Jump to content

The Swedish Experiment


Recommended Posts

https://www.thelocal.se/20201013/sweden-opens-doors-to-local-coronavirus-guidelines-as-cases-pass-100000

>> Most of the new cases are people aged around 20-50, and a corresponding rise in new deaths or intensive care admissions has not yet been seen. A total of 5,899 people have to date died after testing positive.

"But there are concerning signs that it is again starting to affect elderly care homes," said state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, adding that the number of cases in elderly care homes doubled between the week starting September 28th and the following week, albeit for now still at a very low level compared to spring. <<

1602601354_sk-rmklipp.jpg

As I said: Word on that is still out. I wish those who believe this to be basically a nothingburger are right. But I think it's way to early to call.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First of all:  how is your trip to Spain going? Now. Any single person who doesn’t die from this is excellent news. And anyone who doesn’t contract the virus is also good news. For starters

Everyone in this thread is probably in a nursing home. They sound like Joe Biden trying to form a cognitive sentence.    "Uh, but, cases only, g.g.g.g.go down with lock-down." 'If you don't w

Im hazarding a guess that you have never had to walk into the waiting room and tell a husband, son daughter father that their wife mother daughter has passed. Because today in the USA 512 doctors or n

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

Australian expats in Sweden share what life is like under the country's unconventional pandemic approach

I find the use of the term "unconventional" to describe Sweden's pandemic management approach as mildly amusing.  Sweden more than any other country has followed the pandemic management plan agreed by many nations based on evidence based research and multi-nation pandemic war games.  The approach was even promoted by WHO.

It is only unconventional because it seems everyone other than the Swedish threw the plan manual out the window.  One shouldn't use a death metric as a measure of comparative success however Sweden's mortality numbers per head of population have remained fairly constant for the last 3 months.  They have dropped from 8th on the list to 15th.  Their case numbers per population is 47th.

In my opinion their approach is characterised by minimal intervention to which small changes can be made that keeps suppression to a level without much variation.  Other nations seem to flip flop from full on to full off resulting in a similar variation in case and mortality numbers.  Most of us are like children we don't like being locked up and when we are allowed out we go over the top!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 7:48 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Sweden more than any other country has followed the pandemic management plan agreed by many nations based on evidence based research and multi-nation pandemic war games.  The approach was even promoted by WHO.

....In my opinion their approach is characterised by minimal intervention to which small changes can be made that keeps suppression to a level without much variation....

You need to stop bullshitting. 

Sweden followed the standard WHO guidelines for a NORMAL epidemic, NOT the one for Convid-19.

Once declared a pandemic and the high Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) was known, WHO recommended counties test-test-test. Sweden did not. Swedens mortality rate provides the answer to how that worked out.

Sweden's Nordic neighbours had a more stringent approach but still remained relatively open. Their mortality rate was a fraction of Sweden's and their economies performed better.

Sweden is now contact/tracing/testing/isolating, maybe not as much as say neighbouring Denmark but light years from its original endeavour.

On 10/18/2020 at 7:48 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

It is only unconventional because it seems everyone other than the Swedish threw the plan manual out the window

As above, it is the reverse. Everyone else BUT Sweden and some others threw the WHO 'standard' epidemic plan out the window. Some adopted a hybrid. Netherlands a good example. 

On 10/18/2020 at 7:48 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

One shouldn't use a death metric as a measure of comparative success however Sweden's mortality numbers per head of population have remained fairly constant for the last 3 months.  They have dropped from 8th on the list to 15th.  Their case numbers per population is 47th.

Sweden's current mortality rate is similiar to some other countries, particularly it's neighbours. Sweden's mortality ranking hasn't dropped, except in response to the recent increase in interventions not used in the first wave. You can't bring people back from the dead. Other countries have PASSED Sweden. 

On 10/18/2020 at 7:48 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Other nations seem to flip flop from full on to full off resulting in a similar variation in case and mortality numbers. 

Yes you are spot on. This is the result of economy pressures BUT not having a robust contact/tracing/testing and response policy including working infrastructure in place, or if there is such a policy, implementation has failed. The have nothing to find the outbreaks and put them out until it is too late.  The UK is the best example, new cases quadroupled in 3 weeks. 

From other posts elsewhere you have little regard for a contact/tracing/testing/isolating strategy. That is fringe dwelling nonsense. 

By way of example and where borders are open, albeit controlled. 

Germany, Italy, Denmark and their fellow Nordic 5, where Sweden a late bloomer, have the most robust CTT regeimes in Europe.

Check out cases map below. Even CTT fringe dwellers should be able to spot a pattern.

Sweden health officials have made it abundantly clear they will not be repeating their 1st wave mistake.

EkddcJPX0AQKaZN.jpeg.415245e2976db346d081f59663123431.jpeg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Sweden health officials have made it abundantly clear they will not be repeating their 1st wave mistake.

By changing what?  What have they radically changed?  They are in a position to incrementally make minor adjustments. 

I've said it before Jacko there is no point discussing these issues with you. because a). you don't really understand evidence based research, b). you are blinded by your beliefs and ego, c). you focus on point data as opposed to trends and comparative analysis i.e. you change the time series span to suit your position.  ANYONE who presents a differing opinion is immediately abused and labelled a dangerous lying cunt, or a denier, or whatever springs to your mind at the time.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

By changing what?  What have they radically changed?  They are in a position to incrementally make minor adjustments. 

Expected response from someone who ignores the effectiveness of CTT. Comprehension is also not your strong point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2020 at 4:57 PM, The Dark Knight said:

Australian expats in Sweden share what life is like under the country's unconventional pandemic approach

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-18/australian-expats-life-in-sweden-during-covid-19/12759732

 

 

Interesting read; thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Since July 20 Sweden has had 29,000 new cases of Covid-19 for 200 deaths.  That is a CFR of 0.7%.  Prior to that there were 74,000 cases and 5,700 deaths - a CFR of 7.7% i.e. 11 times greater!

Interesting data.

"Interesting data"

Except apart from interventions, deaths are also related to health care capacity incl. via vacancy (now increased), age new cases (now dropped) and level of treatment and knowledge (now risen). This applies now to all countries in varying degrees. 

Except no one relies on comparative CFR's where test rate is low and or there are changes or differences in testing methodology. Sweden has changed both test count method and rate. IFR is the experts prefered measure that doesn't rely on actual cases, including asymptomatic cases and clinical confirmation.

You really don't get this do you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah interesting read. Interesting to find out that Sweden’s no lockdown approach wouldn’t really allow for such essential free assembly such as Sturgis and uninterrupted church service in a never once even remotely locked down state such as Florida.

Great read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Great read.

One day someone will do a detailed transmission/reproduction study comparing Sweden's interventions both natural and imposed against those countries that don't have the same natural advantages.

I think those who have incurred lockdowns, particularly those with curfews and travel distance limits will be pretty pissed off seeing those comparative numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting paper.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202267v1.full.pdf+html

Another paper that did a meta analysis of IFR's found the average to be 0.27%.  This aligns to the 0.3% IFR in this paper which supports positive effects of immunity occur at 15% infection level.

This may well explain what is happening in Sweden.  Bearing in mind that a positive PCR test doesn't discount that an individual has some form of pre-immunity.  This might explain asymptomatic and mild cases where clinical intervention is not required and there are no lingering side effects.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Another paper that did a meta analysis of IFR's found the average to be 0.27%. 

Read up thread. 'Mean' accepted IFR around world and published by WHO is more than double that at 0.6%, Sweden actuals also coincide with that. Large IFR age range increasing above 35 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm not posting anymore on this topic.

Cheers.

Best post of the thread.  See what you can do to apply the same to the rest of PA.

Either that or fess-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I dont know what "PA" is but if you post some legitimate research that offers some positive outlook you get either called a lying dangerous cunt or banned.

You are a dangerous lying cunt.

You even lied about stopping posting here.  Even lied about not knowing what PA is.

YCMTSU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the most prominent example of why so-called herd-immunity is maybe not the way to go, I'm sure this will make headlines:

For cycling enthusiasts, the name Fernando Gaviria will ring a bell. As a sprinter for UAE Emirates  he was one of the first pro-cyclists who tested positive in March, now again on the second rest day of the Giro d'Italia.

Gaviria’s re-infection, meanwhile, is likely to be of major interest to doctors not just involved in cycling but in the research into the coronavirus, with the understanding of the immune response key to the search for a vaccine. There has been evidence to suggest it can be caught again, although instances so far have been rare.

(From the Cyclingnews article)

Needs proper investigation though, esp, regarding possibly different strains etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

This is an interesting paper.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202267v1.full.pdf+html

Another paper that did a meta analysis of IFR's found the average to be 0.27%.  This aligns to the 0.3% IFR in this paper which supports positive effects of immunity occur at 15% infection level.

This may well explain what is happening in Sweden.  Bearing in mind that a positive PCR test doesn't discount that an individual has some form of pre-immunity.  This might explain asymptomatic and mild cases where clinical intervention is not required and there are no lingering side effects.

 

 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I should have posted median instead of average.  With this type of data and its skew median is a better measure than mean.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3

Lots of truth in there but sheeple and chrome domes will just ban facts.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I dont know what "PA" is but if you post some legitimate research that offers some positive outlook you get either called a lying dangerous cunt or banned.

Who called you that on that ? Answer no-one. Someone saying it wasn't representative means what? It wasnt representative. The most representative on IFR has been an amalgam of studies some better than others. That cited one of yours another one.  Thousands of experts don't converse say via WHO and produce outcomes by consensus for nothing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I should have posted median instead of average.  With this type of data and its skew median is a better measure than mean.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3

The central paragraph of the summary is:

'Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%).'

To me, there are three conclusions:

1. as the author also indicates: there is a wide range of results. More studies need to be done. This is not conclusive.

2. there is probably not 'one' CFR. There are many contributing factors. As long as we can only speculate what these are (a 'lock-down' vs. ICU capacity, for example), discussions like this are pretty pointless, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.

3. There is reason to suspect that the CFR in people < 70 years old is very low. This will add to the discussion, whether full-blown lockdowns with the respective economical consequences are the way to go or should be replaced by more age-oriented measures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matagi said:

The central paragraph of the summary is:

'Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%).'

To me, there are three conclusions:

1. as the author also indicates: there is a wide range of results. More studies need to be done. This is not conclusive.

2. there is probably not 'one' CFR. There are many contributing factors. As long as we can only speculate what these are (a 'lock-down' vs. ICU capacity, for example), discussions like this are pretty pointless, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.

3. There is reason to suspect that the CFR in people < 70 years old is very low. This will add to the discussion, whether full-blown lockdowns with the respective economical consequences are the way to go or should be replaced by more age-oriented measures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-excess-deaths/2020/10/20/1e1d77c6-12e1-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

That is not a contradiction, I think that excess deaths is more or less the ultimate proof that this ia indeed a deadly virus.

The variable is the question, how many people were infected. As I have sid before, I believe we have only seen Godzilla's back early this year. Without adequate testing we were blind to the true extent of infection, and, in my view, with short-lived levels of antibodies, we will always be behind.

The best one could and should do is to constantly monitor wastewater -possibly even street or blockwise, as well as the outlets of schools and care homes and where possible to test and compare with older previous samples.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Who called you that on that ? Answer no-one

A moderator.  After I posted the link to the IFR research I received a warning for spamming.

There is a lot of good news out there and good research backing it up however Covid-19 is now a political weapon.  Past research, experience and planning have been hijacked.  End result misinformation from all sides, chaos and crisis.

If you looked at the current state of play which country would you rather be living in at the moment?  The one you are living in or the one that is the subject of this Forum Topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A moderator.  After I posted the link to the IFR research I received a warning for spamming.

So you are still lying in every post.

Still posting here after "I'm not posting anymore on this topic. "

Fucking typical right wing lying cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

So a mod PM'd you calling you a "lying dangerous cunt" after you posted that IFR piece. Is that correct?

That's actually not what I said.  The only posters that call others "lying dangerous cunts" are you and Astro.  Now you will follow your normal modus operandi and start cutting and pasting.  Regardless that is all noise - the fact is there is some positive news in quite a bit of evidence based research that is now being released.  However people have formed immovable positions often based on their political views rather than an objective appraisal of the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey anybody got the latest daily death trend graph from Sweden? Are they up over daily digits yet like so many others in Europe? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not look back to June and take a look at the governments findings? https://www.government.se/articles/2020/06/social-distancing-and-markedly-reduced-travel-in-sweden/ 

This binary ‘lockdown or no lockdown’ comparative analysis between countries takes a narrow view.

A) Sweden seems to have followed all basic measures other than lockdown better than many countries who locked down then opened up

B countries such as the US barely reached a decent measure of lockdown in a lot of regions and might as well still be on their first wave. Other basic measures have been followed with middling veracity.

C) Sweden may enjoy other advantages(travel patterns, population distribution,  50% population lives single, over all higher rate of civil obedience)

Mostly, just because Sweden didn’t do a full lockdown doesn’t preclude them from having taken more rigorous measures—and implementing them, which takes a collective buy in from the citizenship—in many of the other key areas that other countries have struggled with. 

And yes the government is ready and willing to shut down any non compliant businesses in a heartbeat, no questions.

As for daily death rate, my province of 9 million (Sweden 10m) is between 0-6, today 3, for daily fatalities. A reversion to stage 2 lockdown has been ordered for 28 days in three hotspots where the positivity rate concerns Public Health. The rest of the province is free to continue to observe basic measures and respect the process.

Comparing Sweden to France, Italy or Spain, at least by any remotely useful measure, would need many more inputs other than ‘lockdown/no lockdown’. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's actually not what I saidThe only posters that call others "lying dangerous cunts" are you and Astro.  

This is what you said.

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

...but if you post some legitimate research that offers some positive outlook you get either called a lying dangerous cunt or banned.

10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Who called you that on that ?

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A moderator.  After I posted the link to the IFR research I received a warning for spamming.

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

So a mod PM'd you calling you a "lying dangerous cunt" after you posted that IFR piece. Is that correct?

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's actually not what I saidThe only posters that call others "lying dangerous cunts" are you and Astro

 

So no one called you a dangerous lying cunt after posting that IFR post.

So no moderator PM'd you after posting that IFR post.

Naughty naughty pants on fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

This is what you said.

So no one called you a dangerous lying cunt after posting that IFR post.

Naughty naughty. 

Case in point.  You've cut and pasted out of context and even altered some of your posts.  What's the point of posting anything?  Any evidence based research that contradicts your immovable position always elicits the same response. 

Anyway that ISN'T the subject of this Topic which is titled - "The Swedish Experiment."  There ISN'T a binary answer to that experiment.  However arguably there is strong evidence to show that they are doing extremely well currently in their management of the pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Didn't alter a thing. 

You are a liar. 

For a start your post starting "Who called you that on that?"  You have selectively reduced the amount you quote from that post as you have progressed to the point where the context is completely lost.  That's your technique which you use - fair enough but why call out other people (which you do) when they do the same thing?

Again get back to the Topic.  THE SWEDISH EXPERIMENT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

For a start your post starting "Who called you that on that?"  You have selectively reduced the amount you quote from that post as you have progressed to the point where the context is completely lost.  That's your technique which you use - fair enough but why call out other people (which you do) when they do the same thing?

 Again get back to the Topic.  THE SWEDISH EXPERIMENT

"You have selectively reduced the amount you quote from that post as you have progressed to the point where the context is completely lost."

OK here is discourse in full and highlighted instead. 

Now if you HAVEN'T lied about response to your IFR post, what exactly is "the context is completely lost"?

19 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I'm not posting anymore on this topic.

Cheers.

17 hours ago, astro said:

Best post of the thread.  See what you can do to apply the same to the rest of PA.

Either that or fess-up.

16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I dont know what "PA" is but if you post some legitimate research that offers some positive outlook you get either called a lying dangerous cunt or banned.

11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Who called you that on that ? Answer no-one. Someone saying it wasn't representative means what? It wasnt representative. The most representative on IFR has been an amalgam of studies some better than others. That cited one of yours another one.  Thousands of experts don't converse say via WHO and produce outcomes by consensus for nothing. 

4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

A moderator.  After I posted the link to the IFR research I received a warning for spamming.

There is a lot of good news out there and good research backing it up however Covid-19 is now a political weapon.  Past research, experience and planning have been hijacked.  End result misinformation from all sides, chaos and crisis.

If you looked at the current state of play which country would you rather be living in at the moment?  The one you are living in or the one that is the subject of this Forum Topic?

4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

So a mod PM'd you calling you a "lying dangerous cunt" after you posted that IFR piece. Is that correct?

2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's actually not what I said.  The only posters that call others "lying dangerous cunts" are you and Astro.  Now you will follow your normal modus operandi and start cutting and pasting.  Regardless that is all noise - the fact is there is some positive news in quite a bit of evidence based research that is now being released.  However people have formed immovable positions often based on their political views rather than an objective appraisal of the evidence.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To distil this further and rephrase:

If you post something, regardless of its positivity, that is against the party line you are either called a "lying dangerous cunt" and/or banned.

I received a warning AFTER I posted the link to the meta-study of IFR's.  A warning is normally a precursor to being banned.

END of Story.

However since then Jack Sparrow you have been on a mission to call me out as a "lying dangerous cunt" which proves my point.  I daresay part of your agenda is to get me banned.

Anytime soon if anyone wants to discuss "The Swedish Experiment" in a civil form of discourse then I'm quite happy to contribute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack you obviously consider yourself to be an intellectual giant amongst us mere mortals.  If you have a spare 30 mins in your day have a read of this essay dated 1969 which describes the decision making processes concerned with the Cuban Missile Crisis.  In my mind it provides a way to contextualise what we are seeing today with the Covid-19 pandemic management.  I've actually read the book that was eventually written which expands on this essay.  I've also read the more recent revision which includes data and information released by Russia.

It is scary to think that the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't necessarily averted by the action of rational actors performing rational actions but more a mish mash of coincidences.  It is estimated that 100m Americans would have died and a similar number of Russians if Nuclear War had eventuated at that time.  If that had happened I suggest neither of us would be sitting here arguing the nuances of Covid-19 pandemic management.

http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/Allison Conceptual Models.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

To distil this further and rephrase:

If you post something, regardless of its positivity, that is against the party line you are either called a "lying dangerous cunt" and/or banned.

I received a warning AFTER I posted the link to the meta-study of IFR's.  A warning is normally a precursor to being banned.

END of Story.

"END of Story"

So NO ONE here called you a "dangerous lying cunt" in response to your IFR post.

So a moderator DID NOT call you a "dangerous lying cunt" in response you your IFR post.

So you just made that all up. 

10 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

However since then Jack Sparrow you have been on a mission to call me out as a "lying dangerous cunt" which proves my point.  I daresay part of your agenda is to get me banned.

So we now have a new made up story.

You are not a 'dangerous lying cunt'.

You are a 'lying tiresome cunt'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kate - You are arguing with a sheeple troll who would not know or understand truth if it hit his face.  Don't waste your time.  More and more all these flawed highly restrictive lock down strategies are proving to be not only unsucessfull but also not sustainable and sooner or later they will have to admit it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Jack you obviously consider yourself to be an intellectual giant amongst us mere mortals.  If you have a spare 30 mins in your day have a read of this essay dated 1969 which describes the decision making processes concerned with the Cuban Missile Crisis.  In my mind it provides a way to contextualise what we are seeing today with the Covid-19 pandemic management.  I've actually read the book that was eventually written which expands on this essay.  I've also read the more recent revision which includes data and information released by Russia.

It is scary to think that the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't necessarily averted by the action of rational actors performing rational actions but more a mish mash of coincidences.  It is estimated that 100m Americans would have died and a similar number of Russians if Nuclear War had eventuated at that time.  If that had happened I suggest neither of us would be sitting here arguing the nuances of Covid-19 pandemic management.

http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~lorenzo/Allison Conceptual Models.pdf

"..the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't necessarily averted by the action of rational actors performing rational actions but more a mish mash of coincidences."

Like all modelling shit data in, shit out. 

In 1969 this information wasn't revealed and still hasn't been officially acknowledged today. 

The Cuban Missile Crisis was averted with  a couple of pistols and bravery at a US missile base in Okinawa Japan....and it wasn't just Russia.

Maybe read more??

IMG_20201021_100422.thumb.jpg.f8b22c4fa63c11124c96be80a0d52196.jpgIMG_20201021_100954.thumb.jpg.1376d7ce052ffb3d469d7ba53dc6e235.jpgIMG_20201021_101116.thumb.jpg.ef2c9fd5fdcdad97340d7cc1906d5a9a.jpgIMG_20201021_101144.thumb.jpg.303b8a9296de5feeebefba5b69840ee9.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wess said:

  Don't waste your time.  More and more all these flawed highly restrictive lock down strategies are proving to be not only unsucessfull but also not sustainable and sooner or later they will have to admit it. 

Here is a state by state re opening analysis for your hearty appraisal. See if you can find a pattern.

https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-america-map/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Wess said:

Kate - You are arguing with a sheeple troll who would not know or understand truth if it hit his face.  Don't waste your time.  More and more all these flawed highly restrictive lock down strategies are proving to be not only unsucessfull but also not sustainable and sooner or later they will have to admit it. 

Wess you are a very tiresome bullshitting cunt and still bullshitting.

Even BlatantlyBullShitting acknowledges his bias on other people's views got the better of him and didn't realise there was agreement on the hammer approach having no future. 

  On 10/7/2020 at 6:38 PM, BlatantEcho said:

I realize you guys all disagree with me (and mostly resort to name calling)
I'll also accept, I don't always articulate points well, no question - I'm human.
 

But, at a certain point, the body of evidence building against current lockdown policies, becomes overwhelming.

"I agree with you or anyone that lock down policies have always been regarded as shit for economic as well as consequential health issues." 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fufkin said:

Here is a state by state re opening analysis for your hearty appraisal. See if you can find a pattern.

https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-america-map/

 

I still don't get the very limited input by Washington. Want to take over the US is it a simple matter of invade and go state to state beating up their State guard, OR at some stage does the Pentagon get involved? Why is a national health emergency any different? 

This is the most dangerous guy in the US. Scott Atlas who has effectively taken over from where Fauci finished off. Twitter recently de-twittered his objection to face masks. Trump is his glove puppet. 

Articulate, well credentialed (but not an epidemiologist), good persuasive speaker, sounds very sensible considered etc etc. He is also sneaky as fuck with his language, arguments and is politicised up to the eye balls.

Senior fellow at the right-wing think tank Hoover Institution. Thinks the Barrington Declaration the best thing since sliced bread. Says he doesn't support 'herd immunity' but then praises it's promotors like Gupta the 'Theoretical Epidemiologist' from the UK. 

He on one hand talks about the thousands of health specialists on the Federal payroll but in the same breath insists the states formulate and execute policy individually.  That is simply code for WH takes credit for successes and states take the failures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you see Jack-boi foiling with another poster ... it's him, fucking with himself!

Even shills have Key Performance Indicators, even if they have to manufacture it!

Q7L.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, astro said:

If you see Jack-boi foiling with another poster ... it's him, fucking with himself!

OK Randumb we are up and 'foiling' with each other. 

So do you first reveal yourself as I, OR do I reveal myself as you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I still don't get the very limited input by Washington.

 There is so much he does not get this side of Washington FFS!  Jacky-boi shill gold.

Q7L.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fufkin said:

Mostly, just because Sweden didn’t do a full lockdown doesn’t preclude them from having taken more rigorous measures—and implementing them, which takes a collective buy in from the citizenship—in many of the other key areas that other countries have struggled with. 

And yes the government is ready and willing to shut down any non compliant businesses in a heartbeat, no questions.

I might be misquoting, but do you mean Sweden? Shutting down businesses in heartbeat? Not with current legislation. They are aiming to get one done and it being ready in next summer: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-vill-infora-tillfallig-pandemilag

They did have a law that made it possible to close businesses, but it expired in June. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I still don't get the very limited input by Washington. Want to take over the US is it a simple matter of invade and go state to state beating up their State guard, OR at some stage does the Pentagon get involved? Why is a national health emergency any different? 

This is the most dangerous guy in the US. Scott Atlas who has effectively taken over from where Fauci finished off. Twitter recently de-twittered his objection to face masks. Trump is his glove puppet. 

Articulate, well credentialed (but not an epidemiologist), good persuasive speaker, sounds very sensible considered etc etc. He is also sneaky as fuck with his language, arguments and is politicised up to the eye balls.

Senior fellow at the right-wing think tank Hoover Institution. Thinks the Barrington Declaration the best thing since sliced bread. Says he doesn't support 'herd immunity' but then praises it's promotors like Gupta the 'Theoretical Epidemiologist' from the UK. 

He on one hand talks about the thousands of health specialists on the Federal payroll but in the same breath insists the states formulate and execute policy individually.  That is simply code for WH takes credit for successes and states take the failures. 

#TrumphausenByProxy - it’s better!  It’s new and improved!  It’s a next step beyond Munchausen By Proxy!  Trump will save us!  ;)  The hero steps forward! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

In 1969 this information wasn't revealed and still hasn't been officially acknowledged today. 

Obviously you aren't the intellectual giant that you project you are or you didn't read the article or you couldn't comprehend it.  

The essay is considered a seminal work in the public policy research.  What it finds with supporting evidence is that the conceptual model that rational actors make rational decisions that directly lead to changes in outcomes is flawed.  

As I said the 1969 essay was release as a book - in 1972.  A revised edition of that book using newly released information and data was published in 1999.  

One of the most influential political science works written in the post World War II era, the original edition of Essence of Decision is a unique and fascinating examination of the pivotal event of the cold Cold War. Not simply revised, but completely re-written, the Second Edition of this classic text is a fresh reinterpretation of the theories and events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis, incorporating all new information from the Kennedy tapes and recently declassified Soviet files. Essence of Decision Second Edition, is a vivid look at decision-making under pressure and is the only single volume work that attempts to answer the enduring question: how should citizens understand the actions of their government?

The point is that as individuals we all have this delusional view that Governments make decisions that directly influence outcomes.  Covid-19 will provide a classic case study in the subject area of political policy decision making.  Just as with the Cuban Missile crisis how each country got to where they got with Covid-19 will have very little to do with any particular decision maker nor policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wess said:

Kate - You are arguing with a sheeple troll who would not know or understand truth if it hit his face.  Don't waste your time.  More and more all these flawed highly restrictive lock down strategies are proving to be not only unsucessfull but also not sustainable and sooner or later they will have to admit it. 

I don't think it is a waste of time to post an opinion supported by evidence.  Especially one that is politically neutral.

Jack Sparrow doesn't seem to like "Strawman's" however here is another one.

If a Vaccine is developed at what point does a country ease all restrictions?  Generally vaccines for a number of reasons are only 50% effective to those who get them.  Not all of a population will agree to being vaccinated.  Ironically those countries that have had widespread infection will be able to ease restrictions quicker and with a lower vaccination rate than those who have taken more strict lockdown strategies.  That isn't misinformation it is just simple maths.  If 30% of the population already has antibodies then reaching a theoretical population immunity threshold (estimates are 60% of a population) will mean fewer vaccinations are required and you will reach that point sooner.

The secondary question is - what rate of infection and IFR is acceptable?  Conceivably with the advent of vaccination the IFR will drop.  If it gets close to influenza is that normal enough to remove all restrictions and stop the daily publishing of case and death numbers?

BTW - if anyone is interested Google: CDC Influenza Serious Cardiac Events.  It found that 1 in 8 of hospitalised influenza patients had serious cardiac events.  Covid-19 seems to be twice that number but is 1 in 8 acceptable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

BTW - if anyone is interested Google: CDC Influenza Serious Cardiac Events.  It found that 1 in 8 of hospitalised influenza patients had serious cardiac events.  Covid-19 seems to be twice that number but is 1 in 8 acceptable

Check out Covid-19 cardiac that don't make it to hospital on time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Obviously you aren't the intellectual giant that you project you are or you didn't read the article or you couldn't comprehend it.  

You must be intelectualy impaired if you think someone read a trillion word article when their reply demolished not the theory but the underlying case employed and in minutes of seeing it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

You must be intelectualy impaired if you think someone read a trillion word article when their reply demolished not the theory but the underlying case employed and in minutes of seeing it. 

Of course Jack you know better than someone who has written the most cited and influential academic work on policy and decision making analysis in the last 60 years.

Someone who worked and advised in both the Clinton and Carter administration's.

Graham Tillett Allison Jr. (born March 23, 1940) is an American political scientist and the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[1] He is renowned for his contribution in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the bureaucratic analysis of decision making, especially during times of crisis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

.....If a Vaccine is developed at what point does a country ease all restrictions?.....  

.....The secondary question is - what rate of infection and IFR is acceptable?  Conceivably with the advent of vaccination the IFR will drop.  If it gets close to influenza is that normal enough to remove all restrictions and stop the daily publishing of case and death numbers?

You appear to have a skewed knowledge about vaccine outcomes.

As you can see for measels and mumps it takes years and even after decades outbreaks still occur.

For instance in response to surging measels cases in New York City last year they ordered that people in affected ZIP codes receive vaccinations or face a $1,000 fine.

PS. "what rate of infection and IFR is acceptable?...If it gets close to influenza.." Yes around the same as the flu (not a reportable disease) as bad flu seasons swamp health care adjusted by lesser age profile with flu ???

Screen-Shot-2019-05-30-at-11.38.20-AM.png

Screen-Shot-2019-05-30-at-11.38.00-AM.png

Edited by jack_sparrow
PS added
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

You appear to have a skewed knowledge about vaccine outcomes.

As you can see for measels and mumps it takes years and even after decades outbreaks still occur.

For instance in response to surging measels cases in New York City last year they ordered that people in affected ZIP codes receive vaccinations or face a $1,000 fine.

Screen-Shot-2019-05-30-at-11.38.20-AM.png

Screen-Shot-2019-05-30-at-11.38.00-AM.png

You are obfuscating and not answering the questions.

New York City is hardly an exemplar in any health issue.  

Edited by Kate short for Bob
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:
29 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Of course Jack you know better

You don't comprehend too well do you. 

37 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

....their reply demolished not the theory but the underlying case employed....

 

What reply?  Again you are manipulating cut and paste.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Upp3 said:

I might be misquoting, but do you mean Sweden? Shutting down businesses in heartbeat? Not with current legislation. They are aiming to get one done and it being ready in next summer: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-vill-infora-tillfallig-pandemilag

They did have a law that made it possible to close businesses, but it expired in June. 

Upp no you didn't misquote me I was referring to the closures (x5 bars) in Stockholm in April(?). My Swedish language skills aren't so good(non existent), so I'm unable to answer that article. From what I've gleaned, the provisional 'until Dec.' pandemic law has devolved to a co-operative enforcement between local governance/local medical officers and these authorities are able to shut down offending businesses on a moments notice. Here is one cite. https://www.themayor.eu/en/swedish-municipalities-can-close-eateries-that-neglect-health-guidelines

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 10:40 PM, Wess said:

Hey anybody got the latest daily death trend graph from Sweden? Are they up over daily digits yet like so many others in Europe? 

Sweden is currently averaging zero deaths a day.

Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 1.45.15 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WestCoast said:

Sweden is currently averaging zero deaths a day.

 

First of all:  how is your trip to Spain going?

Now. Any single person who doesn’t die from this is excellent news. And anyone who doesn’t contract the virus is also good news.

For starters, let’s have a look at the current death numbers in Sweden. They are very low, which is very good. They are, as far as I’m concerned, not 0. I have tracked the numbers at Worldometers (from which the screenshot appears to be), and they are not updated regularly and their seems to be a glitch in the connection to the source.

They differ from the number of Johns Hopkins. What I find a bit odd in both sets, I must say from a data science perspective, are the increasing gaps, over the last weeks. They haven’t been there before and there seems to be pooling going on. The Swedish hospitalization numbers also show two items: the number on the day PLUS the corrected number which was attributed to that day later on. I don’t deny that the numbers are very low. But their handling, from what I can see, is not perfect.

Anyway: Johns Hopkins sees a range from 0 to 7 per day for the last weeks. The good news is: that is still low and there is no real upward trend, as of now.

Sweden_1.thumb.jpg.fa19246878190667468e6512c00b2383.jpg

Yet, that is not too dissimilar to the other Nordic countries.

Finland:

Finland_1.thumb.jpg.035c21014eb1967188970d3bd1743aad.jpg

Norway:

Norway_1.thumb.jpg.5fdd449a772ee98b61181ae92f4a0bbd.jpg

Denmark is the only country where an upward trend is visible, but at a very low level. Still, we see that these things can change quickly.

denmark_1.thumb.jpg.2ed5cbb463d5e329775f8163f2e5899f.jpg

Still, the assumption that Sweden is a libertarian paradise is simply not rooted in facts. I mean, it is a paradise, but only in terms of food, landscape, women and (and this is important here) appreciation for science and rational decision-making.

There was a very good article on that in the FT some days ago. Bottom line: Swede’s have guilty feelings from their ‘neutral’ behaviour during some minor European armed conflicts in the past and thus feel the need to compensate by now behaving morally superior. Not that I agree with that notion, but: Being a German, I’d get that. Stupid as it sounds. But I’d get it.

In this context: Swedes highly value expert opinions and rely on the rational behaviour of their own people. Let’s have a look at two graphs, comparing Germany and Sweden. The first one shows Google location data (yeah, love those sneaky tracking devices which you can use as telephones…) for workplace locations.

Both countries went into visible ‘stay at home’ regimes in March. Sweden less than Germany, but not as much less as you'd think. Plus: Their summer holiday dip: much deeper than in Germany. If I was to give an explanation for the current low rates: that would be a prime suspect for me, tbh. Also noteworthy: both countries remain around -20% below the baseline at present, so there is already a ‘mini’ stay-at-home going on.

ge_work.jpg.a08c2ba9ef2536f93f2398d7965854b3.jpg

swe_work.jpg.03f8eeac0670ec37dcc847119cdc0372.jpg

 Same goes for retail and recreation locations. One could even say that Germans have basically gone back to previous levels, while Sweden still remains somewhat below baseline after the summer.

ge_retail.jpg.d7c9098b11d7ceee1e13ed441a497eb6.jpg

swe_retail.jpg.63609d7a9388d1de765bec9c1774bf3a.jpg

Why is that bad news? Because one could argue that although both countries went through comparable behaviour patterns (one by law, the other by peer pressure and/or collective reasoning), there is a massive discrepancy in the outcome:

You can’t resurrect the dead. Therefore, as of this moment, before Corona turned the volume up again, the per capita number of deaths in Sweden is intolerable, especially when you compare that to the German numbers.

time.jpg.c874fe4b57a29bc40d61d5a3d8baf648.jpg

Basically, very similar inputs in terms of ‘freedom’ of movement, yet massively different outcomes (see this excellent TIME article on Sweden, also). If that changes, we will only know next March. Look at ‘today’ as much as you will.

Do I therefore argue that lock-downs work? No, not per-se. Belgium shut down completely, and still has the worst per-capita death rate in Europe.

belgium.jpg.eae276b1d6b294d88dba6a81bc8c1dbd.jpg

The same can be applied to the UK or the Netherlands. So, it’s not a lockdown that has a massive impact. This is in my view only an emergency mechanism: If you don’t trigger it at a certain point, your pandemic will run down the hill and you can’t stop it. A lockdown is therefore more a safeguard for your health system, not a 'steering mechanism'. Therefore, it is not a determining factor and thus cannot be used a an exhibit for either strategy. So can we please put this idea of a completely free Sweden to rest, please?

My hypothesis is: factors that determine the speed at which you approach the point where things go exponential are way more important. Things like testing, ICU capacity (and usage!), mask mandates, the ability to track and trace. You can't just pinpoint at one factor and say: that's the one.

But if you'd compare the approaches of, say, Germany and Sweden in some of these aspects, which are really not that much a threat to your personal freedom, you would see massive differences.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

France/Andorra/Spain were nice.  
No issues crossing any EU borders with US passport.

Now back in Portugal, no issues in/out either.

--

For Sweden:  I almost always use the Worldofmeters website, mostly as the UX is easy to use.

If they have data integration problems, then, that is extremely concerning.
A lot of people have been using that site this whole year.
 

Can you give a link to the Johns Hopkins chart?
All I see on their site is numbers, no charting  (I'm looking here:  https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/sweden)

I want to compare myself, see if there is indeed a discrepancy.

--

I'm posting the same chart from earlier today, with the 7 day average line + the count this time.
7 day moving average, as of today, is indeed showing 0 average deaths on WOM site.

(link I'm using for graph: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/)

Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 4.42.55 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, WestCoast said:

Can you give a link to the Johns Hopkins chart?

 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

select Sweden on the left (scroll down to ca. 110.000), then 'death' on the right and expand to full screen.

A UX nightmare.

No idea which chart reads properly. If I was a pilot and these were my speed readings, I would abort take-off.

But I observed that the Worldometers figures always stood at '6' for some days, then some further days no update, and then '6' again, just for a new date. Plus no matching bar in the chart. That made me curious / suspicious. What I know from German figures is that Johns Hopkins has a seperate way of finding out the numbers and they don't rely on the official RKI numbers, maybe the same in Sweden?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matagi said:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

select Sweden on the left (scroll down to ca. 110.000), then 'death' on the right and expand to full screen.

A UX nightmare.

No idea which chart reads properly. If I was a pilot and these were my speed readings, I would abort take-off.

But I observed that the Worldometers figures always stood at '6' for some days, then some further days no update, and then '6' again, just for a new date. Plus no matching bar in the chart. That made me curious / suspicious. What I know from German figures is that Johns Hopkins has a seperate way of finding out the numbers and they don't rely on the official RKI numbers, maybe the same in Sweden?

You know, I saw that 6 thing you mentioned on the WOM at some point this week too.
I remember seeing it, and then looking at the chart later and it was gone.
I didn't think much about it (but I'm not an IT guy at all)

The sum of deaths on the WOM site and JHU site do match (5,933 deaths for Sweden shown on both), but I agree, the charts are either in a different scale (and the Johns Hopkins doesn't appear to have a 7 day average function), or, something isn't adding up.

This is the John Hopkins one.  I don't know if this averages out to 0 deaths a day either, I don't have that the granularity to calculate it just by looking at it.

 

Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 7.41.36 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Matagi said:

But I observed that the Worldometers figures always stood at '6' for some days, then some further days no update, and then '6' again, just for a new date. Plus no matching bar in the chart. That made me curious / suspicious. What I know from German figures is that Johns Hopkins has a seperate way of finding out the numbers and they don't rely on the official RKI numbers, maybe the same in Sweden?

Sweden has moved to 4 day reporting throwing things out of whack, just got a record of more than 3k new cases after 3 days of just under and have imposed some new/changed restrictions starting next weekend. Sweden seems to lag. Sweden also not renown for putting a lot of info into the public sphere with reasons behind care home deaths only just now starting to emerge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 9:35 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Sweden has moved to 4 day reporting throwing things out of whack, just got a record of more than 3k new cases after 3 days of just under and have imposed some new/changed restrictions starting next weekend. Sweden seems to lag. Sweden also not renown for putting a lot of info into the public sphere with reasons behind care home deaths only just now starting to emerge. 

From Reuters:

'New COVID-19 deaths remain low and Sweden's official death toll had decreased by 15 cases since Friday, taking the total to 5,918 deaths. No explanation was given for the lowered figure but the count has previously been changed after the actual cause of death had been determined to be unrelated to the disease in a small number of cases.'

That is quite some artistic freedom there.

In other news, same source:

'The National Board of Health and Welfare, said the healthcare situation was still under control even if numbers were rising. It said 55 patients were receiving intensive care on Monday, up from 34 on Oct. 21.'

+62% in a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Matagi said:

+62% in a week.

So ICU up 62% in a week 

Interestingly new cases up 70% last week to week before and one the largest rises to date.

So last week people in Uppsala region were told to avoid public transport and not to meet people outside their household for a period of two weeks.

The same advice has now just been issued in the southernmost Scania region, but to last for a period of three weeks. 

People also told they should avoid meetings and cultural events, and to stay clear of indoor spaces such as shops, museums, libraries and gyms.

Tegnell has now warned at a presser that the situation is likely to get worse.

These suppression responses are not supposed to be in the Swedish script.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

So ICU up in a week 

Interestingly new ases up 70% last week to week before and one the largest rises to date.

So last week people in Uppsala region were told to avoid public transport and not to meet people outside their household for a period of two weeks.

The same advice has now just been issued in the southernmost Scania region, but to last for a period of three weeks. 

People told they should avoid meetings and cultural events, and to stay clear of indoor spaces such as shops, museums, libraries and gyms.

This isn't supposed to be in the Swedish script.

Which pandemic are you referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

The same one that has turned the corner?

TRUST me.  We not only turned the corner but we've been around the block a few times.  The coroner is busy too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Agh the "I was giddy" defence. 

I thought it was an ass### on that little don.  But take it as you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 7:11 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Ironically those countries that have had widespread infection will be able to ease restrictions quicker and with a lower vaccination rate than those who have taken more strict lockdown strategies.  That isn't misinformation it is just simple maths.  If 30% of the population already has antibodies then reaching a theoretical population immunity threshold (estimates are 60% 85% of a population) will mean fewer vaccinations are required and you will reach that point sooner.

All these claims are incorrect, purely for the fact that this is a new virus that is still relatively unknown by scientific standards. It is still being questioned whether any immunity is present after infection, with some well-know reinfection cases.

And there are claims of long-term health impacts from covid which need to be considered before embracing herd immunity or widespread infection as the shortest route out of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites