Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sweden avoiding lockdown
Options
Comments
-
https://twitter.com/marktigheST/status/1410158673486307331?s=19
When we're an extreme outlier on policy it requires justification. We have a higher vaccination rate of 60-69 year olds than a lot of other European countries, but they're all now more open than us. Why?0 -
https://twitter.com/marktigheST/status/1410158673486307331?s=19
When we're an extreme outlier on policy it requires justification. We have a higher vaccination rate of 60-69 year olds than a lot of other European countries, but they're all now more open than us. Why?
Maybe because some Countries have banned travellers from UK, we will see what other Countries do when Delta variant becomes dominant.0 -
Yep. no science backs up any claim that ivermectin has efficacy which would be accepted by regulators for Covid.
That is simply not true. You are either lying or just too lazy to search for studies which show that it does work to one degree or another.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33723507/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext
(the Lancet one basically says that it works in vitro and is worthy of further study and also debunks the idea that it would need to be given in doses that would cause toxicity).
I used always wonder how regimes like the USSR or China used to get away with censorship but when I click on the comments on the Hill article about the use of Ivermectin, I see that a huge proportion of the population actually wants to be censored if they believe it will shut up people they view as the enemy. Why anyone would want this debate stifled or shut down is baffling to me. This isn't political and its mind-boggling that some people are fighting so hard against this.0 -
Have you actually read my post of how Merck who manufacture ivermectin from their statement view these so called studies ?
"No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19, no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies "
Like this other poster you are on here pushing a dangerous nonsense that has no connection with this thread and making claims that the producers of this drug completely disagree with.
The producers of a drug which is now out of patent and of no more value to them. Wow, I'm so shocked that they wouldn't recommend the use of that product over their new, similar but patented version of the drug. Jesus...1 -
The producers of a drug which is now out of patent and of no more value to them. Wow, I'm so shocked that they wouldn't recommend the use of that product over their new, similar but patented version of the drug. Jesus...
Of course not. History has shown that pharma companies always put the interests and safety of patients first and not their own profits. Its not like they deliberately started a prescription drug addiction crisis and lied about knowing exactly what they were doing, all while pocketing billions of dollars and laughing at the people they were killing. Nope. Never happened. It's completely unbelievable that they would put profits over saving lives, ever0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course not. History has shown that pharma companies always put the interests and safety of patients first and not their own profits. Its not like they deliberately started a prescription drug addiction crisis and lied about knowing exactly what they were doing, all while pocketing billions of dollars and laughing at the people they were killing. Nope. Never happened. It's completely unbelievable that they would put profits over saving lives, ever
It is usually the same people who will tell everyone how parasitic the US health care system is will simultaneously slam you for not following "the" science and accepting these companies every word as gospel simply because they are now the vaccine producers. They also will accuse you of peddling fake news while posting links to "credible" US media outlets which promoted the Iraq war and misreported almost everything about the reality of the 2008 financial crisis. Its next level cognitive dissonance.
Meanwhile, a link to the following studies and meta analysis is dangerous and misleading fake news simply because they have been told that it is by those same media outlets. Just like the lab leak was a dangerous, racist conspiracy theory until they were told that it was okay to discuss it. If you want to believe that pharmaceutical companies are all good natured and wholesome then go right ahead, be that trusting. Just don't tell anyone else they have to accept the "truth" from campanies with a well documented history of lying.
Anyway, there are 60+ studies showing ivermectin effectiveness in prevention and treatment of Covid.
They can be viewed here: https://ivmmeta.com/0 -
You clearly aren't informed enough to be talking about this subject, which is precisely why you are posting about such. I suspected as much when you replied to greyday quoting him saying "Yep. no science backs up any claim that ivermectin has efficacy which would be accepted by regulators for Covid." and then demonstrated that you don't know what efficacy means, nor the threshold required for experts to recommend a treatment.
Every meta-analysis I've read about Ivermectin has come to an identical conclusion and the opposite of what you're concluding. The difference between the experts writing the meta-analyses and you? They don't get their 'knowledge' from Facebook.
Here's a snippet from https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678:Nevertheless, assessments of ivermectin as prophylaxis or treatment for mild to severe COVID-19 continue being published in preprints26 27 and protocol repositories,28 29 which do not follow the recommended process to ensure quality standards in publications; whereas peer-reviewed reports (both observational and experimental studies) are slowly emerging, yet methodologically limited by heterogeneity in population receiving ivermectin, dosis applied and uncontrolled cointerventions.28–30 Similarly, other studies that can be rapidly retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv and MEDLINE make up a quite heterogeneous body of evidence31–33 (including ivermectin as intervention, but with different underlying clinical questions), among other issues that do not contribute to the certainty of evidence—according to the systematic reviews that we comment on below.
Up to February 2021, the PAHO identified twenty two ivermectin randomised clinical trials through a rapid review of current available literature.34 There is considerable heterogeneity in the population receiving ivermectin, with studies administering it to family contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases as a prophylactic measure29 and other studies using ivermectin for treatment of mild and moderate infected cases28 or even severe hospitalised patients.30 Applied dosis and outcomes of interest were also highly variable. Additionally, patients also received various cointerventions, and control groups received different kinds of comparators ranging from placebo or no intervention to standard care or even hydroxychloroquine. The authors claim that pooled estimates suggest beneficial effects with ivermectin, but the certainty of the evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and small number of events throughout the included studies. Most study results have been made publicly available as preprints or unpublished, with no peer review or formal editorial process. Others incorporated their results only in the clinical trial register, but nearly half of these randomised clinical trials had not been registered. Registering clinical trials before they begin and making results available fulfils a large number of purposes, like reducing publication and selective outcome reporting biases, promoting more efficient allocation of research funds and facilitating evidence syntheses that will inform stakeholders and decision-makers in the future.
A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. None of the analysed drugs was significantly associated with increased non-cardiac serious adverse events compared with standard care, but the overall certainty of the evidence was very low in all outcomes and reduced the ability for recommendation.
How about a snippet from here https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 (apologies for the formatting, copied from a PDF):
Of course, this will all go way above your head.Well-designed and reported meta-analyses can provide valuable and confirmatory information. Ivermectin is generally safe at the conventional doses in approved indications. However, IVM safety became a concern due to longer use and/or higher doses in COVID-19 patients. IVM was found to be of similar safety and tolerability to placebo even at 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 g/kg in healthy voluntaries , but not in COVID-19 patients. In addition, IVM use needs further analysis when combined with other agents for COVID-19. In several settings, it was wrongly assumed that the potential benefit of using repurposed drugs outweigh their potential harm [46]. Well-designed RCTs with longer IVM use and higher IVM doses are necessary in COVID-19 to further evaluate is safety. Our study has several strengths. First, we performed a recent and comprehensive systematic search in five engines and unpublished studies without language restriction. Second, we only evaluated RCTs; several previous studies included all types of designs and their findings may have been biased and confounded. Third, we evaluated outcomes with information from at least two RCTs; no data was available for clinical improvement and need for mechanical ventilation. Fourth, we described the severity of COVID-19 disease per RCT carefully, using the WHO classification [19]; our findings do not support the use of IVM in mild disease. Fifth, we performed subgroup analyses by RoB and severity of disease, which were mostly similar to main analyses; however, we found that three RCTs at high risk of bias [30, 36, 37] had a significant reduction of all-case mortality. Sixth, we also performed sensitivity analysis by excluding studies with short follow up times; effects were similar. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology. Our study also has some limitations. First, quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. However, our study evaluated the best current available evidence and all IVM effects were negative. Second, we included only ten RCTs, five of them using a placebo as control group, and studies included a relative low number of participants. However, included RCTs are the available studies until March 22, 2021. Third, all selected RCTs evaluated patients with mild or mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the supposed benefit of IVM has been positioned precisely for mild disease, but we did not find differential IVM effects between these two severity categories. Fourth, some outcomes were scarce, in particular all-cause mortality and severe adverse events; we adjusted for zero events in one or both RCT arms in our analyses of these outcomes. Finally, analyses of primaryoutcomes excluding short follow up studies (5-10 days) showed similar IVM effects. In conclusion, in comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay, respiratory viral clearance, adverse events and serious adverse events in RCTs of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We did not find data about IVM effects on clinical improvement and need for mechanical ventilation. Additional ongoing RCTs should be completed in order to update our analyses. In the meanwhile, IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients, and only should be used within clinical trials context.
Don't spread fake news, it makes you a bad person.0 -
Is all this in the right thread? This thread is about Sweden? Is it used in Sweden or something? Very confusing.0
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »You clearly aren't informed enough to be talking about this subject, which is precisely why you are posting about such. I suspected as much when you replied to greyday quoting him saying "Yep. no science backs up any claim that ivermectin has efficacy which would be accepted by regulators for Covid." and then demonstrated that you don't know what efficacy means, nor the threshold required for experts to recommend a treatment.
Every meta-analysis I've read about Ivermectin has come to an identical conclusion and the opposite of what you're concluding. The difference between the experts writing the meta-analyses and you? They don't get their 'knowledge' from Facebook.
Here's a snippet from https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678:
How about a snippet from here https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839 (apologies for the formatting, copied from a PDF):
Of course, this will all go way above your head.
Don't spread fake news, it makes you a bad person.
Edit: apologies that this is not to do with Sweden, I will not be posting anything else in this thread about IVR but I had to respond to this.
Ha, it's funny when people try to paint a picture of you that is completely at odds with reality. I doubt you would come off well if we were to compare our academic qualifications so I don't really know why you would try to infer that I don't understand how to research and reference academic papers. The odds are that I have done a lot more of it than you.
I must start looking through Facebook in more detail because I have literally never seen the word Ivermectin mentioned there. My Facebook page is almost exclusively car and bicycle enthusiast groups. Not really sure any of them are discussing the use of Ivermectin.
Your 100% trust in the results of a metanalysis of 10 out of 60 studies is pretty comical in itself in that you have chosen to believe that this has been carried out correctly while believing all of the other studies have been carried out incorrectly.
Let's go straight to the source and dive into the papers that are contained within the metanalysis you just linked to, shall we? I know its a lot of effort when you could simply copy and paste a whole swathe of the single study you are clinging on to and then throw an insult out instead but it might be enlightening.
Carlos Chaccour; "Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
Ahmed;" Highlights
•
Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to be an inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 replication in the laboratory.
•
Ivermectin may be effective for the treatment of early-onset mild COVID-19 in adult patients.
•
Early viral clearance of SARS-CoV-2 was observed in ivermectin treated patients.
•
Remission of fever, cough and sore throat did not differ among treatment groups. No severe adverse event was observed.
•
Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings. "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220325066
Niaee; " Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19. "
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-109670/v1
Podder; " Conclusion: Ivermectin had no beneficial effect on the disease course over usual care in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases."
http://imcjms.com/registration/journal_abstract/353
(you will probably like that one as it agrees with your bias even though it's the smallest sample size yet at 32 patients)
Lopez-Medina; I can't copy and paste the results but it said there was no difference in outcomes between IVR patients and control patients although the study was very limited at only 5 days which is an extremely short duration. There have also been concerns raised about the validity of this study.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389
You can read more of them if you want, I'm sure you won't but my conclusion is that this is worth looking into more. Bear in mind that the meta analysis only looks at 10 studies and does not look at many other studies which have been more positive towards IVR.
Your conclusion that the meta analysis shows none of the studies showed any benefit to IVR treatment for Covid is total nonsense. I can only conclude that you are intellectually lazy and are trying to ride on the coat tails of experts in the hope it will make you feel and look more intelligent/expert than you actually are. You do realise you are trying to use 1 or 2 studies to discredit 60, yeah? You don't see any risk in that course of action? Maybe you are just looking for what you want to read and choosing to believe that....just maybe.
I don't know if IVR works for sure. Lots of the studies could be flawed although I haven't seen any good evidence of that yet. Some of the studies for it look great while others look less promising. For sure it is worth looking into much more. Anyone who writes it off because it doesn't suit their preconceived notions of who is or is not "fake news" is quite frankly, a total moron.1 -
The producers of a drug which is now out of patent and of no more value to them. Wow, I'm so shocked that they wouldn't recommend the use of that product over their new, similar but patented version of the drug. Jesus...
Equally shocked that you haven`t read (or most likely imo choose to ignore) Merck`s statement of Feb. 2021 where they essentially called this speculation on ivermectin in relation to the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 as utter nonsense, where they clearly point out that "their new, similar but patented version of the drug" Stromectol is ivermectin.
Far as I know there is an ivermectin thread on Boards.ie. There is even a conspricay thread I believe.
On that basis, why you and the other two usual suspects are on a thread about Covid-19 restrictions in Sweden attempting to peddle dodgy vaccine "alternatives" I have no idea.
But then it could simply be a case of either being thrown or laughed out of those threads due to the FDA, the EMA, the WHO, and now Merck all having called bulls**t on your theories.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 71500
Stick to discussing Sweden and their experiences dealing with Coronavirus0 -
The measure used by health services the world over to assess cost/benefits of decisions is Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALY). Basically - what decisions can we make with the limited resources we have available to save the most amount of high quality life years.
In a covid context given the median age of death is 83. Which is actually higher than the life expectancy in Ireland - 82.5
So assuming each of those covid deaths would have lived for 6 months (which is possibly a high figure given the above) that gives them a value of QALY value of 0.5 QALY. Or about 1125 total QALY saved by our covid measures.
If an otherwise healthy 20 year old kills themself due the sky high domestic abuse rates, or lockdowns etc, that "costs" 63 QALY. If someone aged 50 dies of cancer thats a "cost" of 23 QALY.
Which means all it would take is twenty young people across the entire country to have killed themselves (or to do so in the near future) to wipe out the QALY from the entire covid response. Or about fifty premature cancer deaths. Not both, either. Or some combination of the two. Which we are unfortunately highly, highly likely to surpass.
This might all sound a bit heartless - every death is always a tragedy - but in the real world running a health service (and country) involves making choices. Choices which minimise loss. The maths above which would suggest Ireland made the wrong choice, and Sweden the right one.0 -
The measure used by health services the world over to assess cost/benefits of decisions is Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALY). Basically - what decisions can we make with the limited resources we have available to save the most amount of high quality life years.
In a covid context given the median age of death is 83. Which is actually higher than the life expectancy in Ireland - 82.5
So assuming each of those covid deaths would have lived for 6 months (which is possibly a high figure given the above) that gives them a value of QALY value of 0.5 QALY. Or about 1125 total QALY saved by our covid measures.
If an otherwise healthy 20 year old kills themself due the sky high domestic abuse rates, or lockdowns etc, that "costs" 63 QALY. If someone aged 50 dies of cancer thats a "cost" of 23 QALY.
Which means all it would take is twenty young people across the entire country to have killed themselves (or to do so in the near future) to wipe out the QALY from the entire covid response. Or about fifty premature cancer deaths. Not both, either. Or some combination of the two. Which we are unfortunately highly, highly likely to surpass.
This might all sound a bit heartless - every death is always a tragedy - but in the real world running a health service (and country) involves making choices. Choices which minimise loss. The maths above which would suggest Ireland made the wrong choice, and Sweden the right one.
Your understanding of life expectancy is incorrect.
You are using life expectancy at birth not age attained. Someone who reaches age 82 can be expected to live at least 6 more years not months.
And besides this was only in part about saving the lives of people over 80.
It was about ensuring there was hospital capacity to treat those from 50 upwards / cohort 4 who needed it.
And to keep capacity in the health service available for other treatments.
Your overly simple calculation doesnt take those 'saved' lives into account.
In Sweden cancer services were interrupted for example during their first peak.
Similar happened here during peaks."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Oops, mea culpa on the life expectancy at age 80 - end of the day here. But that doesn't change the base calculation hugely, which is the QALY per covid patient saved is still extremely small given the median age of death of 83.
Which means the lives saved by the longest, strictest, lockdown in Europe here in Ireland will rapidly be overshot by the QALY lost to suicides, deaths of despair, and cancer from the lockdowns, even at very low numbers, given their high QALY. Each death to a suicide or delayed cancer diagnosis caused by our lockdowns is much, much more costly to society than a covid death - by an order of magnitude.
Sweden never once reached their hospital capacity. So theres absolutely no guarantee we would have, if we had copied their measures.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the Swedish healthcare system suffered no disruption from covid. But rather that it was much, much less serious than the disruption to the Irish healthcare system (by our government's choice). And consequentially will result in much much fewer avoidable deaths from other causes.0 -
Oops, mea culpa on the life expectancy at age 80 - end of the day here. But that doesn't change the base calculation hugely, which is the QALY per covid patient saved is still extremely small given the median age of death of 83.
Which means the lives saved by the longest, strictest, lockdown in Europe here in Ireland will rapidly be overshot by the QALY lost to suicides, deaths of despair, and cancer from the lockdowns, even at very low numbers, given their high QALY. Each death to a suicide or delayed cancer diagnosis is much, much more costly to society than a covid death - by an order of magnitude.
Sweden never once reached their hospital capacity. So theres absolutely no guarantee we would have, if we had copied their measures.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the Swedish healthcare system suffered no disruption from covid. But rather that it was much, much less serious than the disruption to the Irish healthcare system (by our government's choice). And consequentially will result in much much fewer avoidable deaths from other causes.
Your figures are wrong and incomplete.
You simply dont know how many lives were saved or lost
You have no figures for avoidable deaths due to measures in Sweden in society or healthcare.
A statement tying cancer deaths and lockdowns when they have zero connection given that Sweden didnt lockdown and cancer services were disrupted. Do you have data on level.of disruption versus Denmark?
Using phrasings like If someone committed suicide is vague and cannot be used in any comparison. You have zero data on same.
Someone could resort to suicide after losing loved ones to the virus.
Another factor your overly simple model does not consider.
To compare Ireland v Sweden and not include Swedens nearest neighbours on the comparisons makes it meaningless.
You fail to consider the hospital capacity of the different countries.
Or the voluntary compliance for cultural reasons or reasons of population density and living arrangenents.
Or that Sweden was surrounded by neighbours who did lock down and gave Sweden a free ride to an extent.
So to suppose Swedish outcomes would follow to other countries if they took the same meaures is without foundation."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Oops, mea culpa on the life expectancy at age 80 - end of the day here. But that doesn't change the base calculation hugely, which is the QALY per covid patient saved is still extremely small given the median age of death of 83.
Which means the lives saved by the longest, strictest, lockdown in Europe here in Ireland will rapidly be overshot by the QALY lost to suicides, deaths of despair, and cancer from the lockdowns, even at very low numbers, given their high QALY. Each death to a suicide or delayed cancer diagnosis caused by our lockdowns is much, much more costly to society than a covid death - by an order of magnitude.
Sweden never once reached their hospital capacity. So theres absolutely no guarantee we would have, if we had copied their measures.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the Swedish healthcare system suffered no disruption from covid. But rather that it was much, much less serious than the disruption to the Irish healthcare system (by our government's choice). And consequentially will result in much much fewer avoidable deaths from other causes.
Just regarding suicides, there doesn't seem to be evidence that suicides increased.
If you search there are multiple articles saying there is no noticeable increase.
See -> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56818876
". . . .
Using real-time surveillance data, which records suicides as they occur but before an inquest is held,
academics studied suicides in areas of England covering some 13 million people - around a quarter of the population.
They found that the suicide rate between January and March 2020 was 125.7 per month
compared to 121.3 per month between April and October.
. . . .0 -
Your figures are wrong and incomplete.
You simply dont know how many lives were saved or lost
You have no figures for avoidable deaths due to measures in Sweden in society or healthcare.
A statement tying cancer deaths and lockdowns when they have zero connection given that Sweden didnt lockdown and cancer services were disrupted. Do you have data on level.of disruption versus Denmark?
Using phrasings like If someone committed suicide is vague and cannot be used in any comparison. You have zero data on same.
Someone could resort to suicide after losing loved ones to the virus.
Another factor your overly simple model does not consider.
To compare Ireland v Sweden and not include Swedens nearest neighbours on the comparisons makes it meaningless.
You fail to consider the hospital capacity of the different countries.
Or the voluntary compliance for cultural reasons or reasons of population density and living arrangenents.
Or that Sweden was surrounded by neighbours who did lock down and gave Sweden a free ride to an extent.
So to suppose Swedish outcomes would follow to other countries if they took the same meaures is without foundation.
I was responding to a post (that seems to have been deleted, oddly) that did just that - it stated the estimate of the number of lives saved by our lockdowns at 2,245 I believe. The poster will hopefully come back and repost it.
Cancer deaths and lockdowns have a huge connection - I personally know people who have died of cancer in the last 6 months, who would have lived if they had been diagnosed earlier. But they weren't, because of corona delays. The Irish cancer society estimated over 450 people with cancer, and 1600 with precancers, were not detected during the first screening pause in spring 2020 alone who would have been otherwise. When that leads to hundreds of premature cancer deaths (as it will) that will wipe out any QALY saved from our 18 months of lockdowns by itself. Swedish cancer services were not disrupted to any similar level.
"committing suicide" is not vague, we have hard data every year on suicide deaths. The same way we have figures every year on cancer deaths.
This thread is about Sweden's policy, and we're in Ireland, so thats why the comparison between the two is made. You can make all the excuses for Sweden doing well you want (and it actually has less ICU capacity per capita than we do, despite having an older population), but if you'd prefer we can compare Ireland to other European countries as I did in an earlier post. The key figures are we have:
the #1 youngest population in Europe (age is the highest risk factor for covid deaths)
the #1 strictest and longest lockdown in Europe.
But we're ranked #9th in covid deaths per capita in Europe. Firmly in the middle of the pack.
That by itself shows our policies in Ireland have failed.PintOfView wrote: »Just regarding suicides, there doesn't seem to be evidence that suicides increased.
If you search there are multiple articles saying there is no noticeable increase.
See -> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56818876
". . . .
Using real-time surveillance data, which records suicides as they occur but before an inquest is held,
academics studied suicides in areas of England covering some 13 million people - around a quarter of the population.
They found that the suicide rate between January and March 2020 was 125.7 per month
compared to 121.3 per month between April and October.
. . . .
Those figures don't really prove anything. Comparing Suicides between April and October - the lowest suicide time of the year every year due to summer - to winter, when its always higher - doesn't prove anything. In every year you'd expect a similar decrease. Its also from one small region of England, not Ireland - they had very different lockdown measures to us, so its not an accurate comparison. And its also far too early for the suicides due to economic effects to have taken impact. The suicide figures for January&February of this year in Ireland will be a lot more depressing, unfortunately.1 -
I was responding to a post (that seems to have been deleted, oddly) that did just that - it stated the estimate of the number of lives saved by our lockdowns at 2,245 I believe. The poster will hopefully come back and repost it... This thread is about Sweden's policy, and we're in Ireland, so thats why the comparison between the two is made. You can make all the excuses for Sweden doing well you want (and it actually has less ICU capacity per capita than we do, despite having an older population), but if you'd prefer we can compare Ireland to other European countries as I did in an earlier post.
This is the thread for Sweden, which is why I mention Denmark and its near neighbours.
Ireland is only relevant as another EU country to compare it too.
You have no data for suicides in Sweden versus its peers, you have no data for Sweden versus its neighbours, you have no solid data on cancer services disruption in Sweden versus its neighbours.
Talking about "Ireland has failed" is imo wrong and is off topic, so I'm not going to engage any further on that score.
Sweden was surrounded by neighbours who did lock down and gave Sweden a free ride to an extent.
Sweden took a gamble, that it didn't turn out worse is also down to the conduct of their neighbours who did implement restrictions & that it does not have a easily\highly trafficked land border with any other high density countries."To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
-1 -
I personally know people who have died of cancer in the last 6 months, who would have lived if they had been diagnosed earlier.
You know this as a fact?0 -
...
Cancer deaths and lockdowns have a huge connection - I personally know people who have died of cancer in the last 6 months, who would have lived if they had been diagnosed earlier. But they weren't, because of corona delays. The Irish cancer society estimated over 450 people with cancer, and 1600 with precancers, were not detected during the first screening pause in spring 2020 alone who would have been otherwise. When that leads to hundreds of premature cancer deaths (as it will) that will wipe out any QALY saved from our 18 months of lockdowns by itself. Swedish cancer services were not disrupted to any similar level.
...
Are you saying that if we didn't lockdown our cancer services would have proceeded
as normal, and there wouldn't have been 'corona delays'?
1,000 people more than normal died in April 2020 (3,500 vs 2,500 avg in April of prev 5 years)
Given there was a virus in circulation that was causing these deaths, what do you think
would have happened to our hospitals if we hadn't locked down, and what effects on cancer services?
When you say 'Swedish cancer services were not disrupted to any similar level' what are you basing that on?
And, if true, what did Sweden do that enabled them to retain cancer services in the face of covid?-1 -
Advertisement
-
I see Sweden are offering about €20 (200sk) to entice reluctant people to get vaxed.
Not sure what 20 quid would get you in Sweden, not much in my experience.
0 -
All it would take for me is to offer the Moderna instead of the AZ.
0 -
Sweden had a stricter lockdown than Norway/ Finland according to the Oxford analysis.
Sweden might have fared better if it shut down inward travel like Norway, so might we, remember Cheltenham/ Italian match.
0 -
I've read a few posts about Sweden having a stricter lockdown than Norway and Finland, but I find that hard to believe because I was in Sweden earlier this year and life was completely normal there. It's only ever been recommendations there. I don't know how it could have had a stricter lockdown than those countries when there doesn't appear to me to have been any lockdown there. I'll have to read that Oxford analysis to see what they mean by lockdown.
1 -
That Philip O'Connor "journalist" was on Eamon Dunphy's podcast in March or thereabouts claiming Sweden (where he lives) was basically a runaway train on the brink of collapse, that there was essentially about to be a public revolution over the hands off approach the government took, that the place was about to fall off a cliff.
Seeing as absolutely none of this happened in the end I wonder will we get a retraction from him. He's from the Paul Murphy school of left, he would love a good lockdown.
0 -
This may in fact be the best explanation to account for the different outcomes of countries. Those that controlled borders early on fared better. And the varying harshness of internal control measures may have far less impact on control of spread than strict border control.
3 -
I think you might be waiting a long time for a retraction! More disappointingly, the media won't be calling any of these doomsayers to account.
3 -
Hence the saying "be careful what you wish for".
Covid hasn`t gone away but you may perhaps be getting over anguish in relation to the numbers. The numbers infected, other than the possibility of a variant developing, were never that big a problem. What was was the relationship between that number, those hospitalised and requiring ICU, and most of all deaths. Since the introduction of vaccine, although not entirely broken, that chain has been severely weakened.
Back of an envelope figures for Ireland. 1st. May - 1st August 2020. 5,383 new cases. 504 deaths. Same period 2021. 53,610 new cases 129 deaths. Roughly 10 times the number of new cases this year but just 1/4 of the deaths.
June 1st. - August 1st. 2020. 944 new cases, 118 deaths. Same period this year 40,728 new cases 53 deaths. Over 40 times the number of new cases with less than 1/2 the deaths.
I don`t see where there is a dismissal of herd immunity. Just a realisation that with the more transmissible Delta variant the percentage required is most likely higher than previously thought to be and that few if any country have reached that figure in fully vaccinated.
0 -
Works both ways it seems.
I haven`t seen the media call Johan Giesecke to account on his herd immunity masterplan either. With his subsequent appointment as vice chair of the WHO Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Infectious Hazards, a role in which he is advisor to the WHO Director-General on pandemic response, more important of media calling to account than the ramblings of a random journalist on an Eamon Dunphy podcast imo.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Sweden have declared they were hoping for herd immunity with their strategy, and there was science that allowed that outcome, but that their main goal was to flatten the curve and slow they spread as their scientists believed nothing would halt the spread of Covid in the early days in the absence of a vaccine.
They weren’t alone in looking at the science of herd immunity in the early stages. Even New Zealand had it under consideration briefly. Contemplating the possibility of herd immunity and implementing it as a strategy are different things.
You have obviously set your stall that Sweden’s strategy was a herd immunity masterplan, despite their declarations to the contrary- it’s your prerogative to think them liars.
But does the fact that Johan Geisecke was appointed advisor to the WHO director-general for pandemic response not even give you pause to consider that perhaps global health experts see value in his theories?
1
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement