Sweden avoiding lockdown

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.

biko

From "no need to wear a face mask" to "wear it during rush hours" to "Stockholm has introduced further measures to curb the spread of coronavirus,
including urging people to wear face masks at all times on public transport"

https://www.thelocal.se/20210223/stockholm-set-to-announce-new-coronavirus-measures
Welcome to the fold Sweden..

FintanMcluskey

biko wrote: »

From "no need to wear a face mask" to "wear it during rush hours" to "Stockholm has introduced further measures to curb the spread of coronavirus,
including urging people to wear face masks at all times on public transport"

https://www.thelocal.se/20210223/stockholm-set-to-announce-new-coronavirus-measures
Welcome to the fold Sweden..

Wearing face masks on public transport almost a year on from stay at home orders and business closures in Ireland.

the incredible pudding

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

They got them pretty damn late, back in the middle of April at the height of the first wave. Far from the beginning. They were only really meant to be temporary and were quite contentious at the time.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

I read a report that you posted on European health based on data that is at best 5 years out of date. What you appear to believe that has to do with Sweden and lockdown I have no idea.



I am very aware of methodology and the finding from the process.
The Economist report you posted was clear on the methodology and the findings from that methodology.
What you have been attempting to do is cherry-pick data from that report and use your own methodology to present findings in relation to Sweden that the report did not.

If you wish to do your own report by using whatever methodology you wish then off you go, but to do so attempting to link it to an Economist report to give it credence is nothing short of plagiarism imo.

charlie14

the incredible pudding wrote: »

They got them pretty damn late, back in the middle of April at the height of the first wave. Far from the beginning. They were only really meant to be temporary and were quite contentious at the time.

Their first Covid death was on the 11th.March and those powers were voted through parliament on the 16th April. 5 weeks later when they still had just 12,540 cases, so they were not that far into their first wave.


From reading comments from different people in authority in Sweden it does appear there are real concerns over the numbers and the possibility they are beginning to experience a new wave.
I genuinely hope they are not and that today`s announcement brings those numbers down substantially but to be honest it looks to be just tinkering at the edges.

beauf

What's their vaccine rollout like?

charlie14

beauf wrote: »

What's their vaccine rollout like?

5.33% have received their first. 2.75% their second.

biko

beauf wrote: »

What's their vaccine rollout like?

https://www.thelocal.se/20210129/charts-how-is-swedens-vaccination-programme-going

as of February 19th, 398,092 people had received at least one dose of the vaccine, of which 187,751 had received both doses, according to reports from regions.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I read a report that you posted on European health based on data that is at best 5 years out of date. What you appear to believe that has to do with Sweden and lockdown I have no idea.



I am very aware of methodology and the finding from the process.
The Economist report you posted was clear on the methodology and the findings from that methodology.
What you have been attempting to do is cherry-pick data from that report and use your own methodology to present findings in relation to Sweden that the report did not.

If you wish to do your own report by using whatever methodology you wish then off you go, but to do so attempting to link it to an Economist report to give it credence is nothing short of plagiarism imo.

Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

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

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I read a report that you posted on European health based on data that is at best 5 years out of date. What you appear to believe that has to do with Sweden and lockdown I have no idea.



I am very aware of methodology and the finding from the process.
The Economist report you posted was clear on the methodology and the findings from that methodology.
What you have been attempting to do is cherry-pick data from that report and use your own methodology to present findings in relation to Sweden that the report did not.

If you wish to do your own report by using whatever methodology you wish then off you go, but to do so attempting to link it to an Economist report to give it credence is nothing short of plagiarism imo.

Wrong again. It's not plagiarism when you cite the original research. Where do you think they got their data? All sources were referenced.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I read a report that you posted on European health based on data that is at best 5 years out of date. What you appear to believe that has to do with Sweden and lockdown I have no idea.



I am very aware of methodology and the finding from the process.
The Economist report you posted was clear on the methodology and the findings from that methodology.
What you have been attempting to do is cherry-pick data from that report and use your own methodology to present findings in relation to Sweden that the report did not.

If you wish to do your own report by using whatever methodology you wish then off you go, but to do so attempting to link it to an Economist report to give it credence is nothing short of plagiarism imo.

Did they explain in their discussion why they compared North America to Western Europe?

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

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

The data is from 2016 or earlier.What has that got do with Sweden and lockdown ?

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Wrong again. It's not plagiarism when you cite the original research. Where do you think they got their data? All sources were referenced.

Plagiarism is considered a violation of academic integrity.

An academic integrity you were attempting to attach to your own analysis in relation to Sweden from a report that made no such analysis.

The report was crystal clear as to the methodology, the parameters and the resulting findings on Sweden`s excess Covid deaths.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Did they explain in their discussion why they compared North America to Western Europe?

They explain clearly their findings on Sweden`s excess Covid deaths and the parameters they used in coming to those findings.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The data is from 2016 or earlier.What has that got do with Sweden and lockdown ?

It's a simple question. A simple Yes/No will suffice.

For the 5th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

cnocbui

sheepysheep wrote: »

It's a simple question. A simple Yes/No will suffice.

For the 5th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

Now now, you know he has avoidance issues, be gentle.

sheepysheep

cnocbui wrote: »

Now now, you know he has avoidance issues, be gentle.

It's the U12's I feel sorry for.

the incredible pudding

charlie14 wrote: »

Their first Covid death was on the 11th.March and those powers were voted through parliament on the 16th April. 5 weeks later when they still had just 12,540 cases, so they were not that far into their first wave.

Their test rates meant nothing at that time as they weren't doing many outside of the health care workers, crikey even you've acknowledged this in the past.
Look at the data - it was bang in the middle of when the ICU numbers were at the peak. The peak deaths in the first wave was literally on the 16th of April. I haven't the foggiest why you're being contentious with this.

99nsr125

sheepysheep wrote: »

It's a simple question. A simple Yes/No will suffice.

For the 5th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

He won't answer because the answer is Yes

Good comparisons are done broadly just like the report

That would mean Sweden would have to be compared to countries that have done far worse with very harsh restrictions not just cherry picked examples.

beauf

I get Page not found?

biko

You do because the link isn't right.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

This happens when the copy/paste wasn't done correctly.

FintanMcluskey

biko wrote: »

You do because the link isn't right.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

This happens when the copy/paste wasn't done correctly.

Your tone is amusing


Pffft can ye do anything right!!

beauf

Thanks. Still can't get it working.

The comparisons people are making for Sweden are misleading. It's a lot more similar to its Nordic neighbours than it is to places the other side of Europe or the World. That's not to say you can't look at dissimilar planes and compare what they've done differently.

Take Ireland, we have a severe lockdown. But our borders are a sieve and we have a lot of non compliance, and we lifted the lockdown at various points. So as a test of a lockdown its deeply flawed.

Likewise if a country allowed new cases to build to high level before it took precautions is very different to a country which from the start took precautions and strictly enforced them and had some advantages in terms of physical location or such. They may be lumped together on these stats as both doing lockdown but they are very different.

That Sweden did better than countries with poorly implemented lockdown or precautions and more disadvantages of location, or resources etc. Is at best a mediocre result for Sweden..

Herd impunity works best with vaccine. Trying to do that without a vaccine was flawed. Their methodology for trying that was flawed. Saying you'd prefer that approach is fine. But it wasn't a success. That wasn't because they like ski holidays.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

It's a simple question. A simple Yes/No will suffice.

For the 5th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

You appear to a problem with comprehension.

I already said what it is. A O.E.C.D. health report where the data is at a minimum 5 years out of date.
Other than just another of your distraction attempts, I have no idea what relevance it has on Sweden avoiding lockdown.

Especially where a post on statistics from Eurostat, (a Directorate-General of the European Commission), off Sweden having over 50% single household occupancy was "classic trolling misinformation", I believe was the term you used ?
Something you then ignored when another poster pointed out to you the source and something you have repeatedly continued to ignore when asked for an explanation.

charlie14

the incredible pudding wrote: »

Their test rates meant nothing at that time as they weren't doing many outside of the health care workers, crikey even you've acknowledged this in the past.
Look at the data - it was bang in the middle of when the ICU numbers were at the peak. The peak deaths in the first wave was literally on the 16th of April. I haven't the foggiest why you're being contentious with this.

Apologies if you believe I was being contentious.
That was not my intention. I just found it, careless, I suppose is the word to best describe it, of the Swedish government to allow legislation to lapse in June and then have to go into emergency session over Christmas to re-enact.

It just seems as if they either didn`t believe there would be a second wave or the put to much belief in the country having the higher levels of immunity their PHA was forecasting.

charlie14

cnocbui wrote: »

I wonder does he coach youth sports?

Utter twit.

If he doesn`t but decides to do so in the future, he will already have had a good grounding on bullying and racism.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to a problem with comprehension.

I already said what it is. A O.E.C.D. health report where the data is at a minimum 5 years out of date.
Other than just another of your distraction attempts, I have no idea what relevance it has on Sweden avoiding lockdown.

Especially where a post on statistics from Eurostat, (a Directorate-General of the European Commission), off Sweden having over 50% single household occupancy was "classic trolling misinformation", I believe was the term you used ?
Something you then ignored when another poster pointed out to you the source and something you have repeatedly continued to ignore when asked for an explanation.

It's a simple question. A simple Yes/No will suffice. Stop answering questions I didn't ask.

For the 6th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.


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

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to a problem with comprehension.

I already said what it is. A O.E.C.D. health report where the data is at a minimum 5 years out of date.
Other than just another of your distraction attempts, I have no idea what relevance it has on Sweden avoiding lockdown.

Especially where a post on statistics from Eurostat, (a Directorate-General of the European Commission), off Sweden having over 50% single household occupancy was "classic trolling misinformation", I believe was the term you used ?
Something you then ignored when another poster pointed out to you the source and something you have repeatedly continued to ignore when asked for an explanation.

It's a 2018 report. How can it be 5 years out of date?

It won't be out of date in 10 years time because the data will be available for comparison with 2020, 2022, 2024 reports when they arrive.

Comparisons made by, you know, researchers looking for insights.

You don't like the data so your attack it's veracity. Typical fake news approach.

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

If he doesn`t but decides to do so in the future, he will already have had a good grounding on bullying and racism.

What race does he belong to?