charlie14 wrote: » I could see Stockholm possibly getting to 35%, even with an Ro below 1, but that would be considerable lower for the other 80% of the population. But even if that percentage had full immunity to this or subsequent waves, without a vaccine I cannot see how much restrictions on the vulnerable could be eased.
Hmmzis wrote: » That's the thing, with adjusted human behaviour you don't need the percentage to be 70%. The lower we can get the Re (the effective, not unrestricted), the lower the inflection ratio for "herd immunity". One thing to keep in mind here is that humans cannot be assumed a homogeneous mass of randomly moving entities. Not everyone is contacted by everyone, some people have less contacts, some more, that's why herd immunity as such is even possible without 100% vaccination and/or infection rates.
Hmmzis wrote: » If the Re is below 1, there cannot be a further wave, assuming that value stays below 1. Even at an infection ratio of 35% and no restrictions whatsoever you'd at most get local outbreaks, not an all out epidemic wave.
Bit cynical wrote: » I think the other thing charlie14 is not taking into account is that the instant the particular immunity figure is reached is not the point when the elderly and vulnerable can go about as normal. It is the beginning of the process by which the virus starts to diminish. Over time infections are reduced to a point where everyone can finally go outside.
charlie14 wrote: » The theory I always got but, I thought it a very risky strategy. What I do not see is with Sweden`s figures for Stockholm and their Ro number, when, or how, they will get to an appreciable level without a vaccine where everyone can finally go out. It actually looks as if their population locked themselves down to near enough our level for the last number of weeks.
charlie14 wrote: If this 60 -70% can still pass it on to someone vulnerable how weakened it would be is questionable. (What I would find even more questionable is if you are immune how would you be passing it on) Either way to me it seems that without a vaccine it is no difference too the present for the vulnerable.
charlie14 wrote: » Our level is below one so with rapid testing results and contact tracing similar to South Korea, then should the same not be the case here. Local outbreaks and not an all out epidemic.
Bit cynical wrote: » I got the impression from your earlier answers e.g.: that you were considering only the point in time at which the 60 or 70% was reached and that you were not considering that at that point infections would still occur but their number would be less and less as time goes on. I agree with you that if Sweden had been going for herd immunity as quickly as possible then the numbers are too low. However their restrictions are fairly mild compared with other countries relying largely on voluntary actions. They can gradually ease up on these as more and more people become immune. Of course this depends on there being a fairly long lasting immunity - it need not be lifetime - to the virus. I think it is expected that there will be some immunity found but it is not yet known how long it will last. I think the Swedish model could be considered a failure is if cheap effective treatments or a vaccine becomes available quickly. Then countries like New Zealand may be seen to have had the correct strategy of keeping the numbers of infections low at all times, but it is too early to tell. Conversely if it takes a long time to develop treatments or vaccines, then the Swedish approach will be seen as a success since they have a much more sustainable approach than all-out lockdown.
charlie14 wrote: » I was using the 60-70% because the poster I was replying to seems to be off the opinion that is the the magic number, reaching it is imminent it, and Sweden will never need a vaccine. Sweden`s restrictions may be milder, but I cannot see they would have been effective here. There was government advice about distancing, crowd numbers and travel. Week-end before the lockdown pubs, clubs, beaches and scenic public areas were thronged. Even though their restrictions were milder than ours from their numbers it seems to me that the population in the last few weeks locked themselves down to close to the extent of our mandatory restrictions. Way to early to judge which strategy will be judged the best, but I believe deaths will also be a major consideration.
Hmmzis wrote: » Yes, that's very much correct. The early identification of active infections and possible contacts and the isolation of those will lower the Re with lesser behaviour adjustments needed, requiring an even lesser proportion of the population to have acquired immunity. S Korea and Iceland have been very good doing that.
Cupatae wrote: » Think this sums up 99% of the covid debates.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » It's a small group of posters in the restrictions thread who thank each other for posting mostly straight up lies and propaganda regarding the measures. Fair enough they may be badly impacted themselves but it's a small minority. Most people are fine and doing the right thing.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » CSO unemployment figure of 28.2% is not a lie. I am unsure whether majority are fine. I ll take your word for it? Posted 4 days ago: "Official figures show the Sweden's economy shrank by just 0.3pc in the first three months of 2020, a far smaller decline than most forecasters and its central bank expected. The Riksbank had pencilled in a drop of between 0.8pc and 1.8pc. The smaller scale of the fall contrasts with record slumps seen elsewhere across the Eurozone over the quarter as governments imposed much more stringent measures. France's economy tumbled 5.8pc, Italy's 4.7pc and Spain's by 5.2pc, " Their pandemic unemployment? not even 10%. Could be 10% in the summer. 18% less than Ireland.https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-sweden-unemployment/swedish-unemployment-rate-could-reach-10-by-summer-labour-board-idUSL5N2C2300 From economic perspective they are doing 2.5 times better in terms of unemployment and 5 times better in terms of GDP, from deaths perspective they have 20 deaths more per million than Ireland. 0.002% more deaths per million than Ireland. Seems like Sweden's approach is by far more superior. (and they havent been turning people away for their cancer screening/appointments)
Blut2 wrote: » charlie14 you realise the post you're trying to question is listing official figures from the Riksbank, and linking to them, yes? Your "predictions" and unsourced speculation don't exactly stand up next to them.
biko wrote: » 25921 cases 3220 dead 12.4% of known cases have passed Numbers from FHMs own tracking pagehttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
tobefrank321 wrote: » The bovine coronavirus vaccine is a weakened live virus vaccine. The problem with live virus vaccines is they cannot be given to pregnant women or those with weakened immune systems, which kind of invalidates the whole purpose of a coronavirus vaccine. You'd be dependent on herd immunity to do its job. So it might not be as straightforward as the bovine vaccine.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Young people with underlying conditions.
charlie14 wrote: » 5 times better in terms of GDP. That figure really does stand out. Especially as the Riksbank, Sweden`s Central Bank believes otherwise. Their predictions depending on how long the spread of infection continue and how long the restrictions implemented to slow it down are in place were best case scenario GDP contracts by 6.9%, worst case GDP contracts by 9.7%. I.M.F. predictions for Germany 6.5%, Britain 7.0%, France 7.2%, Spain 8.0%,Finland 6.0%, Denmark 6.5% I do not see anywhere there that Sweden`s GDP is predicted to contract 5 times less than any of those. Best case scenario according to their own Central Bank their GDP is being predicted to contract more than some of their immediate neighbours that imposed lockdowns
niallo27 wrote: » Very stable numbers last 10 days, still early days, I think you may be correct that Sweden had the right approach all along.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » I think people in this thread are unaware of Sweden's death numbers per year. Below for full picture. 2019: 89k 2018: 92k 2017: 92k 2016: 91k 2015: 91k Covid so far? 3k. I think this thread does highlight tendency to look at covid deaths and be like "oh wow. terrible, they are all dying there". When in reality the 3k deaths from covid will easy roll into the 91k or 88k. Given that there has never been a vaccine developed for a human corona virus, their strategy can be justified at any stage. While we might spend next 18 months feeling effects of 2nd wave, 3rd wave, 4th wave etc.
wakka12 wrote: » How do you it is represenatative to think a year of deaths is comparable to the number of deaths from COVID in 7 weeks? Next mid-March, come back and look at those stats maybe and compare. Thousands more Swedish people will have died I think this thread highlights a ridiculous compulsion to underplay what the severity of an outbreak of a virus that thus far killed over 150,000 people in Europe Union in 7-8 weeks.(with tens of thousands more undereported deaths), despite a lockdown which has almost entirely halted rate of infection growth the last month. Theres no downplaying those figures
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » Its been proven that covid was in France in December. Why would we be so certain that it made it's way to Sweden in mid March 2020? I think it's been in Sweden a long time, if their officials believe their capital will have herd immunity this month. It would be very impressive if their capital will reach herd immunity in the 7 weeks time frame you are reference. (or even 10 weeks) The thing to remember with death numbers is that deaths 100% will happen. A person who survived covid 19 in March, may unfortunately pass away with flu in October or November. At risk category is also a category that's hoovering around life expectancy. Their former chief epidemiologist believes that in the end there will be very little difference in total deaths, if any.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY&t=1s
