Sweden avoiding lockdown

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

In December 2018 a NORC poll found that 43% of the U.S population would not avail of the flu vaccine. This was a year where there had been no mutation of the virus from the previous year. Not a great stretch to surmise that was what was going on with the mortality rate.


You do realize if that Fatality Rate of 0.36% is correct, and we let this virus run rampant through the population, that would equates to 18,000 deaths with no evidence of those that didn`t succumb being immune should there be another wave.


So far you have been through Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany and the U.S. and other than Ireland combining stage 4 and 5 of the easing of restriction with neither why and when, I have no idea what strategy you believe we should be following.

Nope we aim all our resources at the 0.36% who are most likely to die. High risk categories. GPs should advise those patients who are most at risk to continue to isolate as they are currently doing.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope we aim all our resources at the 0.36% who are most likely to die. High risk categories. GPs should advise those patients who are most at risk to continue to isolate as they are currently doing.

So what for all those that are not high risk, they just carry on as before ?

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

So what for all those that are not high risk, they just carry on as before ?

No one has suggested that, or very few, in the hundreds of posts in thread.

mandrake04

dubrov wrote: »

I don't think it is as simple as that. NZ will have to open their borders at some point. If the virus is just as viable there as Italy, it will eventually get through the whole population.

Looking at the numbers, there appears to be a closer correlation between deaths and climate than deaths and lockdown severity.

Their borders can be opened anytime, travellers just need to go into isolation for 14 days on arrival and be tested but this will be case of most 1st world countries anyway until a vaccine is found. If no vaccine is found then quarantine is likely to be the norm, any country that is able to contain the virus and return to near normal function will want to keep it that way. No country wants a Yo-Yo of lockdown/open/lockdown.... border restrictions it definitely a better option.

NZ have accepted that restriction on international travel will trade off for freedom to live and work, Europe in time will also follow this but its not in their mind set as they still putting out the fire.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

No one has suggested that, or very few, in the hundreds of posts in thread.

From that posters reply to one of mine to another poster, it was difficult to know what he was proposing for those other than those in high risk categories. I was curious as to what his proposal was. Simple as that.

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

So what for all those that are not high risk, they just carry on as before ?

Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread.
Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying.
We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing.
But its unavoidable that a large number of young healthy people will get infected and 99% will get over it without any serious issues. It may even be 99.9% for young healthy people.
Those with underlying conditions will need to continue to take extra precautions.

Ginger n Lemon

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread.
Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying.
We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing.
But its unavoidable that a large number of young healthy people will get infected and 99% will get over it without any serious issues. It may even be 99.9% for young healthy people.

It will be 99.9%. And when Germany announce the results of their entire population antibody testing (83 million people) I would be very surprised if Leo or Simon Harris are anywhere near the government, even opposition benches. They have obliterated our economy, and reports are coming out thousands of people are expected to develop cancer due to delay in cancer and other hospital treatments, treatments that they would usually get in private hospitals which currently have delayed all of smear tests etc.

National shame.

Cupatae

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

It will be 99.9%. And when Germany announce the results of their entire population antibody testing (83 million people) I would be very surprised if Leo or Simon Harris are anywhere near the government, even opposition benches. They have obliterated our economy, and reports are coming out thousands of people are expected to develop cancer due to delay in cancer and other hospital treatments, treatments that they would usually get in private hospitals which currently have delayed all of smear tests etc.

National shame.

National shame? in what doing the best they can? the way people like you go on you d swear they were out to sabotage the whole nation.. absolute ridiculous opinion.

Are you saying the lock down has obliterated our economy? Do you think that not having a lockdown would have been all roses? id be interested to hear how you think this could be played out better even with the benefit of hindsight...for some reason people like u cant seem to grasp this is a national emergency and there is no option that gives us a clean pristine way out of it there is only managing it and trying to minimizing damage.

Its a set back no matter what way you cut it.

Balf

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread.
Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying.
We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing.
.

Can anyone explain to me, then, how rugby an d similar matches will resume on 10 August, if social distancing is strictly necessary?

And, yes, I do get that this means playing the matches, not the spectators.My question is how, apparently, we can make an exception for contact sports.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/dd26a8-easing-the-covid-19-restrictions-on-10-august/#cultural-and-social

Close physical contact sports, such as rugby and boxing, can resume.

Gyms, dance studios and sports clubs can re-open, only where regular and effective cleaning can be carried out and social distancing can be maintained.

Spectators can begin to attend live sporting events only in accordance with both indoor and outdoor number restrictions and where social distancing can be complied with.

So I can't sit beside someone to watch an event. But I can grapple with an opponent in Judo all I like.

Should they not be just announcing the end of rugby?

tobefrank321

Cupatae wrote: »

National shame? in what doing the best they can? the way people like you go on you d swear they were out to sabotage the whole nation.. absolute ridiculous opinion.

Are you saying the lock down has obliterated our economy?

A short lockdown was a good idea to give us time to examine what we are dealing with. There was a lot of media hysteria that covid 19 was arbitrary with high hospital, icu and death rates. But after further study that doesn't really stand up. Primarily its an illness that affects over 60s with certain underlying conditions. This group would make up a small minority of the workforce.
Most under 40 for example who are healthy will be fine.
You are far more likely to die from cancer or a road accident than covid 19 if in this age category.
Even most people under 60 will be ok. Out of 6000 infected healthcare workers in Ireland, 5 died. That's a deathrate less than 0.1% for this age group.
The reason for the higher rate of about 0.4% overall is that nursing homes are in the mix. The majority who get seriously ill from this in nursing homes are not brought to hospital and hence the death rate is artificially high.

As for fatality rates, the rule of thumb most experts seem to agree on is actual cases are at least 10 times confirmed cases. So you can get your death rate from that and in most countries its about 0.4 or 0.5%

Cupatae

tobefrank321 wrote: »

A short lockdown was a good idea to give us time to examine what we are dealing with. There was a lot of media hysteria that covid 19 was arbitrary with high hospital, icu and death rates. But after further study that doesn't really stand up. Primarily its an illness that affects over 60s with certain underlying conditions. This group would make up a small minority of the workforce.
Most under 40 for example who are healthy will be fine.
You are far more likely to die from cancer or a road accident than covid 19 if in this age category.
Even most people under 60 will be ok. Out of 6000 infected healthcare workers in Ireland, 5 died. That's a deathrate less than 0.1% for this age group.
The reason for the higher rate of about 0.4% overall is that nursing homes are in the mix. The majority who get seriously ill from this in nursing homes are not brought to hospital and hence the death rate is artificially high.

As for fatality rates, the rule of thumb most experts seem to agree on is actual cases are at least 10 times confirmed cases. So you can get your death rate from that and in most countries its about 0.4 or 0.5%

So you think there is no threat from covid 19, that this is an overreaction and we should end the restriction immediately and allow a complete work force to return as normal?

Is there a threat or no?

Are we in lockdown for the laugh? do you know something the experts who suggest this lockdown dont?

wakka12

tobefrank321 wrote: »

A short lockdown was a good idea to give us time to examine what we are dealing with. There was a lot of media hysteria that covid 19 was arbitrary with high hospital, icu and death rates. But after further study that doesn't really stand up. Primarily its an illness that affects over 60s with certain underlying conditions. This group would make up a small minority of the workforce.
Most under 40 for example who are healthy will be fine.
You are far more likely to die from cancer or a road accident than covid 19 if in this age category.
Even most people under 60 will be ok. Out of 6000 infected healthcare workers in Ireland, 5 died. That's a deathrate less than 0.1% for this age group.
The reason for the higher rate of about 0.4% overall is that nursing homes are in the mix. The majority who get seriously ill from this in nursing homes are not brought to hospital and hence the death rate is artificially high.

As for fatality rates, the rule of thumb most experts seem to agree on is actual cases are at least 10 times confirmed cases. So you can get your death rate from that and in most countries its about 0.4 or 0.5%

And that workforce will come home from work and mix with the at risk groups. That is why there is a lockdown. You cant limit spread to one demographic of society, it will end badly

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread.
Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying.
We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing.
But its unavoidable that a large number of young healthy people will get infected and 99% will get over it without any serious issues. It may even be 99.9% for young healthy people.
Those with underlying conditions will need to continue to take extra precautions.

No contact sports event are liable to happen until a vaccine is found unfortunately.

If you do not control the spread then it is inevitable that large numbers will become infected. At 99% That makes it much more difficult to protect the vulnerable who are not just the 700,000 of the population that are over 65. There are also 170,000 people living with cancer. Some of the other underlying conditions that cause vulnerability are hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and asthma/chronic lung disease.

For the over 50`s alone 750,000 suffer from hypertension, 180,000 diabetes, 128,000 chronic kidney disease, 160,000 heart disease and 265,000 asthma/chronic lung disease. Some of that number suffering from more than one underlying condition.
That does not include those of all other ages that are vulnerable due to having suppressed immunity.


If infection rates of those less vulnerable was allowed to reach that 99/99.9%, there would be absolute carnage.

tobefrank321

wakka12 wrote: »

And that workforce will come home from work and mix with the at risk groups. That is why there is a lockdown. You cant limit spread to one demographic of society, it will end badly

I've said clearly. I couldn't have said it more times - at risk groups will need to continue to isolate until there is a vaccine. Lockdown, no lockdown, etc.

And that's actually not my advice, its experts and governments advice.

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

No contact sports event are liable to happen until a vaccine is found unfortunately.

If you do not control the spread then it is inevitable that large numbers will become infected. At 99% That makes it much more difficult to protect the vulnerable who are not just the 700,000 of the population that are over 65. There are also 170,000 people living with cancer. Some of the other underlying conditions that cause vulnerability are hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and asthma/chronic lung disease.

For the over 50`s alone 750,000 suffer from hypertension, 180,000 diabetes, 128,000 chronic kidney disease, 160,000 heart disease and 265,000 asthma/chronic lung disease. Some of that number suffering from more than one underlying condition.
That does not include those of all other ages that are vulnerable due to having suppressed immunity.


If infection rates of those less vulnerable was allowed to reach that 99/99.9%, there would be absolute carnage.

And there's zero carnage from a lockdown? Do you think illnesses like cancer, cataract, strokes, etc stop when there's a lockdown and patients can't see their consultant?

That's not to mention putting almost everyone on the dole for an illness that won't impact them.

One of the more serious impacts of lockdown is the inability of young women to get smear tests preventing them from being diagnosed for an illness that could be fatal all to avoid an illness which in all likelihood won't.

Anyways, back to Sweden. Its an interesting approach. The fact that their deaths per million is very close to our own shows their approach can be followed by come countries, especially when covid19 is out of control in your country and there's no hope of ever getting it under control. It would be interesting to know where Sweden is on the international obesity table.

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

No contact sports event are liable to happen until a vaccine is found unfortunately.

If you do not control the spread then it is inevitable that large numbers will become infected. At 99% That makes it much more difficult to protect the vulnerable who are not just the 700,000 of the population that are over 65. There are also 170,000 people living with cancer. Some of the other underlying conditions that cause vulnerability are hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and asthma/chronic lung disease.

For the over 50`s alone 750,000 suffer from hypertension, 180,000 diabetes, 128,000 chronic kidney disease, 160,000 heart disease and 265,000 asthma/chronic lung disease. Some of that number suffering from more than one underlying condition.
That does not include those of all other ages that are vulnerable due to having suppressed immunity.


If infection rates of those less vulnerable was allowed to reach that 99/99.9%, there would be absolute carnage.

There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one.

Look it up. But dont fear, mortality rate is 0.2-0.5% so we shouldnt get wiped out without a vaccine.

Wibbs

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one.

Nope. Afraid not. There's a vaccine for bovine coronavirus. Yep it's in cattle, but it shows a coronavirus vaccine is doable. We don't have one for human coronaviruses simply because the majority cause very mild symptoms(a percentage of the common cold viruses are coronavirus), or the dangerous ones like SARS and MERS were controlled and petered out, or got less infectious, so the money stopped flowing for vaccine research.

Ginger n Lemon

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Afraid not. There's a vaccine for bovine coronavirus. Yep it's in cattle, but it shows a coronavirus vaccine is doable. We don't have one for human coronaviruses simply because the majority cause very mild symptoms(a percentage of the common cold viruses are coronavirus), or the dangerous ones like SARS and MERS were controlled and petered out, or got less infectious, so the money stopped flowing for vaccine research.

When I read "nope" I thought oh wow, we must have advanced significantly. But then I realised its for cattle. At least we can take care of our cattle!

Yeah, not looking good given that SARS has been around since 2003. MERS 2012. And now we are being promised an untested and unproven vaccine by September, December. Werent there multiple vaccine scandals in the past and now they've changed legislation preventing you from suing vaccine company?

Seems like Sweden's way is the only way?

tobefrank321

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

When I read "nope" I thought oh wow, we must have advanced significantly. But then I realised its for cattle. At least we can take care of our cattle!

Yeah, not looking good given that SARS has been around since 2003. MERS 2012. And now we are being promised an untested and unproven vaccine by September, December. Werent there multiple vaccine scandals in the past and now they've changed legislation preventing you from suing vaccine company?

Seems like Sweden's way is the only way?

On balance it probably is.

Coronavirus will have minimal impact on the young and healthy. They need to be far more concerned about cervical, breast or testicular cancer. Its possible many of these cancers will not be diagnosed early enough in an age group which are likely to suffer minimal impact from covid19.

So potential deaths in this category have to be factored in when implementing a lockdown or not.

niallo27

charlie14 wrote: »

No contact sports event are liable to happen until a vaccine is found unfortunately.

If you do not control the spread then it is inevitable that large numbers will become infected. At 99% That makes it much more difficult to protect the vulnerable who are not just the 700,000 of the population that are over 65. There are also 170,000 people living with cancer. Some of the other underlying conditions that cause vulnerability are hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and asthma/chronic lung disease.

For the over 50`s alone 750,000 suffer from hypertension, 180,000 diabetes, 128,000 chronic kidney disease, 160,000 heart disease and 265,000 asthma/chronic lung disease. Some of that number suffering from more than one underlying condition.
That does not include those of all other ages that are vulnerable due to having suppressed immunity.


If infection rates of those less vulnerable was allowed to reach that 99/99.9%, there would be absolute carnage.

I find this hard to believe, a vaccine could be 2-5 years away. There is too much money and social enjoyment in sport for it not to return. If we get to a stage of rapid testing, what is to stop 30 players that tested negative from playing a game.

Ginger n Lemon

niallo27 wrote: »

I find this hard to believe, a vaccine could be 2-5 years away. There is too much money and social enjoyment in sport for it not to return. If we get to a stage of rapid testing, what is to stop 30 players that tested negative from playing a game.

Bundesliga are playing their games 16th of May. 198 players will play from top league & probably same amount in the 2nd league.

I think initial poster meant for stadiums with fans?

wakka12

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've said clearly. I couldn't have said it more times - at risk groups will need to continue to isolate until there is a vaccine. Lockdown, no lockdown, etc.

And that's actually not my advice, its experts and governments advice.

Yes I realise that is what you meant. But it's not realistic, many at risk people live with the people you are saying should go to work again. How does isolation work then? At risk groups stay in their rooms forever?

niallo27

wakka12 wrote: »

Yes I realise that is what you meant. But it's not realistic, many at risk people live with the people you are saying should go to work again. How does isolation work then? At risk groups stay in their rooms forever?

Whats the alternative, they are always going to be at risk. If there is no vaccine for 2 years, how else are we going to protect them? What about the thousands of homes that do not live with at risk people, could these people go back working.

Wibbs

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

When I read "nope" I thought oh wow, we must have advanced significantly. But then I realised its for cattle. At least we can take care of our cattle!

Yeah, not looking good given that SARS has been around since 2003. MERS 2012.

Way to ignore my point and plough on regardless. The point is and contrary to your bold statement a coronavirus vaccine is doable and we didn't come up with one for SARS and MERS because they were contained and didn't pose a worldwide threat. For example both MERS and SARS combined have only killed about 1500 people worldwide. Vaccine development is extremely expensive and until SARS Covid19 came along there were bigger fish to fry. There's a coronavirus vaccine for cattle quite simply because the beef and dairy industry is worth many billions in revenue annually.

Ginger n Lemon

Wibbs wrote: »

Way to ignore my point and plough on regardless. The point is and contrary to your bold statement a coronavirus vaccine is doable and we didn't come up with one for SARS and MERS because they were contained and didn't pose a worldwide threat. For example both MERS and SARS combined have only killed about 1500 people worldwide. Vaccine development is extremely expensive and until SARS Covid19 came along there were bigger fish to fry. There's a coronavirus vaccine for cattle quite simply because the beef and dairy industry is worth many billions in revenue annually.

Sorry I didnt meant to ignore your point, my brain just can not comprehend scientists shelving SARS in 2003 when it was contained and not working on a vaccine for it.

I mean is 2nd SARS outbreak impossible? 2nd MERS?

I heard a German virologist interview yesterday saying that covid is likely to become flu like sickness, that will be peaking in the colder months and easing in the summer months. With most people developing an immunity for it for 2 years + and then getting sick with it again etc. He said that vaccine is highly ambitious given that there hasn't been any vaccines developed for human corona viruses, outlining that SARS vaccines have been worked on extensively, along with MERS, with no results.

wakka12

niallo27 wrote: »

Whats the alternative, they are always going to be at risk. If there is no vaccine for 2 years, how else are we going to protect them? What about the thousands of homes that do not live with at risk people, could these people go back working.

Well yeh. I'm just pointing out it's not as simple as why are th government not letting healthy people go back to work. It's because many of those young healthy people live in close contact with elderly/ill/at risk groups and cocooning will not be feasible for a lot of people if some of the people they live with are not isolating. That thread about the immunocompromised woman giving out about her roomate always leaving is a perfect example of a kind of unforeseen living situation of which there are probably thousands and thousands throughout the country. When they go back to work, hundreds fo thousands of people will become at high risk of contracting the virus. Those people and their loved ones will of course resist lockdown being lifted

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

And there's zero carnage from a lockdown? Do you think illnesses like cancer, cataract, strokes, etc stop when there's a lockdown and patients can't see their consultant?

That's not to mention putting almost everyone on the dole for an illness that won't impact them.

One of the more serious impacts of lockdown is the inability of young women to get smear tests preventing them from being diagnosed for an illness that could be fatal all to avoid an illness which in all likelihood won't.

Anyways, back to Sweden. Its an interesting approach. The fact that their deaths per million is very close to our own shows their approach can be followed by come countries, especially when covid19 is out of control in your country and there's no hope of ever getting it under control. It would be interesting to know where Sweden is on the international obesity table.

You make it sound as if hospitals are refusing to treat anyone who is not infected or showing symptoms. That is not the case. Neither is visiting your doctor by appointment or a doctor visiting you in an emergency.


If covid19 is out of control in a country then there may be no other option than the Swedish approach, but far as I recall from a video interview with one of Tegnell`s top advisors post here some time ago, when asked about the situation in Britain he appeared to be of the belief it was not a good idea. Personally, I favor attempting to control the spread rather than have it running out of control, and as he appeared to believe,then being left with no other options.



No idea where Sweden is on obesity, but Scandinavian countries live a much healthier lifestyle than we do far as I know, so I imagine their obesity levels are much lower than ours.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one.

Look it up. But dont fear, mortality rate is 0.2-0.5% so we shouldnt get wiped out without a vaccine.

I did, and as another poster already pointed out there is a corona virus for cattle. Pharmaceutical companies follow the money like all businesses.It made it financially worth while to develop a vaccine for cattle so you can be assured this corona virus will get their full attention unlike other recent viruses.

When representing statistics as percentages it can be easy to disregard the actual figures. As your German scientist said it is always best to err on the side of caution, so if we go with your 0.5% that we should not fear.That 0.5% would result in 25,000 deaths in Ireland from Covid19.


The total deaths in Ireland last year prior to Covid19 were 32,000. 0.65%

wakka12

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one.

Look it up. But dont fear, mortality rate is 0.2-0.5% so we shouldnt get wiped out without a vaccine.

The largest community antibody testing to date which was in New York has determined a mortality rate of 0.8%. Which is considerably higher

charlie14

niallo27 wrote: »

I find this hard to believe, a vaccine could be 2-5 years away. There is too much money and social enjoyment in sport for it not to return. If we get to a stage of rapid testing, what is to stop 30 players that tested negative from playing a game.

Got to admit very much a GAA man myself where unfortunately I cannot see it without a vaccine. In some of the other professional sports, because of the vast sums of money involved unless players, officials and all they may come in contact with during a game are quarantined for two weeks before, then the financial claims, should there be transmission, would be astronomical.