Sweden avoiding lockdown

growleaves

Has it still escaped people's attention that we have treated our elderly proportionality worse?

Ironic also that people who were merely opposed to the policy of lockdown were accused of killing - or want to kill - the elderly.

Yet the crafters of that policy sent contagious patients into environments full of elderly people, who subsequently perished.

It turns out that it isn't consequentialist ethics, rhetoric and assumptions that "save lives". Lesson learned? Nope, because that would require self-reflection which won't be forthcoming.

tobefrank321

Breezin wrote: »

Has it still escaped people's attention that we have treated our elderly proportionally worse? And even if we may quibble over measurement we are in the same territory?
At least they have admitted that they screwed up. I don't see that honesty coming from our lockdown leaders or from their cheeleaders here.
If you're that bloody concerned about our old folk you should focus your outrage here. Or perhaps that would have less rhetorical value. Self-righteousness, which is all around us these days, is a powerful drug.

And we have a much lower proportion of over 65s than most other European countries.

Yet the percentage of the population over the age of 65 varies considerably across Europe. It is 23% in Italy, 20% in Sweden, 19% in Austria and Spain, but only 13% in Ireland.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0529/1143301-covid-19-statistics/

The Swedes have at least 50% more over 65s than Ireland.

biko

36476 known cases
4350 officially dead
12% of known cases have passed

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

Harry Palmr

749 new cases and 84 new deaths

Five day

May 29 (GMT)
749 new cases and 84 new deaths in Sweden
May 28
639 new cases and 46 new deaths in Sweden
May 27
648 new cases and 95 new deaths in Sweden
May 26
597 new cases and 96 new deaths in Sweden
May 25
384 new cases and 31 new deaths in Sweden

charlie14

There appears to be an effort from some to switch the narrative here from "Sweden avoiding lockdown" to "Sweden and Ireland`s care home deaths".

Neither country covered themselves in glory as regards care home deaths, but that does not explain nor account for the disparity in numbers between both countries.
Sweden`s stated main principle of their strategy was protection of the aged and vulnerable, so fair to assume that when the high numbers of deaths in care homes became evident they acted as fast, if not faster, than Ireland to deal with this.

If deaths in care homes were a like for like comparison between Sweden and Ireland to explain or account for deaths, then it should be reflected in the numbers who have passed, but it does not.

Average weekly deaths in Sweden over the last four weeks are 449. Ireland over the same period 102.
Comparative to population, Sweden`s deaths in that period are over double those of Ireland.

joeysoap

We should be grateful that our near neighbours, with whom we share a common travel area, abandoned this crackpot policy. Belatedly maybe but at least they dumped it. Starting to see an improvement now. The countries that came out of this the best clamped down fast (New Zealand, Vietnam, Taiwan among others)

tobefrank321

charlie14 wrote: »

There appears to be an effort from some to switch the narrative here from "Sweden avoiding lockdown" to "Sweden and Ireland`s care home deaths".

Neither country covered themselves in glory as regards care home deaths, but that does not explain nor account for the disparity in numbers between both countries.
Sweden`s stated main principle of their strategy was protection of the aged and vulnerable, so fair to assume that when the high numbers of deaths in care homes became evident they acted as fast, if not faster, than Ireland to deal with this.

If deaths in care homes were a like for like comparison between Sweden and Ireland to explain or account for deaths, then it should be reflected in the numbers who have passed, but it does not.

Average weekly deaths in Sweden over the last four weeks are 449. Ireland over the same period 102.
Comparative to population, Sweden`s deaths in that period are over double those of Ireland.

No effort to switch the narrative. A couple of posters used emotive phrases like "Sweden are culling their elderly". It was pointed out that we aren't doing much better, but no-one is going around saying "Ireland are culling their elderly".

No nation is deliberately trying to cull anyone. Sweden have taken the view this is a marathon lasting years (and maybe even decades) rather than a sprint. They have decided to try to live with covid 19 as best they can.

We've seen the difficulties countries like South Korea are having once they open up. And also a couple states in the US post lifting of restrictions. We will soon see what most of Europe is like post restrictions. At a certain stage countries may have to decide do we live in almost permanent lockdown or do we just follow the Swedish model but do better protecting care homes.

Breezin

charlie14 wrote: »

There appears to be an effort from some to switch the narrative here from "Sweden avoiding lockdown" to "Sweden and Ireland`s care home deaths".

Neither country covered themselves in glory as regards care home deaths, but that does not explain nor account for the disparity in numbers between both countries.
Sweden`s stated main principle of their strategy was protection of the aged and vulnerable, so fair to assume that when the high numbers of deaths in care homes became evident they acted as fast, if not faster, than Ireland to deal with this.

If deaths in care homes were a like for like comparison between Sweden and Ireland to explain or account for deaths, then it should be reflected in the numbers who have passed, but it does not.

Average weekly deaths in Sweden over the last four weeks are 449. Ireland over the same period 102.
Comparative to population, Sweden`s deaths in that period are over double those of Ireland.

How disingenuously twisted can you get? The sub-topic, which everyone now seems to agree was a compete dud, was introduced as a stick to beat Sweden with and to claim that those of us who question our daft lockdown are somehow supporters of the Swedes' dastardly plot.

is_that_so

tobefrank321 wrote: »

No effort to switch the narrative. A couple of posters used emotive phrases like "Sweden are culling their elderly". It was pointed out that we aren't doing much better, but no-one is going around saying "Ireland are culling their elderly".

No nation is deliberately trying to cull anyone. Sweden have taken the view this is a marathon lasting years (and maybe even decades) rather than a sprint. They have decided to try to live with covid 19 as best they can.

We've seen the difficulties countries like South Korea are having once they open up. And also a couple states in the US post lifting of restrictions. We will soon see what most of Europe is like post restrictions. At a certain stage countries may have to decide do we live in almost permanent lockdown or do we just follow the Swedish model but do better protecting care homes.

Just to clarify some data on Sweden v Ireland. Tests in Sweden have so far have mostly been limited to patients in need of hospital care and healthcare staff. Their confirmed deaths too are only based on a test, ours include probables.

tobefrank321

is_that_so wrote: »

Just to clarify some data on Sweden v Ireland. Tests in Sweden have so far have mostly been limited to patients in need of hospital care and healthcare staff. Their confirmed deaths too are only based on a test, ours include probables.

Not sure which is the better to be honest.

We could be counting people as probable who weren't infected. We could be counting people who might have died of something else with similar symptoms, eg someone with a persistent cough.

Likely they do run tests in Ireland after the person dies to confirm or not. Personally, I'd prefer to have a test ran to confirm the cause of death, so I don't see the issue with the Swedish. The reason for relay in reporting deaths seems to be linked to getting test results back in some cases.

And both countries appear to be counting people who were terminally ill already, but who also happened to have covid 19.

bb1234567

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not sure which is the better to be honest.

We could be counting people as probable who weren't infected. We could be counting people who might have died of something else with similar symptoms, eg someone with a persistent cough.

Likely they do run tests in Ireland after the person dies to confirm or not. Personally, I'd prefer to have a test ran to confirm the cause of death, so I don't see the issue with the Swedish. The reason for relay in reporting deaths seems to be linked to getting test results back in some cases.

And both countries appear to be counting people who were terminally ill already, but who also happened to have covid 19.

Does anybody have any idea of what this figure might be? LIke it's something that gets mentioned a lot that is in all likelihood a very small number of those who have died. LIke there are not a lot of people in total numbers at any given time who are terminally ill, and the number of people who contracted covid since the beginning of the outbreak is also relatively small, only 2-5% of the population, so it would mean the number of people who were terminal and happened to die coincidentally within the exact same two week window of time when they would register positive for a COVID is a really really insignificant number of people, like literally a handful of individuals, yet that very specific circumstance seems to for some reason feature so heavily in any discussion about COVID .

virginmediapls

tobefrank321 wrote: »

You are talking absolute BS.

Do you think Italy, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, US or Netherlands were engaged in a cull of their elderly or sick? Ireland for example never banned flights and still don't enforce quarantine, even though we know old people somewhere will die because of this relaxed attitudes to borders. In the case of Italy and Cheltenham, it unquestionably cost lives.

The Swedes have taken the view that in the long term, a lockdown may not make a difference. You seem to think covid19 will be over in a matter of weeks? Unfortunately because of its infectious nature and international travel, its here to stay until a widely available vaccine, which will be at least 2 years.

We will soon see what happens as Southern Europe opens up. I doubt you will accuse Spain or Italy of engaging in a cull? Or Germany, who want to travel all over Europe.

Imagine speaking with this much confidence about something nobody really knows.

Honestly admire your ability to do that.

is_that_so

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not sure which is the better to be honest.

We could be counting people as probable who weren't infected. We could be counting people who might have died of something else with similar symptoms, eg someone with a persistent cough.

Likely they do run tests in Ireland after the person dies to confirm or not. Personally, I'd prefer to have a test ran to confirm the cause of death, so I don't see the issue with the Swedish. The reason for relay in reporting deaths seems to be linked to getting test results back in some cases.

And both countries appear to be counting people who were terminally ill already, but who also happened to have covid 19.

That's where our death denotifications come in. Our numbers are likely to be more complete and accurate. I don't know about tests but an autopsy is only done here if required. If someone has a defined condition at time of death they use that.

tobefrank321

bb1234567 wrote: »

Does anybody have any idea of what this figure might be? LIke it's something that gets mentioned a lot that is in all likelihood a very small number of those who have died. LIke there are not a lot of people in total numbers at any given time who are terminally ill, and the number of people who contracted covid since the beginning of the outbreak is also relatively small, only 2-5% of the population, so it would mean the number of people who were terminal and happened to die coincidentally within the exact same two week window of time when they would register positive for a COVID is a really really insignificant number of people, like literally a handful of individuals, yet that very specific circumstance seems to for some reason feature so heavily in any discussion about COVID .

Most people in nursing homes are coming towards the end of their lives and many certainly are in a terminal stage. People with Alzheimer's in nursing homes for example don't tend to live very long with the odd exception. Others might have undiagnosed issues such as cancer or heart disease, and operations or chemo would be too harsh on them. Medical treatments that would happen for young people don't tend to happen for the very old. You could have a terminal illness in a nursing home that's undiagnosed and the likely treatment for pain is morphine.

bb1234567

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Most people in nursing homes are coming towards the end of their lives and many certainly are in a terminal stage. People with Alzheimer's in nursing homes for example don't tend to live very long with the odd exception. Others might have undiagnosed issues such as cancer or heart disease, and operations or chemo would be too harsh on them. Medical treatments that would happen for young people don't tend to happen for the very old. You could have a terminal illness in a nursing home that's undiagnosed and the likely treatment for pain is morphine.

Right, but considering the window in which somebody would test positive for the virus is a small time frame, the chances there are a lot of people with terminal illnesses just happening to pass during this time completely unrelated to the effects of the virus is likely a very small number of invidiuals. In nursing homes, obviously this will be a more frequent occurrence, but I've heard this being argued for the general population, among those who died in the community it's extremely unlikely that there significant numbers of people with terminal illness who just so happened to die during the time they were positive for COVID.

Given the low chance of these two short periods overlapping so often in so many cases of COVID deaths ,it means COVID is at the very least a contributing factor their death the vast majority of the time. And then it can't be said that they simply died 'with' covid rather than from the virus.

tobefrank321

bb1234567 wrote: »

Right, but considering the window in which somebody would test positive for the virus is a small time frame, the chances there are a lot of people with terminal illnesses just happening to pass during this time is likely a very small number of invidiuals. In nursing homes, obviously this will be a more frequent occurrence, but I've heard this being argued for the general population, among those who died in the community it's extremely unlikely that there significant numbers of people with terminal illness who just so happened to die during the time they were positive for COVID.

A small number would be dying anyways and would have died within the one month timeframe that you can potentially have covid 19. This could be 2 or 3 people per nursing home. Of course its hard to predict to the day when someone will die, especially if their condition isn't exactly diagnosed. But counting this group as dying from covid 19 is just pointless.

A larger number would be slowly dying of other causes such as cancer, heart disease, Alzeimers and other illnesses and have their lives shortened by weeks or months. Is it worth shutting down your economy to save this group, you'd have to ask? Probably not. They are terminally ill and will die shortly in any case.

Another group will have their lives shortened by a small number of years.

The largest number of all will get covid 19 and survive, something like 75% of those over 80.

bb1234567

tobefrank321 wrote: »

A small number would be dying anyways and would have died within the one month timeframe that you can potentially have covid 19. This could be 2 or 3 people per nursing home.

A larger number would be slowly dying of other causes such as cancer, heart disease, Alzeimers and other illnesses and have their lives shortened by weeks or months. Is it worth shutting down your economy to save this group, you'd have to ask? Probably not.

Another group will have their lives shortened by a small number of years.

The largest number of all will get covid 19 and survive, something like 75% of those over 80.

Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is

I guess how the annual mortality rate looks by this time next year will clear up much of this issue

Breezin

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is

Anders Tegnel has said that Sweden's care hold population is smaller because they tend less to send old folk to such institutions. This means that those in them are older and sicker, with shorter life expectancy.

the incredible pudding

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is

I guess how the annual mortality rate looks by this time next year will clear up much of this issue

"In 4.5 percent of deaths where the patient had tested positive for the virus (and was therefore included in the Public Health Agency's death toll), the death certificate showed a different cause of death, and these cases were therefore not included in the National Board of Health and Welfare figures.
"
from the Public Health Agency in Sweden - source (behind paywall) https://www.thelocal.se/20200427/sweden-publishes-new-statistics-on-coronavirus-death-toll

AdamD

Think its becoming pretty clear that Sweden got it wrong

bb1234567

the incredible pudding wrote: »

"In 4.5 percent of deaths where the patient had tested positive for the virus (and was therefore included in the Public Health Agency's death toll), the death certificate showed a different cause of death, and these cases were therefore not included in the National Board of Health and Welfare figures.
"
from the Public Health Agency in Sweden - source (behind paywall) https://www.thelocal.se/20200427/sweden-publishes-new-statistics-on-coronavirus-death-toll

Thank you, well that is interesting. It is a much smaller figure than what many posters seem to suggest in their argument.

Kermit.de.frog

I told you this would happen and it is just the start for countries that fail to gain control of the virus transmission.

Sweden excluded from Nordic border opening

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/norway-and-denmark-drop-mutual-border-controls-but-exclude-sweden-coronavirus

tobefrank321

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is

I guess how the annual mortality rate looks by this time next year will clear up much of this issue

It would be hard to say exactly how many were going to die in a particular month in care homes and also contracted covid 19 that month. The numbers would be small in relation to the overall care home covid 19 death toll, probably about 1/10th. Not significant, but it does complicate things. Others might be terminally ill with months to live and covid 19 brought forward their deaths.

tobefrank321

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I told you this would happen and it is just the start for countries that fail to gain control of the virus transmission.

Sweden excluded from Nordic border opening

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/norway-and-denmark-drop-mutual-border-controls-but-exclude-sweden-coronavirus

Well that's odd, because a quick check of Oslo Airport flight arrivals yesterday showed a number of flights from Stockholm and Malmo.

Ireland have been excluded from a Greek travel list by the way, so we aren't doing much better.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

How disingenuously twisted can you get? The sub-topic, which everyone now seems to agree was a compete dud, was introduced as a stick to beat Sweden with and to claim that those of us who question our daft lockdown are somehow supporters of the Swedes' dastardly plot.

Personally I felt that if there were attempts at being disingenuous it was by posters making comparisons between Sweden`s care home deaths and those of Ireland attempting to distract from the situation in Sweden.


As Sweden`s death now, six weeks after they stated they had reached their peak, have for the last four weeks averaged over double that of Ireland are not due to care home deaths, then perhaps rather than just rambling you would care to explain why you believe that is so.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

Anders Tegnel has said that Sweden's care hold population is smaller because they tend less to send old folk to such institutions. This means that those in them are older and sicker, with shorter life expectancy.

He also said a few days ago that for the last number of weeks care homes have only accounted for around 30 deaths each weeks.
That would mean that on average for the past number of weeks around 420 deaths are in the general population outside of care homes.

Charles Babbage

Sweden will see the problems now.

---

Norway and Denmark have snubbed Sweden by opening their borders to each other but not to their Scandinavian neighbour because of its controversial no-lockdown coronavirus strategy.
Denmark said on Friday that it would open its borders from June 15 to Norwegian, German and Icelandic tourists while Norway said it would do so for Danish visitors.
Norwegian, German and Icelandic tourists coming to Denmark will have to show they have booked at least six nights in the country and will not be able to stay overnight in Copenhagen.

charlie14

tobefrank321 wrote: »

No effort to switch the narrative. A couple of posters used emotive phrases like "Sweden are culling their elderly". It was pointed out that we aren't doing much better, but no-one is going around saying "Ireland are culling their elderly".

No nation is deliberately trying to cull anyone. Sweden have taken the view this is a marathon lasting years (and maybe even decades) rather than a sprint. They have decided to try to live with covid 19 as best they can.

We've seen the difficulties countries like South Korea are having once they open up. And also a couple states in the US post lifting of restrictions. We will soon see what most of Europe is like post restrictions. At a certain stage countries may have to decide do we live in almost permanent lockdown or do we just follow the Swedish model but do better protecting care homes.

The vast number of deaths in Sweden over the past few weeks have nothing to do with care homes. The Swedish authorities themselves have said they account for around 30 per deaths week.


You keep referring to the Sweden model, which basically has been to let this virus run free among the population, is what other countries plan to do when restrictions are lifted.
Those countries using lockdown have done so unlike Sweden, attempting to get their number to a level where they can ease restrictions and then through testings, contact tracing and quarantine keep the numbers suppressed.
Sweden`s model is nowhere near that and as such has nothing in common with that of countries using lockdown

fisgon

Harry Palmr wrote: »

749 new cases and 84 new deaths

Five day

May 29 (GMT)
749 new cases and 84 new deaths in Sweden
May 28
639 new cases and 46 new deaths in Sweden
May 27
648 new cases and 95 new deaths in Sweden
May 26
597 new cases and 96 new deaths in Sweden
May 25
384 new cases and 31 new deaths in Sweden

Interesting to compare Ireland's 5 day death rate....

Last five days...
8
16
9
0
4 = 37

Sweden's total in that time is 352

You can slice this any way you want; the numbers don't lie. In fact, the Swedes are doing way less testing than Ireland, and so may not even be catching all their cases - the real difference could be even greater......

Kermit.de.frog

fisgon wrote: »

Interesting to compare Ireland's 5 day death rate....

Last five days...
8
16
9
0
4 = 37

Sweden's total in that time is 352

You can slice this any way you want; the numbers don't lie. In fact, the Swedes are doing way less testing than Ireland, and so may not even be catching all their cases - the real difference could be even greater......

100,000 less tests than Ireland. They have not really bothered with testing in the community.