Poorside wrote: » ...hardly keeping within the miraculous 15 min window.
charlie14 wrote: » If you will excuse me being equally blunt, you have no idea what this so called "complex strategy" is, and you are choosing to ignore that up until recently with the realisation that they were not going to achieve anything near the figures required for this herd immunity they are now downplaying it. Up until that they were extolling it at every opportunity. Even to the extent of criticising Britain and Denmark for not sticking with it.
biko wrote: » Tegnell says numbers like 8000 to 20000 deaths isn't unlikely, depending on how well they manage to protect the old folks, something they have not been able to do yet.https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Ftegnell-om-dodstalen-har-sakert-ratt-i-teorin%2F Meanwhile neighbours Norway have just over 200 deaths, a tenth of Sweden's
Breezin wrote: » The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?
wakka12 wrote: » Its hard to know at this moment tbh, have to remember how early into this we still are.The first person in Ireland only died from this 6 weeks ago. Despite the rates being similar currently ,Sweden's deaths are not trending donwards, Ireland's are at least
Breezin wrote: » I've already cited an article and a video which in turn refer to the complexity of not having any easy answers and in which the Swedes rather diplomatically expressed regret that a simple narrative isn't the way to beat the virus. It's true: I don't have the answers and I do not claim to be qualified to relay the Swedish strategy in detail to you better than those actually deciding and implementing it. I do believe, however, that they are taking more seriously than our regime the need to balance the effects of the cure and the disease, and their results to date bear that out. Then again, they are honest and say that the true answer won't be apparent for four or five years. Complex. Sorry. But you seem confident that you can sum it up in two words. Good for you.
charlie14 wrote: » All that and people here still advocate we should switch to the Swedish strategy that is apparently so complex they cannot explain it, while complaining that lockdown is the wrong strategy.
dubrov wrote: » The choices are to lockdown until a vaccine or switch to the Swedish approach. Neither is appealing but only one is realistic
sydthebeat wrote: » Compare us to our closest neighbour with which we share a land border. That's a MUCH more valid comparison
Breezin wrote: » Off-topic. This is the Sweden thread. Do you get why it's here?
Cupatae wrote: » Not really what makes you think those are the only 2 ways of dealing with it? i mean NZ did neither and have it practically beaten.
sydthebeat wrote: » Off topic? Why were you comparing them to us??
cnocbui wrote: » Reading this page of the thread, I get the impression a good few people think Ireland will at some point lift the lock down and that's it, job done, we can thumb our noses at the Swedes with their higher numbers. When the lock-down is lifted, our numbers will take off again. We've as much chance of eliminating this from the community as we do the common cold. Flattening the curve extends the time period the curve spans, it doesn't reduce the area under the curve - the number of dead people. It's like that song the goes: 'you take the high road, and I'll take the low road..' The journey is different but the destination reached is the same.
dubrov wrote: » I don't see how flattening the curve necessarily makes any difference if immunity exists. You could argue if immunity exists for a short period, say 6 months, then slowing the spread is a sure fire way to ensure the virus is sustained within the population indefinitely