Sweden avoiding lockdown

Att vara en hest

marno21 wrote: »

Has any country used obesity as an underlying condition? From a limited amount of cases I have looked at, including obesity as an underlying condition would help to understand some of the most unfortunate deaths among younger demographics.

There seems to be evidence so far that obesity has a negative impact on an infected patient's outcome. I hope that it's not political correctness that's stopping this from being reported more widespread. Of course, I could be wrong.

A few days ago I saw mentions of obese people being a risk group, but I'm not sure if the change was made to include it as an "underlying condition"... Should be though.

silverharp

marno21 wrote: »

Has any country used obesity as an underlying condition? From a limited amount of cases I have looked at, including obesity as an underlying condition would help to understand some of the most unfortunate deaths among younger demographics.

There seems to be evidence so far that obesity has a negative impact on an infected patient's outcome. I hope that it's not political correctness that's stopping this from being reported more widespread. Of course, I could be wrong.

I doubt they will phrase it like everyone back to work except fat people but if there is a check list of factors you would have to have BMI over X% as one of them

timsey tiger

marno21 wrote: »

Has any country used obesity as an underlying condition? From a limited amount of cases I have looked at, including obesity as an underlying condition would help to understand some of the most unfortunate deaths among younger demographics.

There seems to be evidence so far that obesity has a negative impact on an infected patient's outcome. I hope that it's not political correctness that's stopping this from being reported more widespread. Of course, I could be wrong.

I think it has been reported, well it must have been, because I was aware of it and so are you.

My question for you is, what would be the public interest in widely reporting this?

It is not like, if you are morbidly obese, that you have time to get back to a normal range bmi.

I suppose we could victim blame over weight people who die of covid-19, but would that really be a good thing.

Deaths per million population today compare as 156 for Sweden and 139 for Ireland.

Not exactly significantly different.

I do have the feeling that if Ireland had pursued the same strategy as Sweden that it would have ended up in disaster here though.

Although where does Ireland go from here?

No real signs of any plan.

What Username Guidelines

Att vara en hest wrote: »

A few days ago I saw mentions of obese people being a risk group, but I'm not sure if the change was made to include it as an "underlying condition"... Should be though.

There was a decision tree-style diagram put together by docs in NYU I believe of likelihood to be hospitalised based on age and existing conditions. The way it was laid out was all around obesity, with age and race secondary to it.

Edit:
https://zdnet2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2020/04/12/55ad0590-e603-4f80-a55b-19975b554a30/nyu-decision-tree-for-covid-cases.jpg

Looks like over 65 has the most likelihood, then obesity.

Jurgen Klopp

timsey tiger wrote: »

I think it has been reported, well it must have been, because I was aware of it and so are you.

My question for you is, what would be the public interest in widely reporting this?

It is not like, if you are morbidly obese, that you have time to get back to a normal range bmi.

I suppose we could victim blame over weight people who die of covid-19, but would that really be a good thing.

Or you could not take an offended position straight away and realize it's good advice to anyone of any age especially the younger ones if you're massively obese you need to consider yourself high risk. No point not mentioning it and then have some one of 28 who has no diagnosed conditions but who is massively overweight thinking they've as little risk as everyone else in their age group

Jurgen Klopp

glasso wrote: »

Deaths per million population today compare as 156 for Sweden and 139 for Ireland.

Not exactly significantly different.

I do have the feeling that if Ireland had pursued the same strategy as Sweden that it would have ended up in disaster here though.

Although where does Ireland go from here?

No real signs of any plan.

Like it or not, unless a current drug is found to significantly help symptoms, eventually every nation is going to have adopt the Swedish approach in general, maybe with some tweaks, for instance maybe here we keep pubs closed

There will come a point where the money is going to run out, both welfare and medically

Imagine to have done all this so far to be so financially crippled that the HSE ends up in a worse state than if we'd be overrun. Medicine rationing, broken ventilators not being replaced, broken down ambulances being left in the carparks due to no funds to repair etc

Jurgen Klopp

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Like it or not, unless a current drug is found to significantly help symptoms, eventually every nation is going to have adopt the Swedish approach in general, maybe with some tweaks, for instance maybe here we keep pubs closed

There will come a point where the money is going to run out, both welfare and medically

Imagine to have done all this so far to be so financially crippled that the HSE ends up in a worse state than if we'd be overrun. Medicine rationing, broken ventilators not being replaced, broken down ambulances being left in the carparks due to no funds to repair etc

much higher number of idiots per million population in Ireland compared to Sweden though!

pubs would definitely have to stay shut

Breezin

glasso wrote: »

much higher number of idiots per million population in Ireland compared to Sweden though!

pubs would definitely have to stay shut

So it's the idiots who have us under house arrest?

Breezin

Breezin wrote: »

So it's the idiots who have us under house arrest?

in a round-about way that is probably part of the reason yes

Breezin

glasso wrote: »

in a round-about way that is probably part of the reason yes

Which is why we need to drop the sledgehammer.

timsey tiger

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Or you could not take an offended position straight away and realize it's good advice to anyone of any age especially the younger ones if you're massively obese you need to consider yourself high risk. No point not mentioning it and then have some one of 28 who has no diagnosed conditions but who is massively overweight thinking they've as little risk as everyone else in their age group

I'm not offended, you seem to be by your over reaction. I noted that it was reported and questioned the need for it to be widely reported, ie in the daily mail etc.

robinbird

marno21 wrote: »

Has any country used obesity as an underlying condition? From a limited amount of cases I have looked at, including obesity as an underlying condition would help to understand some of the most unfortunate deaths among younger demographics.

There seems to be evidence so far that obesity has a negative impact on an infected patient's outcome. I hope that it's not political correctness that's stopping this from being reported more widespread. Of course, I could be wrong.

Att vara en hest wrote: »

A few days ago I saw mentions of obese people being a risk group, but I'm not sure if the change was made to include it as an "underlying condition"... Should be though.

silverharp wrote: »

I doubt they will phrase it like everyone back to work except fat people but if there is a check list of factors you would have to have BMI over X% as one of them

Political correctness. I've seen photos in english tabloids of younger people that have died. Story says "no underlying conditions" yet they are very clearly overweight. After age, obesity is the next highest risk factor and should be identified as such.

jibber5000

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Like it or not, unless a current drug is found to significantly help symptoms, eventually every nation is going to have adopt the Swedish approach in general, maybe with some tweaks, for instance maybe here we keep pubs closed

There will come a point where the money is going to run out, both welfare and medically

Imagine to have done all this so far to be so financially crippled that the HSE ends up in a worse state than if we'd be overrun. Medicine rationing, broken ventilators not being replaced, broken down ambulances being left in the carparks due to no funds to repair etc

Great point.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

It's getting to the point, with each new antibody study, where we can be pretty confident the true infection rate really is substantially higher than we originally thought.

wakka12

Whats going to happen with foreign tourists in Europe after the lockdown? Will there be screening/quarantine of foreigners now? This could all be for nought when borders open again and citizens return /tourists arrive from developing countries with poorly implemented anti coronavirus measures and just bring it here again

73 Malaysian students returned from Indonesia today testing positive, for example. If Malaysia didnt have effective monitoring at airports, those students could have easily triggered another epidemic

robinbird

It could well turn out in time that the whole lockdown, social distancing thing was pointless or indeed may have been the worst approach. And that the countries that didn't lockdown will fare best in the long run.

With the proviso of course that nursing homes and the vulnerable such as those in their eighties or fat should have been isolated.

So per capita per million

Sweden 156
Ireland 139

And our daily death rate is now higher so catching up fast.

charlie14

robinbird wrote: »

It could well turn out in time that the whole lockdown, social distancing thing was pointless or indeed may have been the worst approach. And that the countries that didn't lockdown will fare best in the long run.

With the proviso of course that nursing homes and the vulnerable such as those in their eighties or fat should have been isolated.
.

We have over 170,000 living with cancer in Ireland. Practically all of them are as vulnerable as those in nursing homes, the over 80`s or those over-weight due to immune suppression.
Their are many more equally as vulnerable, (also in all age groups), who are immunocompromised due to ongoing treatment for a vast range of medical conditions.

Kermit.de.frog

robinbird wrote: »

It could well turn out in time that the whole lockdown, social distancing thing was pointless or indeed may have been the worst approach.

How is limiting transmission pointless? It's perfectly obvious you contain if you cut off paths of transmission.

Bit cynical

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How is limiting transmission pointless? It's perfectly obvious you contain if you cut off paths of transmission.

Our approach needs to be sustainable until effective antivirals or vaccines become available, but we may run out of money before that.

By running out of money I mean our ability to fund services will end.

Kermit.de.frog

Bit cynical wrote: »

Our approach needs to be sustainable until effective antivirals or vaccines become available, but we may run out of money before that.

By running out of money I mean our ability to fund services will end.

I don't believe the state is at risk of running out of money, we have certain capacity and ability to borrow for the forseeable future at low or negative interest rates.

That does not concern me.

What does concern me is that if restrictions are lifted around the world we will see death on an unimaginable scale.

This scenario is damaging to every economy anyway because people get and act scared and won't spend nor will they congregate.

So it's not really even a choice in terms of economic damage, that happens regardless.

This is the situation the world has been put in. There are no good answers, we are looking for the least worst.

Bit cynical

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't believe the state is at risk of running out of money, we have certain capacity and ability to borrow for the forseeable future at low or negative interest rates.

That does not concern me.

What does concern me is that if restrictions are lifted around the world we will see death on an unimaginable scale.

This scenario is damaging to every economy anyway because people get and act scared and won't spend nor will they congregate.

So it's not really even a choice in terms of economic damage, that happens regardless.

This is the situation the world has been put in. There are no good answers, we are looking for the least worst.

I hope you're correct in our capacity to fund the country up until such time as a vaccine or at least antivirals become available.

However some countries in the Eurozone have already objected to "Corona Bonds" being issued and these same countries may well object to the ECB printing press at some stage as it devalues the currency. If that happens and Ireland is forced on to the open market then our ability to borrow may not last very long.

I think Spain are loosening some of their restrictions for this reason.

Kermit.de.frog

Well Spain and Italy are trying to pull a stroke under the cover of crisis that I find disgraceful personally.

They are responsible for their economic positions before this. If they don't have fiscal space that is no one else's fault.

They want to get the Germans in particular to pay for past incompetence. They'll never do that, ever.

I don't blame them. I understand their position on it.

That may effect us by proxy, it may not.

Bit cynical

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well Spain and Italy are trying to pull a stroke under the cover of crisis that I find disgraceful personally.

They are responsible for their economic positions before this. If they don't have fiscal space that is no one else's fault.

They want to get the Germans in particular to pay for past incompetence. They'll never do that, ever.

I don't blame them. I understand their position on it.

That may effect us by proxy, it may not.

Yes, very understandable the German position. But that does not help us. Our ability to maintain economic lockdown depends on other countries' desire to do the same. If that changes then we will have to lift the lockdown virus or no virus.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

I hope you're correct in our capacity to fund the country up until such time as a vaccine or at least antivirals become available.

However some countries in the Eurozone have already objected to "Corona Bonds" being issued and these same countries may well object to the ECB printing press at some stage as it devalues the currency. If that happens and Ireland is forced on to the open market then our ability to borrow may not last very long.

I think Spain are loosening some of their restrictions for this reason.

If it did come to that and we were forced to borrow on the open market then we would more than likely not be the only country within the euro zone forced to do the same.
If that were to happen, then would it not be counter productive as it would devalue the currency anyway ?


A devaluation of the euro might not be such a bad idea anyway, as all major currencies are most likely going to be affected by this pandemic. With the situation in the U.S. I cannot see the dollar for one going unscathed.

Breezin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well Spain and Italy are trying to pull a stroke under the cover of crisis that I find disgraceful personally.

They are responsible for their economic positions before this. If they don't have fiscal space that is no one else's fault.

They want to get the Germans in particular to pay for past incompetence. They'll never do that, ever.

I don't blame them. I understand their position on it.

That may effect us by proxy, it may not.

Please feel free to use a forum on the Swedish response to Covid-19 as a platform for an ideological rant on EU solidarity or lack of it.

thebaz

an overview of the Swedish policy from one of ther main advisors and Professor :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

He reckons about 50% have it already , and mortality rate will be .01%

Breezin

thebaz wrote: »

an overview of the Swedish policy from one of ther main advisors and Professor :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

He reckons about 50% have it already , and mortality rate will be .01%

Already posted it, yesterday or day before. But the champions of the lockdown have largely ignored it. TLDR, I'd say...

wakka12

thebaz wrote: »

an overview of the Swedish policy from one of ther main advisors and Professor :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

He reckons about 50% have it already , and mortality rate will be .01%

I wonder how he reckons that. Serological testing in a German epicentre town showed an infection rate of only 15%
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/

Antibody tests in LA and San Diego also didnt show infection rates anywhere near to 50%

jibber5000

thebaz wrote: »

an overview of the Swedish policy from one of ther main advisors and Professor :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

He reckons about 50% have it already , and mortality rate will be .01%

The .01% seems to be extreme.

I'd argue the American studies from L.A. and Boston indicating a .1% mortality is more accurate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/patch.com/california/los-angeles/amp/28703719/hundreds-thousands-la-infected-coronavirus-study

Still far less than the 1-2% we were initially told.

I think he says 0.1% in fairness.

Still pretty optimistic