Sweden and coronavirus

[Sasaferrato]

But this is dependent on what the actual rate of people having the disease is - basically no one has any idea anywhere except (as far as I know) in a few studies in very local areas where everyone has been tested and then retested a few weeks later. But it should be the case that Sweden has had a much higher general infection rate than the rest of Europe - that would be the logical consequence of much higher rates of social mingling. If so then while their death rate per million is higher, their death rate per exposure or per case could be exactly the same and lockdown countries are just smoothing these extra cases into the future. We just don't know. But I think it sort of must be the case that Sweden has had more cases or exposures.

The real problem with the data (not that it makes any functional difference) is that there is no standardised presentation of figures.

I was a Civil Engineer in the dim and distant past. One company I worked for, the owner was a prick with ears. He wanted the weekly and monthly figures in the form of a graph, so his valuable time wasn't wasted looking at figures. One job, I got quite a nice bonus for the revenue the job was creating, as evidenced by my graphs. Bad weeks, I shifted the values on the axes,. he never noticed.

 

[frogwoman]

There have been loads of antibodies studies in places like Spain and Sweden's latest estimate is that between 7 and 10% of people of had it. It was announced at their press conference and that is in line with other studies in New York and around Europe.

Don't forget that it's not like life went on as normal in sweden, the level of public transport use between towns reduced by about 96% while in sweden and people have been told to avoid unnecessary travel.

 

[8ball]

There have been loads of antibodies studies in places like Spain and Sweden's latest estimate is that between 7 and 10% of people of had it.

More depressingly, perhaps more have had it and immunity is incredibly short-lived.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Sweden now has the highest 'per million people' death rate in Europe. We are close behind.

Err, nope, they are on 384 per million, we are on 531, Belgium 793 & Spain 596

Coronavirus Update (Live): 129,471,257 Cases and 2,828,154 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

 

[Sasaferrato]

There have been loads of antibodies studies in places like Spain and Sweden's latest estimate is that between 7 and 10% of people of had it. It was announced at their press conference and that is in line with other studies in New York and around Europe.

Don't forget that it's not like life went on as normal in sweden, the level of public transport use reduced by about 96% while in sweden and people have been told to avoid unnecessary travel.

The thing that scares the living shit out of me, is that some people who have had the infection, confirmed by testing, are negative on the antibody test.

That would seem to make the development of an effective vaccine somewhat problematic.

 

[elbows]

I don't think you've got the logic of the herd immunity vs lockdown right here.

Lockdown isn't saying, 'we'll make sure young people won't get covid', it's saying 'we'll stagger their infection rate so as to manage the impact on the health service - but they'lll still be exposed in the end'.

For the whole population that could be argued (because you could easily overwhelm a health service) - but for groups who aren't at risk there's very little difference between the two. In both approaches a certain number of not-at-risk people will contract covid and die and I doubt there's a huge difference in those numbers (at least I can't see why there should be a big difference).

There is a logic to that but I think you are out of date and havent considered how long it looks like it will take for large percentages of the population to have caught the disease in situations where there isnt a huge, raging epidemic on the rise. Even with the initial exponential growth the estimates of population percentages infected so far is not impressive and thats a big reason why there are far less people coming out with the stuff you said these days.

The plan is to get the levels of infection down to much lower levels still, and then to rely on vaccines or drug treatments or other factors that are currently poorly understood. Some countries may attempt something resembling complete eradication, or at least suppression to the point that the virus circulates on only a minor way. But there are all sorts of reasons why I'm taking things one week at a time and still expect a surprise or two along the way. These unknowns do limit some of the arguments I would make in response to your stance, I dont want to make assumptions about what percentage of the population are actually susceptible or the maximum attack rate, for example.

The only way lockdown doesn't imply that ultimately we all get exposure is if you are arguing that it should be maintained until a reliable vaccine is available - ie likely to be years. I find it hard to see how this can happen.

The idea is that really hard lockdowns are used when the number of infections is at really high levels, but other social distancing measures are still kept in place at other times. Measures that still have a real impact in terms of stopping the numbers reaching really high levels. And without those really high levels of fresh infection, large swathes of the population will remain unexposed. If 'ultimately' means many, many years or decades then the whole immunity side of the equation goes wrong because by the time a lot more people are exposed, the immunity will have waned in those infected early on. Still, I am not prepared to declare at this stage that the disease will become endemic in humans because it is still early days with plenty of unknowns and assumptions.

Anyway, just one example:

Swedish antibody study shows long road to immunity as COVID-19 toll mounts

A Swedish study found that just 7.3 percent of Stockholmers developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, which could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.

www.reuters.com

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A Swedish study found that just 7.3 percent of Stockholmers developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, which could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.

The World Health Organization has warned against pinning hopes on herd immunity. It said last week global studies had found antibodies in only 1-10 percent of the population, results in line with recent findings in Spain and France.

 

[frogwoman]

The thing that scares the living shit out of me, is that some people who have had the infection, confirmed by testing, are negative on the antibody test.

That would seem to make the development of an effective vaccine somewhat problematic.

That's a problem with the way the tests are administered though rather than creating of a vaccine surely.

 

[8ball]

The thing that scares the living shit out of me, is that some people who have had the infection, confirmed by testing, are negative on the antibody test.

That would seem to make the development of an effective vaccine somewhat problematic.

Somewhere between end of next year and never is my guess on the vaccine arrival time.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Err, nope, they are on 384 per million, we are on 531, Belgium 793 & Spain 596

Coronavirus Update (Live): 129,471,257 Cases and 2,828,154 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

From the Mail.

Sweden's death rate is currently the highest in Europe, with 6.08 deaths per million in the last week compared to 5.57 in the UK and 4.28 in Belgium - but its economy has taken a smaller hit than Britain's.

(Not directed at you )

 

[cupid_stunt]

But, comparing Sweden to the UK is somewhat like comparing chalk to cheese.

Sweden stands out in many ways. It has one of the lowest population densities in the world, a low level of multigenerational mixing, it borders only other countries with low population densities and it includes no international hub such as coronavirus hotspots Brussels, New York and London. It follows that when comparing absolute numbers Sweden can only be meaningfully compared to its Nordic neighbours.

The outcome is then bleak. With now 3698 dead, the death toll is well over 3 times higher than the combined death toll of Denmark (548), Norway (233) and Finland (300). When comparing deaths per million, Sweden last week surpassed even Europe’s most densely populated country, the Netherlands.

LINK

 

[8ball]

That's a problem with the way the tests are administered though rather than creating of a vaccine surely.

You are assuming persistent antibodies.

 

[frogwoman]

A lot of shops and restaurants have also closed in Sweden as nobody has been going. Their football hasn't restarted yet but in Germany it has. I know Swedish people who were annoyed that the outside world just assumed everything was going on as normal when it wasnt.

 

[co-op]

So you're agreed what we need to do is ramp up testing of all kinds straight away? Because that's what elbows has been saying for months.

Of course infection testing would be invaluable (and on a huge scale) because it would start to actually nail down what the real death rate is. I think this article is good on some of the issues that come up on this (not least the politics); How (Not) to Do an Antibody Survey for SARS-CoV-2 - it makes it clear that actually doing that test is a pretty big job at the moment (eg using blood samples that can be retested rather than one -offs etc)

It would also give us some idea as to whether the Swedish approach is better or worse than - say - the UK or Norway. One of the points I find strange about this debate at the moment is that I'm being called "absurd and dangerous"/"anti-scientific" etc when no one else has a clue about so much of what is actually happening.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That's a problem with the way the tests are administered though rather than creating of a vaccine surely.

I'm as informed as anyone on this, in other words, I haven't a fucking clue.

 

[cupid_stunt]

From the Mail.

Sweden's death rate is currently the highest in Europe, with 6.08 deaths per million in the last week compared to 5.57 in the UK and 4.28 in Belgium - but its economy has taken a smaller hit than Britain's.

(Not directed at you )

Oh, in the last week, rather than in total, that changes things, but is also not surprising TBH.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm as informed as anyone on this, in other words, I haven't a fucking clue.

Maybe someone with more knowledge on this stuff can correct me but I thought one of the problems with the tests was they weren't very specific (you could get a cold causing coronavirus and it could say you had a covid antibody) and that it only detected antibodies above a certain level.

Also a lot of the swab tests only detect if someone is at a certain point in the infection. My friend had covid and when she arrived at the assessment centre she was told she wouldn't be given a test but if she had arrived the day before (two days after she started coughing) she would have been because the test would be properly able to detect the virus then.

I dont think either of those problems has anything to do with not being able to find a vaccine unless there's something I've missed.

 

[8ball]

I dont think either of those problems has anything to do with not being able to find a vaccine unless there's something I've missed.

The two above cases don't, but if antibody tests show low results in part because they are testing people whose immunity has already worn off, then that will be a problem.

 

[frogwoman]

I thought the scientific consensus was that there appeared to be some immunity of at least a few months though, and if you had it once you probably wouldn't have it again for a while? Or is that wrong?

 

[robsean]

Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows

Official findings add to concerns about Sweden’s laissez-faire strategy towards the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

 

[elbows]

Of course infection testing would be invaluable (and on a huge scale) because it would start to actually nail down what the real death rate is. I think this article is good on some of the issues that come up on this (not least the politics); How (Not) to Do an Antibody Survey for SARS-CoV-2 - it makes it clear that actually doing that test is a pretty big job at the moment (eg using blood samples that can be retested rather than one -offs etc)

It would also give us some idea as to whether the Swedish approach is better or worse than - say - the UK or Norway. One of the points I find strange about this debate at the moment is that I'm being called "absurd and dangerous"/"anti-scientific" etc when no one else has a clue about so much of what is actually happening.

There are large gaps in knowledge that I have acknowledged but that is not the same as 'no one else has a clue'. There are many clues, not that they seem to have had an impact on you.

Why are you only interested in testing because it could nail down the real death rate? Call me weird if you'd like, but I'd rather testing be used in combination with contact tracing and isolation in order that the actual number of future infections and deaths be reduced. I am fascinated by the results of other forms of testing too, such as those that indicate what percentage of the population have already been infected, and the results of those things can affect which future policies make the most sense. But my core focus would be on the very opposite of what you have expressed on this thread. I do not believe in the defeatist assumption that everyone will be exposed in the end. That defeatism was shat on by many people in mid March and even the fucking tories had to switch to something very different as a result.

 

[elbows]

And I say that as someone who has been very cautious about the successes some countries had so far. Depending on various unknowns, they could be at greater risk of future problems than places that had raging epidemics that took a while to be brought under control. This stuff is reason to be cautious, and not to declare victory too early. But its a point that can be entertained without resorting to defeatism about the virus or trying to turn the disgusting failures of various countries into some kind of success story.

 

[8ball]

I thought the scientific consensus was that there appeared to be some immunity of at least a few months though, and if you had it once you probably wouldn't have it again for a while? Or is that wrong?

It's a guess based on other coronaviruses as far as I am aware.

edit: new data in the last couple of days seems a little more hopeful on that front

 

[elbows]

I don't say that to make light of the death figures, but surely this distribution has to be factored in to policy-making from now on. School-age children, for instance, are virtually 100 per cent safe from dying of c-19, and most of their teachers are very safe as well.

Both my parents were teachers, I am glad they were retired well before this pandemic. Virtually 100% safe and 'most of' would ring hollow to their ears, and I would side with them, your reassurances are cheap and meaningless, just the sort of shit that got us into this depth of horror in the first place. Lip service that saves nobody and erodes trust. People know better than to listen to this 'reasonable' crap these days, long may that continue. Management speak from shit sellout liberals who have sold people down the river over decades.

The sort of numbers you mention will not be enough to change risk perceptions on their own. Policy making will, on numerous fronts, have to grapple with that and come up with decent ways to begin to restore confidence. Our government is not starting from a good position on this, it might be quite a struggle. Thats probably influenced their timing too, they know that even when they tell schools to reopen on a certain date, only a fraction of schools will, and only a fraction of kids that could return will. So they can announce and start these things earlier than they would have if they expected 100% of applicable schools and kids to go back on day one.

Get a proper testing system with timely results, and a decent contact tracing system, then maybe we can start to relax things and ask people to put themselves at risk. Because no matter how small the risk, it would be better to make it much smaller still.

 

[2hats]

Err, nope, they are on 384 per million, we are on 531, Belgium 793 & Spain 596

We are on at least 808 per million (lower bound from ONS+NRS+NISRA+subsequent hospital data up to Tuesday). Quite what other countries have achieved isn't as clear as the counting methodologies and processing delays vary.

 

[elbows]

I've now had a quick chat with my mum about what you said littlebabyjesus. She used to be a reception teacher.

It seems that what undermines her confidence as much as anything is that the government themselves still go on about the need for social distancing in schools. And some of it just sounds absurd and not practical, especially with kids in certain age groups. And not backed by the resources, and little faith in management at the local level having the right, empowering information about infections locally, or making the right choices and having the right priorities or powers to do the right thing.

So since the government themselves say that social distancing is necessary in that context, thats where much of the concern is focussed, and no point about how relatively few children die from this virus changes that at all. The point about 'most' teachers being safe is hardly reassuring either, and makes me bubble with contempt for your worldview.

Death to the top down approach, death to all the layers of management below the top that pay mere lip service to local autonomy, that are only there as buffers and pressure relief valves to protect the top from the realities of their own failings, their shitty inhumane priorities. These things have failed us for a very long time, but the pandemic exposed it in dramatic and intense fashion. I hope faith is never restored in such things.

 

[maomao]

I've now had a quick chat with my mum about what you said littlebabyjesus. She used to be a reception teacher.

Sending reception back first seems to be based on the received idea that the smaller the kids the less at danger they are. However I don't see any statistically significant difference between four year olds and twelve year olds and twelve year olds probably could be beaten into a reasonable approximation of social distancing whereas not only will it not work with four year olds I don't see how you could even try it without distressing the kids considerably. It's just nuts.

 

[deeyo]

I linked to coronastatistics in english provided by the swedish television yesterday, and i think its well worth a look for the purpose of this thread

The spread of the new coronavirus

Follow the spread of the coronavirus around the world with this graph-based article.

www.svt.se

Easy accessible, up-to-date numbers for sweden in particular and the rest of the world in general. (Ten people dead in iceland, 51 in thailand, 21 in tanzania...)
Nice graphs.
But what to do with all these figures? Is the swedish way a disaster, salvation or someting in between?
Why are we comparing countries? Looking at the numbers for different parts of sweden, the 'laissez-faire' seems to have been very successful in some parts, the southern counties, norrbotten, the isle of gotland. At the moment, you could talk about the 'failure to protect stockholm ' 25 % of the population, half the deaths... as of today, 59 people aged 0-49 has died from corona, 21 under 40, while 2/3 of the 3871 covid deaths has been 80+. 'The swedish way have been reasonably successful, 'ccept for a tragic failure to protect the elderly in stockholm...?'
Theres lies, damned lies and statistics. This is far from over. Islands seems the place to be. I hear Zanzibar is nice this time of year. And that malaria pills might protect you from corona....

Mungu ibariki afrika.

 

[co-op]

There are large gaps in knowledge that I have acknowledged but that is not the same as 'no one else has a clue'. There are many clues, not that they seem to have had an impact on you.

I really don't get why you are getting so aggy and personal. It doesn't make your beliefs any more credible, to me it tends to make them less credible since it just looks like you are responding emotionally and not interested in any pov except ones which confirm yours. All I can hear is anger and anxiety.

Why are you only interested in testing because it could nail down the real death rate?

I'm not only interested in this kind of testing but it would be bloody interesting to actually know how many people have actually been exposed. If the figure being kicked around upthread - of around about 10%, even in Sweden - is right then that means the death rate is small - less than 0.5% and massively concentrated amongst the elderly and ill. And if Sweden's exposure rate is about the same as locked down countries (also suggested upthread) then it implies pretty strongly that lockdown doesn't make that much difference. These are the kinds of "clues" that seem to me pretty important in working out what the best policy is going into the next year or two of this pandemic. Many peoples lives are being pretty badly fucked up by lockdown - they are entitled to ask why aren't they? Without being denounced as 'dangerous and absurd' or the other silly insults you have thrown. Who appointed you the Great Reality Instructor?

 

[elbows]

Well these days I'm mostly used to engaging with people who have been following along and contributing here in this pandemic forum for months. It doesnt look like you have been doing that, but I didnt know that at the time, and so I was caught off guard by some of these themes coming up again as if we've suddenly been transported back to the first half of March. Things havent been the same since the weekend where 'Boris the butcher' was trending, and I'm really not ready to see any of that shit re-normalised now.

I dont need to have been appointed to a special role in order to share my low regard for some of the stuff you have said. I dont expect to bother much in future though, it looks like a big waste of everyones time and if nothing that happened in March or April clued you up then I doubt this subsequent period is going to do the job either. Priorities have been changed by this pandemic and the old orthodox attitudes are largely out of whack with current feelings. The extent to which people will gradually return to the old sensibilities is currently unclear. I'm never going back myself, but then I dont think I was ever there in the first place.

 

[Aladdin]

Right, but what if this goes on for another 2 years? Or more? The point is that Sweden may not have this wrong. If there are secondary/tertiary waves they could be better placed in the future because of the way they've dealt with it now because they've developed better immunity/resistance.

Sweden is letting the most vulnerable die for the sake of what? An economy that will go belly up anyway?
They've murdered their own citizens.