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

ush

Someone from the defence forces came round today and collected a sample from the missus. Thats not a sentence I thought I'd ever have to write.

ush

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Does anyone have historical Swedish data, or a link to it ?

Historical Swedish data

IAMAMORON

thebaz wrote: »

I still think it is too early to say if ther approach has worked, but many have villified ther approach, and accused ther Government of murder/ genocide -

I think they will avoid some of the economic disasters that is going to hit many countrys, Ireland included, and have a huge Mental health problem effect on so many, particularly the young and under 40s.

I found it strange that the mainstream media and opposition parties did not question this lockdown strategy driven by WHO , that has impacted on most peoples basic human rights, both monetary and just staying healthy - excercise in fresh air etc - and country after country adopted this unproven lockdown strategy, and to question such you were deemed more or less a traitor or a Gemma type nut.

I think that the government in Ireland have been decisive enough. I would rather they told us to stay indoors than take any risks with our lives and the lives of our families. Hindsight is a muddafugger when it comes to analysing previous decisions. ShuddaWuddaCudda is all well and good, but 6 weeks ago the world and today was a different place.

The opposition parties were cute enough to say nothing. At the end of the day, as things stand , it looks like the correct decision was made. But I would much rather be safe than sorry. Sweden is not out of the woods either, give it a few weeks and they could easily be in trouble, but it does look like they have gotten away with it. But do not forget the shítstorm happening down in Lombardy ( and ongoing ). Given the evidence it was a bold enough decision by the Swedes.

The mainstream media have been fishing around for issues for weeks. The testing was their beating stick first few weeks, they were dying for a rural hospital meltdown and that has not worked out, I would look forward to the beatings they deliver on the nursing homes, they might even squeeze an enquiry out of that one. But either way the government has not given anyone any rope to hang them because they have done a fairly good job so far, all things considered. ( obviously if you don't like Simon Harris it has been an unmitigated disaster and it is all his fault etc etc. )

PHG

I live beside one of the major parks in Stockholm and there is barely(if any) social distancing happening. The park bar opened this week!!

Town is quieter (execept at weekends) and its basically BAU in most areas. Yes people live mainly alone here, but I still see people hugging to say hello. More masks around the place last weekend.

[Deleted User]

Interesting article here.

Some of the recent numbers are encouraging for the Swedish approach. 21% in New York City have had the disease (apparently). That isn't herd immunity, but it is enough to make a second wave significantly less serious, and as the number increases the impact of the disease lessens further.

The focus on the 'score' to date is absurd. If the Swedes are out and about in June and appear to be properly out the woods, whilst the Norwegians (just for example) are still hiding in their cabins and looking forward to a year of literal deaths by a thousand cuts? Things might look very different at the end of the year looking back.

I don't know if it will 'work' for Sweden or not but I admire their determination to do things their own way and in the way they think is right.

[Deleted User]

On the subject of immunity, we are four months into this and I don't think there's a single verified case of someone having the disease and then getting the disease again.

That is distinct from testing positive and then testing positive again, which is a completely different thing. Although we can't know how long immunity will last to me it seems that there must be some. It is hard to believe that not a single frontline worker has had it, gone back to work and got it again if there is no immunity at all.

suicide_circus

is there perhaps a self destructive element to the Swedish national psyche?

Danzy

suicide_circus wrote: »

is there perhaps a self destructive element to the Swedish national psyche?

There certainly appears to be in some ways, a vicious self loathing.

Whether that is related to this is unclear.

sydthebeat

charlie14 wrote: »

So when did the missing 386 deaths for the last three days occur (441 -55) and are the worldometer figure of new case for today of 751 correct ?

The 386 deaths were cumulative over the last few weeks.

All those weekends where they were reporting low double digits, they were having higher deaths (its very easy to see and compare).

Their case rate is the same. The single highest case increase per day was back on April 7th of about 740 cases. That number dropped down to less than 400 on April 11th, but has been on average about 600 per day since.

I don't like looking at new cases though as a metric because that is very much down to testing levels, and their testing numbers are still very poor

Supercell

I was reading an article yesterday comparing infection rates and immunity for various epidemics/pandemics over the years. Some of them gave recovered people immunity for months or years whilst others such as SAR's gave 2-4 weeks only.
Whilst the jury is out on COVID19 on this point, we do know it is closely related to SAR's , so that if recovered people have similar immunity (without continual top-ups though continued exposure) then it may be only for 2-4 weeks also.

Why is this relevant to Sweden vs Ireland for example? - flattening the curve so to speak may be the worst possible way to arrive at herd immunity in the absence of a vaccine.
It may never come as it takes repeated exposure to the virus to prolong immunity, triggering the immune response which doesn't happen if we are doing our best to completely avoid exactly that.
If we are all huddling in our homes and social distancing its hard to see how "herd immunity" can ever be reached with out a vaccine which would have have far longer immunity due to how they trigger the immune response.
Obviously though for the elderly and those at risk such as obese, diabetics , heart disease etc may be better off sticking with current restrictions until the vaccine arrives. Food for thought.

Hector Savage

Sweden aren't having lockdowns as they couldn't control their migrant population, it's that simple, they know it will bring more trouble.

Hector Savage

Supercell wrote: »

I was reading an article yesterday comparing infection rates and immunity for various epidemics/pandemics over the years. Some of them gave recovered people immunity for months or years whilst others such as SAR's gave 2-4 weeks only.
Whilst the jury is out on COVID19 on this point, we do know it is closely related to SAR's , so that if recovered people have similar immunity (without continual top-ups though continued exposure) then it may be only for 2-4 weeks also.

Why is this relevant to Sweden vs Ireland for example? - flattening the curve so to speak may be the worst possible way to arrive at herd immunity in the absence of a vaccine.
It may never come as it takes repeated exposure to the virus to prolong immunity, triggering the immune response which doesn't happen if we are doing our best to completely avoid exactly that.
If we are all huddling in our homes and social distancing its hard to see how "herd immunity" can ever be reached with out a vaccine which would have have far longer immunity due to how they trigger the immune response.
Obviously though for the elderly and those at risk such as obese, diabetics , heart disease etc may be better off sticking with current restrictions until the vaccine arrives. Food for thought.

When people get it a 2nd time is it generally worse or milder ?
I know there isn't much data ...

Supercell

Hector Savage wrote: »

When people get it a 2nd time is it generally worse or milder ?
I know there isn't much data ...

I think nobody can really say with any confidence on that to be honest. We do know that some have recovered from COVID19 have reduced lung capacity and permanent lung damage, it wouldn't be much of a leap to imagine reinfection might not go well for these people. Others with mild infections may be mildly infected again, overall personally I think it would be wise to to try and prevent reinfection if at all possible.

Hmmzis

Supercell wrote: »

I was reading an article yesterday comparing infection rates and immunity for various epidemics/pandemics over the years. Some of them gave recovered people immunity for months or years whilst others such as SAR's gave 2-4 weeks only.
Whilst the jury is out on COVID19 on this point, we do know it is closely related to SAR's , so that if recovered people have similar immunity (without continual top-ups though continued exposure) then it may be only for 2-4 weeks also.

Why is this relevant to Sweden vs Ireland for example? - flattening the curve so to speak may be the worst possible way to arrive at herd immunity in the absence of a vaccine.
It may never come as it takes repeated exposure to the virus to prolong immunity, triggering the immune response which doesn't happen if we are doing our best to completely avoid exactly that.
If we are all huddling in our homes and social distancing its hard to see how "herd immunity" can ever be reached with out a vaccine which would have have far longer immunity due to how they trigger the immune response.
Obviously though for the elderly and those at risk such as obese, diabetics , heart disease etc may be better off sticking with current restrictions until the vaccine arrives. Food for thought.

That's the first time I'm hearing of any study or article claiming that SARS induced only 2-4 weeks of immunity. All the studies I've read on this topic have said 2-5 years, depending on severity and treatment and even today the survivors have plenty of antibodies in their blood.

Supercell

Hmmzis wrote: »

That's the first time I'm hearing of any study or article claiming that SARS induced only 2-4 weeks of immunity. All the studies I've read on this topic have said 2-5 years, depending on severity and treatment and even today the survivors have plenty of antibodies in their blood.

Thanks Hmmzis, looks like you are right. I shouldn't have taken that article at face value, I just did some research on google scholar and found this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ which indicates 2 years SAR's immunity with a fall off in year three. So much bad information out there, I should have double checked that before posting, thanks for the wake up!
Opinions have to change with facts, actually i'm delighted and reassured to be honest, hopefully this is also the case with COVID19 also.

Hmmzis

Supercell wrote: »

Thanks Hmmzis, looks like you are right. I shouldn't have taken that article at face value, I just did some research on google scholar and found this - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ which indicates 2 years SAR's immunity with a fall off in year three. So much bad information out there, I should have double checked that before posting, thanks for the wake up!
Opinions have to change with facts, actually i'm delighted and reassured to be honest, hopefully this is also the case with COVID19 also.

In addition to that, there is some evidence that the original SARS survivors might even have some protection against one or two of the Common Cold coronaviruses.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313000716

And the one below seems to indicate that the non-SARS CoVs can induce cross protecting antibodies in humans:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653211004732

Basically, bet one of them and you're less likely to get the other one.

Since SARS-cov-2 is very similar to SARS-cov and all of them are betacoronaviruses, there is a non-zero chance they might be knocking each other out somewhat as the human body could produce cross protecting antibodies.

Feck, that'd be something if getting the common cold type would protect you from getting SARS-cov-2.

Supercell

Hmmzis wrote: »

In addition to that, there is some evidence that the original SARS survivors might even have some protection against one or two of the Common Cold coronaviruses.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313000716

And the one below seems to indicate that the non-SARS CoVs can induce cross protecting antibodies in humans:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653211004732

Basically, bet one of them and you're less likely to get the other one.

Since SARS-cov-2 is very similar to SARS-cov and all of them are betacoronaviruses, there is a non-zero chance they might be knocking each other out somewhat as the human body could produce cross protecting antibodies.

Feck, that'd be something if getting the common cold type would protect you from getting SARS-cov-2.

Now there is a thought! Would be nice if so, indeed maybe it helps explain why some get it more mildly than others, perhaps they had a non COVID19 Corona cold in the recent past which helped bolster their immune system against this one. So much research to do into all this.

charlie14

sydthebeat wrote: »

The 386 deaths were cumulative over the last few weeks.

All those weekends where they were reporting low double digits, they were having higher deaths (its very easy to see and compare).

Their case rate is the same. The single highest case increase per day was back on April 7th of about 740 cases. That number dropped down to less than 400 on April 11th, but has been on average about 600 per day since.

I don't like looking at new cases though as a metric because that is very much down to testing levels, and their testing numbers are still very poor

Fair enough. I know from an earlier poster that their was a lag in their weekend reports where those numbers were then included in the early days of the following week, but I was surprised to see such large numbers being listed for three consecutive days.

Not really sure either what to take from yesterdays new cases other than they seem to be their highest to date.

hmmm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

At the end of the day, as things stand , it looks like the correct decision was made. But I would much rather be safe than sorry. Sweden is not out of the woods either, give it a few weeks and they could easily be in trouble, but it does look like they have gotten away with it. But do not forget the shítstorm happening down in Lombardy ( and ongoing ). Given the evidence it was a bold enough decision by the Swedes.

I don't think the Irish people would have wanted to be part of some experiment which contradicts WHO guidance & the actions of other countries. You have to hope the Swedish experiment works, but it's still early for them. It would never have worked in Ireland.

[Deleted User]

We're all in an experiment. You are being naive if you don't think you are.

Nobody really knows what success is ultimately going to look like here, and what the ultimate impacts of lockdown and economic shutdown will be, so by definition the various different responses are all experiments.

markjbloggs

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think the Irish people would have wanted to be part of some experiment which contradicts WHO guidance & the actions of other countries. You have to hope the Swedish experiment works, but it's still early for them. It would never have worked in Ireland.

Wrong - I'm Irish and I am willing to be part of that experiment. WHO has repeatedly been wrong/influenced through all this and its' guidance is suspect to say the least. WHO guidance provides nothing more than a prophylactic for our sycophant politicians not to take the tough decisions necessary to get this cpuntry out of this mess.

IAMAMORON

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think the Irish people would have wanted to be part of some experiment which contradicts WHO guidance & the actions of other countries. You have to hope the Swedish experiment works, but it's still early for them. It would never have worked in Ireland.

markjbloggs wrote: »

Wrong - I'm Irish and I am willing to be part of that experiment. WHO has repeatedly been wrong/influenced through all this and its' guidance is suspect to say the least.

We will never know now anyway, but I would rather be safe than sorry.

The real quagmire that Ireland faces now is getting out of lockdown. Sweden's policy will have allowed its' population to generate a substantial amount of herd immunity, Ireland will not have this luxury as we have been essentially cocooning for 5 weeks now. This could and most likely will contribute to further outbreaks as the lockdown is eased. Sweden will be up and running much quicker.

biko

Sweden chose to go against the everyone else for a reason.
It must be clear what that reason was and who decided to go ahead with it.

The Swedish prime minister is ultimately responsible for decisions by the government and the health authority, but if this goes pear-shaped he will simply fall back on "we didn't think it would get so bad" and "we wanted the people to have a say".

Hopefully Sweden's choice will be lucky and things don't get worse.

What Username Guidelines

IAMAMORON wrote: »

We will never know now anyway, but I would rather be safe than sorry.

The real quagmire that Ireland faces now is getting out of lockdown. Sweden's policy will have allowed its' population to generate a substantial amount of herd immunity, Ireland will not have this luxury as we have been essentially cocooning for 5 weeks now. This could and most likely will contribute to further outbreaks as the lockdown is eased. Sweden will be up and running much quicker.

It's interesting that it hasnt gone the way of Italy, France, and Spain, perhaps it will, but Sweden appears to have shown how social distancing is very impactful and less people moving around or congregating in large crowds at the beginning has an effect on initial spread, maybe. Who knows yet. Other countries got caught off-guard whereas Sweden, while not locking down heavily, still reacting with working from home, social distancing, etc.

I dont necessarily believe they're close to herd immunity, but it does seem like it's manageable for their healthcare services right now. Will be interesting to see numbers in Denmark, Austria, Spain, etc after they've eased some stuff but maintained strong social distancing rules.

cnocbui

biko wrote: »

Sweden chose to go against the everyone else for a reason.
It must be clear what that reason was and who decided to go ahead with it.

The Swedish prime minister is ultimately responsible for decisions by the government and the health authority, but if this goes pear-shaped he will simply fall back on "we didn't think it would get so bad" and "we wanted the people to have a say".

Hopefully Sweden's choice will be lucky and things don't get worse.

What do you mean 'if' it goes pear shaped?

Australia had 8 new cases and has had 79 deaths in total, or 3.13 deaths per million of population.

Sweden had 812 new cases (less than half the population of Aus.) 2152 deaths in total, or 213 deaths per million of population.

IAMAMORON

biko wrote: »

Sweden chose to go against the everyone else for a reason.
It must be clear what that reason was and who decided to go ahead with it.

The Swedish prime minister is ultimately responsible for decisions by the government and the health authority, but if this goes pear-shaped he will simply fall back on "we didn't think it would get so bad" and "we wanted the people to have a say".

Hopefully Sweden's choice will be lucky and things don't get worse.

I think the virus has had a good 5 weeks now to " go pear shaped" in Sweden. If you take a deep breath and step back and look at it, you will see that it has not turned into a shightfest of death and carnage that some doomers were hoping for.

Stockholm is their epicentre, but their figure are still no different to ours, give or a take 10%. Nothing that you can legitimately contrast and say,"I told you so".

For some reason the virus has proved more dangerous in certain circumstances than in others. eg Lombardy, Madrid, New York and obviously Wuhan. I suspect that it is incredibly contagious in its initial form and that it then mutates as it transfers, depending on when it is contracted might possibly indicate its potency and level of mutation upon transfer. This could explain how the Swedish mutation has not been as contagious and dangerous, whereas Bergamo, New York, Gwent etc quite possibly were infected with earlier, stronger and less mutated versions. I am massively just speculating but there has to be a reason why different locations and different combative strategies have produced contrasting results?

wakka12

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think the virus has had a good 5 weeks now to " go pear shaped" in Sweden. If you take a deep breath and step back and look at it, you will see that it has not turned into a shightfest of death and carnage that some doomers were hoping for.

Stockholm is their epicentre, but their figure are still no different to ours, give or a take 10%. Nothing that you can legitimately contrast and say,"I told you so".

For some reason the virus has proved more dangerous in certain circumstances than in others. eg Lombardy, Madrid, New York and obviously Wuhan. I suspect that it is incredibly contagious in its initial form and that it then mutates as it transfers, depending on when it is contracted might possibly indicate its potency and level of mutation upon transfer. This could explain how the Swedish mutation has not been as contagious and dangerous, whereas Bergamo, New York, Gwent etc quite possibly were infected with earlier, stronger and less mutated versions. I am massively just speculating but there has to be a reason why different locations and different combative strategies have produced contrasting results?

There is no evidence of major mutations. Theres more deaths in Madrid NYC and MIlan because they are dense cities, more people means infections means more deaths. Much more likely is Stockholm just doesnt have a lot of infections to begin with

As to why it spread so widely within smaller towns and cities in Lombardy, its a strange one, maybe because of intergenerational living in Italy

Anyway, anyone see that news segment on BBC last night about Sweden? The three Swedes interviewed seemed extremely unsure of themlelves, the man looked a bit scared even

markjbloggs

cnocbui wrote: »

What do you mean 'if' it goes pear shaped?

Australia had 8 new cases and has had 79 deaths in total, or 3.13 deaths per million of population.

Sweden had 812 new cases (less than half the population of Aus.) 2152 deaths in total, or 812 deaths per million of population.

check your maths

cnocbui

markjbloggs wrote: »

check your maths

Thanks, I read off from the wrong column!

maninasia

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think the virus has had a good 5 weeks now to " go pear shaped" in Sweden. If you take a deep breath and step back and look at it, you will see that it has not turned into a shightfest of death and carnage that some doomers were hoping for.

Stockholm is their epicentre, but their figure are still no different to ours, give or a take 10%. Nothing that you can legitimately contrast and say,"I told you so".

For some reason the virus has proved more dangerous in certain circumstances than in others. eg Lombardy, Madrid, New York and obviously Wuhan. I suspect that it is incredibly contagious in its initial form and that it then mutates as it transfers, depending on when it is contracted might possibly indicate its potency and level of mutation upon transfer. This could explain how the Swedish mutation has not been as contagious and dangerous, whereas Bergamo, New York, Gwent etc quite possibly were infected with earlier, stronger and less mutated versions. I am massively just speculating but there has to be a reason why different locations and different combative strategies have produced contrasting results?

It's to do with population density and how many people share household units and also living habits (touching etc ). Sweden is a country where people practice social distancing from birth...I'm half serious here.
Also most older people get divorced in Sweden they probably live alone.