Sweden avoiding lockdown

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m afraid Fintan your ability to understand figures was shown to be limited when your own figures for over 65 deaths in the USA didn`t show what you believed they did.

On a like for like basis we have little in common with Sweden, but if we did, statistically if you were over 65 in Ireland with lockdown you stood a much better chance of survival than you would have in Sweden.

If we you compare the death rate in Sweden for all age groups to Ireland using the HSE figure, Sweden is 62% greater.
If we take the HIQA figure the death rate is 2.4 times higher.
And that is not even touching on a further 4,000 excess deaths in Sweden for the first 6 months of this year over and above their reported Covid-19 deaths.

I haven't had time to look into the previously mentioned figures. I tried to do so before but was hampered by the CSO only releasing numbers on those aged over 65. Also the Irish government had not released a detailed breakdown of deaths by age.

I would assume that significantly more vulnerable people have been infected in Sweden than in Ireland. I would also have assumed that their death rate was therefore higher.

The problem is that our vulnerable will remain vulnerable until there is herd immunity.
Plus our approach is not sustainable economically or socially.
Could you address that?

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

My point is that there will be huge political, financial and social pressure to create and deliver a vaccine.
So, being slow or reluctant to take this vaccine is neither foolish nor anti science.
I'm happy to be last in the queue to take it.

Could also be that the vulnerable are not able to take this vaccine.

But that is really the basic thinking with vaccines is it not. That they create a herd immunity for those unable to take a particular vaccine.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You we referring to the fact Irelands inquest would be short lived, which I believe was based upon your own inability to understand the figures.

Ill summarise for you, if you are over 65 you have the same chance of dying of Covid in Ireland or Sweden. Ireland has not protected its citizens any better.

So to address your initial point which I assume you based on your own limited understanding, the inquest for Ireland will need to be as invasive as Sweden.

I`m afraid Fintan your ability to understand figures was shown to be limited when your own figures for over 65 deaths in the USA didn`t show what you believed they did.

On a like for like basis we have little in common with Sweden, but if we did, statistically if you were over 65 in Ireland with lockdown you stood a much better chance of survival than you would have in Sweden.

If we you compare the death rate in Sweden for all age groups to Ireland using the HSE figure, Sweden is 62% greater.
If we take the HIQA figure the death rate is 2.4 times higher.
And that is not even touching on a further 4,000 excess deaths in Sweden for the first 6 months of this year over and above their reported Covid-19 deaths.

Duplicate post.

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

No “healthy” people. That’s very important. I am in no way anti vaccine but am worried for any healthy person who is willing to take a chance on a new vaccine which is being hurried for many of the wrong reasons. I say that coming from a standpoint of caring. Nothing more, or less.

Vaccines normally work the opposite way. The healthy take the vaccine to protect the at risk by generating herd immunity when they are vaccinated.

Spiderman0081

Boggles wrote: »

Is he? You sure?

Anyway I have to email back this Nigerian Prince he says he is going to give me 600 million, imagine that.

Not sure what to say to this. I haven’t been on boards long enough obviously to understand people’s reactions to me saying I live in a country other than Ireland.

Spiderman0081

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed, more of a reason for the likes of us to take it so.

One thing I won't be doing is hoping to God no one takes it, as the poster I was replying to suggested.

No “healthy” people. That’s very important. I am in no way anti vaccine but am worried for any healthy person who is willing to take a chance on a new vaccine which is being hurried for many of the wrong reasons. I say that coming from a standpoint of caring. Nothing more, or less.

Boggles wrote: »

Is he? You sure?

Anyway I have to email back this Nigerian Prince he says he is going to give me 600 million, imagine that.

Is it pointless me engaging with you?

Ok, let's assume he's lying.

What about the scenario I described. Any chance you could address that?

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

The problem with all this talk about vaccines is that you then focused solely on vaccines and ignored the rest of his post. I really wish he hadn't mentioned vaccines.

This thread is about Sweden and he is living in Sweden.
What do you think of his first hand experience from Sweden?

Is he? You sure?

Anyway I have to email back this Nigerian Prince he says he is going to give me 600 million, imagine that.

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed, more of a reason for the likes of us to take it so.

One thing I won't be doing is hoping to God no one takes it, as the poster I was replying to suggested.

The problem with all this talk about vaccines is that you then focused solely on vaccines and ignored the rest of his post. I really wish he hadn't mentioned vaccines.

This thread is about Sweden and he is living in Sweden.
What do you think of his first hand experience from Sweden?

Consider the likelihood that it's not possible to deliver a vaccine to the Irish population until the end of 2021. For supply issues at the very least.

The vulnerable will continue to catch the virus and some will die or they will have to live a restricted life.
Meanwhile, perhaps Sweden will have immunity naturally, deaths will reduce and the vulnerable can resume a normal enjoyable life.

And before you say that there's no guarantee of immunity, consider how vaccines work.

Or is the answer that we flip between the various stages of lock down for the next few years and let the young take the tab.

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

I'm happy to be last in the queue to take it.

Could also be that the vulnerable are not able to take this vaccine.

Indeed, more of a reason for the likes of us to take it so.

One thing I won't be doing is hoping to God no one takes it, as the poster I was replying to suggested.

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

They've already decided that the rights of the young should be curtailed to protect the vulnerable.

Unfortunately that is the case.

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I'm as pro vaccine and science as the next person but as you say there's no guarantee this will work for those with a weak immune system unless someone can prove otherwise. That may mean the healthy will have to be vaccinated to protect the vulnerable. Fair enough if that's the case but trying a new vaccine on children who could end up with a lifetime of problems when covid might give them no issues is ethically questionable.

I hope a vaccine works though and we see the back of this virus.

They've already decided that the rights of the young should be curtailed to protect the vulnerable.

tobefrank321

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

My point is that there will be huge political, financial and social pressure to create and deliver a vaccine.
So, being slow or reluctant to take this vaccine is neither foolish nor anti science.
I'm happy to be last in the queue to take it.

Could also be that the vulnerable are not able to take this vaccine.

I'm as pro vaccine and science as the next person but as you say there's no guarantee this will work for those with a weak immune system unless someone can prove otherwise. That may mean the healthy will have to be vaccinated to protect the vulnerable. Fair enough if that's the case but trying a new vaccine on children who could end up with a lifetime of problems when covid might give them no issues is ethically questionable.

Boggles wrote: »

I have read it and many more like it.

What's your point?

My point is that there will be huge political, financial and social pressure to create and deliver a vaccine.
So, being slow or reluctant to take this vaccine is neither foolish nor anti science.
I'm happy to be last in the queue to take it.

Could also be that the vulnerable are not able to take this vaccine.

charlie14 wrote: »

Look up the statistics for the Nordic countries and then tell me which is the outlier when it comes to confirmed cases and deaths. Sweden who did not use lockdown or any of the three others who did.
Not that it may give you a better understanding as from engaging with you on another thread you do not appear to know the difference between limited restrictions and a full lockdown.

You we referring to the fact Irelands inquest would be short lived, which I believe was based upon your own inability to understand the figures.

Ill summarise for you, if you are over 65 you have the same chance of dying of Covid in Ireland or Sweden. Ireland has not protected its citizens any better.

So to address your initial point which I assume you based on your own limited understanding, the inquest for Ireland will need to be as invasive as Sweden.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Will you read the last 2 pages here. Specifically posts by the poster called bit cynical.

The statistics dont back up the effectiveness of a lockdown

Look up the statistics for the Nordic countries and then tell me which is the outlier when it comes to confirmed cases and deaths. Sweden who did not use lockdown or any of the three others who did.
Not that it may give you a better understanding as from engaging with you on another thread you do not appear to know the difference between limited restrictions and a full lockdown.

charlie14 wrote: »

If there is one it will be a much shorter affair I imagine. Especially if HIQA are correct. It will show just how effective lockdown was.

Will you read the last 2 pages here. Specifically posts by the poster called bit cynical.

The statistics dont back up the effectiveness of a lockdown

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I hope the inquiry into Irelands handling of Covid is just as invasive

If there is one it will be a much shorter affair I imagine. Especially if HIQA are correct. It will show just how effective lockdown was.

charlie14 wrote: »

I would suspect that the Sweden number has as much do do with someone asking a question at this on-going inquiry into Sweden`s handling of Covid-19

I hope the inquiry into Irelands handling of Covid is just as invasive

tobefrank321 wrote: »

The Swedes at least have been transparent about a worst case scenario. No other country seems to have produced a worst case scenario for a second wave, unless you can find it for me?

The point of outlining a worst case scenario is to implement measures and advice to ensure it doesn't happen.

Its a myth as you well know that the Swedes have no restrictions, although generally they rely on advice and guidance than strict rules.

Here is that advice:

https://www.thelocal.se/20200228/coronavirus-the-everyday-precautions-to-take-if-youre-in-sweden

There was talk about lockdown fatigue in some countries and when best to implement a lockdown. It may have played a part in delays in the UK and possibly Ireland to a lesser extent. However we definitely saw at the end of lockdowns in Ireland, UK and US and other countries significant fatigue and a desire to get back to normality. There were protests in countries like France against it as well as the US. You only have to look back on this forum at the fatigue towards the end and the unwillingness ever to go into lockdown again.

Its always better to get people's buy in and co-operation than force them to do something as they will rebel against the latter.

I would be of the opinion that worst case scenario figures for deaths in a second wave are like modelling numbers. Nobody really has a clue. I would suspect that the Sweden number has as much do do with someone asking a question at this on-going inquiry into Sweden`s handling of Covid-19 and the figure is as much off the top of someones head as anything else.

It is much better to get people to willingly act responsibly than use lockdown, but that was not what happened in Ireland which lead to lockdown here in the first place.

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

And since you're so keen on the science, have a read of this and tell me if you think it was science or politics?

I have read it and many more like it.

What's your point?

Bit cynical

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

Anti science? Where?

I have a Masters degree in science!

Agree. I think there's been a lot of fear surrounding the pandemic and politicians and the public have been only too willing to latch on to any expert if it is what they want to hear. Case in point would be the Imperial College model which turned out to be grossly wrong when researchers adapted it to Sweden. Yet it suited the politicians agenda. They could then point out how many lives were "saved" by imposing lockdown even though the science behind the figure was very dodgy.

It is great being pro-science but having concerns about the quality or accuracy of a scientific pronouncement does not make you "anti-science".

Boggles wrote: »

My mind is well and truly open.

I just don't tolerate or engage with people who are anti science.

It is a general rule that has served me quite well.

But hey knock yourself out.

And since you're so keen on the science, have a read of this and tell me if you think it was science or politics?

https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy

During the Swine Flu epidemic of 2009/10 the vaccine Pandemrix was given to six million people in the UK, to high-risk groups, including children, with asthma, diabetes and heart disease. The vaccine had been approved by the European Medicines Agency for use across the EU, despite minimal clinical trials. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, was given an indemnity by the UK government. Some 850,000 vaccinations were given to children aged between 6 months and 16 years.

Pandemrix caused narcolepsy
The UK Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) undertook a major study of 4- to 18-year-olds and found that around one in every 55,000 jabs led to narcolepsy.

Boggles wrote: »

My mind is well and truly open.

I just don't tolerate or engage with people who are anti science.

It is a general rule that has served me quite well.

But hey knock yourself out.

And since you're so keen on the science, have a read of this and tell me if you think it read science or politics?

https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy

During the Swine Flu epidemic of 2009/10 the vaccine Pandemrix was given to six million people in the UK, to high-risk groups, including children, with asthma, diabetes and heart disease. The vaccine had been approved by the European Medicines Agency for use across the EU, despite minimal clinical trials. The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, was given an indemnity by the UK government. Some 850,000 vaccinations were given to children aged between 6 months and 16 years.

Pandemrix caused narcolepsy
The UK Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England) undertook a major study of 4- to 18-year-olds and found that around one in every 55,000 jabs led to narcolepsy.

Boggles wrote: »

My mind is well and truly open.

I just don't tolerate or engage with people who are anti science.

It is a general rule that has served me quite well.

But hey knock yourself out.

Anti science? Where?

I have a Masters degree in science!

Jessica Swift Bearded wrote: »

Like I said above. Lucky for you that you were able to seize on one line to discount a huge post.
So after data analytics and a post from Sweden, your mind is still closed.
What will it take to change your viewpoint?

My mind is well and truly open.

I just don't tolerate or engage with people who are anti science.

It is a general rule that has served me quite well.

But hey knock yourself out.

Spiderman0081

Arghus wrote: »

Interesting post. You seem very against the idea of a vaccine, why is that?

Mainly because they are trying to rush the results. Look at the side effects of the swine flu vaccine for example, which was also rushed.
If you have no underlying conditions, you only need to be as worried as you are about a regular flu season. But because of the emphasis put on hygiene, you can start worrying less about that also.
The elderly are effected by this virus but what it would cost monetarily to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions would be a drop in the ocean compared to what a lockdown will cost, monetarily and on peoples health.
But the push by the majority of media outlets to scare even the young and healthy, is what is truly upsetting.
This is another reason why everyone should be second guessing their motives and also weighing the negatives of a rushed vaccine before even considering taking a chance on it.
A vaccine should never be taken lightly but there are talks already of a legal basis in Ireland for making the vaccine mandatory for covid. Taking people’s rights away during the lockdown was a piece of cake in Ireland it appears.
The Irish government has got all their eggs in one political basket when it comes to their covid strategy and they will do anything to dig themselves out of the hole they have put themselves in. As will many other countries. But at what cost? A rushed vaccine. No thanks.

Boggles wrote: »

Oh dear, you almost you had me.

Like I said above. Lucky for you that you were able to seize on one line to discount a huge post.
So after data analytics and a post from Sweden, your mind is still closed.
What will it take to change your viewpoint?