Sweden and coronavirus

[Spymaster]

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.

Don't be daft. Leaving aside your misuse of the word murdered there's no indication that their economy will necessarily tank. They've fucked up as far as elderly care is concerned but so have a lot of countries including the UK. They've gone slightly above the UK over the last week in deaths per million but only just, and they may be on the way to developing an immunity that we won't have come the next waves, especially if a greater proportion of their population have been infected, as you'd expect to be the case. To point at last week's death rate and suggest it shows an overall failing of the Swedish model is completely premature. They had a (very slightly) higher death rate in the last week than the UK (with 50% of those deaths occuring in care homes and the large majority amongst people already very seriously ill) but the consequences of lockdown to the UK economically and socially are going to be catastrophic. Sweden will likely avoid that. It may turn out that the Swedish approach was wrong but you can't say that yet.

By the way, they are not "letting people die". The Swedish approach has not been 'life as usual'. Swedes have been told to stay at home if they feel ill, keep to social distancing, avoid non-essential travel, and to work from home if possible. The difference is they haven't enforced a near total shutdown and pulverized their entire economy.

 

[co-op]

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

The trouble with this kind of snooty disregard of my idiocy is it means that you look like you haven't actually got anything interesting to say about anything I've posted. You've made your mind up and that's all that matters. Now you can get on with chanting "Boris the Butcher". Enjoy.

 

[Athos]

Don't be daft. Leaving aside your misuse of the word murdered there's no indication that their economy will necessarily tank. They've fucked up as far as elderly care is concerned but so have a lot of countries including the UK. They've gone slightly above the UK over the last week in deaths per million but only just and they may be on the way to developing an immunity that we won't have come the next waves especially if a greater proportion of their population have been infected, as you'd expect to be the case. To point at last week's death rate and suggest it shows an overall failing of the Swedish model is premature. They had a (very slightly) higher death rate in the last week than the UK (with 50% of those deaths occuring in care homes and the large majority amongst people already very seriously ill) but the consequences of lockdown to the UK economically and socially are going to be catastrophic. Sweden will likely avoid that. It may turn out that the Swedish approach was wrong but you can't say that yet.

By the way, they are not "letting people die". The Swedish approach has not been 'life as usual'. Swedes have been told to stay at home if they feel ill, keep to social distancing, avoid non-essential travel, and to work from home if possible. The difference is they haven't enforced a near total shutdown and pulverized their entire economy.

This presumes that damage to the economy, and an associated social cost, are inevitable consequences of lockdown. They're not; it's a political choice. Should it so wish, the government could borrow (or even just print) enough money to replace all lost income, as long as that happened in tandem with the rebuilding of productive capacity, and if taxes were used correctly, there's no reason that'd necessarily be inflationary in the short term. But they won't because of an ideological commitment to free markets, and to maintain the fiction that spending can only come from tax revenue.

 

[Aladdin]

[/QUOTE]

Don't be daft. Leaving aside your misuse of the word murdered there's no indication that their economy will necessarily tank. They've fucked up as far as elderly care is concerned but so have a lot of countries including the UK. They've gone slightly above the UK over the last week in deaths per million but only just and they may be on the way to developing an immunity that we won't have come the next waves especially if a greater proportion of their population have been infected, as you'd expect to be the case. To point at last week's death rate and suggest it shows an overall failing of the Swedish model is premature. They had a (very slightly) higher death rate in the last week than the UK (with 50% of those deaths occuring in care homes and the large majority amongst people already very seriously ill) but the consequences of lockdown to the UK economically and socially are going to be catastrophic. Sweden will likely avoid that. It may turn out that the Swedish approach was wrong but you can't say that yet.

By the way, they are not "letting people die". The Swedish approach has not been 'life as usual'. Swedes have been told to stay at home if they feel ill, keep to social distancing, avoid non-essential travel, and to work from home if possible. The difference is they haven't enforced a near total shutdown and pulverized their entire economy.

The UK messed up too. They dithered and tried the herd immunity caper.
So comparing with the UK doesn't mean that Sweden didnt make a mistake.

They have left not only the elderly exposed to this virus but they allowed a situation where people with underlying conditions were exposed. They can be any age. And to say to a population to stay at home if you feel ill is useless when the disease is live up to 14 days before a patient actually starts to feel sick.

Immunity is not something that societies will develop. It is known that immunity to this virus is not as straight forward as say developing immunity to measles. The medical experts know that immunity to this virus may be about as effective as immunity to a head cold. In other words it can mutate.. so immunity to one version wont necessarily save you from the next version.
This virus had mutated 30 times between countries a month ago.
Scientists have been able to trace strains and even in Ireland there have been up to 150 mutations. See article below.

As for Sweden's economy? When the rest of the world goes into a deep recession how do you think Sweden will avoid that? They are not self sufficient.

And what do you call it when a government very deliberately treats their population like guinea pigs? The Swedes are not happy with the way their elderly are dying. And they have one of the best health care sytems in europe. They are not coping.

According to their own figures earlier nearly 10% of those detected with the virus have died. Many elderly in care homes. Many with underlying conditions such as high blood pressure or heart disease. And others.

Only 7% of their population has shown some immunity in tests according to their test results. So that idea of herd immunity is not working.
As of 13 hours ago ...of roughly 30000 cases...3000 deaths ...10% death rate is not acceptble for the sake of people sitting out having a few beers or going to the cinema.

The Coronavirus App

Track the spread of the Coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic, browse an interactive map, view fatality rate and recoveries, check affected regions in real-time and more.

coronavirus.app

Genetics shed light on origins of Irish strains of Covid-19

Strains identified in Dublin, Cork and Limerick linked to Birmingham, Boston and Copenhagen

www.google.com

Even the business world is appalled at how Sweden has fucked up. And why they have not done u turn is beyond most thinking feeling people.
They are not winning this battle at all and will have to start flattening the curve very soon. Which means lockdown.

Skeptical experts in Sweden say its decision to have no lockdown is a terrible mistake that no other nation should copy

Many Swedish people are happy with their country's unconventional strategy — but the nation has a vocal community of dissenters.

www.google.com

Finally...the UK did a u-turn only after members of parliament and Boris got the virus.

As for me being daft? I am not. And you know I'm not.

Anyone who knows anyone who has been hospitlised with this virus would not wish it on their worst enemy.
Anyone who sees medical staff stretched to breaking point knows this is an awful situation
Anyone who knows nurses and doctors who have committed suicide because of the stress and pressure of trying to cope with this disease knows how bad things are. It does not just affect the elderly or those with underlying conditions.
Do you think those people have less right to be safe in society just because they are elderly or have heart disease or cystic fibrosis or other health problems?

Sweden has let people die. The UK did too. Their govenments job is to protect its population. They have not done that. Their fear of full lockdown was because they didnt think people would comply. Its obvious that the UK gov felt the same. Yet now they see that people can comply for the most part and populations have adapted.
Have a look again. This is not the picture of success

 

[Spymaster]

This presumes that damage to the economy, and an associated social cost, are inevitable consequences of lockdown. They're not; it's a political choice. Should it so wish, the government could borrow (or even just print) enough money to replace all lost income, as long as that happened in tandem with the rebuilding of productive capacity, and if taxes were used correctly, there's no reason that'd necessarily be inflationary in the short term.

Well that's true but obviously far easier said than done and you're suggesting the need to REbuild to a capacity that didn't exist before. You can go through as many theoretical exercises as you like but the reality is that borrowing or printing money will lead to high inflation and the economic and social issues that result. But this all still misses the thrust of the thread which is whether Sweden's approach will ultimately prove better than everyone else's and by largely avoiding the economic issues they're giving themselves a significant headstart. What's left to be seen is whether or not their immunity program proves successful. If so, it'll be game set and match to Sweden. If not then the task of assessing whether or not the damage caused by C19 outweighed that saved socially and economically by not having a hard lockdown.

 

[Athos]

Well that's true but obviously far easier said than done and you're suggesting the need to REbuild to a capacity that didn't exist before.

No I'm not.

You can go through as many theoretical exercises as you like but the reality is that borrowing or printing money will lead to high inflation and the economic and social issues that result.

I disagree.

But this all still misses the thrust of the thread which is whether Sweden's approach will ultimately prove better than everyone else's and by largely avoiding the economic issues they're giving themselves a significant headstart.

I don't accept that success should be measured in terms of your false dichotomy. I'm saying it's possible to protect people AND avoid the economic issues.

What's left to be seen is whether or not their immunity program proves successful. If so, it'll be game set and match to Sweden. If not then the task of assessing whether or not the damage caused by C19 outweighed that saved socially and economically by not having a hard lockdown.

Even if this was true (which I don't accept), and even if there was a robust evidence base for immunity (which there isn't) it would still have been preferable to protect vulnerable people much better whilst allowing the spread amongst the less vulnerable population.

 

[Aladdin]

Well that's true but obviously far easier said than done and you're suggesting the need to REbuild to a capacity that didn't exist before. You can go through as many theoretical exercises as you like but the reality is that borrowing or printing money will lead to high inflation and the economic and social issues that result. But this all still misses the thrust of the thread which is whether Sweden's approach will ultimately prove better than everyone else's and by largely avoiding the economic issues they're giving themselves a significant headstart. What's left to be seen is whether or not their immunity program proves successful. If so, it'll be game set and match to Sweden. If not then the task of assessing whether or not the damage caused by C19 outweighed that saved socially and economically by not having a hard lockdown.

1.They cant develop immunity to a virus that is mutating.
2. The only way to get rid of this virus is to stop it transmitting.
Which is not what Sweden has done.

 

[Athos]

1.They cant develop immunity to a virus that is mutating.
2. The only way to get rid of this virus is to stop it transmitting.
Which is not what Sweden has done.

The science is unclear about whether or not people acquire immunity to it. If they do, then more people getting it eventually means there's nobody for it to be transmitted to.

Based on the current science, I think it's a terrible strategy for a government to pursue, but it does have some logic, and we won't know whether or not it's succeeded until after the final death tolls can be compared.

 

[maomao]

immunity program

It's not an 'immunity program' when the science isn't even clear whether one can be immune or not. It's just laissez-faire governance covered with a transparently thin layer of scientific excuse.

 

[Aladdin]

The science is unclear about whether or not people acquire immunity to it. If they do, then more people getting it eventually means there's nobody for it to be transmitted to.

Based on the current science, I think it's a terrible strategy for a government to pursue, but it does have some logic, and we won't know whether or not it's succeeded until after the final death tolls can be compared.

Sorry but logic goes out the window when grannies and grandads are dropping like flies in care homes.

No..there is only one proven way to stop transmission.

 

[Athos]

Sorry but logic goes out the window when grannies and grandads are dropping like flies in care homes.

No..there is only one proven way to stop transmission.
View attachment 213935

Transmission per se isn't necessarily the problem, though. It's deaths. A twist on the a Swedish model that allows the spread amongst the young and healthy, whilst more effectively protecting the elderly does have a certain logic to it, and might lead to fewer overall deaths (notwithstanding which I wouldn't propose it, not least of all because there's be some very difficult logistical challenges and the science doesn't really support it, yet).

 

[Spymaster]

No I'm not.



I disagree.



I don't accept that success should be measured in terms of your false dichotomy. I'm saying it's possible to protect people AND avoid the economic issues.



Even if this was true (which I don't accept), and even if there was a robust evidence base for immunity (which there isn't) it would still have been preferable to protect vulnerable people much better whilst allowing the spread amongst the less vulnerable population.

Ok, well we'll just disagree on the economic situation. There's no way that this isn't going to be hugely significant and more so the longer it continues. The bailouts won't continue much longer and the economy is crashing. Pie-in-the-sky theories of protecting the economy as well as everyone's livelihoods over a prolonged period of total lockdown, that would require a complete change of politics to an unprecendented degree, is just fluff for internet forums.

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the immunity 'project'.

 

[Sasaferrato]

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.

So have we. The untested patients moved into care homes is a disgrace.

 

[Spymaster]

It's not an 'immunity program' when the science isn't even clear whether one can be immune or not. It's just laissez-faire governance covered with a transparently thin layer of scientific excuse.

It's very much a strategy. The Swedish government hasn't just decided this is what they'll do without consulting "experts". They do have them too. This is not an undeveloped nation. Their chief bloke reckons that they're taking the brunt of their hits early and that countries that went for hard lockdown and supressed the first wave are going to be at greater risk in the second and subsequent ones. In other words they think that the balance will come back in their favour. Now you may not agree with that; I'm not sure that I do, but it is a view of scientists.

 

[co-op]

It's not an 'immunity program' when the science isn't even clear whether one can be immune or not. It's just laissez-faire governance covered with a transparently thin layer of scientific excuse.

I think this is where I’m puzzled by the vehemence of the anger against the Swedish policy. Do you really think the Swedish govt is somehow more dominated by laissez faire economists than the UK? If anything the evidence is the other way round. Is Sweden a poor country with ramshackle plutocratic govt and chaotic public services? No, it’s the other way round. It’s a wealthy well run country with a high degree of social solidarity and a high level of consensus that is broadly social democratic. Sure maybe they have got this wrong, at the moment it’s literally unknowable. But on here the only acceptable opinion among the bien pensent is that they are little better than ultra-hawkish neoliberal pigs who are revelling ing in slaughtering the weak and elderly.

I find it irrational and bizarre, it looks more like an expression of generalised anxiety than a meaningful attempt to grapple with what’s going on.

 

[maomao]

I think this is where I’m puzzled by the vehemence of the anger against the Swedish policy. Do you really think the Swedish govt is somehow more dominated by laissez faire economists than the UK? If anything the evidence is the other way round. Is Sweden a poor country with ramshackle plutocratic govt and chaotic public services? No, it’s the other way round. It’s a wealthy well run country with a high degree of social solidarity and a high level of consensus that is broadly social democratic. Sure maybe they have got this wrong, at the moment it’s literally unknowable. But on here the only acceptable opinion among the bien pensent is that they are little better than ultra-hawkish neoliberal pigs who are rebelling in slaughtering the weak and elderly.

I find it irrational and bizarre, it looks more like an expression of generalised anxiety than a meaningful attempt to grapple with what’s going on.

Seeing as you've already decided what everyone else is saying maybe you'd be happier just talking to yourself somewhere. You don't tend to post on threads here without a ready made argument anyway. Go back to Twitter.

 

[frogwoman]

Not sure where you are getting this tbh. I'm not angry with Sweden's strategy, more like concerned that countries with a more laissez faire approach will end up exporting it to developing countries completely unable to cope, even if their health services are just about managing.

The thing is it's not a question of 'who is right' as what happens in one country will have a huge impact on what happened in another.

A lot of bars and restaurants have permanently closed in Sweden btw and many people are not going out, especially in vulnerable groups. Their economy isn't doing amazingly.

 

[maomao]

It's very much a strategy. The Swedish government hasn't just decided this is what they'll do without consulting "experts". They do have them too. This is not an undeveloped nation. Their chief bloke reckons that they're taking the brunt of their hits early and that countries that went for hard lockdown and supressed the first wave are going to be at greater risk in the second and subsequent ones. In other words they think that the balance will come back in their favour. Now you may not agree with that; I'm not sure that I do, but it is a view of scientists.

I'm aware of all this. Their head scientist reckons immunity is a thing and has bet the farm on it. Being a scientist for a living doesn't mean that every argument you make is automatically scientific.

 

[frogwoman]

Even Swedish public health authorities are concerned about a second wave in Sweden btw and telling people to avoid travelling unless essential and big gatherings, even though they cant impose fines. I don't think their aim has really been 'for absolutely everyone to get it' although they've taken the view that it's impossible to stop

 

[maomao]

Not sure where you are getting this tbh. I'm not angry with Sweden's strategy, more like concerned that countries with a more laissez faire approach will end up exporting it to developing countries completely unable to cope, even if their health services are just about managing.

You might want to have a look at coops posts on the TERF thread for clarity on where they're coming from. And again they've turned up for an argument with a ready made argument and decided what everyone else is saying for them. I'm not especially angry at Swedish scientists. I hope they get away with it but reckon that if they do it will be down to their low population, low population density and the social distancing they do have in place.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm aware of all this. Their head scientist reckons immunity is a thing and has bet the farm on it. Being a scientist for a living doesn't mean that every argument you make is automatically scientific.

Perhaps, but he's not the only scientist who things it's a reasonable strategy. The community is split and the "safe" decision has been for governments to go with the majority and impose these super-lockdowns because it's difficult to criticise the decision to do so. Time will tell if Sweden has fucked this, and if so to what extent, but it's no slam-dunk against them at the moment

 

[frogwoman]

A guy I know in Sweden was shocked that Neil Gaiman had gone from NZ to Skye and his mate popped up saying 'omg that would definitely not be not essential travel' and gave an example of travelling to a Swedish island with a poor health service from Stockholm.

It's not like life is 'back to normal' there. Festivals and gatherings of 50+ are banned and one of the reasons is the view that this is more 'sustainable' until a vaccine arrives.

 

[xenon]

1.They cant develop immunity to a virus that is mutating.
2. The only way to get rid of this virus is to stop it transmitting.
Which is not what Sweden has done.

Mutating doesn't necessarily alter it's virolence or deadlyness. Virus mutate all the time. Many mutations are insignificant in terms of infectiveness and deadlyness. This has been talked about a lot. There was a Scottish study that concluded whilst there are signs sars-cov-2 has mutated is mutating, it is still in effect the same virus for the purposes of vaccine research.

Home

2209434

www.eveningexpress.co.uk

Of course it may well mutate significantly. But it could mutate into a more benign form as other viruses have.

 

[Aladdin]

It's very much a strategy. The Swedish government hasn't just decided this is what they'll do without consulting "experts". They do have them too. This is not an undeveloped nation. Their chief bloke reckons that they're taking the brunt of their hits early and that countries that went for hard lockdown and supressed the first wave are going to be at greater risk in the second and subsequent ones. In other words they think that the balance will come back in their favour. Now you may not agree with that; I'm not sure that I do, but it is a view of scientists.

Not really though. Even Sweden's Scientists are not in agreement about this strategy. And lets face it their strategy is about economics. Not health.
It's blatantly obvious. Look at Norway and Finland. Very low transmission and low death toll because they locked down.

 

[frogwoman]

Yep.

 

[Aladdin]

Mutating doesn't necessarily alter it's virolence or deadlyness. Virus mutate all the time. Many mutations are insignificant in terms of infectiveness and deadlyness. This has been talked about a lot. There was a Scottish study that concluded whilst there are signs sars-cuv2 has mutated is mutating, it is still in effect the same virus for the purposes of vaccine research.

Home

2209434

www.eveningexpress.co.uk

Of course it may well mutate significantly. But it could mutate into a more benign form as other viruses have.

Suh.
Yes. I so know this.
I also know that mutation interferes with the development of vaccines. And mutation means people can repeatedly contract the disease. Worst case scenario...it mutates to a more deadly form.
Probabilities and guessing are not ways to deal with this. The only effective measure as of now is isolate quarantine test retest repeat.
And fewer people meeting means lower rates of transmission.

 

[Spymaster]

Not really though. Even Sweden's Scientists are not in agreement about this strategy. And lets face it their strategy is about economics. Not health.
It's blatantly obvious. Look at Norway and Finland. Very low transmission and low death toll because they locked down.

So the counter-argument is that not all scientists are in agreement with either strategy and that economics is also a hugely important issue. Norway and Finland have a lower death rate now but who knows what will happen as things progress? The mass loss of livelihoods must also be considered and long-term may be just as destructive, or more so, than the virus.

 

[Aladdin]

I'm aware of all this. Their head scientist reckons immunity is a thing and has bet the farm on it. Being a scientist for a living doesn't mean that every argument you make is automatically scientific.

Their head scientist is pretty much out of step when you look at the evidence.

 

[Aladdin]

So the counter-argument is that not all scientists are in agreement with either strategy and that economics is also a hugely important issue. Norway and Finland have a lower death rate now but who knows what will happen as things progress? The mass loss of livelihoods must also be considered and long-term may be just as destructive, or more so, than the virus.

So select groups decide that other groups lives are worth sacrificing for economic reasons?
There is a way to deal with both. Sweden is at one extreme of the curve and their strategy is not working. Look at the death rates. Nigh on 10% of cases dying.
The UK and US are worse.
The Chinese death rates are low in comparison.

It's very clear that lockdowns work. And that lockdowns will work.

 

[Spymaster]

So select groups decide that other groups lives are worth sacrificing for economic reasons?
There is a way to deal with both. Sweden is at one extreme of the curve and their strategy is not working. Look at the death rates. Nigh on 10% of cases dying.
The UK and US are worse.
The Chinese death rates are low in comparison.

It's very clear that lockdowns work. And that lockdowns will work.

Lockdowns work in preventing transmission. Given that a vaccine could be years away and may not be particularly effective when it arrives, do we just stay in lockdown indefinitely for months, years?