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

[Logosone]

4 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, either logically or mathematically. Percentages are not dependent on the overall size of the thing under consideration.

It may make no sense to you, but it is the case, a small and tiny economy like Denmark will be unlikely to change in larger percentage swings because it is a tiny economy. 

 

Percentages are related to and dependent on the whole which they represent parts of, of course. 

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, farang51 said:

GDP per capita is bigger in Denmark. Besides, as GroveHillWanderer points out, you do not seem to understand what percentage means.

 

Population density:

Denmark 137 per square km

Sweden 25 per square km

 

Speaking of population density, low density is probably an avantage in an pandemic.

In terms of per capita GDP the Cayman Islands are one of the most important economies in the world, except of course they're not. Fact is Denmark is a dwarf economy, so tiny as to not really merit comparison with an actual country of normal size.

 

In terms of population density I was of course referring to cities, of which Sweden has more than Denmark and with greater population.

 

For instance, Aarhus the second largest Danish city has only 237,000 people. Gothenborg, Swedens second largest city has 600,000 people.

 

So yes, Denmark has less people, so it would always be a lot easier to control the virus in such a dwarf country.

 

[farang51]

21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In terms of per capita GDP the Cayman Islands are one of the most important economies in the world, except of course they're not. Fact is Denmark is a dwarf economy, so tiny as to not really merit comparison with an actual country of normal size.

 

So yes, Denmark has less people, so it would always be a lot easier to control the virus in such a dwarf country.

 

OK, so you want to compare Sweden with a bigger country; let's look at Germany. GDP is $ 3,9 trillion making Sweden look like a very very small dwarf country. Germany have many more cities and people than Sweden; thus, Sweden must be doing much better containing the virus than Germany. Oh, wait ...

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, farang51 said:

OK, so you want to compare Sweden with a bigger country; let's look at Germany. GDP is $ 3,9 trillion making Sweden look like a very very small dwarf country. Germany have many more cities and people than Sweden; thus, Sweden must be doing much better containing the virus than Germany. Oh, wait ...

The point rather is that Sweden have it a lot easier to control the virus than Germany, Europe's largest country.

[teacherclaire]

On 5/16/2020 at 10:25 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

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

 

Yes.

Worse. Yessir. 

[farang51]

55 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The point rather is that Sweden have it a lot easier to control the virus than Germany, Europe's largest country.

So, why didn't they? Sweden has had more than five times as many deaths from the virus than Germany. Are you saying that Sweden failed to control the virus?

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, farang51 said:

So, why didn't they? Sweden has had more than five times as many deaths from the virus than Germany. Are you saying that Sweden failed to control the virus?

Huh?

 

Germany had 9303 deaths, Sweden 5808.

 

Granted German doctors and scientists did okay, better than most in Europe, but Sweden did not fail to control the virus.

 

I'm not sure any government can control the virus really, unless they take immediate action, which neither Germany nor Sweden took. And by the time they know about the virus it's most likely too late.

 

So again, governments have extremely limited powers to control the virus.

 

As we saw with Britain, Italy, Spain et al going into extreme lockdown, whereas Sweden did not and is still better off.

 

I don't think governments can control the virus. By governments I mean scientists, governments can do next to nothing really.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I think I would prefer a plan that doesn't give you the 7th highest per capita death rate in the world (excluding micro-states) while not protecting your economy in a particularly outstanding manner either.

 

It's true that their 2nd quarter economic performance was better than most of the more southerly. European countries, shrinking by only 8.6% but it didn't do as well as some more comparable near neighbours such as Denmark, which had a relatively strict lockdown, but only saw its economy shrink by 7.4%.

 

Overall, I think I prefer the Danish model, which in addition to better protecting its economy, also protected its citizens' lives with a per capita death rate more than five times lower than Sweden's.

Unless and IF a vaccine is developed and can be given to enough people and IF it works to create herd immunity, the only plan they apparently have alternative to Sweden is lockdowns. Lockdowns only work as long as no one is allowed in without isolating for 14 days. As NZ has found out, that's not going to happen. People being fallible always stuff up in  a myriad of ways.

[farang51]

30 minutes ago, Logosone said:

37 minutes ago, farang51 said:

So, why didn't they? Sweden has had more than five times as many deaths from the virus than Germany. Are you saying that Sweden failed to control the virus?

Huh?

 

Germany had 9303 deaths, Sweden 5808.

You are not debating in good faith. You keep using misleading numbers and comparisons to make it seem that the way Sweden handles the virus is a success.

 

Sweden may succeed in the long run compared to comparable countries (although, I doubt it very much), but for now, they certainly do a lot worse than their smaller neighbours and the larger Germany.

 

I am not a fan of ignoring users; however, if you reply, I will not see it.

[moe666]

1 hour ago, farang51 said:

So, why didn't they? Sweden has had more than five times as many deaths from the virus than Germany. Are you saying that Sweden failed to control the virus?

Sweden I believe didn't try to control the virus other than to advise older people to avoid going outside

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, farang51 said:

52 minutes ago, Logosone said:

59 minutes ago, farang51 said:

So, why didn't they? Sweden has had more than five times as many deaths from the virus than Germany. Are you saying that Sweden failed to control the virus?

Huh?

 

Germany had 9303 deaths, Sweden 5808.

You are not debating in good faith. You keep using misleading numbers and comparisons to make it seem that the way Sweden handles the virus is a success.

 

Sweden may succeed in the long run compared to comparable countries (although, I doubt it very much), but for now, they certainly do a lot worse than their smaller neighbours and the larger Germany.

 

I am not a fan of ignoring users; however, if you reply, I will not see it.

 

Germany has had 0.11 deaths per 1000 people 

Sweden has had 0.56 deaths per 1000 people (5x higher than Germany)

 

Germany has had 2.92 cases per 1000 people

Sweden has had 8.2 cases per 1000 people (nearly 3x higher than Germany)

 

 

Sweden has had more cases and more deaths per 1000 people than a lot of other nations because they chose a different policy. However, by the end of the year that policy may pay dividends as their population is back at work earlier, back at school earlier and it appears there may well be some herd immunity. 

 

Sweden has had less than 0-5 daily Covid-19 related deaths for over a month.

Germany has had between 3 and 14 daily Covid-19 related deaths over the same time period. 

 

I think the real value of all these results and stats will not be known for another year or more. 

By then we’ll already know which was a more successful approach, or perhaps countries with different population densities required a different approach anyway. 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

NZ has done extremely well and continues to lead the world.

[shdmn]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

NZ has done extremely well and continues to lead the world.

I think geography and population size helps them.  I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it.  

[Bluetongue]

Back to my point about comparing death rates of say Sweden v Denmark. There are quite a few reasons it seems, "dry tinder" being one. For quite a few years Sweden has had a remarkably lower than normal death rate amongst its elderly population meaning quite a few more were available to die now. The Swedish stagger their winter break into 3 groups most of whom would have returned home from COvid central northern Italy before the 12th of March (date of Denmark lockdown), the nordic neighbours do not have this holiday pattern. Stockholm has a much higher subway use than its Nordic neighbours and it was an epicentre. Sweden has a much higher proportion of its population in ethnic groups from Africa/ME/SAsia than the others a study indicated this group was up to 50% more at risk of death, plus a high proportion of these people work at nursing homes and a larger number of them work at multiple facilities. Anyway the point remains comparing death rates is not necessarily something to draw great conclusions from. 

[tlock]

I think one thing people tend to overlook when putting down the Swedish approach is, for the most part life went on as normal.  So even if their economy tanks along with the rest of the world, is there zero value in the fact that children mostly got to go to school, people got to go to gyms, no one was restricted to their homes by the police?  I think this is the "if it saves one life" argument, that even if millions of people don't get to go to school or exercise, it's worth it?  

 

However, in the interest of honest discussion, I am surprised to see that Sweden is getting a new spike right now worse than in April (along with the rest of the world).  I had hoped the open approach would lead to some level of herd immunity.  Unfortunately, it looks like not enough people caught it in Sweden during the first wave.  

[scubascuba3]

If another virus hits us next year or any other year the economic costs to repeat are too great so countries will have no choice but to follow the Swedish model, that shows it's the correct model

[ravip]

The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino).

Full article

[Peter Denis]

40 minutes ago, ravip said:

The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino).

Full article

I will read the article, but did a quick check and Sweden's death rate does not seem to spike...

[johnnybangkok]

On 10/30/2020 at 5:31 PM, tlock said:

I think one thing people tend to overlook when putting down the Swedish approach is, for the most part life went on as normal.  So even if their economy tanks along with the rest of the world, is there zero value in the fact that children mostly got to go to school, people got to go to gyms, no one was restricted to their homes by the police?  I think this is the "if it saves one life" argument, that even if millions of people don't get to go to school or exercise, it's worth it?  

 

However, in the interest of honest discussion, I am surprised to see that Sweden is getting a new spike right now worse than in April (along with the rest of the world).  I had hoped the open approach would lead to some level of herd immunity.  Unfortunately, it looks like not enough people caught it in Sweden during the first wave.  

Like most people you are misunderstanding how herd immunity works. 

 

'The concept of achieving herd immunity through community spread of a pathogen rests on the unproven assumption that people who survive an infection will become immune. For SARS-CoV-2, some kind of functional immunity seems to follow infection, but “to understand the duration and effects of the immune response we have to follow people longitudinally, and it’s still early days”.  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

 

The vast majority of cases when herd immunity has worked (measles, flu, small pox etc) is when the there has been a vacine. Hoping people become immune because they have previously caught it (how many times can you catch a cold or the flu?) is a false promise and the ONLY hope for herd immunity with covid is with an effective vacine.

[GroveHillWanderer]

18 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

The vast majority of cases when herd immunity has worked (measles, flu, small pox etc) is when the there has been a vacine. Hoping people become immune because they have previously caught it (how many times can you catch a cold or the flu?) is a false promise and the ONLY hope for herd immunity with covid is with an effective vacine.

This is very true. In fact I would say that, unless there's something I've missed in my reading on this, there's never been any highly infectious disease that has been brought under control by naturally-acquired herd immunity. The only way this has ever been achieved is by vaccination, as far as I'm aware. If I'm mistaken and anyone knows any different, perhaps they could enlighten me.

 

So it's always puzzled me that so many people seem to set such great store by the idea of herd immunity from CoVid-19 through natural infection, when it's normally only achieved by vaccination.

[ravip]

An interesting site. ..

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

[johnnybangkok]

5 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

This is very true. In fact I would say that, unless there's something I've missed in my reading on this, there's never been any highly infectious disease that has been brought under control by naturally-acquired herd immunity. The only way this has ever been achieved is by vaccination, as far as I'm aware. If I'm mistaken and anyone knows any different, perhaps they could enlighten me.

 

So it's always puzzled me that so many people seem to set such great store by the idea of herd immunity from CoVid-19 through natural infection, when it's normally only achieved by vaccination.

You are correct but the covid deniers and those trying to say self-isolation/mask wearing/social distancing shouldn't be happenin cling on to it like it's some magic wand which will make all the nasty Covid simply vanish. The reality is that faced with millions dying, governments around the world have had little to no choice other that to lock-down and self-isolate, bunkering down until a vacine can be found. The alternative is just too grisly to contemplate.  

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

[scammed]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:07 PM, ravip said:

The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino).

Full article

the average age was >80, time was up for them regardless of covid

[ravip]

31 minutes ago, scammed said:

the average age was >80, time was up for them regardless of covid

True, that may be the fact.

But, they  deserve to go on as long as possible, without an abrupt ending...

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, ravip said:

True, that may be the fact.

But, they  deserve to go on as long as possible, without an abrupt ending...

What about the young people that will, IMO, suffer poverty and ruined lives because of lockdown destroying businesses?

[kingdong]

On 10/30/2020 at 10:49 AM, scubascuba3 said:

If another virus hits us next year or any other year the economic costs to repeat are too great so countries will have no choice but to follow the Swedish model, that shows it's the correct model

Didn,t Sweden have a pro rata body count than its neighbouring countries?

[kingdong]

Just now, kingdong said:

Didn,t Sweden have a pro rata body count than its neighbouring countries?

A higher pro rata body count.

[ravip]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What about the young people that will, IMO, suffer poverty and ruined lives because of lockdown destroying businesses?

On that same note, would it not be an excellent idea to legalise euthanasia (globally) for anyone and not limit it only for terminally ill patients? ...and even subsidise it/or offer free by the respective governments?

Would it not help in some manner health systems that are strained by geriatric care?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, ravip said:

On that same note, would it not be an excellent idea to legalise euthanasia (globally) for anyone and not limit it only for terminally ill patients? ...and even subsidise it/or offer free by the respective governments?

Would it not help in some manner health systems that are strained by geriatric care?

I've already said on the NZ/ euthanasia thread that I agree with that.

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, ravip said:

On that same note, would it not be an excellent idea to legalise euthanasia (globally) for anyone and not limit it only for terminally ill patients? ...and even subsidise it/or offer free by the respective governments?

Would it not help in some manner health systems that are strained by geriatric care?

Government sanctioned suicide. What could possibly go wrong?