nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sweden avoiding lockdown

frillyleaf

Does Sweden have the right approach to this and how is their healthcare system being able to manage Covid19 cases?

What are the differences between Sweden and Ireland and why can’t we continue similar to how Sweden is managing Covid19?

I’m not suggesting either is right or wrong. I would just like to know how Sweden can continue as normal and other countries can’t. Thanks ðŸ˜Š

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sydthebeat

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Basically Sweden’s restrictions are just bit lighter.

The main cities are much quieter and trade is down as much as 80 to 90%. All OAPs are asked stayed inside. It’s not business as usual like so many think

Any source for those figures KT?

it would be an interesting if disturbing outcome from the swedish experiment if their economy took a serious hit due to personal actions, even though the governmental policy of risk versus reward was weighed towards the economy

The_Kew_Tour

Basically Sweden’s restrictions are just bit lighter.

The main cities are much quieter and trade is down as much as 80 to 90%. All OAPs are asked stayed inside. It’s not business as usual like so many think

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

Ultimately there is only one way to count numbers and that is to look at long term mortality rates. We won't really know what happened in a lot of countries until that analysis is done, numbers are just too sketchy and there are arguments for either inflating them or decreasing them.

Of course then you will get into having to separate out covid deaths from those indirectly caused by economic shock and other illnesses not being treated.

It will take at least a year and probably 2 to get a clear view. People making instant judgements at the moment don't really have the data to do so with confidence.

Look at swine flu in 2009.

1.6 million confirmed cases. 700 million to 1.4 billion is considered the true number of cases.

[Deleted User]

Ultimately there is only one way to count numbers and that is to look at long term mortality rates. We won't really know what happened in a lot of countries until that analysis is done, numbers are just too sketchy and there are arguments for either inflating them or decreasing them.

Of course then you will get into having to separate out covid deaths from those indirectly caused by economic shock and other illnesses not being treated.

It will take at least a year and probably 2 to get a clear view. People making instant judgements at the moment don't really have the data to do so with confidence.

sydthebeat

Swedens numbers depend on the person being tested before dying.
Swedens testing numbers are pitiful.

Their true covid death numbers are absolutely higher than what they report

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

if i get covid 19 tomorrow and fall down the stairs and die the day after, i will have died from covid 19

Wasn't there apparently someone in the states who was in a car crash and died from the COVID..

Att vara en hest

It was mentioned today that the way Sweden counts deaths is that they run the personnummer (social security number) of everyone who tested positive at some stage against the death registry. This means that no matter what the person died from, if they've tested positive for COVID19 recently that will be registered as a COVID19 death.

As someone mentioned just a few posts ahead other countries have different way of counting deaths, many countries only count deaths that occurred in hospitals and in some countries it's up to a doctor to report if death was related to the virus or not... Sweden's way of counting deaths will definitely lead to higher counts than the methods used by many other countries.

I think it's too early to tell but I for one think that Sweden's method is doing quite well, it's way less intrusive on the citizens as well. It's a dangerous game being played here and in many other countries, opening up a path for a full on police state dystopia. Anyways, time will tell... Let's all hope for the best for every country.

suicide_circus

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

There seems to be no consistency in counting methods in any country. Count what suits you and present that would seem to be the order of the day. Personally I thing the figures on worldometer are a joke at this point.

if i get covid 19 tomorrow and fall down the stairs and die the day after, i will have died from covid 19

zerosugarbuzz

There seems to be no consistency in counting methods in any country. Count what suits you and present that would seem to be the order of the day. Personally I thing the figures on worldometer are a joke at this point.

Del Griffith

They are counting deaths in care homes etc, Norway are only counting deaths in hospitals, not like for like

Memnoch

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Swedish coronavirus deaths top 1,000, fuelling criticism over strategy

Their testing rate seems to be very poor. The real toll is likely to be much, much higher.

WhiteMemento9

Swedish coronavirus deaths top 1,000, fuelling criticism over strategy

[Deleted User]

Turtwig wrote: »

I mean this in the nicest possible way. None of your posts make any sense to the point I'm not even sure what others are disagreeing with you over.

I was just thinking that myself. That’s why I’ve given up

2u2me

begbysback wrote: »

Why would a virus mutate into something more dangerous? That means it would kill its host, viruses survive by living with its hosts.

Virus mutate randomly. Virus' that have a low mortality rate tend to survive longer yes because they don't kill their hosts as well.

Doesn't mean this virus can't mutate and wipe out a large chunk of the world.

Apparently there are already A,B,C mutations of this virus being studied.

thebaz

tom1ie wrote: »

Why do you say less dangerous.
Can it not mutate into something more dangerous?
Not that I prefer that it’s just I presume the mutation could and can and has gone either way?

From most studies done , so far, C19 does not mutate much , this is good news, as people who become infected , and recover, will most likely then have immunity for a few years.

begbysback

tom1ie wrote: »

Why do you say less dangerous.
Can it not mutate into something more dangerous?
Not that I prefer that it’s just I presume the mutation could and can and has gone either way?

Why would a virus mutate into something more dangerous? That means it would kill its host, viruses survive by living with its hosts.

tom1ie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll say it one more time.

Spanish flu was NOT "eliminated"

That is an active sentence that assumes that someone or some organisation or humanity as a whole "eliminated" it. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

We eliminated smallpox. We did not eliminate Spanish Flu.

Like a lot of viral diseases it goes through the population and then either comes up against herd immunity or mutates into something less dangerous.

Social distancing helped curb some of the potential impact of the disease, it did not eliminate the virus.

Why do you say less dangerous.
Can it not mutate into something more dangerous?
Not that I prefer that it’s just I presume the mutation could and can and has gone either way?

Jurgen Klopp

MadYaker wrote: »

Someone needs to look up the definitions of suppression and elimination in relation to infectious diseases.

Lads need to stop replying to someone that came to a conclusion it's a 21% death rate and keeps calling everyone else stupid

Beasty

alwald wrote: »

I mean this nicely too. If your brain can't understand enough then ask nicely and I will explain further...we can do it baby steps.

Give it a rest

thebaz

alwald wrote: »

I mean this nicely too. If your brain can't understand enough then ask nicely and I will explain further...we can do it baby steps.

can you explain what you understand herd immunity to be?

and why always the condescending tone ?

coppergrass

I'm also living in Sweden a couple of years now in a town a similar size to Galway. There seems to be a sense of collective social responsibility here that isn't nearly as present in Ireland. It's kind of hard to articulate and I still don't fully grasp it.

I suspect it plays at least some part in avoiding a lockdown. Most social distancing and travel measures are recommended rather than enforced and while there were some notable exceptions, people around here broadly seem to be sticking to them. The authorities were worried about excessive travel over Easter but cell tower data suggests many trips out of Stockholm were down over 90%. I doubt there'd have been a similar drop in traffic from Dublin without the lockdown.

The approach seems to be that the authorities won't bring in a lockdown as long as government advice is broadly followed and people who need critical care can get it. I guess time will tell how it works out.

Gary kk

Yeah baby steps that would be good that way there will be no back tracking bh either side

Gary kk

Ok can you please put in bullet point what you are trying to get across because i am lost to

alwald

Turtwig wrote: »

I mean this in the nicest possible way. None of your posts make any sense to the point I'm not even sure what others are disagreeing with you over.

I mean this nicely too. If your brain can't understand enough then ask nicely and I will explain further...we can do it baby steps.

Turtwig

alwald wrote: »

Still avoiding the herd immunity justification, suppression which is leading to elimination without your herd immunity so how?

I mean this in the nicest possible way. None of your posts make any sense to the point I'm not even sure what others are disagreeing with you over.

alwald

Deleted User wrote: »

Suppression, not elimination. And to keep it low various degrees of suppression will be needed until immunity reaches the required level. Plus we don’t know how bad it really got in Wuhan.

Still avoiding the herd immunity justification, suppression which is leading to elimination without your herd immunity so how?

MadYaker

Someone needs to look up the definitions of suppression and elimination in relation to infectious diseases.

[Deleted User]

alwald wrote: »

The most important part is in bold, the rest is your wrong interpretation of what I said as I never compared social distancing between now and the past.
So without going around in circles, you say that elimination is only possible through immunity, so how come Wuhan, through their strict lockdown, have literally eliminated the virus without herd immunity?? Same applies to Taiwan even if their number of cases are lower.

Suppression, not elimination. And to keep it low various degrees of suppression will be needed until immunity reaches the required level. Plus we don’t know how bad it really got in Wuhan.

alwald

Deleted User wrote: »

Studies primarily based on the us data. Social distancing helped mitigate the impact on some us cities, however elimination is only possible through immunity. Either natural or vaccine. When they talk about social distancing in 1918 as well, it’s nothing like what we are doing as the vast majority of city dwellers did not have the luxury of the food security we now have. If what is being done now was done 100 years ago there would have been mass famine

The most important part is in bold, the rest is your wrong interpretation of what I said as I never compared social distancing between now and the past.
So without going around in circles, you say that elimination is only possible through immunity, so how come Wuhan, through their strict lockdown, have literally eliminated the virus without herd immunity?? Same applies to Taiwan even if their number of cases are lower.

MadYaker

alwald wrote: »

If you mean the H2H transmission was eliminated then not too long.

But you said the spanish flu was eliminated on the previous page? Thats not true.