Sweden Doing Well So Far

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

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.  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 of 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. Russia is a bit different as it really looked like they might escape the pandemic but now it's caught up with them and they could end up as badly affected as the USA.  



It's all there in the daily statistics.  Alt-right Libertarians and Breitbartists can argue all they like using pet ideological sub-issues to back up their arguments but covid-19 is mainly spread by droplets in the air or contaminating surfaces, frequently by people who don't know they're infected. The virus can also survive for a few hours as an aerosol in free air.  The only way to control that is by minimising the opportunites for the infection to spread. That needs to be done through compulsion otherwise a) some people will disregard the advice, risking other people's lives as well as their own and b) other people will be pressurised against their will to disregard the advice.

[B0ycey]

It's true there may never be a vaccine and lockdown can't last forever but it's got to be given a good run. Other countries have shown that it works in reducing cases and therefore deaths.  How and when lockdown should end is a difficult one.

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 shit 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.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

It's true there may never be a vaccine and lockdown can't last forever but it's got to be given a good run. Other countries have shown that it works in reducing cases and therefore deaths.  How and when lockdown should end is a difficult one.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

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.

[B0ycey]

Welcome from me, too.



And I agree with your point of view. However, there are many fearful people who think that the lockdown will keep them safe until a vaccine comes along, which it may never do.

Thank you and great to meet you too.



Sure. But you can blame the government for that when they basically told everyone that lockdowns "saves lives". Now we have "stay alert" as they have figured out too late that their message was too effective and ultimately wrong if you plan on opening up the economy at some point in the furture. Originally they were on the right path BTW. That is preventive measures and personal responsibility depending on the risk the virus has to you personally like Sweden.



Also, I would like to point out that if you lock yourself up it does keep you safe from Covid19 because you are in isolation. So if anyone is scared perhaps they should keep doing that. But not everyone is scared. Some people know the risk and are prepared to take it as they are statistically not in danger. As long as they keep social distancing and actively keep away from the doomsayers or those who are at risk, I don't really understand why governments are promoting that we all sail the same bloody ship as it does have a negative impact on both mental health and the economy.



And sure, you are right about there might never be a vaccine. So what? We are meant to stay in lockdown forever or are we actually going to live our lives to keep society functioning with the knowledge that this might actually be a possibility? How do those who think it is possible to save everyone believe we can keep production and cash flow moving when we are all sat at home?

[Barry]

I don't want to over play the clear dangers that Covid19 has, but at the same time if we are going to have to live with this virus, keeping ourselves wrapped in cotton wool isn't going to work and those who think it will will soon see it won't. The strategy now has to be to mitigate the risk and make everyone responsible for their and others safety rather than pretend that this is going away by everyone sitting home doing nothing. Basically what Sweden did from the start.

Welcome from me, too.



And I agree with your point of view. However, there are many fearful people who think that the lockdown will keep them safe until a vaccine comes along, which it may never do.

[B0ycey]

Hello BOycey and welcome to the forum  :hattip

Thank you.



Came from a different forum, although reading the posts on here it seems like there a more people on here that think like me so perhaps I might jump ship.



I don't want to over play the clear dangers that Covid19 has, but at the same time if we are going to have to live with this virus, keeping ourselves wrapped in cotton wool isn't going to work and those who think it will will soon see it won't. The strategy now has to be to mitigate the risk and make everyone responsible for their and others safety rather than pretend that this is going away by everyone sitting home doing nothing. Basically what Sweden did from the start.

[cromwell]

Sweden doing well? They sure are. Their death and case rate is plateauing and they do not have to get out of lockdown as they never had one. Also the EU (and the UK) are now adopting their plan and using Germany as a case study we can expect to see a spike in cases.



Basically those nations who enacted lockdown are going to lose what they gained as soon as they open up whereas Sweden will benefit over them as they seem to be over the worse if you look at the statistics without the bill of paying people to sit at home.

Hello BOycey and welcome to the forum  :hattip

[B0ycey]

Sweden doing well? They sure are. Their death and case rate is plateauing and they do not have to get out of lockdown as they never had one. Also the EU (and the UK) are now adopting their plan and using Germany as a case study we can expect to see a spike in cases.



Basically those nations who enacted lockdown are going to lose what they gained as soon as they open up whereas Sweden will benefit over them as they seem to be over the worse if you look at the statistics without the bill of paying people to sit at home.

[Javert]

One possible explanation for the unexplained rise in non-coronavirus deaths, particularly in care homes, is that frail people becoming ill with other ailments who would normally be admitted to hospital remained in the care homes instead, where specialist treatment and equipment is less available.



I've no idea if this is true but it sounds feasible.

This is very probably part of it.  That's one part, but there is also likely to be a lot of cases that were caused, or accelerated by, Covid-19 that were not recorded as such because there was no positive test - it's basically up to individual doctors whether to put suspected Covid-19 on the death certificate and in the absence of a positive test result, they will take differing views on it.



Further, the false negative rate of Covid-19 tests is suspected to be up to 30%, especially in situations where the test is self administered or given for example to a dementia patient by an untrained person.  



Also, I'm surprised there isn't more attention on the number of retests - if you look at the daily stats, on some days the number of actual people being tested was hardly more than half the total test number.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

One possible explanation for the unexplained rise in non-coronavirus deaths, particularly in care homes, is that frail people becoming ill with other ailments who would normally be admitted to hospital remained in the care homes instead, where specialist treatment and equipment is less available.



I've no idea if this is true but it sounds feasible.

[Javert]

If the NHS capacity is overwhelmed and there are no hospital beds, the death rate goes up a lot as people who would otherwise have survived due to hospital treatment will then die.



In the current situation, we did never hit the expanded maximum capacity, so arguably, the lock down was too effective up to now and/or we turned away too many cases of other conditions.



We did however exceed the available capacity that would have been there had the NHS not made emergency changes and emptied the hospitals of non urgent cases.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

He might be right, he might be wrong. Lockdown has a real chance of preventing a lot of people from catching covid-19 and if the lifting and protection measures are right, it could prevent a lot of deaths from the virus. It's clear now that it's flattened the curve and it's also increasingly apparent that countries that have lifted lockdown too early are seeing infections rising again - Iran is an example. If the numbers are brought down low enough then if there's a small rise when restrictions are removed there's more chance of containing the situation.



Several countries that have had small outbreaks of covid-19 are now statistically free of the virus, as in 'no active cases'.  As you well know, if the R number is kept below 1, which it might or might not be here, depending on which source you believe, statistically (again) the the virus will eventually disappear.

[Barry]

Now Sweden's care homes are being hit . . .

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed?srnd=premium-europe">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed?srnd=premium-europe

From that article:

Sweden's top epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, says fighting Covid-19 is a long-term undertaking, meaning temporary lockdowns will ultimately backfire. He says once they're lifted, infection rates will again rise.



Instead, Tegnell says moderate restrictions that allow much of normal life to continue are more likely to help guide a society through a pandemic that has a protracted lifespan.

Tegnell is right isn't he?

All lockdown is doing is flattening the curve of deaths. The area under that curve will end up being the same. The difference is the amount of time it takes to infect the whole population. Sweden's infections and deaths are already falling and their economy has not been closed down.

As the topic heading says, Sweden are doing well, so far. Their reaction to the care home deaths is not to impinge on people's rights, but to provide funding for the institutions.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Now Sweden's care homes are being hit . . .

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed?srnd=premium-europe">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-infection-rate-drops-in-denmark-after-lockdown-relaxed?srnd=premium-europe