Sweden avoiding lockdown

niallo27

tabby aspreme wrote: »

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

That's a great point. A lot of these nursing homes would have a strict lockdown but were unable to stop it spreading.

jibber5000

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Are there up to date figures for the numbers tested.

90,646

jibber5000

coastwatch wrote: »

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

They're idea is that the 60-70% would be the least vulnerable. From both coccoonjng and the fact that the most vulnerable have probably caught it already.

We know the mortality, icu and hospital admissions plumet for the under 55s so while your figures are correct they don't account for age of those likely infected.

Del Griffith

coastwatch wrote: »

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

You're still ignoring the asymptomatic, which throws off all your %'s.

Look at the french aircraft carrier, over 1000 people infected. According to your %'s there should be 10 dead, 30 in ICU and 150 in hospital. There's zero dead, 1 in ICU, and over 60% completely asymptomatic.

The 60% found asymptomatic were only tested because they were on the ship, in the wider community they never would have got a test. This is why the % rates can't be relied on at the moment, in my opinion.

jibber5000

wakka12 wrote: »

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.

I mean I'm sure people would like to find out if they've antibodies, for the knowledge going forward alone regardless if they were symptomatic. And it was for a simple blood test once off, not a particularly onerous task.

I agree though, there could be bias by the recruitment methods. But it says Facebook ads targeted a broad demographic, although would have to guess it's a younger one. If so they would be more likely to be asymptomatic.

Yes was carried out over the 3rd and 4th of April.

coastwatch

Del Griffith wrote: »

You're still ignoring the asymptomatic, which throws off all your %'s.

Look at the french aircraft carrier, over 1000 people infected. According to your %'s there should be 10 dead, 30 in ICU and 150 in hospital. There's zero dead, 1 in ICU, and over 60% completely asymptomatic.

The 60% found asymptomatic were only tested because they were on the ship, in the wider community they never would have got a test. This is why the % rates can't be relied on at the moment, in my opinion.

I think the population of an aircraft carrier is generally going to be young and fit, so probably not a good comparison with a general population.
Maybe at the other extreme, a study of the same question, using the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, found the estimated asymptomatic rate of positive tests was only 18%.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

YFlyer

Sweden are the 11th highest cases per population and that is including Sint Marten, San Marino and Andora.

tabby aspreme

tabby aspreme wrote: »

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

That has now risen to 40%, as of yesterday according to Paul Reid,

niallo27

coastwatch wrote: »

I think the population of an aircraft carrier is generally going to be young and fit, so probably not a good comparison with a general population.
Maybe at the other extreme, a study of the same question, using the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, found the estimated asymptomatic rate of positive tests was only 18%.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

That article says that 50% were asymptomatic.

coastwatch

niallo27 wrote: »

That article says that 50% were asymptomatic.

"In this study, we conducted statistical modelling analyses on publicly available data to elucidate the asymptomatic proportion, along with the time of infection among the COVID-19 cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

Our estimated asymptomatic proportion is at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%), which overlaps with a recently derived estimate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval: 8.3–58.3%) from data of Japanese citizens evacuated from Wuhan [13].

niallo27

coastwatch wrote: »

"In this study, we conducted statistical modelling analyses on publicly available data to elucidate the asymptomatic proportion, along with the time of infection among the COVID-19 cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

Our estimated asymptomatic proportion is at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%), which overlaps with a recently derived estimate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval: 8.3–58.3%) from data of Japanese citizens evacuated from Wuhan [13].

Of the 634 confirmed cases, a total of 306 and 328 were reported to be symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively.

Plus you cherry picked data here, varying the incubation period increased the estimate to 40%.

coastwatch

niallo27 wrote: »

Of the 634 confirmed cases, a total of 306 and 328 were reported to be symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively.

Plus you cherry picked data here, varying the incubation period increased the estimate to 40%.

Not cherry picking, just quoting the summary findings of the study, which uses statistical modelling to estimate the percentage of asymptomatic positive cases,

Findings from the real-time outbreak analysis

The posterior median estimate of the true proportion of asymptomatic individuals among the reported asymptomatic cases is 0.35 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.30–0.39), with the estimated total number of the true asymptomatic cases at 113.3 (95%CrI: 98.2–128.3) and the estimated asymptomatic proportion (among all infected cases) at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%).

gormdubhgorm

People are not happy about what is happening in the nursing homes in Sweden. The Covid19 infection is basically being brought into nursing homes.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTRUR_AqupMJ:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/anger-in-sweden-as-elderly-pay-price-for-coronavirus-strategy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

jibber5000

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

People are not happy about what is happening in the nursing homes in Sweden. The Covid19 infection is basically being brought into nursing homes.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTRUR_AqupMJ:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/anger-in-sweden-as-elderly-pay-price-for-coronavirus-strategy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

40% of our fatalities are from nursing homes. Just for context to the 33% there.

Mic 1972

coastwatch wrote: »

Not cherry picking, just quoting the summary findings of the study, which uses statistical modelling to estimate the percentage of asymptomatic positive cases,

Findings from the real-time outbreak analysis

The posterior median estimate of the true proportion of asymptomatic individuals among the reported asymptomatic cases is 0.35 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.30–0.39), with the estimated total number of the true asymptomatic cases at 113.3 (95%CrI: 98.2–128.3) and the estimated asymptomatic proportion (among all infected cases) at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%).

regarding the Asymptomatic people, dont forget that people who test positive and has no symptoms at the time of testing may develop symptoms later and still end up in hospital

Mic 1972

jibber5000 wrote: »

40% of our fatalities are from nursing homes. Just for context to the 33% there.

and that leaves 60% of fatalities from community which is where the virus is currently spreading, not very reassuring

niallo27

coastwatch wrote: »

Not cherry picking, just quoting the summary findings of the study, which uses statistical modelling to estimate the percentage of asymptomatic positive cases,

Findings from the real-time outbreak analysis

The posterior median estimate of the true proportion of asymptomatic individuals among the reported asymptomatic cases is 0.35 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.30–0.39), with the estimated total number of the true asymptomatic cases at 113.3 (95%CrI: 98.2–128.3) and the estimated asymptomatic proportion (among all infected cases) at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%).

Well quote the full article that says varying the incubation data pushes this figure to 40%. You posted worst case scenario.

Widdensushi

given that they estimate the virus was on board for a month there is a good chance many of the 1000 that tested negative had actually already recovered from it .

jibber5000

Mic 1972 wrote: »

and that leaves 60% of fatalities from community which is where the virus is currently spreading, not very reassuring

Well yeah? Of course there's lots of fatalities in the community.

The point is the shocking number of fatalities from nursing homes rather than the number in the community.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

However you are comparing deaths per day with positive cases, the latter figure being very dependent on the numbers being tested.

I wasn`t actually.
Another poster had commentated that he/she believed Sweden had hit it`s daily peak of deaths from the virus on April 8th. I doubted that on the basis that, even with very low comparative testing figures, the numbers testing positive were still rising.
If I had been comparing deaths with positive cases then I would have pointed out that the 14,385 positive cases to date have resulted in 1,540 deaths.
A very high ratio of positive tests to deaths of 10%+

Breezin

Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.

charlie14

coastwatch wrote: »

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

Those figures do not seem to be working out to well for them at the moment where from 14,385 positive cases they have 1,540 deaths.
A ratio of 10%+ rather than 1%.

Mattdhg

Breezin wrote: »

Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.

6 of one, half dozen of the other
Their approach is essentially a slightly more conscientious approach than the one the UK took

ush

jibber5000 wrote: »

Well yeah? Of course there's lots of fatalities in the community.

The point is the shocking number of fatalities from nursing homes rather than the number in the community.

Its kind of where the old people are. The majority of deaths where always going to be in the nursing homes.

ush

Breezin wrote: »

Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.

Policy is to make sure health service doesn't crash. That would lead to more deaths in the long run.

STB.

jibber5000 wrote: »

The ICU capacity number is really nonsense.

If the surge does come they will just extend the ICU to include theatre recovery areas. All it takes is reskilling nurses and purchasing ventilators, neither of which is a big issue.

It would be helpful if you understood this before posting in absolutes.

For someone who claims to work in a hospital, you should understand the specialised levels required to deal with ICU patients nevermind the training required to use ventilators alone you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. How to cope with the trauma isn't something learned on the fly either.

Perhaps you will have more time for your colleagues the next time you are wheeling patients around.

jibber5000 wrote: »

Well yeah? Of course there's lots of fatalities in the community.

The point is the shocking number of fatalities from nursing homes rather than the number in the community.

You should be more concerned about the contractions by medical staff, if you are hospital staff. They account for a high percentage of our infections.

STB.

Breezin wrote: »

Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.

That's what it is though. Their epidemiologist doesn't like the word. The very people who taught him disagree with his approach.

Breezin

STB. wrote: »

That's what it is though. Their epidemiologist doesn't like the word. The very people who taught him disagree with his approach.

But they are not claiming it as a solution, as the UK and NL did initially.

It's much more nuanced than that. The point is that's it's not either/or. It's a matter of degree, and more targeted actions.

charlie14

ush wrote: »

Policy is to make sure health service doesn't crash. That would lead to more deaths in the long run.

If that is the basis behind the Swedish thinking then would it not make sense to attempt to control the spread of the virus ?


If, as seems, they are projecting that over the next year 7.1 million will contact the virus with 3% requiring I.C.U. treatment, then it is difficult to see where there will not come a time when their I.C.U`s are not going to crash.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

But they are not claiming it as a solution, as the UK and NL did initially.

It's much more nuanced than that. The point is that's it's not either/or. It's a matter of degree, and more targeted actions.

I do not see where there is any targeted action in Sweden

It is certainly not through testing where they are only testing 7,300 per million whereas we are in lock-down and are at present testing 18,000 per million.