nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sweden avoiding lockdown

frillyleaf

Does Sweden have the right approach to this and how is their healthcare system being able to manage Covid19 cases?

What are the differences between Sweden and Ireland and why can’t we continue similar to how Sweden is managing Covid19?

I’m not suggesting either is right or wrong. I would just like to know how Sweden can continue as normal and other countries can’t. Thanks ðŸ˜Š

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

daithi7

greyday wrote: »

What is this supposed to prove Daithi?

....

What it shows, is what most sensible people know already. The optimum method for dealing with the threat of this pandemic in most countries was not:

Full Lockdown versus The Swedish strategy

But rather a path somewhere between the two.

This is why the PM of Norway says they wish they did more of what Sweden did. (Google it) Why the French will not impose another blanket lockdown, and why most governments now realise you must manage this disease (or the threat of it) and live on as much as you can regardless.

Some absolutists & simpletons on this thread seem to struggle with this grey area reality. Happily most sensible governments seem to get it by now, thankfully for us all

Breezin

daithi7 wrote: »

What it shows, is what most sensible people know already. The optimum method for dealing with the threat of this pandemic in most countries was not:

Full Lockdown versus The Swedish strategy

But rather a path somewhere between the two.

This is why the PM of Norway says they wish they did more of what Sweden did. (Google it) Why the French will not impose another blanket lockdown, and why most governments now realise you must manage this disease (or the threat of it) and live on as much as you can regardless.

Some absolutists & simpletons on this thread seem to struggle with this grey area reality. Happily most sensible governments seem to get it by now, thankfully for us all

As observed very early in the discussion. They don't do complexity.

greyday

No Daithi, what you seem to be missing is that the optimum strategy for dealing with the virus depends entirely on the Country reducing deaths and infections to manageable numbers and having the correct resources in place before easing lockdowns.
The lockdown has achieved the reduction in infections and deaths and probably most importantly the population have been educated on behaviours which will help keep the numbers low.
It is very likely we will have to live with this virus for a long time to come and we are now in a position to respond very quickly to further waves, Sweden are in a far more precarious position with a high number of daily deaths becoming the norm unfortunately.

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

What it shows, is what most sensible people know already. The optimum method for dealing with the threat of the pandemic in most countries was not:

Full Lockdown versus The Swedish strategy

But rather a path somewhere between the two.

This is why the PM of Norway says they wish they did more of what Sweden did. Why the French will not impose another blanket lockdown, and why most now realise you must manage this disease (or the threat of it) and live on as much as you can regardless.

Absolutists & some simpletons on this thread seem to struggle with this reality. Happily most sensible governments seem not to, thankfully.

Most sensible people can understand the data provided by Sweden. Some here just wish to ignore it.

Where did the Norway P.M.say he wished they did more of what Sweden did ?
You would not by any chance be referring to the Norway state epidemiologist who was misrepresented in a newspaper interview she gave and quickly pointed out she said nothing of the sort.

Bridge93

The difference between implementing a less strict regime a second time round with the added knowledge and experience of the first wave is infinitely different to running head first into the darkness first time round to learn your lessons.

[Deleted User]

daithi7 wrote: »

What it shows, is what most sensible people know already. The optimum method for dealing with the threat of this pandemic in most countries was not:

Full Lockdown versus The Swedish strategy

But rather a path somewhere between the two.

This is why the PM of Norway says they wish they did more of what Sweden did. (Google it) Why the French will not impose another blanket lockdown, and why most governments now realise you must manage this disease (or the threat of it) and live on as much as you can regardless.

Some absolutists & simpletons on this thread seem to struggle with this grey area reality. Happily most sensible governments seem to get it by now, thankfully for us all

Though true for the future, most countries had no choice in which path to follow once they had made their initial decisions. It is very difficult to unwind the past when growth is exponential.
Other paths are possible with sufficient testing regimes, tracing, adequate PPE, health resources, border control and enforcement, and learning from other international experiences of earlier infections.

All countries have learnt that full lockdowna are necessary when early measures are weak or poorly implemented, and that lockdowns come with a huge cost too.
This knowledge does not mean that past lockdown decisions were wrong, but rather that not talking this seriously has an exponential impact on what a country must do later and on the cost to it. There is no other way to spin it.
COVID does not respect borders, timetables, or laws.

greyday

Are any of Swedens fanboys employed in the Bar trade by any chance?
Other than a bias due to personal circumstances, I fail to see how people can still think Sweden got it right while Countries very close to them have substantially lower death rates.
How does Sweden emerge from this when they did not put the measures in place to reduce the spread at the beginning?

charlie14

Breezin wrote: »

As observed very early in the discussion. They don't do complexity.

Complexity!
Would that be the Sweden strategy that is so complex nobody who supports it on here can explain it ?

From Sweden`s own figures on new cases and deaths there is nothing complex.
Neither is there from their own economic figures on GDP.
None in fact on herd immunity from their own antibody test results that are even worse that similar epicenters where others used lockdown.

So where is this mysterious complexity that you are aware of that nobody else seems to know off ?

charlie14

greyday wrote: »

Are any of Swedens fanboys employed in the Bar trade by any chance?
Other than a bias due to personal circumstances, I fail to see how people can still think Sweden got it right while Countries very close to them have substantially lower death rates.
How does Sweden emerge from this when they did not put the measures in place to reduce the spread at the beginning?

With some of their posts the likelihood is more very good bar customers than bar trade employees.

JimmyVik

daithi7 wrote: »

What it shows, is what most sensible people know already. The optimum method for dealing with the threat of this pandemic in most countries was not:

Full Lockdown versus The Swedish strategy

But rather a path somewhere between the two.

This is why the PM of Norway says they wish they did more of what Sweden did. (Google it) Why the French will not impose another blanket lockdown, and why most governments now realise you must manage this disease (or the threat of it) and live on as much as you can regardless.

Some absolutists & simpletons on this thread seem to struggle with this grey area reality. Happily most sensible governments seem to get it by now, thankfully for us all

Jesus. What utter bolloxology. Nobody in any position of responsibility for lives said that that they wished that they did what Sweden did. The sh1t you are pulling out of your hole is pathetic at this stage. You are just arguing for the sake or arguing at this stage. I think you know know yourself that Swededn did get it wrong, but just cant let go of a position.

dubrov

daithi7 wrote:

This is not done in post after post, after post. It's irritating to say the least, to see some posters repeatedly banging their heads against the wrong wall!!

Someone will come along shortly and tell you that you are wrong for arguing the Swedish strategy is a success

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

Complexity!
Would that be the Sweden strategy that is so complex nobody who supports it on here can explain it ?

From Sweden`s own figures on new cases and deaths there is nothing complex.
Neither is there from their own economic figures on GDP.
None in fact on herd immunity from their own antibody test results that are even worse that similar epicenters where others used lockdown.

So where is this mysterious complexity that you are aware of that nobody else seems to know off ?

I'll try and keep it simple, just for you.

It's a pandemic, the virus is endemic in the population. When people cease hiding in their houses, the rate of infection starts to climb again. This has happened in almost every instance of lock-down let-up, barring NZ.

The Swedes have probably concluded that most of those in a society subject to a pandemic, who are medically susceptible, will die, and that lock-down just delays the inevitable.

We started with the sensible aim of flattening the curve, but there are a bunch people who have not quite grasped what flattening the curve originally meant and instead think it means wiping out the virus and being virus free.

Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis.

The Swedes have basically said let the inevitable happen now. This is what happened unintentionally in Italy. They had a virus conflagration which killed the susceptible in a short space of time. Of course they just get sympathy for an accident whereas some target the Swedes as if their approach amounts to deliberately killing people who wouldn't otherwise have died.

is_that_so

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll try and keep it simple, just for you.

It's a pandemic, the virus is endemic in the population. When people cease hiding in their houses, the rate of infection starts to climb again. This has happened in almost every instance of lock-down let-up, barring NZ.

The Swedes have probably concluded that most of those in a society subject to a pandemic, who are medically susceptible, will die, and that lock-down just delays the inevitable.

We started with the sensible aim of flattening the curve, but there are a bunch people who have not quite grasped what flattening the curve originally meant and instead think it means wiping out the virus and being virus free.

Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis.

The Swedes have basically said let the inevitable happen now. This is what happened unintentionally in Italy. They had a virus conflagration which killed the susceptible in a short space of time. Of course they just get sympathy for an accident whereas some target the Swedes as if their approach amounts to deliberately killing people who wouldn't otherwise have died.

One thing they also confidently predicted was a high level of seroprevalence, which is not the case anywhere.

greyday

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll try and keep it simple, just for you.

It's a pandemic, the virus is endemic in the population. When people cease hiding in their houses, the rate of infection starts to climb again. This has happened in almost every instance of lock-down let-up, barring NZ.

The Swedes have probably concluded that most of those in a society subject to a pandemic, who are medically susceptible, will die, and that lock-down just delays the inevitable.

We started with the sensible aim of flattening the curve, but there are a bunch people who have not quite grasped what flattening the curve originally meant and instead think it means wiping out the virus and being virus free.

Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis.

The Swedes have basically said let the inevitable happen now. This is what happened unintentionally in Italy. They had a virus conflagration which killed the susceptible in a short space of time. Of course they just get sympathy for an accident whereas some target the Swedes as if their approach amounts to deliberately killing people who wouldn't otherwise have died.

We will all die eventually, If Countries were to follow the Swedish strategy people would die a lot sooner than necessary.
We have flattened the curve and pushed it down to a low level, it was not known at the time of the lockdown how far we could push it down, thankfully it has thus far gone better than some thought possible, Swedens attitude of allowing it spread far more freely has been a disaster when compared to its closest neighbours.
Maybe we should take your apparent approach and put people to sleep at birth, shur the prognosis won't change.

growleaves

It’s Almost As If Some People Want Sweden To Fail

Lastly, let’s look at how Sweden performed compared to early projections based on the much-criticised Imperial College London modelling. Without a shift in strategy, Sweden was predicted to exceed 40,000 deaths by May and 100,000 by August. But, what’s the reality on the ground? In May the total number of deaths was 2,586. That’s 15 times less than predicted. Current estimates (June 16) put Sweden’s final death toll at about 6300 – that’s 93,700 less than predicted.

The argument is that Sweden has had a higher per capita death rate than lockdown countries, and this is taken as evidence of a failed experiment. ‘Perhaps they should have followed our lead and enforced a lockdown to protect their people’. The problem with this argument is that there’s no empirical evidence of a relationship between lockdowns and death rates – not in Europe, not in the USA, not anywhere. Take Belgium, for example. They enacted a severe lockdown (SI 81) but their per capita death rate on June 16 was 833 deaths per million (Sweden’s was 483). Also, look at Japan – a country of 126 million people. They didn’t enact a severe lockdown (their highest SI was 47) and their death rate is just 7 (seven) per million – that’s on a par with New Zealand (SI 96). Clearly, the factors driving death rates in each country are highly nuanced and multi-faceted, but accumulating data strongly indicates one thing - they’re not related to lockdowns. In fact, lockdowns may be causing more harm than good. But, despite the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns, the headlines keep coming.

is_that_so

growleaves wrote: »

It’s Almost As If Some People Want Sweden To Fail

These early predictions were pretty ridiculous almost everywhere. We were allegedly headed for 15,000 cases inside a month. They were all based off an unmitigated exponential growth of the disease. They have failed in some areas by their own admission, levels of testing and protecting the vulnerable. That article also mentions herd immunity which is pie in the sky at best, based on current data.

[Deleted User]

“ Clearly, the factors driving death rates in each country are highly nuanced and multi-faceted, but accumulating data strongly indicates one thing - they’re not related to lockdowns. In fact, lockdowns may be causing more harm than good. But, despite the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns, the headlines keep coming.“

Death rates Not related to lockdowns? That is the argument? Seriously?

JimmyVik

Ribs1234 wrote: »

“ Clearly, the factors driving death rates in each country are highly nuanced and multi-faceted, but accumulating data strongly indicates one thing - they’re not related to lockdowns. In fact, lockdowns may be causing more harm than good. But, despite the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns, the headlines keep coming.“

Death rates Not related to lockdowns? That is the argument? Seriously?

Its how much of the virus was spread throughout a countries community at the time of your lockdown that counted.
If you locked down early, you saved lives. Wait a little before your lockdown and it costs you lives.

charlie14

cnocbui wrote: »

I'll try and keep it simple, just for you.

It's a pandemic, the virus is endemic in the population. When people cease hiding in their houses, the rate of infection starts to climb again. This has happened in almost every instance of lock-down let-up, barring NZ.

The Swedes have probably concluded that most of those in a society subject to a pandemic, who are medically susceptible, will die, and that lock-down just delays the inevitable.

We started with the sensible aim of flattening the curve, but there are a bunch people who have not quite grasped what flattening the curve originally meant and instead think it means wiping out the virus and being virus free.

Flattening the curve, in it's non-bastardised version, means those who are vulnerable are all going to die from the virus, unless isolated, at some point. Flattening the curve just changes the time of death, it doesn't change the prognosis.

The Swedes have basically said let the inevitable happen now. This is what happened unintentionally in Italy. They had a virus conflagration which killed the susceptible in a short space of time. Of course they just get sympathy for an accident whereas some target the Swedes as if their approach amounts to deliberately killing people who wouldn't otherwise have died.

That is a complete load of utter nonsense
There is a big difference between simple and idiotic.

What you are describing is not even what Sweden said its policy was/is.
It has more in common with Nazi Germany`s extermination policy.

There is no point wasting my time explaining lockdown or flattening the curve to you. Both have been explained to you in detail here many times but you have chosen to ignore.

Seeing as you consider yourself such an expert on pandemics and how to deal with them by letting it run free and kill whoever it kills, I presume that would be your solution for all virus outbreaks.
Lets say for example the Ebola Zaire virus ?

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

That is a complete load of utter nonsense
There is a big difference between simple and idiotic.

What you are describing is not even what Sweden said its policy was/is.
It has more in common with Nazi Germany`s extermination policy.

There is no point wasting my time explaining lockdown or flattening the curve to you. Both have been explained to you in detail here many times but you have chosen to ignore.

Seeing as you consider yourself such an expert on pandemics and how to deal with them by letting it run free and kill whoever it kills, I presume that would be your solution for all virus outbreaks.
Lets say for example the Ebola Zaire virus ?

Congratulations on living up to yourself and proving the truth of Godwin's law - clap... clap... clap.

fisgon

greyday wrote: »

102 deaths, has anyone been fired yet for such an inept strategy?
Looks like they will be close to the best in the world for deaths from Coronavirus shortly.

102?

Don't worry, they are all people who were going to die at some stage in their lives anyway.

It doesn't prove anything, it's certainly nothing to do with COVID, or not locking down or anything....:rolleyes:

charlie14

cnocbui wrote: »

Congratulations on living up to yourself and proving the truth of Godwin's law - clap... clap... clap.

What did you expect.

Your post to supposedly explain this mysterious complexity of the Swedish strategy was a load of drivel.
Even the Swedes would have no clue as to what you were rambling on about.

.

growleaves

Death rates Not related to lockdowns? That is the argument? Seriously?

The horse race around deaths on this forum has not proven the scientific hypothesis of lockdown to be anything more than inconclusive.

If you have some sophisticated analysis that explains the discrepancies between death rates in locked-down countries and open countries, which are all over the place, do share.

fisgon

growleaves wrote: »

The horse race around deaths on this forum has not proven the scientific hypothesis of lockdown to be anything more than inconclusive.

If you have some sophisticated analysis that explains the discrepancies between death rates in locked-down countries and open countries, which are all over the place, do share.

At the moment in Europe, there is no discrepancy. If you have locked down, then your death rates and numbers of new cases are both going down; most at very low levels now. In all of the countries surrounding Sweden; Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, the death rates have slowed to a trickle. They are hardly increasing at all.

There is only one country where this is not the case, and you know which one that is. If you want to continue the horse race analogy, in the COVID sweepstakes, Sweden was for a while in the middle of the pack, and now it has built up such speed that it is passing countries by at a rapid rate. And the scary thing is, the other horses are just trotting, but the Swedish one is just getting faster all the time.

If there is a gap between Sweden and any other European country, (and there aren't many ahead of it) that gap is closing very very quickly.

dogbert27

Sweden's total deaths as of today: 5041

Denmark: 598
Finland: 326
Norway: 243

Lockdown prevented deaths in the neighbouring countries and is the reason why their borders are still closed to Swedes for tourism.

daithi7

dubrov wrote: »

Someone will come along shortly and tell you that you are wrong for arguing the Swedish strategy is a success

Ha,ha this is the hilarious thing, I've never said the Swedish model is a success.

As I've said in numerous posts is that the optimum path for most countries to manage the threat of covid19 was somewhere between full lockdown and the Swedish model. ....

The absolutist lockdown lifers here don't seem to understand that lockdown has huge costs. I'm not just talking about economic, employment & massive debt costs, but lockdown itself costs many lives, (through untreated or undetected other diseases) , relationships, and kids educations... these are huge health and social costs that are not quantified at all.... but they are real.

So nobody yet knows what the best strategy is or was, because as far as I'm aware no one has yet been able to quantify the total deaths, social & economic costs of one approach versus another!!

That is what some absolutist simpletons seem unable to comprehend.....

E.g. One of Ireland's leading oncologists has expressed the concern that lockdown is likely to lead to more deaths from untreated & undetected cancers than those who will die from Covid......

Bear in mind , that is just cancer, before ever factoring those who will suffer & perish unnecessarily from untreated mental health, renal, cardiac and stroke and other serious conditions...

Managing well through this pandemic clearly involves striking a balance between restrictive measures and allowing things function close to normal to minimise the overall death rates at the best overall cost to society.

Nobody yet knows where that policy balance sweet spot was, is or should be at, because we do not yet have the data.....

Surely even absolutist lockdown fundamentalists can understand that!?

growleaves

Daithi7,

We'd want to be looking at Taiwan, Japan, Singapore etc. as well, in the fullness of time, so that we can figure out what the actual best disease containment strategy is. I hope the effort to wave away or not think about what these countries did better than us and most of Europe is only temporary.

charlie14

daithi7 wrote: »

Ha,ha this is the hilarious thing, I've never said the Swedish model is a success.

As I've said in numerous posts is that the optimum path for most countries to manage the threat of covid19 was somewhere between full lockdown and the Swedish model. ....

Have you been saying this since Tegnell`s antibody modelling figures blew up in his face and he backtracked on lockdown, or before he said it ?

Polar101

is_that_so wrote: »

These early predictions were pretty ridiculous almost everywhere. We were allegedly headed for 15,000 cases inside a month. They were all based off an unmitigated exponential growth of the disease.

People keep laughing at the prediction for some reason, and yet we reached 15,000 cases on April 19th, and that was with restrictions. So that sounds like one prediction that would have easily come true.

pjohnson

Hard to believe some people are still tryna hold up the Swedes as a good example.

Some here really are disgusted that we kept the death rate low.