Sweden avoiding lockdown

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Because it’s the last grasp at an argument that isn’t supported by the figures.


Sweden is about mid table EU death rate

it's not last-gasp anything

The economist deals with different areas around the world from the US to Latin America and Europe is not treated as one bloc because they are not dimwits who would lump countries with little in common together -

Central Europe Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

When it comes to Northern Europe they state

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.

as for the obvious agenda merchants like yourself it's a case of....

newboard

glasso wrote: »

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

Great resource. When all of this started, someone I know who believes Covid is less severe than the seasonal flu acknowledged that if there were excess deaths then they might be wrong - they were confident at the time that there would be no such excess deaths and as such it'd be proven that Covid wasn't more severe.

Now that the data is in, I'm pretty sure they'll backtrack on that and will say;

1) The excess deaths are due to fewer people being treated for other illnesses, due to discontinuation of services, restrictions and fear of attending hospital etc, as well as excess suicides.

and

2) The number of illnesses falsely attributed to Covid accounts for the numbers closely correlating.

Any advice??

newboard

newboard wrote: »

Great resource. When all of this started, someone I know who believes Covid is less severe than the seasonal flu acknowledged that if there were excess deaths then they might be wrong - they were confident at the time that there would be no such excess deaths and as such it'd be proven that Covid wasn't more severe.

Now that the data is in, I'm pretty sure they'll backtrack on that and will say;

1) The excess deaths are due to fewer people being treated for other illnesses, due to discontinuation of services, restrictions and fear of attending hospital etc, as well as excess suicides.

and

2) The number of illnesses falsely attributed to Covid accounts for the numbers closely correlating.

Any advice??

obfuscation and yet another attempt to derail the sweden thread into some agenda tangent

Go off to the Ireland thread to peddle this

newboard

glasso wrote: »

obfuscation and yet another attempt to derail the sweden thread into some agenda tangent

Go off to the Ireland thread to peddle this

not sure if you read my post correctly?

newboard

newboard wrote: »

not sure if you read my post correctly?

oh I did

the answer for "your friend" is right there in the Northern Europe area above

Sweden - light restrictions -> way more excess deaths because way more spread of Covid and deaths.

Norway, Finland, Denmark - more restrictions to limit spread and Covid deaths ->negligible excess deaths (Norway, Finland particularly).

so "your friend" here would expect lots of excess deaths in these strong restriction countries for being afraid to go to hospital, suicide etc but unless they were bringing people back to life in these countries it didn't happen...

newboard

glasso wrote: »

oh I did

the answer for "your friend" is right there in the Northern Europe area above

Sweden - light restrictions -> way more excess deaths because way more spread.

Norway, Finland, Denmark - more restrictions to limit spread and Covid deaths ->negligible excess deaths (Norway, Finland particularly).

so "your friend" here would expect lots of excess deaths for being afraid to go to hospital, suicide etc but unless they were bringing people back to life in these countries it didn't happen...

Okay, so you did read my post correctly, but then jumped to some wild conclusion about me being "my friend". It was a genuine question, and I am not "my friend". But, if you're having to deal with others taking such roundabout ways of diverting the conversation or peddling an agenda, then I can't say I blame you for jumping to the conclusion.

This person btw has been one of the worst things about the pandemic for me. I spend a lot of time with them, and they're a firm disbeliever, they're smart enough to have done a level of self-driven "research", but also seem naive enough to swallow so much of what the charlatans put out there. I think they fall into that dangerous middle ground of the risks of knowing a little bit but not enough. They have a fundamental distrust in the mainstream media, they believe medical experts are corruptible and therefore can't be trusted, and so on.

Many conversations we've had about this have ended in argument. They're one of the only adults I get to spend any decent amount of time with and their complete disregard of the whole situation has made it harder for me personally to cope with it all, in a mental health sense, when I see others banding together in solidarity with that sense of getting through it together.

Anyway, maybe this isn't the right thread, but there are a couple of cornerstones to their views and the excess deaths point was one that they acknowledged would be a strong indicator of the facts. Hence my question.

well you have your answer above - see how you get on with that logic...

maybe you're genuine but the phrasing of your question did seem suspicious tbh

and as you say there are so many loons with agendas due to Covid that it's hard to know the wood from the trees and has forced the default assumption!

CalamariFritti

All the excess deaths statistics graphs shown here on this board lately have a logical error. Which I assume is deliberate.

They show us 2020 deaths against an average of the last four or five years. They saw whatever is above that average curve are 2020 'excess deaths'.
But thats a logical flaw. It is an average curve. Of course some years will be above average. Some years will be below.
If you compile an average from four years then chances are two of those 4 years were above average. So why shouldn't 2020 be above average?

The question is really whether the 2020 spike is an extraordinary spike compared to pre-covid spike years.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

All the excess deaths statistics graphs shown here on this board lately have a logical error. Which I assume is deliberate.

They show us 2020 deaths against an average of the last four or five years. They saw whatever is above that average curve are 2020 'excess deaths'.
But thats a logical flaw. It is an average curve. Of course some years will be above average. Some years will be below.
If you compile an average from four years then chances are two of those 4 years were above average. So why shouldn't 2020 be above average?

The question is really whether the 2020 spike is an extraordinary spike compared to pre-covid spike years.

it's an over 1 in an 100 year spike for Sweden for excess mortality per capita and excess deaths

is that extraordinary enough for you?

charlie14

newboard wrote: »

Great resource. When all of this started, someone I know who believes Covid is less severe than the seasonal flu acknowledged that if there were excess deaths then they might be wrong - they were confident at the time that there would be no such excess deaths and as such it'd be proven that Covid wasn't more severe.

Now that the data is in, I'm pretty sure they'll backtrack on that and will say;

1) The excess deaths are due to fewer people being treated for other illnesses, due to discontinuation of services, restrictions and fear of attending hospital etc, as well as excess suicides.

and

2) The number of illnesses falsely attributed to Covid accounts for the numbers closely correlating.

Any advice??

I agree that on excess deaths related to Covid it is a great example. The irony is that the poster who originally provided that link to the Economist research did so attempting to use it to prove the opposite to what it actually shows.


1) Show those graphs on excess deaths in Northern Europe to that person. The shade area in relation to Sweden shows excess deaths due to Covid. That shaded area accounts for practically allof Sweden`s excess deaths.


2) Sweden`s reported daily Covid deaths only include those that have tested positive within the previous 28 days. If, after testing positive, they pass later than that period they are not included in daily deaths.
If a daily death in Sweden is reported as due to Covid the chances of it not being are virtually zero.

CalamariFritti

glasso wrote: »

it's an over 1 in an 100 year spike for Sweden for excess mortality per capita and excess deaths

is that extraordinary enough for you?

It is and it isn't. There is a spike, yes. But its about twice as bad as 2002 and about a 50% increase on 1988.

Its a bad year (after a soft 2019), but it is not an event of the century.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

All the excess deaths statistics graphs shown here on this board lately have a logical error. Which I assume is deliberate.

They show us 2020 deaths against an average of the last four or five years. They saw whatever is above that average curve are 2020 'excess deaths'.
But thats a logical flaw. It is an average curve. Of course some years will be above average. Some years will be below.
If you compile an average from four years then chances are two of those 4 years were above average. So why shouldn't 2020 be above average?

The question is really whether the 2020 spike is an extraordinary spike compared to pre-covid spike years.

There is nothing deliberate about it. It`s just mathematics.
Sweden`s deaths in 2020 were 97,941. An increase of 9,175 (10.4%) on the previous year.


Statistik.se on their CovidStatistik.se link expected annual deaths for 2020 of 89,100. Deaths were 9.9% higher.



The 2020 deaths of 97,941 are also 7.7% greater than the previous 5 year average of 90,962.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It is and it isn't. There is a spike, yes. But its about twice as bad as 2002 and about a 50% increase on 1988.

Its a bad year (after a soft 2019), but it is not an event of the century.

ah here

you're a joker

you said it's only showing the last 5 years

you said show the spike to be extraordinary

It's been shown to be the biggest excess in over a 100 years so quite literally it is the event of a century in this case and now it's "but but it doesn't look that big to me"

wakka12

CalamariFritti wrote: »

All the excess deaths statistics graphs shown here on this board lately have a logical error. Which I assume is deliberate.

They show us 2020 deaths against an average of the last four or five years. They saw whatever is above that average curve are 2020 'excess deaths'.
But thats a logical flaw. It is an average curve. Of course some years will be above average. Some years will be below.
If you compile an average from four years then chances are two of those 4 years were above average. So why shouldn't 2020 be above average?

The question is really whether the 2020 spike is an extraordinary spike compared to pre-covid spike years.

There's surprisingly (or maybe it's unsurprising) little variation most years..you can just check 2020 against all the 5 years individually if you think it's more a fair assessment

ittakestwo

newboard wrote: »

Great resource. When all of this started, someone I know who believes Covid is less severe than the seasonal flu acknowledged that if there were excess deaths then they might be wrong - they were confident at the time that there would be no such excess deaths and as such it'd be proven that Covid wasn't more severe.

Now that the data is in, I'm pretty sure they'll backtrack on that and will say;

1) The excess deaths are due to fewer people being treated for other illnesses, due to discontinuation of services, restrictions and fear of attending hospital etc, as well as excess suicides.

and

2) The number of illnesses falsely attributed to Covid accounts for the numbers closely correlating.

Any advice??

Regarding point 1.

Then in countries where the lockdowns were harsher there should be more excess deaths. So Norway and Denmark should have more excess deaths than Sweden if that hypothesis was true which it is obviously not.

Regarding point 2.

Dont get this piont. If you make the assumption all excess deaths in 2020 (actual number of deaths in 2020 minus expected number of deaths in 2020) were due to Covid then it does not really matter what the country reported it covid deaths were. One of the reason people are looking at countries excess deaths is to avoid looking at inaccurate self reporting statistics by the counties health authority as every country has different criteria of what counts as a Covid death which makes comparisons difficult an inaccurate. But the number of excess deaths is factual and not subjective. That is why it is more accurate to compare countries excess deaths rather than the number of deaths they reported due to covid-19.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Don't flatter yourself. No forensic trawl necessary. I merely used the search function for 'malaria'. Took 10 seconds.

I remembered this because it was such a trollish statement, even amongst yours.

Again, 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, whatever that was.

As I said before, someone who is a 'fan' of science doesn't pollute the narrative with fake data, only seeking to confuse people. That's a well established alt-right fake news ploy.

I'm sure some of your alt-right chums considered it 'nitpicking' when someone points out that the Bills Gates Vaccine conspiracy is bananas, but it's not nitpicking it's just debunking BS

You requested evidence that you make stuff up to embellish your case, and I've provided it .Deal with it.

Anywhere on these threads, or in life, I have engaged with alt-right, science/vaccine denyers,or Bill Gates vaccine conspiracy theorists has been that they are flat earth tin foil hat troglodytes. When their rubbish is factually questioned their only defense is resorting to baseless attempts of character assassination and shouts of fake news. Classical alt-right behaviour.
Now which of us does that alt-right description come closest to fitting ?


I have always said clearly and consistently that vaccines are the only answer to this pandemic and any of these make believe alt-right "chums" I have engaged with on their Bill Gates conspiracy theories or on their vaccine or science denials has been that they are tinfoil hat nutcases.
Feel free to check any of my posts and do your copy and paste if you believe you can show otherwise. If you do, then where their is a question mark do not delete it as you have done on previous occasions attempting to alter the context.

You on the other hand are a supporter of an immoral scientific strategy of herd immunity where the country in question ignored it`s own Royal Academy of Sciences and it`s primary research institute, the Karolinska Institute on face masks.


In classic alt-right behaviour you have questioned posts of mine, but when challenged on you have either ignored ( Eurostat single-person household %).
On IFC after numerous times altering my reply, you now no longer wish to discuss the subject. On an Economist report you yourself linked attempting to show it compared Sweden to any number of other countries on excess deaths due to Covid where the only mention in written text of Sweden was in comparison to countries in Northern Europe where it. (rather kindly imo), referred to Sweden`s excess Covid deaths was being an "exception".


Your only defense on any of these, other than ignoring or altering a post, has been the old alt-rght like fall back of groundless attempted character assassination and shouts of fake news where you appear to have possibly picked up at least one of those "chums" you accused me of having along the way.

biko

DylanJM wrote: »

Why are Sweden only ever compared to their neighbors? How do they stack up against the rest of the EU?

One answer is for instance that Sweden and Norway measures the same way.
Their populations are quite similar physically, age groups, culture, adherence to government and medical instructions, and diets.
In other words they fairly perfect for comparison, wouldn't you agree?

sheepysheep

glasso wrote: »

As if this hasn't been answered twenty times?

Because Sweden is in Northern Europe. Crossover with Scandinavia and the Nordics.

Denmark, Norway and Finland are the most relevant comparators.

They are geographically and culturally similar. politics also. demographically. genetically (aside from the immigrants). economically even (Norway has oil, the others don't).

If it suits your agenda to make Sweden's numbers look better by comparing them with Bulgaria or whatever nobody is going to stop you anyway.

Just to put this BS to bed once and for all.

Repeating your opinion does not make it fact.

This is from a EU report from 2018. It is a small list of the umpteen things with which European countries are compared with each other. There a graph for most of them with Sweden unsurprisingly lumped in with everyone else. Demographics, Age, Gender, access to healthcare all discussed.

Here is a list of items because you probably have no interest in reading it.

Trends in life expectancy
Inequalities in life expectancy
Healthy life expectancy at birth and at age 65
Main causes of mortality
Mortality from circulatory diseases
Mortality from cancer
Mortality from respiratory diseases
Infant health
Self-reported health and disability
Notified cases of vaccine-preventable diseases
New reported cases of HIV and tuberculosis
Cancer incidence
Diabetes prevalence
Dementia prevalence

Smoking among children
Smoking among adults
Alcohol consumption among children
Alcohol consumption among adults
Illicit drug consumption among children
Illicit drug consumption among adults
Obesity among children
Obesity among adults
Mortality due to air pollution and extreme weather conditions .

Avoidable mortality (preventable and amenable)
Childhood vaccinations
Patient experience with ambulatory care
Mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI)
Mortality following stroke
Waiting times for hip fracture surgery
Screening, survival and mortality for cervical cancer
Screening, survival and mortality for breast cancer
Survival and mortality for colorectal cancer
Late-diagnosed HIV and tuberculosis treatment outcomes
Healthcare-associated infections


Unmet health care needs
Financial burden of out-of-pocket expenditure
Population coverage for health care
Extent of health care coverage
Availability of doctors
Availability of nurses
Consultations with doctors
Availability and use of diagnostic technologies
Hospital beds and discharges
Waiting times for elective surgery

Cancers alone compared include, Breast, Respiratory, Kidney, Gastrointestinal, Reproductive organs, Bladder, Ovary, Uterus and cervical, Lung, Larynx, pharynx, Thyroid, Prostate, Rectum, Pancreas, Stomach, liver, anus, Colon, Testis, vulva, Skin

They're also all compared on Science and Technology, Environment and Energy, Transport, Foreign Trade, Agriculture Forestrt and Fisheries, Social issues, Living Conditions and Labour Market in other reports.

Now, can you provide any good reason why the sole disease or category not allowed to be included is Covid-19?, because it most certainly will be in the next one.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

sheepysheep

biko wrote: »

One answer is for instance that Sweden and Norway measures the same way.
Their populations are quite similar in physiognomy, age, culture, adherence to government and medical instructions, and diets.
In other words they fairly perfect for comparison, wouldn't you agree?

Congratulations.

Has to be one of the dumbest posts on this thread.

You've managed to cite physiognomy as a reason for non-comparison. Physiognomy (wiki) as understood in the past meets the contemporary definition of a pseudoscience and popular in the 19th century, it has been used as a basis for scientific racism.

Not that you need your racism to be scientific of course. No wonder yourself and Charlie are in such agreement.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Anywhere on these threads, or in life, I have engaged with alt-right, science/vaccine denyers,or Bill Gates vaccine conspiracy theorists has been that they are flat earth tin foil hat troglodytes. When their rubbish is factually questioned their only defense is resorting to baseless attempts of character assassination and shouts of fake news. Classical alt-right behaviour.
Now which of us does that alt-right description come closest to fitting ?


I have always said clearly and consistently that vaccines are the only answer to this pandemic and any of these make believe alt-right "chums" I have engaged with on their Bill Gates conspiracy theories or on their vaccine or science denials has been that they are tinfoil hat nutcases.
Feel free to check any of my posts and do your copy and paste if you believe you can show otherwise. If you do, then where their is a question mark do not delete it as you have done on previous occasions attempting to alter the context.

You on the other hand are a supporter of an immoral scientific strategy of herd immunity where the country in question ignored it`s own Royal Academy of Sciences and it`s primary research institute, the Karolinska Institute on face masks.


In classic alt-right behaviour you have questioned posts of mine, but when challenged on you have either ignored ( Eurostat single-person household %).
On IFC after numerous times altering my reply, you now no longer wish to discuss the subject. On an Economist report you yourself linked attempting to show it compared Sweden to any number of other countries on excess deaths due to Covid where the only mention in written text of Sweden was in comparison to countries in Northern Europe where it. (rather kindly imo), referred to Sweden`s excess Covid deaths was being an "exception".


Your only defense on any of these, other than ignoring or altering a post, has been the old alt-rght like fall back of groundless attempted character assassination and shouts of fake news where you appear to have possibly picked up at least one of those "chums" you accused me of having along the way.

There's not much point highlighting your bone fides if you resort to alt right tactics to skew the argument, which is what you have done repeatedly.

The problem with the alt right is not that they are looney tunes, its that they are sly, manipulative, smart and persistent. They salt their lies with a kernel of truth to allow themselves to make their arguments, exactly like you have done.

I didn't cry 'Fake News', I called it out. Apparently you don't know the difference.

You have consistently taken an anti science view and defended your position with regard to IFR.

You have never addressed your lies regarding malaria.

You have attempted to mislead with Swedish housing stats.

Right now you're desperately attempting to construct this strawman that Sweden can only be compared to 3 other countries. Absolute nonsense which I have dealt with elsewhere.

Your opinion that the Swedish response, which better protected its citizens than 63% of Europe, is immoral is your opinion and nothing else.

Finally, the Economist report that I initially linked shows a table of 45 countries with the deaths per 100k from worst to best. What else was that list for if not comparison? it doesn't all have to be spoon fed to you.

biko

sheepysheep wrote: »

Congratulations.

Has to be one of the dumbest posts on this thread.

You've managed to cite physiognomy as a reason for non-comparison. Physiognomy (wiki) as understood in the past meets the contemporary definition of a pseudoscience and popular in the 19th century, it has been used as a basis for scientific racism.

Not that you need your racism to be scientific of course. No wonder yourself and Charlie are in such agreement.

I meant the two peoples are similar physically but for some reason that come out as physiognomy, the old study of judging human character from facial features.

But of course you latched onto it immediately pretending to not understand such a simple typing mistake but instead smearing me and Charlie (for some strange reason only known to yourself) as racists.

sheepysheep

biko wrote: »

I meant the two peoples are similar physically but for some reason that come out as physiognomy, the old study of judging human character from facial features.

But of course you latched onto it immediately pretending to not understand such a simple typing mistake but instead smearing me and Charlie (for some strange reason only known to yourself) as racists.

You have a history of making anti immigrant postings.

I've seen your work on other threads and indeed on this one too.

Maybe it was a typing mistake but it was a strange claim to make, you should have checked what you typed.

sheepysheep

sheepysheep wrote: »

You have a history of making anti immigrant postings.

I've seen your work on other threads and indeed on this one too.

Maybe it was a typing mistake but it was a strange claim to make, you should have checked what you typed.

some cheek coming from someone who created a cowardly boards account solely for the purpose of hiding behind it to post nonsense in this thread exclusively

then searching through the post history of another user and making accusations

sheepysheep

sheepysheep wrote: »

Just to put this BS to bed once and for all.

Repeating your opinion does not make it fact.

This is from a EU report from 2018. It is a small list of the umpteen things with which European countries are compared with each other. There a graph for most of them with Sweden unsurprisingly lumped in with everyone else. Demographics, Age, Gender, access to healthcare all discussed.

Here is a list of items because you probably have no interest in reading it.

what an absolute amateur-hour tangent attempt with a list copy/paste filler from a website - talk about lazy muck.

who cares if there are reports about all of the countries in Europe?

there are also plenty of worldwide reports comparing every country in the entire world on plenty of parameters.

but for Covid, the most relevant grouping is Northern Europe because they are in the same geographic area and are very similary culturally. never mind economics, demographics, genetics and politics.

A grouping used in Covid articles by venerable publications such as "The Economist" that you yourself have quoted, too thick to realise that you were shooting yourself in the foot as they were referring to Sweden in the same grouping of Northern Europe with respect to Covid in the same very article that you quoted!

nice work Einstein.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

There's not much point highlighting your bone fides if you resort to alt right tactics to skew the argument, which is what you have done repeatedly.

The problem with the alt right is not that they are looney tunes, its that they are sly, manipulative, smart and persistent. They salt their lies with a kernel of truth to allow themselves to make their arguments, exactly like you have done.

I didn't cry 'Fake News', I called it out. Apparently you don't know the difference.

You have consistently taken an anti science view and defended your position with regard to IFR.

You have never addressed your lies regarding malaria.

You have attempted to mislead with Swedish housing stats.

Right now you're desperately attempting to construct this strawman that Sweden can only be compared to 3 other countries. Absolute nonsense which I have dealt with elsewhere.

Your opinion that the Swedish response, which better protected its citizens than 63% of Europe, is immoral is your opinion and nothing else.

Finally, the Economist report that I initially linked shows a table of 45 countries with the deaths per 100k from worst to best. What else was that list for if not comparison? it doesn't all have to be spoon fed to you.

The Economist report that you listed only mentioned Sweden once in written text and only compared it to the rest of Northern Europe noting that Sweden`s excess Covid deaths were an "exception". The only spoon feeding was you attempting to make comparisons that the report did not make.

Sweden`s response was attempting naturally acquired herd immunity. That it was immoral was always my view. Belatedly imo, Anders Tegnell the architect of that response agrees with me.

We can get to malaria when you acknowledge you have been posting baseless accusations of me being anti vaccines and an alt right supporter, and why you altered a post of my by deleting the question mark. Plus a few posts you have chosen to ignore.
One of those you ignored when pointed out to you that the statistic was from Eurostat, (even though it was also stated in you copy and paste of my post on Sweden`s household occupancy), is according to you "classic trolling misinformation" (Post#7991)

The Economist report did not make a comparison to 3 countries. It made a comparison to countries in the geographical area of Northern Europe.

You keep repeating that I am anti science, but it appears you cannot find anything to back that up. You on the other hand supported a strategy of a scientifically immoral attempt at herd immunity and one that countered the views of their own Royal Academy of Sciences and their own primary research institute, the Karolinska Institute.

You keep bringing up IFR but have kept saying you do not wish to discuss it
Something else you need to clear up on that which you have failed to do when asked.
Why did you remove the question mark in your copy and paste of a post of mine (Post #8321) ? Btw, in case you are unaware, the highlighted symbol is a question mark.
Perhaps we can start discussing IFR by you replacing the question mark and answering the question. Your choice.

As to your alt-right description I find it very accurate.
I have already posted my bona fides and a summary of yours. That description is damn near perfect for one of us, and it ain`t me.

biko

Staff at medical centres in Boras city refusing the AstraZeneca vaccine after 100 out of 400 vaccinated got so sick from side-effects they couldn't work.

Vaccinations are paused so the city doesn't risk to be without medical staff.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/sormland/vardpersonal-sjukskriven-sig-efter-covid-vaccin-forvantade-biverkningar



Edit, I forgot the local newspaper link
https://www.bt.se/boras/hundratals-vaccintider-obokade-vardpersonal-osaker-pa-biverkningar-09a70b06/

Hundreds of vaccination slots not booked - healthcare professionals: "Unsure of side effects"
Borås received 900 doses of Astra Zeneca's vaccine last week - thus the vaccination of health and care staff could be resumed.
But few want to get vaccinated. Hundreds of slots for vaccination have not been booked.
- I do not trust it, says an employee who does not want to be vaccinated.

whippet

biko wrote: »

Staff at medical centres in Boras city refusing the AstraZeneca vaccine after 100 out of 400 vaccinated got so sick from side-effects they couldn't work.

Vaccinations are paused so the city doesn't risk to be without medical staff.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/sormland/vardpersonal-sjukskriven-sig-efter-covid-vaccin-forvantade-biverkningar

there is nothing in that article that says they are 'refusing' .. a decision was made to put a temp halt on the admin of the vaccine .. and the plans will be amended to ensure that there won't be a strain on staff and sick leave if needed


full text of the article from google translate -

Region Sörmland has stopped the vaccination of its staff, both in the municipality and in the region, after about a hundred hospital employees had side effects on Friday after they were vaccinated against covid-19 on Thursday. It is supposed to be a fever, a common side effect, but according to the region, more people than expected have reported sick.

- Yes, it is true that several employees have had a fever after vaccination yesterday. This is a common and known side effect of vaccination. Usually mild symptoms that go away on their own, says Fredrik Gustavsson, communicator at Region Sörmland.

A total of 400 doses of vaccine were given to staff at Kullbergska Hospital in Katrineholm and Nyköping Hospital on Thursday. During Friday, about 100 people had side effects. Not everyone was scheduled to work on Friday, but those who would have worked have had to report sick.

Not unusual
The vaccine that the healthcare staff received was manufactured by Astra Zeneca, but other approved vaccines have also listed fever as a common and harmless side effect.

Fredrik Gustavsson says that the region was aware that there was a risk of side effects and therefore did not vaccinate an entire ward or unit at a time, but instead some here and there. This is so as not to risk staff shortages.

Stops vaccination temporarily
But that as many as a hundred would be bad was unexpected, and it affected the staffing of several units in Region Sörmland on Friday. Now the staff situation is under control again, but to avoid more people getting sick, the planned vaccination of healthcare staff is stopped for the time being.

The region will now investigate the reason why so many have suffered from fever and inform both the Medical Products Agency and the manufacturer what happened.

- We stop partly because we are to investigate but also so that we do not have a too strained personnel situation, says Magnus Johansson, head of medicine in Region Sörmland.

The Gävleborg Region has also stopped the vaccination of staff.

This was the first time that Astra Zeneca's vaccine was used in Sörmland. The recommendation is that it should not be given to people over the age of 65, and therefore only hospital employees have had time to receive it. All planned vaccination with Pfizer and Moderna's vaccine for people in phase one continues as planned

charlie14

We really are living in strange times.

A few short months ago we had that old chancer Johan Giesecke in Dublin telling us we should be, bending it like Sweden, or some such rubbish. Last weekend one of his "boys" Anders Tegnell on Sweden`s national public radio discussing restrictions pointing to Ireland, Denmark and the U.K. as countries that have been able to, even with the new variants, reduce the spread of infections.

This being Tegnell it`s probably a leap too far hoping he has finally seen the light. He most likely believes it is all down to hand washing and keeping 1.5 meters apart in crowds without wearing face masks.

sheepysheep

glasso wrote: »

what an absolute amateur-hour tangent attempt with a list copy/paste filler from a website - talk about lazy muck.

Its not a Website, I linked a report. I just listed some of the categories because I knew you wouldn't read it, which you didn't, as predicted, else you would know it's a report.

who cares if there are reports about all of the countries in Europe?


Anybody who is interested in facts generally or anyone who wanted to compare different countries across a range of areas. In this case Health-care professionals and people who care about the Health of EU citizens.
i.e. In 2016, the European Commission launched the State of Health in the EU cycle to assist EU Member States in improving the health of their citizens and the performance of their health systems.


there are also plenty of worldwide reports comparing every country in the entire world on plenty of parameters.

There certainly are because that make complete sense a lot of the time. Doesn't bolster your case at all.

but for Covid, the most relevant grouping is Northern Europe because they are in the same geographic area and are very similary culturally. never mind economics, demographics, genetics and politics.

There are also very similar culturally, economically, demographically, genetically and politically to the rest of Europe. it's only your opinion that they're so different, and even if they were, they're still no good reason why they can't be compared, as the above report clearly shows.

A grouping used in Covid articles by venerable publications such as "The Economist" that you yourself have quoted, too thick to realise that you were shooting yourself in the foot as they were referring to Sweden in the same grouping of Northern Europe with respect to Covid in the same very article that you quoted!

Yes, they briefly talked about Northern Europe. Did they explicitly declare that Sweden cannot be compared to the rest of the world? No, and in fact they provided a nice ranking list for comparison.


nice work Einstein.

Thank you! It was good work.

I provided access to a couple of hundred reasons why Sweden can be compared to the rest of Europe and highlighted the fact that it regularly is,.... and you replied with your opinion, ignorance and invective. Not so impressive.

sheepysheep

glasso wrote: »

some cheek coming from someone who created a cowardly boards account solely for the purpose of hiding behind it to post nonsense in this thread exclusively

then searching through the post history of another user and making accusations

Nope. Didn't specifically check out his posts at all. I was just browsing through some other threads and he popped up a lot with some vey dodgy opinions. I simply recognized his name from this thread. Simple explanation really.

He's been called out before by other posters, including on this thread, I'm not the first.

You should have done some research first before you jumped in to back him up.