As anybody can see from the Statistica chart your claim that deaths in 2011 (89,938) and for 2012 (91,938) were not "around" the same as 2020 when they were 98,124.
Sweden had excess deaths from the previous year of 9,358. All the statistics from Eurostat, The Economist and even Sweden`s own figures for the 9 months they had excess deaths show those deaths being for the 9 months when the Covid virus was killing people in Sweden.
Even Sweden themselves recognise that, with them, (even with their 28 day reporting rule), showing they registered 9,817 death from Covid in 2020. It really is just simple mathematics even if you only use Sweden`s own data. Sweden`s total deaths in 2020 would have been the same, or possibly even less for 2020 than they were for 2019 had there been no Covid virus. Talking about mortality rates per capita doesn`t change that.
As you can see from the chart, the mortality rate per capita was in line with previous years
Good to see and along with the recent Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre report shows how well vaccines and boosters have been doing. Even for the Delta variant that wasn`t around when they were developed.
So are you somehow claiming that the 9,358 (10.54%) excess deaths in 2020, a year when for the first 12 weeks they had less deaths than normal, was due to something other than Covid ?
If you are then I don`t see how. Even if you ignore The Economist report, and Eurostat figures on excess deaths much greater during the two waves in 2020 that their neighbours it is difficult to ignore Sweden`s own reported 9,817 Covid deaths for 2020. A figure that due to Sweden`s method of reporting only includes those that passed within 28 days of being diagnosed.
Sweden looks to of done well on deaths in 2021. They had a slow vaccine roll out initially and handed out
1.9 million AZ to everyone over 65 & 4.9 million Pfizer to those under 65's
Can you please explain why you are comparing death rates of 2020 with the year of the lowest deaths in the previous 44 years in Sweden? Obviously, deaths occurred in any given year between 1977 and 2020 compared with deaths in 2019 are higher - in any of these years you can pick. If you adjust for population increase then you can go back even deeper into the history with your 2019, as it was an exceptional year.
Compare 2020 it with 2012 maybe for a change?
2012 - (population 9,52 mln) - Deaths per million: 9,657.
2020 - (population 10,35 mln) - Deaths per million: 9,481 (-2%).
People keep saying it because it is true, and Sweden did not have "round the same as 2011 and 2012" as the chart below shows.
2020 Sweden had 9,358 (10.54%) excess deaths compared to the previous year, where for the first 12 weeks they actually had less excess deaths than the previous year. The Economist in their reporting of excess deaths by region noted that for Scandinavia, Sweden were the exception for excess deaths and contributed them as being solely due to Covid.
Eurostat also show that those Swedish excess deaths coincided with both Covid waves in 2020 and shows the stark difference between Sweden and it`s Scandinavian neighours.
Sweden April -June 2020 excess deaths for each of those months : +38.2%, +23.9%, +10.7%.
Norway April - June 2020 excess deaths for each of those months : +2.9%, - 3.1%, -1.6%
Finland April - June 2020 excess deaths for each of those months : +8.1%, +5.6%, +5.7%
Denmark April - June 2020 excess deaths for each of those months: +6.4%, - 0.9%, +0.8%
I can also give you the excess deaths for all four for the months of November and December 2020 and January 2021 if you wish but the pattern is the same as the above.
I have not seen the deaths for Sweden or any of the others for 2021, but seeing as the Swedes dropped the herd immunity insanity in October 2020 I imagine there would be no discernible difference between them. I certainly would not see them as greatly altering the multiples of Swedish Covid deaths per capita compared to those of the three neighbours..
Why do people keep saying Sweden had a load of extra deaths? They didn't. Yes, 2020 was more than the previous few years, but around the same as 2011 and 2012 and certainly not the highest ever. 2021 saw one of the lowest numbers of deaths on record. People are in denial
I don`t know how many times it has to be pointed out that it was the regional health authorities in Sweden that finally got the government to recognise as soon as they got back the power to make their own regional decisions the madness for what it was. Antibody tests had shown herd immunity was not possible, yet Tegnell was in denial of the second wave in October and was planning to reduce restrictions on care homes, was telling the elderly and vulnerable it was safe to again mingle with the general population and was planning to increase numbers at public events.
What the Local health authorities "forced" the politicians to finally do was to do what they were elected to do. Govern for the good of their population rather than stand back hoping to keep their hands clean by delegating total responsibility to unelected officials when their whole strategy blew up in their faces.
The U.K. with rising deaths and seeing the same antibody test results had no other options either, but at least they saw that earlier than Sweden. Along with the fact that the U.K. was becoming even more devolved with the other regional devolved governments increasingly questioning the strategy.
We can easily see, when compared to neighbouring countries the needless deaths this herd immunity strategy of both Sweden and the U.K caused, but you appear to believe it was somehow working and should have been continued. I assume you have some data to back that or is just some vague ideas in your own head ?
Politically by whom? I mean, no country is forced to do anything any particular way except by the people within that country, Boris could have rode out low opinion polls for a few years before election if so wished if the other tories would get behind him and not bring down the government.
I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out that Sweden and the UK were not "forced" to abandon their strategy in any way except politically.
Apologies. I missed this post earlier.
At the outset there were only two plans being proposed on how to deal with this pandemic, and only one of them had a Plan B.
One was lockdown for two reasons. One to mitigate the spread of infections and deaths, and two to prevent healthcare systems from being over-run causing even more deaths. The second perfectly understandable imo when the world was seeing what was happening in Lombardy Italy when their healthcare system was over-run.
The other was an attempt to go straight to semi-normal/modified behaviour anticipating that herd immunity could be achieved through infection. Initially both Sweden and the U.K adopted this approach but with rising deaths both were forced to abandon it. Sweden much much later than they should have imo as they knew from early on from their own antibody test results it was not achievable.
The difference when it came to Plan B is that lockdown had one, minimise the spread until vaccines were developed, while the herd immunity strategy did not and just ended up like everywhere else putting their faith in vaccines as a way out of this pandemic. All going straight to semi-normal/modified behaviour achieved was needless deaths which are easily seen when compared to their neighbouring countries who used lockdown.
New resources would mean not just more beds, it would mean buildings to house them plus all the equipment required in both wards and ICU`s.
That would take years to put in place, and as to the staffing levels required, we have been looking for nurses for years now and cannot get them so their hardly going to magically appear when everything is ready years from now.
If people really want to get the numbers in hospital and ICU down then get vaccinated, rather than having the 7% who have refused to do so taking up a greatly disproportionate number of beds in both.
I have already shown where people were not turning up for cervical smear tests after the first lockdown. Out of 110,000 invites to attend only 12,000 turned up. If we had of actually had the staff to carry out checks during the first lockdown it would have been a waste of resources. The hospitals were quite during lockdown was because, (similar to the cervical smear checks when we were not in lockdown), people were not going to go anywhere near them unless they absolutely had too because of the risk of becoming infected.
The only way we are going to get back to normal, or near normal, is through a reduction in numbers for those hospitalised and in ICU for two reasons. One we do not have the staff to do both, and secondly even if we did, people would not turn up for appointments
This has nothing to do with lockdowns and nothing to do with Sweden.
How am I wrong? Seems you are wrong on the double. You cant back up what you are saying and arent even on the right thread.
I have no idea what point you are or are not making therefore.
What services did Sweden shut down?
Did that mean Sweden locked down?
The only way of ensuring that those with Covid are kept seperate from those that are in hospital for other illnesses would be to have a Covid and a none Covid hospital in each area with both having ICU capacity. We have neither the facilities, equipment or staff to do that. No health system in the world has or are planning to have. Even if we had the facilities and equipment we still could not have done it as we were short on staff to operate what we had even before Covid.
It would be the ideal solution, but even if we did go for that option with building, equipping, and staffing it would be years down the road before it would be possible.
People who are in hospital without covid are there because they are already ill, introducing patients with covid into that situation is going to drastically increase the opportunity for cross-spreading. Already ill patients getting covid is a sure-fire way of filling up the ICU.
When you say "Hospitalisations were never the real problem of the health service being overrun" you are actually making my point for me - they should have been segregated.
The reason we didn`t separate facilities for Covid infections is that we had neither the staff nor the facilities need to to deal with this pandemic if we did not take steps to try and control the spread. That is why we, like practically every other country, used lockdown.
We could not just magic up the staff, equipment and facilities overnight. Citywest as far as I know was ever only an overflow facility to provide the bare bones of hospital care for those that needed it who were least effected, and even for that just this one overflow facility never dealt with large numbers.
Hospitalisations were never the real problem of the health service being overrun. The real problem, as we saw from other countries was when ICU`s became overrun and the resulting rise in deaths. You cannot open up ICU`s around a country overnight. Not just due to the level of equipment required, they also require highly specialised staff to operate them.
Again you simply cannot continue as normal with screenings and other procedures during a pandemic caused by a highly transmissible virus like Covid. No country did.
Not only would it put those you are attempting to help at high risk of infection, the staff would most likely not be available due to pressure on the system from the virus. That unfortunately will result in cancelations and postponements, but even if you did continue as normal with screenings, I don`t see that it would have made any great difference to the backlog.
Dr. Noirin Russell, consultant obstetrician, gynaecologist and clinical senior lecturer at Cork University Hospital in October 2020 said that having restarted the cervical check programme in July 6 2020 of the 110,000 invitations they had issued for women to attend in that time period, only 12,000 had taken up the offer. General practice doctors were also reporting the same all over the country where the were finding that people who they would expect to attend their surgeries needing a referral were not doing so until on average a year later than they normally would.
From that I believe it`s fair to surmise that it was not just the HSE that recognised the danger of proceeding as normal with screening services. People themselves did, and a large percentage were not going to attend anyway having made their own assessment of the risk
This is utterly without foundation and nothing to do with lockdowns
Please provide evidence that Sweden didnt see reduction in referrals and all other medical services continued uninterrupted. You wont.
Spot on. While I agree with @charlie14 when they say "it is not a great idea to have patients with Covid mingling with patients in hospitals for other procedures which in most cases would leave them highly susceptible to serious illness by contracting Covid."
It begs the question, why the fook didn't we have separate facilities for Covid infected? We had the Citywest hired at the cost of millions to the state. All Covid infected requiring hospitalisation should have been sent there (set up a few more Citywest facilities across the regions).
We didn't move fast enough and kept believing that lockdowns would cause a drip-drip trickle through the existing hospital system which they thought they could manage. A fools errand that turned out to be.
Now we're on the verge of a Omicron wave and what will our glorious HSE do in response this time? Nothing different I can assure you of that. They will get buried and after two years of non-planning and they (management) deserve to be pulverised for their incompetence.
I know from the experience of someone close to me that a mammogram can be fine one year and cancer the next, with no symptoms and no lump. Scary to think of all the missed diagnoses.
The impact on the health service (e.g. postponement of electives, delays in treatments) is due to COVID infections, not COVID restrictions.
The title of the thread is Sweden avoiding lockdown. Not Ireland and lockdown. Although if you do compare both Ireland and Sweden with their respective neighbours "marginally" better is not the term that stands out when comparing lockdown restrictions to light touch lockdown restrictions.
It is not as if we were the only country that cancelled surgeries and scan because of Covid. Every country has, including Sweden who recently did so again, for the simple reason it is not a great idea to have patients with Covid mingling with patients in hospitals for other procedures which in most cases would leave them highly susceptible to serious illness by contracting Covid.
Back some time ago a poster attempted to make the same claim of definitive evidence that locking down didn`t equate to lower Covid deaths in 2020 by posting a report from The Economist on excess deaths. Problem was, the report showed the opposite.
For that report The Economist looked at those deaths by region. Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, South-eastern Europe and Eastern Europe. They found that Covid became more severe as it moved eastward with countries in Northern Europe having much lower mortality rates, with some Nordic countries having experienced almost no excess deaths. "The exception is Sweden which imposed some of the continent`s least restrictive social-distancing measures during the first wave". Something the graphics on excess deaths clearly showed, as they did for Ireland and our neighbour in Western Europe, the U.K.
To be fair theres also now the fairly definitive evidence that locking down doesn't equate to lower covid deaths. But the UK and Sweden are firmly middle of the road in covid deaths per capita. Sweden #16 lowest of #27, and the UK would be #11 if still in the EU. Despite being the two most open countries in the EU over the last two years by a mile.
Ireland had the longest, strictest lockdown in Europe and is only #19th lowest out of #27. Despite also having the youngest population in the EU, and having the highest vaccine uptake - both of which statistically massively help.
If lockdowns worked Ireland would be one of the lowest deaths per capita, and the UK and Sweden would be the highest. But thats not the case at all.
This entire thread can be divided into two completely diametrically opposed viewpoints based around whether one values quality or quantity of life more.
Basically this:
Sweden had more deaths than it’s neighbouring countries, therefore it failed! Not imposing a lockdown caused this which represents an immoral experiment on its citizens. The fact that restrictions were eventually imposed in Sweden proves that their approach failed. You can’t put a price on saving lives. You’re an idiot to disagree.
v.s.
Sweden applied the minimum set of restrictions required to protect their society as a whole. As such they had a higher death rate but a higher quality of life than their neighbours for most of the last two years. We’ve always accepted a certain amount of illness and death so we can have a functioning society which makes Sweden’s light-touch approach reasonable and desirable. Shutting down all of society is the immoral experiment! You’re an idiot to disagree!
Honestly, you’re not even arguing about the same things half the time.
You appear to believe that Sweden have a greater percentage of their population older than Denmark and that is an explanation for Sweden having more deaths. They don`t. Neither do they have a greater percentage older than the rest of the Nordic countries. Less in at least one actually.
So if Sweden having multiple deaths of their neighbours is not due to the age of their populations, why had Sweden those multiple deaths while chasing herd immunity compared to the rest of the Scandinavian countries who were not. Was it because all the rest had better hospital facilities than Sweden ?
As opposed to the unelected mouthpieces in Sweden, one of them not even a government appointee, whose masterplan was that Sweden would have herd immunity within a few months ?
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense.
Are Sweden hospitals crammed full of covid patients, is their hospital system in danger of collapsing, are Sweden following the Netherlands and Greece into lockdown.
Now apart from repeating that Sweden lost more elderly people than their neighbours ,what other metric did they fail on.
A relative of mine went to sweden in March this year and had a fanatastic Erasmus experience,everything was open, no masks in shops, no masks anywhere, no restrictions on movement, he left here at a time when he couldnt even go for a cycle on his own outside our 2km.
What is Swedens healthcare system like, do their hospitals buckle every winter because of mismanagement of hospital resources, how many hospital beds/ICU beds do they have per head of population. Do get have good step down facilities for elderly people to be discharged to with good phsiotherapy or are elderly people left in hospital beds for weeks like here because they have nowhere to go. These elderly people break a hip,its repaired, there are two few physiotherapists so elderly person becomes bed bound, elderly person has cathetor inserted as its easier for staff and then elderly person goes to nursing home with bladder problems.
So spare me anymore of your nonsense until you come back with a compare and contrast hospital system.
The Oh, look, Sweden lost more very elderly and infirm people than Denmark is a bit tired by now.
