Sweden avoiding lockdown

Hmmzis wrote: »

NZ had a vastly better starting point, same as Iceland. By the time we entered our lockdown it was way too late to go for an erradication option. Also, the border to the North complicates things in a non-trivial way. Iceland is also on their way to erradicate it, so is S Korea. Australia might get there soon. Until a vaccine is available their borders will have to stay shut or they're back at square one. No such option for us as we can't just wall off the North. Also, we would need a much harsher lockdown then.

If we get our hands on a good suply of Remdesivir and that Tocilizumab protocol soon then we should come out better than Sweden. Otherwise it's going to be a wash at the end.

If we impouned a few northern cars coming sound and Northern Ireland did the same for southern cars it would quickly stop the messing.
With the figures for Monaghan,Louth and Cavan until we sort that we are working with one hand tied behind our backs.

Simdruid

Breezin wrote: »

The situation now. We are close to Sweden, at what cost?

I have a friend in Sweden, who told me that only hospitalised cases are being tested, and you can see if you compare numbers on whatever site you like to look at (eg worldometers) that we have tested more people in total than they have. You can't compare these figures as they are not "like for like".

IAMAMORON

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.

New Zealand is a really weak example, it is hardly an epicentre now is it?

I have to shamefully admit to hoping Sweden gets more deaths than us. Would be hard to stomach the lockdown sacrifices being for nothing then seeing the Swedes still enjoying bars and restaurants etc and reaching the same conclusion.

I do feel shame having this Schadenfreude but being honest.

wakka12

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.

Just 1% of NZ covid tests come back positive
13% of tests in Ireland come back positive

We had far more widespread infection. Different situation, needs different intervention. NZ have it beaten because they barely had any epicemic in the first place

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to shamefully admit to hoping Sweden gets more deaths than us. Would be hard to stomach the lockdown sacrifices being for nothing then seeing the Swedes still enjoying bars and restaurants etc and reaching the same conclusion.

I do feel shame having this Schadenfreude but being honest.

Perhaps you are hoping Ireland suffers fewer deaths as a result of the measures taken, and are looking for some proof/evidence that this might be do.

You're not willing Swedes to die.

Don't be hard on yourself.

Nermal

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.

What's the point of having it beaten if you can't open your border for tourism, and you citizens cannot travel abroad? Are you prepared to live without those things for two years?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to shamefully admit to hoping Sweden gets more deaths than us. Would be hard to stomach the lockdown sacrifices being for nothing then seeing the Swedes still enjoying bars and restaurants etc and reaching the same conclusion.

I do feel shame having this Schadenfreude but being honest.

Swedes don't enjoy bars & restaurants the same way people in Ireland do anyway.
So, nothing alike socially.

Nermal wrote: »

What's the point of having it beaten if you can't open your border for tourism, and you citizens cannot travel abroad? Are you prepared to live without those things for two years?

I cannot see tourists flocking to Sweden anytime soon, and as practically every other country in Europe,and even the U.S., disagrees with their strategy, it is doubtful if many would be welcoming Swedish tourists with open arms either in that time-frame

Roger_007

wakka12 wrote: »

Just 1% of NZ covid tests come back positive
13% of tests in Ireland come back positive

We had far more widespread infection. Different situation, needs different intervention. NZ have it beaten because they barely had any epicemic in the first place

NZ haven’t got it beaten, nor has anyone else. It is just suppressed for the time being and virtually none of the population have immunity. They are not really that much better off than anyone else, they can’t go back to the ‘old normal’.

biko

21520cases
2653 dead
12.3% of known cases have passed

Numbers from FHMs own tracking page
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

charlie14 wrote: »

I cannot see tourists flocking to Sweden anytime soon, and as practically every other country in Europe,and even the U.S., disagrees with their strategy, it is doubtful if many would be welcoming Swedish tourists with open arms either in that time-frame

Quite the opposite in fact.

If there are any international tourists (there likely won't be any for a long time) they would be more likely to travel to regions where the virus has already spread through as the risk of infection would be much lower.

Factor in no lockdown as well and it is likely that tourism in Sweden will be much higher than most other places (although still very low).

IAMAMORON

The toldyousoing that this thread will entail in a years time is going to be something fierce.

It has been ugly for a while if I am honest.

These are people's lives we are discussing, apologies for virtue signalling but I do think it needs to be said. If this was somewhere in Africa being discussed the thread would be shut down.

I respect that Sweden has polarised opinion but some posters could do with checking themselves and what they are posting and why?

wakka12

dubrov wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact.

If there are any international tourists (there likely won't be any for a long time) they would be more likely to travel to regions where the virus has already spread through as the risk of infection would be much lower.

Factor in no lockdown as well and it is likely that tourism in Sweden will be much higher than most other places (although still very low).

Other than young backpackers the other market of tourists families and pensioners will absolutely not visit somewhere they believe to be undertaking a 'herd immunity' expirement in, no matter how many statistics you threw at them to try and convince them that most swedes were immune and risk was lower. The whole concept will just be extremely off putting to any tourists to sweden for a very long time

wakka12 wrote: »

Other than young backpackers the other market of tourists families and pensioners will absolutely not visit somewhere they believe to be undertaking a 'herd immunity' expirement in, no matter how many statistics you threw at them to try and convince them that most swedes were immune and risk was lower. The whole concept will just be extremely off putting to any tourists to sweden for a very long time

I agree that it will be a long time before tourists start flocking back anywhere.

However, if in the future the death rate in Sweden is below the rest of Europe (and there is no guarantee it will be) then it would become a more attractive destination.

dubrov wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact.

If there are any international tourists (there likely won't be any for a long time) they would be more likely to travel to regions where the virus has already spread through as the risk of infection would be much lower.

Factor in no lockdown as well and it is likely that tourism in Sweden will be much higher than most other places (although still very low).

Young back-packers perhaps but the real money in tourism is from those staying in hotels, renting apartments and the restaurant trade.Families and older aged.
I cannot see any great numbers of either flocking there on the basis that large numbers may have been infected and some may have, or not, some immunity.

Especially not if there are young back-packed from all over the world.

The real money spending tourists for the foreseeable future will be more likely to head for destinations where hygiene levels are high, there is regular and trustworthy test of staff, and where there are strict social distancing policies.

charlie14 wrote: »

Young back-packers perhaps but the real money in tourism is from those staying in hotels, renting apartments and the restaurant trade.Families and older aged.
I cannot see any great numbers of either flocking there on the basis that large numbers may have been infected and some may have, or not, some immunity.

Especially not if there are young back-packed from all over the world.

The real money spending tourists for the foreseeable future will be more likely to head for destinations where hygiene levels are high, there is regular and trustworthy test of staff, and where there are strict social distancing policies.

Money spending tourists aren't going anywhere near a country with a lockdown in place. What would the point be?

Assuming Ireland exits the lockdown fully in 2 months, tourists will look at the risk at that point.Iif the death rate is 30 per day here and 3 per day in Sweden, tourists will prefer Sweden over Ireland.

dubrov wrote: »

Money spending tourists aren't going anywhere near a country with a lockdown in place. What would the point be?

Assuming Ireland exits the lockdown fully in 2 months, tourists will look at the risk at that point.Iif the death rate is 30 per day here and 3 per day in Sweden, tourists will prefer Sweden over Ireland.

There are different levels of lock-down and I cannot see tourists visiting Sweden while they are continuing in the manner they are anyway.

The money spending tourists will go where they will feel safest. Can you really see them going to a country just on the basis of herd immunity for the locals even if it was 100% effective for the lifetime of all the population. ?
Tourists spend more time and have more contact with other tourists than locals. The real money spenders are not going somewhere for the foreseeable future where even for starters there is no standard enforced social distancing. Even at that the idea that any staff in any establishment are 100% immune would never wash without them at least having undergone regular testing.
The Swede`s themselves, because of their long winters, are fond of their sun holidays. I`m not sure they would be welcomed in many countries based on nothing other than their claim they were immune either.

I give up

dubrov wrote: »

I give up

You make it sound as if it was some kind of contest.

For me it was nothing other than a conversation pointing out where I believe Sweden would have no advantage attracting the real money spending tourists - less perhaps - than anywhere else.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

for example the figures for yesterday and the day before are currently 26 and 34... it will be interesting to go back to these dates in a weeks time and see how much they have risen.

just as an update, and example....

28th and 29th april gone from 34 and 26 respectively, to both at 41 today.

Del Griffith

I'll be taking a holiday first thing after this and if Sweden keep doing what they're doing, i.e. getting on with it, it'll be my first choice.

They'll probably have the back of this thing in June whereas we'll still be in lockdown in October at this rate, with a demolished economy and the same death rate in the end anyway.

Breezin

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The toldyousoing that this thread will entail in a years time is going to be something fierce.

It has been ugly for a while if I am honest.

These are people's lives we are discussing, apologies for virtue signalling but I do think it needs to be said. If this was somewhere in Africa being discussed the thread would be shut down.

I respect that Sweden has polarised opinion but some posters could do with checking themselves and what they are posting and why?

Once you've taken the high moral ground, the righteous punishment mentality is hard to shake. I blame the Daily Mail.