Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Yes, YES! It seems like we are getting closer together. Observing social distancing ofcourse.

Anyways I am happy that we are on the same page that no vaccine will be safe, I hope you agree that rolling out vaccine thats been in development for 9 - 12 months is a no go and there should be atleast 3 - 5 years of data/research of side effects done?

If you had a vaccine available end of this year, would you be happy to take it?

Btw thread is totally about Sweden, I am not looking to turn it into vaccine or no vaccine, but it's quite obvious that Sweden decided to disregard vaccine, perhaps because of their previous bad experiences like you outlined :pac:

If there was a vaccine tomorrow approved by the appropriate licensing authorities of course people would avail of it.
Tegnell`s approach may or may not have had something to do with 0.01% developing narcolepsy, but do not fool yourself, if there was a vaccine in the morning Sweden`s vulnerable would be queuing up for it rather that putting their faith in herd immunity.

Balf

charlie14 wrote: »

.
They say their Ro is below 1. On those figures this supposed cure all of immunity looks a long way off.

Does "flatten the curve" assume some element of immunity?

Just a thought that occurred to me while reading that. Is the flatten the curve idea that we're all going to get it, you just try to spread it out.

But if there's no immunity, presumably we'd have to spread it out forever, as the population would today always be just as susceptible to it as yesterday.

And, yes, I supposecIm asking that as I don't believe we can do this forever.

charlie14

Balf wrote: »

Does "flatten the curve" assume some element of immunity?

Just a thought that occurred to me while reading that. Is the flatten the curve idea that we're all going to get it, you just try to spread it out.

But if there's no immunity, presumably we'd have to spread it out forever, as the population would today always be just as susceptible to it as yesterday.

And, yes, I supposecIm asking that as I don't believe we can do this forever.

Flattening the curve is preventing the health service being over-run and thus reduce the mortality level. We know from other countries that when their health services were over-run their mortality rates rose. It is also about attempting to reduce the spread of the virus, but I expect you already knew this.

What I have never been able to get my head around is with all this faith in immunity rather than a vaccine. An immunity that we don`t know if it is possible, if or how much protection it will give to subsequent waves or even how long it lasts, is how the large numbers of people vulnerable to this virus are going to achieve this immunity.

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

Flattening the curve is preventing the health service being over-run and thus reduce the mortality level. We know from other countries that when their health services were over-run their mortality rates rose. It is also about attempting to reduce the spread of the virus, but I expect you already knew this.

What I have never been able to get my head around is with all this faith in immunity rather than a vaccine. An immunity that we don`t know if it is possible, if or how much protection it will give to subsequent waves or even how long it lasts, is how the large numbers of people vulnerable to this virus are going to achieve this immunity.

You are correct, like Greek philosopher said The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.

However, we can all appreciate German cars are very good. So going from that, we can assume their doctors are also very good, I dont think they would be coming out with below statements if they didnt think that immunity would last, for a good while. Its just a matter of do we trust them or not.

I do. But each to their own.


"
Germany is carrying out Europe’s first large-scale coronavirus antibody testing to help assess infection rates and monitor the spread of the virus.

One doctor involved in testing for antibodies is Ulrike Leimer-Lipke.

For these antibodies test to make sense, you must have had symptoms about four weeks beforehand," she explained. "Antibodies take a relatively long time to appear. If you only had symptoms last week, you wouldn't have antibodies by now.

We know that, especially in Germany, a lot of people already had it. And it is also very important for them, especially if they have a grandmother, mother or father whom they look after, to know whether they are already immune."

StefanFal

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. We are essentially in lockdown in Sweden. The only difference is we are advised to adhere to social distancing guidelines and not forced to do so. Most of us are working from home and while pubs restaurants are still open there are very few actually going to them. Schools are still open and my kids are still attending.

For the most part people are following the guidelines. The young of course seem to be an exception. They just don't care.

The deaths are really high in comparision to our Nordic neighbours but very like Ireland with regards deaths per million. We messed up with the elder care homes as did Ireland.

How many people are expendable to keep a somewhat functional economy going. Striking that balance is the game.

dubrov

StefanFal wrote:

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. We are essentially in lockdown in Sweden. The only difference is we are advised to adhere to social distancing guidelines and not forced to do so. Most of us are working from home and while pubs restaurants are still open there are very few actually going to them. Schools are still open and my kids are still attending.

These are major differences. You also left out everyone is able to work.

You would think all these things would have a major impact on the spread of the disease but apparently not

Hmmzis

charlie14 wrote: »

Flattening the curve is preventing the health service being over-run and thus reduce the mortality level. We know from other countries that when their health services were over-run their mortality rates rose. It is also about attempting to reduce the spread of the virus, but I expect you already knew this.

What I have never been able to get my head around is with all this faith in immunity rather than a vaccine. An immunity that we don`t know if it is possible, if or how much protection it will give to subsequent waves or even how long it lasts, is how the large numbers of people vulnerable to this virus are going to achieve this immunity.

There is plenty of evidence now that the human body does generate IgG and even some T-cells against SARS-cov-2. While IgG titres can and most likely will drop over time, there should still be plenty of memory cells around to kick up another batch of IgM and IgG upon a reinfection. If there would be no IgG in recovered patients, then that would indeed spell trouble for us all.

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1074-7613%2820%2930181-3

The T-cell finding is more interesting in that those cells apparently hang around for a very long time. If the study data does indeed check out and the results can be replicated in other studies, then it would be very good news for those who have now recovered and also excellent news for vaccine makers as they would be able to produce long lasting vaccines.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20061440v1

The outstanding questions then are:

1. Do the antibodies provide enough protection for one not to become infectious to others when exposed to the virus again? Important for herd immunity to work.
2. Are there also CD8 T cells being produced by the body from this virus? From my understanding, that needs a specially equipped lab to isolate them. These cells are generally are longer lived than CD4 (we're talking decades here).
3. When exposed to the virus again, are there any symptoms or adverse effects present? (see Dengue Fever, but we'd have probably heard all about it by now from healthcare workers if that was the case).

Balf

charlie14 wrote: »

Flattening the curve is preventing the health service being over-run and thus reduce the mortality level. We know from other countries that when their health services were over-run their mortality rates rose. It is also about attempting to reduce the spread of the virus, but I expect you already knew this..

Its grand, I found something that answers my question.

Australians are good at getting to the point.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-27/coronavirus-options-to-end-lockdown-explained/12090270

According to University of Melbourne epidemiologist Tony Blakely, .....

"What they're not saying is [that] 'flatten the curve' likely means [that] by the time this is over, 60 per cent of us will have been infected, to develop herd immunity," he said.

Professor Blakely argues this type of herd immunity is the only way to ensure there is no resurgence of the virus once physical distancing and shutdown restrictions are lifted, and borders are re-opened.

So no immunity = no flatten the curve. Just endless lockdown.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

just as an update, and example....

28th and 29th april gone from 34 and 26 respectively, to both at 41 today.

as a continuation as to how sweden are historically adding to their daily numbers:

28th April, originally reported at 34, now 66

29th April, originally 26, now 66

wakka12

Balf wrote: »

And they've a population of a bit more that twice ours? 10 million?

And theyve a bit more than twice our Covid related deaths.

You'll appreciate, the difference isn't screaming out at us.

And, while I expect the next port of call to be quibbles around the count, weren't we expecting up to 85,000 deaths. So should the Swedes be on the way to 170,000? Should they be seeing tens of thousands of fatalities? Are they hiding them?

No we werent, unless you consider 'worst case scenario possible' the same as expecting.
And no, Sweden has countless measures in place to limit the spread of the virus,as demonstrated by the R0 estimate of below 1 now, so why or how would their worst case scenario possibly occur?

The point is, Sweden's deaths continue to remain consistently high, while in Ireland most fully locked down countries, they are trending down steeply.

Jaden

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

However, we can all appreciate German cars are very good. So going from that, we can assume their doctors are also very good,

That might be the dumbest thing I will ever read on boards - and that is saying something.

"We can all appreciate Irish Dancers are very good, so it follows that Irish 100m sprinters are very good".

Ginger n Lemon

Jaden wrote: »

That might be the dumbest thing I will ever read on boards - and that is saying something.

"We can all appreciate Irish Dancers are very good, so it follows that Irish 100m sprinters are very good".

I love a comment from someone who has no opinion on the matter.



You have contributed greatly to the Sweden Avoiding lockdown thread. Congratulations

Balf

wakka12 wrote: »

No we werent, unless you consider 'worst case scenario possible' the same as expecting.
And no, Sweden has countless measures in place to limit the spread of the virus,as demonstrated by the R0 estimate of below 1 now, so why or how would their worst case scenario possibly occur?

The point is, Sweden's deaths continue to remain consistently high, while in Ireland most fully locked down countries, they are trending down steeply.

It sets the level if expectation.

If you say a country that normally has 30,000 deaths as year from all causes could have up to 85,000, then you most certainly are suggesting that double, triple or quadruple the normal level of deaths are expected.

So when nothing like that is experienced, it absolutely lacks credibility to say "Oh, that was just the worst case".

That was the case that drove the lockdown.

wakka12

Balf wrote: »

It sets the level if expectation.

If you say a country that normally has 30,000 deaths as year from all causes could have up to 85,000, then you most certainly are suggesting that double, triple or quadruple the normal level of deaths are expected.

So when nothing like that is experienced, it absolutely lacks credibility to say "Oh, that was just the worst case".

That was the case that drove the lockdown.

So because a worst case was completely avoided you think it means the prediction was completely off the wall? Flawless logic. The 85,000 figure was presumably over the course of a year, we are only two months in , almost 2000 have died and it has generally so far regarded as around the best case scenario possible. If there are more waves over the next year or two until a vaccine is found, certainly not unlikely that the number of deaths in Ireland would reach 10k-20k. And thats with countless social distancing measures in place

Balf

wakka12 wrote: »

So because a worst case was completely avoided you think it means the prediction was completely off the wall? Flawless logic. The 85,000 figure was presumably over the course of a year, we are only two months in , almost 2000 have died and it has generally so far regarded as around the best case scenario possible. If there are more waves over the next year or two until a vaccine is found, certainly not unlikely that the number of deaths in Ireland would reach 10k-20k. And thats with countless social distancing measures in place

I suspect you know the point being made.

The worst case seems to be avoided in Sweden. There experience wouldn't fuel an 85,000 worst case, or 40,000 middle case. They also have, more or less, our (as you describe it) best case outcome.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

You are correct, like Greek philosopher said The only thing I know, is that I know nothing.

However, we can all appreciate German cars are very good. So going from that, we can assume their doctors are also very good, I dont think they would be coming out with below statements if they didnt think that immunity would last, for a good while. Its just a matter of do we trust them or not.

I do. But each to their own.


"
Germany is carrying out Europe’s first large-scale coronavirus antibody testing to help assess infection rates and monitor the spread of the virus.

One doctor involved in testing for antibodies is Ulrike Leimer-Lipke.

For these antibodies test to make sense, you must have had symptoms about four weeks beforehand," she explained. "Antibodies take a relatively long time to appear. If you only had symptoms last week, you wouldn't have antibodies by now.

We know that, especially in Germany, a lot of people already had it. And it is also very important for them, especially if they have a grandmother, mother or father whom they look after, to know whether they are already immune."

As another poster put it comparing German cars to German doctors is probably the most inane comment I`ve seen in all my time on Boards.ie.


Where in that statement was their any mention of how long they believed immunity, if even possible would last or how many would possibly acquire it


From what I can see of late you have been just posting random quotes and then adding your own interpretations where the quote says nothing of the kind.

dalyboy

charlie14 wrote: »

Flattening the curve is preventing the health service being over-run and thus reduce the mortality level. We know from other countries that when their health services were over-run their mortality rates rose. It is also about attempting to reduce the spread of the virus, but I expect you already knew this.

What I have never been able to get my head around is with all this faith in immunity rather than a vaccine. An immunity that we don`t know if it is possible, if or how much protection it will give to subsequent waves or even how long it lasts, is how the large numbers of people vulnerable to this virus are going to achieve this immunity.

If the human body can’t develop immunity / antibodies than a vaccine CANNOT scientifically be developed.

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

As another poster put it comparing German cars to German doctors is probably the most inane comment I`ve seen in all my time on Boards.ie.


Where in that statement was their any mention of how long they believed immunity, if even possible would last or how many would possibly acquire it


From what I can see of late you have been just posting random quotes and then adding your own interpretations where the quote says nothing of the kind.

Its implied in the last sentence below. They are testing the entire nation my friend, to give out bluepassports / antibodies tests results and if you are lucky enough you had covid you can roam free and deal with RE INFECTION like you deal with FLU re infection. later on friend. You dont get flu every 2 weeks do you.

"We know that, especially in Germany, a lot of people already had it. And it is also very important for them, especially if they have a grandmother, mother or father whom they look after, to know whether they are already immune."

I am sorry, did you really think they are testing their entire nation for covid19 antibodies just to know how many people have had it? What help is that if they fear re infections?? Does that sounds like German efficiency to you? Antibodies my friend, is the only way forward with covid. Everybody who isnt connected to WHO will tell you this.

charlie14

Balf wrote: »

Its grand, I found something that answers my question.

Australians are good at getting to the point.
So no immunity = no flatten the curve. Just endless lockdown.

It doesn`t seem the Australian authorities gave much regard to his opinion on herd immunity when adopting their strategy.


Like your one example in Australia, I could list a large number in Sweden who do not agree with their yes it is/no it`s not herd immunity strategy. But again you know that so what would be the point.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Its implied in the last sentence below. They are testing the entire nation my friend, to give out bluepassports / antibodies tests results and if you are lucky enough you had covid you can roam free and deal with RE INFECTION like you deal with FLU re infection. later on friend. You dont get flu every 2 weeks do you.

"We know that, especially in Germany, a lot of people already had it. And it is also very important for them, especially if they have a grandmother, mother or father whom they look after, to know whether they are already immune."

I am sorry, did you really think they are testing their entire nation for covid19 antibodies just to know how many people have had it? What help is that if they fear re infections?? Does that sounds like German efficiency to you? Antibodies my friend, is the only way forward with covid. Everybody who isnt connected to WHO will tell you this.

What you implied you mean.
There was nothing in what you posted to show there was immunity, that there may be immunity, or to what level, or how long it may last.

If you are interested in antibodies then ask Sweden. From actually TESTING blood from 100 donors they said they found antibodies in 11%. They then withdrew the report which to the best of my knowledge they haven`t re-issued or clarified why it was withdrawn.

charlie14

dalyboy wrote: »

If the human body can’t develop immunity / antibodies than a vaccine CANNOT scientifically be developed.

I am well aware that. But if that is the case then isn`t Sweden`s, it is herd immunity/it`s not herd immunity strategy a complete waste of time and possibly of lives as well

Del Griffith

Balf wrote: »

Does "flatten the curve" assume some element of immunity?

Just a thought that occurred to me while reading that. Is the flatten the curve idea that we're all going to get it, you just try to spread it out.

But if there's no immunity, presumably we'd have to spread it out forever, as the population would today always be just as susceptible to it as yesterday.

And, yes, I supposecIm asking that as I don't believe we can do this forever.

Absolutely right. It's to help the health services cope, which its been successful at as they have loads of capacity.

Some posters here seem to have misunderstood though and think it's some sort of solution that changes the final outcome, which it's not and was never intended to be.

Balf

Del Griffith wrote: »

Absolutely right. It's to help the health services cope, which its been successful at as they have loads of capacity.

Some posters here seem to have misunderstood though and think it's some sort of solution that changes the final outcome, which it's not and was never intended to be.

I suppose what on my mind is the slogan "flatten the curve" seems to be meaningless, unless we can develop immunity.

Its sort of intuitively clear, but I have to admit the connection only occurred to me today (when I posted that query).

If there's no immunity, then its not so much "flatten the curve", and more "faff about until we run out of money, or the virus gets bored".

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

I am well aware that. But if that is the case then isn`t Sweden`s, it is herd immunity/it`s not herd immunity strategy a complete waste of time and possibly of lives as well

You really don't do complexity or uncertainty, do you? Not a good approach to health policy formation.

Brilliant reporting just now on BBC Newsnight on the massive, social media-led oversimplification that gave the UK its kneejerk lockdown. And of course quite possibly us too.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

You really don't do complexity or uncertainty, do you? Not a good approach to health policy formation.

Brilliant reporting just now on BBC Newsnight on the massive, social media-led oversimplification that gave the UK its kneejerk lockdown. And of course quite possibly us too.

First thing comes to mind reading that is pot kettle black.
When it comes to Swedish health care you are not big on uncertainty either and I do not see much of any complexity in their strategy.

The reference to knee jerk reaction, where the whole world practically is using the same strategy as Britain and Ireland reminded me of the mother watching her soldier son in an army parade saying they were all out of step except her Johnnie.

cnocbui

Looks like the Swedes may well have been right:

We report a quasi-experimental study of the impact of various interventions for control of the outbreak. Data on case numbers and deaths were taken from the daily published figures by the European Centre for Disease Control and dates of initiation of various control strategies from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation website and published sources. Our primary analyses were modelled in R using Bayesian generalised additive mixed models (GAMM). We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1

jimmycrackcorm

cnocbui wrote: »

Looks like the Swedes may well have been right:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v1

"This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

Could also be flawed.

wakka12

It seems almost impossible that mass gatherings dont increase level of infections

marno21

wakka12 wrote: »

It seems almost impossible that mass gatherings dont increase level of infections

That's what they're saying. They're saying that closing schools/colleges, banning mass gatherings and closing some non essential businesses (whatever they are) is sufficient to suppress the virus. The lockdowns are unnecessary.

In saying that, I do believe a certain length of lockdown was necessary to stop the march of the virus, get people into a habit of realising what the virus is and how to live with it, and prepare the health service while the virus was suppressed. That period is now over, and the lockdown is no longer necessary and to be realistic, more damaging than it is beneficial.

charlie14

wakka12 wrote: »

It seems almost impossible that mass gatherings dont increase level of infections

That is a strange one. It says the second largest impact was the banning of mass gathering " (which could be of any size )"
It is not clear, but the largest impact they seem to believe the closure of school, (something Sweden have not done) but bizarrely could not "resolve the lack of consensus in these lines of evidence, about whether children can pass SARS-COV-2 to adults"