents of nursing homes the first cohort to receive the vaccines here I hope that at least has gone some way to alleviate that worry and your mother remains safe and well.

In Ireland we may not have initially covered ourselves in glory on how we dealt with nursing homes, but unlike Sweden at least we appear to have learned from that.
In October with case numbers rising Sweden`s Public Health Authority lifted restrictions on care home visits and told the vulnerable it was ok to again mingle with the general populace.