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

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm certainly not interested in Trump-style WHO bashing but I agree about this, it is incredibly irresponsible the way they have repeatedly made statements implying that there is no immunity, only for people to have to read the small print to get the actual truth.

They should be clearly stating immunity is EXPECTED but we don't know the details yet and it can't be guaranteed. I think someone in there is a little bit in love with the big dramatic statement.

The reason why WHO are being cagey about Antibodies and immunity is that there is simply no way to test the entire global population, countries do not have the infrastructure to facilitate it. There are not enough test kits either.

It is easier to say that it is not a definitive solution than to declare that it is and then have the problem of 8 billion people looking for an antibody test.

I think the WHO is just a big Fudge if I am being honest. They have let the Asian countries walk all over them, they have not held China responsible for spoofing, or Japan and South Korea. Whoever advised Trump to withdraw their funding was spot on, they have been a bit of a shambles. I would rather see the money poured into a US research facility where a practical solution to this virus can be resolved. The alternative of funding an international Quango is ridiculous. The Irish government need to take note also, I support them generally but the longer this goes on I would hope to see someone in the department of health grow a pair and start making some choices and decisions. If they don't someone in the dept of finance will be forced to, such decisions are worse and could have a much more detrimental fallout. They need to let the builders start building again for starters.

The endgame has started but regrettably this integrates the blame game. Thick necks are required. The HSE will constantly roll out a mantra which covers their ass, this is understandable. But the country cannot stay on the dole for the next 3 months, sitting inside like pickled prunes. Somebody somewhere needs to shít or get off the pot.

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

For the love of Odin, are you being deliberately obtuse?

How many times do you have to be told. Sweden has repeatedly said that its strategy is not premised on herd immunity. Some have said it might be a byproduct, but that it is not the strategy.

From the NYT piece:

That has been reported over and over, yet you repeatedly choose to ignore it and repeat the lie in your posts. Why should anyone listen to you?

Then what was/is their strategy if not attempting to get this herd immunity ?
They said their strategy was to protect the aged and vulnerable but from looking their statistics that can not be looked on as any kind of success.

The made a lot of play from herd immunity initially, even some of their top advisors criticising both Britain and others for not staying the course and going to lockdown, but since retracting a report on antibodies and downgrading their estimates for herd immunity in Stockholm they seem to have drawn back from that.

wakka12

Their strategy doesnt seem all that defined. I think they are just one of the first countries to skip the denial phase and realise that much of the population do need to contract this virus because waiting for avaccine is simply not a possibility and also not a guarantee. All we can do is slow that process down enough to allow hospitals to manage

biko

wakka12 wrote: »

All we can do is slow that process down enough to allow hospitals to manage

Which is perfectly reasonable approach. Trying to stagger the intake into hospitals so the staff and equipment is enough for everyone.

Today in Stockholm it was reported 27 out of 96 elderly in a single old folks home are dead.
The staff do not carry much PPE and mingle between infected and non-infected wards without precautions.

Cuddlesworth

Widdensushi wrote: »

why England and Wales?

Because England and Wales publish death Statistics combined. through the ONS. Super interesting, seems like if you took the official figures till the 17th of April both regions are about 3k deaths off average after removing Covid deaths. And while its across the board, its primarily in elderly people.

Del Griffith wrote: »

Ireland is actually down as no excess (I haven't doubled checked that) and NI as moderate excess.

Ireland's death statistics are published quarterly, usually around 9 months behind. So nothing to compare against average, unless somebody in the CSO wants to get the finger out.

I don't think Covid deaths are being "left out" in Ireland but its probable that we have the same 10-20% other regions are missing from official figures.

wakka12

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Because England and Wales publish death Statistics combined. through the ONS. Super interesting, seems like if you took the official figures till the 17th of April both regions are about 3k deaths off average after removing Covid deaths. And while its across the board, its primarily in elderly people.

Ireland's death statistics are published quarterly, usually around 9 months behind. So nothing to compare against average, unless somebody in the CSO wants to get the finger out.

I don't think Covid deaths are being "left out" in Ireland but its probable that we have the same 10-20% other regions are missing from official figures.

Perhaps, it is balanced out by naming every single death as COVID though. Not all of the deaths were from it even if they had it, somebody posted an article yesterday here and it said 15% of deaths in the UK who had covid were not killed by COVID but by one of the comorbities they had

Cuddlesworth

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Super interesting, seems like if you took the official figures till the 17th of April both regions are about 3k deaths off average after removing Covid deaths. And while its across the board, its primarily in elderly people.

I take that back, according to the official UK statistics, Covid deaths across the UK were at 14k by the 17th. But ONS reports it as 19k in two of the four regions, with another 3k above average deaths. With nearly 2 weeks since then and the official figure at 21,600 now , yeah their "official" numbers are well off and that 40k figure in the press is probably more realistic.

Cuddlesworth

wakka12 wrote: »

Perhaps, it is balanced out by naming every single death as COVID though. Not all of the deaths were from it even if they had it, somebody posted an article yesterday here and it said 15% of deaths in the UK who had covid were not killed by COVID but by one of the comorbities they had

That seems like it's trying to skirt around the fact that the virus was a contributing factor in their death.

goose2005

Widdensushi wrote: »

why England and Wales?

Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate for many things, like the legal and health systems.

jaykay74

STB. wrote: »

Whats your thoughts on Sweden's failed herd immunity approach? Other Nordic countries now opening up business with lower death rates..

The only thing we have in common with Sweden is our failure in tackling nursing homes.

I find it funny when people just won't back down when they make a mistake. There is no issue with saying, I quoted some out of date info, my bad. Anyway, deflect away asking random stuff instead of addressing info you put out there but won't take ownership of.

charlie14

wakka12 wrote: »

Their strategy doesnt seem all that defined. I think they are just one of the first countries to skip the denial phase and realise that much of the population do need to contract this virus because waiting for avaccine is simply not a possibility and also not a guarantee. All we can do is slow that process down enough to allow hospitals to manage

So how is that not a strategy hoping to achieve herd immunity.?

I agree their strategy does not seem all that defined.

Protecting the aged and vulnerable hasn`t worked for them and their various authorities cannot even agree on social distancing. The recommended distance appears to come down to whatever you think yourself, yet some authorities are now closing bars and restaurants for not enforcing it on their premises.

STB.

Breezin wrote: »

For the love of Odin, are you being deliberately obtuse?

How many times do you have to be told. Sweden has repeatedly said that its strategy is not premised on herd immunity. Some have said it might be a byproduct, but that it is not the strategy.
?

Obtuse ? What are we in the 80s.

It's exactly what they are pursuing and they are not even hiding it.

Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell in an interview with the BBC on Friday 24th April said that "his country would likely be in a better place to withstand a second wave of coronavirus because so many people in Sweden have now been exposed to the virus".

Asked whether Sweden's approach will help it withstand a possible second wave, Tegnell said he believed it would. "It will definitely affect the reproduction rate and slow down the spread," he said, but added that it wouldn't be enough to achieve "herd immunity."

"We know very little about the immunity of this disease, but most of the experts in Sweden agree that some kind of immunity we definitely will have because a lot of people that have been tested so far have produced antibodies ... We hope this will make it easier for us in the long run."

In Another interview with USAToday he said 'herd immunity' in Sweden might be a few weeks away

Their own officials have been saying it for ages.

Wake up. Its exactly what they are doing. They are so far down the road, there is no turning back. The damage is done.

STB.

jaykay74 wrote: »

I find it funny when people just won't back down when they make a mistake. There is no issue with saying, I quoted some out of date info, my bad. Anyway, deflect away asking random stuff instead of addressing info you put out there but won't take ownership of.

There's quite a few disciples of herd immunity on this thread. Now we are seeing it for what it is. Its been an unmitigated disaster. They have gambled with peoples lives and they have lost.

Something the emotionally detached won't give two fúcks about, so I don't find it funny kiddo.

dubrov

STB. wrote: »

There's quite a few disciples of herd immunity on this thread. Now we are seeing it for what it is. Its been an unmitigated disaster. They have gambled with peoples lives and they have lost.

Something the emotionally detached won't give two fúcks about, so I don't find it funny kiddo.

It was a gamble either way.

In the absence of a vaccine/cure, can you explain how the Irish approach has been superior to Sweden?

STB.

dubrov wrote: »

It was a gamble either way.

In the absence of a vaccine/cure, can you explain how the Irish approach has been superior to Sweden?

You don't gamble with peoples lives or adopt a survival of the fittest regime. That's worse than a gamble.

Putting in public health measures that has slowed contagion, not let it spread wildly.

In Sweden case vs other Nordic countries, the evidence of limited or no measures against proactive measures are there for all to see. 3 times the deaths in one country Sweden (10million) vs all other Nordic countries combined (17million).

Sweden have effectively abdicated their public health responsibilities on the back of a maverick epidemiologist who had a theory that had no medical or scientific basis. Its economy first. 2000 scientists including the chairman of the Nobel Foundation have come out against him.

cnocbui

STB. wrote: »

There's quite a few disciples of herd immunity on this thread. Now we are seeing it for what it is. Its been an unmitigated disaster. They have gambled with peoples lives and they have lost.

Something the emotionally detached won't give two fúcks about, so I don't find it funny kiddo.

You don't seem to get the basics. Without a vaccine - which we can't afford to wait for, the number of virus related deaths will be the same, no matter what approach you take. Lock down delays the inevitable for the sake of the health services capacity, it doesn't prevent it. Sweden's nordic neighbours you seem so keen on, will see an increase in cases and deaths when they ease up on lock down, which we saw with Germany.

Blut2

STB. wrote: »

There's quite a few disciples of herd immunity on this thread. Now we are seeing it for what it is. Its been an unmitigated disaster. They have gambled with peoples lives and they have lost.

Something the emotionally detached won't give two fúcks about, so I don't find it funny kiddo.

Sweden's hospitals and ICUs have never once been at capacity. They're only at approx 45% ICU [1] usage right now. No corona case who needs medical care is being turned away, or has been at any point in the last 2 months. And on top of that, their deaths per capita are lower that Irelands - and far below that of a number of other countries in Europe. [2]

All this despite having no full economic lockdown, so far less damage done to their economy. And no patients missing their cancer treatments in hospitals. And no kids missing school. And no people with mental problems suffering, or stuck at home in abusive relationships, suffering. etc

So how has their approach been an "unmitigated disaster" exactly? If anything, the figures would point to Ireland's approach having been an unmitigated disaster: we've taken far more damaging, strict lockdown steps than Sweden yet our death rate is even higher than theirs.

[1]https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/coronavirus-covid-19/socialstyrelsens-roll-och-uppdrag/

[2]https://i.imgur.com/h1HOBeU.jpg

Breezin

STB. wrote: »

There's quite a few disciples of herd immunity on this thread. Now we are seeing it for what it is. Its been an unmitigated disaster. They have gambled with peoples lives and they have lost.

Something the emotionally detached won't give two fúcks about, so I don't find it funny kiddo.

You really are attached to your straw man. Very few arguing simply for herd immunity.

[Deleted User]

cnocbui wrote: »

You don't seem to get the basics. Without a vaccine - which we can't afford to wait for, the number of virus related deaths will be the same, no matter what approach you take. Lock down delays the inevitable for the sake of the health services capacity, it doesn't prevent it. Sweden's nordic neighbours you seem so keen on, will see an increase in cases and deaths when they ease up on lock down, which we saw with Germany.

Without a vaccine, the number of virus deaths is the same IF the SAME number of people are exposed to the virus. At a reproductive rate of below 1, the virus eventually disappears. It is not an either or situation.

wakka12

Ribs1234 wrote: »

Without a vaccine, the number of virus deaths is the same IF the SAME number of people are exposed to the virus. At a reproductive rate of below 1, the virus eventually disappears. It is not an either or situation.

It is barely below 1 with a lockdown. I dont know how realistic it is to try and maintain that indefinitely

cnocbui

Ribs1234 wrote: »

Without a vaccine, the number of virus deaths is the same IF the SAME number of people are exposed to the virus. At a reproductive rate of below 1, the virus eventually disappears. It is not an either or situation.

China had a resurgence, Hokaido has a second wave, Germany has seen a resurgence, as has Singapore and Korea. Nice hypothesis, pity about the reality.

ush

Michael J Ryan of this parish discusses the Swedish strategy

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/who-om-sveriges-strategi-kan-vara-en-framtida-modell

jaykay74

STB. wrote: »

.

How many ICU beds are there in Sweden per 100,000 ? You had an opinion on it earlier in the week. Do you still hold that opinion ?

silverharp

jaykay74 wrote: »

How many ICU beds are there in Sweden per 100,000 ? You had an opinion on it earlier in the week. Do you still hold that opinion ?

their existing ICU capacity was in and around 600 for a population near 10m . They will have expanded that by now.

Pinch Flat

Ireland couldn't have taken the gamble that Sweden has. We had the lowest amount on ICU beds per head of population in the OECD and woefully inadequate medical and nursing staff numbers. No effective primary care system. Our health system would have been quickly overwhelmed as one of the weakest health systems in Europe. The decision Ireland too would have been made weeks even months ago - hindsight is not much use now if we had an Italy / Spain situation on our door step and 10,000 dead.

Breezin

ush wrote: »

Michael J Ryan of this parish discusses the Swedish strategy

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/who-om-sveriges-strategi-kan-vara-en-framtida-modell

An intelligent analysis. Sweden is most certainly not doing nothing, and it has a clear strategy, based on the concept of responsible citizenship, not coercion.

The hard lockdowners will be disappointed.

[Deleted User]

Blut2 wrote: »

@Wetasanotter you seem rather angry - and also appear to have completely misquoted me multiple times in that rather lengthy post to create strawmen for some reason. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that Sweden now, officially has a lower death rate than Ireland - and has been proven more successful at fighting corona - but the statistics don't lie. You can get your citations for the death figures from multiple sources, they're all over google.

"Hi, I'm someone that doesn't understand that the first thing you learn when studying statistics is that correlation does not equal causation.

I'm also someone that has no understanding of what confounding variables are.

To add insult to injury, I also don't understand why when comparing statistics, you should account for differing demographics"

Yeah, I'm angry at rank stupidity and people who think that opinions = evidence.

Also, please stop lying. I didn't misquote you and if I had, you would have been delighted to point out where I had. Instead you responded with more baseless nonsense, since it seems like that's all your capable of actually posting since your actual argument is laughably and objectively wrong. I asked for citations to back up your multiple claims - your response was just to lie some more.

Ireland having the same reported death rate as Sweden is a statistic. It is not evidence of anything. The reason it isn't evidence of anything is because

a) We have no idea what proportion of the true death rate the reported mortality rate in each country represents

b) We have no idea of what effect different country level factors played on out how a flu virus spreads in them

c) We have no idea if they faced relatively the same initial spread of the virus based on incoming infected travelers

d) We have no idea of tens of more possible variables and factors that could effect the mortality rate

The reason Nordic countries tend to be grouped together is because they share the same broad basket of demographics, geography, culture and society. Your argument is nonsense on the face of it because Sweden, when compared to the countries closest to it in all those respects, is doing terribly. What you're arguing is objectively irrational, illogical, and anti-intellectual. But you keep doing it anyway because you don't understand the different between an opinion and a fact - and you're willing to say things that are demonstrably untrue to support your opinion.

Pinch Flat

Breezin wrote: »

responsible citizenship

That's the key difference with Ireland. We still had muppets driving 100's of kilometers to collect trampolines, puppies, etc. Ireland is still a very socially immature state, and people can't be relied upon to do what is good for the common good and act as responsible citizens.

hmmm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The reason why WHO are being cagey about Antibodies and immunity is that there is simply no way to test the entire global population, countries do not have the infrastructure to facilitate it. There are not enough test kits either.

It is easier to say that it is not a definitive solution than to declare that it is and then have the problem of 8 billion people looking for an antibody test.

Test kits are irrelevant. Until a proper study is conducted the WHO cannot come out and declare that you are immune after getting Covid. If they did say that, and get it wrong, the implications could be horrendous. You probably are immune for a couple of years, but we need the proper scientific studies to make that announcement as a fact.

The WHO are not Donald Trump, and can't just come out and declare their "hunches" as facts. Following Trump's hunches is how you end up like the US wasting time on Chloroquine, losing a month on test kits which don't work, and having people turn up in ER after drinking bleach.

cnocbui

Pinch Flat wrote: »

That's the key difference with Ireland. We still had muppets driving 100's of kilometers to collect trampolines, puppies, etc. Ireland is still a very socially immature state, and people can't be relied upon to do what is good for the common good and act as responsible citizens.

That is socially responsible. You are missing the whole point. There is no greater virus transmission mechanism involved in driving a hundred km to pick up a trampoline than driving 5 to pick up a loaf of bread and 2L of milk.

The Irish government is treating everyone like stupid children. Look at the ridiculous begrudgery they pulled at Easter, having road blocks to stop people traveling to their holiday homes. The road blocks were more of a potential virus vector than people driving to a holiday home and back and acting responsibly.

The Swedish government are saying act responsibly and do what you want within that guidelines that doesn't involve a risk of either transmitting or getting the virus.