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

cnocbui

DeVore wrote: »

Not over the whole pandemic. That 0.025% is their *daily* fatality rate and still rising.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

Currently running at 330,000 per day, on a population of roughly 1Bn. thats ~0.03% *per day*

Orla Guerin and the BBC went to a remote village and it seemed most families had someone who had died from what sounds like COVID, but none of them were counted as such officially, so it's likely all Indian numbers need to be multiplied by seven - just pulling a number out of the air, like the Indian authorities. Modi clearly needs to keep a lid on the truth to save his political neck.

CalamariFritti

DeVore wrote: »

Not over the whole pandemic. That 0.025% is their *daily* fatality rate and still rising.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/

Currently running at 330,000 per day, on a population of roughly 1Bn. thats ~0.03% *per day*

I think you might want to have a look at those statistics again. It's 'to date' not per day. And yes that makes it 0.025% in total over the whole pandemic.

CalamariFritti

charlie14 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus will you ever cop yourself on! The past week alone 25,000 people have died in India due to Covid and there have been over 1 Million new cases.

Sweet Jesus stop berating me and learn how to read numbers and put them into context. India had 330k something deaths over a population of 1,366 billion. 1,366 billion. Thats what? Something like 15% of the world's population?

humberklog

So eh.... any news about Sweden?

The few places I've been getting updates about what it's like there by people that are there have gone quiet over the last few months.

Looking at the more pessemistic forecasts from a few months ago it doesn't look like they have played out that bad.

cnocbui

humberklog wrote: »

So eh.... any news about Sweden?

The few places I've been getting updates about what it's like there by people that are there have gone quiet over the last few months.

Looking at the more pessemistic forecasts from a few months ago it doesn't look like they have played out that bad.

I think it turned into India and everyone died as predicted - or maybe not.

Dyr

cnocbui wrote: »

I think it turned into India and everyone died as predicted - or maybe not.

I think its maybe not

Will be interesting to see in a few years if we've found out that lockdowns didnt really make much of a difference one way or tother

DeVore

E1Qujo3WUAMJZpI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

silverharp

I saw someone on Twitter posting excess deaths for Sweden for 19 and 20 being low and the 2020 one only that Leo was posting so show good wee Ireland was, Sweden was only a few countries higher and nowhere near the top.

Blut2

humberklog wrote: »

So eh.... any news about Sweden?

The few places I've been getting updates about what it's like there by people that are there have gone quiet over the last few months.

Looking at the more pessemistic forecasts from a few months ago it doesn't look like they have played out that bad.

Their 7 day daily average of deaths is 2.... not two hundred, or two thousand, 2. Out of a population of 10million+. Covid is essentially over there.

Its a far cry from the 250,000+ deaths and impending doom that were predicted, repeatedly.

Wolf359f

Blut2 wrote: »

Their 7 day daily average of deaths is 2.... not two hundred, or two thousand, 2. Out of a population of 10million+. Covid is essentially over there.

Its a far cry from the 250,000+ deaths and impending doom that were predicted, repeatedly.

I'd be cautious using swedish data. It's always retrospectively changed. Circle back in a week or two and I guarantee that 7 day average of deaths will be higher than 2.
You can go through this entire thread where people post stats that look good on the day, but in retrospect the data for that day was incomplete. Every chart will show all metrics in Sweden decreasing, even when they were knee deep in the previous 3 waves. It's just the way the reporting is done.

I'm not saying the deaths should be 200 or some other doomsday prediction, just a caution when reading swedish data is all.

Bit cynical

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'm not saying the deaths should be 200 or some other doomsday prediction, just a caution when reading swedish data is all.

Well it depends very much on which dataset you look at. At the moment it is about 12 to 14 deaths per day on average with Covid and has been for some time. This is towards the lower end of the scale in the EU as a proportion of the population and is why Sweden is opening up at the moment. But you are right that doomsday predictions have proved unfounded.

Blut2

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'd be cautious using swedish data. It's always retrospectively changed. Circle back in a week or two and I guarantee that 7 day average of deaths will be higher than 2.
You can go through this entire thread where people post stats that look good on the day, but in retrospect the data for that day was incomplete. Every chart will show all metrics in Sweden decreasing, even when they were knee deep in the previous 3 waves. It's just the way the reporting is done.

I'm not saying the deaths should be 200 or some other doomsday prediction, just a caution when reading swedish data is all.

Thats been said about Swedish data repeatedly in this thread. "oh you can't trust it, just wait, it'll get unimaginably worse". It has never happened.

But even if you want to discount recent data for the last few days, or week, or even month, the overall trend picture is very clear. The virus has been in a very steady decline since early January, 5 months ago, in Sweden.

Wolf359f

Blut2 wrote: »

Thats been said about Swedish data repeatedly in this thread. "oh you can't trust it, just wait, it'll get unimaginably worse". It has never happened.

But even if you want to discount recent data for the last few days, or week, or even month, the overall trend picture is very clear. The virus has been in a very steady decline since early January, 5 months ago, in Sweden.

I won't go picking through the thread, but needless to say someone was pointing to a massive drop in daily ICU admission figures, that day they had the lowest number of admissions in about 6 weeks. Looking back on the data for that day in question, in retrospect, it went from like 4 admissions to 30, and kept on increasing for weeks after.
It was weeks later when they peaked.
So as you say, you need to follow the trend and no be picking a single day.

charlie14

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I think you might want to have a look at those statistics again. It's 'to date' not per day. And yes that makes it 0.025% in total over the whole pandemic.

I`m sure your statistics will be very comforting to the friends family and loved ones of those 25,000 who died due to a preventable viral infection last week in India and the 1 million new cases that became infected.

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m sure your statistics will be very comforting to the friends family and loved ones of those 25,000 who died due to a preventable viral infection last week in India and the 1 million new cases that became infected.

Playing the bleeding heart - I care so much more than you, and am therefore a morally superior being - card for the eight thousandth time.

charlie14

cnocbui wrote: »

Playing the bleeding heart - I care so much more than you, and am therefore a morally superior being - card for the eight thousandth time.

As opposed to being a callous statistician where preventable deaths are concerned ?
I do not know the first thing about you, so perhaps in the same situation with the death of a friend, a family member or a loved one it is nothing more than a statistic to you. Certainly looks that way.

patnor1011

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m sure your statistics will be very comforting to the friends family and loved ones of those 25,000 who died due to a preventable viral infection last week in India and the 1 million new cases that became infected.

Good news here is that India see dramatic decline in cases and deaths since they started using ivermectin as treatment and also prevention.

If you think that this viral infection is preventable by imposing lockdowns you may wan t to think again. Latest study from Germany found lockdowns do have zero effect on covid case numbers and deaths.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/german-study-finds-lockdown-had-little-effect-virus-infections/amp/

Also, academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

A NBER working paper titled The Long-Term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On life Expectancy And Mortality Rates suggests that “For the overall population, the increase in the death rate following the COVID-19 pandemic implies a staggering 0.89 and 1.37 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively.”

The paper was written by Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Duke University, Giada Bianchi, an MD in the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, and Dongho Song, an economist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/06/covid-pandemic-recession-unemployment-mortality-rate-increase/

is_that_so

patnor1011 wrote: »

Good news here is that India see dramatic decline in cases and deaths since they started using ivermectin as treatment and also prevention.

If you think that this viral infection is preventable by imposing lockdowns you may wan t to think again. Latest study from Germany found lockdowns do have zero effect on covid case numbers and deaths.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/german-study-finds-lockdown-had-little-effect-virus-infections/amp/

Also, academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

A NBER working paper titled The Long-Term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On life Expectancy And Mortality Rates suggests that “For the overall population, the increase in the death rate following the COVID-19 pandemic implies a staggering 0.89 and 1.37 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively.”

The paper was written by Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Duke University, Giada Bianchi, an MD in the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, and Dongho Song, an economist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/06/covid-pandemic-recession-unemployment-mortality-rate-increase/

That Ivermectin claim is refuted here and deemed unproven.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-data-available-to-suggest-a-link-between-indias-reduction-of-covid-19-cases-and-the-use-of-ivermectin-jim-hoft-gateway-pundit/

As for lockdowns it really depends where they happen and what you do when they are in place. They are a very crude way of keeping people away from each other and to an extent keeping the virus corralled. In 2020 we had no other tools apart from testing, but very effective testing requires the type of mandatory controls that few of us would be comfortable with. Now that we have means of breaking the transmission through vaccination that tool is unlikely to be needed again on such a very wide scale. Further new therapeutics may do away with it completely.

It certainly wasn't ideal but hindsight doesn't make it wrong and very few if any of those who rail against it would ever be called upon to address a public health crisis like this. Hurling from the ditch is not evidence of a better solution.

biko

From 1st June, Sweden has relaxed its restrictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-edFuK-hmc

tom1ie

patnor1011 wrote: »

Good news here is that India see dramatic decline in cases and deaths since they started using ivermectin as treatment and also prevention.

If you think that this viral infection is preventable by imposing lockdowns you may wan t to think again. Latest study from Germany found lockdowns do have zero effect on covid case numbers and deaths.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/03/german-study-finds-lockdown-had-little-effect-virus-infections/amp/

Also, academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have concluded that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

A NBER working paper titled The Long-Term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On life Expectancy And Mortality Rates suggests that “For the overall population, the increase in the death rate following the COVID-19 pandemic implies a staggering 0.89 and 1.37 million excess deaths over the next 15 and 20 years, respectively.”

The paper was written by Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Duke University, Giada Bianchi, an MD in the Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, and Dongho Song, an economist at the Johns Hopkins University’s Carey Business School.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/06/covid-pandemic-recession-unemployment-mortality-rate-increase/

How can a lockdown which stops people mixing have zero effect on a virus that needs people mixing to spread?

Do you mean a lockdown has zero effect as the lockdown is being ignored by the populous?

biko

biko wrote: »

In Kalmar region you will not know what vaccine you get - until you sit on the chair.
If you then decide to not get the vaccine you must pay 20 Euro.

So if you don't want AZ it's gonna cost you.

This penalty is spreading, four regions now will charge you money if you don't want the AZ jab.
The highest is a northern region that will charge you 45 Euro if you say no to the jab.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/norrbotten/politiska-beslut-bakom-avgift-nar-man-nekar-ta-astras-vaccin

patnor1011

tom1ie wrote: »

How can a lockdown which stops people mixing have zero effect on a virus that needs people mixing to spread?

Do you mean a lockdown has zero effect as the lockdown is being ignored by the populous?

Ask scientists from Munich University. Some other scientists found the same thing. And further more found that lockdown actually helped spread transmission more due to people confined to small places.
You fail to realize that about a third of workforce kept going about their daily routine coming to and from work due to their job being essential. They and their families then met with other people as nobody would adhere to restrictions fully for such a long time anyway.

cnocbui

patnor1011 wrote: »

Ask scientists from Munich University. Some other scientists found the same thing. And further more found that lockdown actually helped spread transmission more due to people confined to small places.
You fail to realize that about a third of workforce kept going about their daily routine coming to and from work due to their job being essential. They and their families then met with other people as nobody would adhere to restrictions fully for such a long time anyway.

That's what the Chinese found in Wuhan: most contagion happened between members of households, hence them shifting to removing people to plague hospitals. This seems to have been missed by the HSE lockdown clowns.

Locking down a country while schools are still open is just epic nonsense. The months of pointless lockdown we didn't need to have.

charlie14

patnor1011 wrote: »

Ask scientists from Munich University. Some other scientists found the same thing. And further more found that lockdown actually helped spread transmission more due to people confined to small places.
You fail to realize that about a third of workforce kept going about their daily routine coming to and from work due to their job being essential. They and their families then met with other people as nobody would adhere to restrictions fully for such a long time anyway.

You are still clinging to Ivermectin as some kind of alternative to vaccines. There is no data to support that. Whatever data may be available is that it is of perhaps some use in treating Covid patients, not that it prevents infection.Your theory on it being used in a few areas in India is based on correlation implying causation due to new case numbers dropping.Being a treatment it would have no effect on numbers dropping.

You might also ask those Munich scientists if lockdown does not reduce the spread of infections, then what got the numbers back down in Germany in April when Germany applied their "emergency brake" by reimposing restrictions. Or indeed compare the difference in deaths and infections in the subject of this thread, Sweden, with their two neighbours Norway and Finland where the neighbours used lockdown and Sweden used light touch restrictions.

When these essential workers and their families, if as you claim, meeting with others spead the infection, then that was not due to lockdown restrictions. It was due to them not following the restrictions. With there being no restictions whatsoever I fail to see how infections and deaths could be expected to be lower.
Did your Munich scientists give a figure for either of those in that scenario, or like Giesecke, Tegnell and Ioannidis, the poster boys for natural herd immunity, just grab figures out of thin air chasing their 15 minutes of fame headlines ?

humberklog

Thanks for posting that vid Biko I never came across that guy before. Clear and informative.

So Sweden's implemented restrictions over the last few months look like they were relatively successful. They also strike me as being pretty sensible too.

So don't be doing the conga with your granny around the town square at all hours of the night but no need to barricade yourself into a moated castle either.

And the pearl clutching projections from yestamonth thankfully didn't bear fruit. We can pop those graphs onto a funeral boat, set fire to it and send it into the misty lake of gloom.

[Deleted User]

I see many users making reference to seemingly recent 'hysterical' or 'pearl clutching projections' yet I don't recall such, and said users never seem willing to actually back up their claims.

Strange that.

It's almost like users who fall very much on one side of this discussion have been relentlessly strawmanning and changing the goalposts since Day 1 as the available facts and evidence never matched their desperately held narrative.

Speaking of, remember when several anti-locdown users on this thread were insisting in late January that India had started to reach herd immunity?

🙄

patnor1011

charlie14 wrote: »

You are still clinging to Ivermectin as some kind of alternative to vaccines. There is no data to support that. Whatever data may be available is that it is of perhaps some use in treating Covid patients, not that it prevents infection.Your theory on it being used in a few areas in India is based on correlation implying causation due to new case numbers dropping.Being a treatment it would have no effect on numbers dropping.

I am not clinging to anything and what you implied came from your head not mine. I never said anything like that or even mentioned vaccines so stop being dishonest trying to put words in my mouth.

Ivermectin was being used extensively in India as a treatment and was advised to use as a prophylactic too. Pick your fight with Indian health body or their experts and explain to them they are wrong.
It is not used in a few areas in India, it is rather not used in few areas and they do have higher mortality and cases compared to areas where it is used. Easily verifiable facts.

humberklog

Deleted User wrote: »

I see many users making reference to seemingly recent 'hysterical' or 'pearl clutching projections' yet I don't recall such, and said users never seem willing to actually back up their claims.

Strange that.

If you're thinking of my posting then I'm not referring to recent posts but to posts over the course of the thread.

I can't quote back to the posters' posts as I had to put 2 of the more annoying ones on "ignore".

But just to give an idea- back in Feb this year you had posters on here who were equating those who were pro Sweden's approach with Gemma O'Doherty. There's only so much one can take, I rarely (if ever) put a poster on "ignore" but on thread about Sweden (!?) I found myself having to do it to 2 just to be able to read through the thread properly.

There has often been a fairly unpleasant and dismissive tone in this thread and perhaps my previous post was adding to that. The post with the graph projection from few months ago probably annoyed me a bit too much.

I am and have been fairly on the fence with regards to Sweden's approach, it's not even a country I particularly like or care for. But I found what they were doing interesting and different and worth following.

As for India? Couldn't care less tbh.

charlie14

patnor1011 wrote: »

I am not clinging to anything and what you implied came from your head not mine. I never said anything like that or even mentioned vaccines so stop being dishonest trying to put words in my mouth.

Ivermectin was being used extensively in India as a treatment and was advised to use as a prophylactic too. Pick your fight with Indian health body or their experts and explain to them they are wrong.
It is not used in a few areas in India, it is rather not used in few areas and they do have higher mortality and cases compared to areas where it is used. Easily verifiable facts.

Actually that I did find strange. No mention whatsoever of vaccines by you, just Ivermectin.
Are you implying that you believe Ivermectin is more effective than vaccines for the prevention of serious illness and deaths ?

This is the same India health body that believed they had achieved herd immunity, so with no data on Ivermectin having any ability to prevent infection, if I was asking them any question it would be why the world`s largest manufacturer of vaccines by June 5th. had just 13% of its population having received their first dose and just 3.3% being fully vaccinated.

PintOfView

patnor1011 wrote: »

I am not clinging to anything and what you implied came from your head not mine. I never said anything like that or even mentioned vaccines so stop being dishonest trying to put words in my mouth.

Ivermectin was being used extensively in India as a treatment and was advised to use as a prophylactic too. Pick your fight with Indian health body or their experts and explain to them they are wrong.
It is not used in a few areas in India, it is rather not used in few areas and they do have higher mortality and cases compared to areas where it is used. Easily verifiable facts.

You're suggesting it's fairly clear that Ivermectin is working, and that this is easily verifiable!

When I looked up ivermectin it seems to have mixed reviews, with no trials yet showing conclusive results.
Can you link to the ones that you found that mention it is extensively used in India, and
where it mentions that the areas using it have lower mortality?