Sweden avoiding lockdown

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Top analysis as always.

Thank you. It is hard to argue with real life numbers. There may be a small blip somewhere this year, but overall the death rates are just as average as in 2015 (or actually slightly lower), 2016 or 2017. Last year was particularly good (low in deaths), so that brings the previous 5 year average down a bit.
After all, quite an average year.

A story on the BBC (Expressen) which illustrates how people in Sweden have been practicing social distancing long before the outbreak of Covid 19.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55146377

While this story is obviously extreme, it is indicative of the Swedish mindset where independence is highly valued/required and being overly interested in your neighbour's affairs would be frowned upon.

tobefrank321 wrote: »

They didn't outperform Sweden's GDP by 40%. They outperformed their growth by 40% which is a different thing entirely.

You've used this bogus statistic before.

If Country A grows by 1% and country B grows by 2%, would you say country B outperformed country A by 100%? Of course not, you'd say it outperformed country A by 1%.

The grasping at straws is getting desperate now.

Doing a lot of grasping at straws yourself if that is the best you can come up with attempting to show Sweden`s strategy has not been a failure on every level that some here were claiming how successful it was destined to be, and a strategy every country should be following.

Despite all the predictions here that Sweden would outperform Ireland`s GDP for Q2, Sweden`s GDP contracted by 8.6%, Ireland`s by 6.1%.
Do the maths whichever way you wish, the end result is the same.

charlie14 wrote: »

To be even fairer Arthur I pointed out from the outset that in a globalised world expecting one country to gain a GDP benefit during a pandemic was inane. Especially with that country`s own Central Bank and it`s independent economic think-tank projections based on the first wave and a second wave which Sweden now has.
My point was being rubbished back then by at least one of those who have thanked your post.
Memories are getting shorter and more selective around here of late it appears.


I have also posted that lockdowns are not just about ensuring health services are not over-run. They also save lives. Reduce the level of infections and you reduce the number of deaths.




As to my original question. What exactly has Sweden`s strategy achieved?


There was no lockdown because they had no faith in a vaccine being developed. They are now using lockdown, and we have not just one but a number of vaccines, where ironically due to a side deal it now means Sweden will be one of the first countries to begin vaccinations.

They have gained no GDP advantage. Their consumer spending was no better when others were in lockdown and their unemployment figures were no better either


Chasing herd immunity was not just a failure, but as they have now admitted immoral. The supposed immunity they were going to gain from not locking down during the first wave, on their present numbers if it even exists is negligible, and their deaths are 4 times that of their Nordic neighbours combined.

I’m sorry but you are completely redrawing the parameters of what lockdown was aimed at preventing. If lockdown was simply about saving lives outright, we would still be in lockdown now. There was a reopening in the summer and a reopening now, despite the inevitable consequence of these reopenings being an eventual resurgence of the virus and more deaths. If the lockdown strategy was aimed simply at keeping deaths to a minimum then we would maintaining lockdown until such times as there is a vaccine. It is an exercise of self-delusion to pretend that lockdown was not motivated primarily by the spectre of an over-run health service for a sustained period of time, and the anticipation that many, many more thousands would die (on the scales being predicted in the early months of the year) if lockdown was not implemented.

So when you ask what Sweden has achieved, you are asking a question which is shaped deliberately narrowly in a way which is convenient to the point you are trying to make. You are concealing a statement as a rhetorical question — because what you’re basically attempting to say in your question is: “Sweden had a lot more deaths and its economy didn’t perform well and it’s neighbours had less deaths so basically the Swedish strategy was wrong”.

In doing so, you are steering the conversation away (whether intentionally or unintentionally) from the proper question, which is not about what countries achieved but about whether lockdown was a proportionate response to the risk. The deaths of over 6,000 people mostly of life expectancy age is sad, but is it a catastrophe of such magnitude that it would have been proportionate for Sweden to impose far reaching restrictions on civil liberties and people’s ability to make a living for the guts of a year? It doesn’t appear so to me.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I’m sorry but you are completely redrawing the parameters of what lockdown was aimed at preventing. If lockdown was simply about saving lives outright, we would still be in lockdown now. There was a reopening in the summer and a reopening now, despite the inevitable consequence of these reopenings being an eventual resurgence of the virus and more deaths. If the lockdown strategy was aimed simply at keeping deaths to a minimum then we would maintaining lockdown until such times as there is a vaccine. It is an exercise of self-delusion to pretend that lockdown was not motivated primarily by the spectre of an over-run health service for a sustained period of time, and the anticipation that many, many more thousands would die (on the scales being predicted in the early months of the year) if lockdown was not implemented.

So when you ask what Sweden has achieved, you are asking a question which is shaped deliberately narrowly in a way which is convenient to the point you are trying to make. You are concealing a statement as a rhetorical question — because what you’re basically attempting to say in your question is: “Sweden had a lot more deaths and its economy didn’t perform well and it’s neighbours had less deaths so basically the Swedish strategy was wrong”.

In doing so, you are steering the conversation away (whether intentionally or unintentionally) from the proper question, which is not about what countries achieved but about whether lockdown was a proportionate response to the risk. The deaths of over 6,000 people mostly of life expectancy age is sad, but is it a catastrophe of such magnitude that it would have been proportionate for Sweden to impose far reaching restrictions on civil liberties and people’s ability to make a living for the guts of a year? It doesn’t appear so to me.

Lockdown wasn't about saving lives?

Our lockdown slogan was "Stay home. Stay safe. Protect each other".
In the UK it was famously "Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives."
And frankly protecting the health system is pretty much about saving lives too.
Lockdown was almost entirely about saving lives.

As for your fallacy about whether Sweden's strategy was proportionate to over 6,000 deaths (so far), well that's complete nonsense.
The question was and is was the herd-immunity approach appropriate for a highly infectious disease that they knew next to nothing about? They had no idea of the final death toll when making these decisions, and frankly still don't.

You also completely ignore that many thousands have long lasting effects from covid. Many young, formerly healthy people.

This whole debate is insane

TonyMaloney wrote: »

Lockdown wasn't about saving lives?

Our lockdown slogan was "Stay home. Stay safe. Protect each other".
In the UK it was famously "Stay home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives."
And frankly protecting the health system is pretty much about saving lives too.
Lockdown was almost entirely about saving lives.

As for your fallacy about whether Sweden's strategy was proportionate to over 6,000 deaths (so far), well that's complete nonsense.
The question was and is was the herd-immunity approach appropriate for a highly infectious disease that they knew next to nothing about? They had no idea of the final death toll when making these decisions, and frankly still don't.

You also completely ignore that many thousands have long lasting effects from covid. Many young, formerly healthy people.

This whole debate is insane

I think you are missing the point, or rather oversimplifying it. The lockdown strategy wasn’t just about saving lives outright, it was about saving lives on enormous scales due to what was considered the potential of the virus to kill many, many thousands and debilitate the health service. Lockdown was an extreme action designed to combat what was deemed an extreme risk. It was not the mere loss of life which was the issue, but the scale of the loss of life.

And this point is easily demonstrable. We are currently reopening the country for Christmas in the knowledge that it is likely that this action will probably lead to further infections and further deaths than would be the case if we did not reopen. So the lockdown strategy is demonstrably not just about saving lives — it’s a measure which is touted as being commensurate to the risk of all-out mass death and debilitation of the health service. A certain level of death is being seen as a price worth paying to reopen for December.

As to your point about Sweden having “no idea of the death toll”. Can you tell me what the death toll from the economic problems caused by lockdown will be over many years to come? What will be the effect of there being less money in the developed world to aid the developing and third world? What will be the effect of the exacerbation of poverty both in this country and and across the entire world? Will the economic turmoil lead to extremism and conflict in various parts of the world, as history as so often shown us that it does?

Lockdowns were imposed without any knowledge of what their effect will be in the years ahead, and you have no more insight to that than I do. So please, do not wave your soothsaying morality at me, as if you have even the slightest idea more than anyone else who will suffer hardest from what has been done this year, and whose lives will be ended or shortened.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Could you provide a source for that please?

https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/


Its grand we have been told umpteen times by the Boards experts, I thought they would do well to keep it under 200 daily deaths over next couple of months, How wrong could I have been?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-01/sweden-s-top-epidemiologist-says-herd-immunity-remains-a-mystery

The celebrity has a neck like a jockeys ................................

“It’s obvious that it does slow down transmission, but it’s been difficult to understand how large that effect is and how it should be weighed against other factors that speed up transmission,” Tegnell said. That “balance may have been different than I and many others believed.”



Not that many others Anders other than the Boards experts who will back you to oblivion.

greyday wrote: »

https://www.coronatracker.com/country/sweden/

Are you sure that is correct? It says +23 new deaths on that page not 163.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Are you sure that is correct? It says +23 new deaths on that page not 163.

Looks like it also says 0 new cases. When it comes to sweden, a lot of reporting sites aw all over the place.

actuallylike wrote: »

Looks like it also says 0 new cases. When it comes to sweden, a lot of reporting sites aw all over the place.

From the local.se, cases yesterday were 260,758 and today 266,158 so an increase of 5,400.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I think you are missing the point, or rather oversimplifying it. The lockdown strategy wasn’t just about saving lives outright, it was about saving lives on enormous scales due to what was considered the potential of the virus to kill many, many thousands and debilitate the health service. Lockdown was an extreme action designed to combat what was deemed an extreme risk. It was not the mere loss of life which was the issue, but the scale of the loss of life.

And this point is easily demonstrable. We are currently reopening the country for Christmas in the knowledge that it is likely that this action will probably lead to further infections and further deaths than would be the case if we did not reopen. So the lockdown strategy is demonstrably not just about saving lives — it’s a measure which is touted as being commensurate to the risk of all-out mass death and debilitation of the health service. A certain level of death is being seen as a price worth paying to reopen for December.

As to your point about Sweden having “no idea of the death toll”. Can you tell me what the death toll from the economic problems caused by lockdown will be over many years to come? What will be the effect of there being less money in the developed world to aid the developing and third world? What will be the effect of the exacerbation of poverty both in this country and and across the entire world? Will the economic turmoil lead to extremism and conflict in various parts of the world, as history as so often shown us that it does?

Lockdowns were imposed without any knowledge of what their effect will be in the years ahead, and you have no more insight to that than I do. So please, do not wave your soothsaying morality at me, as if you have even the slightest idea more than anyone else who will suffer hardest from what has been done this year, and whose lives will be ended or shortened.

So the only metrics you'll accept are obscure ones that are next to impossible to measure and only in the distant future. I see.
Deaths, hospitalisation, ICU, GDP, unemployment - all of these things are completely irrelevant to you as a point of comparison?

I'm not waving my "soothsaying morality" at you or anyone. I'm saying your position is fundamentally illogical and given the unenviable situation Sweden now find themselves in, it is just bat **** crazy to continue with it.

I'll meet you back here in 10 years time I we can discuss the long term consequences. I'm pretty confident you'll be dead wrong about those too.

greyday wrote: »

Locked down too late as you well know being the resident expert, and their lockdown is pretty much a mammy said don't do that to a teenager considering they never got across the gravity of the situation to the general public.
First person I am putting on Ignore on here Frank, clap yourself on the back.

Thank goodness for that! I can't say I'll miss our conversations.

I'm so confused about Sweden's daily reports. What is actual average daily deaths now? Like excluding backlogs etc. Are they just reporting some days? It's all over the place

bb1234567 wrote: »

I'm so confused about Sweden's daily reports. What is actual average daily deaths now? Like excluding backlogs etc. Are they just reporting some days? It's all over the place

Sweden reports on death based on the date the death occurred rather than on the day they were notified to them.
Over time it would produce a much more accurate graph of what actually happened, but in terms of giving an indication of how things are transpiring right now it is worse than useless.

Basically if you ever look at a chart of Swedish deaths it will always show a decline in the last 10 days. This is never true, and particularly right now.

The real death rate in Sweden is significantly higher than they are reporting.

actuallylike wrote: »

In a thread stacked with armchair experts, point scoring, bitterness, stupidity, etc. this has to take the cake as the worst comment. Sorry mate, he's right, you deserve a mute after that.

You don't actually have to focus on Sweden.

Take a look at about 30 other countries that enacted strict lockdowns, then opened up, mostly to benefit from the summer tourist season, and then went into lockdown again. These countries opened up far more than Sweden have been. Czechia - national parties. Poland massive rallies involving hundreds of thousands against government abortion policies. Portugal F1 GP, Nothern Ireland who are doing far worse than us - crowds at football matches. Even ourselves - we're opening up a day after 18 deaths and close to 300 cases on average. And the reason we are opening up is lockdowns are not sustainable.