Jump to content

The Swedish Experiment


Recommended Posts

Xi Jinping

(OK that made a lot more sense when it was right under Jack's question "who will have the balls to take out trumpistan"...not so obvious on its own at the top of a new page)

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

As Europe comes out of lockdown, what lessons can be learned from Sweden?

Catherine Edwards
Catherine Edwards
20 May 2020
19:37 CEST+02:00

Updated
26 May 2020
14:04 CEST+02:00

Share this article

share-2-email.png share-2-twitter.png share-2-facebook.png share-2-linkedin.png
As Europe comes out of lockdown, what lessons can be learned from Sweden?
Life is still not normal in Sweden and there are big drawbacks to the looser strategy, but we can learn from what has and hasn't worked here. Photo: Jessica Gow / TT
As countries across Europe ease their coronavirus lockdowns, many may look to Sweden to see how the Scandinavian country has fared without tight restrictions. They could learn both from its failures and from cautious signs of what's working.

At first glance, the popular waterside bar Mälarpaviljongen looks no different from in any other year - groups of people sit eating, talking and laughing on the terrace, some wrapped in blankets against the surprisingly cool May weather.

Then you'll notice the markings on the floor, signs urging patrons to "keep distance", and plexiglass between groups. 

Not quite normal, but a lot closer to normal than elsewhere in Europe where bars and cafes have until recently remained shut for weeks.

In Sweden, pubs, restaurants, gyms, shops, hairdressers, and schools for under-16s have all remained open throughout the pandemic, despite the wide spread of coronavirus throughout the country.

Despite death tolls well above the figure in neighbouring countries, hospitals in Sweden have not been pushed to breaking point with 20-30 percent spare capacity in intensive care units - due to huge efforts to double the number of beds early on. In recent weeks the number of patients in critical condition has been falling and Sweden's 'R number' or infection rate is now reportedly below 1.

It might be appealing to make the conclusion that Sweden has managed to keep the epidemic under control, without having to restrict individuals and businesses or pressing pause on the country's whole economy to the same extent as elsewhere in Europe.

But that would be a dangerous conclusion to draw.

If those countries moving out of lockdowns are to learn from the Swedish approach three things are essential: they must understand what's actually been happening in Sweden, which parts of the strategy have and haven't worked (and for whom) and finally the reasons why they either succeeded or failed.

 

Making comparisons between countries and even within areas of the same countries can be fraught when so many factors play a part, warns Peter Lindgren, Managing Director at the Swedish Institute for Health Economics.

"We have the same measures throughout Sweden and very different infection rates and death rates," he tells The Local.

"The situation is quite severe in Stockholm, but in Skåne (in southern Sweden) the infection rate is similar to Denmark where there is complete lockdown, so there are lots of factors to assess as to whether it's successful as a strategy," he said.

One significant caveat to any assessment of Sweden's strategy is the testing rate, which is among the lowest per capita in Europe and well below the target set by the Public Health Agency.

This has been the subject of criticism within Sweden and made it hard to know exactly how the virus has spread

1589788763_sdlosqnum35rv0-nh.jpgFlowers and notes in memory of those who have died from coronavirus are outside the parliament building. Photo: Janerik Henriksson / TT

What Sweden cannot teach others is how to stem the pandemic without a high human cost. With over 3,700 deaths by May 20th the per-capita death toll is far higher than its Nordic neighbours and only behind the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium in Europe. Like in many countries in Europe a large proportion of Sweden's coronavirus-related fatalities occurred in elderly care homes, despite the government imposing a ban on visits.

Protecting these vulnerable elderly is an area where the country's now well-known state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has admitted failure and says is a source of "deep regret". An investigation has been launched into "serious flaws" in the homes. On this issue any lessons will have to be learned from further afield, for example Hong Kong which has managed to avoid fatalities in care homes. 

Can guidelines work without enforcement?

Nevertheless, Sweden's decision not to impose a strict lockdown means countries can learn from its successes and failures as they move to get up and running again, people back to work and the wheels of the economy in motion.

"If we are to reach a new normal, in many ways Sweden represents a future model," Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, has told reporters, while emphasising that the extent of Sweden's success remained to be seen.  

"Society may need to adapt for a medium or potentially a longer period of time in which our physical and social relationships with each other will have to be modulated by the presence of the virus [...] so I think there may be lessons to be learned from our colleagues in Sweden."

The guidelines that are at the basis of the Swedish strategy, repeated regularly at near-daily press conferences, are familiar: stay at home with the slightest symptoms, practice good hygiene, keep your distance from others and avoid non-essential travel. So the foundation of the Swedish strategy is something that's happening in most other countries already.

For those at highest risk of serious illness, life in Sweden during coronavirus is similar to any other country: over-70s and others in risk groups are asked to avoid all possible social contact, including trips to the shop and visits with family and friends. 

Authorities have repeatedly said the guidelines should be followed at all times. Initially vague appeals to use "common sense" and "act like adults" have gradually changed to specific guidance such as "you can travel no more than two hours from home by car".

Sweden's experience suggests that guidelines can be effective even without specific rules such as limits on the number of people you can meet outside your household or setting specific times for when you can leave your house.

Proof that these guidelines can be effective without the legal enforcement of police stops and steep fines seen in countries like France, Germany and Italy, can be seen in the significant change in public behaviour in Sweden.

1589789030_sdlvrdcu1vyp7i-nh.jpgAuthorities have been criticised for inconsistent advice on the appropriate distance to keep in public, from an arm's length, one metre, or two metres, with the Public Health Agency saying there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Photo: Henrik Montgomery / TT

The latest surveys by Sweden's Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) show that 87 percent of respondents report keeping a greater distance from others in places like shops, 66 percent are participating in social activities outside the home to a lesser extent than before the outbreak, and 55 percent were inviting friends to their home to a lesser extent.

This self-reported data is backed up by mobile data showing how people in Sweden have reduced their movement. Telia mobile datashows a reduction in long-distance travel of up to 96 percent over the Easter holiday; the kind of scenario that authorities repeatedly warned, in national and local press conferences as well as through information campaigns, should be avoided. 

Mobility data from Google shows that by early May movement in 'retail and recreation' areas had fallen by 16 percent compared to baseline data from January-February, and by 17 percent in transit stations. Those numbers aren't far behind Denmark (-22 and -27 percent) or Norway (-18 and -22 percent), both with far stricter lockdowns.

Peter Lindgren from the Swedish Institute for Health Economics says clear communication with the public has been crucial to ensure guidelines are followed.

"They've been fairly transparent in the reasons for their decision-making, they've been open about what they do and don't know and the uncertainties, such as when it comes to the risk of re-infection," Lindgren said.

State epidemiologist Tegnell told The Local: "It’s a lot of explaining why things should be done and what’s the goal; not to talk so much about how to do things but getting people to understand why you do things so they themselves can see how to do it."

Favourable factors and high trust levels

Sweden benefits from an environment that is naturally less favourable to the spread of diseases, both due to the low population density and the habits of the population.

Sweden has 25.4 inhabitants per square kilometre, based on 2019 data, compared to an EU average of 117.7. Around 40 percent of people live alone. The vast majority of over-70s (95 percent) do not share their home with someone under the age of 40. Compare that to Italy, where 18.9 percent of over 65s have their children living with them.

Sweden is also an outlier when it comes to its high public levels of trust, both in institutions and fellow citizens, something that several of the experts The Local spoke to cited as a factor in the Swedish strategy. MSB's surveys showed high trust for the healthcare sector (80 percent) and Public Health Agency (77 percent), figures which have increased since the start of the outbreak.

"If you have a society where the government is fundamentally mistrusted or a polarised environment where the strategy would get politicised, this may well not work," said the Swedish Institute for Health Economics' Peter Lindgren. 

"But in the Swedish parliament, there is very little disagreement – there's some disagreement on the details but everyone is buying in on the general strategy."

Lars Trägårdh, a professor of history and civil society who has studied Swedish individualism and trust said: "If you have mutual trust you don't need harsh measures.

"Harsh measures can only work for short periods, so in the long run we have to depend on people voluntarily following these rules, it's the only way that's sustainable."

1589788133_sdlsvlhbddsw20-nh.jpgHealth Minister Lena Hallengren and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. Photo: Pontus Lundahl / TT

Adaptable and reactive

Just as the Swedish response cannot be copy and pasted with an expectation of the same results, nor should we dismiss it as an anomaly or a strategy that was only possible due to the unique Swedish conditions.

Trägårdh says that the stereotype of the individualistic, high-trusting Swede shouldn't be taken too far. People in Sweden aren't necessarily more inclined to follow social distancing, he says, and trust isn't always an advantage.

"It's not that Swedes are asocial, but sociability in Sweden is based on voluntariness. In some cultures you're more forced into community, to live with your parents and so on, and in Sweden the idea is that the welfare state means community is more voluntary," he says. "But the virus doesn't care if you're socialising voluntarily or not. [...] And a risk with high trust that if you make a bad policy choice, they might all march over the cliff together, so to speak."

There are also examples of government efforts having positive results to slow the virus even in parts of Sweden with lower trust levels and higher population density. 

Authorities were initially slow to publish the coronavirus guidelines in languages other than Swedish and infection rates rose in immigrant suburbs around Stockholm like Järva.

But after a push in multilingual information campaigns and new measures like opening emergency accommodation for at-risk people living in cramped conditions, the infection rate began to fall. This suggests low trust and cultural barriers weren't the reason for the early high spread as some had claimed. Even in areas with many people in crowded housing and insecure employment, it proved possible to slow the spread of the virus without using laws to confine people to their homes.

And even high-trust Sweden hasn't left everything to chance. 

A new law allows the government to take more sweeping measures including the closure of schools, restaurants, and transport hubs without parliamentary approval, something previously not possible under the constitution.

1589788679_sdlhilypxkiplk-nh.jpg
People buy food from food trucks in Kungsholmen, Stockholm. Photo: Jessica Gow / TT

"One big advantage of a somewhat looser framework is that you can allow a bit more flexibility, it's easy to adapt measures at a workplace or business for example, based on local needs rather than having to follow a precise law," says Peter Lindgren.  

The Public Health Agency has even said at times that Swedes have taken their advice too strictly and even asked sports training sessions for children to resume because it was "important for children and young people to move around".

One major difference between Sweden and other countries around Europe is that primary schools have remained open. Again the government chose to push new guidelines to reduce spread of infection rather than simply close schools down and force working parents to stay at home.

These measures included staggering class, break and lunch times and spacing out tables and chairs to ensure social distancing.

"Our schools and teachers are working so hard to follow the recommendations and I think they're doing all they can, even though it's sometimes difficult – with kids between six and ten it's harder to maintain social distancing," admitted Maria Olausson from the National Agency for Education.

When deciding to reopen schools, Norway's Public Health Institute used the experience of Sweden, along with Iceland, Taiwan and Singapore – where no clusters of the virus were linked to schools – as an example when it explained its own reasoning.

1589788443_sdlh8fookw2otm-nh.jpg
A scout group holds a socially distanced meeting outdoors in southern Stockholm. Photo: Jonas Ekströmer / TT

Restrictions where it matters - and communicating why

In environments considered a high risk for infection, more detailed recommendations and rules apply. 

Shops in Sweden have been asked to set up information signs or use audio announcements, mark out distances on the floor, rearrange furniture, and designate a member of staff who is responsible for these measures.

In restaurants and bars, these recommendations are enforced – regional infectious disease physicians carry out inspections to ensure that tables are spaced out, only table service allowed, and crowding is being avoided. Venues which have not followed the measures can be closed temporarily. A new law will give municipalities the power to close restaurants that fail to follow the rules. 

Large gatherings have been prohibited with organisers risking fines and when it came to care homes the government banned visits.

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said the strategy has been "constantly changing" based on available evidence and the current risks. "When we see restaurants are very crowded, we go in with regulations and when that doesn’t help, we have gone in with inspections and closed them down, so it’s constant adaptation," he told The Local.

Mälarpaviljongen, a waterside bar and restaurant in Stockholm, had not yet opened for the season when the restrictions on restaurants were introduced. "We discussed our plan of action, tried moving furniture around, looked at how to put signs up that people would read," restaurant manager Christofer Kinunnen told The Local.

Those measures included removing 50 percent of the tables, putting plexiglass on benches to divide customers and having doormen to seat customers and manage the flow of guests in the venue.

A key factor in making sure the measures are followed was open dialogue with customers, including on the restaurants' social media channels. This has meant reporting the feedback from inspections and detailing the measures in place.

While the restaurant has successfully passed three inspections, the loss of seating to ensure social distancing has hit hard meaning they, like other restaurants and bars have had to rely on financial support from the government, including adjusted rent.

1589788236_sdlqj5f8czj8ly-nh.jpg

Mälarpavilongen undergoes an inspection, while customers queue at a distance in the background. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg / TT
 
'All systems in lock-step'
 
Health economist Lindgren also stressed that the country's strategy depends on cooperation throughout different authorities. 
 
"People need to be able to act in accordance with the recommendations. In Sweden one recommendation is you should stay at home with any symptoms even if they are mild, but for that to work you need a safety net so that you don't have to go to work with symptoms for economic reasons. One change the government made early on was extending the regulations for sick leave so you got paid from day one and didn't need a doctor's certificate," explained Lindgren.
 
Even with these changes, those on hourly contracts may fall through the gaps – something that has been blamed for the widespread deaths in care homes where a large proportion of staff are not salaried employees.
 
"You need to make sure all the systems are in lockstep, make sure it's possible for people to act in the intended way without running into problems with other parts of the system," said Lindgren.
 
The need for extensive financial support for businesses and individuals highlights another warning from Sweden; just because the lack of lockdown doesn't mean the economy is fit and well. Countries easing restrictions and opening schools to allow people to return to work shouldn't expect the economy to burst back into life.
 
In Sweden one in ten retail stores have lost 80 percent of trade, and Nordic banks SEB and Swedbank do not expect Sweden to benefit financially from its looser restrictions in comparison to its Nordic peers. Staff have been furloughed and unemployment is expected to rise dramatically.
 
Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister told The Local the economic situation was "very, very tough" and warned that not all companies would survive the crisis.
 
 
1589788865_sdlwnyidivmo9e-nh.jpg
Photo: Janerik Henriksson / TT

'Sustainable approach'

The word repeatedly used by Swedish authorities and the Public Health Agency to sell their softer strategy has been "sustainable"; in other words, it's the only way to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed and society functioning long-term.

It's a word repeated by the country's Prime Minister Stefan Löfven who said the fight against the virus was a "marathon not a sprint".

State epidemiologist Tegnell has said the strategy is designed to last for months and will help put Sweden in a better position to handle any second wave because the level of collective immunity will be higher in Sweden than in countries where lockdowns were imposed. The World Health Organisation says it is still very unclear whether people who have had the virus are protected against re-infection, or how long any immunity would last.

Sweden's approach has been oversimplified by critics as a "gamble" that may or may not pay off, but authorities in the country have not been relying on guess work and chance to overcome the pandemic.

The strategy has been divisive and mistakes have been made as its failures to increase testing, protect elderly care homes, and communicate with minority and immigrant communities show.

But the approach to voluntary measures provides a combination of warnings and lessons for other countries, who emerge from lockdown with the real fear that a second wave of the virus could put them back to square one.

As the WHO suggests, countries can take lessons and heed warnings from Sweden, but they will need to find their own way forward.

"Every country has to determine the right package of blended measures based on the context," a spokesperson told The Local. "Many factors are important in assessing the context, including population density, geographic spread of the population, living conditions, cultural and social norms and practices, characteristics of vulnerable populations.

"WHO recommends that each country put in place a combination of measures based on a thorough assessment of the evolving situation that looks at real-time surveillance, capacity to identify, isolate, test and treat all patients, and trace and quarantine contacts." 

In other words, countries will need to be ready to adapt their strategy based on an ever-changing situation.

Confronting Coronavirus: This article is part of a new series of articles in which The Local's journalists across Europe are taking an in-depth look at the responses to different parts of the crisis in different countries; what's worked, what hasn't, and why.
 
This article has been supported by the Solutions Journalism Network, a nonprofit organisation dedicated to rigorous and compelling reporting about responses to social problems.
 
The SJN has given The Local a grant to explore how different countries are confronting the various affects of the coronavirus crisis and the successes and failures of each approach.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Swedish opposition demands coronavirus commission

AFP
30 May 2020
11:59 CEST+02:00

Share this article

share-2-email.png share-2-twitter.png share-2-facebook.png share-2-linkedin.png
Swedish opposition demands coronavirus commission
People walk in Drottninggatan in Stockholm on May 29, 2020, amid the coronavirus pandemic. Jonathan NACKSTRAND / AFP
Sweden's two biggest opposition parties called on Friday for an independent commission to be appointed within weeks to probe the country's response to the coronavirus.

The conservative Moderate Party and the populist Sweden Democrats said they wanted a commission in place before the summer.

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a Social Democrat, has repeatedly expressed support for a commission but has said he would appoint one after the pandemic was over.

There has been broad political unity over Sweden's softer approach to the new coronavirus, but most parties have agreed on the need to examine the government's crisis management.

Sweden, which on Friday reported 4,350 COVID-19 deaths, has struggled to protect its elderly from the illness, with more than three quarters of the dead residing in nursing homes or receiving at-home care.

A commission would also be likely to examine the country's economic response to the crisis, and its slow roll-out of testing for the illness.

While the government has raised its testing capacity to 100,000 tests a week, Sweden was at the end of May still only testing around 30,000 people a week due to bureaucratic bottlenecks.

"There are many parties that agree with us that (a commission) should be appointed as soon as possible and not wait until after the crisis," Moderate Party leader Ulf Kristersson told reporters.

He said he would raise the issue in parliament next week if Lofven did not move on the issue. Kristersson's proposal enjoys broad support in parliament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

....Despite death tolls well above the figure in neighbouring countries, hospitals in Sweden have not been pushed to breaking point with 20-30 percent spare capacity in intensive care units - due to huge efforts to double the number of beds early on. In recent weeks the number of patients in critical condition has been falling and Sweden's 'R number' or infection rate is now reportedly below 1...

They never quite tell the whole story.

One reason Hospital capacity not stretched as 3/4 deaths elderly as they say but don't say most died in their own beds,  never seeing a hospital.

R is not below the real 1, the quoted R is down with low testing rate. The proof of that is deaths still ticking over. See below count for Friday.

While still just below 400 persons per million, they also only have half a dozen countries in front of them. Very few countries could have got away with their approach as they simply don't have a lot of the advantages Sweden has going for it, with very unique demographics a big reason.

Deaths Friday across Europe:

Spain       2
Italy         87
Germany 24
France     52
Turkey     28
Belgium   42
Sweden   84
Portugal  14
Ireland      6
Poland     13
Romania  13
Hungary    8
Netherlands 28

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Sweden's former state epidemiologist Annika Linde believes Sweden got its response wrong and should have focused on three things:

An early lockdown

Greater protection of care homes

Intensive testing and contact tracing in areas of outbreaks

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Sweden's former state epidemiologist Annika Linde believes Sweden got its response wrong and should have focused on three things:

An early lockdown

Greater protection of care homes

Intensive testing and contact tracing in areas of outbreaks

More importantly and in typical Swedish fashion, the person responsible for Swedens strategy is firm in his belief in his strategy and will not change.

 

Quote

 

Now he has told Swedish public radio: "If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done."

When asked if too many people had died too soon, Dr Tegnell said, "Yes, absolutely." 

However, he was unclear what Sweden should have done differently and at a press conference later on Wednesday later he underlined that "we basically still think that is the right strategy for Sweden".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KC375 said:

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Sweden's former state epidemiologist Annika Linde believes Sweden got its response wrong and should have focused on three things:

An early lockdown

Greater protection of care homes

Intensive testing and contact tracing in areas of outbreaks

Anders Tegnell was responsible for directing Swedish strategy. 

However in the background with his fingerprints all over Sweden's response is a Professor Johan Giesecke, is one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, an advisor to the Swedish Government, WHO and ECDPC scientist. He also appeared to be the face of Sweden's response early on but not in an official capacity. 

He has a hard on for "herd immunity" but underestimated both the viral "intensity" and "transmission" level. Getting the latter wrong saved Sweden's arse as even Stockholm less than 25% infected and he was expecting and wanting well north of 60% country wide so Stockholm higher. Imagine if that had occured.

Tegnell I think has had to carry the can for Giesecke to some extent plus having to balance outcome and politics, Giesecke is immune to. 

Who BTW is still spreading his bullshit to anyone who will listen.

The standout is this a month ago saying Australia of all places (102 deaths and ceased and a per capita case total up with the best at one stage and now around 10 cases per day and part way out of lockdown) is going to get hammered coming out of lockdown. The stupid cunt is operating in a parallel universe. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted on FB by a Sara-Maria Lövgren

 

 



 

Quote

8000.....

8000 who then go home and off to loved ones after crying, screaming and hugging party galore! 8000 souls who peed my colleagues. All the elderly. Hard sick and myself in the face yesterday. Spring emptiness on the streets and work at home. For what?

I rarely get pissed off. But now I am. I'm so ashamed of you! Over large parts of Sweden's population living in such an embarrassing denial!

13 h day for 14 days. In the middle of Covid's eye. + 8000 covid patients have been transported to relieve paramedics. + 300 on Iva and more die. + 40.000 found infected.

What did you miss? The police have a hug party and contribute to group hug! For real!

I go to work every day where we have a strategy to protect the elderly! We have 0 Covid ju! 0! 0! Finally turning it I feel.

No, no, no. But then 8000 individuals should go out on the city and protest that the police are taking life. When they themselves just contributed to the same!

Do not come to say it was in any way important to gather!

To stand up against racism. Yes! Yes! But not to gather.
Not now. To meet up. Spread the virus further so that more people die probably become a weird rhetoric in the same breath as you demonstrate to save another.

I hate racism. I am not against the reason to make his voice heard! But not like this. In the middle of the crisis and pandemic we stand in.

The whole net was black on Tuesday! Quiet. Surely and powerful! The message loud and clear! That was enough!

Now to work to secure the rest of the management how the hell we gonna par this!

 

 

then this was added

Quote

 

I have now closed the comment section as it was never my point that it would be this big and in many ways very unpleasant in the comment section. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and gets responsibility for it. I stand for mine.

We need to take care of each other. Not the other way around! To help spread the virus in the way that was done yesterday is not right. All lives count. But not if I read some comments here. Then it is better to die in Covid than in racism!? How can you even think like that? There's no way to make that comparison. Why do you even want to die in one either than the other?

The rhetoric in this I don't understand

 

 

 

 

7fcf45c4-be4d-4dac-82fd-7129725b78c3?fit

 

 

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

Sweden has the longest "tail" of "new cases" per capita in Europe for the last week of May, indicating they have a way to go yet and deaths will keep ticking over. 

IMG_20200607_031821.jpg

The figures are not comparable as countries vary greatly with their testing.

Sweden has a pretty low testing rate. Ignorance is bliss...

Screen Shot 2020-06-07 at 10.41.33.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

The figures are not comparable as countries vary greatly with their testing.

Fuck I never new that :huh:

Mate that is not right at the moment. New cases is not a count by each test. It's a new cases model.

Actual testing quantum simply points to what the "confidence factor" is. When exponential growth or reduction high test rate important. With slow steady  like now, not as important and deemed to be around a 95% confidence factor. Rest of Europe same.

So in short the numbers good and very comparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden to drop daily virus briefings

Sweden's top health authority will stop holding daily briefings on the country's COVID-19 infection rate and death toll.

The decision comes amid a furor over its strategy to fight the pandemic, after state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell acknowledged his approach - characterised by critics as 'herd immunity' - was flawed.

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Agency of Sweden.

State epidemiologist Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Agency of Sweden.CREDIT:AP

Instead of every day, updates for the press will now be provided only on Tuesdays and Thursdays

Sweden's softer lockdown has resulted in one of the world's highest death rates relative to its population.

But both Tegnell and Prime Minister Stefan Lofven have insisted there's no need to change strategy. The controversy had turned the briefings into public grillings during which Tegnell was increasingly pressed to explain himself

 

 

 

When the going gets tough

 

a2e81d16e7aa19bef1a1e361f6615c7c?width=6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article from a Czech paper about Sweden

 

Foreigners living in Sweden have run out of patience, they want to leave after the pandemic

https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/zahranicni/koronavirus-nakaza-pandemie-covid-19-svedsko-cizinci-zahranicni-rezidenti-stehovani-strategie-politi.A200603_150807_zahranicni_dtt?

 

This quote totally sums up my experience in Sweden.

 

"No one is responsible and no one accepts guilt,"

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Dark Knight said:

no one will notice that the covid-19 updates will only be done twice a week. I could understand NZ deciding to do that. 

Only weekdays in the UK and no scientists any more for the briefings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:
50 minutes ago, mad said:

Only weekdays in the UK and no scientists any more for the briefings.

Here we get them 7 days a week

No point anymore in the UK, its just the same regurgitated bullshit everyday.  Nobody is really paying attention anymore, just get on and do what is safest, which is conveniently the exact opposite of what the government says.  So its easy to work out what to do. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK and US are all on the same page as Sweden....they just haven't told anyone yet.

I threw this word salad into the PA cesspit to bait up some US dogballers.

It is more usefull here as it describes exactly what went wrong in Sweden and how the US and UK are now lining up to do a Swedish qqq repeat performance.

A. VIRUS RESPONSE TYPES

There have been generally four (4) different virus responses globally.

These are now facts, not scientific opinion or people defending scientific opinions. 

1. MITIGATION Swedens let the virus run loose, "mitigate"* only so it doesn't overwhelm the healthcare system and the vunerable, so allow most to get infected which slows the epidemic = “HERD IMMUNITY” a OUTCOME of "mitigation" and word Governments hate to use . 

* Swedens mitigation included closing its high schools and colleges, forbade gatherings above 50 people on March 27th, and encouraged its citizens to stay home and avoid unnecessary travel. Visitors were banned from nursing homes on March 30th (which proved to be too late). But beyond that, the government just asked people to work from home as much as possible and to practice social distancing. School attendence was mandatory. Largely laws were not used to achieve compliance.

This Sweden approach is predecated entirely on it being impossible to totally "suppress," deaths yes greater than influenza but not 10 times say twice flu Rate* 0.1%+, people with antibodies are immune and 50%+ (target 60%) are infected very quickly. Sweden made it clear as late as April that "Lock-Downs" don't work.

* Case Fatality Rate (CFR) looks at people who were confirmed by test to have the virus and died. Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is Deaths ÷ Infections.

2. SUPPRESSION "Suppression" the other strategy is attack the Coronavirus by locking down the economy "hard." Once curbed, "replace" the aggressive lockdown with cheap and intelligent measures to control and respond to the virus such as contact/trace/isolate programs.

An alternative to "hard" lockdown is degrees of "soft" lockdown many with test/trace response systems already in place and acting very early ie some Asian and lesser extent Oceania (SARS experienced). Included in this group are those who were going to adopt it but left it too late so had to apply the most severe lock-downs, Italy and Spain best examples. 

With the exception of the latter two this Table 7 (was in my initial bread crumbs post) shows 45 examples where it has worked, the red hammer is the "soft" variety.

0__ay7OfwVTlbyMBX7.thumb.png.cf0eaa6ab6bf009faf99987e3a911e15.png

3. HYBRID The "hybrid" or "mitigation" AND "suppression" approach is those countries which applied a combination of both 1 and 2 above like the Netherlands (first to mitigate in EU), or even the US with no decision to lock down and open at a federal level but at a State level. Texas and Georgia two examples. The UK with the 4 devolved Unions another example.

4. FUCKED UP Those who were applying or intended to apply a "mitigation" approach only like Sweden OR a "hybrid" like the Netherlands, US and UK, BUT where it applied, the "suppression" component was introduced too late.

The standout countries who "fucked up" are Sweden by design and the US and UK by a political imperitive overriding science and economics causing Suppression to be adopted too late. 

There are other countries also but where numbers might be bad, some may have different values attached to economic/saving lives values.

IMG_20200611_002455.jpg.42785c3d2658d05986cf0c52eb5babcc.jpg

The UK with its higher population density and virus favourable demographic, is being hit far harder to date than both the US and Sweden. See graph below.

How did the Fuck-Upped get this so wrong??

Sweden to their credit has "part way" admitted this.

Why did anyone who relied upon any aspect of "mitigation only" OR "Herd Immunity" get it so wrong? My words above. 

"This Sweden/mitigation only approach is predecated on it being impossible to totally "suppress," deaths greater than influenza but not 10 times say twice flu Rate* 0.1%+, people with antibodies are immune and 50%+ are infected very quickly."

a) "Impossible to suppress"? Table 7 above clearly shows "suppression" involving lock-downs then with controlled release sucessfully working.

b) In Sweden the ConVid CFR is currently 50 times their 2019 bad flu rate not double, in US currently 46 times or 6% (10 year flu rate is 0.13% but regarded high as not all cases reported). That said low test rates distort CFR up, but from Asian countries or locations/communities (ie. ships/islands) with big test rates and time to amalgam deaths, the CFR looks to be 2 - 2.5% or 20 to 25 times more deadly than bad influenza and what Sweden expected.

c) An amalgam and reputable Study show Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)* looks like it’s converging between 0.5% and 1.5%. Sweden is on lower end of 0.67%. Sweden expected it to be around 0.1%, nearly seven times lower than it already is.

IMG_20200611_002524.jpg.8ec88b974cf805bb87ccf1f1a024ef12.jpg

* Infection Fatality Rates (IFRs) might be too optimistic as "undercounting" of official deaths occuring world wide is occuring as disclosed now by "excess mortality" statistics that don't rely on death certificates for cause. Care home deaths certificates are a principal source.

Here is world data using "excess mortality" noting Peru jump was coincided with another nasty.

EZgxk1cVAAQZ76f.thumb.jpeg.646eb33747b1609afe3e1ec2e9d880c7.jpeg

d) "people with antibodies are immune" the huge assumption that those with antibodies are immune?  That might not be true. Double infections have been reported and is the subject of a warning from WHO on relying upon 'infection passporting." They might have only been partially exposed to the virus, and their immune system might not be ready to fight a bigger infection?? 

e)  Intead of 26% of the country being infected by May as modeled (soon thereafter a target of 60%), the country released the Infection Update  showing only 6.7% (only 7.3% in urban Stockholm) had been infected. In short around 10 times more people would have to die to achieve initial Herd Immunity target of 60%. 

The nail in the coffin 2.7% for people above 65 years old where in Sweden like most most countries fatalities occured!!!!  Only protecting those most at risk sounds great. It’s a fantasy.

IMG_20200611_002424.jpg.3874da172a38fad1da2a263f2c6d305d.jpg

Infection spread in Sweden aligns with world wide infection coverage data. 

IMG_20200611_002558.jpg.024843a54cb2afd844fccadc4ce8f820.jpg

f) An overarching assumption used by Sweden and other countries and states opposing "suppression" is the claim epidemics work like clockwork independent of "lock-downs". If all countries have a similar case curve going up and down independent from "suppression", then all countries will see their caseload go down. 

That is false. It hasn’t happened in Sweden and there are other countries in all continents like Sweden, the UK and US as shown here.

In fact it didn't even happen in the US. The orange line on this Graph below shows how the cases evolved in counties that ordered a lockdown vs. those that didn’t compared to counties with no lockdown. 

At day zero, equal. After lockdown, the counties with lockdowns start having fewer and fewer cases compared to counties that did not lock down. By the 1st week, the number of cases is down by 30%. After two weeks, it’s 40%. After three weeks, it’s 49%.

IMG_20200611_003821.jpg.2538eadc25357029846a60f52b46cdc3.jpg

g) Lock-down impact on the Economy. The entire point of a Mitigation/Herd Immunity  strategy is to avoid an economic downturn during the lockdown. But the Swedish economy is tanking regardless. 

Even when Sweden’s economy has remained mostly open, it has still suffered as much as others. 

“It is too early to say that we would do better than others. In the end, we think Sweden will end up more or less the same.” Christina Nyman, former official at Sweden’s national bank.

The comparative equity markets also reflect this, in fact the market even predicted it!!

IMG_20200611_003757.jpg.00a38a4aa67850ecc914fac06963628c.jpg

The mobility factor between the adjoining countries also reflects that. 

IMG_20200611_003737.jpg.06586d4e979423501cd1ea38e660b62f.jpg

And on a global scale where it should have had a head start is up with the best. In fact those who fucked up by not acting fast enough (to ironically try and save their economy) like the US and UK, did their economies more harm.

0_Vy3CszYiQpwu_SBh.thumb.png.e995aae45d22e0fe6e26b694f69e6749.png

B. MORTALITY OUTCOME AFTER ALL THAT

This Graph says it all.

Refer to one above for global comparison which puts Sweden in 6th place on a per capita basis and puts Sweden and the US in the same mortality postcode, noting the US statistical data is only up to 2 May and running well behind schedule? Bookmark.. that delay is interesting 

0_f_GpT6a_j320CUpC.thumb.png.86e119f1d1792b15ddf676e5ba3c4460.png

C. WHATS NEXT

Swedens response has now been to introduce some suppression measures, particularly as it now locked out of the Nordic 5 and other European countries due to the virus case load it is still producing.

D. EASING LOCKDOWN - WTF

Having regard to the above doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the two largest countries on the Shit List namely the US and UK, are basing their lockdown lifting strategy entirely on "mitigation" or Herd Immunity and it is now underway? 

It is as though they are oblivious to it failing in Sweden?

Is this because they don't have the cheap and intelligent measures like a working nationwide contact/trace/test and isolate system to control and respond to the virus in place? The UK's response is particularly novel. It ceased publishing "persons tested" data two weeks ago to bury what is happening.

Systems those who are already free of lockdown or nearly free, have had in place since day one!!!

These two governments haven't acknowledged that nearly half of infections are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic. Yet clearly they have no measures to support that?

So their respective national administration responses, including every elected person in London and Washington of either political colour, is just say fuck it?

The above indicates what they are doing will only cause MORE economic loss and MORE deaths?

You can’t change the past, but you sure can change the future.

Graphs courtesy Chris Giles and Tomas Pueyo

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

The UK and US are all on the same page as Sweden....they just haven't told anyone yet.

I threw this word salad into the PA cesspit to bait up some US dogballers.

It is more usefull here as it describes exactly what went wrong in Sweden and how the US and UK are now lining up to do a Swedish qqq repeat performance.

link to the cesspit thread?

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

c) An amalgam and reputable Study show Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)* looks like it’s converging between 0.5% and 1.5%. Sweden is on lower end of 0.67%. Sweden expected it to be around 0.1%, nearly seven times lower than it already is.

That's not a 'reputable study' just because you say it is.  
In fact, it disagrees with almost every study in pre-print so far, including the CDC, Stanford and UBonn studies below
 

The estimates are: .26% and .34% and .26% respectively.  Sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (~.26%)
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020  (.34%)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2  (.26%)

 

The virus is likely 0-2x more deadly than the flu.
The average person has a  ~99.7% chance of survival. 

And, most of them point out there is little to no risk for anyone under 50, without co-morbidities.
33% of deaths were just in nursing homes.
 

*******
Even the guys at Johns Hopkins (who in general were relied on to be the most accurate source of data) have said, yes, we support full reopening, as now the data shows our assumptions were wrong in February/March.

You can watch a long form debate with their department head now admitting the shutdowns are not needed.
(he debates an epidemiologist who thinks the lockdowns were a terrible idea from the start)

Lots of good data here, unbiased and just factual, unlike this entire thread.
https://reason.com/video/did-the-lockdowns-save-thousands-of-lives-a-soho-forum-debate/

 



 

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

You can watch a long form debate with their department head now admitting the shutdowns are not needed.

There is now plenty of empirical evidence to show that an early lockdown has a massive effect in saving lives and that those countries that didn't have a lockdown have suffered just as badly economically as those that did while having death rates 50 to 100 times higher.

A no lockdown strategy essentially writes off anyone over 70, and a pretty high percentage of those over 60. That covers a very high percentage of those in government, including all three primary contenders in the next US presidential election. It's impossible to isolate everyone over 60, it just can't be done.

It's possible that future lockdowns can be more targeted, but we didn't know that in March. At the moment, quarantine, isolation and social distancing are together the only effective preventative measures and will remain the primary response to outbreaks. Unless you're happy to continue with a steady stream of infections and deaths, like the US at 20,000 new cases per day and around 1,000 deaths.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

There is now plenty of empirical evidence to show that an early lockdown has a massive effect in saving lives and that those countries that didn't have a lockdown have suffered just as badly economically as those that did while having death rates 50 to 100 times higher.

A no lockdown strategy essentially writes off anyone over 70, and a pretty high percentage of those over 60. That covers a very high percentage of those in government, including all three primary contenders in the next US presidential election. It's impossible to isolate everyone over 60, it just can't be done.

It's possible that future lockdowns can be more targeted, but we didn't know that in March. At the moment, quarantine, isolation and social distancing are together the only effective preventative measures and will remain the primary response to outbreaks. Unless you're happy to continue with a steady stream of infections and deaths, like the US at 20,000 new cases per day and around 1,000 deaths.

US is going to be at 1500 DPD by July 15. My numbers. A 40 days ago I estimated 200,000 dead by Aug 15. I'm afraid that that is in fact a distinct possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

That's not a 'reputable study' just because you say it is.  
In fact, it disagrees with almost every study in pre-print so far, including the CDC, Stanford and UBonn studies below

The estimates are: .26% and .34% and .26% respectively.

The virus is likely 0-2x more deadly than the flu.
The average person has a  ~99.7% chance of survival. 

It is not a single study but a weighted study of dozens studies incl studies with results in range and even below those study results you quote.

You cherry pick 3 studies that fit your "bad flu" and "no lock down required" narrative and say all other world wide work is crap. 

Those study results you have cherry picked are just above range Sweden had expected too of around twice its national bad influenza rate. They are also around twice the US national average of O.13 for bad flu.

So you say IFR is around 0.26 or twice US influenza rate.

- How do you explain Sweden saying they got their IFR estimate wrong?

- How do you explain the excess mortality rates being far in excess of the flu and up to 60% of all deaths? Fake news, fake body bags?

- How do you explain the differential in excess mortality rates between the "Mitigators" and "Suppressors" over lock-down? State or national propoganda? 

Bet you can't. 

PS. I would also suggest you read your quoted studies and note their caveats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

You can watch a long form debate with their department head now admitting the shutdowns are not needed.
(he debates an epidemiologist who thinks the lockdowns were a terrible idea from the start)

Lots of good data here, unbiased and just factual, unlike this entire thread.
https://reason.com/video/did-the-lockdowns-save-thousands-of-lives-a-soho-forum-debate/

"Lots of good data here, unbiased and just factual , unlike this entire thread"

I just pissed myself laughing.

Blatant your esteemed Epidemiologist.. using the word loosely.

Knut Wittkowski is currently the CEO of ASDERA LLC  a backyard outfit that specialises in Autism, Diet Exploration & Repurposing. In plain English he is a Anti - Vaxer claiming all vacinations cause autism.

Recent Wittkowski  Interview

spiked: Should people practice social distancing?

Wittkowski: No.

spiked: Why not?

Wittkowski: Why? What is the justification for that? People need to ask the government for an explanation. The government is restricting freedom. You do not have to ask me for justification. There is no justification. It is the government that has to justify what it is doing. Sorry, but that is how it is.

spiked: Is Covid-19 dangerous?

Knut Wittkowski: No

In short Wittkowski belongs to the "those dying of COVID-19 were already at death’s door club."

Want to know Wittkowski's crowning achievement??

He published a Paper (extract below) dated 31 March stating the curve was already flattening, a maximum of 10,000 US deaths and social distancing would have only saved 1,000. 

It exceeded that within one week of publication and was double that less than one week later.

Blatant it is good to see Wittkowski still has an audience of gullible people like you with shit for brains.

image.png.8148cefa39011875ac7e73d56ee519cf.thumb.png.4ac486b6ee41be87195df7a6785c9d13.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

That's not a 'reputable study' just because you say it is.  
In fact, it disagrees with almost every study in pre-print so far, including the CDC, Stanford and UBonn studies below
 

The estimates are: .26% and .34% and .26% respectively.  Sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (~.26%)
https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020  (.34%)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2  (.26%)

 

The virus is likely 0-2x more deadly than the flu.
The average person has a  ~99.7% chance of survival. 

And, most of them point out there is little to no risk for anyone under 50, without co-morbidities.
33% of deaths were just in nursing homes.
 

*******
Even the guys at Johns Hopkins (who in general were relied on to be the most accurate source of data) have said, yes, we support full reopening, as now the data shows our assumptions were wrong in February/March.

You can watch a long form debate with their department head now admitting the shutdowns are not needed.
(he debates an epidemiologist who thinks the lockdowns were a terrible idea from the start)

Lots of good data here, unbiased and just factual, unlike this entire thread.
https://reason.com/video/did-the-lockdowns-save-thousands-of-lives-a-soho-forum-debate/

 



 

This thread seems to be a stupid place to make a dumb arse post with so called "facts". 

The facts in this thread is the number of deaths in Sweden, a country not in lockdown. The facts are that countries that have moved to lockdown early and are remotely comparable to Sweden, have a significantly lower infection and death rates.

Sweden has provided a factual example of what would happen without a lockdown.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

 

Sweden has provided a factual example of what would happen without a lockdown.

While America and Brazil are providing a real-time experiment of what happens when half the country doesn't believe in science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

While America and Brazil are providing a real-time experiment of what happens when half the country doesn't believe in science.

I think it's higher than that, just look at any of the protests; both sides. They are either idiots or brilliant 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many aspect of this that disturb me, but it's certainly not the virus part.

 

a) The internet mob mentality.

If you don't agree with the popular opinion, you are shouted down. 
Because the bar has been lowered for discourse (you just need a free facebook account), EVERYONE has an opinion.
And those that shout the loudest, win.  Sort of like in a grade school playground.

America, specifically, was founded to avoid mob rule (which is why, we have an Electoral College and not a straight popular vote).
Yet, we end up in a situation where the most vocal, get their way.

That's not how America is supposed to work, but, it's how it works now.

We see that here, or in the ILCA thread as well.  People with real knowledge don't want to contribute, as it's just miserable dialogue.
(RobG here, is one of the few who takes a fairly reasoned and not hysterical approach)
 


b) The desire to be right, instead of being reasonable.

These are the people that love a big death toll, because it proves something to them. They feel like they win.
The same people pray for a recession, so Trump doesn't get re-elected.
 

Instead of hoping for the best, and being on the same team, they just focus on the differences, and divide.
You would *think* there would be a balance between being practical and saving lives vs. not ruining other lives.

But, if you disagree with them, well, then, see a) above

 

c) The decision to pick safety over freedom, despite the harm it does to others

One of the cool things about countries like Sweden, is, you were treated like an adult.
I would gladly take that over the rest of Europe, or China or anything.

These people love to tell *other* people what to do.
I'm not sure when this became the best idea.

 

**********
In summary, we all read what we want to read I guess.
I see studies in peer review and the CDC and Stanford that show a very low IFR.

Other studies show higher ones.

 

We forgot that lockdowns were based on '2 million will die'
And we forget that, 60,000,000 die a year. (160,000 a day)

But, humans don't think like that.
 

In the GRAND scheme of things, Corona virus killing even 6Million people, would be just 10% of the normal, natural annual death toll.
Instead, it's 400,000?  Call it 1Million for a full year.  

 

It's about 1.67% of all deaths in a year.
 

It's a *tiny* percentage.  And, it's not like those people who died of/with it, were going to live forever.
It doesn't appear to be killing healthy people or anything like that.

 

So, we can argue about IFR, and I can link to studies I read, and jack_sparrow can link to his.
But, we're all missing the point.

 

We freaked out over something that, historically, we wouldn't even talk about.
There is no point in history where something that killed less than 2% of the people who would have died anyway in the world, would be discussed.

 

But, now we have the Internet. And everyone can prove their agenda with anything.
And I just think we utterly missed the boat on this one.

I believe Sweden nailed it.
And I believe everyone will disagree because they're focused on the color of the leaves on their favorite tree... instead of the actual forrest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

There are many aspect of this that disturb me, but it's certainly not the virus part.

 

a) The internet mob mentality.

If you don't agree with the popular opinion, you are shouted down. 
Because the bar has been lowered for discourse (you just need a free facebook account), EVERYONE has an opinion.
And those that shout the loudest, win.  Sort of like in a grade school playground.

America, specifically, was founded to avoid mob rule (which is why, we have an Electoral College and not a straight popular vote).
Yet, we end up in a situation where the most vocal, get their way.

That's not how America is supposed to work, but, it's how it works now.

We see that here, or in the ILCA thread as well.  People with real knowledge don't want to contribute, as it's just miserable dialogue.
(RobG here, is one of the few who takes a fairly reasoned and not hysterical approach)
 


b) The desire to be right, instead of being reasonable.

These are the people that love a big death toll, because it proves something to them. They feel like they win.
The same people pray for a recession, so Trump doesn't get re-elected.
 

Instead of hoping for the best, and being on the same team, they just focus on the differences, and divide.
You would *think* there would be a balance between being practical and saving lives vs. not ruining other lives.

But, if you disagree with them, well, then, see a) above

 

c) The decision to pick safety over freedom, despite the harm it does to others

One of the cool things about countries like Sweden, is, you were treated like an adult.
I would gladly take that over the rest of Europe, or China or anything.

These people love to tell *other* people what to do.
I'm not sure when this became the best idea.

 

**********
In summary, we all read what we want to read I guess.
I see studies in peer review and the CDC and Stanford that show a very low IFR.

Other studies show higher ones.

 

We forgot that lockdowns were based on '2 million will die'
And we forget that, 60,000,000 die a year. (160,000 a day)

But, humans don't think like that.
 

In the GRAND scheme of things, Corona virus killing even 6Million people, would be just 10% of the normal, natural annual death toll.
Instead, it's 400,000?  Call it 1Million for a full year.  

 

It's about 1.67% of all deaths in a year.
 

It's a *tiny* percentage.  And, it's not like those people who died of/with it, were going to live forever.
It doesn't appear to be killing healthy people or anything like that.

 

So, we can argue about IFR, and I can link to studies I read, and jack_sparrow can link to his.
But, we're all missing the point.

 

We freaked out over something that, historically, we wouldn't even talk about.
There is no point in history where something that killed less than 2% of the people who would have died anyway in the world, would be discussed.

 

But, now we have the Internet. And everyone can prove their agenda with anything.
And I just think we utterly missed the boat on this one.

I believe Sweden nailed it.
And I believe everyone will disagree because they're focused on the color of the leaves on their favorite tree... instead of the actual forrest.

We N E V E R had a "lockdown" in the US. Well, except for California, but only sort of. And that was weak. You have NO FUCKING CLUE what a lockdown is. Spain. France. THOSE were "lockdowns." In the U.S. throughout this whole debacle, you have been free to travel widely if you chose to. There is no such thing as a state border--well, they can question you all they want but have NO AUTHORITY to turn you around. People have been flying ALL ALONG (in tiny numbers) DRIVING all over the place, etc. MOST people curtailed travel out of a common concern, LISTENTING to EXPERTS such as Fauci who strongly recommended reduced interaction for weeks to bring down the rate of transmission. That was VOLUNTARY. Local ordinances at state or town level about distancing were applied but really very gently compared to other countries. Occasionally some wingnut would get a ticket but in general, people simply went about their business.

We had mandatory shutdowns of businesses. This was handled in a somewhat capricious way. And it is being unwound with LOTS of lawsuits. Certainy Connecticut had severe  pain for small businesses but a bump for big ones. This is going to lead to some political backlash. CT parks never shut down. There was never such a thing as a state mandated beach closure (unlike CA).

The actual application of suppression efforts were not Federal but state and local ENTIRELY and they varied dramatically across the country, in terms of "liberty" aspects. You want to grouse about that, BE SPECIFIC because there was NO NATIONAL RESTRICTION, EVER.

Maybe the shouting works on facebook but it doesn't actually make policy. Certainly not in Connecticut.

I think you overstate the internet aspect.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

 

 

a) The internet mob mentality. The denialists are the ones ignoring and arguing with educated professionals.


(RobG here, is one of the few who takes a fairly reasoned and not hysterical approach) And yet you are trying to argue against him...?
 


b) The desire to be right, instead of being reasonable.

There is still sweet fuck all known about covid. The reasonable response is to believe and following the advice of the experts, not the ignorant idiots trying to poke holes in the experts advice.

 

c) The decision to pick safety over freedom, despite the harm it does to others


These people love to tell *other* people what to do.
I'm not sure when this became the best idea.

When society evolved and realised that experts are experts for a reason. And Joe Public needs to listen to experts when required, like in a pandemic. People ask me for welding advice, I tell them I have no idea about welding because I'm not an expert.

 

**********
In summary, we all read what we want to read I guess.
I see studies in peer review and the CDC and Stanford that show a very low IFR.

Other studies show higher ones.

 

We forgot that lockdowns were based on '2 million will die'
And we forget that, 60,000,000 die a year. (160,000 a day)

But, humans don't think like that.
 

In the GRAND scheme of things, Corona virus killing even 6Million people, would be just 10% of the normal, natural annual death toll.
Instead, it's 400,000?  Call it 1Million for a full year.  

 

It's about 1.67% of all deaths in a year.
 

It's a *tiny* percentage.  And, it's not like those people who died of/with it, were going to live forever.
It doesn't appear to be killing healthy people or anything like that.

 

So, we can argue about IFR, and I can link to studies I read, and jack_sparrow can link to his.
But, we're all missing the point.

 

We freaked out over something that, historically, we wouldn't even talk about.
There is no point in history where something that killed less than 2% of the people who would have died anyway in the world, would be discussed.

 

But, now we have the Internet. And everyone can prove their agenda with anything.
And I just think we utterly missed the boat on this one.

I believe Sweden nailed it.
And I believe everyone will disagree because they're focused on the color of the leaves on their favorite tree... instead of the actual forrest.

You are still arguing against the experts who know how to handle a pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frakka said:

They don't mind admitting the fact either:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/24/sweden-wrong-not-to-shut-down-says-former-state-epidemiologist

"Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell now admits the country is in a ‘terrible situation"

I feel his answers are a bit more grounded than those around here, this article goese a bit more in depth as opposed to getting thoughts from his predecessor https://www.thelocal.se/20200603/swedens-anders-tegnell-questioned-over-strategy-and-errors

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

And I believe everyone will disagree because they're focused on the color of the leaves on their favorite tree... instead of the actual forrest.

Blatant you follow a well trodden path of those in denial. You are behind on the trail as most are extinct now.

1. You start that it is only a "bad flu" maybe twice as bad and not a dangerous disease.

This argument was popular up until May and could be prosecuted easily by the deniers. However the body bags built up and "excess mortality" data overwhelmed that position. BTW that's why you skipped those questions I left you and moved to phase two of your journey.

2. Lock-Downs don't work, ruin the economy and kill more people. Unfortunately reality has ridden over the top of this argument too.

There are countries that responded early with no lockdown and those later and harder that are out the other side. Their economies are little different than those that didn't lock down or did so late. 

Why is this so? The answer is pretty easy. Economies don't stop at national or state borders. Traffic stops/slows economies grind to a halt particularly service based economies. It is pointless having different national strategies when the same economic outcome results globally.

The last time something of this nature occured was the GFC where America, the EU and China helped lead the world out of it. Coronavirus unfortunately a different global leadership story.

3. The final phase to avoid facing the "excess mortality" Rate is to make it a annual mortality statistics issue. So it is spruik the "what's problem if a few more die over the lots that die every year" story. Now this is a hard one as the virus hasn't run a year only a few months and so hypothetical.  

Blatant so if we have to await your 12 months to roll by, its at least reasonable of you to zip down to your local hospital and spend some time in a ICU with virus patients. That way you can appreciate what your promoting. Yourself as a patient even better.

That way you can ponder on these words of yours and advise you have been given about lifelong issues attached to this disease, thats if you make it of course.  

"It's a *tiny* percentage.  And, it's not like those people who died of/with it, were going to live forever. It doesn't appear to be killing healthy people or anything like that."

PS. BTW you are in good denial company. Interesting that "excess mortality" stats in the US haven't been published for weeks now and stuck on 2 May.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impetuous_donkey said:

I feel his answers are a bit more grounded than those around here, this article goese a bit more in depth as opposed to getting thoughts from his predecessor https://www.thelocal.se/20200603/swedens-anders-tegnell-questioned-over-strategy-and-errors

His predecessor is not constrained politically or encumbered by it being her strategy. That article is hardly illuminating when Tegnell avoids half the questions put to him by the media that day. That said, he does admit to getting it wrong, now having to adopt suppression strategies, but far too late and now fearful of the outcome.

Hidden from that article is Sweden have a major public relations problem. A professor Johan Giesecke is highly respected and a prior advisor to the Govt and the joint architect/father of Sweden's "herd immunity" approach.
 
Has kept appearing again and again in the Nordic media, saying Norway's doing it wrong, Denmark are going to regret it, Finlands fucked etc and Sweden is doing right ignoring the death toll differences. Johan is probably half the reason why they won't open their borders to Sweden now.

He hasn't stopped just there and lectures every country globaly on lock-downs not working incl for places like Aust and NZ.

However he is very cunning now that things haven't panned out the way he expected in Sweden. 

He avoids like the plague now that his 60% transmission rate never happened (<10% and what if had happened!!), the high level of asymptomatic cases (making only isolate when sick not work), there is no evidence that natural immunisation works and avoids success of contact/trace/test/isolate countries, some with no lock down. 

As those 4 things are the foundation of his/Sweden's strategy, it does beg the question why he avoids them. Tengel is far more forthright but still constrained.

Like Blatant Giesecke is a Swedish thing of "this is just a disease that kills people already on the way out." Over half Sweden's deaths are in aged care and world's highest making a mockery of his just protect those at risk and it all works theory.

This is a interview last week of him advising India.

Slip of the tongue fruedian slip.....he says lock-downs should be eased carefully, no one has lock down easing plans??

But if lock-downs are not necessary what's the problem..it's only a very mild disease isn't it Johan??

 

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

His predecessor is not constrained politically or encumbered by it being her strategy. That article is hardly illuminating when Tegnell avoids half the questions put to him by the media that day. That said, he does admit to getting it wrong, now having to adopt suppression strategies, but far too late and now fearful of the outcome.

Hidden from that article is Sweden have a major public relations problem. A professor Johan Giesecke is highly respected and a prior advisor to the Govt and the joint architect/father of Sweden's "herd immunity" approach.
 
Has kept appearing again and again in the Nordic media, saying Norway's doing it wrong, Denmark are going to regret it, Finlands fucked etc and Sweden is doing right ignoring the death toll differences. Johan is probably half the reason why they won't open their borders to Sweden now.

He hasn't stopped just there and lectures every country globaly on lock-downs not working incl for places like Aust and NZ.

However he is very cunning now that things haven't panned out the way he expected in Sweden. 

He avoids like the plague now that his 60% transmission rate never happened (<10% and what if had happened!!), the high level of asymptomatic cases (making only isolate when sick not work), there is no evidence that natural immunisation works and avoids success of contact/trace/test/isolate countries, some with no lock down. 

As those 4 things are the foundation of his/Sweden's strategy, it does beg the question why he avoids them. Tengel is far more forthright but still constrained.

Like Blatant Giesecke is a Swedish thing of "this is just a disease that kills people already on the way out." Over half Sweden's deaths are in aged care and world's highest making a mockery of his just protect those at risk and it all works theory.

This is a interview last week of him advising India.

Slip of the tongue fruedian slip.....he says lock-downs should be eased carefully, no one has lock down easing plans??

But if lock-downs are not necessary what's the problem..it's only a very mild disease isn't it Johan??

 

Let's not forget that the real reason for the shutdown was to keep the healthcare system from being overloaded. That did not happen in most all places, in the initial estimates my local hospital was expected to be short over 150 bed in two weeks after the shutdown, one month later we had 150 cases in the county. The shutdown reaction was excessive and a great over reaction and if anything has weekend the resolve of people to follow protocols to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The Swedish decision was likely the correct one even the USA deaths in nursing homes is 42% of the deaths not hugely different from what you say theirs is. For most it is a minor disease but not so much for those at high risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

We forgot that lockdowns were based on '2 million will die'
And we forget that, 60,000,000 die a year. (160,000 a day)

But, humans don't think like that.

In the GRAND scheme of things, Corona virus killing even 6Million people, would be just 10% of the normal, natural annual death toll.
Instead, it's 400,000?  Call it 1Million for a full year.  

 

It's about 1.67% of all deaths in a year.

To understand you.

At the moment in the US death toll is already 3 times annual flu deaths. America is around a quarter of global deaths and global virus deaths is approaching annual global flu deaths. 

If your happy globally at 6 million or 15 times that now that translates to the figure of US 2.2 million (if nothing was done) that Trump is pondering here or a death toll of 800K in the UK 

How many people in America are prepared to accept 2.2 million in the UK 800K that you are OK with?

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

Let's not forget that the real reason for the shutdown was to keep the healthcare system from being overloaded. That did not happen in most all places, in the initial estimates my local hospital was expected to be short over 150 bed in two weeks after the shutdown, one month later we had 150 cases in the county. The shutdown reaction was excessive and a great over reaction and if anything has weekend the resolve of people to follow protocols to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The Swedish decision was likely the correct one even the USA deaths in nursing homes is 42% of the deaths not hugely different from what you say theirs is. For most it is a minor disease but not so much for those at high risk. 

You might consider that the reason your healthcare system wasn't overloaded was because of the lockdown. Rather than complaining about how it was unnecessary, perhaps celebrate that it worked. Washington state has 157 deaths per million, countries like NZ have 4. So an NZ lockdown in Washington would have meant about 1,190 fewer deaths. 

The lockdown wasn't solely to avoid overwhelming healthcare systems, it was also to stop the spread to more vulnerable people for whom it's a much more serious disease. It's the only effective measure to protect them short of putting them in a quarantine bubble for the next 2 years.

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

You might consider that the reason your healthcare system wasn't overloaded was because of the lockdown. Rather than complaining about how it was unnecessary, perhaps celebrate that it worked. Washington state has 157 deaths per million, countries like NZ have 4. So an NZ lockdown in Washington would have meant about 1,190 fewer deaths. 

The lockdown wasn't solely to avoid overwhelming healthcare systems, it was also to stop the spread to more vulnerable people for whom it's a much more serious disease. It's the only effective measure to protect them short of putting them in a quarantine bubble for the next 2 years.

The reason it wasn't over whelmed wasn't due to the lock down as many/ most of those projected cases would have been already infected at the time of the shutdown. It was just shit data. Also Dr. Fauci had a recent interview saying he doesn't hold much faith the vaccine will even be good for much more than a year or two as with most corona viruses.

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

Let's not forget that the real reason for the shutdown was to keep the healthcare system from being overloaded. That did not happen in most all places, in the initial estimates my local hospital was expected to be short over 150 bed in two weeks after the shutdown, one month later we had 150 cases in the county. The shutdown reaction was excessive and a great over reaction and if anything has weekend the resolve of people to follow protocols to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The Swedish decision was likely the correct one even the USA deaths in nursing homes is 42% of the deaths not hugely different from what you say theirs is. For most it is a minor disease but not so much for those at high risk. 

Putting aside that lock-downs stopped your local health care system being overloaded and Sweden disagree with you.

Answer this question then that Johan doesn't go near. 

Sweden expected/wanted 60% immediate transmission. The virus transmitted at a rate less than 10%. Sweden based it on there being natural immunity. That is not yet proven.

What would happen where health care capacity was or close to being overwhelmed (as it was in some lock down countries) and mortality rate if 60% transmission had occured ???? 

Can you answer that?

Sweden dodged a bullet.

IMG_20200611_002558.jpg.024843a54cb2afd844fccadc4ce8f820.jpg

 

You actually don't appear to understand what Sweden actually did. With Sweden's natural social distancing, demographic of large number single households etc, how different was it too your lockdown? To refresh.

On 6/11/2020 at 6:36 AM, jack_sparrow said:

1. MITIGATION Swedens let the virus run loose, "mitigate"* only so it doesn't overwhelm the healthcare system and the vunerable, so allow most to get infected which slows the epidemic = “HERD IMMUNITY” a OUTCOME of "mitigation" and word Governments hate to use . 

* Swedens mitigation included closing its high schools and colleges, forbade gatherings above 50 people on March 27th, and encouraged its citizens to stay home and avoid unnecessary travel. Visitors were banned from nursing homes on March 30th (which proved to be too late). But beyond that, the government just asked people to work from home as much as possible and to practice social distancing. School attendence was mandatory. Largely laws were not used to achieve compliance.

 

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

Answer this question then that Johan doesn't go near. 

Sweden expected/wanted 60% immediate transmission. The virus transmitted at a rate less than 10%. Sweden based it on there being natural immunity. That is not yet proven.

What would happen where health care capacity was or close to being overwhelmed (as it was in some lock down countries) and mortality rate if 60% transmission had occured ???? 

Can you answer that?

Sweden dodged a bullet.

IMG_20200611_002558.jpg.024843a54cb2afd844fccadc4ce8f820.jpg

You actually don't appear to understand what Sweden actually did. With Sweden's natural social distancing, demographic of large number single households etc, how different was it too your lockdown? To

 I guess a big portion of our disagreement seems to be where we focus, you concentrate on the herd immunity and I focus on the way in which the country asked vs ordered its citizens to comply with actions to reduce spread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, impetuous_donkey said:

The reason it wasn't over whelmed wasn't due to the lock down as many/ most of those projected cases would have been already infected at the time of the shutdown. It was just shit data. Also Dr. Fauci had a recent interview saying he doesn't hold much faith the vaccine will even be good for much more than a year or two as with most corona viruses.

WA introduced a "stay at home" order on March 23. Below are graphs of infections and deaths, showing that both peaked about 14 days after the lockdown was introduced. The measures began to be lifted on May 4, and now there is a pretty steady infection rate of about 250 per day and about 6 or 7 deaths per day. Mobility data shows that people haven't really gone back to "business as usual", likely the more vulnerable are still isolating themselves and practicing social distancing while the less vulnerable are back out being "normal".

So the lockdown clearly had an attenuating effect on the spread and deaths. The welcome decline in deaths is not reflected in the case incidence likely because of the increase in testing (though increases in testing elsewhere hasn't shown much of an increase of incidence) and because it's the less vulnerable, mobile cohort that are being infected rather than the more vulnerable people who seem to be staying in lockdown.

92007079_WAcases.png.a38068ff940bbfa2f62a1c90b666d94f.png

1250757853_WAdeaths.png.c100dd14be6fc3ab872a200b15487a87.png

767772399_WAmobility.png.41fe4fae390391a1410610c1474c9857.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlatantEcho said:

And I just think we utterly missed the boat on this one.

I believe Sweden nailed it.

 

1 hour ago, impetuous_donkey said:

The shutdown reaction was excessive and a great over reaction and if anything has weekend the resolve of people to follow protocols to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The Swedish decision was likely the correct one...

Yes the US missed the boat all right along with Sweden where you both now wish to swim to?

If the Swedish decision was right and the shutdown in US excessive, then why are both countries listed with those that fucked up and not listed with those that have beat it to date.

0_Sxs3-rWgMQZPmIv3.png

0__ay7OfwVTlbyMBX7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, impetuous_donkey said:

 I guess a big portion of our disagreement seems to be where we focus, you concentrate on the herd immunity and I focus on the way in which the country asked vs ordered its citizens to comply with actions to reduce spread. 

and this is what you don't seem to understand. As Jack tried to explain.

42 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

You actually don't appear to understand what Sweden actually did. With Sweden's natural social distancing, demographic of large number single households etc, how different was it too your lockdown? To refresh.

Swedes are natural social distancers and as I quickly learnt when I lived there, Sweden is like a police state without any police. Because of the way Swedes live and the way they behave and the fact that they stupidly trust their politicians, the Government can ASK the population to follow certain rules and they will. It's pretty clear that in the US, there will be no fucking way that the population would do as asked.

 

Sweden is one of the few countries that might have had a chance of getting away with their soft approach. The problem is that Swedes still believe their own propaganda about their health system. It was already struggling and of a piss poor standard before Covid-19.

If Sweden had Australia's medical system, I would expect that the survival rate would be far greater, but probably still shit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, impetuous_donkey said:

 I guess a big portion of our disagreement seems to be where we focus, you concentrate on the herd immunity and I focus on the way in which the country asked vs ordered its citizens to comply with actions to reduce spread. 

How are a virus impacts and response seperated?

How citizens are asked to observe rules is not going to change the clinolgy of the virus. The virus doesn't descriminate between those that try to avoid it and those that don't.

There are lots of Sweden's who didn't enact and or harshly enforce laws. There are some when they didn't see voluntary compliance enacted laws and came down hard.

The record shows the countries that had a relaxed response are being hammered the hardest.

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

Let's not forget that the real reason for the shutdown was to keep the healthcare system from being overloaded. That did not happen in most all places, in the initial estimates my local hospital was expected to be short over 150 bed in two weeks after the shutdown, one month later we had 150 cases in the county. The shutdown reaction was excessive and a great over reaction and if anything has weekend the resolve of people to follow protocols to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The Swedish decision  was likely the correct one even the USA deaths in nursing  homes is 42% of the deaths not hugely different from what  you say theirs is. For most it is a minor disease but not so much for those at high risk. 

Mate not picking on you.

You are a good case study:D  and where the blame lies with less than honest or inept Government's not properly communicating their actions and the true status of the virus.

The claim of "my local hospital wasn't overwhelmed so lock-downs are excessive" is very typical. In addition it reinforces the virus is not as deadly as claimed.

- Ask the question why weren't some hospitals overloaded? 

- Where did the spare hospital capacity come from when demand was higher? 

1. Elderly Patients Sacrificed.

In advance of demand increasing the elderly were shunted out of hospitals and into care homes, untested and in many transmitting the virus to those most at risk. This is where a lot of deaths occured and it helped reinforce the misconception this is only a old people's disease.

IMG_20200611_002424.jpg.3874da172a38fad1da2a263f2c6d305d.jpg

2. Non Virus Demand Dropped.

People stayed away, thinking they wouldn't be treated. How many?

In the UK 900,000 fewer people went to Accident and Emergency the month of May compared to 2019. For April it was over 1.2 million who stayed away.

Many will have needed to and didn't. How many died but not recorded as virus deaths? 

Source Guardian Live Blog

EaOCVsMWsAAXyN0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:
20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

While America and Brazil are providing a real-time experiment of what happens when half the country doesn't believe in science.

thanks for taking one for science...

And if there's any holes in that study, the UK is picking up the slack.  60,000 and counting. 

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

Mate not picking on you.

You are a good case study:D  and where the blame lies with less than honest or inept Government's not properly communicating their actions and the true status of the virus.

The claim of "my local hospital wasn't overwhelmed so lock-downs are excessive" is very typical. In addition it reinforces the virus is not as deadly as claimed.

- Ask the question why weren't some hospitals overloaded? 

- Where did the spare hospital capacity come from when demand was higher? 

1. Elderly Patients Sacrificed.

In advance of demand increasing the elderly were shunted out of hospitals and into care homes, untested and in many transmitting the virus to those most at risk. This is where a lot of deaths occured and it helped reinforce the misconception this is only a old people's disease.

IMG_20200611_002424.jpg.3874da172a38fad1da2a263f2c6d305d.jpg

2. Non Virus Demand Dropped.

People stayed away, thinking they wouldn't be treated. How many?

In the UK 900,000 fewer people went to Accident and Emergency the month of May compared to 2019. For April it was over 1.2 million who stayed away.

Many will have needed to and didn't. How many died but not recorded as virus deaths? 

Source Guardian Live Blog

EaOCVsMWsAAXyN0.png

To answer you questions....

 

  In my area there was talk of no codes on people over 80 but it didn't happen. The virus absolutely has proved not as deadly as originally expected as we're seeing 1ish % according to Fauci vs 3%+ original projections. 

For my hospital all elective procedures were cancelled and many departments were shuttered. Our standard capacity wasn't even close to being reached let alone the reserve capacity.  This is true for most areas around the country and hospitals are bleeding money like crazy. The initial projections on the infection estimates were just flat wrong as the at the time many of those cases would have already been infected and the fact is we just didn't see that.

 

I'd also say one of the real issues is with the durability of a vaccine for corona virus as most of them for common corona viruses are barely good for a year. Maybe they'll be able to deliver a few hundred million doses in a few months but I wouldn't hold be breath on that.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impetuous_donkey said:

The virus absolutely has proved not as deadly as originally expected as we're seeing 1ish % according to Fauci vs 3%+ original projections...

The initial  projections on the infection estimates were just flat wrong

Mortality appears to be bang on projections or maybe understated. Do nothing 2.2 million, suppression 100 - 200K.

Infection rate is actually 6x lower than projected being less than 10% to date and infection fatality rate is around 6 X higher or 0.7%+. They tend to cancel each other out but by how much no idea.

 

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

Yes lots that mirror your local experience also lots where bodies were being stacked in hallways and broom cupboards. 

Come on this comment is laughable at best, there wasn't wide spread stacking of bodies in hallways in broom cupboards except in a few areas in the world it was hardly widespread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, impetuous_donkey said:

Come on this comment is laughable at best, there wasn't wide spread stacking of bodies in hallways in broom cupboards except in a few areas in the world it was hardly widespread.

I didn't say that was widespread, just lots.  Contrary to your local experience Health Infrastrucure in many places was at peak or overwhelmed in a many places. Some places every single hospital in a particular region. That's a fact. Also supported by hospital stats (not available US) and mortality stats outside hospitals and care homes. You need to get out more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nail in the Swedish strategy.

"In summary, there are large differences in patterns of per-capita deaths in different countries that are difficult to reconcile with herd immunity arguments but are easily explained by the timing and stringency of interventions. Seroprevalence studies also provide an independent source of information that is highly consistent with mortality data. The herd immunity argument is therefore at odds with both mortality and seroprevalence data, whereas the intervention argument provides a parsimonious explanation for both.

Although the impacts of current control interventions on transmission need to be balanced against their short-term and long-term economic and health impacts on society, epidemiological data suggest that no country has yet seen infection rates sufficient to prevent a second wave of transmission, should controls or behavioural precautions be relaxed without compensatory measures in place."

11 June 2020 The LANCET Have deaths from COVID-19 in Europe plateaued due to herd immunity?

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

Come on this comment is laughable at best, there wasn't wide spread stacking of bodies in hallways in broom cupboards except in a few areas in the world it was hardly widespread.

well at least NYC used refrigerated trucks to keep easy access to the brooms

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

I didn't say that was widespread, just lots.  Contrary to your local experience Health Infrastrucure in many places was at peak or overwhelmed in a many places. Some places every single hospital in a particular region. That's a fact. Also supported by hospital stats (not available US) and mortality stats outside hospitals and care homes. You need to get out more.

if you want to play that game then in many places they weren't and in some places not a single hospital in a particular region. You also need to get out more. 

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

if you want to play that game then in many places they weren't and in some places not a single hospital in a particular region. You also need to get out more. 

That is exactly what I said. You are the one that is banging on being that to be the norm.

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Yes lots that mirror your local experience...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the group think that carries on unabated.  Everyone loves to pat each other on the back.

Jack, you really got in a good sound bite there, nice work  *high five*

 

Jack - you sound like a person dead set on the earth being flat.
And you don't CARE if it's round.  You just want people to know, you think it's FLAT.

 

There is not a single credible medical professional now, in June, who thinks this is remotely as bad as they estimated in March.
Because, they look at the data and go," huh, yeah, it's a lot different than we originally estimated"

 

Some people complain about the wind, some trim their sails.

The rest of us have adjusted as new evidence came in.
 

We locked down, we did what we were told for 2 weeks, and then we started wondering... wait a second, how come none of the bad stuff that was promised seems to happen?
Is it because we all stayed indoors for 3 months?? 
Or
Is it a bit more logical and likely that this virus wasn't *nearly* what was predicted?

 

Seriously, one is more logical than the other.
Flat earthers don't like logic, so, you will just say 'Noooo, my aunt martha told me on facebook this is the worst virus in the world'

 

The rest of us did the math, looked at it, shrugged, and moved on.
We have lives to live, and we aren't going to live them in fear - no matter how loudly you keep yelling at the wind.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the damage has in large part been mitigated by the sacrifices that several hundred million of us have made and the asshole said - see, nothing happened. 

No, get your ass to those Trump rallies and let's check back in on Labor Day.  And take Mikeywof with ya, y'all will get along great if you can find places where both of your intellects will fit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlatantEcho said:

...

There is not a single credible medical professional now, in June, who thinks this is remotely as bad as they estimated in March.
Because, they look at the data and go," huh, yeah, it's a lot different than we originally estimated"

 

...

 

Well in this piece Fauci is not quoted as saying this is more or less bad than he estimated in march, but this is from a talk he gave in June where he describes the covid situation as his worst nightmare.

That doesn't sound like "no big deal".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

So the damage has in large part been mitigated by the sacrifices that several hundred million of us have made and the asshole said - see, nothing happened. 

No, get your ass to those Trump rallies and let's check back in on Labor Day.  And take Mikeywof with ya, y'all will get along great if you can find places where both of your intellects will fit.

I'm not a conservative.... but way to be it's us against them. Now go fuck yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites