Sweden avoiding lockdown

Damian F

It's perfectly simple, the time to compare figures is not now, it's in 12/18 months time. Ireland can't stay in lockdown forever so when things reopen here figures will go up. Too many Irish people are under the impression that lockdown is some sort of quick fix cure for covid

VillageIdiot71

DeVore wrote: »

Now, there are social reasons why Sweden may well be doing ok.

Are you clear on what point you are trying to make?

Because you seem to start by saying Sweden isn't doing OK, its just the figures are different. You then seem to feel you have to account for why Sweden is still, broadly, in the same camp as Ireland.

Bear in mind, even in recent days there was some Professor telling us that Ireland had avoided 50,000 to 75,000 deaths. That would be 100,000 to 150,000 in Sweden. Is that the unspoken point you are attempting to cover?

Would Sweden have a higher proportion of its population aged 65+? Just another headline factor to contemplate, as we notice the absence of tens of thousands of unusual deaths there.

simongurnick

KyussB wrote: »

There's still no evidence herd immunity is even possible. It would be a reckless gamble, without very strong evidence of lasting immunity. That's not been their stated rationale, either.

Yeah. This herd immunity is bandied about a lot yet there have been cases in Asia where people were infected twice. Also we have had flu for ever and there is no hers immunity to the strains. Very risky strategy.
Good article on rte from George lee today about Sweden with similar figures to the OP. If ireland took there approach our icu's would have been overwhelmed resulted in any even worse knock on effect.
The swedes can stick to making furniture

Diarmuid

seamus wrote: »

So instead, "herd immunity" has started to become the retroactive justification, after weeks of denying that was the intention.

Really? According to whom in the Swedish government? From what I've read of Tegnell, he seems remarkably consistent. The most recent quote he suggests the opposite
https://www.ft.com/content/a2b4c18c-a5e8-4edc-8047-ade4a82a548d

It seems the regret is that it got into nursing homes and not that they took the approach (that they are currently sticking with).

Tow

Already being discussed here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058069294

growleaves

There's still no evidence herd immunity is even possible. It would be a reckless gamble, without very strong evidence of lasting immunity.

Lockdown is a hyptohetical, empirically untested (recent and controversial) high-stakes gambles. One of the biggest high-stakes gambles in history.

With every respiratory virus in history people got it, died or recovered and then general immunity among the population was the eventual result.

DeVore

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Are you clear on what point you are trying to make?

Because you seem to start by saying Sweden isn't doing OK, its just the figures are different. You then seem to feel you have to account for why Sweden is still, broadly, in the same camp as Ireland.

Bear in mind, even in recent days there was some Professor telling us that Ireland had avoided 50,000 to 75,000 deaths. That would be 100,000 to 150,000 in Sweden. Is that the unspoken point you are attempting to cover?

Would Sweden have a higher proportion of its population aged 65+? Just another headline factor to contemplate, as we notice the absence of tens of thousands of unusual deaths there.

Here's a crazy idea in this mixed up world we live in: maybe I am not trying to use the numbers to make a point. Maybe I'm just explaining the situation as the facts (such as we have them) show.

Right now and for a good while there has been a "narrative" about Sweden. Its one that isnt upheld by the numbers. So, by highlighting the numbers I might SEEM to be trying to counter that narrative but I'm only doing so as side consequence of highlighting the facts.

Its ALSO true that my experience of Sweden is such that they probably DIDNT NEED to officially have a formal order to "lock down". Thats worth mentioning as well as the low population density and high isolation numbers. Those are also true and if I simply omitted them I'm just as guilty of trying to "build a narrative" as others.

Diarmuid

Everyone focuses on the cost to the economy. There's a massive cost to the closure of schools
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_education#Consequences_of_school_closures

Considering how long our school holidays are already, add in the loss of education from the lockdown and you end up with serious consequences down the road

simongurnick

growleaves wrote: »

Lockdown is a hyptohetical, empirically untested (recent and controversial) high-stakes gambles. One of the biggest high-stakes gambles in history.

With every respiratory virus in history people got it, died or recovered and then general immunity among the population was the eventual result.

That's not true man.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sweden are the epidemiological Schrodinger's Cat of Covid 19. It's two things at the same time - better and worse depending which Sweden you are looking at and what ideological specs you're wearing.

My gut feeling is that Sweden will have a death tally that stacks high over a prolonged period, sure they kept society open but at what cost to the population? That will be the debate for analysts - does keeping the economy at a higher level of output and wealth generation offset the deaths in the medium to long term?

Current indications are the the economic impact to Sweden will be comparable, or even worse than their neighbours

growleaves

That's not true man.

What previous pandemics had lockdowns? Where are the studies?

A handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether social distancing made outbreaks better or worse, is all anyone has come up with.

Breezin

Diarmuid wrote: »

Everyone focuses on the cost to the economy. There's a massive cost to the closure of schools
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_education#Consequences_of_school_closures

Considering how long our school holidays are already, add in the loss of education from the lockdown and you end up with serious consequences down the road

Too true. See also the cost in terms of cancelled or delayed treatments for other serious health conditions, mental health issues, social disruption. We don't have a balanced debate on the cost - as much social as economic - of the hard lockdown. Our new, specialist governors are not required to address the wider picture in their public statements of their policy.

Diarmuid

Deleted User wrote: »

Current indications are the the economic impact to Sweden will be comparable, or even worse than their neighbours

Well that's not totally accurate and not the full picture
https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e

From the various quotes, it will be at worst equal to the rest of Europe with others suggesting a difference (for the better) of 3-4% GDP with their close neighbours

Compared to Ireland their unemployment figures are vastly lower.

LuckyLloyd

growleaves wrote: »

What previous pandemics had lockdowns? Where are the studies?

A handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether social distancing made outbreaks better or worse, is all anyone has come up with.

Are you suggesting we should apply Public Health approaches from 1918?

VillageIdiot71

DeVore wrote: »

Maybe I'm just explaining the situation as the facts (such as we have them) show.

Or maybe you are trying to avoid saying anything that can be pinned down, sensible when you consider that the facts seem to be unhelpful to previous explanations of facts which suggested that tens of thousands of deaths were on the way.

Ireland did things like spend €100 million pm bailing out an empty private hospital sector, because the explanation of facts at the time suggested that space would be needed as the healthcare sector was about to be overrun.

So always worth thinking about why people feel Swedish facts need explanations.

niallo27

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Are you suggesting we should apply Public Health approaches from 1918?

The question was regarding immunity nothing to do with Public Health approaches.

growleaves

Are you suggesting we should apply Public Health approaches from 1918?

Er don't you mean public health approaches from the beginning of recorded history up until December 2019?

FintanMcluskey

DeVore wrote: »

As of today, 12 May, it has roughly half our number of infections per mil pop. (2,641 vs 4,685).

But it has had more deaths per million pop than Ireland (322 vs 297)

Those death stats per total population are not an accurate indication. This is killing primarily over 65s(Over 90%) of deaths. The only metric is to use is the over 65 population.
Readjusted for the over 65 population in deaths per million
Sweden has 1628 deaths p/m
Ireland has 2176 deaths p/m
So I don't see how they have performed that poorly in comparisson to Ireland

VillageIdiot71

Diarmuid wrote: »

Well that's not totally accurate and not the full picture
https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e

From the various quotes, it will be at worst equal to the rest of Europe with others suggesting a difference (for the better) of 3-4% GDP with their close neighbours

Compared to Ireland their unemployment figures are vastly lower.

In any event, everywhere went a bit mental over this, so the economic impact will hit everywhere. Including our FDI sector.

Its a global dialogue needed on this.

Like, its the same message everywhere. Nursing homes get hit because they are full of old people in bad health. Duh.

Bit cynical

What Sweden seem to be doing well is keeping deaths down despite a high level of infections relative to Ireland and other countries. At present their deaths are about 3% higher than Ireland per capita. I expect this to diverge further as time goes on: they are not in full lockdown and are mixing much more freely than other countries so this is to be expected, but what is interesting is that the numbers are not spiralling out of control as had been predicted.

I think it needs to be pointed out that herd immunity has never been the official strategy of Sweden but rather a side-effect that may be beneficial if treatments or a vaccine do not become available within a reasonable period of time. Obviously we can't know how long lasting immunity will be from this virus since it has only been in the population a short time but some immunity is expected.

Should Ireland adopt the Swedish approach? Well, we don't have the medical services of Sweden and we've a housing crisis so we can't be as open as Sweden without accepting a higher level of deaths (though not as high as had been predicted). But I think we need to start thinking about what sort of restrictions are sustainable over the potentially long term - something that we can adapt to. It may be more restrictive than the Swedes but not unsustainable like presently. However it may mean living a higher level of deaths.

This is what Sweden appears to have done; found something they can sustain for as long as they need to until a vaccine arrives or if it does not, some sort of immunity develops in the population.

yosemitesam1

Swedish death rate is almost back to normal according to euromomo. Looks like no lockdown was a great success if it continues.
They have saved billions that can be used to encourage economic activity and invest in health for the future.

Diarmuid

Diarmuid wrote: »

Well that's not totally accurate and not the full picture
https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e

From the various quotes, it will be at worst equal to the rest of Europe with others suggesting a difference (for the better) of 3-4% GDP with their close neighbours

Compared to Ireland their unemployment figures are vastly lower.

It is too early to say that we would do better than others. In the end, we think Sweden will end up more or less the same,” said Christina Nyman, a former deputy head of monetary policy at the Riksbank who is now chief economist at lender Handelsbanken.

What they are now and what they will be are different things

Nermal

simongurnick wrote: »

Yeah. This herd immunity is bandied about a lot yet there have been cases in Asia where people were infected twice.

Misinformation. False positives, false negatives.

KyussB wrote: »

There's still no evidence herd immunity is even possible.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

RE "herd immunity", there's no evidence so far to suggest you can attain immunity.

Misinformation. Studies in animals, literally millions of people infected and no authoritative, verified reports of people being infected twice.

If you claim infection does not grant immunity, you are making an extraordinary claim. Provide extraordinary proof.

KyussB wrote: »

There's a good website here, with a useful rating of countries performance regarding the coronavirus (those 'beating covid-19', those 'nearly there', and those 'needing to take action') - with Sweden being in the worst performing section:
https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

It's crap. You only 'beat' the virus by gaining herd immunity.

Either gain it by sacrificing 0.35% of your population (at a maximum, likely much less), or impoverish yourself waiting for a vaccine that may never come at all.

Not a hard choice, if you are capable of identifying your options and viewing them dispassionately.

Bit cynical

BrianD3 wrote: »

Sweden has just over double our population and they do have a low population density but a high level of urbanisation. Sweden has over 4 times our number of urban centres over 50k population and also 4 times our number over 100k population. And in case anyone thinks that you need a city of millions to have a big problem with Covid-19, the population of Bergamo, Italy is 122k.

If we had much more of our population concentrated in centres the size of Bergamo instead of living in one off houses and tiny villages, how would we be doing. Not well at all I suspect.

Yes, I've never understood why people consider population density to be a big factor. It is not density, per say, but distribution. You could have a huge country with a relatively low population (and therefore low density) but if everyone is crammed into one city then you will have problems with epidemics.

There are some advantages in Sweden, however. They have a large number of single-person housing. It is not unusual for young people to live on their own in their own apartment after getting their first job. In Ireland it is common for young people to share housing. Sharing rooms is not uncommon and even half a double bed with a stranger has been advertised in Dublin.

Bit cynical

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Swedish death rate is almost back to normal according to euromomo. Looks like no lockdown was a great success if it continues.
They have saved billions that can be used to encourage economic activity and invest in health for the future.

Well not quite. The yellow bit of those graphs indicate that the numbers in that region are not fully up to date.

biko

27272 cases
3313 dead
12.1% of known cases have passed

Numbers from FHMs own tracking page
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

sydthebeat

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not density, per say, but distribution. You could have a huge country with a relatively low population (and therefore low density) but if everyone is crammed into one city then you will have problems with epidemics.
.

you mean like iceland which has 60% of its 350,000 living in the one urban center?

iceland which has only 18 people left with mild symptoms before they have 100% case conclusions?

iceland which had 6 weeks of lockdown and are beating the virus with extensive testing.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/05/04/world/europe/ap-eu-virus-outbreak-iceland.html

Danno

KyussB wrote: »

There's still no evidence herd immunity is even possible...

What a strange statement.

1: If the virus is not eradicated fully in the community the only other alternative is herd population immunity.

2: (a) You either get this virus and beat it, (b) get this virus and die from it or (c) get the virus (in a limited/altered/controlled way) via vaccine and beat it.

There is no other way.

Ireland is going with point 1 (eradication) and hoping point 2 (c) comes quickly. If a vaccine does not come quickly, we have to seal the borders until it does and have a super-long restrictive period in trying to put out mini-outbreaks as they occur locally.

GreeBo

brick tamland wrote: »

Surely we really cant compare the 2 approaches for long time. Our impact is lower now, but there is the possibility that Sweden will achieve the "herd immunity" quicker and as a result wont have as many deaths over the longer term. Comparisons should be made at the end of all this rather than now (if there ever is an end).

My own opinion is that Sweden may have go it wrong, but we just don't know.

What if they achieve herd immunity at the cost of a crazy number of deaths though? how to you weigh that up in the final analysis?

Kermit.de.frog

growleaves wrote: »

Lockdown is a hyptohetical, empirically untested (recent and controversial) high-stakes gambles.

It worked in the Spanish Flu.