Sweden and coronavirus

[editor]

I know this has probably already been mentioned elsewhere but it might be an idea to have a separate thread so we can track if it is successful or not.

Sweden has become a global outlier in its approach to stopping the coronavirus.
Rather than imposing a lockdown like most of Europe, the country has avoided "draconian" regulations, telling its people to follow social distancing, only order food at restaurants via table service, and work from home if they can.

Under guidance issued by Sweden's Public Health Agency, Sweden will permit restaurants, bars and primary schools to remain open, with gatherings of 500 people or more still allowed to take place. Primary schools remain open, while secondary schools and universities have shut.

Everyone in Sweden is urged to stay at home if they are at all sick (even a mild cough or sore throat), avoid non-essential travel within the country, work from home if possible, and avoid non-essential visits to elderly people or hospitals.

On Monday, Sweden's former state epidemiologist and current advisor to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Johan Giesecke went as far as to tell Swedes to go out and enjoy the spring sun.

Saying "banning public gatherings is an idiotic idea", he told members of the public to "bring a friend and walk a metre apart".

"Don't hug your neighbour. Bring a thermos and sit on a park bench. It's bad for your health to sit at home too," Giesecke told broadcaster SVT's morning show.

Why Sweden thinks it can ride out coronavirus without strict lockdown

Sweden will permit restaurants, bars and primary schools to remain open, with gatherings of 500 people or more still allowed to take place

inews.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

Define success

 

[weltweit]

'This is bloody serious'
As the agency places its bets, other experts are outraged by the risky approach.
The Journal of the Swedish Medical Association has published a highly critical paper on the government’s approach, saying that it had missed the chance to halt the coronavirus.
Fredrik Elgh, a virology professor at Umeå University, is one of several professors who said he was “deeply concerned" by the government's laissez-faire approach.
“I’d rather Stockholm was quarantined," told state broadcaster SVT.

My concern is 1) that they haven't established protection for people in vulnerable groups, those over 70 and those who have existing underlying health conditions, and 2) 3,000 infected and 92 deaths, this is where the UK was only a week or a few ago.

It will be interesting if they change their policy as the level of infections and deaths increase.

 

[editor]

Define success

Pretty obvious I would have thought: far fewer deaths than comparable countries.

 

[kropotkin]

Errr-- no, it won't be a success. How could it be?

 

[sheothebudworths]

WTF? That's loopy!

 

[kittyP]

If you are going to allow gatherings of 500 you might as well allow any size that would normally be allowed.
I can't see the "restriction" of 500 would make any difference.

 

[xes]

Kind of how they all start, that blanket of normalcy bias still nice and tucked in around them. Give it time and they'll lock down.

 

[Reno]

The UK was still taking this whole thing far from seriously when Germany had already started to go in lockdown for a week. Sweden will probably follow suit once the infected rate rises.

 

[elbows]

My concern is 1) that they haven't established protection for people in vulnerable groups, those over 70 and those who have existing underlying health conditions, and 2) 3,000 infected and 92 deaths, this is where the UK was only a week or a few ago.

It will be interesting if they change their policy as the level of infections and deaths increase.

Yes, you've got it, timing. Until they go sailing past the point when other laissez-faire countries felt the need to lockdown, I cant tell if this is just rhetoric and bravado that will not stand the test of mounting hospital admissions etc.

I will add them to the list of countries I'm recording the number of deaths for, and will do a bit of reading about their current situation and measures. Because there are other factors too that could make a difference, complicating the picture and our understanding of which approaches work. All of this focus will be for nothing if they end up doing the same as everywhere else at some stage in the not too distant future, so I wont spend all that much time on it yet, but will make a start now anyway.

 

[BristolEcho]

Pretty obvious I would have thought: far fewer deaths than comparable countries.

At the moment.

 

[smmudge]

Tbf that was basically our government's advice a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Saul Goodman]

My money is on it ending in tears.

 

[sheothebudworths]

If you are going to allow gatherings of 500 you might as well allow any size that would normally be allowed.
I can't see the "restriction" of 500 would make any difference.

I suppose it just reduces concerts/sports stuff - but y'know, other than that and staying in during the week (unless you're a small child, more like to be asymptomatic etc) party on, Sweden!

 

[xes]

I wonder if a bunch of people are now booking holidays in Sweden as they cancelled their trip to Spain...

 

[elbows]

Before I even look at Sweden properly, its also worth comparing rhetoric and measures with the approach the Dutch government went with.

The UK wasnt the only one who decided to go on about herd immunity!

And on March 16th the Dutch government were still vowing not to have a lockdown.

But they gradually brought in more and more restrictions anyway, and then this happened:

Then, this Monday evening, after seeing the images of crowded beaches, the government prohibited all gatherings of three or more people who don’t respect the 1.5 meter distance, if they aren’t members of the same household. This goes until at least June 1. Mayors and police can now fine people who break these rules up to 400 euros.

Sounds familiar!

Dutch PM: We won’t impose national lockdown

Mark Rutte said the crisis felt like ‘a roller coaster, which is going to ride faster and faster.’

www.politico.eu

Why the Netherlands is not on lockdown (yet)

Many European countries are in complete lockdown to curb the spread of the coronavirus. Why hasn't the Netherlands done the same?

www.ukrant.nl

And so now they have to sing a different tune, albeit one where they still try to retain some features from their original stance.

The results of the Dutch measures will become visible in the coming week, Van Dijl hopes. ‘You have to think of it as steering a ship. You can pull at the helm, but that doesn’t mean the ship will change course immediately.’

Still, PM Rutte said during Monday’s press conference that they were practically out of options before a complete lockdown.

‘It really depends on the behaviour of the people’, says Van Dijl. ‘So more importantly than the whole conversation about herd immunity, we all have to be rational and respect the limits put in place for our safety.’

 

[Pickman's model]

Pretty obvious I would have thought: far fewer deaths than comparable countries.

Not obvious at all. I'd define success not as a comparison but by the country suffering the minimum number of casualties through the introduction of policies to prevent transmission. It's not a competition, you know.

 

[elbows]

The other thing countries like Sweden provide, at least during their bravado phases, is hope for the shitheads that parp out 'greater good of the economy' stuff at the Telegraph and elsewhere.

Sweden's resistance to lockdown raises questions about our own tough approach

Ever pragmatic, Sweden knows the cost of total lockdown is wildly disproportionate to the facts

www.telegraph.co.uk

Honestly the state of some of the sentiments in that article. They even refer to it as a flu strain. And the stuff they have to shy away from in order to be able to make the points they make (seldom will we see a comprehensive analysis of hospital capacity and the effects of it being completely overwhelmed in this sort of shitty article).

Plus once we get past the headlines and various reckless sentiments, the writers of these sorts of pieces dont really end up sounding confident that the latest 'we wont lockdown' country will really stick to that approach for long.

Mind you as I have indicated via a large number of posts in the last week or so, some of the stances these shits are taking, whilst grotesquely inappropriate for this phase, may yet turn out to have more merit for a subsequent phase. That all depends on what we discover about true rates of infection, true levels of exceedingly mild or asymptomatic cases, etc. If such a future were to present itself then the shitweasels will no doubt claim they were right all along. Its a pretty easy stance to take I suppose, if you arent the one that has to deal with overflowing hospitals and morgues. Anyway I mention this now only so that people are aware of the possibility that future understanding about the scale of the spread of this virus may re-enable stances and orthodoxies that have currently been dispensed with. Or not, the data and understanding isnt there, so I cannot predict. Whether this happens or not will determine whether some political advantage could be regained by those who have postured in a way that currently seems reckless and damned. I include various writers, Bolsonaro, Trump, and the countries in Europe that have indulged to various extents in laissez-faire rhetoric and timing (including the UK). But anyway this is the wrong moment for this point, given the horrible weeks ahead, its just a preview of one of the unwanted political side-effects that might happen should the medium and long term aspects of this pandemic turn out much better than I can currently dare hope.

 

[Big Bertha]

We know how this will end

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sweden's numbers are almost identical to those of the UK in terms of cases, deaths, recoveries. They're not in any way behind the UK.

 

[BristolEcho]

Tbf that was basically our government's advice a couple of weeks ago.

This is interesting to me. We often hear stories of the Scandinavian approach to things and how good it is. With good reason I guess, but also it means in situations like this people are quick to applaud an approach and assume they are doing it right, when that might be wrong?

If Trump came out with this I expect the post would be different. (And this has been his approach and it has been a disaster.)

 

[eoin_k]

Sweden's numbers are almost identical to those of the UK in terms of cases, deaths, recoveries. They're not in any way behind the UK.

They look to be a good week behind the UK from my reading of the figures - 15 recorded deaths a day compared to over 100.

 

[tim]

Pretty obvious I would have thought: far fewer deaths than comparable countries.

Sweden has had 92 deaths and a total population of 10 million; the UK has had 769 deaths and a total population of 66 million. 9.2 x 66 = 607, so pretty much the same

 

[Azrael]

So you have two approaches: trying to achieve "herd immunity" via controlled spread, which flouts WHO advice, flies in the face of clinical data, has failed disastrously everywhere else it's been tried, and is ethically repugnant; and early suppression via aggressive testing, tracing and quarantine, with all countries that've adopted this approach seeing vastly fewer cases and deaths to date. Yes, correlation isn't causation, and yes, we don't know what the future holds, but if the precautionary principle doesn't apply here, when does it?

 

[elbows]

Sweden has had 92 deaths and a total population of 10 million; the UK has had 769 deaths and a total population of 66 million. 9.2 x 66 = 607, so pretty much the same

When trying to judge what stage of an epidemic a country is at relative to others, I dont actually bother adjusting for population size. At some stage this will probably become a mistake on my part, but so far the raw numbers seem to tell the big stories and the timing quite well.

I'm not quite ready to post the latest version of my grim table of total deaths so far, but since its been a while I suppose I will at some point in the next day or two. I have just finished adding Sweden to it. I think their epidemic is at a slightly earlier stage. I suppose I expect them to trigger further measures once indicators such as their rate of hospital & intensive care admissions goes past a certain threshold, no matter their rhetoric.

 

[Athos]

Is it possible the Swedes have sufficient capacity to deal with an unmitigated peak?

 

[Pickman's model]

Is it possible the Swedes have sufficient capacity to deal with an unmitigated peak?

What might be termed a widows' peak given the greater death rate among men who contract the disease

 

[elbows]

Is it possible the Swedes have sufficient capacity to deal with an unmitigated peak?

This data is getting on for 8 years old but maybe it still offers a clue:



(from The variability of critical care bed numbers in Europe )

Or this article/radio program from a week ago:

Stockholm's intensive care capacity may soon be filled - Radio Sweden

Efforts are ongoing to increase Stockholm's intensive care capacity, which will soon be filled.

sverigesradio.se

Efforts are ongoing to increase Stockholm's intensive care capacity, which will soon be filled.
Even a conference centre in Älvsjö is being prepped to accept patients.

The numbers of intensive care beds they are talking about is tiny, I think they will be in real trouble

I think I am already seeing some press articles about Sweden having to suddenly u-turn on the approach being discussed in this thread, let me see if I can find one thats in a publication I could actually stand to link to.

 

[Athos]

This data is getting on for 8 years old but maybe it still offers a clue:

View attachment 203697

(from The variability of critical care bed numbers in Europe )

Or this article/radio program from a week ago:

Stockholm's intensive care capacity may soon be filled - Radio Sweden

Efforts are ongoing to increase Stockholm's intensive care capacity, which will soon be filled.

sverigesradio.se

The numbers of intensive care beds they are talking about is tiny, I think they will be in real trouble

I think I am already seeing some press articles about Sweden having to suddenly u-turn on the approach being discussed in this thread, let me see if I can find one thats in a publication I could actually stand to link to.

It's unfathomable to me what they think they're doing, then!

 

[Azrael]

Whether Sweden (or any other country) has the resources to weather the storm is really beside the point. Allowing a novel virus to infect your population to attempt to engineer "herd immunity" is undoubtedly a medical experiment, one that flouts the Nuremberg Code, particularly the provisions on consent, risk, and probability of success. To take just one article:-

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

This is the greatest breakdown in medical ethics I can recall. It's no coincidence that the Nuremberg Code was ignored for decades after WW2, by clinicians who thought they were above it. More things change ...