Breezin wrote: » That's because they know and accept that their strategy implies more cases in the short term. That is the essential difference. Higher daily stats now does not indicate failure.
Greentopia wrote: » Yes they had a Professor of Political Science explaining the boost for the Soc Dems and he said it was for that reason also. Their higher death toll than neighbouring countries doesn't seem to have impacted on that.
Harry Palmr wrote: » Tories support is up in the UK, in a time of crisis the incumbent gets a boost out of some sort of gesture for being in power during a time of crisis.
Mic 1972 wrote: » Sweden keeps increasing in daily new cases, hopefully they are prepared for what comes next
Greentopia wrote: » Whatever we think about Sweden's handling of this it seems Swedes are still by and large supportive of their government's measures.For the second month in a row the Social Democrats have seen a rise in support for them to 30% according to SVT reportage, while the Sweden Democrats far right populist party have seen a small drop in support. This in spite of the news from the Swedish Finance Minister that unemployment can rise to 11% this year and GDP fall by 7%. That's exactly half the projected unemployment figure for Ireland this year and also less than the possible GDP fall of 13.8% IF economic activity only recovers in the fourth quarter of this year. Those are still very alarming figures in Sweden but compared to us it looks like they're getting off lightly economically. So far anyway.
jesus_thats_gre wrote: » Their economy - and employment, is structured in a very different way to ours. That is not to say that comparison isn't appropriate, just to say that don't arrive at conclusions too quickly. Some of the recent David McWilliams podcasts touch on the subject if you are interested.
Greentopia wrote: » That's exactly half the projected unemployment figure for Ireland this year and also less than the possible GDP fall of 13.8% IF economic activity only recovers in the fourth quarter of this year. Those are still very alarming figures in Sweden but compared to us it looks like they're getting off lightly economically. So far anyway.
Roger_007 wrote: » I think everyone else is beginning to realise that the Swedes have got it right and most others, including us, have got it wrong. There is precious little evidence that the countries that have gone into full lockdown have fared any better than Sweden. You can point to some countries that seem to have fared better but you can also point to many that have done worse. The best comparison would be with the UK because they both started at the same time with the same strategy but then the UK panicked because the ‘best scientists in the world’ at Imperial College said it was going to be a disaster.
Hector Savage wrote: » Weeks ago people were saying it would be absolute carnage in Sweden by now, well today they have approx 600 new cases and 40 new deaths. I work for a Swedish company in Barcelona, so a lot of my colleagues are SWedish, and they are living the same lives as us at the moment, staying at home and just making trips to the shops. The difference is they do it out of choice, they aren't forced to by a thug police state like in Spain/Italy/UK... That has a massive difference on people's mental well being, but fair play to Sweden they seem to have nailed it - you can still go to the park and be responsible and don't have to infect 50 people. MEanwhile week 8 of lockdown here and only slight slight improvements. The SS stazi nazi thug police walking around just dying to issue fines, even if you are totally alone and have receipt for the food in your bag. <snip>
manonboard wrote: » Im not aware of this, could you explain more? Couldnt a mutation make it stronger? more contagious? airborne? etc
Bit cynical wrote: » The mortality rate is indeed much higher among some groups but naively dividing deaths by confirmed cases does not give you that figure; it just gives you an unrealistically high number for the whole population. Then when people work out that it is a bogus statistic, they will ignore it and rightly so. The number you require can only be got by full testing of the entire population or failing that testing of a properly random sample of the population.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Mutations will also weaken a virus.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » There's a significant lag in the Swedish data, which other countries don't seem to have picked up on. Been reading a former epidemiologist from the country on Twitter, David Steadson, and he reckons things are much worse than the official figures show:https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1252719126591803393https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1252720324547874817https://twitter.com/DavidSteadson/status/1252725378596122629 He commented earlier today that their rolling 7 day average is moving towards a 100 deaths a day. If this is the case, then it's too soon to label them a success story. Need to see how the picture look as we head into May.
Hector Savage wrote: » Weeks ago people were saying it would be absolute carnage in Sweden by now, well today they have approx 600 new cases and 40 new deaths. I work for a Swedish company in Barcelona, so a lot of my colleagues are SWedish, and they are living the same lives as us at the moment, staying at home and just making trips to the shops. The difference is they do it out of choice, they aren't forced to by a thug police state like in Spain/Italy/UK... That has a massive difference on people's mental well being, but fair play to Sweden they seem to have nailed it - you can still go to the park and be responsible and don't have to infect 50 people. MEanwhile week 8 of lockdown here and only slight slight improvements. The SS stazi nazi thug police walking around just dying to issue fines, even if you are totally alone and have receipt for the food in your bag. F'cking pigs
charlie14 wrote: » There are two ways of looking at those percentages in fairness. While the overall mortality figures may actually be around 1%, the higher percentage figure of deaths to confirmed case will be more likely to give people pause for thought when it comes to social distancing.
charlie14 wrote: » But what are the realistic figures ? 1% may or may not be the realistic figure for the overall population, but it is not the realistic figure for those that this virus is mainly dangerous too, the elderly and those with underlying conditions. Some here are complaining about the 12% mortality rate of confirmed case in Sweden not being realistic are correct in the context of the overall population, but as these confirmed cases are not all elderly or have underlying conditions, then does it not follow for those that were the percentage was actually higher than 12% ? As I said earlier, while that figure is not the overall mortality rate, it is no great harm in that it will make those that are the really vulnerable be extra careful when it comes to social distancing for their own sake, and those that are not in that group more careful for the sake of others.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Some there still seem pretty confident that they are doing the right thing (from Thursday night):https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1253423416511655942
charlie14 wrote: » Any mutation of a virus, and especially one we know so little about, is never good and would suggest to me at least, that regardless of how much or how little herd immunity gives a vaccine will still be an ongoing requirement.