Sweden avoiding lockdown

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/limerick-man-flees-sweden-over-criticism-of-his-covid-19-campaign-1.4493317?mode=amp

Bit cynical

beauf wrote: »

Sweden has one of the highest numbers of COVID-19 deaths per inhabitant globally.

Could I ask very generally what sources of information are you using for the sort of stuff you are posting up here?

FintanMcluskey

Bit cynical wrote: »

Could I ask very generally what sources of information are you using for the sort of stuff you are posting up here?

What one might sit on

copeyhagen

beauf wrote: »

Sweden has one of the highest numbers of COVID-19 deaths per inhabitant globally.

thats just not true? 1200 per million puts them at 23 worldwide, behind half of Europe

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?

beauf

Bit cynical wrote: »

Could I ask very generally what sources of information are you using for the sort of stuff you are posting up here?

Google

copeyhagen wrote: »

thats just not true? 1200 per million puts them at 23 worldwide, behind half of Europe

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?

Issue with these stats is almost every time you look them up they've change or they've been qualified in some form or other.

I think regardless of source, Sweden isn't a leading light in any regard.
Well other than mostly ignoring Covid until their third Spike.

copeyhagen

beauf wrote: »

Google



Issue with these stats is almost every time you look them up they've change or they've been qualified in some form or other.

I think regardless of source, Sweden isn't a leading light in any regard.
Well other than mostly ignoring Covid until their third Spike.

on the flipside, i would 100% have rathered their approach, as im sure a lot of others would have.

also, the stats change of course, as they increase. but theyre still ahead of Spain, France, Italy, Hungry,Portugal,UK, etc etc.

all Countries that had severe lockdowns.

ArthurDayne

beauf wrote: »

Google



Issue with these stats is almost every time you look them up they've change or they've been qualified in some form or other.

I think regardless of source, Sweden isn't a leading light in any regard.
Well other than mostly ignoring Covid until their third Spike.

But they didn’t ignore it. There seems to be a view in the world that to ‘acknowledge’ Covid you have to very visibly be seen to acknowledge it in the form of government action. In other words, the more measures a government takes, the more it is deemed that a government ‘cares’.

The inescapable fact is that Sweden’s excess deaths for 2020 were hardly the stuff of “we should have had full national lockdown for months”. Their excess deaths for the year, having largely avoided lockdown, show only one of two possible logical conclusions — either (1) the effect of the virus in a relatively open society and economy simply wasn’t as severe as was feared; or (2) Covid was as severe as predicted and therefore Sweden’s strategy clearly did not dismiss that risk because, if it had, then they would have had many many thousands more excess deaths.

So which is it? If Sweden ignored Covid, and if the virus was as severe as touted, then their total 2020 deaths would have been bordering on astronomical.

copeyhagen

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But they didn’t ignore it. There seems to be a view in the world that to ‘acknowledge’ Covid you have to very visibly be seen to acknowledge it in the form of government action. In other words, the more measures a government takes, the more it is deemed that a government ‘cares’.

The inescapable fact is that Sweden’s excess deaths for 2020 were hardly the stuff of “we should have had full national lockdown for months”. Their excess deaths for the year, having largely avoided lockdown, show only one of two possible logical conclusions — either (1) the effect of the virus in a relatively open society and economy simply wasn’t as severe as was feared; or (2) Covid was as severe as predicted and therefore Sweden’s strategy clearly did not dismiss that risk because, if it had, then they would have had many many thousands more excess deaths.

So which is it? If Sweden ignored Covid, and if the virus was as severe as touted, then their total 2020 deaths would have been bordering on astronomical.

thats the question i always ask people that say we would have had HUGE numbers. their answer? always the same "cant compare Sweden to Ireland"
:rolleyes:

beauf

copeyhagen wrote: »

on the flipside, i would 100% have rathered their approach, as im sure a lot of others would have.

also, the stats change of course, as they increase. but they're still ahead of Spain, France, Italy, Hungry,Portugal,UK, etc etc.

all Countries that had severe lockdowns.

Perfectly reasonable that people would prefer that approach.

But take for example UK their approach was a disaster. being better than the UK is a pretty low bar. There's multifaceted issue with those other countries' so direct comparisons are usually simplistic and of limited value. People are selecting comparisons out of context which is disingenuous at best.

You have consider that Sweden did so meh with far more advantages than most of these other countries they are being selectively compared including Ireland. That is not impressive. Its almost trump like to rewrite that as a stunning success.

beauf

copeyhagen wrote: »

thats the question i always ask people that say we would have had HUGE numbers. their answer? always the same "cant compare Sweden to Ireland"
:rolleyes:

Well that works both ways. Both side on this argument dismiss unfavourable comparisions. One side won't compare them with their nordic neighbours, other won't want to compare Sweden with Mexico etc.

beauf

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But they didn’t ignore it. .......

"disregard intentionally" they basically carried on as normal. Which is what people are arguing they would have preferred. You can rephrase that whatever way.

cnocbui

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/limerick-man-flees-sweden-over-criticism-of-his-covid-19-campaign-1.4493317?mode=amp

I wonder does he coach youth sports?

Utter twit.

ArthurDayne

beauf wrote: »

"disregard intentionally" they basically carried on as normal. Which is what people are arguing they would have preferred. You can rephrase that whatever way.

But it’s not a matter of rephrasing because “carrying on as normal” still raises the exact same point. If Covid was as severe as touted, then “carrying on as normal” would have meant many thousands of excess deaths.

The fact is — they did not carry on as normal. People knew a disease was going around and those at risk knew they had to take certain precautions, while those less at risk knew they had to act a certain way around those who were vulnerable. There is no doubt that this strategy, prioritising personal responsibility to the extent possible to avoid the need for lockdown, led to more deaths. This is undeniable. But it did not lead to death on such a scale that many people, had they been given a crystal ball in March, would have said that months of lockdown would be proportionate.

I was a supporter of Sweden’s strategy from the start, and largely still support what they did, though I can certainly admit it was not a “success” and the virus has persisted there longer than I thought it would. I think those who were / are detractors of their strategy likewise need to de-entrench themselves and admit where they may have gone wrong — most particularly in pushing or agreeing with the much higher death toll projections being made last year. You don’t have to be a supporter of Sweden’s strategy to admit that the experience there does provide at least some evidence the projections for what would have happened in Ireland without lockdown might have been pretty significantly overcooked.

beauf

I've no idea what projections your referring to I've never looked at them. But I do understand the concept worse case scenario when planning things also that is often highly inaccurate especially when there is little evidence and data to base that guesstimate on.

I assume such projections became obsolete after a few months of live data became available, and isn't that why lockdown was eased. It's no different to a country realising their approach isn't working and adjusting their approach accordingly.

Why you are still talking about these obsolete projections a year later I have no idea. You don't even have to look at other countries data. You can look at how our own cases a few months back exploded and extrapolate from that.

Even all that is now obsolete with the roll out of the vaccines. We are again waiting on data to see how that works out.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But it’s not a matter of rephrasing because “carrying on as normal” still raises the exact same point. If Covid was as severe as touted, then “carrying on as normal” would have meant many thousands of excess deaths.

The fact is — they did not carry on as normal. People knew a disease was going around and those at risk knew they had to take certain precautions, while those less at risk knew they had to act a certain way around those who were vulnerable. There is no doubt that this strategy, prioritising personal responsibility to the extent possible to avoid the need for lockdown, led to more deaths. This is undeniable. But it did not lead to death on such a scale that many people, had they been given a crystal ball in March, would have said that months of lockdown would be proportionate.

I was a supporter of Sweden’s strategy from the start, and largely still support what they did, though I can certainly admit it was not a “success” and the virus has persisted there longer than I thought it would. I think those who were / are detractors of their strategy likewise need to de-entrench themselves and admit where they may have gone wrong — most particularly in pushing or agreeing with the much higher death toll projections being made last year. You don’t have to be a supporter of Sweden’s strategy to admit that the experience there does provide at least some evidence the projections for what would have happened in Ireland without lockdown might have been pretty significantly overcooked.

All estimates were overcooked. Including Sweden`s on herd immunity and higher levels of immunity for a second wave.


I never saw that much common ground between Ireland and Sweden that justified direct comparisons, but per 100,000 of population Sweden have 50% more Covid deaths than Ireland. Under the present lockdown Ireland`s case numbers have continued to fall while Sweden`s, even with the extra recommendations and restrictions, have stalled and are again rising with a positivity level of over 10%. Twice that of Ireland.


While there may have been some argument to justify Sweden`s approach in the past in avoiding a stricter lockdown, for this present wave with a range of vaccines we know work, where Sweden expect to have reached herd immunity by June using these vaccines, then I do not see there is any justifiable argument left.

biko

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/limerick-man-flees-sweden-over-criticism-of-his-covid-19-campaign-1.4493317?mode=amp

Keith Begg set up a private Facebook group with the aim of “exposing the failed Swedish Covid-19 strategy”.

But a recent national Swedish radio report portrayed his online activities as “attempting to influence Swedish interests abroad”, triggering a wave of abuse and threats. After nearly eight years in the country, the 46-year-old dual citizen of Sweden and Ireland decided to return to Limerick.

If you hurt the Sweden self-image of being the greatest thing since sliced bread, that's a paddlin' from State funded radio

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

All estimates were overcooked. Including Sweden`s on herd immunity and higher levels of immunity for a second wave.


I never saw that much common ground between Ireland and Sweden that justified direct comparisons, but per 100,000 of population Sweden have 50% more Covid deaths than Ireland. Under the present lockdown Ireland`s case numbers have continued to fall while Sweden`s, even with the extra recommendations and restrictions, have stalled and are again rising with a positivity level of over 10%. Twice that of Ireland.


While there may have been some argument to justify Sweden`s approach in the past in avoiding a stricter lockdown, for this present wave with a range of vaccines we know work, where Sweden expect to have reached herd immunity by June using these vaccines, then I do not see there is any justifiable argument left.

There’s an element here though where the goal posts are constantly being shifted around. We need to place them precisely where they were and precisely where they ought always to be when assessing the Swedish approach, and those posts fit into two question slots:

(1) What motivated the calls for a lockdown?; and
(2) In the absence of a lockdown, were those motivations ultimately shown to be justified / proportionate?

The reason it is important to ask both questions is because anyone can conveniently forget Question 1 and slip towards the argument that Sweden’s excess deaths and Covid deaths generally are higher than Country X and Country Y (as you are doing) and the scale of those comparisons means that Sweden’s policy was a disaster. That is because the answer to Question 1 was never “We want to have much less deaths of elderly per capita this year than Country X or Country Y — the answer was “we want to avoid this being a year in which we faced a healthcare cataclysm and our death rate is thousands upon thousands higher than the usual”.

So I don’t buy this idea that saying “their cases are rising and our’s are not” or “their deaths are higher than our’s” are determinative points in arguing that Sweden should have gone into lockdown — or should still. The determinative factor is whether not going into lockdown will cause the kind of cataclysm that motivates many to support lockdown measures ... not merely a healthcare crisis, not merely strain and stress on medical staff, not merely more deaths than Ireland or its neighbours — but a sustained and irretrievable crippling of its healthcare system leading to the deaths of many thousands through Covid and inability to access treatment for other illness or emergency care.

That is what lockdown is designed to prevent — an extreme sustained suppression of society to avoid an extreme sustained healthcare cataclysm. That is the measure by which its appropriateness and proportionality must always be assessed.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There’s an element here though where the goal posts are constantly being shifted around. We need to place them precisely where they were and precisely where they ought always to be when assessing the Swedish approach, and those posts fit into two question slots:

(1) What motivated the calls for a lockdown?; and
(2) In the absence of a lockdown, were those motivations ultimately shown to be justified / proportionate?

The reason it is important to ask both questions is because anyone can conveniently forget Question 1 and slip towards the argument that Sweden’s excess deaths and Covid deaths generally are higher than Country X and Country Y (as you are doing) and the scale of those comparisons means that Sweden’s policy was a disaster. That is because the answer to Question 1 was never “We want to have much less deaths of elderly per capita this year than Country X or Country Y — the answer was “we want to avoid this being a year in which we faced a healthcare cataclysm and our death rate is thousands upon thousands higher than the usual”.

So I don’t buy this idea that saying “their cases are rising and our’s are not” or “their deaths are higher than our’s” are determinative points in arguing that Sweden should have gone into lockdown — or should still. The determinative factor is whether not going into lockdown will cause the kind of cataclysm that motivates many to support lockdown measures ... not merely a healthcare crisis, not merely strain and stress on medical staff, not merely more deaths than Ireland or its neighbours — but a sustained and irretrievable crippling of its healthcare system leading to the deaths of many thousands through Covid and inability to access treatment for other illness or emergency care.

That is what lockdown is designed to prevent — an extreme sustained suppression of society to avoid an extreme sustained healthcare cataclysm. That is the measure by which its appropriateness and proportionality must always be assessed.

Back up a there a minute minute.
You brought up the comparisons between Ireland and Sweden, not me. As I said I never thought there was that much commonality between Ireland and Sweden to base comparisons on. I have always stated I believe the comparisons with the other Nordic states was more applicable.


Are you saying that the much harsher lockdowns in those states, or indeed Ireland for that matter, have not resulted in in much lesser lose of lives due to Covid, or that it has no bearing on the reduction in case number while Sweden`s are again rising with a positivity level over 10% ?

beauf

Trumpeting Sweden/Lockdown or lambasting either seems a bit like car insurance or such.

If you get it and never use it, or only have small accident. You can look back and say was it really worth it.
If you never had it but then have an accident, but the cost of fines etc. cost ends up being much same as the above, you will say its worth it.

Neither has had an accident costing massive amounts. Does that negate the principle of car insurance.

I think your arguing different sides of a similar coin here. Most of it being with the benefit of hindsight, and not small element of luck.

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

Back up a there a minute minute.
You brought up the comparisons between Ireland and Sweden, not me. As I said I never thought there was that much commonality between Ireland and Sweden to base comparisons on. I have always stated I believe the comparisons with the other Nordic states was more applicable.


Are you saying that the much harsher lockdowns in those states, or indeed Ireland for that matter, have not resulted in in much lesser lose of lives due to Covid, or that it has no bearing on the reduction in case number while Sweden`s are again rising with a positivity level over 10% ?

Of course they have resulted in much lesser loss of life. If one is to argue that locking a country down prevents the spread of disease (and therefore less people will die of disease) then one might as well say that grass is green. But as I said, it is completely disingenuous to use this argument as the determining basis for saying that lockdown is justified — because it is conveniently only applying Question 2 and ignoring the equally important Question 1. It is, and always has been, a complete and utter moving of the goalposts.

Ireland did not go into lockdown because there was a fear that Covid would cause the overall 2020 death numbers to increase from 31,000 in 2019 to maybe 34,000-35,000 — and that the median age for those excess deaths would be at life expectancy. That kind of rise would be seen as a crisis and a terrible event worthy of overhauls, better investment into healthcare and perhaps even some campaign at the public level — heads might roll and a government might be brought down in election. But it would never have been taken to justify a year of draconian restrictions on liberty and the infliction of immeasurable economic damage that would have long term socioeconomic effects. On the flip side, and going back to my “grass is green” statement, if Ireland was to go into lockdowns every year in the colder months then there would likely be less excess death per capita than any of neighbouring countries who did not do go into lockdowns. Would we call that a success? Is having less excess deaths than neighbouring countries for a period of time such a matter of national importance that we want annual lockdowns? No - of course it isn’t. It’s not nice that people will die because of that, but we also know it would not be proportionate to subject people to annual lockdowns merely to prolong the life of the elderly.

That is why saying “we have less deaths than them” is not an appropriate measure for justifying lockdown. Illustrative - yes. A factor among others - yes, maybe. But not determinative.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Tegnell to announce new national recommendations today.

All restaurants to close at 8.30 and more limits on capacity in shops.

Take that 3rd Wave. :pac:

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

All restaurants to close at 8.30 and more limits on capacity in shops.

Take that 3rd Wave. :pac:

The value of a robust democracy.

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The value of a robust democracy.

Indecisiveness based on a split populous.

Either way I doubt it will have the desired effect and they will be back next Wednesday with another news conference.

is_that_so

They may be looking at a possible first lockdown.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-24/swedish-pm-sees-high-risk-of-new-wave-of-covid-infections

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

Indecisiveness based on a split populous.

Either way I doubt it will have the desired effect and they will be back next Wednesday with another news conference.

If I had a €, every time since last April I seen a poster on this thread promise us that severe lockdown and healthcare collapse was only hours away in Sweden, I’d have enough to go for a walk in the Wicklow mountains every weekend

the incredible pudding

It's Sportlov next week too in Stockholm (mid term where folks go to skiing resorts).
I expected a lot more but honestly can't say I'm surprised.

FintanMcluskey

is_that_so wrote: »

They may be looking at a possible first lockdown.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-24/swedish-pm-sees-high-risk-of-new-wave-of-covid-infections

As far as I’m aware, lockdown is difficult in Sweden as the constitution prevents it.

Similar to why some European cities had to relax restrictions, lockdowns don’t correlate to basic rights of citizens

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If I had a €, every time since last April I seen a poster on this thread promise us that severe lockdown and healthcare collapse was only hours away in Sweden, I’d have enough to go for a walk in the Wicklow mountains every weekend

The thing is though I didn't promise that, did I?

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Congratulations.

From all the attempts here recently to distract from Sweden, you have single-handedly managed to take that from the ridiculous too the bizarre.
An OECD 2018 report on health where 99% of the data is from 2016 or earlier.
Why do you think this pandemic was initially called Covid-19. Because like WD40 it required 19 attempts before they got it right ?

No chance of you copping yourself on with your alt-right and anti science childish rubbish anytime soon it seems

The Economist report is very clear on the results and the methodology used to reach those results in relation to Sweden.
For someone that waffles so much about anti-science, the very antithesis of science is what you were attempting to do. Take a report and attempt by doing your own analysis to attach a significance to it that neither in methodology or results the authors of the report did or saw the need to.

Do you ever actually get anything right?

Do you think a report of that magnitude for 2016 would be available on 1st January 2017? 18 months minimum research in that.

So, Again, does the report clearly compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

If YES (and it does), then there's no good reason not to compare them on Covid either.

If NO, then your name is Charlie and haven't read the report/or your name is charlie and have read the report but don't like it.

I doubt if you know what methodology is.

Unless you have the power to fly through space and time into the the minds of the authors of the Economist report you are in no position to ascertain what they felt necessary to include or not or indeed why.

Perhaps on your next visitation you'll ask them when southern Europe disappeared.

charlie14

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

As far as I’m aware, lockdown is difficult in Sweden as the constitution prevents it.

Similar to why some European cities had to relax restrictions, lockdowns don’t correlate to basic rights of citizens

They brought in new legislation with parliament having an emergency Christmas meeting that negates that difficulty. They also had virtually those same powers to act from the beginning of this pandemic, but let them lapse in June.