Sweden and coronavirus

[co-op]

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.

Shoulda guessed! You don’t like my opinions on an unrelated topic therefore etc etc.

It explains why you don’t feel the need to make any kind of logical response though so thanks for clarifying.

 

[Aladdin]

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?

We may well need to enter into repeated lockdowns over the next months as coming out of lockdown will inevitably lead to spikes in transmission, progressing to increased illness and an increase in death rates.

 

[editor]

The discussion is too important to get dragged down by cross-thread beef, so can we not do that anymore, please?

 

[co-op]

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.

Without much more detailed information on how many people have actually had covid we cannot know death rates so this is nonsense.

And in any event this discussion (ie Sweden vs the U75 liberal left) is not about death rates but overall numbers of dead; ie will greater degree of social contact among low risk groups ultimately get to the same (or similar) death numbers but with much lower levels of social disruption?

 

[Athos]

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'.

Yes, I agree that there won't be a change of politics, and that, as such, this will have significant economic and social consequences. My point was that's not an inevitable consequence of C19 (or even governments' mishandling of the response); it's a political choice.

 

[Sasaferrato]

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.

Or correct.

 

[maomao]

Shoulda guessed! You don’t like my opinions on an unrelated topic therefore etc etc

It's your MO in general I don't like not your opinions. You've come here with a ready made argument and accused us all of saying things we haven't. You've already done this on this thread today. It's not 'cross thread beef' to point out you've done it before. It feels like there wasn't enough drama on Twitter and you came here for a more in depth ruck. It would be nice if another difficult thread didn't get dragged down into the gutter.

I'll just put you on ignore anyway. If you're going to report me for whatever the fuck you reported me for there's no fucking point.

 

[co-op]

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.

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.

The question of international cross-contamination is a really live part of this debate - countries that have snuffed covid out now have to in effect maintain a full quarantine border with countries that haven’t. It isn’t just Sweden that is going to have ongoing covid rates but loads of countries that already are in lockdown and many other countries that simply don’t have the resources to do anything like a meaningful lockdown. Or the US where absence of healthcare and a huge reserve of homeless, undocumented, etc etc will be a chronic source or reinfection. How do the ‘clean’ countries stay clean?

 

[co-op]

It's your MO in general I don't like not your opinions. You've come here with a ready made argument and accused us all of saying things we haven't. You've already done this on this thread today. It's not 'cross thread beef' to point out you've done it before. It feels like there wasn't enough drama on Twitter and you came here for a more in depth ruck. It would be nice if another difficult thread didn't get dragged down into the gutter.

I'll just put you on ignore anyway. If you're going to report me for whatever the fuck you reported me for there's no fucking point.

Seriously grow up and stop being such a baby, I didn’t “report” you and I don’t have a twitter account. I came on here because I often find U75 a really good source of info and a much wider range of opinions and debate, partly why I’ve been surprised by the kind of petty emotional flailing around you’ve engaged in.

 

[Spymaster]

We may well need to enter into repeated lockdowns over the next months as coming out of lockdown will inevitably lead to spikes in transmission, progressing to increased illness and an increase in death rates.

Not just the next months, potentially the next years. Or permanently until some kind of immunity is developed, in which case, wouldn't the Swedish approach seem prescient?

 

[8ball]

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?

I think all that can really be said at this point is that the lockdown slows down transmission.

 

[xenon]

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.

Oh I'm not arguing against the lock down. Though it obviously can't continue indephenately. Yeah, test track isolate has to be a significant component when we go back to some sort of normal. I just find the speculation about mutations not very helpful. MERS is a far deadlier virus, the common cold viruses less so. Let's just do all the other stuff and let the researchers get on with it.

True there may never be a vaccine. But more effective treatment may come out of a greater understanding of it in the long run anyway.

 

[8ball]

Oh I'm not arguing against the lock down. Though it obviously can't continue indephenately.

Creative spelling FTW

 

[co-op]

I think all that can really be said at this point is that the lockdown slows down transmission.

This is one reason I’m puzzled by the fury at Sweden; in effect a UK style lockdown is also saying we’ll let the infection run through the population but sufficiently slowly that the NHS can cope with cases at any one time. It’s always been linked to ‘flattening the curve’ not getting down to zero. Everyone has always assumed (in Europe at least) that there will be second and third waves. The difference between lockdown and Sweden is not so great.

 

[frogwoman]

, post: 16558348, member: 432"]
Not just the next months, potentially the next years. Or permanently until some kind of immunity is developed, in which case, wouldn't the Swedish approach seem prescient?

Based on that logic the Brazilian, Georgian/Floridian or Tanzanian approach would also 'seem prescient'

 

[Spymaster]

I think all that can really be said at this point is that the lockdown slows down transmission.

Right. And as the point was made yesterday, banning driving would eliminate road deaths; banning cigarettes will cane lung cancer etc, etc ...

At some point the 'cure' becomes less justifiable/more problematic than the problem.

 

[8ball]

This is one reason I’m puzzled by the fury at Sweden; in effect a UK style lockdown is also saying we’ll let the infection run through the population but sufficiently slowly that the NHS can cope with cases at any one time. It’s always been linked to ‘flattening the curve’ not getting down to zero. Everyone has always assumed (in Europe at least) that there will be second and third waves. The difference between lockdown and Sweden is not so great.

That's exactly the case, I think. The Government has been split over going for a containment strategy or a 'slow it down to preserve hospital capacity', and have ended up with something completely incoherent. Also, a degree of overcaution about capacity caused the care home mess (due to patients being sent home who then infected the care homes).

At this point, I think the right thing to do would be to ramp up contact tracing and once that is manageable, keep the borders well-monitored, protect care homes and other vulnerable groups quite seriously, and ditch the lockdown.

 

[maomao]

True there may never be a vaccine. But more effective treatment may come out of a greater understanding of it in the long run anyway.

The vaccine will be a turd sandwich. There's 220 candidates and no guarantee of one that works perfectly. 6-12 months from now governments will be pushing imperfect, undertested vaccines, possibly competing ones, on their populations.

 

[frogwoman]

I think the other point about Sweden is they're also not doing much testing which other countries which didn't do a lockdown did. In fact they are only testing hospital patients and many of those aren't being tested at all.

That's another big part of the problem. Not the fact they didn't do a lockdown which South Korea and Taiwan also never did.

 

[8ball]

Right. And as the point was made yesterday, banning driving would eliminate road deaths; banning cigarettes will cane lung cancer etc, etc ...

At some point the 'cure' becomes less justifiable/more problematic than the problem.

I agree. Our initial reaction was based on "plausible worst case scenario", and ridiculous dithering that let the virus get past the point of control in the first place.
Now that the worst case scenario hasn't happened (and we can't change the past dithering), we need to take a hard look at whether the "cure" is worse than the disease.

 

[maomao]

Right. And as the point was made yesterday, banning driving would eliminate road deaths; banning cigarettes will cane lung cancer etc, etc ...

At some point the 'cure' becomes less justifiable/more problematic than the problem.

I'd happily ban driving and cigarettes on health grounds. They both seem to be cases of us accepting massive amounts of death and misery to protect an illusory freeedom.

 

[8ball]

The vaccine will be a turd sandwich. There's 220 candidates and no guarantee of one that works perfectly. 6-12 months from now governments will be pushing imperfect, undertested vaccines, possibly competing ones, on their populations.

The USA will be first - they have arranged first dibs on most plausible vaccine candidates in return for support with research.
The EU is also involved in the horse trading. The developing world will end up relying on the "largesse of the rich".

Assuming there is an effective vaccine at all, of course.

 

[frogwoman]

Even if you dont introduce a lockdown you still need to track how many people have it, or as near to how many people as possible. Otherwise you will have no clue what's going on covid wise.

 

[8ball]

I'd happily ban driving and cigarettes on health grounds. They both seem to be cases of us accepting massive amounts of death and misery to protect an illusory freeedom.

"Illusory"? So people just think they are smoking and driving?
Though I'd agree that smoking while driving is not ideal...

 

[frogwoman]

And tbh the worst case scenario was and is going on in quite a few places honestly. There's places in london where 22 people on one street have died of it. The health services have held up pretty well here but there's plenty of places around the world where they didn't and arent.

 

[8ball]

And tbh the worst case scenario was and is going on in quite a few places honestly. There's places in london where 22 people on one street have died of it.

That's not what the worst case scenario was, and I'd guess you're quoting the case of a very highly populated street with a lot of socially disadvantaged people on it.

 

[frogwoman]

That's not what the worst case scenario was, and I'd guess you're quoting the case of a very highly populated street with a lot of socially disadvantaged people on it.

It was always known that most people didn't die though. And there's quite a lot of streets like that in the UK and around the world.

 

[co-op]

And tbh the worst case scenario was and is going on in quite a few places honestly. There's places in london where 22 people on one street have died of it. The health services have held up pretty well here but there's plenty of places around the world where they didn't and arent.

The worst case scenario was pretty doomy - early on overall death rates of 5% or more were being mooted - and with assumed infection rates of 60-80%. That would have been a huge number of deaths.

 

[8ball]

It was always known that most people didn't die though. And there's quite a lot of streets like that in the UK and around the world.

Yes, but this “worst case scenario” involved half a million deaths. Still a long way from “most people dying”, but justified the lockdown at the point it was done.

 

[elbows]

5% death rate was never part of the UK planning assumptions, it was more like 2.5% and they knew from early on that it was most likely to be somewhere around 1%.

As for the attack rate, estimates were in that 60-80% range but of course we had a lockdown to prevent us learning the hard way what the attack rate in the first wave would have actually been.