Sweden avoiding lockdown

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/pL2Myw/kommuner-morkade-spridning-pa-aldreboenden
https://ekuriren.se/nyheter/sormland/coronakrisen-bland-aldre-morklagd-av-kommunerna-sm5392670.aspx

charlie14 wrote: »

That may have been the case, that it has been around longer than we initially though, but that would not explain the sudden rise of infections and deaths in such countries as Italy and Spain.

It has certainly not been spreading widely for a long time. If it had, it would have made it's way into at least one nursing home and killed many and it's presence in society noticed quickly. A virus doesnt spread since December then hit most nursing homes in Europe simultaneously, the virus may have been here a while ago, but not many people had it, that is for sure

biko

8 of 9 municipalities in Sörmland have been found hiding the numbers of the infected from the news.

As one manager so eloquently puts it

I do not know how many people are infected at each retirement home, and I have no need to know how many people are infected at each retirement home. What would I use that information for?

biko wrote: »

8 of 9 municipalities in Sörmland have been found hiding the numbers of the infected from the news.

As one manager so eloquently puts it

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/pL2Myw/kommuner-morkade-spridning-pa-aldreboenden
https://ekuriren.se/nyheter/sormland/coronakrisen-bland-aldre-morklagd-av-kommunerna-sm5392670.aspx

Unfortunately I`m not overly surprised.
I read newspaper interviews with a few care workers in those home who wished to remain anonymous some time ago where they said they said they were instructed to only were PPE when dealing with confirmed cases within these homes. They made the point that with these homes in lockdown then there was a very high probability that it was the carers who were transmitting this infection.
I didn`t mention it at the time simply because it is very easy to get attacked here for scaremongering. With those authorities not even wishing to know the numbers infected, then for me at least, it casts doubt on a lot of the figures and projections coming from Sweden.

Hmmzis

wakka12 wrote: »

It has certainly not been spreading widely for a long time. If it had, it would have made it's way into at least one nursing home and killed many and it's presence in society noticed quickly. A virus doesnt spread since December then hit most nursing homes in Europe simultaneously, the virus may have been here a while ago, but not many people had it, that is for sure

And that is odd. How come it hasn't been running rampant earlier? While the max incubation period is 14 days, the median is only 5 days.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sars-cov-2-study-confirms-previous-incubation-period-estimates

For something with an R0 of up to 5.7 (that's highly infectious)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

how come we were only seeing the worst of it in mid March to mid April in most of Europe? Even assuming an R0 of 4 that our CMO mentioned, we should have had millions of cases by mid February as by that time nobody had altered their behaviour to counter the infections.
So, why the apparent lag? Why aren't we seeing more infections and fatalities from February and early March?

Hence, I've bolded that phrase in the quote. How is that even possible with something that's assumed this infectious (as it apparently seems to be) for that long a time?

Dec 27th is the first French confirmed ICU case, that puts the infection date at least 10 days back to the 17th Dec.

I'm sure there has to be a very logical and maybe even a very simple explanation for this. I just simply can't wrap my head around that now.

Blut2

The only explanation that I've seen to date that makes some sense of the now confirmed, much earlier, timeline is that corona is even less lethal than we currently think to young healthy people. So if it entered a country in December, but for the initial few months mostly spread in younger populations, it went unnoticed. Some older people probably did die of it - but were assessed as normal flu/pneumonia/or just old age deaths, because they weren't dying in numbers much higher than usual.

Things only changed when it started spreading widely in retirement homes, where the death rate suddenly stood out as something much higher / more unusual than normal. And thats when things started "kicking off" in late February in Europe in the media and public eye.

Strazdas

Bad news today for the Swedish 'non-lockdown' fans....it looks like it has made very little difference to their economic outlook compared to their neighbours

https://twitter.com/CapEconEurope/status/1257260326862626816

Blut2 wrote: »

The only explanation that I've seen to date that makes some sense of the now confirmed, much earlier, timeline is that corona is even less lethal than we currently think to young healthy people. So if it entered a country in December, but for the initial few months mostly spread in younger populations, it went unnoticed. Some older people probably did die of it - but were assessed as normal flu/pneumonia/or just old age deaths, because they weren't dying in numbers much higher than usual.

Things only changed when it started spreading widely in retirement homes, where the death rate suddenly stood out as something much higher / more unusual than normal. And thats when things started "kicking off" in late February in Europe in the media and public eye.

Young people of society are extremely mixed with the old . Everyone has grandparents, parents who meet grandparents, elderly neighbours, and many meeting places where all ages mix. Its not a segragated society. A virus circulating in the young of society will quickly make it's way to the rest of older society, so I dont see how that theory makes any sense

In March, it began killing many older people who werent in nursing homes. There was a massive uptake in ICU usage across the board in communities at the same time we observed mass death in nursing homes. That is what was noticed before the deaths in nursing homes, in fact they were for a long time considered a very secondary issue to the collapse of medical health services across western Europe. So again, dont see how that theory stands up.

The most likely theory is of course that it simply was not circulating widely in Europe until late February/March

Seweryn

I have just downloaded the data available from Swedish authorities - all deaths recorded every day from 2015 to 20th April 2020, and I compared the periods between 1st Jan and 20th April from years 2015 to 2020.

As you can see they have recorded no more deaths this year than the average for the same period recorded in previous years.

The previous years average (2015 - 2019) works out at 2,947.6, this year it is 2,931, so well within the norm, about 0.6 % less actually.

95774232_240462994032362_3694141318780420096_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_oc=AQl6c4V7lHTpZ7vsEgCrg94x3yR0r-ghFpWqyYHrzS-Cn7b53dW4BMqMZK8KUqKvlt2Y5XyKWnHbMc48aJLyUUfm&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&_nc_tp=7&oh=3a25d224dac12f973ace6815e3fd8f8a&oe=5ED7035F

95774232_240462994032362_3694141318780420096_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_oc=AQl6c4V7lHTpZ7vsEgCrg94x3yR0r-ghFpWqyYHrzS-Cn7b53dW4BMqMZK8KUqKvlt2Y5XyKWnHbMc48aJLyUUfm&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&_nc_tp=7&oh=3a25d224dac12f973ace6815e3fd8f8a&oe=5ED7035F

This is turning out to be a really bloody weird virus alright. Sweden should be swamped, whereas Italy who've been in hard lockdown for months are only seeing a drop off recently in deaths and they were hit very badly and nearly overwhelmed. Spain not much better. The UK have been hit very badly too. New York ditto. I mean if you look at any seasonal flu that does the annual world tour, rates and peaks and troughs of infection and hospitalisations are very similar around the western world. Death rates too. This dose on the other hand seems to vary wildly all over the place.

wakka12 wrote: »

Young people of society are extremely mixed with the old . Everyone has grandparents, parents who meet grandparents, elderly neighbours, and many meeting places where all ages mix. Its not a segragated society. A virus circulating in the young of society will quickly make it's way to the rest of older society, so I dont see how that theory makes any sense

In March, it began killing many older people who werent in nursing homes. There was a massive uptake in ICU usage across the board in communities at the same time we observed mass death in nursing homes. That is what was noticed before the deaths in nursing homes, in fact they were for a long time considered a very secondary issue to the collapse of medical health services across western Europe. So again, dont see how that theory stands up.

It might be subtle local and cultural differences at play? So cultures with more nuclear family setups where the generations live more separate lives would be slower to spread infection, whereas cultures with more extended family structures with more regular and closer contacts between generations would spread faster? Even how "touchy feely" or how personal space is defined in a culture is could make a difference? EG Spaniards and Italians are more likely to stand closer to you than say Swedes or Finns. Where an infection lands first cpuld make a difference. So if a virus arrives in someone living in Donegal it'll spread more slowly than if it arrives in New York.

Strazdas

Wibbs wrote: »

This is turning out to be a really bloody weird virus alright. Sweden should be swamped, whereas Italy who've been in hard lockdown for months are only seeing a drop off recently in deaths and they were hit very badly and nearly overwhelmed. Spain not much better. The UK have been hit very badly too. New York ditto. I mean if you look at any seasonal flu that does the annual world tour, rates and peaks and troughs of infection and hospitalisations are very similar around the western world. Death rates too. This dose on the other hand seems to vary wildly all over the place.

One theory is that Swedes tend to be quite standoffish and to prefer their own company (many people choosing to live alone). Culturally, they would be very different to the Latins and southern Europeans.

Perhaps all of this fed into their decision not to fully lock down.

Drumpot

Wibbs wrote: »

This is turning out to be a really bloody weird virus alright. Sweden should be swamped, whereas Italy who've been in hard lockdown for months are only seeing a drop off recently in deaths and they were hit very badly and nearly overwhelmed. Spain not much better. The UK have been hit very badly too. New York ditto. I mean if you look at any seasonal flu that does the annual world tour, rates and peaks and troughs of infection and hospitalisations are very similar around the western world. Death rates too. This dose on the other hand seems to vary wildly all over the place.

Could different strains explain a significant portion of Scandinavia low numbers?

A lot of people appear to be presuming Sweden just got all their calls right. I’d say when we know more, cultural differences, geographical location and a lot of luck played a significant role. If their strategy was used by all it simply wouldn’t of worked.

Charles Babbage

Seweryn wrote: »

I have just downloaded the data available from Swedish authorities - all deaths recorded every day from 2015 to 20th April 2020, and I compared the periods between 1st Jan and 20th April from years 2015 to 2020.

As you can see they have recorded no more deaths this year than the average for the same period recorded in previous years.

The previous years average (2015 - 2019) works out at 2,947.6, this year it is 2,931, so well within the norm, about 0.6 % less actually.

Adding in January and February, when there was no Covid19, is misleading, especially as some years had significant flu in January.
Try the period 15 March - 30 April.

from EuroMOMO

Drumpot wrote: »

Could different strains explain a significant portion of Scandinavia low numbers?

Maybe, and/or different outcomes in different genetic populations. IIRC the strain that hit the US West coast early on wasn't as murderous as the one that hit the East, plus way more Black Americans are dying. Though maybe fewer Black Americans live in the west coast? Black and Asian(in the UK sense) seem to be particularly hard hit in Britain too. Now that can be explained as socioeconomic, but among NHS staff, doctors nurses etc, the Black and Asian folks are getting sicker and more are dying than their White counterparts in the same roles. Maybe Southern Europeans as populations have more people within those populations that are more susceptible to this virus, but Northern Europeans like Swedes don't have as many? It's all very bloody weird though. It's long been drummed into people that this "is no flu" and by God it's not.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

just as an update, and example....

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

28th and 29th April both at 45 as of today

[Deleted User]

Blut2 wrote: »

The only explanation that I've seen to date that makes some sense of the now confirmed, much earlier, timeline is that corona is even less lethal than we currently think to young healthy people. So if it entered a country in December, but for the initial few months mostly spread in younger populations, it went unnoticed. Some older people probably did die of it - but were assessed as normal flu/pneumonia/or just old age deaths, because they weren't dying in numbers much higher than usual.

Things only changed when it started spreading widely in retirement homes, where the death rate suddenly stood out as something much higher / more unusual than normal. And thats when things started "kicking off" in late February in Europe in the media and public eye.

I'd love to have a reliable antibody test done. I had the classic symptoms late December. I started with a cough on Christmas day. Was in agony with muscle pains St. Stephens day and was badly run down for a week. I had significant trouble breathing. Had to lie on my stomach at night to breath properly. Not one sniffle.

About a week from the worst I went to the doctor and he did a blood oxygen test and he said it was low, but not low enough for hospitalisation.

Although I isolated pretty well (thinking it was flu) youngest got it, bounced back after 3 days without it getting very bad and went back to school. I was diagnosed with 'man-flu'.

It took a month with asthma medication for my breathing to get fully back.

When Covid started presenting in Ireland I was told I couldn't have had it late December. Now confirmed cases are going further and further back.

I dont understand why everyone thinks they have COVID though just because they had symptoms in Jan/Dec? Like flu is literally similar symptoms, flu can be debilitating and dangerous, its far more likely you and and every other person posting similar on boards just had flu, because we know for a fact that was circulating widely in December and January..as it does every year..so it is the most likely cause of illness, by a mile

wakka12 wrote: »

I dont understand why everyone thinks they have COVID though just because they had symptoms in Jan/Dec? Like flu is literally similar symptoms, flu can be debilitating and dangerous, its literally far more likely you and and every other person posting similar on boards just had flu, because we know for a fact that was circulating widely in December and January..as it does every year..so it is the most likely cause of illness, by a mile

+1000. Like I said the only reason I'd be interested in an antibody test in my case is 1) with one exception I've never had the flu in my life, 2) the guy I caught the dose from in January had just come back from an overseas trip with it and he thought it was one of those sniffles you sometimes get from plane trips and change in temps 3) he and his family had already had the flu in early December. I didn't catch that one, though was working with him at the time. His whole family was affected by that, his kids were sick as dogs with it, but the January one, only one was a bit sickly for a couple of days, the others were grand, while him and his wife were hit very hard by it. If 2 and 3 weren't in play I'd dismiss any chance entirely, with them in play I would find it interesting at least to see if I had the antibodies. Though of course I could have them from picking it up asymptomatically in the mean time.

As for it not having a chance to be here. I agree it's highly unlikely for a few reasons. Chiefly reflected by the numbers of flu admissions were dropping before Covid19 started to hit here and cases climbed. As for possible transmission routes. I can think of two people who rent out to Chinese folks who had their tenants come back from China during the Christmas holidays and in the first week of January.

The only way to be sure would be for some enterprising doc or researcher to go over blood samples from hospitalised patients in December and January and test for the virus. I wouldn't be too surprised to find someone had done that already, or will do it in due course, especially with the news that a French woman had it in late December.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, and/or different outcomes in different genetic populations. IIRC the strain that hit the US West coast early on wasn't as murderous as the one that hit the East, plus way more Black Americans are dying. Though maybe fewer Black Americans live in the west coast? Black and Asian(in the UK sense) seem to be particularly hard hit in Britain too. Now that can be explained as socioeconomic, but among NHS staff, doctors nurses etc, the Black and Asian folks are getting sicker and more are dying than their White counterparts in the same roles. Maybe Southern Europeans as populations have more people within those populations that are more susceptible to this virus, but Northern Europeans like Swedes don't have as many? It's all very bloody weird though. It's long been drummed into people that this "is no flu" and by God it's not.

There have been reports that in Stockholm migrant communities have been harder hit, but I don`t know if that full explains it.
In 2010 1.33 million of the inhabitant were born outside of Sweden. Of these 860,000 were born outside of the EU. Of that number I think it is safe to assume a large number of those would fall within that category of being very susceptible and be living in the community.
It is difficult to tell from the statistics, but if you are correct then other than the care home deaths, if this group do make up the majority of the other fatalities then they are being very hard hit by this virus.

Blut2

wakka12 wrote: »

Young people of society are extremely mixed with the old . Everyone has grandparents, parents who meet grandparents, elderly neighbours, and many meeting places where all ages mix. Its not a segragated society. A virus circulating in the young of society will quickly make it's way to the rest of older society, so I dont see how that theory makes any sense

In March, it began killing many older people who werent in nursing homes. There was a massive uptake in ICU usage across the board in communities at the same time we observed mass death in nursing homes. That is what was noticed before the deaths in nursing homes, in fact they were for a long time considered a very secondary issue to the collapse of medical health services across western Europe. So again, dont see how that theory stands up.

The most likely theory is of course that it simply was not circulating widely in Europe until late February/March

But now with confirmed cases in Europe in mid-December thats just not mathematically possible. With an r0 rate of r3 with no lockdown in place (at current estimates), an incubation stage to infectious stage median of 5 days as currently stated, and lets assume that the mid-December case in France linked above was the very first case in France (of which theres no guarantee) their infection spread would look like:

December 15th: 1
December 20th: 3
December 25th: 9
December 30th: 27
Jan 4th: 81
Jan 29th: 19683
Feb 3rd: 59049

Feb 28th: 14,348,907
Mar 4th: 43,046,721

ie over 100% of the French population would have been infected by March 9th, well before any lockdowns were in place.

edit: or even if you want to go with an alternative growth rate estimate thats widely used, of approx 30% per day with no lockdown measures in place, the French spread would have gone from 1 patient on December 15th to 95 million cases 70 days later - or roughly by the end of February. Again way, way over whats possible.

Which means either the current estimates of r0 rates must be off by an order of magnitude, or else there are substantial portions of the population immune for some reason. There isn't any other mathematical explanation - given we have more and more confirmed cases in Europe in December and January being found.

Blut2 wrote: »

But now with confirmed cases in Europe in mid-December thats just not mathematically possible. With an r0 rate of r3 with no lockdown in place (at current estimates), an incubation stage to infectious stage median of 5 days as currently stated, and lets assume that the mid-December case in France linked above was the very first case in France (of which theres no guarantee) their infection spread would look like:

December 15th: 1
December 20th: 3
December 25th: 9
December 30th: 27
Jan 4th: 81
Jan 29th: 19683
Feb 3rd: 59049

Feb 28th: 14,348,907
Mar 4th: 43,046,721

ie over 100% of the French population would have been infected by March 9th, well before any lockdowns were in place.

Which means either the current estimates of r0 rates must be off by an order of magnitude, or else there are substantial portions of the population immune for some reason. There isn't any other mathematical explanation - given we have more and more confirmed cases in Europe in December and January being found.

Confirmed case, not cases. One case in France. Could easily have been a tourist from China/Hubei who happened to become hospitalised while in France, there was no info as far as Im aware made available as to where he was from or where they had been.

I am not aware of any other cases in Europe from December or January that have been confirmed. Who else?

biko

22721 cases
2769 dead
12.1% of known cases have passed

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

Ginger n Lemon

wakka12 wrote: »

I dont understand why everyone thinks they have COVID though just because they had symptoms in Jan/Dec? Like flu is literally similar symptoms, flu can be debilitating and dangerous, its far more likely you and and every other person posting similar on boards just had flu, because we know for a fact that was circulating widely in December and January..as it does every year..so it is the most likely cause of illness, by a mile

I know I had it in January, purely because I've passed it onto 2 other relatives. I have never ever passed on any flu or any other sickness to anyone before, to my knowledge. I am well over 25 years of age.

Unless there is a contagious flu running rampant out there along with covid hand in hand?

Blut2 wrote: »

But now with confirmed cases in Europe in mid-December thats just not mathematically possible. With an r0 rate of r3 with no lockdown in place (at current estimates), an incubation stage to infectious stage median of 5 days as currently stated, and lets assume that the mid-December case in France linked above was the very first case in France (of which theres no guarantee) their infection spread would look like:

December 15th: 1
December 20th: 3
December 25th: 9
December 30th: 27
Jan 4th: 81
Jan 29th: 19683
Feb 3rd: 59049

Feb 28th: 14,348,907
Mar 4th: 43,046,721

ie over 100% of the French population would have been infected by March 9th, well before any lockdowns were in place.

edit: or even if you want to go with an alternative growth rate estimate thats widely used, of approx 30% per day with no lockdown measures in place, the French spread would have gone from 1 patient on December 15th to 95 million cases 70 days later - or roughly by the end of February. Again way, way over whats possible.

Which means either the current estimates of r0 rates must be off by an order of magnitude, or else there are substantial portions of the population immune for some reason. There isn't any other mathematical explanation - given we have more and more confirmed cases in Europe in December and January being found.

If a substantial portion of a population were immune then you would expect a large percentage of that population to have antibodies.
To my knowledge that has not been reflected in any antibody testing.

Bit cynical

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, and/or different outcomes in different genetic populations. IIRC the strain that hit the US West coast early on wasn't as murderous as the one that hit the East, plus way more Black Americans are dying. Though maybe fewer Black Americans live in the west coast? Black and Asian(in the UK sense) seem to be particularly hard hit in Britain too. Now that can be explained as socioeconomic, but among NHS staff, doctors nurses etc, the Black and Asian folks are getting sicker and more are dying than their White counterparts in the same roles. Maybe Southern Europeans as populations have more people within those populations that are more susceptible to this virus, but Northern Europeans like Swedes don't have as many? It's all very bloody weird though. It's long been drummed into people that this "is no flu" and by God it's not.

John Campbell has suggested that vitamin D may play a role in either preventing infection or fighting it once infected. Those with darker skins don't produce as much naturally from the sun.

Those in lower socio-economic bands will also have poorer diets and may also lack vitamin D from food.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I know I had it in January, purely because I've passed it onto 2 other relatives. I have never ever passed on any flu or any other sickness to anyone before, to my knowledge. I am well over 25 years of age.

Unless there is a contagious flu running rampant out there along with covid hand in hand?

A flu, like any other virus can, and often does mutate.
Just because you did not have it before does not mean you would not get a mutated version.
Flu vaccines are based on the previous strains of the virus but are not 100% effective for that reason. Antigenic drift can change a virus to the extent that the bodies antibodies will not recognise and neutralise the newer virus.

Bit cynical wrote: »

John Campbell has suggested that vitamin D may play a role in either preventing infection or fighting it once infected. Those with darker skins don't produce as much naturally from the sun.

Those in lower socio-economic bands will also have poorer diets and may also lack vitamin D from food.

I don`t know if that would fully explain it unless the Swede`s consume a lot of vitamin D supplements.
We may not be blessed with many long sunny days, but we are at least better than Sweden.

Hmmzis

charlie14 wrote: »

If a substantial portion of a population were immune then you would expect a large percentage of that population to have antibodies.
To my knowledge that has not been reflected in any antibody testing.

Not necessarily, one other thing that comes to mind is not everyone might be susceptible of catching it. I don't know how that would even be possible biologically though. We all have ACE2 receptors as far as I know.