Sweden avoiding lockdown

niallo27 wrote: »

I don't agree, if I go into any shop that has been marked off, everyone keeps their distance. Everyone is doing it at my workplace. We were all told to stay at home and I believe 95% are following this. We are quick to knock ourselves.

We may be a bit quick to knock ourselves at times, but one of the main reasons for the lockdown being introduced was some ignoring the advise on social distancing where we had jammed pubs and clubs at weekends and people travelling crowding beaches.

When it comes to simply taking advise it seems we have little in common with the Swedes

cnocbui

whippet wrote: »

‘Cos protectionism worked really well in the past

My memory from actually living in a protectionist world is that, yes, it did work. Goods were more expensive and so there was less rampant consumerism and stuff got repaired, rather than just discarded. Housing was actually more affordable in major cities as you didn't have the phenomenon you have in most capital cities, apart from Dublin, of significant levels of foreign buyers driving prices through the roof, as has happened everywhere with a half decent climate.

[Deleted User]

biko wrote: »

Are you in the right thread? This is about Sweden.

But I'm sure you already know the answer to your "question".

Okay, a better question perhaps:

Are any countries successfully protecting their older generation? If not (or mostly not), is it a case of Sweden being realistic rather than callous?

Realistically we won't know for quite a long time whether they were right or wrong. Sweden may have more deaths in the short run, but we could easily just be spreading ours out over more months.

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m not a great fan of globalisation, but you may not have thought this through.
What happens if all other countries do the same.
For one our whole agriculture sector would be wiped out overnight.

We are in the EU, so agriculture will do just fine, even though the cosy 19th century family based dynastic farming model employed here is massively inefficient, though socially cherished.

cnocbui wrote: »

My memory from actually living in a protectionist world is that, yes, it did work. Goods were more expensive and so there was less rampant consumerism and stuff got repaired, rather than just discarded. Housing was actually more affordable in major cities as you didn't have the phenomenon you have in most capital cities, apart from Dublin, of significant levels of foreign buyers driving prices through the roof, as has happened everywhere with a half decent climate.

Is this pre-Lemass and Whitaker you are talking about when emigration was rampant and as a society we were really a backwater ? I’m not sure people would like to go back to that even if you did enjoy it

cnocbui

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

Cocooning is a mental sop to avoid frightening the children. It won't work in the long term. All that can be done is to delay the inevitable. You can't eliminate the virus so cocooning would be an until death permanent state of being. I think most would reach 'ah, feck it' point as it's not 'living'.

Blut2

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.

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.

Anyone who has died from corona would have died whenever they caught it anyway. Which 60%+ of the population is going to in every European country anyway, sooner or later.

Kivaro

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Over 13% of our population are 65 or older. Even that figure does not represent the numbers that are potentially highly vulnerable to this virus. Anyone with suppressed immunity is vulnerable. Be that the over 170,000 who are living with cancer or all others whose underlying medical conditions have also suppressed their immunity.
Perhaps at the end of the day lockdown will not decrease the mortality rate, but for myself at least, I will get some solace from knowing that we at least attempted putting concern for their lives before economics.

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

Have you a source for that figure ?

plodder

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.

Anyone know whatever happened to that report that was withdrawn in Sweden? Was it ever republished?

whippet wrote: »

Have you a source for that figure ?

The New York antibody study determined a mortality rate of 0.78%, and infection rates of 14% in New York State, with far more widespread contagion than Sweden and far higher population density. Based off Sweden's deaths, that is 3% of the population infected.

Its extremely unlikely Sweden is approaching herd immunity. If Sweden was, why would most of the world not be approaching herd immuntiy as well?

What Username Guidelines

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

If they do hit herd immunity within weeks, which I personally don’t believe they will, of course we could do it here. For it to burn through the population without overwhelming icus would be huge news for everywhere. But looking at other countries it’s unlikely that it will happen in the short term.

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.

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%

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7445616
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/samhalle/a/lAyePy/dokument-visar-de-prioriteras-bort-fran-intensivvard

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%

Yes, in New York, the 14% figure cannot simply be applied to all of Sweden. And that level of infection determined a mortality rate of 0.78% based on the death toll in New York.

There is no antibody study in Sweden, so we dont know the level of infection. So we work backwards based on the death toll in Sweden whcih we know, based on the 0.78% mortality rate. Sweden would have estimated 3% infection rate with 2200 deaths.

Sample size New York, 3000, random sampling of people in supermarkets across the state. By far the largest and least biased antibody test performed in the world to date.

Yes its an assumption, much like the far more baseless assumption that Sweden has approached herd immunity.

biko

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.

This is because ICU refuse 80+ people blankly and 60+ people if they have other illnesses.

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.

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.

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.

Drumpot

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.

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.

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.

Not quite 50%, to lazy to do the maths at the time of posting tbh, but in 2019 of the 4.7 million households, 1.9 were single occupancy. So 40%.
Compared to here, a large variable alright. Huge in the context of countries like Italy and Spain.