Sweden avoiding lockdown

biko

Sweden (like most countries) have no means to measure success in their approach.
This means that whatever happens the government will say the Swedish approach worked and take credit for whatever they can.

How do I know?

Because even as their elderly are dying like flies and as Sweden was reported to be worst in class in corona deaths in the world,
the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Sweden claims "The corona strategy has worked" and wants to raise the taxes.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven admits that it is a failure that Sweden has failed to protect the elderly.
At the same time, he claims that the Swedish model "has worked" - and does not exclude tax increases.

Peak Sweden.


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Flofven-strategin-for-corona-har-fungerat%2F

Breezin

seamus wrote: »

Moving those goalposts so frequently must be hard on the aul back.

Originally Sweden wasn't going for herd immunity. They were flattening the curve without lockdown.

Then they were going for herd immunity. Now they're not again, instead it's "some" immunity.

That latter is completely meaningless. It's another way of saying they're aiming for controlled spread of the infection without any end-goal.

Whatever. Looking at Tegnel's candour, very unfamiliar to media audiences in here or in the UK, they probably haven't had the mammoth HSE/Leo Domo Cunningham spin machine telling them what terms to use, and what will take hold as a simplistic meme in media and social media.

But they have been consistent for quite a while in spelling out that herd immunity is not achievable in absolute terms, and that they therefore are indeed looking at flattening the curve while achieving some level of immunity.

'Without lockdown' is another linguistic blind alley. It implies that they are stupidly doing nothing. They are, of course, doing plenty to counter the virus, as everyone knows.

As for controlled spread of the infection without any end-goal, the reality is that there can be no end goal until vaccination is developed and implemented. They have as much end-goal as anyone else, but a less masochistic route to achieving it.

CrabRevolution

Breezin wrote: »

Whatever. Looking at Tegnel's candour, very unfamiliar to media audiences in here or in the UK, they probably haven't had the mammoth HSE/Leo Domo Cunningham spin machine telling them what terms to use, and what will take hold as a simplistic meme in media and social media.

But they have been consistent for quite a while in spelling out that herd immunity is not achievable in absolute terms, and that they therefore are indeed looking at flattening the curve while achieving some level of immunity.

'Without lockdown' is another linguistic blind alley. It implies that they are stupidly doing nothing. They are, of course, doing plenty to counter the virus, as everyone knows.

As for controlled spread of the infection without any end-goal, the reality is that there can be no end goal until vaccination is developed and implemented. They have as much end-goal as anyone else, but a less masochistic route to achieving it.

That's a curious way of saying they're willing to let a lot more people die in the process.

Breezin

CrabRevolution wrote: »

That's a curious way of saying they're willing to let a lot more people die in the process.

You could interpret it that way, if their death rate was of a different order to ours. It isn't.

tobefrank321

Sweden have exposed much of the scaremongering to be false and exaggerated though, the idea that if you don't lockdown, tens or hundreds of thousands are at risk of dying from covid 19. In Ireland it was said 85,000 would die, and in another projection, our lockdown saved 39,000 lives.

In Sweden, with a limited lockdown based more around personal responsibility and cocooning the elderly but letting everyone else mostly go about their daily business, they have under 4000 deaths.

Sweden have done a poor job of protecting their care homes, but so have many other countries.

But they appear to have done a good job at protecting those outside care homes in vulnerable categories without a full lockdown, far better than a number of countries who have higher death rates. You'd wonder why.

Breezin

PhoenixParker

That graph pretty clearly shows that from day 35 to the current day, Sweden's trajectory has been largely flat while Irelands has been sharply downwards.
There is now a very very clear gap between Irelands and Swedens death rates.

That graph is also designed to be deliberately misleading. Look at the final arrows, they are added to the data in a chosen direction that at a casual glance really influences how the data is perceived.

Ce he sin

Breezin wrote: »

You could interpret it that way, if their death rate was of a different order to ours. It isn't.

You could interpret it that way, if their death rate was of a different order to their neighbours. It is.

Breezin

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That graph pretty clearly shows that from day 35 to the current day, Sweden's trajectory has been largely flat while Irelands has been sharply downwards.
There is now a very very clear gap between Irelands and Swedens death rates.

That graph is also designed to be deliberately misleading. Look at the final arrows, they are added to the data in a chosen direction that at a casual glance really influences how the data is perceived.

May I respectfully suggest that you go to Woodies and buy a spirit level.

Mike3287

Breezin wrote: »

Correct. This is why they have said a zillion times now that they are not aiming for herd immunity, but rather some immunity.

Regardless of what they say, however, watch their 'herd immunity' policy being taken apart by some sages here.

Exactly

Sweden had the right idea, but they didn't understand the virus enough to implement it correctly, they should have waited a bit for

Others have learned from mistakes they made and doing a better job at soft lockdown eg Denmark, South Korea etc

Scientists know now that its not lockdown as such that works, that hits diminishing returns very quickly

Its stopping superspreader situations and environments, places where many people are roaring, very close to each other, singing etc

Discos, churches, concerts, gyms, anything over a few people breathing on each other indoors

They know your 20 times more likely to get it indoors than outdoors, that's why summer has made a huge difference slowing it, we are outdoor more

We wont be hearing about lockdown soon, it will be avoid risk, stay safe, be smart, situations of risk will be closed off/avoided

K factor will be the new R0 now, we will hear that alot

PhoenixParker

Breezin wrote: »

May I respectfully suggest that you go to Woodies and buy a spirit level.

https://imgur.com/a/jA5JDcd



Day 35 to last data point excluding the arrow.
Largely flat.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1263039316709847041

No sign of decline in Seden's death rate and they are facing an economic crisis as well.

Mic 1972

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1263039316709847041

No sign of decline in Seden's death rate and they are facing an economic crisis as well.

There's good and bad in either scenarios. Sweden will face a high death rate for the next few months but they won't have a crazy peak when the second wave hits Europe

is_that_so

Mic 1972 wrote: »

There's good and bad in either scenarios. Sweden will face a high death rate for the next few months but they won't have a crazy peak when the second wave hits Europe

No evidence any of the rest of us will have a crazy peak, nor of the the potential severity of it.

Harry Palmr

It's probably time to go back to the start of this thread and see who the sages were (if any) and who was taking ideological succor from what Sweden was doing and not doing.

seamus

Breezin wrote: »

You could interpret it that way, if their death rate was of a different order to ours. It isn't.

Their death rate is 20% higher than ours. And their reporting significantly more lagged than ours.

If you want anyone here to take you remotely seriously you need to face the actual facts.

Mic 1972

is_that_so wrote: »

No evidence any of the rest of us will have a crazy peak, nor of the the potential severity of it.

No evidence of anything that is yet to happen can be provided, but you can apply a little logic and make your prediction
How do you think we went from 0 to a peak in Feb/Mar?

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

You could interpret it that way, if their death rate was of a different order to ours. It isn't.

From yesterdays figures Sweden`s death rate per head of population is 22% greater than Ireland, and that figure has been increasing daily for some time now.

is_that_so

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No evidence of anything that is yet to happen can be provided, but you can apply a little logic and make your prediction
How do you think we went from 0 to a peak in Feb/Mar?

Because it was new and we didn't know how to deal with it. We know a lot more now and in a 2nd wave it is far more likely to be controlled quickly.

charlie14

Mic 1972 wrote: »

There's good and bad in either scenarios. Sweden will face a high death rate for the next few months but they won't have a crazy peak when the second wave hits Europe

Nationally their antibody test results are no better than Spain at 5% or France at 4.4%.
Perhaps even lower when you compare the results for Madrid and Stockholm which were both epicenters of their infections.
I would not see anything to indicate from other countries test results that should there be another wave, Sweden`s peak would be any different.

bb1234567

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Sweden have exposed much of the scaremongering to be false and exaggerated though, the idea that if you don't lockdown, tens or hundreds of thousands are at risk of dying from covid 19. In Ireland it was said 85,000 would die, and in another projection, our lockdown saved 39,000 lives.

In Sweden, with a limited lockdown based more around personal responsibility and cocooning the elderly but letting everyone else mostly go about their daily business, they have under 4000 deaths.

Sweden have done a poor job of protecting their care homes, but so have many other countries.

But they appear to have done a good job at protecting those outside care homes in vulnerable categories without a full lockdown, far better than a number of countries who have higher death rates. You'd wonder why.

But it hasnt exposed it as false at all. It has reported nearly 4000 deaths with just 5% immunity levels. That's with flattening of the curve, and cocooning elderly and ill, and lowering infection levels to ensure hospitals remain manageable.

So the predictions were not way off. Based on current deaths, Sweden would see around 56,000 deaths to reach 70% herd immunity . That's based on the infection already infecting mostly younger people compared to Spain where there was an equal spread of infection among all age groups as elderly had no chance to cocoon, and healthcare system not being overwhelmed. So I don't see how the doomsday predictions that were based on a do nothing scenario with 100,000 deaths in Sweden was way off or exaggerated at all. It might even sound conservative

tobefrank321

bb1234567 wrote: »

But it hasnt exposed it as false at all. It has reported nearly 4000 deaths with just 5% immunity levels. That's with flattening of the curve, and cocooning elderly and ill, and lowering infection levels to ensure hospitals remain manageable.

So the predictions were not way off. Based on current deaths, Sweden would see around 56,000 deaths to reach 70% herd immunity . That's based on the infection already infecting mostly younger people compared to Spain where there was an equal spread of infection among all age groups as elderly had no chance to cocoon, and healthcare system not being overwhelmed. So I don't see how the doomsday predictions that were based on a do nothing scenario with 100,000 deaths in Sweden was way off or exaggerated at all. It might even sound conservative

They aren't going for herd immunity, in fact everyone including the Swedes accept herd immunity isn't going to happen with the current R0 value. That value would need to double for that to happen.

Without a fullscale lockdown, Sweden's R0 is thought to be around 1. They also have not had the doomsday scenarios portrayed by some in Ireland that if we didn't totally lockdown tens of thousands would die. So it seems to be down to the targeted restrictions the Swedes have, as opposed to our blunt restrictions.

The Swedes have pretty much accepted their chances with this virus. And so far they've discovered that unless you are very old or otherwise very ill, the vast majority will survive. And most of the very old and ill will also survive.

In summary, no fullscale lockdown in Sweden and no tens of thousands dead. A relative success.

charlie14

is_that_so wrote: »

Because it was new and we didn't know how to deal with it. We know a lot more now and in a 2nd wave it is far more likely to be controlled quickly.

If we have learned anything from this it should be the need for test results, contact tracing and quarantine within a maximum of 72 hours. Ideally within 48 hours.

lawrencesummers

tobefrank321 wrote: »

They aren't going for herd immunity, in fact everyone including the Swedes accept herd immunity isn't going to happen with the current R0 value. That value would need to double for that to happen.

Without a fullscale lockdown, Sweden's R0 is thought to be around 1. They also have not had the doomsday scenarios portrayed by some in Ireland that if we didn't totally lockdown tens of thousands would die. So it seems to be down to the targeted restrictions the Swedes have, as opposed to our blunt restrictions.

The Swedes have pretty much accepted their chances with this virus. And so far they've discovered that unless you are very old or otherwise very ill, the vast majority will survive. And most of the very old and ill will also survive.

In summary, no fullscale lockdown in Sweden and no tens of thousands dead. A relative success.

A relative success....

https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-most-coronavirus-deaths-europe-per-capita-report-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

tobefrank321

lawrencesummers wrote: »

A relative success....

https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-most-coronavirus-deaths-europe-per-capita-report-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

Far lower than many other countries such as UK, France, Spain or Italy.

Slightly better than Ireland, a country in lockdown for 9 weeks, with 8 weeks to go until all restrictions are lifted.

And not the tens of thousands the doomsayers were predicting for countries like Ireland and Sweden if a full lockdown wasn't implemented.

The rest of the article you quoted is interesting:

Johan Giesecke, Sweden's former chief epidemiologist who is now a health adviser to the World Health Organization, has defended Sweden's policy and said that countrywide lockdowns merely delay the inevitable number of coronavirus cases and deaths.
"There is very little we can do to prevent this spread," he wrote in a piece in a piece for the Lancet medical journal earlier this month.
"A lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear," he wrote.
"I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in one year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken," he added.

faceman

Mike3287 wrote: »

25% of deaths there are 90+

Nasty thing to say maybe but does it matter if you die at 91 or 88?

I shared with your view with my grandmother. She’s 99 and very much of sound mind. She didn’t say nice things about you. Sorry.

Breezin

Mike3287 wrote: »

Exactly

Sweden had the right idea, but they didn't understand the virus enough to implement it correctly, they should have waited a bit for

Others have learned from mistakes they made and doing a better job at soft lockdown eg Denmark, South Korea etc

Scientists know now that its not lockdown as such that works, that hits diminishing returns very quickly

Its stopping superspreader situations and environments, places where many people are roaring, very close to each other, singing etc

Discos, churches, concerts, gyms, anything over a few people breathing on each other indoors

They know your 20 times more likely to get it indoors than outdoors, that's why summer has made a huge difference slowing it, we are outdoor more

We wont be hearing about lockdown soon, it will be avoid risk, stay safe, be smart, situations of risk will be closed off/avoided

K factor will be the new R0 now, we will hear that alot

All true. The Swedes already admit that they screwed up early on, but they are clear that the logic of the lockdown is limited in the extreme.

lawrencesummers

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Far lower than many other countries such as UK, France, Spain or Italy.

Slightly better than Ireland, a country in lockdown for 9 weeks, with 8 weeks to go until all restrictions are lifted.

And not the tens of thousands the doomsayers were predicting for countries like Ireland and Sweden if a full lockdown wasn't implemented.

The rest of the article you quoted is interesting:

Giesecke is of the opinion that there is very little can be done to stop the spread so why bother trying when it will eventually spread anyway.

Which is at odds with the approach of almost every other country, and hes essentially throwing in the towel and taking a gamble on those high risk categories. Thats a hell of a gamble to take, let people die from this now, dont bother trying to stop it because they will eventually get it.

He is basing his predictions on this - "I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in one year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken," he added

Thats a hell of a gamble to take, let people die from this now, dont bother trying to stop it because they will eventually get it anyway. It gives no consideration to a therapeutic or a vaccination being available, it gives no consideration to hospital capacity.

Breezin

seamus wrote: »

Their death rate is 20% higher than ours. And their reporting significantly more lagged than ours.

If you want anyone here to take you remotely seriously you need to face the actual facts.

Yes, it is higher. They have a clear rationale why that is so.



I'm not so sure I need to feel anxious about being taken seriously by someone who can't parse the notion of order of magnitude.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

Yes, it is higher. They have a clear rationale why that is so.



I'm not so sure I need to feel anxious about being taken seriously by someone who can't parse the notion of order of magnitude.

What clear rational would that be ?