Sweden - is the rest of the world dumb, blind or worse ?

[MikeyIdea]

9 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

total garbage that. Such a sweeping vague statement. In the UK its widely accepted that people aren't going to hospital for cancer treatment, strokes, heart issues and other conditions and will cause more deaths, fact. No idea about other countries

It's exactly the same in Sweden. Swedish health authorities say openly that everything non life threatening is shut down

[MikeyIdea]

9 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

The video i quoted said something different, let's see the results of the actual trial, due in a few days

7.3% is the number from the most current trial. Swedish health authorities are planning weeky updates. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

10 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

i got the above from youtube search for "BBC Hardtalk Anders Tegnell"  see if i got it wrong

You need to update your expectations according to the latest numbers  from the latest official Swedish statistics, they are 7.3% 

Edited May 23, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

7 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Some good news about Sweden, this time from the Telegraph, a few day old though.

(I apologize if that was posted here already, I haven't seen it yet.)
 

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/05/light-touch-sweden-suffers-smaller-growth-hit-coronavirus/

The first quarter, yes. That's because Sweden is further away from the epicentre and a month behind other countries in Europe 

[scubascuba3]

9 hours ago, farang51 said:

Apparantly, your ability to do a google search far exceeds my ability.

Correct, took me 30 seconds

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/

[MikeyIdea]

6 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Correct, took me 30 seconds

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/

That's from the fourth of April, too early to be accurate. Both German and Swedish tests show much lower percentages now

Edited May 23, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[scubascuba3]

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

this is still not over and nobody can at this stage say Swedens model has been a success, 

 

True but what we do know is most other countries have sacrificed their economies causing mass unemployment and knock on deaths, i call that a failure

[MikeyIdea]

2 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

True but what we do know is most other countries have sacrificed their economies causing mass unemployment and knock on deaths, i call that a failure

That is happening in Sweden too you know. Sweden isn't living on a planet by its own

[scubascuba3]

5 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

That is happening in Sweden too you know. Sweden isn't living on a planet by its own

Yes but like we've said already, GDP reduction is expected to be less impacted plus they haven't spaffed 100s of billions up the wall paying people to have a holiday at home. That money could have been spent on hospitals etc.

 

So you don't see the economic argument against all these lockdowns?

[farang51]

24 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Correct, took me 30 seconds

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people-are-now-immune-to-covid-19-in-one-town-in-germany/

Try again, and maybe use a little more time. You may want to read the article you link to or even the link text. That is from 1 town that was especially hard hit with the virus, hardly the same as all of Germany.

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, farang51 said:

Try again, and maybe use a little more time. You may want to read the article you link to or even the link text. That is from 1 town that was especially hard hit with the virus, hardly the same as all of Germany.

You don't understand how it works, apparently they sample a smaller population to try to work out the impact on the whole population. No one said it was the whole of Germany

[farang51]

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

So you don't see the economic argument against all these lockdowns?

The difference in expected GDP is hardly noticeable. However, there is one aspect of the economy I haven't seen mentioned anywhere; they will save a lot of pensions for old people in the coming years.

[farang51]

Just now, scubascuba3 said:

You don't understand how it works, apparently they sample a smaller population to try to work out the impact on the whole population. No one said it was the whole of Germany

No, they sampled that town because it was hit especially hard.

 

Correct, you didn't say it, you wrote it: "Even Germany had 15% in their trial." Had you written "Even Germany had 15% in their trial in a small town that was especially hard hit" then I wouldn't have asked you for a link.

[scubascuba3]

2 minutes ago, farang51 said:

No, they sampled that town because it was hit especially hard.

 

Correct, you didn't say it, you wrote it: "Even Germany had 15% in their trial." Had you written "Even Germany had 15% in their trial in a small town that was especially hard hit" then I wouldn't have asked you for a link.

Many countries are doing these type of trials, most people know what that means,  you didn't, fair enough, move on

[scubascuba3]

44 minutes ago, MikeyIdea said:

That's from the fourth of April, too early to be accurate. Both German and Swedish tests show much lower percentages now

Of course test results are as at that point and things change

[MikeyIdea]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Yes but like we've said already, GDP reduction is expected to be less impacted plus they haven't spaffed 100s of billions up the wall paying people to have a holiday at home. That money could have been spent on hospitals etc.

 

So you don't see the economic argument against all these lockdowns?

If we take into consideration the time perspective, probably only to a small amount.

 

Look at the infected and deaths per population graphs for Europe, other countries (except the UK) go down pretty steeply and are looking quite good, Sweden only has a very slight decline.

 

Norway, Finland and Denmark have already said that they will not open their borders to Sweden when they open to other countries in the EU. The Swedish government's response was a bit quiet, we hope they won't descriminate... But its not a question of that, its just common sense. It's about risk, nothing else.

 

Sweden will hurt longer than other countries in Europe (except the UK) for sure.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[Logosone]

10 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'll be the first to congratulate Dr Tegnell if the Sweden model works better than lockdowns, I watched the Hardtalk interview with him a few days ago and was impressed by his honesty and clarity on all the questions put to him. He was very convincing.

 

However this is still not over and nobody can at this stage say Swedens model has been a success, to do so is just foolhardy, the non-experts who are supremely confident in their predictions and are convinced it will be are thankfully not those in charge, as they still need to gather full data to make comparisons. 

 

For instance you are using the argument that "Denmark, Germany and many many others, actually have falling case numbers despite lockdowns being lifted" The falling case numbers preseeded the lockdown easing, thats why the decision makers eased the lockdowns because of the falling case numbers. Who are the many many others by the way?

 

On a personal note, I do hope Swedens strategy is a success, they have made some major mistakes with the elderly population, but if those had not been made then it does look like it has real potential, only more time will tell however and I look forward to the data they are currently gathering on the populations immunity level which is due soon. 

 

JP Morgan study ha ha!

I like Tegnell as well, he is a hero because he stood up against a majority and stood firm and he has prevailed.

 

You can certainly say that Sweden has succeeded. A look at their mortality figure, 0.039 of the population having passed, mostly older people, this shows that their policy has succeded in avoiding coronapocalypse, which so many had wished onto Sweden a few weeks ago because they dared not to impose mandatory lockdowns.  Sweden has been a success, even if their mortality would double or triple, the figure is still miniscule. Therefore Sweden was correct. Avoiding mandatory lockdown is preferable, their economic benefits are clear, and the death rate can be kept low regardlesss. So Sweden was correct.

 

Sure, they made a few mistakes such as neglecting care homes, but every single country, including the UK with its Gestapo lockdown made that mistake. They could have tested more and their figures would have been on the Norway and Finland level. 

 

Still, overall Sweden's policy has been a success. Nobody can deny it and be taken seriously. 

 

 

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, MikeyIdea said:

Sweden will hurt longer than other countries in Europe (except the UK) for sure.

 

 

No, Spain, Italy, UK, Belgium, Russia all of these countries will hurt for a much longer period than Sweden.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

58 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I like Tegnell as well, he is a hero because he stood up against a majority and stood firm and he has prevailed.

 

You can certainly say that Sweden has succeeded. A look at their mortality figure, 0.039 of the population having passed, mostly older people, this shows that their policy has succeded in avoiding coronapocalypse, which so many had wished onto Sweden a few weeks ago because they dared not to impose mandatory lockdowns.  Sweden has been a success, even if their mortality would double or triple, the figure is still miniscule. Therefore Sweden was correct. Avoiding mandatory lockdown is preferable, their economic benefits are clear, and the death rate can be kept low regardlesss. So Sweden was correct.

 

Sure, they made a few mistakes such as neglecting care homes, but every single country, including the UK with its Gestapo lockdown made that mistake. They could have tested more and their figures would have been on the Norway and Finland level. 

 

Still, overall Sweden's policy has been a success. Nobody can deny it and be taken seriously. 

 

 

This is not a one size fits all situation. Different strategies can work, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and others including Vietnam have also done well so far.

 

Also lockdowns appear to work for some countries that have left it too late for other measures or who have localized outbreaks that they do not want to export to other countries or other area's within their own countries. Based on risk assessments then decisions need to be made on a case by case basis on which particular strategy should be used.

 

I'm not a staunch advocate of any one model yet until all the evidence is out there in many months to come, its not numbers to me, its peoples lives no matter how old they are. The scientists and governments are experimenting, I'm sitting on the fence watching for the most positive outcomes that can be said to have stood the test of time.

 

That said the impacts of severe lockdowns are devastating in so many ways, its a tragic bitter pill that some countries may not have needed to take. Again only time will tell. 

 

I'm waiting for results from the immunity tests in Sweden before making further judgements on their approach as its clear this is their target.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Bkk Brian
typo

[utalkin2me]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

 

No, Spain, Italy, UK, Belgium, Russia all of these countries will hurt for a much longer period than Sweden.

 

 

As was pointed out by a Nobel Prize winner, the countries that have locked down AND have very low death numbers, for example Australia and New Zealand, are most likely going to get the worst of this. 

 

They are locking down with all its detriments, all the while when they open back up they are the most likely to have high scale infection rates. Then, they would need to re-lock. 

 

Basically, what most seem to believe is "good" right now is actually bad. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

30 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

This is not a one size fits all situation. Different strategies can work, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and others including Vietnam have also done well so far.

 

Also lockdowns appear to work for some countries that have left it too late for other measures or who have localized outbreaks that they do not want to export to other countries or other area's within their own countries. Based on risk assessments then decisions need to be made on a case by case basis on which particular strategy should be used.

 

I'm not a staunch advocate of any one model yet until all the evidence is out there in many months to come, its not numbers to me, its peoples lives no matter how old they are. The scientists and governments are experimenting, I'm sitting on the fence watching for the most positive outcomes that can be said to have stood the test of time.

 

That said the impacts of severe lockdowns are devastating in so many ways, its a tragic bitter pill that some countries may not have needed to take. Again only time will tell. 

 

I'm waiting for results from the immunity tests in Sweden before making further judgements on their approach as its clear this is their target.

Time will never tell. The politicians and mainstream media will obviously skew the actual numbers. 

 

Shutting the economies down will have a much higher impact than will ever be reported. It seems obvious to anyone paying close attention the complete shutdowns will obviously be more detrimental than the actual virus. But again, public opinion will be skewed in the other direction. Those with thinking caps on already know however. It is blatantly obvious. 

 

Why does Austria never come up for example. They have been easing lockdowns for a long time. Are they in utter ruin? Well, I will let you decide for yourselves.

 

Most people who shunned Sweden's approach said the same weeks ago. Yet they do not have the gumption to admit they were wrong. There is no utter ruin there either. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by utalkin2me

[yuyiinthesky]

34 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That said the impacts of severe lockdowns are devastating in so many ways, its a tragic bitter pill that some countries may not have needed to take. Again only time will tell. 

There are quite a few countries which never had a draconian lockdown, no house arrest of the population, and nevertheless very low numbers. I think there we can already see now that these draconian lockdowns are not needed.
 

I posted on TVF some time ago a comparison between Thailand and its neighbor Cambodia, where Cambodia wins clearly, with zero new cases for (now) over a months already and no deaths, despite never having had draconian lockdown measures, also no beach ban nonsense.
 

Cambodia is a nice example also for another reason. There is no political fight, the government is already now guaranteed to win the next elections. So whatever the government decided there was influenced more by China / WHO guidelines alone, not by political rivalry as in the US.

 

But there are more, just to name a few, there is Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, all no draconian lockdowns, no house arrest for the population, applying some different measures, but low numbers.

 

When I saw what happened in Italy I was in panic mode too, thinking lockdowns are the right answer. However when more information got available, and looking at other countries, such as the ones listed above, meanwhile I think they are not needed, the benefits are very debatable (as the heated discussions here show), and the damage they cause is not justified.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

This is not a one size fits all situation. Different strategies can work, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and others including Vietnam have also done well so far.

 

Also lockdowns appear to work for some countries that have left it too late for other measures or who have localized outbreaks that they do not want to export to other countries or other area's within their own countries. Based on risk assessments then decisions need to be made on a case by case basis on which particular strategy should be used.

 

I'm not a staunch advocate of any one model yet until all the evidence is out there in many months to come, its not numbers to me, its peoples lives no matter how old they are. The scientists and governments are experimenting, I'm sitting on the fence watching for the most positive outcomes that can be said to have stood the test of time.

 

That said the impacts of severe lockdowns are devastating in so many ways, its a tragic bitter pill that some countries may not have needed to take. Again only time will tell. 

 

I'm waiting for results from the immunity tests in Sweden before making further judgements on their approach as its clear this is their target.

The testing efforts of New Zealand and South Korea were among the best the world has seen. It has been clear for a long time that mass testing, isolating the infected will end the pandemic.

 

What we have not seen before is a country like Sweden, that rather than panicking and throwing everything at the virus, testing, mandatory social distancing etc, takes a step back and says "There is not enough evidence on mandatory lockdowns" and effectively does neither mandatory social distancing nor mass testing.

 

This is why Sweden is so interesting, they showed that by doing neither mandatory social distancing nor mass testing, the end result will not be as tragic as some like Neil Ferguson had claimed.

 

It is indeed peoples lives that matter, but the lives of the majority, not the lives of the minority that are disproportionately affected by a virus. As the greatest German politician alive, Wolfgang Schaeuble has said, the highest value is dignity, but it does exclude that we have to die. So you can not subordinate everything to the protection of those at risk of dying.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Logosone

[talahtnut]

Isn't solitary confinement illegal for prisoners

in some countries?

“We’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the

last four weeks,” Dr Mike deBoisblanc, lead trauma

surgeon at the John Muir Medical Center in Walnut

Creek, California, told local media on Thursday,

confirming the center had seen more deaths from

suicide over the two-month lockdown period than

deaths from coronavirus.

 

[yuyiinthesky]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

This is why Sweden is so interesting, they showed that by doing neither mandatory social distancing nor mass testing, the end result will not be as tragic as some like Neil Ferguson had claimed.

Yes, and especially not locking up the citizens in their rooms.

 

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

It is indeed peoples lives that matter, but the lives of the majority, not the lives of the minority that are disproportionately affected by a virus. As the greatest German politician alive, Wolfgang Schaeuble has said, the highest value is dignity, but it does exclude that we have to die. So you can not subordinate everything to the protection of those at risk of dying.

Not only that, but also don‘t try to reduce covid 19 deaths and pay for it with cancer deaths (caused by cancer patients not getting the treatments they should get now, or delaying checkups, allowing cancer to progress to the next levels, more difficult to treat).

 

[Logosone]

55 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Not only that, but also don‘t try to reduce covid 19 deaths and pay for it with cancer deaths (caused by cancer patients not getting the treatments they should get now, or delaying checkups, allowing cancer to progress to the next levels, more difficult to treat).

 

Yes, interestingly we have seen no serious studies whatsoever of the impact of switching hospital services to focus on Covid19 at the expense of other illnesses and the cancellation of surgeries due to focusing on Covid19.

 

What was the real cost of Covid19 hysteria for the truly sick who had other illnesses?

[MikeyIdea]

3 hours ago, farang51 said:

The difference in expected GDP is hardly noticeable. However, there is one aspect of the economy I haven't seen mentioned anywhere; they will save a lot of pensions for old people in the coming years.

I haven't dared to mention it but I am glad you did. Sweden's original decision to not close down the country was purely economical. It's not only the pensions they don't have to pay out, elderly care costs 6 to 10 times more too. It's as simple as this: Elderly are not productive, they cost money for society.

 

It would have looked totally the opposite if this virus had hit the productive like the Spanish flu did. Problem is that they shot themselves in the foot. They called asymptomatic transmission "negligable" in the beginning, now they are quiet. 35% asymptomatic transmission according to CDCs latest estmate is a totally new ball game. They always said "stay at home directly when you get sick / Go home directly when you start to feel sick". I suppose they will say Stay at home a couple of days before you get sick next... Their strategy simply doesn't work with asymptomatic transmission. 

 

 

 

[Aforek]

OP wrote on april 16 , after all, situation is not so good in Sweden

more  dead people/ millions than in USA and economics is low 

is it really a model to follow ? just ask ...

 

https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=swe&areas=usa&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&cumulative=1&logScale=1&perMillion=1&values=deaths

[MikeyIdea]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Yes, interestingly we have seen no serious studies whatsoever of the impact of switching hospital services to focus on Covid19 at the expense of other illnesses and the cancellation of surgeries due to focusing on Covid19.

 

What was the real cost of Covid19 hysteria for the truly sick who had other illnesses?

Easy: It's exactly the same in Sweden. Everything that is not life threatening is closed down here too. 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[Bkk Brian]

While its fine to debate current models in their infancy stages the proof this provides is that there has been a complete lack of coordination worldwide on this and that is the reason the world is in this mess. 

 

Much the same as a development of a vaccine, the initial trials in Phase 1 and 2 can provide very positive evidence of the potential. Its the trials in Phase 3 and 4 which are the ones that truly will provide all the necessary evidence.

 

The crucial matter is to have that evidence so that a worldwide action plan can then be implemented when the next pandemic occurs in the not too distant future and takes into account best practice for all countries regardless of their development and resources available to cope.