Sweden avoiding lockdown

Widdensushi

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let me say this - they better not be the last country holding the straw of mass infection because no one will trade with a country that's riddled.

If you think the US or China will open to Sweden after what they have been through when Sweden has done almost nothing to eradicate the disease - that won't happen.

So Sweden needs to get on board fast or take the consequences.

Or countries will be closed to them.

Simple as that.

So you think other countries will refuse to trade with them if the swedish approach is not a complete failure, rubbish. The world is watching with the majority hoping it's a success. A success won't be measured this year. It will probably March 22 at the earliest before you can look back at the overall casualties, from covid /mental health and the measures being taken by countries due to lack of funds.

Del Griffith

coastwatch wrote: »

Maybe, but everywhere will be going for ongoing surpression, not heard immunity.
Head Immunity means,
20% of population require hospital treatment over next 6-12 months
5% of population require intensvie care treatment over next 6-12 months
1-2 % of population will die from covid 19 over next 6-12 months

Where are you getting these figures from?

They're bat**** (excuse the pun) crazy.

20% of population require hospital treatment over next 6-12 months , I think you mean 20% of OVER-80 YEAR OLDS
source: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196573/covid-19-one-five-over-80s-need-hospitalisation/

Death rate estimated around 0.66%. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

This sort of hysteria is causing additional harm.

Kermit.de.frog

Widdensushi wrote: »

So you think other countries will refuse to trade with them if the swedish approach is not a complete failure, rubbish. The world is watching with the majority hoping it's a success. A success won't be measured this year. It will probably March 22 at the earliest before you can look back at the overall casualties, from covid /mental health and the measures being taken by countries due to lack of funds.

No, every country that eradicates the disease will be closed to Sweden.

Do you believe that we will have flights to Stockholm if they persist?

Really?

We won't, nor will any other western country. For pure security and health reasons we won't.

If that is the price they want to pay so be it...

The world won't tremble at the loss.

Widdensushi

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, every country that eradicates the disease will be closed to Sweden.

Do you believe that we will have flights to Stockholm if they persist?

Really?

We won't, nor will any other western country. For pure security and health reasons we won't.

If that is the price they want to pay so be it...

The world won't tremble at the loss.

what country is going to eradicate the disease ?Not possible. We definitely won't with an open border on this island

Multipass

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let me say this - they better not be the last country holding the straw of mass infection because no one will trade with a country that's riddled.

If you think the US or China will open to Sweden after what they have been through when Sweden has done almost nothing to eradicate the disease - that won't happen.

So Sweden needs to get on board fast or take the consequences.

Or countries will be closed to them.

Simple as that.

We’re all riddled for the foreseeable future. Lockdown forever if you want, the virus isn’t going anywhere.

jibber5000

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, every country that eradicates the disease will be closed to Sweden.

Do you believe that we will have flights to Stockholm if they persist?

Really?

We won't, nor will any other western country. For pure security and health reasons we won't.

If that is the price they want to pay so be it...

The world won't tremble at the loss.

You're ignoring the whole Swedish position.

They are convinced the curve will flatten for them in the next week. For the simple reason that it is the most vulnerable (elderly, comorbidites) who will have already contracted/ shown sympoms of the virus so far.

We can theorise from the 2 American studies this week that 3 -4% of the population have already contracted Covid. Thus the mortality rate is far far lower than had been thought.

If the virus is as common as that the theory is that herd immunity will happen at a much quicker rate.

Kermit.de.frog

jibber5000 wrote: »

If the virus is as common as that the theory is that herd immunity will happen at a much quicker rate.

Can you point us to the scientific papers that say immunity is guaranteed?

Only yesterday the WHO implied the opposite.

jibber5000

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can you point us to the scientific papers that say immunity is guaranteed?

Only yesterday the WHO implied the opposite.

I never said Immunity was guaranteed. I said that's their Theory.

The point is nobody knows. The WHO have no idea either as it's too early to say.

What nearly every country is basing their public health policy on is the Imperial College London paper which hasn't even been peer reviewed yet.

Models have been wrong time and again with Covid. We were told by Leo on the 15th March there would be 15,000 cases in Ireland even with the lockdown. He was obviously told this by the public health experts. We ended up with 3,400.

Just 450% of an overestimation.

ush

Immunity doesn't have to be guaranteed. Could well be a scale of immunity. People become resistant. That resistance may wear off with time. But, since the virus is circulating all the time, people come into contact with it and renew their resistance. As long as there's enough resistance among people a virus can't run riot.

coastwatch

Del Griffith wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from?

They're bat**** (excuse the pun) crazy.

20% of population require hospital treatment over next 6-12 months , I think you mean 20% of OVER-80 YEAR OLDS
source: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196573/covid-19-one-five-over-80s-need-hospitalisation/

Death rate estimated around 0.66%. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

This sort of hysteria is causing additional harm.

Not hysteria, just explaining why I believe the "herd immunity" approach is not an option as it would overwhelm health care systems.

The overall statistics for Ireland and other countries so far is that,
Approximately 20% of people tested positive require some hospitalisation.
(It's 64% for confirmed covid positive people 65 years and older, and 32% for confirmed covid positive aged 50-64 years).
According to ECDC update for 8th April,
Based on data from EU/EEA countries, 32% of the diagnosed cases have required hospitalisation and 2.4%
have had severe illness requiring respiratory support and/or ventilation. The crude fatality rate was 1.5%
among diagnosed cases and 11% among hospitalised cases.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf


3-4% of all hospitalisations require ICU treatment. (2.4% in the ECDC update)

The death rates are still very debatable, but the observed fatality rates are in the 1-2% range, including 1.38% observed for China, quoted in that Lancet paper,
"we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53)".
The ECDC update is reporting a "crude fatality rate was 1.5%"
The death rates may turn out to be lower, when population testing confirms the true extent of infections.
It may turn out to be higher when overall mortality statistics are compared with previous year.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf

tabby aspreme

jibber5000 wrote: »

I never said Immunity was guaranteed. I said that's their Theory.

The point is nobody knows. The WHO have no idea either as it's too early to say.

What nearly every country is basing their public health policy on is the Imperial College London paper which hasn't even been peer reviewed yet.

Models have been wrong time and again with Covid. We were told by Leo on the 15th March there would be 15,000 cases in Ireland even with the lockdown. He was obviously told this by the public health experts. We ended up with 3,400.

Just 450% of an overestimation.

With so little testing going on, we were never going to reach the 15000 cases

biko

jibber5000 wrote: »

You're ignoring the whole Swedish position.

They are convinced the curve will flatten for them in the next week. For the simple reason that it is the most vulnerable (elderly, comorbidites) who will have already contracted/ shown sympoms of the virus so far.

Tegnell said a month ago the curve was flattening.
Then old people started dying but he thinks he can see a flattening curve this time.

biko

https://c19.se/
14046 cases
1546 dead
11.0% death rate

jibber5000

coastwatch wrote: »

Not hysteria, just explaining why I believe the "herd immunity" approach is not an option as it would overwhelm health care systems.

The overall statistics for Ireland and other countries so far is that,
Approximately 20% of people tested positive require some hospitalisation.
(It's 64% for confirmed covid positive people 65 years and older, and 32% for confirmed covid positive aged 50-64 years).
According to ECDC update for 8th April,
Based on data from EU/EEA countries, 32% of the diagnosed cases have required hospitalisation and 2.4%
have had severe illness requiring respiratory support and/or ventilation. The crude fatality rate was 1.5%
among diagnosed cases and 11% among hospitalised cases.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf


3-4% of all hospitalisations require ICU treatment. (2.4% in the ECDC update)

The death rates are still very debatable, but the observed fatality rates are in the 1-2% range, including 1.38% observed for China, quoted in that Lancet paper,
"we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53)".
The ECDC update is reporting a "crude fatality rate was 1.5%"
The death rates may turn out to be lower, when population testing confirms the true extent of infections.
It may turn out to be higher when overall mortality statistics are compared with previous year.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf

All your figures are correct. Even if we do go with a 1% circa mortality rate - very much on the high side - you are basing your figures on everyone of the population catching the virus.

That's not possible.

Widdensushi

of the 2000 tests done of 2300 crew on the French aircraft carrier over 1000 tested positive, 350 odd had symptoms, 24 need hospital and 1 icu.That was a day ago so there is probably up to date figures available somewhere. Testing the people who are sick is not going to give the correct percentage of people who need hospital treatment etc with this sickness.

jibber5000

biko wrote: »

Tegnell said a month ago the curve was flattening.
Then old people started dying but he thinks he can see a flattening curve this time.

It got into the nursing homes which skewed things to a large extent.

Del Griffith

coastwatch wrote: »

Not hysteria, just explaining why I believe the "herd immunity" approach is not an option as it would overwhelm health care systems.

The overall statistics for Ireland and other countries so far is that,
Approximately 20% of people tested positive require some hospitalisation.
(It's 64% for confirmed covid positive people 65 years and older, and 32% for confirmed covid positive aged 50-64 years).
According to ECDC update for 8th April,
Based on data from EU/EEA countries, 32% of the diagnosed cases have required hospitalisation and 2.4%
have had severe illness requiring respiratory support and/or ventilation. The crude fatality rate was 1.5%
among diagnosed cases and 11% among hospitalised cases.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf


3-4% of all hospitalisations require ICU treatment. (2.4% in the ECDC update)

The death rates are still very debatable, but the observed fatality rates are in the 1-2% range, including 1.38% observed for China, quoted in that Lancet paper,
"we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53)".
The ECDC update is reporting a "crude fatality rate was 1.5%"
The death rates may turn out to be lower, when population testing confirms the true extent of infections.
It may turn out to be higher when overall mortality statistics are compared with previous year.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf

Good post.

Where I disagree with you is only in that I don't think we can rely on any death rate % when the testing penetration is so low. I'm basing what I've been posting and saying from the estimates in the sources I posted.

There have been several studies trying to evaluate actual infection rates

Germany estimates between 2-4% infected (using anti-body test - https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-wie-antikoerpertests-dabei-helfen-die-pandemie-zu-verstehen-a-2258edcd-a304-4ee0-83cc-76a24f340c45

China data - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-15/china-s-data-on-symptom-free-cases-reveals-most-never-get-sick?sref=XdK4dijq

UK, small sample (pregnant women) 13.8% infected and asymptomatic - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

Every study suggests the infected number everywhere is way, way higher than the tested positive number.

That obviously means the death rates is far lower, and perhaps some of these measures may have been a bit knee-jerk. We'll find out in the end I guess.

Looking forward to antibody tests.

jibber5000

tabby aspreme wrote: »

With so little testing going on, we were never going to reach the 15000 cases

We've ramped up testing and still have not reached 15,000

Danzy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, every country that eradicates the disease will be closed to Sweden.

Do you believe that we will have flights to Stockholm if they persist?

Really?

We won't, nor will any other western country. For pure security and health reasons we won't.

If that is the price they want to pay so be it...

The world won't tremble at the loss.

What country, that is not an Island, will eradicate the disease?

That will only happen for us when there is mass use of instant tests.

biko

Att vara en hest wrote: »

c19.se becomes misleading when they report deaths as occurring on the day they were reported, sometimes gathering deaths from a 4 day period and putting it on a single day.

c19.se takes reports from Swedish sources and if two sources are reporting the same number it gets used.

The Health Authorities only report once a day at 11.30am
c19 reports when stats in the local Swedish papers change.

jibber5000

Del Griffith wrote: »

Good post.

Where I disagree with you is only in that I don't think we can rely on any death rate % when the testing penetration is so low. I'm basing what I've been posting and saying from the estimates in the sources I posted.

There have been several studies trying to evaluate actual infection rates

Germany estimates between 2-4% infected (using anti-body test - https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-wie-antikoerpertests-dabei-helfen-die-pandemie-zu-verstehen-a-2258edcd-a304-4ee0-83cc-76a24f340c45

China data - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-15/china-s-data-on-symptom-free-cases-reveals-most-never-get-sick?sref=XdK4dijq

UK, small sample (pregnant women) 13.8% infected and asymptomatic - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

Every study suggests the infected number everywhere is way, way higher than the tested positive number.

That obviously means the death rates is far lower, and perhaps some of these measures may have been a bit knee-jerk. We'll find out in the end I guess.

Looking forward to antibody tests.

Antibody tests are running in our hospitals.

biko

jibber5000 wrote: »

It got into the nursing homes which skewed things to a large extent.

The health authorities said when the pandemic hit Sweden their plan had two prongs, protect the old and let herd immunity in young population make everyone resilient.

They did not manage to protect the old and tbh it looks like this herd immunity isn't working out either.

Del Griffith

jibber5000 wrote: »

Antibody tests are running in our hospitals.

Wide availability I mean. The study's suggest the vast majority of infected will never set foot in a hospital.

wakka12

jibber5000 wrote: »

You're ignoring the whole Swedish position.

They are convinced the curve will flatten for them in the next week. For the simple reason that it is the most vulnerable (elderly, comorbidites) who will have already contracted/ shown sympoms of the virus so far.

We can theorise from the 2 American studies this week that 3 -4% of the population have already contracted Covid. Thus the mortality rate is far far lower than had been thought.

If the virus is as common as that the theory is that herd immunity will happen at a much quicker rate.

I'm sure cases are underrepresented by 10-20x in most countries but 4% of the populations certainly have not had COVID. The American study in Santa Clara was based on a sample of self volunteered people and will be highly skewed toward those who believe they have had COVID already. It is not random community testing and definitely cannot be extrapolated to the entire population,particularly as the study was based within the 5th most densely populated metropolitan area in the country also

I would imagine around 1% of the US population have had the disease. In NYC, Detroit, Boston, probably much much higher than that, in many less populated regions of the US its likely close to 0% though

jibber5000

biko wrote: »

The health authorities said when the pandemic hit Sweden their plan had two prongs, protect the old and let herd immunity in young population make everyone resilient.

They did not manage to protect the old and tbh it looks like this herd immunity isn't working out either.

My whole argument is that it's impossible to judge at this stage.

Let's say 4,000 Swedes die in the next month, but herd immunity works their economy gets back to work and they avoid a second surge.

Now say we control it over the next few weeks, gradually open things up but are hit with a second surge in August causing our economy to shut down again, this time fully for a number of months.
And say no vaccine is discovered and we're in lockdown until summer 2021.
The health system and country as a whole would be decimated.

We can't pretend as if theres not a risk with our strategy either.

It's an almighty gamble but they feel they have the capital to take the short term hit for long term gain.

jibber5000

wakka12 wrote: »

I'm sure cases are underrepresented by 10-20x in most countries but 4% of the populations certainly have not had COVID. The American study in Santa Clara was based on a sample of self volunteered people and will be highly skewed toward those who believe they have had COVID already. It is not random community testing and definitely cannot be extrapolated to the entire population,particularly as the study was based within the 5th most densely populated metropolitan area in the country also

I would imagine around 1% of the US population have had the disease. In NYC, Detroit, Boston, probably much much higher than that, in many less populated regions of the US its likely close to 0% though

I think everyone thinks they have had Covid. Or at least would love to find out whether they have had symptoms or not?

And that was two weeks ago. We know how infectious it is by the way it spreads. I'd be stunned if it was as low as 1% at the moment.

tabby aspreme

jibber5000 wrote: »

We've ramped up testing and still have not reached 15,000

Are there up to date figures for the numbers tested.

wakka12

jibber5000 wrote: »

I think everyone thinks they have had Covid. Or at least would love to find out whether they have had symptoms or not?

And that was two weeks ago. We know how infectious it is by the way it spreads. I'd be stunned if it was as low as 1% at the moment.

Well I dont think I had COVID. I'm sure many other people have not experienced sickness since January either. I cant imagine many people who havnt recently (in the last 2 months)experienced flu symptoms entering into the study, which will very significantly skew the figure and falsely inflate the apparent number of people who had COVID within the general population.

2 weeks, didnt know that, thought it was more recent. Yeh could well be different by now then. But a top estimate of 4.2% in a densely populated city based on self volunteered candidates doesnt make me think its as widespread as some theorise.

tabby aspreme

jibber5000 wrote: »

And that was two weeks ago. We know how infectious it is by the way it spreads. I'd be stunned if it was as low as 1% at the moment.

I would agree, considering it's in 30% of nursing homes, the residents of which have not left those premises since early March

coastwatch

jibber5000 wrote: »

All your figures are correct. Even if we do go with a 1% circa mortality rate - very much on the high side - you are basing your figures on everyone of the population catching the virus.

That's not possible.

Articles on the "herd immunity" approach (Sweden's apparent policy) is that 70% of the population would need to have had the virus for population immunity to be effective, so true, not the whole population.

For Sweden, population 10.2m, 70% would mean 7.1 million people need to have had the virus for population immunity.
That means, 7.1 million would be unwell / sick at some stage this year,
around 1m people would require hospitalisation (15% of 7.1m)
around 215000 would require ICU treatment (3% of 7.1m)
around 71000 deaths would result (1% of 7.1m)

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic