Sweden avoiding lockdown

MOH

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 ?

I'm ambivalent, to an extent. Or was until Monday.
I'm not fully convinced that our lockdown ends up better off in the long term.
But i'm also not an expert, and if that's the expert advice, then fine, I'm OK with a lockdown.

As long as it's enforced. Having a half-arsed lockdown where loads of people don't bother, with no consequences is pointless.

Allowing thousands of people to cluster together and undo everything, after ten weeks of restrictions, is unforgivable. Particularly when there's a complete failure to acknowledge that this is even an issue by a single politician.

So at this stage, faced with the options of
No lockdown + basic social responsibility by citizens vs "Lockdown", cute hoorism, and general idiocy , I'm probably leaning towards being against our excuse for a lockdown

(Sorry, the smug comment wasn't directed at you BTW, but I've definitely seen other posters who come across that way)

sheepysheep

is_that_so wrote: »

One study is hardly a body. No link?

It's old news at this stage. A study of 30 countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/07/was-lockdown-waste-time-study-finds-stay-home-order-was-ineffective-12668944/

Drumpot

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

A more accurate comparison for Sweden is to countries closer to its borders and culture.

Deaths per milllon
Sweden 443
Finland 58
Norway 44

So Sweden has had 10 times the amount of deaths comparable with countries more similar to their own. This would suggest that in these regions they didn’t suffer the same sort of waves as we did in other parts of Europe. I wonder if some of that is down to the hot/cold theory I read from a doctor on medcram who stated that these countries with hot spas and cold climate may be a big factor in protecting populations! (Hot/cold baths help)

The dynamics surrounding Ireland’s numbers do not make it comparable with Sweden.

is_that_so

sheepysheep wrote: »

It's old news at this stage. A study of 30 countries.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/07/was-lockdown-waste-time-study-finds-stay-home-order-was-ineffective-12668944/

And yet still only one study, not the body you claimed.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

We do not need to look back at predictions or even Sweden`s mathematical modelling on immunity.

We now have actual real time figures to show the difference between lockdown and the Swedish strategy.

On a like for like basis compared to their neighbours the Swedish deaths are off the scale.

Even to compare us with Sweden, a country we have very little in common with, their deaths are 30% greater and growing.


Their is no evidence that the Swedish model is well founded. The contrary in fact, when you see that their own actual figures on antibody tests are no better than countries that used lockdown.

sheepysheep

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet still only one study, not the body you claimed.

There are others.

You should try reading this one first.

Do you have any published research report that Lockdowns are a success?

is_that_so

sheepysheep wrote: »

There are others.

You should try reading this one first.

Do you have any published research report that Lockdowns are a success?

Given that it's taken you, what, 4 posts just to give up one I'm not sure I have the patience!

Incidentally from your link!

They cautioned that the study, which was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London and Public Health England, is experimental.

There is an international data project in Vienna, sensibly waiting until it can gather all the data before making sweeping claims.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01248-1

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

We do not need to look back at predictions or even Sweden`s mathematical modelling on immunity.

We now have actual real time figures to show the difference between lockdown and the Swedish strategy.

On a like for like basis compared to their neighbours the Swedish deaths are off the scale.

Even to compare us with Sweden, a country we have very little in common with, their deaths are 30% greater and growing.


Their is no evidence that the Swedish model is well founded. The contrary in fact, when you see that their own actual figures on antibody tests are no better than countries that used lockdown.

What we have in common with Sweden is coronovirus and that's the only issue that's important.

How Covid-19 transmits from one Swedish person to another is the exact same as how it will cause infections here.

The Swedish model has resulted in a difference but not what people like you are claiming.

Simon Harris can claim 12000 lives saved. It can equally be claimed that their is not a jot of evidence that it has even saved one life.

The evidence that it is well founded is that the evidence that lockdown is well founded has begun to unravel.

Why don't you read the East Anglia report and challenge the scientific opinion on the ineffectiveness of lockdown in 30 countries.

joeysoap

Only a bit available but you get the gist

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/architect-swedens-strategy-regrets-not-imposing-tougher-lockdown/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

is_that_so

joeysoap wrote: »

Only a bit available but you get the gist

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/architect-swedens-strategy-regrets-not-imposing-tougher-lockdown/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Also on RTE site now.

sheepysheep

sheepysheep wrote: »

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.

Because Sweden did nothing?

charlie14

MOH wrote: »

I'm ambivalent, to an extent. Or was until Monday.
I'm not fully convinced that our lockdown ends up better off in the long term.
But i'm also not an expert, and if that's the expert advice, then fine, I'm OK with a lockdown.

As long as it's enforced. Having a half-arsed lockdown where loads of people don't bother, with no consequences is pointless.

Allowing thousands of people to cluster together and undo everything, after ten weeks of restrictions, is unforgivable. Particularly when there's a complete failure to acknowledge that this is even an issue by a single politician.

So at this stage, faced with the options of
No lockdown + basic social responsibility by citizens vs "Lockdown", cute hoorism, and general idiocy , I'm probably leaning towards being against our excuse for a lockdown

(Sorry, the smug comment wasn't directed at you BTW, but I've definitely seen other posters who come across that way)

I think it is pretty obvious that from the numbers in pubs clubs and social gathering that ignored the recommendations prior to lockdown, (and in the past few weeks), that to expect basic social responsibility by some citizens was just not viable.


For those that somehow appear to feel they are privileged and know better their is nothing that will work other than a strictly enforced lockdown.
A lesson learned imho that should numbers increase in certain areas a policy that should be enforced.


No worries on the apology. I do not think that there are posters that are feeling smug on Sweden. More pissed off with those that are still attempting to paint the Swedish model as some great success story than anything else far as I can see.

Onesea

charlie14 wrote: »

We do not need to look back at predictions or even Sweden`s mathematical modelling on immunity.

We now have actual real time figures to show the difference between lockdown and the Swedish strategy.

On a like for like basis compared to their neighbours the Swedish deaths are off the scale.

Even to compare us with Sweden, a country we have very little in common with, their deaths are 30% greater and growing.


Their is no evidence that the Swedish model is well founded. The contrary in fact, when you see that their own actual figures on antibody tests are no better than countries that used lockdown.

They have double the population and an increased death rate of 30%
Like in Italy and Spain have there been any reports in the weakening of the disease in individuals in Sweden?

sheepysheep

is_that_so wrote: »

Given that it's taken you, what, 4 posts just to give up one I'm not sure I have the patience!

Incidentally from your link!



There is an international data project in Vienna, sensibly waiting until it can gather all the data before making sweeping claims.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01248-1

That's not a report advocating lockdown which is what i requested.

It's a report on a study which will yield results down the line.

Most likely that report will conclude that lockdown was a waste of time and that good hygiene, social distancing and avoiding large crowds are whats key.

Her's another article on how Japan managed Covid-19 by concentrating on the 3 C's. No lockdown there either.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-japan-tackled-coronavirus-without-a-lockdown-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

What we have in common with Sweden is coronovirus and that's the only issue that's important.

How Covid-19 transmits from one Swedish person to another is the exact same as how it will cause infections here.

The Swedish model has resulted in a difference but not what people like you are claiming.

Simon Harris can claim 12000 lives saved. It can equally be claimed that their is not a jot of evidence that it has even saved one life.

The evidence that it is well founded is that the evidence that lockdown is well founded has begun to unravel.

Why don't you read the East Anglia report and challenge the scientific opinion on the ineffectiveness of lockdown in 30 countries.

The issue that matters in relation to Sweden is the Coronavirus deaths in Sweden in comparison to their neighbours and the strategies taken.



Something even both the present Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell and his predecessor Annika Linde now have doubts on. Linde now describes the immunity theory as being like a dream with no basis in reality and that lockdown would have saved lives



So tell me, what are these differences that the Swedish strategy has made other than being a warning to anyone else not to go down the same route?

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

That's not a report advocating lockdown which is what i requested.

It's a report on a study which will yield results down the line.

Most likely that report will conclude that lockdown was a waste of time and that good hygiene, social distancing and avoiding large crowds are whats key.

Her's another article on how Japan managed Covid-19 by concentrating on the 3 C's. No lockdown there either.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-japan-tackled-coronavirus-without-a-lockdown-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

Have you actually seen how effective that is here when lockdown has only been slightly eased

Bridge93

Another 74 confirmed dead with 2,200 new cases from however long the catch up period is

charlie14

Onesea wrote: »

They have double the population and an increased death rate of 30%
Like in Italy and Spain have there been any reports in the weakening of the disease in individuals in Sweden?

I don`t know about Italy, but in Spain and France, two countries that used lockdown, on much larger tests both have antibody results the same nationally as Sweden. In their epicenters better in fact.

Kermit.de.frog

The other fundamental error people keep making here is on the economy.

The reason Sweden's economy is contracting as severely as everywhere else is because outside markets are closed.

Some seem to think economies motor on in isolation by not imposing measures.

Does not do much good when your trading partners are locked down.

So not only does Sweden not have control of transmission but it faces an economic crisis and big challenges convincing other markets to reopen to them.

Worst of both worlds.

Onesea

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The other fundamental error people keep making here is on the economy.

The reason Sweden's economy is contracting as severely as everywhere else is because outside markets are closed.

Some seem to think economies motor on in isolation by not imposing measures.

Does not do much good when your trading partners are locked down.

So not only does Sweden not have control of transmission but it faces an economic crisis and big challenges convincing other markets to reopen to them.

Worst of both worlds.

Economically, the whole world is in this "together"

Any economic recovery will need everywhere to get moving again and fast. That's not happening.

Kermit.de.frog

Bridge93 wrote: »

Another 74 confirmed dead with 2,200 new cases from however long the catch up period is

Quite alarming considering there seems to be little "catch up" scope here...very consistent.



They have put themselves in a dreadful situation.

And that would be us now if we followed the views of some from the start.

greyday

We were over 50 deaths per day before seeing the effect of the lockdown, we are now under 10 with a small minority disobeying the lockdown, I would suggest it is abundantly clear that a lockdown works in reducing/slowing down deaths, Sweden have not got deaths to an acceptable level as their lockdown was too loose unfortunately.

charlie14

greyday wrote: »

We were over 50 deaths per day before seeing the effect of the lockdown, we are now under 10 with a small minority disobeying the lockdown, I would suggest it is abundantly clear that a lockdown works in reducing/slowing down deaths, Sweden have not got deaths to an acceptable level as their lockdown was too loose unfortunately.

They didn`t really attempt much in relation to controlling the spread of the virus. They put all their faith in herd immunity. A faith that Tegnell`s predecessor now describes as a dream with no basis in reality.

charlie14

Bridge93 wrote: »

Another 74 confirmed dead with 2,200 new cases from however long the catch up period is

Tragic as the 74 deaths are, the new confirmed cases are very worrying.
Sweden`s ratio of deaths to confirmed cases has been steady at 12% for a long time.

greyday

I think I read that Swedes naturally social distance with more than 50% living on their own, this would have helped and people naturally becoming more cautious but whatever way you look at it, a lot have died earlier than necessary.
Obviously there needs to be inquiries in most Countries into the handling of the pandemic, I remember Holohan telling Nursing homes they should not close at the beginning of March, I know of one down south that completely ignored him and shut down allowing no visitors, they have had no covid deaths so far.

Kermit.de.frog

Seems some foreign workers want out

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-in-sweden-anguished-foreigners-call-it-quits/a-53658265

Coronavirus in Sweden: Anguished foreigners call it quits

Sweden has left residents to decide for themselves how to behave in the COVID-19 pandemic. That's outraged some foreign residents, who now plan to move away from the country as soon as they can.

jackal

Chiparus wrote: »

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

Where are they getting their figures from, worldometer is saying they are 7th or so in the deaths per million column, as is the WHO?

seamus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Quite alarming considering there seems to be little "catch up" scope here...very consistent.

What it does though is provide evidence of a natural "ceiling" when your restrictions are primarily based on social distancing and hygiene.

If these measures were ineffective, Sweden's daily numbers would still be rising, especially as they increase testing.

But a consistent number of new cases - fairly early on it must be said - suggests that these are very effective measures for limiting spread.

The issue is that the virus had already established a high baseline, so although they managed to prevent it growing, they can't reduce their numbers.

This gives some hope for countries like us that we can keep our new case numbers at or below 50-100/day once we start lifting restrictions.

jackal wrote: »

Where are they getting their figures from, worldometer is saying they are 7th or so in the deaths per million column, as is the WHO?

Probably official figures -v- suspected/expected. I've seen similar reports a number of times, such as reporting that the UK had hit 40,000 deaths when the official figures were closer to 35k. I'm not sure where they're getting the numbers from, but it's not helpful.

AdamD

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The other fundamental error people keep making here is on the economy.

The reason Sweden's economy is contracting as severely as everywhere else is because outside markets are closed.

Some seem to think economies motor on in isolation by not imposing measures.

Does not do much good when your trading partners are locked down.

So not only does Sweden not have control of transmission but it faces an economic crisis and big challenges convincing other markets to reopen to them.

Worst of both worlds.

Look, Sweden may well have messed this up but your point on the economy isn't true. Yes the global economy can push a country into recessions, but not all recessions are the same. Collapsing you SME industry prior to a global recession will absolutely mean your country is worse off.

What Username Guidelines

seamus wrote: »

Probably official figures -v- suspected/expected. I've seen similar reports a number of times, such as reporting that the UK had hit 40,000 deaths when the official figures were closer to 35k. I'm not sure where they're getting the numbers from, but it's not helpful.

I believe it's the death rate per million people in the last week, rather than overall.