Sweden avoiding lockdown

GreeBo

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.

"doing ok" considering they arent really doing anything.
They dont have hundreds of thousands of dead on the streets for example.
Compared to Italy they can be considered to be doing ok, albeit not reporting/tracking deaths properly.

Bit cynical

sydthebeat wrote: »

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

Yes, I think my point broadly stands. They are dealing with the virus well but it is not their low population density that is helping them. The fact that a lot of their country is uninhabited does not have much effect on the spread of the virus in, for example, Reykjavik.

yosemitesam1

Bit cynical wrote: »

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

It's unlikely their figures are so far out to throw the trend much off normality.
All countries apart from the UK are also following similar trends if they weren't already reporting normal range death figures

Bit cynical

Danno wrote: »

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.

We can't seal our borders from other EU countries legally. If we could, we would have done so.

simongurnick

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.

I was saying that the comment that every respiratory virus in history resulted in eventual immunity is simply not true. We don't even have immunity to influenza.

Del Griffith

Padre_Pio wrote: »

RE "herd immunity", there's no evidence so far to suggest you can attain immunity. It could be that a vaccine is needed for life to go back to any semblance of normal.

Still zero understanding of how vaccines work in this forum I see..

Bit cynical

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It's unlikely their figures are so far out to throw the trend much off normality.
All countries apart from the UK are also following similar trends if they weren't already reporting normal range death figures

However the figures to not yet show a decline in excess deaths either in Sweden or those countries implementing lockdowns.

Sweden is past the peak of deaths without overrunning their hospitals. This is why they probably won't be forced to introduce more stringent measures as had been predicted.

The countries with strict lockdowns are showing a sharp fall off, but the problem they may face is how to relax restrictions without increases in infections and subsequently deaths. This may then lead to reintroduction of measures preventing recovery of the economy which may then lead to deaths that have nothing to do with the virus.

Ineedaname

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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

I wish people would stop saying this. There is immunity.

4068ac1elhodqr

Ineedaname wrote: »

I wish people would stop saying this. There is immunity.

The WHO said there is 'no evidence' of this (assume they mean longer-term, and beyond a couple of weeks post infection, when natural antibodies are at their peak), mutation risk might also factor in their view of this also.

Saying this, the WHO have several failings already, and are perhaps less trusted, that they were pre-2020.

Nermal

Accumulator wrote: »

The WHO said there is 'no evidence' of this (assume they mean longer-term, and beyond a couple of weeks post infection, when natural antibodies are at their peak), mutation risk might also factor in their view of this also.

Saying this, the WHO have several failings already, and are perhaps less trusted, that they were pre-2020.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113277770

We keep retracing old ground. Herd immunity is the only way out. We can do it cheaply and quickly, or expensively and slowly after proving other avenues to be failures.

4068ac1elhodqr

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=113277770

We keep retracing old ground. Herd immunity is the only way out. We can do it cheaply and quickly, or expensively and slowly after proving other avenues to be failures.

Either the WHO are
a). Right, or they are
b). Wrong (and if wrongly pushing false information, it suggests an agenda or scheme is at play).

Outside of Trump and the view of the regular Joe-Jane on the street to their incompetence, they haven't received any official criticism or even challenges from any other official sources, states or bodies.

Nermal

Accumulator wrote: »

Either the WHO are
a). Right, or they are
b). Wrong (and if wrongly pushing false information, it suggests an agenda or scheme is at play).

Outside of Trump and the view of the regular Joe-Jane on the street to their incompetence, they haven't received any official criticism or even challenges from any other official sources, states or bodies.

Just read the link.

growleaves

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It worked in the Spanish Flu.

There were partial shutdowns in St. Louis, Milwaukee, San Francisco, Kansas City and lesser measures in other places. After Spanish Flu was already killing millions across age groups.

4068ac1elhodqr

Nermal wrote: »

Just read the link.

That corrective statement (twitter) was on Apr 25th, which still suggests over 4mths of 'incorrect' information in that case.

'No studies so far' into this major factor, carried out anywhere since Wuhan back in December is curious indeed.

Can assume their view as of today is still 'don't know'.

Nermal

Accumulator wrote: »

That corrective statement (twitter) was on Apr 25th, which still suggests over 4mths of 'incorrect' information in that case.

'No studies so far' into this major factor, carried out anywhere since Wuhan back in December is curious indeed.

Can assume their view as of today is still 'don't know'.

The millions of people around the world who were infected with the virus, survived and didn't contract it again form the study you're looking for.

plodder

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

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

Interesting point. At 2016 figures, we have 13.2% of the population over 65, whereas Sweden has a much higher 19.2%. So, our younger population is making the general per capita figure look much better.

On the other hand, I'd hazard a guess that the co-morbidity situation is worse here. If obesity is an indicator for population health then we overtook (as in became worse than) Sweden on that front in the mid-90s and the gap has widened ever since. High blood pressure seems much more prevalent here as well. So, that might skew the figures in Sweden's favour, when trying to see how each country is "performing", but it's harder to quantify.

4068ac1elhodqr

Confused.com

Coronavirus: WHO condemns idea of herd immunity for Covid-19 as 'dangerous'

Health emergency director at World Health Organisation condemns idea nations with lax restrictions will ‘all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity’.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity-who-uk-matt-hancock-a9510231.html

“So I do think this idea that ‘maybe countries who had lax measures and haven’t done anything will all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity, and so what if we lose a few old people along the way?’ This is a really dangerous, dangerous calculation.”

WHO Technical lead adds:

“You think what amount of the population needs to have an immunity to be able to protect the rest of the population? We don’t know exactly what that level needs to be for Covid-19. But it certainly needs to be higher than what we’re seeing in seroprevalence studies.”

plodder

'herd immunity' is a red herring. It's way too early to be talking about it even. There is some degree of 'partial immunity' more than likely. Some percentage of the population have had the virus and will be immune for some unknown period of time.

Bit cynical

plodder wrote: »

'herd immunity' is a red herring. It's way too early to be talking about it even. There is some degree of 'partial immunity' more than likely. Some percentage of the population have had the virus and will be immune for some unknown period of time.

I agree to a certain extent. It will not be known if there's two years immunity until at least two years have passed and even then the results have to be analyzed.

The same, of course, is true for a vaccine. We don't know how long it will take to develop one and, more importantly, we won't know how effective the immunity conferred by that vaccine will be and how long it will last. This, like natural immunity, will take years.

On the other hand, we have to use what is known about viruses in general and coronaviruses more specifically. We can't wait years until we know everything about this particular virus.

tobefrank321

plodder wrote: »

'herd immunity' is a red herring. It's way too early to be talking about it even. There is some degree of 'partial immunity' more than likely. Some percentage of the population have had the virus and will be immune for some unknown period of time.

Similar to most vaccines so as very few vaccines confer a lifetime of immunity.

You cannot suspend economic activity or reduce economic activity significantly unless you are 100% certain a vaccine is on the way within a certain time frame.

At a certain stage governments may have to decide if a vaccine is achievable within the next year or if another approach may be required.

By this time next year it may be that places like Sweden and New York will already have herd immunity whether they like it or not.

It may be for these places herd immunity is their only option as they are in so deep they have no choice but to continue.

Nermal

Accumulator wrote: »

Confused.com

Coronavirus: WHO condemns idea of herd immunity for Covid-19 as 'dangerous'

Health emergency director at World Health Organisation condemns idea nations with lax restrictions will ‘all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity’.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-herd-immunity-who-uk-matt-hancock-a9510231.html

WHO Technical lead adds:

“You think what amount of the population needs to have an immunity to be able to protect the rest of the population? We don’t know exactly what that level needs to be for Covid-19. But it certainly needs to be higher than what we’re seeing in seroprevalence studies.”

The WHO is fully invested in suppression/elimination. It has to acknowledge the medical fact that the infected are immune. But it can't simply pivot and say 'open up, lockdowns are too expensive and just delaying the inevitable, an alternative exists'.

That's not a conspiracy theory - I'm not saying they're falsifying data or profiting from the situation. It's just how institutions work; they find it very difficult to wholeheartedly change course, especially in the midst of a crisis and under intense media scrutiny.

Finally yes, outside of the absolute epicenters of the virus, herd immunity is not yet approached - but in many place it may not be far off. The 60%-80% bandied about may not be necessary, it could be achieved much earlier:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085

Sweden is a lot closer to the end than us. It spent less to get there. If we had all taken the same path, we would have not disrupted the global economy so disastrously, and we all would have spent still less.

KyussB

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, RSV provides only limited immunity and can be contracted multiple times even in a single season, it requires a vaccine for herd immunity.

The gamble is with peoples lives - and by that standard in the current situation, the lockdowns are not a gamble at all - there is direct proof available that they result in less deaths over time, and that countries can bring cases all the way to zero - regaining the ability to stop future outbreaks from growing out of control, the way this one did.

KyussB

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.

Until they're forced into lockdown with an enormous number of cases, which prolongs them getting out of lockdown...

tobefrank321

The disastrous UK experience has scared most countries off a herd immunity approach.

The UK jumped head first into it and too many people got infected too soon. Mass gatherings like Cheltenham, Champions League and ordinary football matches didn't help. They didn't give themselves time to put in place measures to protect the old and other vulnerable groups. That and the fact the BAME group have been badly hit for a reason no-one fully understands yet.

Sweden's approach was better but its still a struggle for them. They brought in a form of lockdown for old and vulnerable groups, encouraged working from home, but they are not too bothered if a lot of young healthy people contract covid 19 because they are unlikely/not going to end up in hospital. Sweden's big problem is nursing homes and that is an area no-one has managed to fully control.

It would be very interesting to know if Sweden had the same number of travel related cases in the early days as for example Norway, Denmark and Finland.

What about Sweden though??

KyussB

Nermal wrote: »

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



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.

I claimed there is no proof of herd immunity - if you claim the opposite, lets see your extraordinary proof - before you decide to sacrifice 0.35% x 7.594 billion = 26.5 million people.

KyussB

Danno wrote: »

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.

You understand the concept, of getting infected more than once? Until there is strong evidence that can not happen on a large scale, there is no strong evidence of herd immunity.

What Username Guidelines

Nermal wrote: »

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.

Have any of the previous pandemics (1918, 1959, 1968) ended with herd immunity? This is what confuses me, in 68-69, over 60k Germans died, many more americans, but it didnt end when everyone got it and recovered. It came in waves over 2 years, some got it, some didnt. Nothing locked down and it ended. I have no idea why it did, mutation or innate immunity? Who knows?

kyote00

More like herd mentality

Nermal wrote: »

Misinformation. False positives, false negatives.





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.



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.

DeVore

The WHO said there is no evidence there is long term immunity because, guess what, there is no evidence

It isnt a case of "immunity until proven otherwise". Like all good scientists, they will start with a position of "we dont know, could be be yes, could be no, until we run the experiments, we dont know".

They do NOT start with a position and then wait to be shown otherwise.

If you asked there "is there NOT immunity" they would say "There is no evidence that there is not immunity.

Wait for evidence that shows one way or another, like they are. (If anyone has links, please provide).