Sweden avoiding lockdown

Change of tune from Sweden. Wonder what the posters lauding them as some kind of miracle success story will think about this

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/coronavirus-sweden-lockdown-chief-says-high-death-toll-was-surprise-2020-5-2

Dr Anders Tegnell, Sweden's state epidemiologist, described Sweden's approach on "The Daily Show with Trevor Noah" on Tuesday.

He said: "We never really calculated with a high death toll initially, I must say."

"We calculated on more people being sick, but the death toll really came as a surprise to us."

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

My good friend, dont worry, Germany will tell you, and their population sample will be much bigger than entire Sweden put together. Also looking at last point I dont think they care too much about how long immunity lasts, probably more than couple of of days, or years.

"
Germany is carrying out Europe’s first large-scale coronavirus antibody testing to help assess infection rates and monitor the spread of the virus.

One doctor involved in testing for antibodies is Ulrike Leimer-Lipke.

For these antibodies test to make sense, you must have had symptoms about four weeks beforehand," she explained. "Antibodies take a relatively long time to appear. If you only had symptoms last week, you wouldn't have antibodies by now.

We know that, especially in Germany, a lot of people already had it. And it is also very important for them, especially if they have a grandmother, mother or father whom they look after, to know whether they are already immune."

Gotta love the Germans, always a logical approach, I’m starting to think we’d be better off if hitler had of won ww2.

wakka12 wrote: »

Change of tune from Sweden. Wonder what the posters lauding them as some kind of miracle success story will think about this

https://www.businessinsider.co.za/coronavirus-sweden-lockdown-chief-says-high-death-toll-was-surprise-2020-5-2

I wouldn’t say that’s a change of tune, they assessed the options, went with their current approach, miscalculated death rate, and are open and honest enough to admit it.

begbysback wrote: »

I wouldn’t say that’s a change of tune, they assessed the options, went with their current approach, miscalculated death rate, and are open and honest enough to admit it.

It is a change of tune because they seemed very self assured up until very recently. It is a very sudden admission of miscalculation, seeing as I'm sure they were well aware that deaths were not trending downward as expected for a considerable amount of time by now

charlie14 wrote: »

Do I love this ? No.
But then I have never had a high level of tolerance for bulls*** or spoofers.

Says the person who thinks vaccine will be developed because there is a big demand

my friend, you need to think, you need to think hard, and you need to forget the vaccine. Below is what happened in the past. Past always repeats itself, pharma companies always pressure WHO and various scientists to push their agenda. Thinking that there are nice pharma companies out there who would love for your health to be top notch is bordering lunacy

Below is from the EU commission

"
The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, "In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The "bird-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies."

begbysback wrote: »

Gotta love the Germans, always a logical approach, I’m starting to think we’d be better off if hitler had of won ww2.

There is a great degree of irony I admit.

But then have you seen WHO and their shenanigans? They are all over the media - "no drug treatment been developed or tested effective for covid 19" "antibodies tests are unproven" "there is no evidence people do not get re infected with covid19" "vaccine is the only solution"

etc etc. Remember they said that closing borders with China back in January was a bad idea? There are some absolute crooks on this planet.

growleaves

wakka12 wrote: »

It is a change of tune because they seemed very self assured up until very recently. It is a very sudden admission of miscalculation, seeing as I'm sure they were well aware that deaths were not trending downward as expected for a considerable amount of time by now

When will the spoofers who predicted hundred of thousands of deaths absent a lockdown lose their self-assurance? Their miscalculations have a margin of error so large they must be totally shameless to be still posting away.

dubrov

wakka12 wrote:

It is a change of tune because they seemed very self assured up until very recently. It is a very sudden admission of miscalculation, seeing as I'm sure they were well aware that deaths were not trending downward as expected for a considerable amount of time by now

They have always stated there are no certainties. They have been a lot more open in their strategy than other countries.

The sad thing is that in time one approach will be deemed the correct one. The winners will be lauded and the losers villified.

growleaves

When people say that Sweden should be compared to Denmark, Norway, Finland they are admitting (whether they realise it or not) that local environmental and geographical factors are more significant in determining outcome than the lockdown itself.

Which is what opponents of the lockdown such as Dr. Sucharit Bhakti (microbiology and infectious diseases specialist) were trying to explain to people back in early March.

wakka12 wrote: »

It is a change of tune because they seemed very self assured up until very recently. It is a very sudden admission of miscalculation, seeing as I'm sure they were well aware that deaths were not trending downward as expected for a considerable amount of time by now

It’s still too early to judge the Swedes approach, though you have to admire the courage, I mean the comparisons can only be made when the dust settles, they must have known the criticism they face, and they can only claim success at a later stage.

To separate any emotion here, and just think of statistics, it’s really interesting to have their approach to use as a comparison to lockdown, both economically and mortality. If their approach does show some success then other countries may actually follow, and being a bit selfish here this may help us in the long run.

dubrov wrote: »

They have always stated there are no certainties. They have been a lot more open in their strategy than other countries.

The sad thing is that in time one approach will be deemed the correct one. The winners will be lauded and the losers villified.

Of course the approach that costs more lives will be villified

They may have stated there were no certainties but several posters have claimed the now misguided opinions of those Swedish authorities (for example that a non lockdown situation would not result in a much higher death toll) as fact

wakka12 wrote: »

Of course the approach that costs more lives will be villified

They may have stated there were no certainties but several posters have claimed the now misguided opinions of those Swedish authorities (for example that a non lockdown situation would not result in a much higher death toll) as fact

Is that a much higher death toll overall?

Lockdown means the virus survives for longer, though it seems by the nature of the virus, it will still kill those at risk, will just take a longer period to run its course.

The only ethical question I can see in the Swedes approach is if a cure or vaccine is presented, then one can ask could lives have been saved if they hung in in there, but even that seems negligible as early reports indicate the at risk groups may not be candidates for a vaccine.

dubrov

wakka12 wrote: »

Of course the approach that costs more lives will be villified

They may have stated there were no certainties but several posters have claimed the now misguided opinions of those Swedish authorities (for example that a non lockdown situation would not result in a much higher death toll) as fact

Of course the approach that costs/damages more lives will be vilified. It is unclear which approach this will be yet. My point is that there wasn't (and still isn't) enough information to be sure which way to go is correct. Based on the data at the time, the best decision may not turn out to be the correct one.

On the death toll, the Swedish approach was always likely to lead to a higher death toll up front and a lower death toll in future. This was never guaranteed.

The Swedish approach for me is that this virus is going to be around for 2 years plus and a lockdown is not implementable for this period of time. So better to adjust now than lockdown and still have to go the same route later.

growleaves

They may have stated there were no certainties but several posters have claimed the now misguided opinions of those Swedish authorities (for example that a non lockdown situation would not result in a much higher death toll) as fact

I've said I'll wait for all the evidence to come in, including some sort of post-facto standardisation of reporting criteria for one thing.

Deaths aren't the only determination of how well things went. The governments who decided to turn their societies into East Germany for 3-4 months and impoverish their citizens require extraordinary justifications to prove they were in the right and you may see in the years ahead lots of people who feel they had been 'fooled' (perhaps forgetting they themselves went along with it, such is human nature).

Unless Sweden is a terrible failure with multiple more deaths (as predicted by supporters of lockdown) than other countries its going to be hard to answer back to criticisms. I don't know if this prediction will come true since perhaps people will be congratulating themselves for locking down, but its a maybe.

begbysback wrote: »

Is that a much higher death toll overall?

Lockdown means the virus survives for longer, though it seems by the nature of the virus, it will still kill those at risk, will just take a longer period to run its course.

The only ethical question I can see in the Swedes approach is if a cure or vaccine is presented, then one can ask could lives have been saved if they hung in in there, but even that seems negligible as early reports indicate the at risk groups may not be candidates for a vaccine.

Well yeh that remains to be seen but if it's already going pear shaped according to Tegnell it wouldnt exactly instill much hope

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There is a great degree of irony I admit.

But then have you seen WHO and their shenanigans? They are all over the media - "no drug treatment been developed or tested effective for covid 19" "antibodies tests are unproven" "there is no evidence people do not get re infected with covid19" "vaccine is the only solution"

etc etc. Remember they said that closing borders with China back in January was a bad idea? There are some absolute crooks on this planet.

I’m not a big trump fan at all, but his reasons for stopping financial aid to who seem justified to me. I’m uncomfortable with the seemingly high reliance by who on China, and our reliance on China for ppe.

biko

growleaves wrote: »

When people say that Sweden should be compared to Denmark, Norway, Finland they are admitting (whether they realise it or not) that local environmental and geographical factors are more significant in determining outcome than the lockdown itself.

You can also compare Sweden to any other country, because all other countries are doing lockdown.

Comparing Sweden to its neighbours means to try to control other variables like cultural pattern around partying, association with friends/family/etc.
Like comparing Ireland with Scotland instead of Norway.

begbysback wrote: »

I’m not a big trump fan at all, but his reasons for stopping financial aid to who seem justified to me. I’m uncomfortable with the seemingly high reliance by who on China, and our reliance on China for ppe.

The whole idea of trying to implement something a communist regime has done in their country in our democratic nation is already barking mad.

Time will tell but this was always a disastrous idea from cost benefit analysis. Unless you count each life lost or saved worth 100 million euros. Given that state pensions for these elderly people adds up to 12k a year, there will be a big discrepancy.

biko

begbysback wrote: »

I wouldn’t say that’s a change of tune, they assessed the options, went with their current approach, miscalculated death rate, and are open and honest enough to admit it.

Sweden have moved the goal posts all the way from "the virus will not come to Sweden" to this: "we didn't realise how deadly it was" - all the while watching other countries like Italy/Spain/Belgium fight high death numbers.
They knew full well how deadly this was, or they are not very good at their job.

biko wrote: »

Sweden have moved the goal posts all the way from "the virus will not come to Sweden" to this: "we didn't realise how deadly it was" - all the while watching other countries like Italy/Spain/Belgium fight high death numbers.
They knew full well how deadly this was, or they are not very good at their job.

While Ireland watched what other countries were doing, and followed with fingers crossed.

Deaths in Sweden now at 3040

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Says the person who thinks vaccine will be developed because there is a big demand my friend, you need to think, you need to think hard, and you need to forget the vaccine. Below is what happened in the past. Past always repeats itself, pharma companies always pressure WHO and various scientists to push their agenda. Thinking that there are nice pharma companies out there who would love for your health to be top notch is bordering lunacy

Below is from the EU commission

"
The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, "In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The "bird-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies."

It would save time and effort if you even attempted to comprehend what was said rather than having to continually repeat it.

I said a vaccine was produced by the pharma industry because the demand was there, and like any other business, pharma will follow the money.
Unless you have missed the wordwide deaths and economic havoc this particular virus has caused, then the demand for a vaccine is there in exceptionally high numbers.Every pharma company in the world will thus be devoting their resources to find one.

Like every other business there will be those that attempt to sell their product as if it was water from the fountain of youth. That is why we have, especially in the pharma business, regulatory licensing authorities to ensure their drug does what it says on the tin.

No vaccine will be 100% safe but as you brought up swine flu then lets use that as a yardstick. Your Dr. Tegnell was in charge of a vaccination programme in Sweden for swine flu where 500 of the 5 million vaccinated developed narcolepsy. An unfortunate side effect for 1 in 10,000.

With your love of percentages that is 0.01%. None of that 500 died because of the vaccine far as I can see and that percentage is a long long way off any known or predicted levels for actual deaths from Covid19 without a vaccine.

Bit cynical

wakka12 wrote: »

Well yeh that remains to be seen but if it's already going pear shaped according to Tegnell it wouldnt exactly instill much hope

I don't think that is what he was saying. He has admitted that there have been failings particularly in the area of deaths in nursing homes which make up about half the deaths so far. But that is an admission of failure to implement the Swedish strategy correctly rather than an admission that the policy itself is mistaken fundamentally.

Mike3287

biko wrote: »

Sweden have moved the goal posts all the way from "the virus will not come to Sweden" to this: "we didn't realise how deadly it was" - all the while watching other countries like Italy/Spain/Belgium fight high death numbers.
They knew full well how deadly this was, or they are not very good at their job.

Its never been about death

Not collapsing the healthcare system has been the only fear

China didn't go for this brilliant strategy because hospitals couldn't cope

World is waking up to reality that lockdowns until vaccines are not a sustainable, they'll all follow Sweden soon enough and hope hospitals can cope

Balf

wakka12 wrote: »

Deaths in Sweden now at 3040

And they've a population of a bit more that twice ours? 10 million?

And theyve a bit more than twice our Covid related deaths.

You'll appreciate, the difference isn't screaming out at us.

And, while I expect the next port of call to be quibbles around the count, weren't we expecting up to 85,000 deaths. So should the Swedes be on the way to 170,000? Should they be seeing tens of thousands of fatalities? Are they hiding them?

charlie14

If it wasn`t such a serious matter of life and death, I would find some of the postings here amusing. We have posters who have gone from stop what we are doing and go to the Swedish model right away to now give the Swedes time before judging. The Swedish plan was herd immunity/ it was not herd immunity/ they will be in a better position for another wave with herd immunity.
There is now evidence to say immunity is possible, how many would be immune or to what extent or for how long.

Sweden withdrew a report that 11% of actual tested blood donors had developed antibodies. The withdrew an estimated figure of 33% they be thought may have immunity of some level and then downgrade that to 27% This was for Stiockholm alone, the epicenter of their outbreak without any figure for the other 80% of their population.
They say their Ro is below 1. On those figures this supposed cure all of immunity looks a long way off.