Breezin wrote: » If Sweden achieves the same outcome in the longer term, with much lower social and economic costs, those now running and advocating hardline lockdowns will be very exposed. Talk of the 'special' character of the Swedish people will reach mythic proportions.
WhiteMemento9 wrote: » No one wants them to fail. This isn't a ****ing soccer game. Most people are human beings and want to do what is right. This constant need to devide people into camps is beyond tiresome. You don't pick a side and run with it. Sweden have gone with another approach that hopefully, other countires can learn things out of but each country is its own microcosm and what works for one doesn't mean it will work for another. Most countires have gone the more conservative route due to risks of health system failures and the unknown.
niallo27 wrote: » You really want Sweden to fail dont you.
Nermal wrote: » The WHO is fully invested in the suppression strategy now. Like any institution, it is near-incapable of admitting error and will maintain this failed policy, in spite of the mountain of evidence against it, for a long time to come.
Nermal wrote: » The WHO's reputation is already in tatters. Here it is withdrawing the scaremongering previous tweets about herd immunity.https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1254160937805926405 The WHO is fully invested in the suppression strategy now. Like any institution, it is near-incapable of admitting error and will maintain this failed policy, in spite of the mountain of evidence against it, for a long time to come.
plodder wrote: » The WHO seems to be constantly banging the "no evidence of immunity" drum and either they are right or the Swedes are, but they can't both be. Either the WHO or the Swedish political/medical community are going to come out of this with their reputations tarnished, it seems to me.
biko wrote: » What it means: Just 2 reported deaths in Sweden today Sunday
biko wrote: » A journalist "debunks" statements from actual physicians.. The orders are supposed to be rolled out in a state of crisis but are already used before that.https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/andelen-aldre-covidpatienter-har-minskat-kraftigt
Blut2 wrote: » Both of the claims in these articles have been roundly debunked:https://medium.com/@emanuelkarlsten/during-the-easter-holidays-it-has-been-rumoured-that-the-swedish-healthcare-system-will-cease-to-7c596ed49d39
At the end of March, new guidelines for intensive care priorities came during the corona pandemic. Since then, the proportion of covid patients over 70 years has more than halved in the Stockholm region. SVT News has spoken to concerned doctors who believe it is related.
The idea was that no guidelines would be put in place until a situation where the intensive care sites were running out. And since the IVA sites are constantly being expanded, they should not have started to apply. But several doctors testify that the disaster situation forecasts set a mood in the hospital corridors. They thought harder about who can handle intensive care and transport. Indirectly, it becomes a kind of age selection, says a doctor who wants to be anonymous.
wakka12 wrote: » Just 2 deaths in Sweden today
biko wrote: » This is because ICU refuse 80+ people blankly and 60+ people if they have other illnesses.https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7445616https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/samhalle/a/lAyePy/dokument-visar-de-prioriteras-bort-fran-intensivvard
Drumpot wrote: » 50% in single Person households !!!!??? That would actually explain a significant reason why perhaps it might be easier for them to maintain a lowish infection rate. I would love to see what sort of statistics there are in other countries. One person living in a house has much less opportunity to infect others in comparison to 5 people in the one house. Of course there are plenty of other variables in play but it seems like this could be one massive variable that may make Sweden’s approach more relevant for them.
charlie14 wrote: » Earlier in the week it was claimed that 1/3 of the population of Stockholm had been infected, but that report was withdraw and far as I know has since been revised to around 1/4. They reckon that to achieve herd immunity 70% of the population would have to be infected. Because of the nature of Sweden (around 50% of their population living in single person households, numbers practicing social distancing etc.) it is debatable when if ever they would reach that 70% or even what the benefits of herd immunity would be if they did reach that figure. Either way, according to Professor Johan Giesecke (post #1273) achieving herd immunity was not part of their strategy.
Kivaro wrote: » Don't know if it was mentioned already, but surfing the news channels this morning, I saw one blurb that popped up that stated that Stockholm could have herd immunity in weeks. That will certainly make for an interesting conversation when it happens.
Blut2 wrote: » How exactly has Sweden failed their elderly? The Swedish hospitals and ICUs have never once reached capacity to date. Nobody has died from being unable to receive medical treatment.
Several doctors like P3 Nyheter have been in contact with witnesses that people in Stockholm who otherwise had good conditions for surviving the corona virus are now denied intensive care.
People with a biological age over 80 should be de-prioritised in intensive care during the corona crisis.
whippet wrote: » So its an assumption ...in the NY study what was the size of the sample and how was it selected? The reference I see is 1 in 7 in NY tested positive - that is about 14% - where are you getting 3%
wakka12 wrote: » The New York antibody study determined a mortality rate of 0.78%. Based off Sweden's deaths, that is 3% of the population infected.
whippet wrote: » It might be interesting alright - but just because the swedes managed it does not mean the Irish could have done it ... not when we were predeposed to head for the beaches, parks in mass when we were told to stay at home
whippet wrote: » Have you a source for that figure ?
wakka12 wrote: » Dunno how they think thats possible, antibody testing in multiple epicentres have shown that there is nothing approaching levels of herd immunity there. Sweden probably has a 3% infection rate nationally based on the number of deaths
wakka12 wrote: » If they cocoon, they wont be. I know for a fact my granny and grandad wont as they are not going to leave the house until its completely safe.They are taking every precaution, and happy to do so if it keeps them safe, there is just no chance of them getting the virus. It just depends on the individual old person and how much risk they are willing to take.There are hundreds of thousands of vulnerable old people in Ireland so it defintiely wont kill them all The next year will be a very trying time for the elderly of society though, I'd say there will be unprecedented levels of depression amongst that demographic by the time a vaccine arrives
biko wrote: » Sweden said in the beginning they would protect the elderly, they didn't. Has anyone asked they elderly if they are ok with dying, no they haven't. Sweden did not manage to protect its most vulnerable citizens, and now they make out it's ok. Like when Agnes Wold, bacteriologist, said "it's fortunate the virus mainly kills old people". Frighteningly callous.
