WHO does a 180, now lauds Swedish model

[steelepulse]

2 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I has occurred to me that Thailand's model was not mentioned as one which should be followed with roughly 6 times the population and 1/50th of the deaths of Sweden then surely it's considered one of the best performing countries in the world.Before anyone mentions the weather take a quick look at Ecuador's numbers with 1/3 of the population of Thailand and 20 times the number of deaths. 

How is Thailand's model different than all of the other locked down countries?

[cornishcarlos]

6 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

How is Thailand's model different than all of the other locked down countries?

 

They waited 2 months from 1st Covid case to lock downs... Once it was evident that no more tourist were coming, they copied everyone else !! More luck than judgement that the results are what they are !!

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, chessman said:

What evidence could possibly show that the lockdown was effective or not? How would that evidence look?  On one hand there are countries that locked down and reduced the percentage of increases and deaths based on a known principle of NPIs. On the other hand is you, shaking your head, saying ‘obviously’, the reduction is ‘normal statistical development’. Ridiculous!

People keep claiming that countries that have imposed hard lockdowns have reduced the transmissions. However they ignore that when that has happened those same countries have also embarked on mass testing exercises and isolated the infected.

 

This has happened in Italy, it was after they started mass testing that they started to see a reduction in transmission. This happened in Australia and New Zealand, who had hard lockdowns but, suprise, suprise, also tested more than most other countries on the planet.

 

It it is well known fact that growth is initially stronger and then tapers off, it is always like that, because you start from zero, obviously the initial growth is bound to be higher. Always the case, nothing odd about that, and nothing that would support the case for lockdowns.

 

What is ridiculous is to claim that lockdowns reduce transmissions significantly in the absence of any evidence.

 

Of course it is perfectly clear what such evidence would look like, for instance every country has disease control centres that log the number of deaths and cases daily that are attributed to Covid19. If someone would want to establish that lockdown has resulted in x number of reductions in new cases or deaths, he would merely have to establish causation in fact. That means he would have to answer the question "Would that reduction in cases and deaths have happened BUT for the lockdown measure"? In other words is the lockdown the sole possible explanation for the reduction in cases or deaths. If that were demonstrated to be the case, then lockdown would be proved to have caused said reduction in transmission.

 

You have tried that with Italy, but you have failed, because clearly Italy was doing mass testing at the time, so one could easily attribute the reduction in new cases to the mass testing Italy embarked on. So your hypothesis fails, unless you have clear evidence that proves lockdown alone cause the reduction.

 

I note you also failed to answer the question why less densely populated areas in Italy and Germany were more greatly affected than some more densely populated areas.

 

Population density is a factor, but it is not the overriding and sole factor you imagine it to be. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Logosone

[yuyiinthesky]

6 hours ago, Stygge said:

I can see persistant argument appearing freaquently among the posts here.
 

1. Sweden should be compared to neighbouring countries Denmark, Norway and Finland.
 

Yes. But. Finland for sure didn´t count death in nursing homes. The other ones I don´t know.

Compared to Norway the experts point out that much of the difference depends on the fact that Norway has been able to protect their nursing homes better then Sweden. Take away deaths on nursing homes and the difference is negible. There are serveral reasons for this failure that depends on different structure and organization of the countries nursing homes. One of these differences is that in Sweden the nursing homes are much larger units with many more old people living close togehter, which help the virus to spread quickly to many. Also Swedish laws doesn´t allow restraining patients with dementia, which allowes them to move around infecting other patients. There has also been insufficient testing and precaution by the staff allowing symptom free personal to infect patients. All these flaws are now being corrected but its effect can still be noticed in high number of deaths in nursing homes.

 

2. Swedens high numbers depends on low testing.

There is hard to understand how great numbers of testing would improve the situation. The important thing is to registrer the death in Covid19 correctly and compare them with the total population. Much more important is also to test for antibodies for the virus. Now this test is available and reliable and massive testing for this will be done now.

 

3. Still, the numbers don´t lie. Sweden has higher deaths then similar countries.

Yes, but again, take away the failure of protecting the nursing homes the figures are not alamingly higher then any other country. And again; One must compare Sweden´s death rate today with countries soon opening up. The general belief is that when locked down countries open up their death rate will increase.

It means we must wait a month or two to do an actual comparison. By the way; experts predict Sweden´s final death rate for Covid 19 to be about 8-10 000 people. The time period for this is 1-2 years ahead, depending on the arrival of a dependeble vaccin. An effective antiviral medicin during this period can also bring the numbers down. I think these numbers will be considered low in comparison with many other countries during this period.

4. Sweden´s economy will hurt as much as the rest of the world.

Only half right. Sweden has a hight proportion av big multinational companies, and is in general a very export dependent country. An impoverished world, mainly in lock down of course hurt the Swedish economy greatly. Therefore the bleak forecast the coming year. But the national economy remains largely unhurt when remaining restrictions are lifted. Since restaruants, self eployed and small businesses has been able to stay open during this period they can quickly recuperate. Sweden also has a lagre proportion of tech companies not suffering much from present worldwide self inflicted depression. As a whole the prediction is that Sweden will come out of this ordeal comparativle much better then the surrounding world, with less economical and emotional agony for its population.

 

 

 

 

 

I fully agree, thanks for this summary.

[FarFlungFalang]

18 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

How is Thailand's model different than all of the other locked down countries?

The difference is in the results.I believe that Thailand's model was quite similar to Sweden's.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

I fully agree, thanks for this summary.

That was indeed an excellent post by Stygge, I almost missed it, thanks for highlighting it.

 

Very interesting.

[yuyiinthesky]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

And yet it would appear that Sweden's figures are better than the UK's. Then we look at Japan, another country where neither enforced lockdowns or mass testing were done, and again there is no apocalypse of the kind people like Neil Ferguson predicted.

 

So the key question really is, are enforced lockdowns necessary? Mike Ryan of the WHO has said clearly, no they are not and Sweden, not the UK, is the model for the future.

Exactly, stop the scolding of Sweden for not locking down all and be happy that there are countries trying ways without disastrous lockdowns, and be even more happy if these countries do not show the millions of dead bodies the scaremongers predicted (or should I say "wished on them").

Let me add besides Sweden and Japan also another country to look at, Thailand's neighbor Cambodia, where there are zero new infections for weeks, zero Corona deaths, despite no curfews, no lockdowns, no fines for no masks etc, many bars open, soccer teams training, school kids playing soccer together, etc etc, and just limited closing of businesses (as discussed in some other threads here).

Unless you want and enjoy the draconian lockdowns I do not understand the insisting in them, and the scolding of everyone trying different ways.

Shouldn't we all be happy if it turns out that Covid 19 can be controlled without killing the economy and locking up the population?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I has occurred to me that Thailand's model was not mentioned as one which should be followed with roughly 6 times the population and 1/50th of the deaths of Sweden then surely it's considered one of the best performing countries in the world.Before anyone mentions the weather take a quick look at Ecuador's numbers with 1/3 of the population of Thailand and 20 times the number of deaths. 

But you should mention the weather! The average daily mean temperature of Quito is 15.6°C. Same for Bangkok is 28.6°C.   

[chessman]

30 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course it is perfectly clear what such evidence would look like, for instance every country has disease control centres that log the number of deaths and cases daily that are attributed to Covid19. If someone would want to establish that lockdown has resulted in x number of reductions in new cases or deaths, he would merely have to establish causation in fact. That means he would have to answer the question "Would that reduction in cases and deaths have happened BUT for the lockdown measure"? In other words is the lockdown the sole possible explanation for the reduction in cases or deaths. If that were demonstrated to be the case, then lockdown would be proved to have caused said reduction in transmission.

This makes no sense. Something can be a large contributing factor without being the sole possible explanation. The idea that social distancing and testing might both be helpful in reducing the percentage increase of deaths and cases seems incompatible with your little explanation above. 

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, chessman said:

This makes no sense. Something can be a large contributing factor without being the sole possible explanation. The idea that social distancing and testing might both be helpful in reducing the percentage increase of deaths and cases seems incompatible with your little explanation above. 

 

Causation in fact not just makes perfect sense, it is the established way of showing causation in law.

 

Read up on it here:

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-law/

 

If something is a "contributing" factor, then that is all it is, it is not a causative factor.

 

Remember, you are trying to prove that lockdowns cause a specific reduction in transmission. If testing and isolating the infected causes reduction in transmission then obviously lockdowns can not be considered to be the causative measure. So your notion is indeed incompatible with real causation. If both cause reduction in transmission you would have to demonstrate to which extent each does so. If you can't, obviously your whole argument makes no sense and you're just fumbling in the dark.

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

But you should mention the weather! The average daily mean temperature of Quito is 15.6°C. Same for Bangkok is 28.6°C.   

Average daily temperature in Mecca, Saudi Arabia is 40 °C from May to September. And yet MERS, a coronavirus, spread in those temperatures without problems.

[chessman]

41 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I note you also failed to answer the question why less densely populated areas in Italy and Germany were more greatly affected than some more densely populated areas.

 

Population density is a factor, but it is not the overriding and sole factor you imagine it to be. 

Nobody said population density was the sole factor. You keep trying to bring it up about Stockholm. There are probably lots of factors, the big % of Swedish people who live in single households and high % of people who can work from home are two. Less people who smoke might be another one. There is uncertainty about these, that’s why it’s better to compare Sweden to countries that are culturally, demographically and geographically similar. 

 

and go and look at the badly affected areas of Italy and Germany you are claiming to be less densely population. The population density will still be pretty high.

 

 

 

 

[steelepulse]

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took out the nursing home deaths in Sweden?  

[steve73]

Lots of discussion on various forums about the benefits of maintaining a healthy level of Vitamin D, and that requires adequate exposure to sunlight.  

Not saying it's the be all and end all, but it possibly contributes more here (especially in the rural farming provinces) than the Air Conditioned cities of the more highly developed west... and possibly why locking down hinders rather than helps.  

 

[chessman]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Causation in fact not just makes perfect sense, it is the established way of showing causation in law.

 

Read up on it here:

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-law/

 

If something is a "contributing" factor, then that is all it is, it is not a causative factor.

 

Remember, you are trying to prove that lockdowns cause a specific reduction in transmission. If testing and isolating the infected causes reduction in transmission then obviously lockdowns can not be considered to be the causative measure. So your notion is indeed incompatible with real causation. If both cause reduction in transmission you would have to demonstrate to which extent each does so. If you can't, obviously your whole argument makes no sense and you're just fumbling in the dark.

Again, nonsense. The issue is much more complex than this. There is a complicated relationship between testing and rate of transmission with many moving parts that me or you don’t understand fully.

 

you want to find out about how effective lockdowns and testing are? We would need to do large scale research based on populations behaving in different ways and different testing methods. Is that possible or ethical?

 

your little theoretical games that attempt to justify your already formulated opinions mean nothing and prove nothing.
 

 

[chessman]

46 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Shouldn't we all be happy if it turns out that Covid 19 can be controlled without killing the economy and locking up the population?

Yes, I’d be delighted. But with our optimism should also come caution. If there are certain areas (New York, Lombardy) that are really badly affected and we are not sure exactly why the disease spread so easily there and not in other places then it is only natural for places that are relatively untouched so far to think ‘it might be us next’.

 

[Walker88]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:03 AM, sirineou said:

 Sweden is a homogeneous , educated, law abiding country with 10 million people , nearly half the size of New york city. 

Try implementing the Swedish system  with a population of 331 million, consisting of many Alabamastans and some of  these retards for citizens

  

This look seems to appeal to the current US Pres, who called them 'some fine people'.

 

I think it's only fitting, therefore, that a similarly attired and armed group of Black Lives Matter and the Arab American Association descend on the White House.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Let me add besides Sweden and Japan also another country to look at, Thailand's neighbor Cambodia, where there are zero new infections for weeks, zero Corona deaths, despite no curfews, no lockdowns, no fines for no masks etc, many bars open, soccer teams training, school kids playing soccer together, etc etc, and just limited closing of businesses (as discussed in some other threads here).
 

I am am relieved beyond measure that the Bek Sloy dancers in Cambodia are okay.

 

There is no feminist excess that is not forgotten after watching Cambodian Bek Sloy dancers for ten minutes.

 

Wonderful news.

[Walker88]

Do people actually think the virus is going to go away? CV-19 is now part of the environment. Forever.

 

There are only three choices:

 

1) Lockdowns until a vaccine is developed, which could be anywhere from 1 year to forever (HIV is 40 years so far with no vaccine, the common cold is Oldavai Gorge to today and counting)

 

2) Periodic lockdowns, and sequestering of the most vulnerable, when there are mass outbreaks (there will be) so as not to swamp medical facilities

 

3) Hope 'herd immunity' exists and that CV-19 doesn't mutate too much to obviate any developed antibodies, in other words, the Swedish Model

 

A 'return to normal' means accepting that CV-19 is just one more thing added to the list of pathogens. Sweden is getting its dying out of the way; those nations who think they've escaped the worst of it will see their deaths come later, unless they remain locked down forever.

 

Mass testing and 'virus free certificates' are meaningless, as one is only as virus free as the most recent test without any subsequent human contact; remember that CV-19, unlike SARS and MERS, can be caught from folks showing no symptoms. More and more epidemiologists are admitting to this inconvenient truth. You test 'virus free', then pick it up from the cabbie on the way home. Your certificate is meaningless.

 

The current lockdowns were never meant to make the virus go away. They were imposed solely to slow the spread so that medical facilities would not be overrun, and so that the best possible treatment and attention could be given to each CV-19 patient as well as those suffering from all the other ailments to which people are normally prone. Virologists know everyone gets exposed eventually, but deaths can be minimized if the virus spread is done under somewhat controlled circumstances.

 

Only a willfully ignorant US President claims CV-19 will just "magically disappear".

[nauseus]

52 minutes ago, Logosone said:

People keep claiming that countries that have imposed hard lockdowns have reduced the transmissions. However they ignore that when that has happened those same countries have also embarked on mass testing exercises and isolated the infected.

 

This has happened in Italy, it was after they started mass testing that they started to see a reduction in transmission. This happened in Australia and New Zealand, who had hard lockdowns but, suprise, suprise, also tested more than most other countries on the planet.

 

It it is well known fact that growth is initially stronger and then tapers off, it is always like that, because you start from zero, obviously the initial growth is bound to be higher. Always the case, nothing odd about that, and nothing that would support the case for lockdowns.

 

What is ridiculous is to claim that lockdowns reduce transmissions significantly in the absence of any evidence.

 

Of course it is perfectly clear what such evidence would look like, for instance every country has disease control centres that log the number of deaths and cases daily that are attributed to Covid19. If someone would want to establish that lockdown has resulted in x number of reductions in new cases or deaths, he would merely have to establish causation in fact. That means he would have to answer the question "Would that reduction in cases and deaths have happened BUT for the lockdown measure"? In other words is the lockdown the sole possible explanation for the reduction in cases or deaths. If that were demonstrated to be the case, then lockdown would be proved to have caused said reduction in transmission.

 

You have tried that with Italy, but you have failed, because clearly Italy was doing mass testing at the time, so one could easily attribute the reduction in new cases to the mass testing Italy embarked on. So your hypothesis fails, unless you have clear evidence that proves lockdown alone cause the reduction.

 

I note you also failed to answer the question why less densely populated areas in Italy and Germany were more greatly affected than some more densely populated areas.

 

Population density is a factor, but it is not the overriding and sole factor you imagine it to be. 

Like most countries, Italy was slow to get testing underway and have only recently added "masses" of tests. Tests are just tests and not much use without follow-up tracing and tracking then quarantine and isolation. Of course, maximum possible antigen and antibody test data must be advantageous, especially if followed-up.

 

Any notion that countries which have imposed lockdowns have not slowed or stopped viral spread is ridiculous. If you care for a guiding example, look at John Campbell's VDO from 11:55 (link below) and the Imperial College report mentioned therein (link below that). Imperial say that without any mitigation measures at all, then Covid19 would have caused the death of nearly half a million people in the UK by the end of this year.

 

IMO the UK Gov realised this (yes, late), locked down and are still panicking to catch up with testing because they finally saw that half a million dead would affect the lives and voting attitude of the many more millions of Britons that were family, friends or dependents of the deceased and this would be especially true if it was proven that most of these lives could have been saved with mitigation.

 

Yes, back to politics I'm afraid, sad but likely true.

 

 

 

 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-26-COVID19-Report-12.pdf

 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Do people actually think the virus is going to go away? CV-19 is now part of the environment. Forever.

 

There are only three choices:

 

1) Lockdowns until a vaccine is developed, which could be anywhere from 1 year to forever (HIV is 40 years so far with no vaccine, the common cold is Oldavai Gorge to today and counting)

 

2) Periodic lockdowns, and sequestering of the most vulnerable, when there are mass outbreaks (there will be) so as not to swamp medical facilities

 

3) Hope 'herd immunity' exists and that CV-19 doesn't mutate too much to obviate any developed antibodies, in other words, the Swedish Model

 

A 'return to normal' means accepting that CV-19 is just one more thing added to the list of pathogens. Sweden is getting its dying out of the way; those nations who think they've escaped the worst of it will see their deaths come later, unless they remain locked down forever.

 

Mass testing and 'virus free certificates' are meaningless, as one is only as virus free as the most recent test without any subsequent human contact; remember that CV-19, unlike SARS and MERS, can be caught from folks showing no symptoms. More and more epidemiologists are admitting to this inconvenient truth. You test 'virus free', then pick it up from the cabbie on the way home. Your certificate is meaningless.

 

The current lockdowns were never meant to make the virus go away. They were imposed solely to slow the spread so that medical facilities would not be overrun, and so that the best possible treatment and attention could be given to each CV-19 patient as well as those suffering from all the other ailments to which people are normally prone. Virologists know everyone gets exposed eventually, but deaths can be minimized if the virus spread is done under somewhat controlled circumstances.

This I'm afraid is the reality of the situation we are all in. There must always be hope however, my hope is in the vaccine and until then its a completely different world we will have to get accustomed to. Oxford vaccine human trial test results are due in June/July but I'm not holding my breath

[Walker88]

This is the anecdotal evidence so far regarding CV-19, all of which is subject to further study:

 

-Most vulnerable are those with weak immune systems...the aged, obese, smokers and vapers, high blood pressure, asthma and other lung ailments, HIV+

-Getting a massive viral load is a threat even to those with strong immune systems; note frontline healthcare worker deaths

-CV-19 doesn't survive as long in conditions of high heat, high humidity, and UV light...good for the hot season in SEAsia

-Some infected appear to develop antibodies that prevent re-infection, but this is not universal

-CV-19 seems to have some effect on blood clotting, which makes even those who suffered a moderate case prone to strokes

 

Sweden is serving as a 'control group' and much will be learned from how that country fares over the next year when the Second Wave hits.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Average daily temperature in Mecca, Saudi Arabia is 40 °C from May to September. And yet MERS, a coronavirus, spread in those temperatures without problems.

Old virus. This is a new one.

 

Oh, and the comparison posted was for Ecuador/Thailand. Not Saudi Arabia.

Edited May 3, 2020 by nauseus

[Logosone]

25 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Like most countries, Italy was slow to get testing underway and have only recently added "masses" of tests. Tests are just tests and not much use without follow-up tracing and tracking then quarantine and isolation. Of course, maximum possible antigen and antibody test data must be advantageous, especially if followed-up.

 

Any notion that countries which have imposed lockdowns have not slowed or stopped viral spread is ridiculous. If you care for a guiding example, look at John Campbell's VDO from 11:55 (link below) and the Imperial College report mentioned therein (link below that). Imperial say that without any mitigation measures at all, then Covid19 would have caused the death of nearly half a million people in the UK by the end of this year.

 

IMO the UK Gov realised this (yes, late), locked down and are still panicking to catch up with testing because they finally saw that half a million dead would affect the lives and voting attitude of the many more millions of Britons that were family, friends or dependents of the deceased and this would be especially true if it was proven that most of these lives could have been saved with mitigation.

 

Yes, back to politics I'm afraid, sad but likely true.

 

 

 

 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-26-COVID19-Report-12.pdf

 

 

 

 

Italy was not actually slow to get testing under way. The Italians reacted fairly quickly.

 

By 25th March it was understood in Italy that mass testing was the way to go:

 

http://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20200325-italy-s-veneto-region-to-launch-population-wide-testing-for-covid-19

 

The amount of testing that has been done in Italy is the highest per capita in the world.

 

You are of course right that isolating the infected is a required part of the testing plan, and that is possibly where Italy has not performed well.

 

The viral spread has been stopped or slowed considerably in countries that have had lockdowns, but where that has happened invariably there has been mass testing as well. Any notion that it was the lockdown that caused the happy outcome has to be properly evidenced. 

 

I've read the flawed Imperial report at least 5 times, but the reason why the UK government changed its approach was not because it suddenly realised half a million could die. They had that figure from Neil Ferguson from the start. The UK changed its policy because they saw what was happening in Italian hospitals and were concerned that the NHS would be equally overwhelmed. 

 

This proved to be a pointless change of direction because we saw how indeed the NHS was overwhelmed anyway, by all accounts it can do little for Covid19 patients, and the horror stories coming out of the UK where sick Covid19 patients have been discharged show that the NHS is not equipped to fight the war against Covid19 now.

 

If Neil Ferguson is to be believed the UK chose lockdown because PHE told Neil Ferguson & Co that there would not be enough tests, something which turned out to be wrong. So the UK then had no option, it could not test, it had no ventilators and PPE or vaccine, so clinical management was near impossible. So on the expert advice they decided to go for lockdown, the only possible option. Maybe that is why there is this religious fanaticism about lockdown in the UK.

 

I just hope it does not become accepted orthodoxy, because if the whole world locks down every time there is a little outbreak our lives will be miserable thanks to this Ferguson chap.

 

If the UK had continued to be the Superman Boris Johnson promised us it would be, and had stuck to its original plan, like Sweden, I doubt the UK would be worse off now.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Logosone

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Italy was not actually slow to get testing under way. The Italians reacted fairly quickly.

 

By 25th March it was understood in Italy that mass testing was the way to go:

 

http://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20200325-italy-s-veneto-region-to-launch-population-wide-testing-for-covid-19

 

The amount of testing that has been done in Italy is the highest per capita in the world.

 

You are of course right that isolating the infected is a required part of the testing plan, and that is possibly where Italy has not performed well.

 

The viral spread has been stopped or slowed considerably in countries that have had lockdowns, but where that has happened invariably there has been mass testing as well. Any notion that it was the lockdown that caused the happy outcome has to be properly evidenced. 

 

I've read the flawed Imperial report at least 5 times, but the reason why the UK government changed its approach was not because it suddenly realised half a million could die. They had that figure from Neil Ferguson from the start. The UK changed its policy because they saw what was happening in Italian hospitals and were concerned that the NHS would be equally overwhelmed. 

 

This proved to be a pointless change of direction because we saw how indeed the NHS was overwhelmed anyway, by all accounts it can do little for Covid19 patients, and the horror stories coming out of the UK where sick Covid19 patients have been discharged show that the NHS is not equipped to fight the war against Covid19 now.

 

If Neil Ferguson is to be believed the UK chose lockdown because PHE told Neil Ferguson & Co that there would not be enough tests, something which turned out to be wrong. So the UK then had no option, it could not test, it had no ventilators and PPE or vaccine, so clinical management was near impossible. So on the expert advice they decided to go for lockdown, the only possible option. Maybe that is why there is this religious fanaticism about lockdown in the UK.

 

I just hope it does not become accepted orthodoxy, because if the whole world locks down every time there is a little outbreak our lives will be miserable thanks to this Ferguson chap.

 

If the UK had continued to be the Superman Boris Johnson promised us it would be, and had stuck to its original plan, like Sweden, I doubt the UK would be worse off now.

 

 

As evident by your curve, the Italians reacted slowly like everyone else. By 25th March it was already too late for testing to help slow the spread and the Italians were in full lockdown in Lombardy. It is the lockdowns which have slowed the spread. Testing is useful but does not stop the spread itself unless it is very early and the infected people are quarantined and treated if necessary. 

 

The 'flawed' Imperial report is still being used as a reference even now. Neil Ferguson's individual figure was different. You can see from the VDO that, yes, UK hospitals and the NHS would have been totally overwhelmed without mitigation (lockdown) measures. But you are wrong in that as things did turn out, the NHS was not overwhelmed and you comment that the NHS can do little for Covid19 patients is so insulting to NHS staff.

 

Your other comment about enough tests, ventilators and PPE is only partially true but these things were related to treatment facilities within hospitals. Further spread was only slowed and contained by lockdown outside hospitals. This Ferguson chap is not alone with his views and the report was produced by several peers.

 

If the UK had continued like Sweden Boris would probably be out already.

[chessman]

40 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Any notion that it was the lockdown that caused the happy outcome has to be properly evidenced. 

And there is no practical or ethical way to get that evidence. As you know.

[MikeyIdea]

2 hours ago, steelepulse said:

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you took out the nursing home deaths in Sweden?  

Slightly less than half. 

[MikeyIdea]

8 hours ago, Logosone said:

And yet it would appear that Sweden's figures are better than the UK's.

You are not considering the fact that Sweden is far behind the UK in terms of spread of the virus. Only the areas around the capital Stockholm are hard hit this far (the actual city itself is not as hard hit actually). Sweden's second largest city Gothenburg is not expected to peak for close to a month and the southernmost province Skåne (where Sweden's third largest city is) is not expected to peak for another 6 weeks. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

15 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

 

And all this lockdown hype and social distancing hype is ignoring that flattening the curve does not mean there will be less infections, but that the infections will be spread over a longer period of time. Some here misunderstand that, talk as if flattening the curve will stop the virus from spreading. Well it doesn't, it just slows it down. Which we got told is needed because otherwise the hospitals would be overwhelmed. Thankfully they aren't, they are even empty.

Comment on what you wrote in bold above

 

The hospitals in Gothenburg and Kungälv are full even though the situation hasn't peaked in this part of the country yet.

 

A neighbour who's a nurse at Kungälvs hospital described the situation there as "ganska kaotisk", rather chaotic. 

 

Health authorities are managing the load mainly by not admitting and treating elderly properly to protect the curve and postponing non critical treatment. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

As evident by your curve, the Italians reacted slowly like everyone else. By 25th March it was already too late for testing to help slow the spread and the Italians were in full lockdown in Lombardy. It is the lockdowns which have slowed the spread. Testing is useful but does not stop the spread itself unless it is very early and the infected people are quarantined and treated if necessary. 

 

The 'flawed' Imperial report is still being used as a reference even now. Neil Ferguson's individual figure was different. You can see from the VDO that, yes, UK hospitals and the NHS would have been totally overwhelmed without mitigation (lockdown) measures. But you are wrong in that as things did turn out, the NHS was not overwhelmed and you comment that the NHS can do little for Covid19 patients is so insulting to NHS staff.

 

Your other comment about enough tests, ventilators and PPE is only partially true but these things were related to treatment facilities within hospitals. Further spread was only slowed and contained by lockdown outside hospitals. This Ferguson chap is not alone with his views and the report was produced by several peers.

 

If the UK had continued like Sweden Boris would probably be out already.

The Italians reacted a little bit earlier than everyone else, bear in mind the EU did not end flights from China until 17 March and the UK did not put proper lockdown in place until around the same time.

 

Of course in an ideal world the measures would have come earlier, but by comparison the Italians reacted earlier than almost anyone else.

 

It was not too late to test and isolate the infected in Italy, however, this was obviously not done in a satisfactory manner, the tracing may have been the problem.

 

Testing and isolating the infected is the effective, and the only way to take the fight to the virus, social distancing only slows the infection, it doesn't end it. Isolating the infected can end it. Though yes, this was not done sufficiently well in Italy.

 

Lockdowns may have slowed the spread, but they can not end a pandemic, only delay it. Testing and isolating can end it.

 

I'm fully aware that the UK government is still relying on Neil Ferguson and Imperial College, and that's of course why the UK has performed so badly. The UK experts have been poor, weak and not thorough enough.

 

The NHS was overwhelmed, if you think the NHS is actually helping people infected with Covid19 you may want to read this story of a man who was discharged by an NHS hospital despite having Covid 19, in other words left to die at home. Another doctor the son drafted in to help refused to attend to the man citing lack of PPE.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8280913/Son-55-nurses-Covid-stricken-father-81-health-released-hospital-die.html

 

Anecdotal evidence? The UK's own figures state that of those who go on ventilators 7 out of 10 do not make it (34% survival rate once on a ventilator).

 

Boris Johnson unfortunately will have to pay the price for his experts' poor performance, and indeed the NHS' poor performance. I understand the devotion the NHS generates, but figures don't lie. PHE in England has been a disaster. Rebuttals of the Sun on their website. Undignified time wasters.