Sweden Dealing with Covid the Right Way

[Por_sha911]

I'm seeing a lot of conjecture and opinions but not many facts. "Well, Sweden is different.." is not worth the electrons it took to type it. The fact is everyone was expecting Sweden to have massive problems and they didn't.

As far as "we're not seeing any negative effects yet". Deficit spending doesn't show up right away. Well, actually, it does, it looks good for all the money being poured into the economy but (at the risk of sounding likes Tabs) someone is going to have to pay the bill and that someone is YOU, YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN... if you are a productive member of society. If you are living on govt cheese and welfare it will be same old same old.

Some of the quicker hits to the economy besides the Federal debt will be tax increases next year because people out of work don't pay income taxes, states aren't collecting much gas tax, any city that relies on tourism will be hurting, and charitable donations will take another dive because of fear and or less disposable income. The crap is going to hit the fan when these things change the tax burden on you and me.

[group911@aol.co]

Well, I guess they aren't really doing it differently.
Except they dump their smelly stuff in the parks " someone is going to have to pay the bill and that someone is YOU, YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN... if you are a productive member of society. If you are living on govt cheese and welfare it will be same old same old. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/swedish-city-lund-dump-tonne-chicken-manure-park-deter-visitors-coronavirus-lockdown

[island911]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

... The fact is everyone was expecting Sweden to have massive problems and they didn't. ...

!

The hair-splitters look for ways to say Sweden fared a bit worse than some neighboring counties; and this is true. BUT some other countries (who did have social distancing programs) did MUCH worse than Sweden. - like more than twice as bad, on a pop% basis.

Every country that shut people in, did not actually shut people in. They were (are) all, at minimum, allowed to go too virus focal points called grocery stores.

IF our lock-downs were as effective as projected, a death rate drop-off would have been pronounced 2 weeks after implementation. Any one see that?

The models were WRONG. I'm not saying that the math is wrong. I'm saying that the true factors were not in the model(s).

[island911]

https://summit.news/2020/04/29/who-flip-flops-now-endorses-swedens-no-lockdown-policy/

[smokintr6]

Originally Posted by island911

https://summit.news/2020/04/29/who-flip-flops-now-endorses-swedens-no-lockdown-policy/

The old guy in the video is really pretty fun to listen to.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

hahahahahahaha

[Sooner or later]

It has been the right action for Sweden. The goal is to protect hospital rescources and not have them become overwhelmed. To date, they have succeeded.

That method wouldn't have worked in the NE US or other hot spots that maxed out their hospital rescources. It would have worked in many other areas of the country.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

the measure of success

Sweden: 2679 dead

Finland: 220 dead

Norway: 211 dead

Denmark: 484 dead

6 to 12 times dead compared to neighboring countries isn't really success

honestly, 2 times as many dead is failure let alone 6 to 12

6 to 12 times

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

the measure of success

Sweden: 2679 dead

Finland: 220 dead

Norway: 211 dead

Denmark: 484 dead

6 to 12 times dead compared to neighboring countries isn't really success

honestly, 2 times as many dead is failure let alone 6 to 12

6 to 12 times

They chose a path that will probably work out fine. The goal is not so much to reduce short term deaths as it is to protect hospital resources. To date their hospitals have not been overloaded.

They have chosen to take the hit upfront and pull out sooner than others. Others will see continued deaths over a much longer period of time. In the end, if they are correct, the percentage of deaths will be similar but the economic hit for Sweden will be smaller.

The risks they took were overwhelmed hospitals (-which hasn't happened) and new treatments that significantly reduce deaths and hospitalizations (has yet to happen).

It is working splendidly for them. Doesn't mean it would work in every area.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

In other words, they failed.

you can ascribe any metric you want, the sky stayed blue, they succeeded.

Success is measured my death. Pretty simple.

[Eric 951]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

In other words, they failed.

you can ascribe any metric you want, the sky stayed blue, they succeeded.

Success is measured my death. Pretty simple.

So, lockdowns until a vaccine is developed?

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

In other words, they failed.

you can ascribe any metric you want, the sky stayed blue, they succeeded.

Success is measured my death. Pretty simple.

The race ain't over. 6 months from now the number of deaths may be the same.

Unless we keep everyone locked up for months and months on end the same number of people are going to die over the long term. (no vaccine or treatment breakthrough in the next month).

You are not looking at the future data that is inevitable.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Eric 951

So, lockdowns until a vaccine is developed?

We could find a very effective treatment that significantly lowers hospitalizations and deaths. They would then look bad. And that is the risk they are taking. Probably a small risk, but still a risk.

[wayner]

I think an interesting but morbid comparison is not how much worse Sweden did compared to their neighbors, but how much worse some other locked down countries would have done than Sweden if not locked down.

But, I guess its a bit like a brush fire. At some point there is no perimeter to hold

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

The race ain't over. 6 months from now the number of deaths may be the same.

Unless we keep everyone locked up for months and months on end the same number of people are going to die over the long term. (no vaccine or treatment breakthrough in the next month).

You are not looking at the future data that is inevitable.

You are betting on Norway, Finland and Denmark to have explosive death rates for the next X days/weeks/months in order to call Sweden successful. I'm sorry to tell you that won't happen.

try doing some fun math experiments to see how many have to die in neighboring countries over different timelines in order to call Sweden successful. Since you are looking at the future data, I am keenly interested in what you come up with.

Just look at all the countries that have opened back up without a vaccine. How many months were they in lockdown? What is happening now with them?

I think you need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Try to consider what other countries have successfully done to open back up, look at death rates, look at what other countries are doing in order to open back up and make an objective assessment using all of that data. You are a little all over the place with your thought process, not thinking things through.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Eric 951

So, lockdowns until a vaccine is developed?

What an absolutely stupid thing to say.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by wayner

I think an interesting but morbid comparison is not how much worse Sweden did compared to their neighbors, but how much worse some other locked down countries would have done than Sweden if not locked down.

But, I guess its a bit like a brush fire. At some point there is no perimeter to hold

The US would be in the hundreds of thousands of deaths by now without specific lockdowns.

I am all for flyover states not locking down by the way. They just can't leave the state. I'd be OK with that.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

You are betting on Norway, Finland and Denmark to have explosive death rates for the next X days/weeks/months in order to call Sweden successful. I'm sorry to tell you that won't happen.

try doing some fun math experiments to see how many have to die in neighboring countries over different timelines in order to call Sweden successful. Since you are looking at the future data, I am keenly interested in what you come up with.

Just look at all the countries that have opened back up without a vaccine. How many months were they in lockdown? What is happening now with them?

I think you need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Try to consider what other countries have successfully done to open back up, look at death rates, look at what other countries are doing in order to open back up and make an objective assessment using all of that data. You are a little all over the place with your thought process, not thinking things through.

My thought process is fine and consistent.

Their goal was to develope herd immunity in a shorter period of time without overwhelming the healthcare system. They are doing exactly that.

They believe 30% of their population has immunity. The US and the rest of the world is at about 5%. We will be fighting this for months and months longer than they will. The rest of the world will slowly catch up to their number of deaths because we can't protect everybody until there is a vaccine.

[Eric 951]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

What an absolutely stupid thing to say.

You said "success is measured by deaths", without a vaccine there will continue to be virus deaths, so what is your solution?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

My thought process is fine and consistent.

Their goal was to develope herd immunity in a shorter period of time without overwhelming the healthcare system. They are doing exactly that.

They believe 30% of their population has immunity. The US and the rest of the world is at about 5%. We will be fighting this for months and months longer than they will. The rest of the world will slowly catch up to their number of deaths because we can't protect everybody until there is a vaccine.

Yes, and the sky stayed blue so Sweden was successful.

Anyway, enough jibber jabber, get working on those math models and let's not use words like probably and maybe and believe and slowly, blah blah blah. Let's stay with facts, not soft words to make us all feel better. I'm heading out for brunch, will check in later today for the math. Deaths per week to catch up with Sweden should be interesting.