Sweden avoiding lockdown

degsie

Hmmzis wrote: »

Until a treatment or vaccine is found, comparing death rates between countries is a bit misleading I think.
The virus is being spread faster with more people interacting, slower with less people interacting. It will still be spread unless all physical interaction between humans stops. Since that's not possible, we can only influence the speed of infection (that R0 if you will).

With that in mind, faster spread gives you a higher death rate per day, slower spread gives you a lower death rate per day, but at the end of the whole thing it's still going to be the same totals per capita. The assumption here is that we do not exceed the hospital and ICU capacities. The exact same number of people will die, in one case it'll be slower, in the other it'll happen faster.

The advantage of the faster approach is that you get the survivors back to normal life faster.
The advantage of the slower approach is that it gives time for reseaechers to find a treatment that reduces mortality and improves overall outcomes. Therfore reducing the total fatality rate compared to the faster approach.

Sweden is going with the fast option.
We are going with the slower approach hoping for a timely treatment option to become available.

In both cases it's a gamble of sorts.

Thank you for a reasoned argument. It's refreshing.

dubrov

Hmmzis wrote:

In both cases it's a gamble of sorts.

Great post. It really highlights why so many governments are taking different approaches.

Only time will tell what was the correct way to go.

Gary kk

Ah here now we are spreading to the infection rate to help save lives by trying not to overload the health service.

Sweden is letting people die that may have been saved if they followed suit.

lawrencesummers

Hmmzis wrote: »

Until a treatment or vaccine is found, comparing death rates between countries is a bit misleading I think.
The virus is being spread faster with more people interacting, slower with less people interacting. It will still be spread unless all physical interaction between humans stops. Since that's not possible, we can only influence the speed of infection (that R0 if you will).

With that in mind, faster spread gives you a higher death rate per day, slower spread gives you a lower death rate per day, but at the end of the whole thing it's still going to be the same totals per capita. The assumption here is that we do not exceed the hospital and ICU capacities. The exact same number of people will die, in one case it'll be slower, in the other it'll happen faster.

The advantage of the faster approach is that you get the survivors back to normal life faster.
The advantage of the slower approach is that it gives time for reseaechers to find a treatment that reduces mortality and improves overall outcomes. Therfore reducing the total fatality rate compared to the faster approach.

Sweden is going with the fast option.
We are going with the slower approach hoping for a timely treatment option to become available.

In both cases it's a gamble of sorts.

Not to be pedantic here, but the virus will only be stopped if physical interaction between INFECTED people is stopped. This can been seen from the level of healthcare workers infected.

A lot of people have the misconception that the virus is everywhere, it’s not. It has the potential to be.

As an island if we severely limit travel into and out of the country, and we reduce internal movement drastically the virus will eventually die off on the island. Precisely what NZ have done.

This is complicated slightly by the North having a different approach, there should be a political acknowledgement that north and south will agree to implement changes simultaneously, and when the day comes that The virus is extinct enough in Ireland for movement to recommence we are sandwiched between and rely greatly on travel between two counties whose approach to this has left a lot to be desired.

If we open up travel to the US to soon then another wave is all but guaranteed.

In the meantime let’s try and be NZ

Gary kk

Gary kk wrote: »

Ah here now we are spreading to the infection rate to help save lives by trying not to overload the health service.

Sweden is letting people die that may have been saved if they followed suit.

Indeed, folk seem oblivious to this or genuinely too thick to figure it out.

niallo27

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, folk seem oblivious to this or genuinely too thick to figure it out.

Or people realise that this virus is going no where and we will have to follow this approach eventually.

Gary kk

niallo27 wrote: »

Or people realise that this virus is going no where and we will have to follow this approach eventually.

?

niallo27

Gary kk wrote: »

?

Is the swedish health system overstretched. I'm not saying its the correct approach but people are too quick to dismiss it.

niallo27

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Not to be pedantic here, but the virus will only be stopped if physical interaction between INFECTED people is stopped. This can been seen from the level of healthcare workers infected.

A lot of people have the misconception that the virus is everywhere, it’s not. It has the potential to be.

As an island if we severely limit travel into and out of the country, and we reduce internal movement drastically the virus will eventually die off on the island. Precisely what NZ have done.

This is complicated slightly by the North having a different approach, there should be a political acknowledgement that north and south will agree to implement changes simultaneously, and when the day comes that The virus is extinct enough in Ireland for movement to recommence we are sandwiched between and rely greatly on travel between two counties whose approach to this has left a lot to be desired.

If we open up travel to the US to soon then another wave is all but guaranteed.

In the meantime let’s try and be NZ

Australia are doing very well as well, maybe the warmer southern hemisphere season does have an affect on it. This will be tough on New Zealand though, they will have to lock themselves away from the rest of the world.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Or people realise that this virus is going no where and we will have to follow this approach eventually.

A return to some level of normality after 5 weeks (at least) of current style restrictions etc etc isn't following the Swedish approach.

I do understand though, as said.....

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, folk seem oblivious to this or genuinely too thick to figure it out.

lawrencesummers

niallo27 wrote: »

Australia are doing very well as well, maybe the warmer southern hemisphere season does have an affect on it. This will be tough on New Zealand though, they will have to lock themselves away from the rest of the world.

They can close the boarders but have their own internal movement once testing is up to scratch for residents and there is effective controls for international movement. That’s a lot more than other countries will have.

sydthebeat

niallo27 wrote: »

Is the swedish health system overstretched. I'm not saying its the correct approach but people are too quick to dismiss it.

Sweden has the second lowest number of critical care beds in Europe after Portugal, with only 5 beds for every 100,000 inhabitants. The healthcare system would likely be unable to handle a severe COVID-19 outbreak

.

From :
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5817412/sweden-coronavirus/%3famp=true

And:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2627-8

Sweden has only 5.8 ICUs per 100,000. One of the lowest in Europe. They have already started to open a "field hospital" in the city center

https://www.thelocal.se/20200406/stockholm-field-hospital-to-open-its-doors-to-coronavirus-patients

niallo27

sydthebeat wrote: »

.

From :
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5817412/sweden-coronavirus/%3famp=true

And:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2627-8

Sweden has only 5.8 ICUs per 100,000. One of the lowest in Europe. They have already started to open a "field hospital" in the city center

https://www.thelocal.se/20200406/stockholm-field-hospital-to-open-its-doors-to-coronavirus-patients

I would have thought sweden would have had top quality healthcare. I presume with no lockdown, there are 1000s dieing right now and all the hospitals are overwhelmed.

sydthebeat

niallo27 wrote: »

I would have thought sweden would have had top quality healthcare. I presume with no lockdown, there are 1000s dieing right now and all the hospitals are overwhelmed.

"Would have thought" and "presuming" is not a good way to frame an argument

dubrov

niallo27 wrote: »

I would have thought sweden would have had top quality healthcare. I presume with no lockdown, there are 1000s dieing right now and all the hospitals are overwhelmed.

168 out of 238 ICU beds full in Stockholm according to the field hospital article referenced above.

plodder

I'm not sure historic numbers of ICU beds are much of an indicator of anything. All countries, including our own that had advanced warning of what was coming from Italy, were able to ramp up the numbers of ICU beds. The real tragedy here is not even in hospitals. It seems to be standard practice everywhere (including here) that nursing home residents who become severely ill with this illness, are not brought to hospital at all. And some countries like the UK are not even counting the deaths that result from this. I was gobsmacked when I heard that.

niallo27

sydthebeat wrote: »

"Would have thought" and "presuming" is not a good way to frame an argument

Ok I'll rephrase, with every model we have seen Sweden should have 1000s dead and the hospitals should be overwhelmed. Why aren't they.

sydthebeat

niallo27 wrote: »

Ok I'll rephrase, with every model we have seen Sweden should have 1000s dead and the hospitals should be overwhelmed. Why aren't they.

What models? Evidence please....

Are you referring to the "do nothing" prediction?
.

They aren't doing nothing. Along with increasing the capacity of their health service to cope with the surge, they are doing the following public actions :

What should you be doing to help reduce the rate of infection?

In Sweden, the official advice requires everyone to:

Stay at home if you have any cold- or flu-like symptoms, even if they are mild and you would normally continue life as normal. Stay at home until you have been fully symptom-free for at least two days.

Practise good hygiene, by regularly and thoroughly washing your hands with soap and water, using hand sanitiser when that’s not possible, and covering any coughs and sneezes with your elbow.

Keep distance from all other people when in public places. That includes shops, parks, museums, and on the street, for example. The World Health Organisation recommends keeping at least a 1.5-2 metre distance.

Avoid large gatherings, including parties, weddings, and other activities.

Work from home if you can. Employers have been asked to ensure this happens where possible.

Avoid all non-essential travel, both within and outside Sweden. That includes visits to family, planned holidays, and any other trips that can be avoided.

If you have to travel, avoid busy times such as rush hour if you can. This reduces the number of people on public transport and makes it easier for people to keep their distance.

If you are over 70 or belong to a high-risk group, you should stay at home and reduce all social contacts. Avoid going to the shops (get groceries delivered or try to find someone who can help you), but you can go outside if you keep distance from other people. Read more about the help available to those in risk groups here.

By following these precautions, we can all help to protect those who are most at risk and to reduce the rate of infection, which in turn reduces the burden on Sweden's healthcare sector.

Read more detail about the precautions we should all be taking in this paywall-free article. Advice in English is also available from Sweden's Public Health Agency and the World Health Organisation.

dubrov

I think the point is that if Sweden's controls aren't overwhelming their ICU units then why aren't we doing similar.

Granted, it is still too early to tell but the signs are that our current lockdown policy has achieved little more than Sweden's and will probably result in a massive recession.

niallo27

sydthebeat wrote: »

What models? Evidence please....

Are you referring to the "do nothing" prediction?
.

They aren't doing nothing. Along with increasing the capacity of their health service to cope with the surge, they are doing the following public actions :

According to other posters, Sweden are sacrificing their older generation and leaving people to die. The point is that their lockdown is not severe by any stretch but they are doing ok.

sydthebeat

Are they doing OK??

What's the measure for that?
Deaths per capita?
Deaths in care homes?
Testing levels?

All of which they are failing at in comparison to similar countries

Widdensushi

sydthebeat wrote: »

Are they doing OK??

What's the measure for that?
Deaths per capita?
Deaths in care homes?
Testing levels?

All of which they are failing at in comparison to similar countries

hard to measure any countries results till the game is over, they might well be losing the first half but in a years time they might have the best results

jaykay74

One stat thats interesting from Sweden is the survival rate of ICU patients. Think in the UK its 50/50 between life and death once a patient enters ICU (I'm open to correction but I saw stats around that when Boris went to ISU). In Sweden so far the survival rate is 80% I think they are quickly to admit to ICU which may increase survival rates. Also from the article I can see there are 320 ICU beds in Stockholm county (220 in the city).

https://www.svd.se/atta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

Direct link to google translation of article, not sure if that works or not
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fatta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

sydthebeat

Widdensushi wrote: »

hard to measure any countries results till the game is over, they might well be losing the first half but in a years time they might have the best results

I'm not arguing that at all.
I'm arguing if they are doing OK as of now.

These "mights" and "presuming" are all hypothetical

Widdensushi

jaykay74 wrote: »

One stat thats interesting from Sweden is the survival rate of ICU patients. Think in the UK its 50/50 between life and death once a patient enters ICU (I'm open to correction but I saw stats around that when Boris went to ISU). In Sweden so far the survival rate is 80% I think they are quickly to admit to ICU which may increase survival rates. Also from the article I can see there are 320 ICU beds in Stockholm county (220 in the city).

https://www.svd.se/atta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

Direct link to google translation of article, not sure if that works or not
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fatta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

population of around 2.5 million, maybe the survival rate has something to do with general health /obesity also ?

niallo27

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm not arguing that at all.
I'm arguing if they are doing OK as of now.

These "mights" and "presuming" are all hypothetical

Ok in your opinion, do you not think they should be in a lot worse position right now than they are in terms of deaths and people in icu

jaykay74

Widdensushi wrote: »

population of around 2.5 million, maybe the survival rate has something to do with general health /obesity also ?

I mean it could be but 50/50 as opposed to 80/20 survival is a lot to put down to general health/lifestyle. Very few smokers here, that might help. But would have thought those factors are only worth a few percent. It probably also indicates the ICUs in Stockholm are not in a stressed/overwhelmed state.

coastwatch

jaykay74 wrote: »

One stat thats interesting from Sweden is the survival rate of ICU patients. Think in the UK its 50/50 between life and death once a patient enters ICU (I'm open to correction but I saw stats around that when Boris went to ISU). In Sweden so far the survival rate is 80% I think they are quickly to admit to ICU which may increase survival rates. Also from the article I can see there are 320 ICU beds in Stockholm county (220 in the city).

https://www.svd.se/atta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

Direct link to google translation of article, not sure if that works or not
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fatta-av-tio-overlever-intensivvarden

I think Tony Holohan reported ICU survival rates here are also around 80%, in one of the briefings last week.

dubrov

sydthebeat wrote: »

Are they doing OK??

What's the measure for that?
Deaths per capita?
Deaths in care homes?
Testing levels?

All of which they are failing at in comparison to similar countries

I'd say the ratio of required to available ICU beds is a pretty good measure for now.

jaykay74

coastwatch wrote: »

I think Tony Holohan reported ICU survival rates here are also around 80%, in one of the briefings last week.

Also a good indicator then for Ireland. The UK 50/50 figure is well reported it seems. I wonder what accounts for the difference

https://www.statista.com/chart/21360/uk-intensive-care-covid-19-survival-rate/

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1265846/coronavirus-update-news-latest-intensive-care-boris-johnson-survival-rate

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/coronavirus-intensive-care-death-rate-a4412336.html