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

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Actually looking at that interview again he did not really make a specific prediction for Iran. He said the numbers still contained noise and conceded in Iran the new cases were still "a lot of cases". He just ventured a guess that based on the pattern it could be the half way mark was reached. That was not the case.

All the more reason for him to publish a study rather than making guess's

 

This is the full quote re Iran:

 

In Iran, the number of newly confirmed COVID-19 cases per day remained relatively flat last week, going from 1,053 last Monday to 1,028 on Sunday. Although that’s still a lot of new cases, Levitt said, the pattern suggests the outbreak there “is past the halfway mark.”

 

It was not past the halfway mark, it had not even started.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[Sujo]

So back to the topic. How is sweden and its herd mentality going.

[Sheryl]

13 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Is there any source for that statement, especially the “highest just before”?

 

Obviously there is a source.

 

Numerous studies including this one  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5

 

 

[mommysboy]

I can well imagine there is a short period of time when someone is highly infectious as they transition from infected to symptomatic, but to characterize all asymptomatic carriers as infectious is likely pushing the envelope imo.  I would not be surprised in fact if the vast majority of carriers are indeed low risk.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

So back to the topic. How is sweden and its herd mentality going.

Good question. Not seen any updates on that. I don't really think there's an official line on herd immunity currently being promoted, not publicly anyway, perhaps privately they are still hoping for this. Seems to be more about containing the virus without the severe restrictions of the majority of other countries, we've still to see how effective this will be from a health perspective.

 

I do know that a huge spike in daily infections that I noticed a few days ago was due to a lab in Stockholm that reported in late with their statistics according to Tegnell. Sweden has set itself testing rates of 100,000 per week although only 49,000 were tested last week.

 

Italy on the other hand has some news on herd immunity! More than half the residents of the Northern region of Bergamo have anitbodies. Bodes well for avoiding a second wave.

[vermin on arrival]

46 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good question. Not seen any updates on that. I don't really think there's an official line on herd immunity currently being promoted, not publicly anyway, perhaps privately they are still hoping for this. Seems to be more about containing the virus without the severe restrictions of the majority of other countries, we've still to see how effective this will be from a health perspective.

 

I do know that a huge spike in daily infections that I noticed a few days ago was due to a lab in Stockholm that reported in late with their statistics according to Tegnell. Sweden has set itself testing rates of 100,000 per week although only 49,000 were tested last week.

 

Italy on the other hand has some news on herd immunity! More than half the residents of the Northern region of Bergamo have anitbodies. Bodes well for avoiding a second wave.

Also the daily cases is not the really important issue, because that can move up and down by the amount of testing and how things are reported which will also impact the cfr and ifr...it's the number of deaths, especially when you read about places like Italy where the viral load in new cases is significantly less, which will decrease the fatality rate/number of deaths.

Edited June 10, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I can well imagine there is a short period of time when someone is highly infectious as they transition from infected to symptomatic, but to characterize all asymptomatic carriers as infectious is likely pushing the envelope imo.  I would not be surprised in fact if the vast majority of carriers are indeed low risk.

Indeed the time for being infectious is very  limited.

 

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days.

 

So in other words asymptomatic people are not contagious during their whole life, only for a very, very limited period of time, on average 8 days.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766237?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=052720

 

 

[Logosone]

56 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good question. Not seen any updates on that. I don't really think there's an official line on herd immunity currently being promoted, not publicly anyway, perhaps privately they are still hoping for this. Seems to be more about containing the virus without the severe restrictions of the majority of other countries, we've still to see how effective this will be from a health perspective.

 

I do know that a huge spike in daily infections that I noticed a few days ago was due to a lab in Stockholm that reported in late with their statistics according to Tegnell. Sweden has set itself testing rates of 100,000 per week although only 49,000 were tested last week.

 

Italy on the other hand has some news on herd immunity! More than half the residents of the Northern region of Bergamo have anitbodies. Bodes well for avoiding a second wave.

There was news from the UK on herd immunity. The secret SAGE files were released. From those it is very clear that UK scientists did advise that herd immunity was to be pursued.

 

This demonstrates that there is a purposeful and clear disconnect between what politicians say in public and what they say and do behind closed doors. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8392117/Government-advisers-warned-PHEs-contact-tracing-capacity-exhausted-TWO-WEEKS.html

 

[vermin on arrival]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Indeed the time for being infectious is very  limited.

 

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that symptomatic patients shed the virus for a median of 19 days, while patients with no symptoms shed the virus for a median of eight days.

 

So in other words asymptomatic people are not contagious during their whole life, only for a very, very limited period of time, on average 8 days.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766237?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=052720

 

 

And even with shedding you can shed and not be infectious. People may be shedding fragments or non viable virus. Singapore study found most people not infectious after 11 days. The ones after were immune compromised people such as cancer patients.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/most-covid-19-patients-not-infectious-after-11-days-study

[vermin on arrival]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Italy on the other hand has some news on herd immunity! More than half the residents of the Northern region of Bergamo have anitbodies. Bodes well for avoiding a second wave.

And when considering herd immunity some think that 50% or even lower (20+%) can yield it and not the 80% as is normally believed. Some even think that there is a coronavirus cross immunity which makes people who were infected and fight it off without developing specific antibodies.

[Logosone]

22 minutes ago, vermin on arrival said:

And even with shedding you can shed and not be infectious. People may be shedding fragments or non viable virus. Singapore study found most people not infectious after 11 days. The ones after were immune compromised people such as cancer patients.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/most-covid-19-patients-not-infectious-after-11-days-study

That's very true, and indeed many patients who recovered but still had the virus were not  infectious.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

Also the daily cases is not the really important issue, because that can move up and down by the amount of testing and how things are reported which will also impact the cfr and ifr...it's the number of deaths, especially when you read about places like Italy where the viral load in new cases is significantly less, which will decrease the fatality rate/number of deaths.

Indeed, I think the bigger picture of trend lines are what to look for, daily movements can have outlining reasons not connected to the overall phase of the contagion.

[MikeyIdea]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:33 AM, johnnybangkok said:

I'm now just wondering what's going to go on the longest; Covid or this thread?

Covid-19. The posters in this thread will die, some before others, in different ways, long before covid-19 does

Edited June 10, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

9 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

If asymptomatics do not spread the virus, then mandatory mask wearing for everyone is clearly unnecessary.

People have to have money to live on regardless if they are sick or not, many cannot even take a 10-20% cut. 

 

There has been a lot of complaints also in Sweden that people have to go to work even though they know they are sick to be able to pay rent etc, the "sick pay" isn't enough

 

In a perfect world that doesn't exist, yes.

Edited June 10, 2020 by MikeyIdea

[utalkin2me]

19 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Also the daily cases is not the really important issue, because that can move up and down by the amount of testing and how things are reported which will also impact the cfr and ifr...it's the number of deaths, especially when you read about places like Italy where the viral load in new cases is significantly less, which will decrease the fatality rate/number of deaths.

That is absolutely right. Death numbers are by far the most meaningful stat, as we have continuing reports of individual cases not being as deadly or infections as they were near the origin of the outbreak. 

 

Think of infections like radiation. There is much less "radioactivity" now per infection. This is essentially the entire answer to everything, although it is not yet clearly understood, but the dropping in numbers in most all areas is due to decreased virulence. Although everyone thinks it is because they are being good and staying inside, but that is not why. We cannot stop a virus like this from spreading that way unless, like China did, we weld doors shut. 

[Monomial]

TL;DR: 1) Science may be the wrong metric for discussing this topic.  2) Be very skeptical of the consensus thought.

 

I came across an interesting article today which I think is important for everyone to understand. As a scientist myself, I am very aware of the issues involved whenever you get consensus on an issue in science.   For example, if I stated that the Big Bang happened, most people would give me a pass. And if someone came along and questioned that statement, he would likely get shot down and denounced, possibly asked to remove his tinfoil. And yet, more and more, despite decades of scientific consensus on the Big Bang, there is a crisis in cosmology brewing which is slowly turning the field of astrophysics on its head. The data hasn't changed of course. Only the grudging acceptance of what it might mean.

 

This is an article which outlines just how common and easy it is for scientists to apply selection bias in their research:

 

https://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517

 

It was published in 2015 in Nature, and is written in a relatively easy to understand prose that is accessible to most people.  I find it particularly poignant in light of what we have seen with "science" being used as the benchmark for what is true and what is false about this virus.

 

The fundamental question this thread is asking is whether the Swedish model is valid, and how can it be reconciled with the scientific "consensus".  I urge everyone to be very, very cautious of consensus in science. The very nature of consensus creates conditions that exacerbate the above phenomenon, and makes it extremely important to be extra skeptical of scientific literature supporting any consensus model in any field.

 

Let me very clear. Scientists, virologists, epidemiologists...whoever you want to call the experts here...do not have any special clairvoyant gifts. They can see patterns that aren't there just like you or I. Only their works that clearly follow the scientific method deserve special respect. Their opinions and values are no more valid than your opinion and values. Or mine.  So when the WHO or the CDC issues a consensus statement, you need to be extremely critical of it. Make sure it comes from genuine falsifiable theories, because scientists fool themselves through consensus all the time.

 

it happens in every field. And it can absolutely be happening here too. Luckily, most biases in science don't destroy the world economy. Covid-19 is very different, and science is possibly not the right metric to use for justifying these life destroying decisions.

 

So I encourage everyone to ignore expert consensus right now and only look at predictions. Real science is judged based on predictions that can tell us things we don't already know and observe about the world. To date, the models by the WHO and CDC have been horrible at predictions. Do not give them credibility they don't deserve simply because they represent consensus.

 

[Puccini]

Has this already been posted?

 

Sweden announced its highest daily tally of novel coronavirus infections on Thursday, a record 1,474 new cases that authorities said was due to a long-delayed surge in testing.[UNQUOTE]

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-sweden-idUSL8N2DO3PN

 

It goes to show that a sudden sharp increase in positive test results does not necessarily mean a sudden increase in the number of infected persons.

[vermin on arrival]

1 hour ago, Puccini said:

Has this already been posted?

Which comes back to the thought that number of new cases is not the true metric because that can be changed by things other than a true surge in infections (reporting, increased testing, changing in what is considered a confirmed case, change in tests used, etc).

 

The thing we need to focus on is number of deaths. It's also interesting to note in Michael Levitt's models, he uses excess deaths as his number for covid deaths and not the confirmed covid death number that the countries publish.

[vermin on arrival]

Here is a very interesting debate between the physician Marty Makary and the epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski on the issue of lockdowns in the US. It has relevance to Sweden and the whole issue of herd immunity. Knut would think that the other Scandinavian nations would have big long term problems since they would have little immunity. In the short term, they were more successful, but long term, from his perspective, they will have bigger problems.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtFtjk3YoO8

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

Which comes back to the thought that number of new cases is not the true metric because that can be changed by things other than a true surge in infections (reporting, increased testing, changing in what is considered a confirmed case, change in tests used, etc).

 

True, but I think we we also have to draw a distinction as to what stage the pandemic is in at any particular country as well as other causes for surges. For example the UK has increased testing to an average of 200,000 per day since the beginning of June, previous to that it hovered around 100,000 per day. But as a result of this large increase in testing the trend line and daily new case figures continue to drop.

[vermin on arrival]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

True, but I think we we also have to draw a distinction as to what stage the pandemic is in at any particular country as well as other causes for surges. For example the UK has increased testing to an average of 200,000 per day since the beginning of June, previous to that it hovered around 100,000 per day. But as a result of this large increase in testing the trend line and daily new case figures continue to drop.

It's going to be interesting long term to see if these countries which got hammered and people are saying will be regarded as toxic places, are actually going to be disaster proofed and have better long term prospects because they reached the "saturation point"/ herd immunity and the places which people think did significantly better end up having long term issues and concerns with the disease returning since no significant portion of the population caught the disease.

[tomazbodner]

How relevant is this topic now that other Scandinavian countries consider the pandemic over and have opened borders, but kept it shut for Sweden that's having an outbreak reaching 50,000 infections and nearly 5000 deaths, more than all other Scandinavian countries together.

 

Or maybe it is relevant - what does the OP think? Did this answer his question?

[vermin on arrival]

11 hours ago, tomazbodner said:

How relevant is this topic now that other Scandinavian countries consider the pandemic over and have opened borders, but kept it shut for Sweden that's having an outbreak reaching 50,000 infections and nearly 5000 deaths, more than all other Scandinavian countries together.

 

Or maybe it is relevant - what does the OP think? Did this answer his question?

I think the pandemic being over anywhere is just a temporary thing since covid will most likely be endemic. Sweden's strategy was for a marathon and not a 2-3 month sprint. We won't know for a year or two if it's strategy was better or not.

[chessman]

14 hours ago, vermin on arrival said:

It's going to be interesting long term to see if these countries which got hammered and people are saying will be regarded as toxic places, are actually going to be disaster proofed and have better long term prospects because they reached the "saturation point"/ herd immunity and the places which people think did significantly better end up having long term issues and concerns with the disease returning since no significant portion of the population caught the disease.

This could well be the case but one could also imagine the mortality rate of Norway, Finland or Denmark never approaching what it is in Sweden because they will have learnt from Sweden’s mistakes. They will protect care homes more and they will be better prepared in terms of PPE and testing.

 

If their economic downturns are going to be similar to Sweden’s (another metric we don’t know yet) then  their method, with short sharp lockdowns, will be considered more effective.

 

but those are two big questions we won’t know the answers to for a while...

[vermin on arrival]

6 minutes ago, chessman said:

This could well be the case but one could also imagine the mortality rate of Norway, Finland or Denmark never approaching what it is in Sweden because they will have learnt from Sweden’s mistakes. They will protect care homes more and they will be better prepared in terms of PPE and testing.

 

If their economic downturns are going to be similar to Sweden’s (another metric we don’t know yet) then  their method, with short sharp lockdowns, will be considered more effective.

 

but those are two big questions we won’t know the answers to for a while...

The real problem with Sweden's mortality rate was that they didn't properly protect the nursing homes, which they had actually intended to do, but failed. I don't know if it is necessarily an inherent flaw in the approach. Many countries failed in this respect, even ones with lockdowns.  Taiwan didn't lockdown, but successfully protected their nursing homes. Certainly, Sweden's neighbors protected their nursing homes properly. I know in Norway's case the care homes are much smaller so if there were a problem at one it would have more minor consequences.

Edited June 13, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[farang51]

The problem is that you cannot effectively protect nursing homes when a virus is widespread in the population. People have to work in nursing homes, and they bring the virus with them. With the coronavirus, you have asymptomatic people that can spread the virus.

Many of the deaths in other countries have been in nursing homes as well (including neighbouring Denmark). I believe much of the difference in nursing home deaths in Sweden versus the other Nordic countries is due to more virus amongst the nursing home workers.

If this was the 15th century with herd immunity and total isolation as the only options, Sweden's strategy might have been best; however, today, we can develop better treatments of those infected, and we will probably have a vaccine next year. That means that limiting the spread of the virus here and now will result in fewer deaths and a faster recovery for the sick in the long run.

For now, it seems that Sweden will do no better economically than their neighbours. Actually, I can imagine that they will do worse than expected at the moment because they will need more time before they are back to "normal".

Sweden's "experiment" can teach us what not to do in a future epidemic; however, I fear the leaders of the future will forget all about it - just as some of today's leaders did not learn from older epidemics, like the 1918 flu:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-cities-social-distancing-better-employment.html

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, farang51 said:

The problem is that you cannot effectively protect nursing homes when a virus is widespread in the population. People have to work in nursing homes, and they bring the virus with them. With the coronavirus, you have asymptomatic people that can spread the virus.

Many of the deaths in other countries have been in nursing homes as well (including neighbouring Denmark). I believe much of the difference in nursing home deaths in Sweden versus the other Nordic countries is due to more virus amongst the nursing home workers.

If this was the 15th century with herd immunity and total isolation as the only options, Sweden's strategy might have been best; however, today, we can develop better treatments of those infected, and we will probably have a vaccine next year. That means that limiting the spread of the virus here and now will result in fewer deaths and a faster recovery for the sick in the long run.

For now, it seems that Sweden will do no better economically than their neighbours. Actually, I can imagine that they will do worse than expected at the moment because they will need more time before they are back to "normal".

Sweden's "experiment" can teach us what not to do in a future epidemic; however, I fear the leaders of the future will forget all about it - just as some of today's leaders did not learn from older epidemics, like the 1918 flu:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/03/upshot/coronavirus-cities-social-distancing-better-employment.html

With the right methods, of course you can.

[vermin on arrival]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

With the right methods, of course you can.

Yes, I think so too. One method I have read that can be done is to have the staff needed to maintain the nursing home to actually live and be quarantined with the people they are to protect and care for for the duration of the emergency.

[farang51]

One method I have read that can be done is to have the staff needed to maintain the nursing home to actually live and be quarantined with the people they are to protect and care for for the duration of the emergency.

The duration will be for a long time. From what I have read, it will take a year or two to achieve herd-immunity. And even with herd-immunity, there will still be a risk.

Even if quarantined, the virus may enter with deliveries to the nursing home.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

Yes, I think so too. One method I have read that can be done is to have the staff needed to maintain the nursing home to actually live and be quarantined with the people they are to protect and care for for the duration of the emergency.

Just having the right protective gear would be a start.

 

It really is terrible what's happened in the UK.  Yes, it's impossible to completely shield the elderly and vulnerable but a much better job can be done.  And in fact that is all that is needed.