Sweden avoiding lockdown

Breezin

The situation in Sweden looks desperate... BBC video.

Coronavirus: How Sweden is keeping its pubs and bars open

Sweden never went into full lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic.

Rules there allow most people to go outside, visits bars, restaurants and shops as long as they try to stay distant from each other.

The country has seen 26,322 cases and 3,225 deaths from the virus with many around Europe, including some Swedish citizens, questioning the approach.

So what does social-distancing outside of lockdown look like and is everyone comfortable?

ek motor

Nermal wrote: »

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


.

The question is for how long immunity is conferred post-infection. For other coronaviruses it is generally somewhere between a matter of months to a couple of years. We currently do not know how long immunity lasts in the case of SARS-CoV-2.

Kermit.de.frog

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.

This comment is just wrong on two fronts.

The epidemic in Sweden is ongoing and the death rate is consistent (whereas it's falling elsewhere as a direct result of the measures)

Sweden's central bank estimates that GDP will contract this year by between 7-10 per cent.

That's the reality of the situation in Sweden.

What Username Guidelines

DeVore wrote: »

They have 360 serious/critical cases per million pop compared to our 72 per million pop. Thats over *five* times ours and indicates that their lack of testing is hiding a much bigger problem.

Its still worse than us, but just to point out they have 360 total critical cases, not per million. We have 69 (still says 72 on worldometers), but those figures aren't per million.

/pedant

DeVore

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Its still worse than us, but just to point out they have 360 total critical cases, not per million. We have 69 (still says 72 on worldometers), but those figures aren't per million.

/pedant

No, thats a fair comment, sorry I was trying to get everything per Million. I'll edit the OP

VillageIdiot71

DeVore wrote: »

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".

Well, they were happy enough to suggest we throw the world economy off a cliff, without them having much of an appreciation of the impact of that on human welfare.

And happy to trumpet that a vaccine should be available much quicker than expected, which assume they believe immunity to be a thing.

Who runs WHO?

mikeym

Look at whats going on over in Belarus.

Their leader doesnt give two fcuks about the virus.

plodder

DeVore wrote: »

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).

But, what experiments can we run that will prove the proposition one way or the other? There has been vague talk of people volunteering to be exposed to the virus deliberately, but the ethical considerations around that are immense and I haven't heard it been seriously suggested. It appears that Sweden is the closest thing we have to an experiment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Breezin wrote: »

So what does social-distancing outside of lockdown look like and is everyone comfortable?

Bascially, going about your daily business but avoiding large groups. But still keeping outgoings to a minimum where possible.

Donald Trump

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.

Your argument makes no sense. Lets use round numbers and say that 50% constitutes herd immunity and that the mortality rate is 2%. Lets say no impact from overcrowded services in hospitals etc.



Two countries with population of 100k each. Country A lets it rip through them and hits 50% infected at 1 year. Country B slows it down so that it hits 50% after 3 years.


When A hits "herd immunity" (50% population) 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. When B hits "herd immunity" 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. Both will have the same number of deaths.



I don't see any logical argument that country A could have less deaths. I can understand (not agree with) other arguments for accelerating infections. I believe there is a flawed logic behind them. But I don't see any "logic" whereby the speed at which you hit (theorized) herd immunity affects direct deaths from the infections.

GreeBo

Even if herd immunity is or becomes a thing, there is no guarantee that immunity to COVID-19 will do anything to stop people contracting the next strain COVID-20, or COVID-21.

We get a different flu jab each year based on what is coming out of Australia etc, thats not immunity.

brick tamland

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

Read my post properly

Its obviously wrong then.

Bit cynical

Donald Trump wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense. Lets use round numbers and say that 50% constitutes herd immunity and that the mortality rate is 2%. Lets say no impact from overcrowded services in hospitals etc.

Two countries with population of 100k each. Country A lets it rip through them and hits 50% infected at 1 year. Country B slows it down so that it hits 50% after 3 years.

When A hits "herd immunity" (50% population) 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. When B hits "herd immunity" 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. Both will have the same number of deaths.

I don't see any logical argument that country A could have less deaths. I can understand (not agree with) other arguments for accelerating infections. I believe there is a flawed logic behind them. But I don't see any "logic" whereby the speed at which you hit (theorized) herd immunity affects direct deaths from the infections.

Ignoring the economic problems and associated deaths, one argument would be that if the immunity conferred is time limited, say 2 years, then a country dragging out the outbreak runs the risk of people getting reinfected whereas the fast country is able to use herd immunity to eradicate the virus within the immunity window.

DeVore

plodder wrote: »

But, what experiments can we run that will prove the proposition one way or the other? There has been vague talk of people volunteering to be exposed to the virus deliberately, but the ethical considerations around that are immense and I haven't heard it been seriously suggested. It appears that Sweden is the closest thing we have to an experiment.

Antibody tests (plural) can determine if blood contains antibodies for the virus. Any single test only has an 80-95% chance of being correct but if you cross two or three of them that chance rockets (since any one of them showing positive would be enough).

So, you can test for immunity but the antibody tests are either not available or their specificity/sensitivity are not yet known.

yosemitesam1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This comment is just wrong on two fronts.

The epidemic in Sweden is ongoing and the death rate is consistent (whereas it's falling elsewhere as a direct result of the measures)

Sweden's central bank estimates that GDP will contract this year by between 7-10 per cent.

That's the reality of the situation in Sweden.

A country's total death rate compared to it's normal death rate is the best measure of what effect covid is having. Sweden's is rapidly returning to normal, the same as almost all other European countries who did have lockdowns.

The whole world is heading into a recession and businesses in Sweden won't have had the same losses as those suffered by lockdown country's so they will be in a much stronger position to weather this recession.
Also business confidence won't have been destroyed as much as here which will make a big difference to economic recovery.
How much has all this costed us in comparison to Sweden? We have guaranteed tax increases and government spending cuts coming as a result

Nermal

KyussB wrote: »

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.

KyussB wrote: »

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.

My extraordinary proof is the millions of people around the world who have been infected only once, and the absence of anyone infected twice.

DeVore wrote: »

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

Asking for evidence that the immunity is long-term is basically asking for a time machine.

Nermal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This comment is just wrong on two fronts.

The epidemic in Sweden is ongoing and the death rate is consistent (whereas it's falling elsewhere as a direct result of the measures)

It's falling:

https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/

But the country that 'wins' is not the country that minimises deaths, or cases. These countries are trapped. Their citizens never gain a realistic perspective on the true risk of the virus. They cannot travel, they cannot re-open for tourism. Their businesses are constantly under threat of shutdown. No crowded bars, no packed sporting events, no concerts. A huge and wasteful testing, tracing and quarantine infrastructure to support. This is 'victory'?

The country that 'wins' is the one that properly balances restrictions and deaths to gain herd immunity quickly and cheaply.

brick tamland

Donald Trump wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense. Lets use round numbers and say that 50% constitutes herd immunity and that the mortality rate is 2%. Lets say no impact from overcrowded services in hospitals etc.



Two countries with population of 100k each. Country A lets it rip through them and hits 50% infected at 1 year. Country B slows it down so that it hits 50% after 3 years.


When A hits "herd immunity" (50% population) 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. When B hits "herd immunity" 1k (2% of infected) people will have died. Both will have the same number of deaths.



I don't see any logical argument that country A could have less deaths. I can understand (not agree with) other arguments for accelerating infections. I believe there is a flawed logic behind them. But I don't see any "logic" whereby the speed at which you hit (theorized) herd immunity affects direct deaths from the infections.

I made no arguement. You didnt read my post properly

We wont know what was the correct approach for years. Sweden may end up with lower death toll ect. maybe not. If this ever ends, we'll see.

As i said, i reckon theyve got this wrong

Donald Trump

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ignoring the economic problems and associated deaths, one argument would be that if the immunity conferred is time limited, say 2 years, then a country dragging out the outbreak runs the risk of people getting reinfected whereas the fast country is able to use herd immunity to eradicate the virus within the immunity window.

Ireland drags it out, UK infects everyone in first month. After 2 months everyone in UK is either dead or "immune".



After 2 years Ireland still has only had 40% infected. Paddy goes to Cheltenham. He brings the virus with him. UK herd immunity has worn off. They are all susceptible and so repeat their trick of infecting everyone again.



Rinse and repeat. Immunity "wearing off" doesn't make the claim any more logical

GreeBo

Have there been any studies to determine if someone with the antibodies/immune still be a carrier and infect others?

KyussB

Nermal wrote: »

My extraordinary proof is the millions of people around the world who have been infected only once, and the absence of anyone infected twice.

Asking for evidence that the immunity is long-term is basically asking for a time machine.

Do you not understand, that proof of the possibility of achieving herd immunity, requires the latter?

Your second sentence disproves your first.

STB.

Nermal wrote: »

Asking for evidence that the immunity is long-term is basically asking for a time machine.

This didn't stop Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist carrying out a public experiment on his own people.


Sweden abdicated their public health responsibilities in favour of economics and based their strategy on an unknown herd immunity plan for a virus has unknown end paths.

Both gambles have ended badly. We still don't know the extent of how badly.

Nermal

KyussB wrote: »

Do you not understand, that proof of the possibility of achieving herd immunity, requires the latter?

Your second sentence disproves your first.

Not really. That infection grants immunity is proven, a million times over.

How long it lasts is not proven, all that can be provided is the best guess that it will last at least a few years.

"Herd Immunity Is the Only Realistic Option—The Question Is How to Get There Safely":

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds

The world will awaken gradually from this delusion. People and institutions take time to change course.

plodder

DeVore wrote: »

Antibody tests (plural) can determine if blood contains antibodies for the virus. Any single test only has an 80-95% chance of being correct but if you cross two or three of them that chance rockets (since any one of them showing positive would be enough).

So, you can test for immunity but the antibody tests are either not available or their specificity/sensitivity are not yet known.

Yes, antibody tests make sense in a place like Sweden where the exposure has been much greater. I guess the point I was making is that a side-effect of our strategy, which is suppression is to make the immunity question unanswerable. If you have suppressed the virus completely then the level of exposure should be very low and wide-spread antibody testing a bit pointless.

It's kind of similar with vaccine trials. They will be much more successfully done in a place like Sweden than here, because the virus is almost suppressed (temporarily) here, but still circulating widely in Sweden.

DeVore

Nermal wrote: »

It's falling:

https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/

But the country that 'wins' is not the country that minimises deaths, or cases. These countries are trapped. Their citizens never gain a realistic perspective on the true risk of the virus. They cannot travel, they cannot re-open for tourism. Their businesses are constantly under threat of shutdown. No crowded bars, no packed sporting events, no concerts. A huge and wasteful testing, tracing and quarantine infrastructure to support. This is 'victory'?

The country that 'wins' is the one that properly balances restrictions and deaths to gain herd immunity quickly and cheaply.

Whats your "exchange rate" from deaths to economy then?

DeVore

plodder wrote: »

Yes, antibody tests make sense in a place like Sweden where the exposure has been much greater. I guess the point I was making is that a side-effect of our strategy, which is suppression is to make the immunity question unanswerable. If you have suppressed the virus completely then the level of exposure should be very low and wide-spread antibody testing a bit pointless.

It's kind of similar with vaccine trials. They will be much more successfully done in a place like Sweden than here, because the virus is almost suppressed (temporarily) here, but still circulating widely in Sweden.

But it doesnt have to be widespread, you know who had it (records) so you know who to test. There are 20-odd thousand, thats more than enough to get a sample size from (we predict general elections from 500-1000 sample size).

tobefrank321

KyussB wrote: »

Do you not understand, that proof of the possibility of achieving herd immunity, requires the latter?

Your second sentence disproves your first.

Lets say everyone on the planet contracted covid 19 at once and immunity lasted about 6 months. This would mean coronavirus would die out within 6 months as there are no new hosts. The R0 would drop to 0. As long as the Chinese didn't go back to eating bats etc we'd have this virus under control.

If immunity lasts 6 months then any country going down the herd immunity route would need rapid infection of the population and recovery in 5 months and maybe even 4 months. But remember experts say you don't need 100% infection. If a country reached 70 or 80% infection and recovery this would be enough for herd immunity.

The evidence so far points to at least 6 months immunity. 4.3 million cases and not a single re-infection, particurly from the early cases.

But you want more proof? The Chinese are about to test everyone in Wuhan. I hope they test all 80,000 who were infected and recovered. This might tell us if there were re infections are not. Hopefully there wasn't.

In summary immunity doesn't have to last years. It only has to last long enough for about 80% of your population to be infected and recovered so herd immunity is reached and the virus cannot find new hosts leading to a collapse in the R0 value.

GreeBo

DeVore wrote: »

Whats your "exchange rate" from deaths to economy then?

Mostly old purple die, save millions on healthcare and pensions, economy wins all ways up!

GreeBo

plodder wrote: »

Yes, antibody tests make sense in a place like Sweden where the exposure has been much greater. I guess the point I was making is that a side-effect of our strategy, which is suppression is to make the immunity question unanswerable. If you have suppressed the virus completely then the level of exposure should be very low and wide-spread antibody testing a bit pointless.
.

Why would we have to answer the immunity question if China or Italy or Sweden answer it first?

Danno

DeVore wrote: »

Antibody tests (plural) can determine if blood contains antibodies for the virus. Any single test only has an 80-95% chance of being correct but if you cross two or three of them that chance rockets (since any one of them showing positive would be enough).

So, you can test for immunity but the antibody tests are either not available or their specificity/sensitivity are not yet known.

https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm

https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/product-and-innovation/abbott-launches-covid-19-antibody-test.html

Roche's is 99.8% accurate. I've read that Abbott says 99% also. The Abbott has been EU approved with the CE mark.