cnocbui wrote: » https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/29/coronavirus-swedens-gdp-actually-grew-in-the-first-quarter.html
cnocbui wrote: » The prognostications of supposed experts are always interesting, but as the data reported on shows, nothing quite beats the real thing. The sale of new houses in the US in April, actually increased by 0.6%, when economics experts were predicting a roughly 21% decline. If Sweden's unemployment rate doesn't increase significantly, as is likely in some lockdown countries, then they will very likely recover much faster, should that 7% decline happen.
fisgon wrote: » Also in this article is the sentence..... "The National Institute of Economic Research, a respected think tank, said in a statement published April 29 that it believed Sweden’s economy would shrink 7% this year."
Sweden’s economy actually grew in the first quarter after it opted against a full virus lockdown Published Fri, May 29 The Nordic country’s statistics office reported gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic health, grew at an annual rate of 0.4% in the first quarter.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I told you this would happen and it is just the start for countries that fail to gain control of the virus transmission. Sweden excluded from Nordic border openinghttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/norway-and-denmark-drop-mutual-border-controls-but-exclude-sweden-coronavirus
fisgon wrote: » Interesting to compare Ireland's 5 day death rate.... Last five days... 8 16 9 0 4 = 37 Sweden's total in that time is 352 You can slice this any way you want; the numbers don't lie. In fact, the Swedes are doing way less testing than Ireland, and so may not even be catching all their cases - the real difference could be even greater......
Harry Palmr wrote: » 749 new cases and 84 new deaths Five day May 29 (GMT) 749 new cases and 84 new deaths in Sweden May 28 639 new cases and 46 new deaths in Sweden May 27 648 new cases and 95 new deaths in Sweden May 26 597 new cases and 96 new deaths in Sweden May 25 384 new cases and 31 new deaths in Sweden
tobefrank321 wrote: » No effort to switch the narrative. A couple of posters used emotive phrases like "Sweden are culling their elderly". It was pointed out that we aren't doing much better, but no-one is going around saying "Ireland are culling their elderly". No nation is deliberately trying to cull anyone. Sweden have taken the view this is a marathon lasting years (and maybe even decades) rather than a sprint. They have decided to try to live with covid 19 as best they can. We've seen the difficulties countries like South Korea are having once they open up. And also a couple states in the US post lifting of restrictions. We will soon see what most of Europe is like post restrictions. At a certain stage countries may have to decide do we live in almost permanent lockdown or do we just follow the Swedish model but do better protecting care homes.
Breezin wrote: » Anders Tegnel has said that Sweden's care hold population is smaller because they tend less to send old folk to such institutions. This means that those in them are older and sicker, with shorter life expectancy.
Breezin wrote: » How disingenuously twisted can you get? The sub-topic, which everyone now seems to agree was a compete dud, was introduced as a stick to beat Sweden with and to claim that those of us who question our daft lockdown are somehow supporters of the Swedes' dastardly plot.
bb1234567 wrote: » Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is I guess how the annual mortality rate looks by this time next year will clear up much of this issue
the incredible pudding wrote: » "In 4.5 percent of deaths where the patient had tested positive for the virus (and was therefore included in the Public Health Agency's death toll), the death certificate showed a different cause of death, and these cases were therefore not included in the National Board of Health and Welfare figures. " from the Public Health Agency in Sweden - source (behind paywall) https://www.thelocal.se/20200427/sweden-publishes-new-statistics-on-coronavirus-death-toll
bb1234567 wrote: » Yeh I get you and it makes sense but just theres no real evidence as yet of the actual number of those who are dying with vs of and how many years of life it is taking from victims, and I would like to see what the actual numbers are given the amount of times this discussion crops up when talking about COVID. It's just opinions based off the fact that they victims are old and have health conditions, not all of this group will die soon within any given year, otherwise general life expectancy would be much shorter than it is
tobefrank321 wrote: » A small number would be dying anyways and would have died within the one month timeframe that you can potentially have covid 19. This could be 2 or 3 people per nursing home. A larger number would be slowly dying of other causes such as cancer, heart disease, Alzeimers and other illnesses and have their lives shortened by weeks or months. Is it worth shutting down your economy to save this group, you'd have to ask? Probably not. Another group will have their lives shortened by a small number of years. The largest number of all will get covid 19 and survive, something like 75% of those over 80.
bb1234567 wrote: » Right, but considering the window in which somebody would test positive for the virus is a small time frame, the chances there are a lot of people with terminal illnesses just happening to pass during this time is likely a very small number of invidiuals. In nursing homes, obviously this will be a more frequent occurrence, but I've heard this being argued for the general population, among those who died in the community it's extremely unlikely that there significant numbers of people with terminal illness who just so happened to die during the time they were positive for COVID.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Most people in nursing homes are coming towards the end of their lives and many certainly are in a terminal stage. People with Alzheimer's in nursing homes for example don't tend to live very long with the odd exception. Others might have undiagnosed issues such as cancer or heart disease, and operations or chemo would be too harsh on them. Medical treatments that would happen for young people don't tend to happen for the very old. You could have a terminal illness in a nursing home that's undiagnosed and the likely treatment for pain is morphine.
bb1234567 wrote: » Does anybody have any idea of what this figure might be? LIke it's something that gets mentioned a lot that is in all likelihood a very small number of those who have died. LIke there are not a lot of people in total numbers at any given time who are terminally ill, and the number of people who contracted covid since the beginning of the outbreak is also relatively small, only 2-5% of the population, so it would mean the number of people who were terminal and happened to die coincidentally within the exact same two week window of time when they would register positive for a COVID is a really really insignificant number of people, like literally a handful of individuals, yet that very specific circumstance seems to for some reason feature so heavily in any discussion about COVID .
tobefrank321 wrote: » Not sure which is the better to be honest.We could be counting people as probable who weren't infected. We could be counting people who might have died of something else with similar symptoms, eg someone with a persistent cough. Likely they do run tests in Ireland after the person dies to confirm or not. Personally, I'd prefer to have a test ran to confirm the cause of death, so I don't see the issue with the Swedish. The reason for relay in reporting deaths seems to be linked to getting test results back in some cases. And both countries appear to be counting people who were terminally ill already, but who also happened to have covid 19.
tobefrank321 wrote: » You are talking absolute BS. Do you think Italy, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, US or Netherlands were engaged in a cull of their elderly or sick? Ireland for example never banned flights and still don't enforce quarantine, even though we know old people somewhere will die because of this relaxed attitudes to borders. In the case of Italy and Cheltenham, it unquestionably cost lives. The Swedes have taken the view that in the long term, a lockdown may not make a difference. You seem to think covid19 will be over in a matter of weeks? Unfortunately because of its infectious nature and international travel, its here to stay until a widely available vaccine, which will be at least 2 years. We will soon see what happens as Southern Europe opens up. I doubt you will accuse Spain or Italy of engaging in a cull? Or Germany, who want to travel all over Europe.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Not sure which is the better to be honest. We could be counting people as probable who weren't infected. We could be counting people who might have died of something else with similar symptoms, eg someone with a persistent cough. Likely they do run tests in Ireland after the person dies to confirm or not. Personally, I'd prefer to have a test ran to confirm the cause of death, so I don't see the issue with the Swedish. The reason for relay in reporting deaths seems to be linked to getting test results back in some cases.And both countries appear to be counting people who were terminally ill already, but who also happened to have covid 19.
is_that_so wrote: » Just to clarify some data on Sweden v Ireland. Tests in Sweden have so far have mostly been limited to patients in need of hospital care and healthcare staff. Their confirmed deaths too are only based on a test, ours include probables.
charlie14 wrote: » There appears to be an effort from some to switch the narrative here from "Sweden avoiding lockdown" to "Sweden and Ireland`s care home deaths". Neither country covered themselves in glory as regards care home deaths, but that does not explain nor account for the disparity in numbers between both countries. Sweden`s stated main principle of their strategy was protection of the aged and vulnerable, so fair to assume that when the high numbers of deaths in care homes became evident they acted as fast, if not faster, than Ireland to deal with this. If deaths in care homes were a like for like comparison between Sweden and Ireland to explain or account for deaths, then it should be reflected in the numbers who have passed, but it does not. Average weekly deaths in Sweden over the last four weeks are 449. Ireland over the same period 102. Comparative to population, Sweden`s deaths in that period are over double those of Ireland.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
