Sweden avoiding lockdown

Danno

Poorside wrote: »

...hardly keeping within the miraculous 15 min window.

Less than 2m apart for more than 15 minutes is the concern for the spread of the virus like it has been said all along. If these people were standing at least 2m apart for the next five years and never moving the chance of transmission is still virtually nil.

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

If you will excuse me being equally blunt, you have no idea what this so called "complex strategy" is, and you are choosing to ignore that up until recently with the realisation that they were not going to achieve anything near the figures required for this herd immunity they are now downplaying it.
Up until that they were extolling it at every opportunity. Even to the extent of criticising Britain and Denmark for not sticking with it.

I've already cited an article and a video which in turn refer to the complexity of not having any easy answers and in which the Swedes rather diplomatically expressed regret that a simple narrative isn't the way to beat the virus.

It's true: I don't have the answers and I do not claim to be qualified to relay the Swedish strategy in detail to you better than those actually deciding and implementing it. I do believe, however, that they are taking more seriously than our regime the need to balance the effects of the cure and the disease, and their results to date bear that out. Then again, they are honest and say that the true answer won't be apparent for four or five years. Complex. Sorry.

But you seem confident that you can sum it up in two words. Good for you.

biko

Tegnell says numbers like 8000 to 20000 deaths isn't unlikely, depending on how well they manage to protect the old folks, something they have not been able to do yet.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftegnell-om-dodstalen-har-sakert-ratt-i-teorin%2F

Meanwhile neighbours Norway have just over 200 deaths, a tenth of Sweden's

wakka12

biko wrote: »

Tegnell says numbers like 8000 to 20000 deaths isn't unlikely, depending on how well they manage to protect the old folks, something they have not been able to do yet.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftegnell-om-dodstalen-har-sakert-ratt-i-teorin%2F

Meanwhile neighbours Norway have just over 200 deaths, a tenth of Sweden's

Well 8,000 looks absolutely likely and 20,000 deaths is a failure on the part of the state

Kermit.de.frog

biko wrote: »

Tegnell says numbers like 8000 to 20000 deaths isn't unlikely, depending on how well they manage to protect the old folks, something they have not been able to do yet.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftegnell-om-dodstalen-har-sakert-ratt-i-teorin%2F

Meanwhile neighbours Norway have just over 200 deaths, a tenth of Sweden's

I don't know what the get out strategy is for Sweden.

Countries, like the US, will remain closed to them because they stay a "hot spot". So i'm not sure in the end this is worth it.

124 new deaths today.

sydthebeat

looking back and the massaging of swedens numbers is getting to a stage where its impossible to take anything they are saying as true.

they claimed that 8th april was their peak with 108 deaths and they were on a downward curve afterward.

the way they have been reporting their figures with high midweek and low weekend reportings has made any trend analysis diffcult.
However we have been pointed towards FHMs own arcgis site as being the definitive place to go for figures.

well the truth is they have been messing with those historical figures all the time. fair enough, its probably due to death certs being administered, but its significant for those who are claiming that they have peaked and are on a sharp downturn. i fanything its showing that while they might have peaked... their descent back down is incredibly slow and the cumulative deaths is incredibly worrying.

Their supposed peak of 108 deaths on 8th April has risen to 114, and they have had two concurrent days on 15th and 16th where they have had 112 and 108.

They had originally reported 26 deaths for both 21st and 22nd april... but if you go look at that now they are at 60 and 70 respectively.

So the whole chart is rising like a tide, with extra deaths being added to historic days going well back.....

for example the figures for yesterday and the day before are currently 26 and 34... it will be interesting to go back to these dates in a weeks time and see how much they hav erisen.

Strazdas

Sweden was discussed at the Dept of Health press briefing this evening. One point that was made was that the pandemic has hit Ireland worse than Sweden and that transmission was more widespread here in mid March : therefore you cannot really compare the two countries and two different responses.

Breezin

biko wrote: »

Tegnell says numbers like 8000 to 20000 deaths isn't unlikely, depending on how well they manage to protect the old folks, something they have not been able to do yet.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftegnell-om-dodstalen-har-sakert-ratt-i-teorin%2F

Meanwhile neighbours Norway have just over 200 deaths, a tenth of Sweden's

You've redacted that nicely. Keeping it simple, I see.

But here's what Tegnell actually is reported as saying:

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell says that the calculations may very well be true - in theory.
- They are probably right on a theoretical level and what we have seen so far is probably not entirely wrong. But everything is falling on our ability to prevent this infection from entering our elderly homes. If it remains at the same level as now, that it infects quite a lot on the elderly, then unfortunately it is true, although I would think it is closer to the lower levels than the upper considering how far we have come and how many dead we have today. But given how much work is going on in the elderly homes and that we know that there are some shortcomings, it should be reasonable to reduce this spread of infection, he says.

Breezin

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

tobefrank321

Breezin wrote: »

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

2.5 times their unemployment.

wakka12

Breezin wrote: »

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

Its hard to know at this moment tbh, have to remember how early into this we still are.The first person in Ireland only died from this 6 weeks ago. Despite the rates being similar currently ,Sweden's deaths are not trending donwards, Ireland's are at least

padjocollins

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007103985/cuomo-coronavirus-testing.html

padjocollins

https://ryankemper.io/post/2020-04-29-the_case_for_ending_lockdown/

cnocbui

Reading this page of the thread, I get the impression a good few people think Ireland will at some point lift the lock down and that's it, job done, we can thumb our noses at the Swedes with their higher numbers.

When the lock-down is lifted, our numbers will take off again. We've as much chance of eliminating this from the community as we do the common cold.

Flattening the curve extends the time period the curve spans, it doesn't reduce the area under the curve - the number of dead people. It's like that song the goes: 'you take the high road, and I'll take the low road..' The journey is different but the destination reached is the same.

sydthebeat

Breezin wrote: »

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

Compare us to our closest neighbour with which we share a land border.

That's a MUCH more valid comparison

Strazdas

wakka12 wrote: »

Its hard to know at this moment tbh, have to remember how early into this we still are.The first person in Ireland only died from this 6 weeks ago. Despite the rates being similar currently ,Sweden's deaths are not trending donwards, Ireland's are at least

Dr Holohan said that tonight : it's way too soon to be drawing any conclusions about what Sweden has done (it should be added too that it is mainly right wing and far right media commentators who have been pushing the Sweden and Covid-19 thing).

sydthebeat

Breezin wrote: »

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

Compare us to our closest neighbour with which we share a land border.

That's a MUCH more valid comparison

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

I've already cited an article and a video which in turn refer to the complexity of not having any easy answers and in which the Swedes rather diplomatically expressed regret that a simple narrative isn't the way to beat the virus.

It's true: I don't have the answers and I do not claim to be qualified to relay the Swedish strategy in detail to you better than those actually deciding and implementing it. I do believe, however, that they are taking more seriously than our regime the need to balance the effects of the cure and the disease, and their results to date bear that out. Then again, they are honest and say that the true answer won't be apparent for four or five years. Complex. Sorry.

But you seem confident that you can sum it up in two words. Good for you.

I have never believed or said I believed there were any simple answers. Nor do I see from what strategy they have actually said they are following where the balance is or where the believe this cure you mention will come from other than their herd immunity statements.

Their figures are nowhere near achieving herd immunity, they have no idea if it will work or to what degree, and they withdrew their report on antibodies.
Their strategy on protecting the elderly, a stated strategy from the outset, has failed, on social distancing they cannot even agree on the distance, and even their own National Board of Health and Welfare do not believe the figures are accurate which now really do look as if they are being massaged.
All that and people here still advocate we should switch to the Swedish strategy that is apparently so complex they cannot explain it, while complaining that lockdown is the wrong strategy.

dubrov

charlie14 wrote: »

All that and people here still advocate we should switch to the Swedish strategy that is apparently so complex they cannot explain it, while complaining that lockdown is the wrong strategy.

The choices are to lockdown until a vaccine or switch to the Swedish approach.
Neither is appealing but only one is realistic

Cupatae

dubrov wrote: »

The choices are to lockdown until a vaccine or switch to the Swedish approach.
Neither is appealing but only one is realistic

Not really what makes you think those are the only 2 ways of dealing with it? i mean NZ did neither and have it practically beaten.

4068ac1elhodqr

Sweden avoiding any lockdown by dumping chicken poo in public parks to keep people away.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0430/1135907-chicken-manure/

Breezin

sydthebeat wrote: »

Compare us to our closest neighbour with which we share a land border.

That's a MUCH more valid comparison

Off-topic. This is the Sweden thread. Do you get why it's here?

charlie14

dubrov wrote: »

The choices are to lockdown until a vaccine or switch to the Swedish approach.
Neither is appealing but only one is realistic

We do not intend to stay in lockdown until there is a vaccine.
There will be step-downs with I would imagine include most, if not all the testing contact tracing and quarantine measure used by the likes of South Korea.
At this stage Sweden are on the road they are on with no other options.

sydthebeat

Breezin wrote: »

Off-topic. This is the Sweden thread. Do you get why it's here?

Off topic?

Why were you comparing them to us??

dubrov

Cupatae wrote: »

Not really what makes you think those are the only 2 ways of dealing with it? i mean NZ did neither and have it practically beaten.

There is the third option that it just peters out in the Summer.

Otherwise, without a vaccine, eventually all of the population in NZ, Sweden and elsewhere will be eventually exposed

alwald

sydthebeat wrote: »

Off topic?

Why were you comparing them to us??

Some posters only compare figures/countries that suit their agenda :pac:

Hmmzis

Cupatae wrote: »

Not really what makes you think those are the only 2 ways of dealing with it? i mean NZ did neither and have it practically beaten.

NZ had a vastly better starting point, same as Iceland. By the time we entered our lockdown it was way too late to go for an erradication option. Also, the border to the North complicates things in a non-trivial way. Iceland is also on their way to erradicate it, so is S Korea. Australia might get there soon. Until a vaccine is available their borders will have to stay shut or they're back at square one. No such option for us as we can't just wall off the North. Also, we would need a much harsher lockdown then.

If we get our hands on a good suply of Remdesivir and that Tocilizumab protocol soon then we should come out better than Sweden. Otherwise it's going to be a wash at the end.

Turtwig

cnocbui wrote: »

Reading this page of the thread, I get the impression a good few people think Ireland will at some point lift the lock down and that's it, job done, we can thumb our noses at the Swedes with their higher numbers.

When the lock-down is lifted, our numbers will take off again. We've as much chance of eliminating this from the community as we do the common cold.

Flattening the curve extends the time period the curve spans, it doesn't reduce the area under the curve - the number of dead people. It's like that song the goes: 'you take the high road, and I'll take the low road..' The journey is different but the destination reached is the same.

Actually it can reduce the number of dead people. Assuming immunity exists and infected can't get reinfected then the flatter the curve the less of the population actually get infected in the first place. Ideally, you want infection free proportion to be the individuals most at risk of serious illness. Managing this is extremely difficult.

There are other reasons to flatten curve too.

dubrov

I don't see how flattening the curve necessarily makes any difference if immunity exists.

You could argue if immunity exists for a short period, say 6 months, then slowing the spread is a sure fire way to ensure the virus is sustained within the population indefinitely

Cupatae

dubrov wrote: »

I don't see how flattening the curve necessarily makes any difference if immunity exists.

You could argue if immunity exists for a short period, say 6 months, then slowing the spread is a sure fire way to ensure the virus is sustained within the population indefinitely

The hospitals would collapse under the sheer volume of people if the curve wasnt controlled somewhat, thats the whole point of the lockdown, even people who have a high survival chance might still need hospital care.