Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IV - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

28,000,000 people have lost their lives so far this year.

Covid has accounted for well below 2% of this figure and many Covid deaths were not the primary cause.

We know who this is lethal too, we need to protect those vulnerable people, but not by quarantining the healthy.

Worldwide yes but not all of the world had outbreaks, in the countries where there were sustained widespread outbreaks, far more than 2% of their deaths so far this year have been due to COVID

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I've said it before, ill say it again, an older population will see a higher death rate regardless of restrictions.

Sweden have 2m citizen's over 65.

Ireland has 600k

For a country that valued its children, Sweden have done OK.

At least Sweden hasn't flushed its childrchildren's futures down the toilet in the name of PC

Surely you mean so long as both countries have experienced similar level of outbreak? There are many Eastern European countries which have very elderly populations that have much lower death rates than most of South America with very youthful populations,though this is of course because South america has uch larger outbreak, but regardles they are older countries that did not expeirence higher death rates regardless of restrictions imposed, so that statement is not true without further clarification

Deleted User wrote: »

Sweden are running at two years flu deaths in just 3 months, with social distancing, some restrictions and no travel.

Like I said, I'm not defending Sweden here as such. I'm pointing out that supporters of the lockdown are reduced to making more modest claims than they made back in March (assuming basic honesty and facts).

The "look at Sweden vs. Norway/Denmark etc." narrative appeared in late March-early April when it was clear that Sweden's deaths were going to be within the EU average, albeit at the high end. That's not what proponents of lockdown predicted though.

I've no idea if pointing to the difference between Sweden and its neighbours would make for a popular sell for further lockdowns, whatever about retroactive justification.

growleaves wrote: »

Like I said, I'm not defending Sweden here as such. I'm pointing out that supporters of the lockdown are reduced to making more modest claims than they made back in March (assuming basic honesty and facts).

The "look at Sweden vs. Norway/Denmark etc." narrative appeared in late March-early April when it was clear that Sweden's deaths were going to be within the EU average, albeit at the high end. That's not what proponents of lockdown predicted though.

I've no idea if pointing to the difference between Sweden and its neighbours would make for a popular sell for further lockdowns, whatever about retroactive justification.

Regarding the emboldened text, I supported lockdown. What I didn't do was make any claims about any death rate, in any country, in March or any other time.

growleaves wrote: »

My poster boy?

The point in this particular discussion is that Sweden has inadvertently proved that the predictions of millions of deaths sans lockdown is false. I say inadvertent because its not as if Tegnell avoided lockdown just to falsify Imperial College's model - nonetheless that's a side effect of his actions.

Sweden`s own modeling figures or Tegnell`s predictions on immunity levels aren`t looking that hot either.

End of May just 6.1% have antibodies.

charlie14 wrote: »

Sweden`s own modeling figures or Tegnell`s predictions on immunity levels aren`t looking that hot either.

End of May just 6.1% have antibodies.

And?

I've said already I'm using Sweden to illustrate a single point about the Imperial model's blown predictions (and similar predictions), not writing an apologia of Sweden's strategy. I'm not aware of Tegnell's modelling figures at all.

charlie14 wrote: »

You have been posting on the Sweden avoiding lockdown thread and you know nothing about Tegnell`s modeling figures on immunity

I've never commented on "herd immunity" at all since its not something I have much grasp of. I have been reading your posts on it in that thread and my general understanding is that Tegnell predicted large amounts of antibodies as a by-product of Sweden's strategy and basically he over-estimated and they still are a huge way off from any kind of large-scale immunity. Is that correct?

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I think posters ran out of things to post and are now just attacking you randomly.

Sad.

5k dead in Sweden with covid. 96k predicted by Imperial college. Do we need to say more about models?

Im baffled to be honest.

The reason for the restrictions in March we're because we were heading for 120k dead in Ireland.

That was the justification along with hospitals not "overran".

The restrictions were adhered to, without question, but I haven't seen any proof that the advantages of restrictions will outweigh the disadvantages long term.

growleaves wrote: »

I've never commented on "herd immunity" at all since its not something I have much grasp of. I have been reading your posts on it in that thread and my general understanding is that Tegnell predicted large amounts of antibodies as a by-product of Sweden's strategy and basically he over-estimated and they still are a huge way off from any kind of large-scale immunity. Is that correct?

Seeing as you appear to have forgotten much of the discussion on the Sweden avoiding lockdown thread, I`ll do my best to recap and the relevance to modelling.
Sweden have said their strategy was not based on herd immunity, (what it was based on is difficult to know) Anyway...they say it was based on no lockdown with a happy consequence that this would result in herd immunity.


They did modelling on this that was predicting different immunity levels at various times and would have herd immunity before there was a possible second wave in the Autumn.
Herd immunity would require minimum 60%-70% of the population having antibodies. 6 million-7 million of their population.
Their antibody test results last Thursday showed just 6.1%.


The minimum their modelling figures were out is 1,000%
People keep banging on about Imperial College lockdown modelling figures being so far out as an example of why lockdown should not be used to fight this pandemic, but the modelling figures from Sweden on how to fight it without a lockdown are even further out.

charlie14 wrote: »

Seeing as you appear to have forgotten much of the discussion on the Sweden avoiding lockdown thread, I`ll do my best to recap and the relevance to modelling.
Sweden have said their strategy was not based on herd immunity, (what it was based on is difficult to know) Anyway...they say it was based on no lockdown with a happy consequence that this would result in herd immunity.


They did modelling on this that was predicting different immunity levels at various times and would have herd immunity before there was a possible second wave in the Autumn.
Herd immunity would require minimum 60%-70% of the population having antibodies. 6 million-7 million of their population.
Their antibody test results last Thursday showed just 6.1%.


The minimum their modelling figures were out is 1,000%
People keep banging on about Imperial College lockdown modelling figures being so far out as an example of why lockdown should not be used to fight this pandemic, but the modelling figures from Sweden on how to fight it without a lockdown are even further out.

You are in the wrong thread.

Also, have 10 million Swedes had antibodies testing? If not, what sample size is your 6.1% refering to?

Deleted User wrote: »

Imperial college have refuted claims that they published any predictions for Sweden or that their team was involved in those predictions

https://mobile.twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1257991339364560898

From the Twitter thread you link to:

But the model you used produced this result when used by Swedish researchers https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20062133v1.full.pdf "we employed an individual agent-based model based on work by Ferguson et al."

Great so Imperial didn't make that prediction - an independent group of researchers from European universities replicated the Imperial model in order to apply it Sweden, and came up predictions for Sweden which were commensurate to Imperial's predictions for the UK.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

You are in the wrong thread.

Also, have 10 million Swedes had antibodies testing? If not, what sample size is your 6.1% refering to?

Why am I in the wrong thread. Because I made a comparison with modelling figures based on no lockdown that were wildly inaccurate ?


Do you know how sampling works ?
The Swedish health agency obviously does and are happy it is accurate as they announced that 6.1% at a press briefing on Thursday

growleaves wrote: »

I think Ginger n Lemon said he was going to Berlin on his holidays?

An early opponent of lockdown on this forum did say that one of his friends got bored and rented an apartment in Sweden for a month.

Tbh, I could not be bothered going through his posts, but I do seem to remember that on another thread Ginger n Lemon said holiday in Sweden as they would have sorted their Covid-19 problem long before anyyone else.