Sweden avoiding lockdown

Nermal

charlie14 wrote: »

Very difficult to actually read that.

Because you don't like what it's telling you?

charlie14

callmehal wrote: »

Sweden's government have a lot to answer for. Their strategy has been disastrous. Their deaths per million makes for awful reading. Same for other basket cases like the UK. Then you look at our deaths per million, worse than the USA. Even if that's not fully accurate, it shows our government have been very poor too.

Sweden`s government have let Tegnell and his buddies run with this strategy.
When the shlte hits the proverbial the Swedish government will be standing well back out of the way.


We could have done better here, but when you read some of the anti lockdown comments all over these threads, and the carry on of some morons as regards the restrictions it, would seriously make you wonder how we managed to get the numbers to where they are.

callmehal

charlie14 wrote: »

Sweden`s government have let Tegnell and his buddies run with this strategy.
When the shlte hits the proverbial the Swedish government will be standing well back out of the way.


We could have done better here, but when you read some of the anti lockdown comments all over these threads, and the carry on of some morons as regards the restrictions it, would seriously make you wonder how we managed to get the numbers to where they are.

Do you mean as one of the worst in the world? We're in the same league as the Sweden's, the Uk's, the USA's etc. We all need to look at the countries who really did a good job and learn from them. This kind of thing could happen again.

charlie14

Nermal wrote: »

Because you don't like what it's telling you?

I have no idea what you believe it is telling you, but on Covid-19 deaths in relation to the countries you brought up it is very clear to me what the numbers tell us.

charlie14

callmehal wrote: »

Do you mean as one of the worst in the world? We're in the same league as the Sweden's, the Uk's, the USA's etc. We all need to look at the countries who really did a good job and learn from them. This kind of thing could happen again.

We are nowhere near Sweden or the UK. Sweden refused to use lockdown and are suffering the cost. The UK played around with the same idea at first and are also suffering for it. The USA.Who actually knows what the real figure is.
The countries we should be looking too are the likes of South Korea. With numbers at a low level we want to be testing, getting results and contact tracing ideally within 48 hours. 72 max. We should also learn from the mistakes like Cheltenham and visiting Italian rugby supporters. Preventing some of our more moronic brethren gathering in herds would go a long way too

callmehal

charlie14 wrote: »

We are nowhere near Sweden or the UK. Sweden refused to use lockdown and are suffering the cost. The UK played around with the same idea at first and are also suffering for it. The USA.Who actually knows what the real figure is.
The countries we should be looking too are the likes of South Korea. With numbers at a low level we want to be testing, getting results and contact tracing ideally within 48 hours. 72 max. We should also learn from the mistakes like Cheltenham and visiting Italian rugby supporters. Preventing some of our more moronic brethren gathering in herds would go a long way too

We're near the top of the table, we're in that grouping, not as bad as the UK or Sweden but ahead of the US and way ahead of many. It's clear the Swedes et al got it very wrong, so did we. South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Slovakia, it's places like that where we need to take our lessons from.

Charles Babbage

callmehal wrote: »

We're near the top of the table, we're in that grouping, not as bad as the UK or Sweden but ahead of the US and way ahead of many. It's clear the Swedes et al got it very wrong, so did we. South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Slovakia, it's places like that where we need to take our lessons from.

But we were compared to Sweden at one point, but today with 775 cases (from a limited testing regime) and 67 deaths Sweden is in a different position than Ireland. Here, mistakes were made but an end result is in sight. Sweden won't have to worry about testing tourists because they won't have many flights. There was economic damage here, but who knows what an annual comparison will show.


Singapore has few deaths, but has had many cases in the end, with 544 cases today. This poor performance surprised me. I was supposed to be going there in a few weeks and had been keeping an eye on developments.

callmehal

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But we were compared to Sweden at one point, but today with 775 cases (from a limited testing regime) and 67 deaths Sweden is in a different position than Ireland. Here, mistakes were made but an end result is in sight. Sweden won't have to worry about testing tourists because they won't have many flights. There was economic damage here, but who knows what an annual comparison will show.


Singapore has few deaths, but has had many cases in the end, with 544 cases today. This poor performance surprised me. I was supposed to be going there in a few weeks and had been keeping an eye on developments.

Yes, Sweden are in a much worse position than us but we are much worse than most of the other countries. Testing was never an accurate reflection of how things stand, too many variables. You can say that countries are totalling their deaths differently also but with 24 deaths in total from the virus, I think it's safe to say that we could learn a lot from Singapore as they have a similar population to us as well.

Bridge93

Unless the people of Singapore are in some way more resilient once they get the virus than other countries, than I smell bull**** about their figures too. 10k more catch it than here yet only 24 die? Are Europeans made a weaker stuff? A death rate of less than .01% and that doesn’t include asymptomatic cases or undiagnosed ones which would be a larger amount than the confirmed cases? Hmmm
Same with Qatar, 60k cases and 43 dead. Yeah right

bb1234567

Bridge93 wrote: »

Unless the people of Singapore are in some way more resilient once they get the virus than other countries, than I smell bull**** about their figures too. 10k more catch it than here yet only 24 die? Are Europeans made a weaker stuff? A death rate of less than .01% and that doesn’t include asymptomatic cases or undiagnosed ones which would be a larger amount than the confirmed cases? Hmmm
Same with Qatar, 60k cases and 43 dead. Yeah right

It is believable actually because the virus is spreading among the migrant working population in those countries, who are almost all young , healthy and able bodied. They make up almost all of the new cases within these countries. Among this demographic,the IFR of the virus is generally 0.1% at most.

paddar

Nermal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/boriquagato/status/1267830876823384065

This data is difficult to interpret, I have no idea what they are trying to say. Just FYI the title states that this is cumulative all causes of all deaths per million population in 3 Nordic countries (labelled A, B, C) during weeks 40-18.

Week 40 started 30th Sept 2019 and Week 18 ended 17th May 2020

The first Covid related death in Sweden was the 11th March with he highest death tole 21st April.

Can you see why this graph is almost meaningless?
A more accurate representation would be to report Covid related deaths from the start of the outbreak in the 3 Nordic countries, but then we know what that graph would look like.

daithi7

Apparently, the Norwegian PM is a much bigger fan of Sweden's covid 19 policy, than some on here. She speculates that the swedish policy might be as good as theirs at a much lower cost to gdp, jobs and people's (other) welfare.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/30/coronavirus-norway-wonders-should-have-like-sweden/

Chiparus

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/coronavirus-ireland-live-updates-sweden-now-has-worlds-highest-death-rate-after-it-ignored-lockdown-advice-39256147.html

Sheep_shear

It's pointless comparing now, isn't it? We won't have a good idea of who did well or poorly until this time next year.

paddar

daithi7 wrote: »

Apparently, the Norwegian PM is a much bigger fan of Sweden's covid 19 policy, than some on here. She speculates that the swedish policy might be as good as theirs at a much lower cost to gdp, jobs and people's (other) welfare.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/30/coronavirus-norway-wonders-should-have-like-sweden/

She doesn't appear to be a fan.

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

Solberg said she had entered a bilateral agreement with Denmark because ''we have a similar infection situation. The infection situation looks different in Sweden”. While her objective was a common Nordic regulatory framework, she said, ''it is going to be hardest to find a solution for Sweden''.

Also she doesn't seem to comment on Swedens policy. In a half-hour interview with Norway's state broadcaster NRK, Erna Solberg said that with the number of infections in Norway rising rapidly at the start of March her government had been forced to act quickly. ''Was it necessary to close schools? Maybe not. But at the same time, I think it was the right thing to do at the time'', she said. "Based on the information we had, we took a precautionary strategy.''

faceman

Sheep_shear wrote: »

It's pointless comparing now, isn't it? We won't have a good idea of who did well or poorly until this time next year.

Tell that to Sweden’s dead, now the highest in Europe

Sheep_shear

faceman wrote: »

Tell that to Sweden’s dead, now the highest in Europe

And they could well come of this with the lowest, I mean we're still in the storm. Which was my point...

is_that_so

Now they have regrets

The architect of Sweden’s controversial lighter lockdown policy for dealing with coronavirus has for the first time conceded the Scandinavian country should have imposed more restrictions to avoid having such a high death toll.

https://www.ft.com/content/dae6d006-9adc-46d5-9b4e-79a7841022e8

seamus

Can we finally put an end to this narrative now that "lockdown doesn't work".

As far as its stated aim of reducing the spread of the disease, it clearly does work. While every country that has done it has seen cases decline, Sweden's new case numbers have been sitting around 600/day for about two months.

In the long run will lockdown create a "wave" effect? Will Sweden's approach ultimately prove to be the most effective long-term?

We don't know. But we do know for a fact that if you want to reduce the volume of new cases, and by implication reduce the number of deaths, then a lockdown works, and the "social responsibility" approach that Sweden took is good for keeping a lid on new case levels.

MOH

charlie14 wrote: »

We could have done better here, but when you read some of the anti lockdown comments all over these threads, and the carry on of some morons as regards the restrictions it, would seriously make you wonder how we managed to get the numbers to where they are.

Well, with thousands of people now starting to meet up together for pointless protest marches, and not a single politician willing to even comment on it, it's fairly clear the only morons are those of us who actually bothered to follow the restrictions for the last 10 weeks.

Between this and the people who've been ignoring the restrictions and having house parties, etc. all along, it'll be interesting to see in the medium to long term whether we all end up feeling as smug about our numbers compared to Sweden.

Kermit.de.frog

seamus wrote: »

Can we finally put an end to this narrative now that "lockdown doesn't work".

As far as its stated aim of reducing the spread of the disease, it clearly does work. While every country that has done it has seen cases decline, Sweden's new case numbers have been sitting around 600/day for about two months.

In the long run will lockdown create a "wave" effect? Will Sweden's approach ultimately prove to be the most effective long-term?

We don't know. But we do know for a fact that if you want to reduce the volume of new cases, and by implication reduce the number of deaths, then a lockdown works, and the "social responsibility" approach that Sweden took is good for keeping a lid on new case levels.

My view on this is if a country like Sweden wants to do things differently to everyone else fair enough. And they have form in taking a less strict approach on things.

They did that with immigration for example with mixed results I think it is fair to say.

I don't believe it's right to do that with a disease. You don't take a risk like that. There is nothing sensible about it, it is just hubris and wanting to effectively get an advantage over the neighbors. The Brits thought initially they could do the same too.

It hasn't worked. It may at some point in the future but as of now the approach has backfired. In the process they have exposed themselves to the tender mercies of other countries opening up as well which is not a good place to be. Countries with control are not going to be in any hurry to open up to Sweden.

charlie14

Sheep_shear wrote: »

And they could well come of this with the lowest, I mean we're still in the storm. Which was my point...

We do know one thing from the Swedish strategy though. If we had adopted their approach we would have more dead and more active cases at this stage.
Sweden are definitely still in the storm. We have reduced the force of it and given ourselves a chance by battening down so that if that storm rises again we are in a better position to handle it.
Sweden bet on achieving immunity by letting the virus more or less run free. They have no plan other than the road they are on, with now their only real hope being that it burns itself out.

Drumpot

seamus wrote: »

Can we finally put an end to this narrative now that "lockdown doesn't work".

As far as its stated aim of reducing the spread of the disease, it clearly does work. While every country that has done it has seen cases decline, Sweden's new case numbers have been sitting around 600/day for about two months.

In the long run will lockdown create a "wave" effect? Will Sweden's approach ultimately prove to be the most effective long-term?

We don't know. But we do know for a fact that if you want to reduce the volume of new cases, and by implication reduce the number of deaths, then a lockdown works, and the "social responsibility" approach that Sweden took is good for keeping a lid on new case levels.

This has been the nub of the issue all along. Right now it’s not clear if Sweden’s approach will be proven to be a better approach.

A more cautious approach (in the absence of information on the virus) was to have a shutdown that most countries did. It was more sensible and defaulted to an approach designed to protect more people in the absence of knowledge.

I don’t think those of us outside of Sweden should hammer them, it’s actually helped us see how other approaches might of worked.

One of the most annoying aspects of the COVID forums has been people picking out sporadic examples of countries doing things as if it means the same applies to us. People constantly mis representing stuff to push their own agenda or desires to the forefront.

In the absence of knowledge on the virus A lockdown was the prudent and correct approach. Time may suggest otherwise but hindsight is not a luxury you enjoy during a crisis. Mistakes will always be made, that’s not to excuse or ignore them, just observational common sense.

charlie14

MOH wrote: »

Well, with thousands of people now starting to meet up together for pointless protest marches, and not a single politician willing to even comment on it, it's fairly clear the only morons are those of us who actually bothered to follow the restrictions for the last 10 weeks.

Between this and the people who've been ignoring the restrictions and having house parties, etc. all along, it'll be interesting to see in the medium to long term whether we all end up feeling as smug about our numbers compared to Sweden.

I don`t believe there are many feeling smug about the situation in Sweden. Just grateful that the authorities here didn`t listen to those that were advocating we should have followed the same strategy because they didn`t like lockdown. Which if Sweden`s situation has shown really was their only reasoning.
From your post it is difficult to know if you are in favour of the restrictions or not or if you believe they should be more strictly enforced ?

seamus

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0603/1145149-coronavirus-sweden/

If I was Swedish I'd have lost all faith in this guy and I'd be calling for someone else to take the reins from here. He was so gung-ho and cocky about his approach from day one, and now he's saying

"If we were to encounter the same disease with everything we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden and the rest of the world has done," he told Swedish Radio.

Which is to state the obvious. Hindsight being 20:20, every country would have taken a different approach if we had today's knowledge in January. It ignores the material issue which is that while other countries may indeed have been overly cautious, Sweden went for what was clearly the bigger gamble in terms of lives.

I'm not sure saying, "Ah well, we made the wrong choice, but we all had to roll the dice one way or another, so lets move on with things" is sufficient.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I don`t believe there are many feeling smug about the situation in Sweden. Just grateful that the authorities here didn`t listen to those that were advocating we should have followed the same strategy because they didn`t like lockdown. Which if Sweden`s situation has shown really was their only reasoning.
From your post it is difficult to know if you are in favour of the restrictions or not or if you believe they should be more strictly enforced ?

This is a link to Simon Harris claiming that Lockdown has saved 12000 lives.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/coronavirus/more-than-12-000-would-have-died-if-coronavirus-spread-hadn-t-been-slowed-simon-harris/ar-BB145dLU

Therefore it seems logical to assume that the absence of a lockdown in Sweden should have resulted in an extra 24000 deaths there, using whatever formula Harris is using.

That should push Swedish deaths to over 28,000 rather than the 4500 currently recorded.

Why have deaths on this scale not been recorded if only a lockdown saves lives?

There is a growing body of published research articles which claim that lockdown is a complete and utter waste of time.

The Swedish model is a large scale example that that evidence is well founded.

is_that_so

sheepysheep wrote: »

There is a growing body of published research articles which claim that lockdown is a complete and utter waste of time.

Do you want to point people in the direction of said "growing body"?

sheepysheep

is_that_so wrote: »

Do you want to point people in the direction of said "growing body"?

East Anglia study.

is_that_so

sheepysheep wrote: »

East Anglia study.

One study is hardly a body. No link?

Lux23

A friend lives in Sweden, and she says people have their head in the sand over there unless it affects them directly they don't care. She recently had a baby and she was terrified going to hospital because they were only using regular PPE gear and cross contamination was a massive risk.