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

sheepysheep

biko wrote: »

If lockdown means "don't leave your home" then Sweden were never in lockdown, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

The Swedish government took a year of covid to suddenly rush through legislation to close restaurants, shops, and public transport.
I doubt they have the authority to enforce lockdown, which in effect is martial law.

I'd say most people on here are just comparing Ireland's Level 5 style lockdown to what's happening in Sweden for contrast.

Has anywhere apart from China imposed a 'Martial Law' style lockdown?

AlmightyCushion

biko wrote: »

If lockdown means "don't leave your home" then Sweden were never in lockdown, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

The Swedish government took a year of covid to suddenly rush through legislation to close restaurants, shops, and public transport.
I doubt they have the authority to enforce lockdown, which in effect is martial law.

By that logic Ireland was never in lockdown and will likely never be in lockdown.

biko

sheepysheep wrote: »

Has anywhere apart from China imposed a 'Martial Law' style lockdown?

South Australia was super strict, people weren't allowed to walk their dogs.

Sweden will probably keep doing recommendations rather than actual forced lockdowns, at least until it gets impossible for them to handle the virus any other way when next wave hits.

the incredible pudding

biko wrote: »

I got the number 200 from Wiki which I trust to 80% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodifestivalen_2020#Coronavirus_considerations

If you check your sources you'll see the article it references to (which you should have just referenced in the first place) was updated on the 10th of March which makes more sense in terms of the numbers to dates.

biko

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

By that logic Ireland was never in lockdown and will likely never be in lockdown.

Not "logic", "definition".

As you can see different countries have different level of strictness. Ireland's version isn't half bad compared to China/ Australia.

Sweden could still restrict people further but I doubt they will.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Longwinded and repetitive.

Glad you're in agreement that they're not in lockdown so.

The decision to go to Lockdown will be made by the government. If it's made. Which it hasn't been. Yet.

If you had checked out what I told you a number of times, or even did a bit of research as to the situation in Sweden post the 19th of October rather than repeating an attempted face saving statement by their Public Health Authority I wouldn`t have had to be repetitive or long-winded.

There you go again having problems with comprehension.
Uppsala clearly said they viewed their recommendation of the 20th. October as a local lockdown. That was then adopted by all the regional authorities within a short period of time. How as all regions adopted it that is not national ?

The decision on whether the Swedish government may or may not use further levels of lockdown will be made in consultation with the regions. But you already know that.

beauf

Thats an interesting chart. Not for comparing countries just in how COVID has effected death rates in each country. Some other great infographics on that page too.

sheepysheep wrote: »

Well, Here's the Financial Times.similar comparison....
https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

If you had checked out what I told you a number of times, or even did a bit of research as to the situation in Sweden post the 19th of October rather than repeating an attempted face saving statement by their Public Health Authority I wouldn`t have had to be repetitive or long-winded.

There you go again having problems with comprehension.
Uppsala clearly said they viewed their recommendation of the 20th. October as a local lockdown. That was then adopted by all the regional authorities within a short period of time. How as all regions adopted it that is not national ?

The decision on whether the Swedish government may or may not use further levels of lockdown will be made in consultation with the regions. But you already know that.

No doubt they'll consult with all relevant parties and then make a decision.

And if the decision is a National Lockdown there won't be any semantic argument about it.

You've admitted no such decision has been taken.

Uppsala can regard their decision as being a declaration of nuclear war if they want. Doesn't make it so.

sheepysheep

beauf wrote: »

Thats an interesting chart. Not for comparing countries just in how COVID has effected death rates in each country. Some other great infographics on that page too.

I think the point here is that Excess deaths are really the only worthwhile measurement of interest after a year of Covid.

Unfortunately, as the article states, not all countries will have the department resources to produce these stats.

The graphs produced do show Swedish excess deaths as lower than a substantial proportion of countries. Both World and European.

France, although the general perception seems to be that it was overrun in the early days, fares quite well for instance.

Poor old Peru fared terribly and it had quite harsh lockdown measures for a long period of time. Ecuador too.

It's some interesting stuff alright.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

No doubt they'll consult with all relevant parties and then make a decision.

And if the decision is a National Lockdown there won't be any semantic argument about it.

You've admitted no such decision has been taken.

Uppsala can regard their decision as being a declaration of nuclear war if they want. Doesn't make it so.

As far as the Public Health Authority was concerned, when all the other regions followed Uppsala`s decision on local lockdown, it might as well have been nuclear war. It resulted in them being sidelined and the government being forced to listen too the regional authorities wishes. Something you are finally recognising.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Well, Here's the Financial Times doing a similar comparison.

No mention of Sweden only being compared to Northern Europe here.

I guess you'll have issue's with their 'violations of academic integrity' too, seeing as they used some of the same data sources.

If this data set is not for comparison, then what the hell is it for?

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

The only similarities are the graphics.

The methodology used by The Economist report that you were attempting to mess with was because you either jumped on the headline figures not seeing the parameters used by that report in relation to Sweden and the reasons given for them.

Or you did see them and with them supporting the view by many here that Sweden should be compared to it`s neighbours it didn`t suit your narrative and you totally ignored them attempting to pass off your analysis as if it was supported by The Economist report.
So quite your foolishness. It`s one or the other and personally from all your scrambling around on this I believe it was the latter

is_that_so

Comment by Tegnell on 3rd wave.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0302/1200326-coronavirus-global/

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The only similarities are the graphics.

The methodology used by The Economist report that you were attempting to mess with was because you either jumped on the headline figures not seeing the parameters used by that report in relation to Sweden and the reasons given for them.

Or you did see them and with them supporting the view by many here that Sweden should be compared to it`s neighbours it didn`t suit your narrative and you totally ignored them attempting to pass off your analysis as if it was supported by The Economist report.
So quite your foolishness. It`s one or the other and personally from all your scrambling around on this I believe it was the latter

So, not one engagement with the data.

That's a new financial times report.

It clearly provides a graphical comparison between countries for excess deaths. Yes/No.

What else is it doing?

Again, are you accusing the FT of violations of academic integrity?

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The only similarities are the graphics.

The methodology used by The Economist report that you were attempting to mess with was because you either jumped on the headline figures not seeing the parameters used by that report in relation to Sweden and the reasons given for them.

Or you did see them and with them supporting the view by many here that Sweden should be compared to it`s neighbours it didn`t suit your narrative and you totally ignored them attempting to pass off your analysis as if it was supported by The Economist report.
So quite your foolishness. It`s one or the other and personally from all your scrambling around on this I believe it was the latter

For the 7th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

Feel free to provide your usual waffely answer.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

[Deleted User]

sheepysheep wrote: »

For the 7th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

Feel free to provide your usual waffely answer.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/he...nce_rep_en.pdf

sheepysheep

glasso wrote: »

No

He's seen it anyway.

Try this.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

So, not one engagement with the data.

That's a new financial times report.

It clearly provides a graphical comparison between countries for excess deaths. Yes/No.

What else is it doing?

Again, are you accusing the FT of violations of academic integrity?

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

What is there to engage on other than you yet again attempting to charge horses in mid-stream ?

Has the FT carried out it`s research under the same parameters as The Economist report you yourself posted, and contradicted that Economist report that backed up what many here have been saying. That Sweden for the reasons stated by that Economists report is more appropriately comparable in excess Covid-19 deaths to it`s neighbours. Yes/No ?

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

For the 7th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

Feel free to provide your usual waffely answer.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state,/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

Have you so ran out of attempts to distract and are now so desperate that you are again back to that ?

It`s a report on EU health where 99% of the data is from 2016 or earlier.
Unless you really are stuck in some kind of time warp, that is at least 4 years before the first European deaths due to Covid-19.

And you talk about waffle.:rolleyes:

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

What is there to engage on other than you yet again attempting to charge horses in mid-stream ?

Has the FT carried out it`s research under the same parameters as The Economist report you yourself posted, and contradicted that Economist report that backed up what many here have been saying. That Sweden for the reasons stated by that Economists report is more appropriately comparable in excess Covid-19 deaths to it`s neighbours. Yes/No?

NO.

See how easy it is?

So, For the 8th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

What is there to engage on other than you yet again attempting to charge horses in mid-stream ?

Has the FT carried out it`s research under the same parameters as The Economist report you yourself posted, and contradicted that Economist report that backed up what many here have been saying. That Sweden for the reasons stated by that Economists report is more appropriately comparable in excess Covid-19 deaths to it`s neighbours. Yes/No ?

I'm not changing horses midstream. I'm providing a new report. New reports come out all the time.

So, does that data in the new report not clearly provide excess deaths data on a number of countries and compare them with each other.

If not what is it doing?

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

mandrake04

biko wrote: »

South Australia was super strict, people weren't allowed to walk their dogs.

ah but it was only 3 days even though it was supposed to be 6 it wasn't as if it was months or anything.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

NO.

See how easy it is?

So, For the 8th time. Does this report compare Sweden to the other EU 27 on a host of health related matters? Yes/No.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

How easy to do what, play your distract games ?

This thread is titled Sweden avoiding lockdown in relation to Covid-19 where Sweden had it`s first death due to Covid-19 in March 2020.
That O.E.C.D. report was compiled in 2018, two years earlier, with 99% of the data from at least two years prior to that.
Now at a minimum, it is five years out of date.

Even by your standards of attempted distraction it is farcical.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Have you so ran out of attempts to distract and are now so desperate that you are again back to that ?

It`s a report on EU health where 99% of the data is from 2016 or earlier.
Unless you really are stuck in some kind of time warp, that is at least 4 years before the first European deaths due to Covid-19.

And you talk about waffle.:rolleyes:

You have an issue with the 2018 EU health report because the data is out of date.

Fortunately, the 2020 EU report is now available.

As I predicted earlier in the thread, the 2020 report does indeed contain an analysis of Covid.

In fact the entire 1st Chapter, all 61 pages directly addresses Covid in Europe.

Here is a brief snapshot of the data.

And yes, Charlie, excess deaths too.

There are over 20 such topics in which Sweden is directly compared to all of Europe on Covid related issues from deaths to finance to demographics.

Not to mention the 100's of other topics in the other chapters.

I think this excellent piece of research, ethically collated with due scientific rigour, with insightful facts and data analysis, puts to bed once and for all your insistence that Sweden can only be compared to Norway and Finland.

The science and scientists and analysts simply don't agree with you.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

How easy to do what, play your distract games ?

This thread is titled Sweden avoiding lockdown in relation to Covid-19 where Sweden had it`s first death due to Covid-19 in March 2020.
That O.E.C.D. report was compiled in 2018, two years earlier, with 99% of the data from at least two years prior to that.
Now at a minimum, it is five years out of date.

Even by your standards of attempted distraction it is farcical.

All your concerns have been addressed in previous post.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

I'm not changing horses midstream. I'm providing a new report. New reports come out all the time.

So, does that data in the new report not clearly provide excess deaths data on a number of countries and compare them with each other.

If not what is it doing?

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

Of course you are attempting to change horses in midstream to deflect from what you were attempting to do with The Economist report you also posted by playing fast and loosed with.

Do you even know the difference between analysis and an agenda ?

The Economist report was clear on the parameters it used in relation to Europe. Four distinct regions and the severity of the virus moving eastwards.
In it`s analysis of Northern Europe it specifically named Sweden as being an "exception" for excess Covid-19 deaths and showed graphically how much an exception it was.

You attempted to do your own analysis, piggy-backing on The Economist report, hoping to give it credence while totally ignoring The Economist parameters by jumping around countries that suited your narrative.
That is not analysis. It`s an agenda.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

All your concerns have been addressed in previous post.

Spoofer.:D

Does it do an analysis of the excess Covid-19 deaths for Northern Europe where The Economist found Sweden "an exception" ?

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Spoofer.:D

Does it do an analysis of the excess Covid-19 deaths for Northern Europe where The Economist found Sweden "an exception" ?

No. It compares all of Europe.

A child could do a regional analysis of norway, sweden, finland and denmark and see how Sweden does in comparasion.

However, the same child could also do a comparison with the rest of Europe and see that it has performed rather well.

No Economist report necessary for that.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Of course you are attempting to change horses in midstream to deflect from what you were attempting to do with The Economist report you also posted by playing fast and loosed with.

Do you even know the difference between analysis and an agenda ?

The Economist report was clear on the parameters it used in relation to Europe. Four distinct regions and the severity of the virus moving eastwards.
In it`s analysis of Northern Europe it specifically named Sweden as being an "exception" for excess Covid-19 deaths and showed graphically how much an exception it was.

You attempted to do your own analysis, piggy-backing on The Economist report, hoping to give it credence while totally ignoring The Economist parameters by jumping around countries that suited your narrative.
That is not analysis. It`s an agenda.

The Economist didn't set any paramaters.

It provided a overview of the spread of the disease Through Europe over time, from western to eastern etc.

That was one topic. Setting the background

It then addressed Covid excess deaths, providing a ranking and graphical list of how countries performed.

If I have an agenda, then so does the FT and the OECD which provided the same European analysis as me.

Except their analysis has been published.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Spoofer.:D

Does it do an analysis of the excess Covid-19 deaths for Northern Europe where The Economist found Sweden "an exception" ?

Only a troll smirks at Science Charlie.

61 pages of scientific data and all you can do is smirk at it.

Boggles

Stockholm healthcare chief: ‘The third wave of Covid-19 is here’

For three weeks in a row, the number of new cases has risen by around 25 percent. Last week a total of 6,336 new cases of Covid-19 were reported, up from 3,225 new cases three weeks earlier

Bratt also commented on the rate of vaccination in Stockholm, which has so far vaccinated the lowest proportion of its adult residents out of Sweden’s 21 regions