Sweden avoiding lockdown

Ginger n Lemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

Comparing cases from country to country when the criteria for testing people are vastly different is utterly meaningless. In fact just within Ireland comparing cases from March/April with cases from October/November because we've changed the criteria for testing people. The hospitalizations, ICU and mortality rates are a much more reliable basis for comparison.

If you look at the mortality rate by population, 6681 from a population of 10.23million, it certainly looks worse that Irelands 2050 from 4.9million, 65 vs 42 deaths per hundred thousand population, Sweeden had a whopping 56% higher mortality rate.

If you take a step back however and consider the the vast majority of the the unfortunate deaths were amongst the elderly, <90% of mortalities in Ireland have been amongst the over 65's, maybe a better comparison would be mortality rates per population aged 65 and over. When you do this, you get numbers of 327 vs 296 per hundred thousand population over 65 years, Sweeden is now only 10% higher with a very simple demographic correction, you may find the differences to be negligible if you did a full demographic correction but the magnitude of the simple correction should be more than enough to illustrate the point.

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop digging.
It was you that claimed the 0.3% that would result in 30,000 and 15,000 deaths. Personally I think it is rubbish tbh.
Do yourself a favour, do a bit of research before wasting peoples time and showing just how ill informed you are. There is nowhere I know of (and after asking numerous times apparently neither do you) where the mortality rate for those that have been infected by this virus is 0.3%
.

Charlie14.

It seems like Sweden didnt do that bad afterall :cool:. according to research from no.9

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Stop digging.
It was you that claimed the 0.3% that would result in 30,000 and 15,000 deaths. Personally I think it is rubbish tbh.

.

Stop ****ing lying - you are the one suggesting dramatic deaths of 15 and 30 thousand.
I said a mortality rate of 0.3 - no ****ing more - you broght up these figures (15,0000 and 30,000 ) - and then said I didnt care. Which is a lie.

alias no.9

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Charlie14.

It seems like Sweden didnt do that bad afterall :cool:. according to research from no.9

I wouldn't claim anyone is good or bad, right or wrong, just not very different.

Ginger n Lemon

thebaz wrote: »

Stop ****ing lying - you are the one suggesting dramatic deaths of 15 and 30 thousand.
I said a mortality rate of 0.3 - no ****ing more - you broght up these figures - and then said I didnt care. Which is a lie.

OP does that to you.

You gotta take a step back and take a deep breath.

I remember Charlie14 said that it doesnt matter whether Sweden finishes on lower deaths for 2020 than in 2018. 2017, because they have "let it rip".

So when you are about to reply to a post, remember this.

thebaz

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

OP does that to you.

You gotta take a step back and take a deep breath.

I remember Charlie14 said that it doesnt matter whether Sweden finishes on lower deaths for 2020 than in 2018. 2017, because they have "let it rip".

So when you are about to reply to a post, remember this.

Maybe you are right , I'll step down , just didnt like been lied to , thats what drew me back.

charlie14

alias no.9 wrote: »

Comparing cases from country to country when the criteria for testing people are vastly different is utterly meaningless. In fact just within Ireland comparing cases from March/April with cases from October/November because we've changed the criteria for testing people. The hospitalizations, ICU and mortality rates are a much more reliable basis for comparison.

If you look at the mortality rate by population, 6681 from a population of 10.23million, it certainly looks worse that Irelands 2050 from 4.9million, 65 vs 42 deaths per hundred thousand population, Sweeden had a whopping 56% higher mortality rate.

If you take a step back however and consider the the vast majority of the the unfortunate deaths were amongst the elderly, <90% of mortalities in Ireland have been amongst the over 65's, maybe a better comparison would be mortality rates per population aged 65 and over. When you do this, you get numbers of 327 vs 296 per hundred thousand population over 65 years, Sweeden is now only 10% higher with a very simple demographic correction, you may find the differences to be negligible if you did a full demographic correction but the magnitude of the simple correction should be more than enough to illustrate the point.

Was`nt. I was comparing the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases for the first wave that showed Ireland at 3% and Sweden at 6%.
Even if there were no further deaths due to confirmed cases the ratio is 2.86%



The figure on deaths of those 65 and over has been used here before attempting to explain the high rate of deaths in Sweden.

Using Ireland as an outlier then they would appear to stack up. When you look at Sweden`s three Nordic neighbours, where the figures are very similar, (one with the same percentage and one with a higher percentage) then they do not. Even if you included all deaths in those 3 countries as being 65 and over.

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

Maybe you are right , I'll step down , just didnt like been lied to , thats what drew me back.

I never lied to you if that is what you are implying. If you are then then point out where you feel I did so.

If not, then it is not a great idea nowadays on social media to believe a lot of the shlte that is being put out there without question and doing your own research

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

I never lied to you if that is what you are implying. If you are then then point out where you feel I did so.

You said I predicted deaths of 15,000 and 30,000 for Ireland and Sweden - I didnt - that was you -

alias no.9

charlie14 wrote: »

Was`nt. I was comparing the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases for the first wave that showed Ireland at 3% and Sweden at 6%.
Even if there were no further deaths due to confirmed cases the ratio is 2.86%



The figure on deaths of those 65 and over has been used here before attempting to explain the high rate of deaths in Sweden.

Using Ireland as an outlier then they would appear to stack up. When you look at Sweden`s three Nordic neighbours, where the figures are very similar, (one with the same percentage and one with a higher percentage) then they do not. Even if you included all deaths in those 3 countries as being 65 and over.

Confirmed cases is a bull**** number if the criteria for testing are not the same. If you start with a bull**** number, it doesn't matter what you multiply or divide it by, the answer is still bull****. I didn't make any comparison between Sweden and it's neighbours, just Sweden and Ireland.

I find it interesting that you suggest that Ireland must be an outlier to correlate to Sweden, I'd be more interested in understanding why Ireland correlates to Sweden because they followed vastly different approaches. Its about 6 weeks or so since I looked at the detailed report from the HPSC but the startling thing back then was the correlation between clusters in Hospitals / Nursing Homes / Residential Care Facilities and Mortality Rates over time, in fact I was so taken aback, I overlaid the HPSC charts into a gif

I won't claim to have looked at Sweden numbers beyond the headline numbers but it has been reported that Sweden had a massive issue in Nursing Homes too. Could it be that Sweden and Ireland are similar because the authorities in each country took their eye off the ball and failed to protect the vulnerable in nursing homes and just about everything else that they did or didn't do was of little consequence?

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

OP does that to you.

You gotta take a step back and take a deep breath.

I remember Charlie14 said that it doesnt matter whether Sweden finishes on lower deaths for 2020 than in 2018. 2017, because they have "let it rip".

So when you are about to reply to a post, remember this.

You have been away for a very deep breath.
Welcome back. I hope you haven`t missed in the meantime that the people you were lionizing as to Sweden`s strategy were feeding you a load of lies that you swallowed hook line and sinker. You damn near ate the rod down to the reel as well.
Anyway... with you missing for so long you may not even know that the whole Sweden will never use lockdown rhetoric has gone out the window as well in the interim.
Changed times Ginger. Changed times

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

You said I predicted deaths of 15,000 and 30,000 for Ireland and Sweden - I didnt - that was you -

Incorrect again I am afraid.
The 0.3% was your figure.
We both knew it was rubbish from a long way back on the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases, yet you then attempted to portray it as the national percentage of deaths from Covid-19.
That 0.3% of yours would equates to 30,000 deaths in Sweden and 15,000 in Ireland.


If as you said you have better for doing, then go and do it.
Attempting to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making, (along with wasting peoples time), is never a good idea.

sheepysheep

is_that_so wrote: »

This wasn't a bad post but you just had to get the starving babies in! IFR is also a bit of a red herring too. As we have seen here in our second surge, if you are alert to where fatalities can occur you can minimise them. They will still happen anyway. This was never about deaths but saving health systems from collapsing, something that quite a few locations came close to.

The economic side of things is also a distraction. Money is basically free at present but what it is being spent on is what might be called a universal wage. Growth and all the nice neat metrics of economies are on pause. Sweden adopted a strategy that seemed to suit them, the first time out. Even at home it is not universally supported. Now they have the same the same issues as the rest of Europe and have had to take measures.

Even so, it's just one strategy and as we are still learning there is no one method of dealing with this. Views of the Swedish approach can be extreme but what we've seen of it , there would not be too many countries to buy into it.

I didn't bring 'starving babies in' I listed a concrete example of lock-down impacting on the economy of a country resulting in pretty dire consequences for the most vulnerable.

For people who claim that lock-down 'saves lives' but has no negative consequences, I would have thought the deaths of 100,000 children might give pause for though. Apparently not though, their deaths are simply an inconvenient statistic for those who believe that lock-down isn't a zero-sum game.

On your second point, money is most definitely not free at the moment. It's just very low interest rate. It all has to be paid back and adds to the current national debt. Try this yourself, give all your money to one of your friends and tell them its for free, then call around in a few months and ask for it all back because an emergency has come up and see how they look at you, especially if they've blown it all!

As far as i'm aware, the Swedish approach has been well supported in Sweden.

sheepysheep

bb1234567 wrote: »

When you break it down you could say vast amounts of public expenditure are an inversion of the moral code when it could be better spent on those in dire need of the money. Almost anything spent by the government over aid for people starving seems frivolous by comparison and yet spending has always remaind relatively small by comparison with the scale of the issue. I have no problem accepting the fact that the lockdown money wasn't well spent but trying to pit these moral choices against one another , spending it on elderly here and children abroad, doesn't seem like a fair argument as it was never such a black and white decision and in what reality was 46 billion of Irish money ever going to be put towards children starving abroad? It was never a choice or up for discussion and youre' acting like irish people consciously prioritised elderly people here dying over children abroad when they didn't.

Some of this may be considered a big mistake after the pandemic as mortality will likely boumce back to completely normality due to victim ages but I don't see how you could be so dismissive of European countries prioritizing suppressing a virus that is killing 35,000 people a week in the continent , even if the victims are very old it is causing a pronounced increased in excess mortality and large strain on healthcare resources and naturally this will be absolute government priority over children on another continent.

I wasn't pitting moral choices against one another as the pandemic response wasn't a moral issue. A pandemic response should be based on science and best practice.

We will have spent 46 Billion on Covid response by the end of 2021, with nothing to show for it.

I don't know the cost of an ICU bed, but if it takes 1 million, say as a guess, they for 1 Billion we could have added 1000 extra ICU beds, or 2000 for 2 Billion, whatever the cost is.A more pragmatic and better long term response, but would take real leadership to do it.

Sweden began the pandemic with less ICU capacity than Ireland. That is never acknowledged here. It was a choice. They made the correct one.

The question ultimately is, why do people like you, who endless take the moral high ground on the issue pandemic response, have so little interest on the consequences of lock down.

There is a huge body of people who i would imagine, if given the choice, would prefer to see the money spent abroad on famine relief, especially the citizens of nursing homes.

What we can conclude, is that once Covid 'goes away', we will all go back to 'normal' and anyone who suggests that world hunger could be easily eradicated if we wanted will be labeled a screwball and that it's not simply a political choice.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m not sure an economic argument based on a country that for no other reason than jingoism cut it`s ties with it`s largest trading partner is a great example.

It is remarkable but hardly surprising with you that when presented with evidence that lock-down will result in the needless deaths of 100,000 children your only response is a bigoted comment about Brexit.

The political machinations of the Tories is of no issue to people who need food and medication.

What better 'example' do you require to highlight the fact that lock-down has severe consequences?

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

That 0.3% of yours would equates to 30,000 deaths in Sweden and 15,000 in Ireland.

a fatality rate of 0.3 does not equate to your inflated dramatic figures - believe them if you want , but don't state I said them - they are down your bad maths

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

a fatality rate of 0.3 does not equate to your inflated dramatic figures - believe them if you want , but don't state I said them - they are down your bad maths

Will you ever cop yourself on.

The 0.3% was your your figure and no matter how many times you have been asked you still cannot say what it relates too.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

It is remarkable but hardly surprising with you that when presented with evidence that lock-down will result in the needless deaths of 100,000 children your only response is a bigoted comment about Brexit.

The political machinations of the Tories is of no issue to people who need food and medication.

What better 'example' do you require to highlight the fact that lock-down has severe consequences?

If you can get past the hyperbole and assumptions perhaps you might care to point out where I said the U K`s Tory government decision to withdraw this funding would not impact on the lives of those children.


I pointed out that from the example of this Tory government`in relation to Brexit, when it comes to economics and jingoism, economics comes a very poor second. Jingoism is their game. It`s what got them elected.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish (or indeed whatever suits your agenda), but for myself on their record I would look on them as presently being a party that would not let a good opportunity go to waste when it comes to "Johnny Foreigner" and their support base.

Ginger n Lemon

sheepysheep wrote: »

It is remarkable but hardly surprising with you that when presented with evidence that lock-down will result in the needless deaths of 100,000 children your only response is a bigoted comment about Brexit.

The political machinations of the Tories is of no issue to people who need food and medication.

What better 'example' do you require to highlight the fact that lock-down has severe consequences?

I am not surprised one bit. OP is notorious for deflecting.

In fact so, almost a fanatic look on covid, when faced with question as to why does Czech republic with identical population as Sweden, but having spent 6 + months in lockdown this year has more deaths than Sweden - response will be "compare Sweden to its neighbours".

This is a dead end conversation. I've given up a while back. I merely drop in here to inform people that Sweden is on track for less deaths in 2020 than in 2019, 2018, 2017. I think fewer deaths is a good measure of covid strategy. (but watch the replies to this post, "lol yeah but their cases are through the roof" "ginger they are in Wuhan lockdown now" :rolleyes: ) It is funny though I gotta admit

thebaz

charlie14 wrote: »

Will you ever cop yourself on.

The 0.3% was your your figure and no matter how many times you have been asked you still cannot say what it relates too.

I've said numerous times - but in baby steps - 0.3% is the estimated mortality rate of anyone that gets the virus -

charlie14

thebaz wrote: »

I've said numerous times - but in baby steps - 0.3% is the estimated mortality rate of anyone that gets the virus -

And you have been wrong numerous times.

11 November 2020 mortality rates by country for those infected by Covid-19.
Italy 4.2%
U.K. 4.0%
Sweden 3.6%
Mexico 9.0%
Spain 2.8%
Belgium 2.7%.
Those are the real mortality rates for those that have passed after becoming infected.
Do you somehow believe people are going to somehow come back to life to give you this 0.3% of yours ?

Das Reich

charlie14 wrote: »

And you have been wrong numerous times.

11 November 2020 mortality rates by country for those infected by Covid-19.
Italy 4.2%
U.K. 4.0%
Sweden 3.6%
Mexico 9.0%
Spain 2.8%
Belgium 2.7%.
Those are the real mortality rates for those that have passed after becoming infected.
Do you somehow believe people are going to somehow come back to life to give you this 0.3% of yours ?

How do you know exactly how many people got infected?

Thats me

Das Reich wrote: »

How do you know the exactly how many people got infected?

This is a reason to refer mortality rate or case fatality rate instead of infection fatality rates :rolleyes:

charlie14

Das Reich wrote: »

How do you know the exactly how many people got infected?

Those are the statistics for the ratio of deaths to confirmed cases. The poster has been saying the ratio is 0.3%. They are clearly not.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I am not surprised one bit. OP is notorious for deflecting.

In fact so, almost a fanatic look on covid, when faced with question as to why does Czech republic with identical population as Sweden, but having spent 6 + months in lockdown this year has more deaths than Sweden - response will be "compare Sweden to its neighbours".

This is a dead end conversation. I've given up a while back. I merely drop in here to inform people that Sweden is on track for less deaths in 2020 than in 2019, 2018, 2017. I think fewer deaths is a good measure of covid strategy. (but watch the replies to this post, "lol yeah but their cases are through the roof" "ginger they are in Wuhan lockdown now" :rolleyes: ) It is funny though I gotta admit

Aah Ginger do`nt go hiding your own comedy talent under a bushel.
You came out with some crackers here at different stages.
Who could forget all your Giesecke and Tegnell little comedy videos where you believed them that herd immunity was not their strategy.
The absolute certainty you had that herd immunity was just around the next corner.
The GDP predictions that Sweden would outperform Ireland for Q2, when even the Swedish Central Bank didn`t.
That unemployment in Ireland was multiples of Sweden when you didn`t understand what the term furlough signified.
The prediction that Sweden would never ever use or have to use lockdown.
There are probably many more, but off the top of my head, those for me are the comedy gold of your predictions

charlie14

Thats me wrote: »

This is a reason to refer mortality rate or case fatality rate instead of infection fatality rates :rolleyes:

Those are the statistics of mortality rates to confirmed infections. Anything else is based on modelling figures which have been shown to be widely inaccurate.

Stormyteacup

G

charlie14 wrote: »

Those are the statistics of mortality rates to confirmed infections. Anything else is based on modelling figures which have been shown to be widely inaccurate.

Well you’re discussing two different things are you not? I suspect you know that.

You’re not incorrect with those total mortality rates. But CFR is much lower.

This is helpful from the WHO in late August;

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating-mortality-from-covid-19

‘Assumption 1: The likelihood of detecting cases and deaths is consistent over the course of the outbreak.

Early in an outbreak, surveillance tends to focus more on symptomatic patients who seek care, so milder and asymptomatic cases are less likely to be detected, leading to overestimation of CFR; this overestimation may decrease as testing and active case finding increase. One method to account for this is to remove from the analysis those cases that occurred before the establishment of robust surveillance, including application of clear case definitions (a method called left censoring).’


For two and a half months, September to mid November, CFR in Ireland was under 0.2%.

Recently it doubled along with hospitalisation rates even though case numbers decreasing - but that’s another conversation.

bb1234567

Looks like Sweden will finish with about 93,000 deaths for the year barring there is no major increase in COVID deaths between now and January
Certainly the highest in the last ten years but not a massive deviation

Ginger n Lemon

bb1234567 wrote: »

Looks like Sweden will finish with about 93,000 deaths for the year barring there is no major increase in COVID deaths between now and January
Certainly the highest in the last ten years but not a massive deviation

Are you sure?

Back in July you posted they ll finish on 98,000 deaths or even 105,000 deaths.

thebaz

Stormyteacup wrote: »

G


Well you’re discussing two different things are you not? I suspect you know that.

You’re not incorrect with those total mortality rates. But CFR is much lower.

I have been trying to say this throughout , but Charlie wants to dramatise the higher number , in an abusive manner .

Ginger n Lemon

thebaz wrote: »

I have been trying to say this throughout , but Charlie wants to dramatise the higher number , in an abusive manner .

Ah come on now, Charlie is a decent poster he wouldnt be doing that :rolleyes: