Sweden Doing Well So Far

[Barry]

One thing I've never seen mentioned is whether or not there's yet another group of people who don't even become infected when exposed to the virus - i.e. they inhale it but it fails to invade any cells to replicate. So while they could be 'contaminated' with existing virus in the same way as a plate or cashpoint and spread it that way for a few hours, they don't produce any new virus.  I have no idea whether there are any naturally immune people but if there are that could be an important factor in the statistics and in the understanding of covid-19.



I'm not a biologist but what I'm thinking of here is that with these naturally immune people (if they exist) don't even start an immune response because the spikes on the virus fail to penetrate cells or perhaps, if they do, something about the chemistry of their cells doesn't allow the virus to replicate.

Here's an article in the Lancet about immunity. Immunity is obtained after infection.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2930985-5/fulltext">//https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30985-5/fulltext



In relation to your layman's theory, I've been wondering the same about children. In general, they have no symptoms, so perhaps they are either already immune, or become so immediately. Of the deaths in the UK, less than 1% have been under 40 years of age. I'm sure the scientists will be looking at child infections, or rather the apparent lack of them, very carefully.



Having 5 grandchildren, I know that in their nurseries, pre-school and school years they provide a veritable Petri dish for all the colds and flu bugs going around, and that is where we pick up most of ours. I dare say they have done the same with Covid, whilst being silently asymptomatic.



I bet there will be enough material from research into this in the next few years to provide many people with PhD's in the future.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

There might be under reporting anywhere. Not necessarily deliberate but because of unconfirmed cases but the statistics are all we have to go on though and much more accurate than pure guesswork.  



If it was left to guesswork with no published statistics, someone living in London might estimate there are a lot more cases in UK than someone living in a remote village in Devon might. There are still people where I live who say "but there ain't no corona round here" when it's known for a fact there is.



Countries that have become free of active cases might not remain free but as the number of green or grey bands on the list grows it shows the pandemic is being defeated in isolated places with a small caseload.

[B0ycey]

If it turns out that there are people who are totally immune and don't even become asymptomatic infected cases, that would have big implications for research.

Why would it have implications for research? It just means that statistically they will be regarded as a risk but in reality they are not. The odds of having nobody immune is highly unlikely due to genetic deviants although virus's mutate very fast and that they may not be immune forever. Although it would be fortunate if there are a significant proportion of the global population who were immune and not a negative at all.

Today there are 16 countries or territories on the Worldometer chart that are now free of any ongoing covid-19 cases.  They all had very small numbers of cases but that still shows that the pandemic can be overcome by preventing the spread of the virus.  That's obviously going to be much, much more difficult here or in any other countries with tens or hundreds of thousands of cases but it's the best bet for saving lives and suffering until vaccine comes along, if it ever does, or an effective treatment is found.

Are we to pretend that countries aren't under reporting? These territories maybe less at risk, the virus may not have hit them or the maybe reporting deaths and cases as something else like pneunomia. Although I do wish people would stop thinking we can somehow suppress this virus. Like Mumps and measles never seem to go away despite vaccination programs, this virus is here to stay. There are trillions and trilllions of them mutating every cell they infect, smaller than bacteria, designed to survive under the guise of Darwinism where only those who can adapt to our social distancing measures live on to infect the next host. Are you aware that the Spanish flu became more deadly due isolation from the trenches? The same practices you can see in lockdown. Where those with more deadly variants of the virus were transported to hospitals and the less deadly variants stayed in trenches. That is why the second wave was the deadliest as it occured after the war.



The vaccine is a solution. But it is years away as you are talking about having to roll it out globally and not just develop it. You get the same effect and rewards with natural herd immunity FYI. But it is a question whether you can get there safely. Although I do think it is a matter of time before everyone sees this as the only way forward because what else can be realistically done?

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

If it turns out that there are people who are totally immune and don't even become asymptomatic infected cases, that would have big implications for research. Today there are 16 countries or territories on the Worldometer chart that are now free of any ongoing covid-19 cases.  They all had very small numbers of cases but that still shows that the pandemic can be overcome by preventing the spread of the virus.  That's obviously going to be much, much more difficult here or in any other countries with tens or hundreds of thousands of cases but it's the best bet for saving lives and suffering until vaccine comes along, if it ever does, or an effective treatment is found.



In the case of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, it seems around half of people testing positive for covid-19 were asymptomatic. About 80% of the people on board the ship tested negative.  I wonder how many of those negative people were exposed to the virus but with no biological effect.



It's all very well relying on giving people advice but not everyone will abide by it and those who don't are endangering others as well as themselves.

[B0ycey]

It might well be true that 80% of people infected with covid-19 are asymptomatic although I've seen figures quoting 50% or 25%.

Interesting fact. It is 80% asymptomatic or mild mild symtoms from confirmed cases. That is someone who is tested positive and then monitored. If infections rates are ten time under reported then the percentage will increase to be higher than 80%.

 But these asymptomatic people are still carriers and can go around infecting other people unwittingly, even if they never become ill themselves.

Sure. But that is why you social distance. Sweden isn't a Bolsonaro free for all. It actually gives advice. That is you become responsible for yourself and are expected to consider others safety too. And as such they are ahead of the game especially as it is a question of when the world follows their lead and not if.



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=twofa&utm_campaign=Only%20Saving%20Lives%20Will%20Save%20Livelihoods&utm_content=20200515&utm_term=FA%20This%20Week%20-%20112017">//https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/sweden/2020-05-12/swedens-coronavirus-strategy-will-soon-be-worlds?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=twofa&utm_campaign=Only%20Saving%20Lives%20Will%20Save%20Livelihoods&utm_content=20200515&utm_term=FA%20This%20Week%20-%20112017



Lockdowns are not a permanent fix and the cracks are already showing. Yet it is safe to say the true impact of what they have done for our lives haven't been revealed yet and until we actually loosen measures and reduce stay at home payments we are just masking the issue down the road. But global governments around the world are waking up and are slowly changing course despite cases. And as such they will have to juggle spikes or be honest with the public that we actually are going to have to mitigate the risk rather than lock us indoors forever.

One thing I've never seen mentioned is whether or not there's yet another group of people who don't even become infected when exposed to the virus - i.e. they inhale it but it fails to invade any cells to replicate. So while they could be 'contaminated' with existing virus in the same way as a plate or cashpoint and spread it that way for a few hours, they don't produce any new virus.  I have no idea whether there are any naturally immune people but if there are that could be an important factor in the statistics and in the understanding of covid-19.

Being virus's fit cells like a key, slight genetic deviants in individuals will mean that it is a strong possibility there will be people who are immune. We are already seeing that the BAME community seem more at risk from this virus and although the study into why has yet to be completed - and there is a suggestion that class could be a factor - the most likely outcome for that report is going to be genetics will determine your risk factor. But if there are people who are immune and the numbers are significant, it only strengthens the claim that herd immunity is perhaps the only realistic option to open up the economy soon.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

It might well be true that 80% of people infected with covid-19 are asymptomatic although I've seen figures quoting 50% or 25%.  But these asymptomatic people are still carriers and can go around infecting other people unwittingly, even if they never become ill themselves.



One thing I've never seen mentioned is whether or not there's yet another group of people who don't even become infected when exposed to the virus - i.e. they inhale it but it fails to invade any cells to replicate. So while they could be 'contaminated' with existing virus in the same way as a plate or cashpoint and spread it that way for a few hours, they don't produce any new virus.  I have no idea whether there are any naturally immune people but if there are that could be an important factor in the statistics and in the understanding of covid-19.



I'm not a biologist but what I'm thinking of here is that with these naturally immune people (if they exist) don't even start an immune response because the spikes on the virus fail to penetrate cells or perhaps, if they do, something about the chemistry of their cells doesn't allow the virus to replicate.

[B0ycey]

None of these figures are proven yet - there are lots of different global studies with wildly varying numbers.  The last number especially is rubbish from what I've seen.

Does the WHO chat rubbish?



http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/statements/statement-older-people-are-at-highest-risk-from-covid-19,-but-all-must-act-to-prevent-community-spread">//http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/statements/statement-older-people-are-at-highest-risk-from-covid-19,-but-all-must-act-to-prevent-community-spread



And Bonn university...



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/german-covid-19-cases-may-be-10-times-higher-than-official-figures">//https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/german-covid-19-cases-may-be-10-times-higher-than-official-figures



Or the BBC?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-51674743">//https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-51674743



This isn't some form of modelling that needs peer review. We already have the death figures and their ages. And the percentages can be worked out by anyone with basic math skills. The only stat that maybe wrong is percentage of the populous who have been infected. Hence why the New antibody test is a game changer. Although I will say an actual case study from random people is a damn sight more reliable than assumptions from data ratio to make a model with.

[Javert]

Also 80% are asymptomatic. Cases are said to be at least ten time underreported. Of those 95% who go on to die are over 60.

None of these figures are proven yet - there are lots of different global studies with wildly varying numbers.  The last number especially is rubbish from what I've seen.



You have to look at all the different studies and especially the ones that have been peer reviewed - just taking the ones that give the answer you want to hear is not science.

[B0ycey]

Nobody is not in danger, just less so.



If you get Covid-19, you are basically front loading your entire death risk for a year into the next 2 weeks.



Further, even if young and fit, there's a fairly significant much higher chance you'll end up in hospital for a lengthy stint, followed by a month or two recovery at home.  That's not a trivial thing to take lightly.

What you talking about? Just living makes you in danger of dying. But that doesn't mean the risk of death is equal every single day of your life. And the same can be said about your age and health with Covid19.



Also 80% are asymptomatic. Cases are said to be at least ten time underreported. Of those 95% who go on to die are over 60. That isn't to say you won't find cases of young fit and healthy people dying. But they aren't the majority in ITU and the exception rather than the rule. Also if you are going to stop all risk then we might as well all stay in lockdown forever as that is basically the only way to do that.

[Javert]

The situation in the Faroe Islands seems remarkable.  They've had 187 cases, all of whom have now recovered, with no deaths.  



I know the Faroe Islands are Danish not Swedish but it's an example of a success story, at least for now.

This is probably not that significant to read into.  If they really only had 187 cases, and the true mortality is about 1%, there's a toss of a coin chance that nobody would die with that small a number of cases, so hardly unlikely.  It depends how they define "cases" I guess.

[Javert]

Some people know the risk and are prepared to take it as they are statistically not in danger.

Nobody is not in danger, just less so.



If you get Covid-19, you are basically front loading your entire death risk for a year into the next 2 weeks.



Further, even if young and fit, there's a fairly significant much higher chance you'll end up in hospital for a lengthy stint, followed by a month or two recovery at home.  That's not a trivial thing to take lightly.

[B0ycey]

Not well said at all. Your misguided flippancy about covid-19 is mind-boggling but sadly a lot of people on here will probably agree with you.

Is that a rebuttal?



You are basically saying "uh huh", without explaining why it is "misguided flippancy".

[B0ycey]

The government's stated objective of lockdown was to flatten the curve, yes.  But if it's kept in place for longer, the number of active cases will go down and the size of any second wave will be smaller.

Sure. The longer the lockdown the less active cases. But so what? Once you open up your economy you then have more active cases. You cannot prevent a second wave and eventually all governments who plan to open up their economies will have to mitigate the infection rate with social distancing measures and shielding. The only difference between Sweden and the rest of Europe is whilst Europe is basically bringing in stages to eventually have the same model as Sweden, Sweden just went straight in and made their populous responsible for their own and others health without shutting everything down. And whilst the Swedes populous doesn't fear the virus and actually ventures outside, Europe and especially true for the UK we are scared and basically give backlash to the government for telling people to go back to work.

That might necessitate a second lockdown.  There are now 14 countries or territories that have had small outbreaks of covid-19 that are now clear.  That includes the Faroe Islands, as I said earlier, which had 187 cases, all now recovered with no deaths.  This shows the virus can be beaten but it's obviously going to be a lot more difficult here or in other countries with large outbreaks in bigger populations. Conversely, the level suffering and the death rate has been worst in countries that didn't act quick enough or didn't take the problem seriously enough - like the UK, the USA and now Brazil.

But the virus cannot be beaten. Like all viruses it has a survival mechanism and it is a question when the next outbreak is rather than if. And this is especially true as Europe is now beginnings to open up again with active cases still occurring and they have never even tried to suppress the virus at all. But whilst we look at Swedens figures, it is clearly they have now reached their peak without overloading their healthcare and now their new case and death rate is plateauing, Europe will soon overtake them in terms of daily deatha and will have to open and close lockdown continuously to reach herd immunity because if they don't, they cannot justify lockdown originally.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

So if everyone does it, we should too?



Firstly what was the objective of lockdown? It was to flatten the curve. That is to say in laymen terms to reduce cases now, have more in the future and let the outbreak go on for much longer in order to protect the NHS. Why? Because even though the science didn't say it at the time, Italy was overwhelmed by cases and people were ignoring the advice and climbing Snowdon and Johnsons ears were ringing with 300 million global deaths from the now debunked imperial model. We built new hospitals and had a national campaign to make new ventilators for this sudden influx of new cases we were expecting. That never happened because as people are beginning to figure out, using models that use confirmed cases as an outliner when over 80% of those infected are asystematic or have very mild symtoms gives you some very funky figures indeed.



So now we look at figures. We can argue that as the UK was late to the lockdown party we now have the most deaths in Europe. That is true. But even the UK only have around 34000 deaths. Which sounds a lot but when you look at the annual obesity death figures being the same number I don't see people calling for Maccies to be closed down for health reasons do you? And align that with the fact that of those Covid19 deaths 95% were over 60 and 50% were over 80 and their general health was a factor in those deaths too, you might well find that in terms of life years saved, lockdown has actually achieved very little for basically doubling the national debt and making millions unemployed.



And finally how to get out of lockdown. Before the UK went into lockdown and after the whole world shut its self down, people seemed more than happy to go to restautants, work the shops etc even though it was reported in the news because this pandemic is actually quite selective on who lives and who dies and nobody was seeing random people dying in the streets. Now everyone is calling for PPE because we have been conditioned for the past seven weeks to be scared of this virus. Basically the government has sh*t everyone up when statistically most of the working population doesn't need to worry at all. And we could have shielded those who were at risk because they are generally indoors anyway. And that is why Sweden is doing well so far. They are now seven weeks ahead of everyone. Their figures are plateauing and slowly going down and they do not have to juggle with spikes in the infection rate which will occur everytime you loosen up a lockdown measure.



So my point is very simple. Socially and economically it is far less damaging to ask people to actually assess their own personal risk and the risk they might pose to others and act sensibly to that risk then it is to ask everyone to do the same damn thing regardless of the risk. Did we need to bubble wrap everyone? No. Do we need to social distance and wash hands? Yes. Did we have to shield the elderly and vulnerable? Yes. But did we need to shut down society to do that? Absolutely Not.

Not well said at all. Your misguided flippancy about covid-19 is mind-boggling but sadly a lot of people on here will probably agree with you.

[Barry]

So if everyone does it, we should too?



Firstly what was the objective of lockdown? It was to flatten the curve. That is to say in laymen terms to reduce cases now, have more in the future and let the outbreak go on for much longer in order to protect the NHS. Why? Because even though the science didn't say it at the time, Italy was overwhelmed by cases and people were ignoring the advice and climbing Snowdon and Johnsons ears were ringing with 300 million global deaths from the now debunked imperial model. We built new hospitals and had a national campaign to make new ventilators for this sudden influx of new cases we were expecting. That never happened because as people are beginning to figure out, using models that use confirmed cases as an outliner when over 80% of those infected are asystematic or have very mild symtoms gives you some very funky figures indeed.



So now we look at figures. We can argue that as the UK was late to the lockdown party we now have the most deaths in Europe. That is true. But even the UK only have around 34000 deaths. Which sounds a lot but when you look at the annual obesity death figures being the same number I don't see people calling for Maccies to be closed down for health reasons do you? And align that with the fact that of those Covid19 deaths 95% were over 60 and 50% were over 80 and their general health was a factor in those deaths too, you might well find that in terms of life years saved, lockdown has actually achieved very little for basically doubling the national debt and making millions unemployed.



And finally how to get out of lockdown. Before the UK went into lockdown and after the whole world shut its self down, people seemed more than happy to go to restautants, work the shops etc even though it was reported in the news because this pandemic is actually quite selective on who lives and who dies and nobody was seeing random people dying in the streets. Now everyone is calling for PPE because we have been conditioned for the past seven weeks to be scared of this virus. Basically the government has sh*t everyone up when statistically most of the working population doesn't need to worry at all. And we could have shielded those who were at risk because they are generally indoors anyway. And that is why Sweden is doing well so far. They are now seven weeks ahead of everyone. Their figures are plateauing and slowly going down and they do not have to juggle with spikes in the infection rate which will occur everytime you loosen up a lockdown measure.



So my point is very simple. Socially and economically it is far less damaging to ask people to actually assess their own personal risk and the risk they might pose to others and act sensibly to that risk then it is to ask everyone to do the same damn thing regardless of the risk. Did we need to bubble wrap everyone? No. Do we need to social distance and wash hands? Yes. Did we have to shield the elderly and vulnerable? Yes. But did we need to shut down society to do that? Absolutely Not.

Well said.  :hattip