http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1590472721.jpg

Deaths per capita, Sweden vs other Nordic countries.

The Swedish herd immunity experiment is proving costly indeed in lives.

If they intend to continue until herd immunity is achieved, its gonna be a long deadly haul.
- In mid April, they (meaning the guy directing the herd immunity experiment) thought Sweden had reached about 20% immunity (shorthand term for % of pop with antibodies) and would reach “herd immunity” in May (60-70%).
- By the end of April, it turned out that only about 7% of Stockholm’s population had antibodies.
- Now they say herd immunity won’t be achieved in May (obviously). They now think Stockholm is at 30% immunity; it’ll be interesting to see how right or wrong they are.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-says-herd-immunity-very-close/ar-BB12WUj1

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus-intl/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/25/861923548/stockholm-wont-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-sweden-s-chief-epidemiologist-says

Meanwhile, Sweden’s economy is getting hit as hard as its neighbors who aren’t pursuing this experiment. Measures of economic distress vary but overall there isn’t much difference between Sweden and those others.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html

Like I’ve said, the Swedes are making decisions based on their best thoughtful judgment, which I respect. It is useful to have some countries acting as “controls” to various degrees, just as it’s useful to have some US states conducting experiments of their own. Their country, their decision. But let’s not pretend that they are achieving herd immunity. They are simply making a different “lives versus economy” trade-off than their neighbors are doing, and so far the trade is looking pretty expensive in lives.

Originally Posted by ADDvanced View Post
>Anyway, have fun, I'm bailing on this topic as data has shown that Sweden's approach is obviously retarded.<

I agree. It's certainly a bold move. I admire Sweden as most do. Lets see how this plays out, but meanwhile in NZ we are opening up almost everything. Because COVID does not walk among us. We don't have 'HERD' immunity. An experiment at best. It feels Safe here. Please carry on.

Clearly you do not respect their decision.



BTW, You do know that Norway reopened their schools a month ago right?

And Denmark weeks before that...

Where are the horrible spikes o' death in those countries? Clearly Denmark and Norway have no herd immunity.

ah, we all remember well, the Battle of Poltava, circa 1700.

The almost culmination of Sweden's Charles the 12th's decade-long obsession with defeating Peter the Great; which Swedish defeat to the Russians at Poltava basically gave rise to Russia's ascension (not to slight Peter's "great" hand in such matters) and significantly contributed to the demise of much of Sweden's previous Nordic mastery.

Sweden has often been an outlier amongst their Nordic brethren, perhaps the Swedes absorbed more than their share of that berserker Viking mentality which seems prevalent in their attitude toward Covid-19 as it did toward Peter the Great?

Sarcasm and/or attempt at humour that, no offense to either Vikings, Nordics or Swedes intended, obeisance to Peter the Great definitely intended....

That said, regarding the current virus strategy I still believe we will have to wait a year or two before we will be able to judge the outcome.

While I think that you are right, that it will take some time, we can see that not all areas got hit the same. Not all areas/countries have the same age demographics, among other variables.

In math to find variable values you need an equation. When multiple variable values are in play you need a unique equation for each. Those will be a long time coming.

But, we do have some compelling statistics. We have statistics that say Sweden is excluded from being the most WRONG of all the solutions. There are currently SEVEN other nations that have MUCH higher (multiples) death (as % of pop.)

Now, again, other variables always exist. Perhaps Sweden's decision made a not too bad situation worse, or maybe their decisions help make a really bad starting point better for more people... But one thing is certain, these people here SPINNING and cherry picking data to insisted that Sweden is all wrong are simply blowing smoke ... parading their group-think for all to see. - void of critical thinking.

I'm not so sure Markus and have posted earlier about the math. What does the death rate have to be weekly/monthly in Finland, Denmark and Norway to match Sweden's death rate and deaths per M? Is it even possible? Will Sweden ever reach herd immunity? Not likely and certainly hasn't come close yet. On the financial health front, Sweden's economy, like everyone else's, is tied into neighboring countries and global supply chains alike.

Google search: Sweden's economy


I think the net net is it was an interesting idea but probably something better suited to a lesser virus.

Deaths as of today
Sweden 4,124
Norway 235
Denmark 563
Finland 312


Hope you are doing well yourself.

Herd immunity will not be achieved anywhere without a vaccine. That’s how herd immunity works, not by killing-off half the fking population. :rolleyes:

;)

I like how you posted buried-lede "news" believing that it was conclusive data. :rolleyes:

Your click-bait headline was only true for daily per-capita deaths (not total per-capita deaths), and only for a single/specific week, and only when using a 7-day average.
Remove any of those "qualifiers" and that headline becomes a lie.


People are so dumb...


(especially the ones who can't figure out how to disable Tapatalk sigs)

Some broader thoughts.

In a way, Sweden's strategy is a bet against successful development of either vaccine or treatment.
- If you are 100% confident that either a suitable vaccine or an effective treatment will become available a reasonable time, you'd lock down and save as many lives as possible, knowing that the increased economic pain will be brief.
- If you are 100% confident that no suitable vaccine or effective treatment will become available, you'd take few protective measures (just protect the 10% most vulnerable population) and try to get to herd immunity as quickly as possible.

But for herd immunity to work, there has to be natural long-lasting immunity - meaning that a recovered person retains enough antibodies and T-cells to be protected for many years. If there is long-lasting immunity, then the odds of a successful vaccine go up.

Also in a way, Sweden's strategy is a bet that other countries will adopt the same strategy.
- If you have a trade-dependent economy (and Sweden certainly does), and your trade partners shut down, then your choice to stay open doesn't bring you that much economic benefit.
- If you have a trade-dependent economy, and your trade partners stay open, then your choice to stay open brings you the most economic benefit.

But it was fairly apparent from the start, and became clearer every week, that almost every country was going to respond by shutting down.

I do not know how decisions are made in Sweden, but it will be interesting - when the histories are written - to find out how the government weighed these and other factors.

And again, deaths per capita, Sweden vs. other non-Nordics:
More costly and longer/deadlier than the UK, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and France?

Curious why nobody seems interested in looking critically at (and comparing) the countries that are doing worse than Sweden, with much more strict lock-downs...

Only comparing Sweden with other Nordics is like only comparing 3-4 US states that border one-another, regardless of other factors.
It's even more irrelevant if you include Iceland (just because it's also a Nordic country).
So many other factors and variables at play...

No. A vaccine would certainly help (and shorten the time-line), but is not the only path to herd immunity. Given the R0 of SARS-CoV-2, the infection rate would need to be +/- 50% to reach herd immunity. (getting the numbers below the epidemic threshold). With the vast majority of infected folks being asymtomatic or experiencing light/mild symptoms, "killing-off half the fking population" is nowhere near accurate. The (CDC) estimated CFR estimates have dropped dramatically to between 0.002 and 0.004. And that is with the current standard of care, with no newer therapeutics.

You are right, I may have overstated my case there. Still, vaccines are the way that herd immunity is achieved in the modern age.

The Nordic countries are often grouped together as a peer group because they have fairly comparable demographics (age, health, ethnicity, immigrant %, income), social/economic systems, climate, and location/connections.

It is pretty reasonable to say that if Sweden had chosen to lock down, it should have been as effective as the other Nordics, because the populations, government effectiveness, cultures of following laws, etc are not so different. If you find actual knowledgeable Swedish analysis to the contrary, I'd be interested.

You can certainly find countries doing far better or far worse than Sweden, both with and without lockdowns. It could be interesting to figure out why the UK has done so badly (maybe the huge travel volume between UK/Italy, and the UK's govt's initial choice of a Sweden-like herd immunity strategy) or why India has done so well (maybe because median age in India is only 28 y/o) or why Brazil has done so poorly (maybe because federal govt has tried to force a herd immunity strategy vs cities trying to lock down, plus extreme poverty/lack of medical resources). But since those countries are all very different from Sweden, seems hard to draw too many lessons.

Even the Swedes use the other Nordics as their peer group.

https://www.telia.se/privat/aktuellt/hemma-i-folknatet/covid-19-mobilitetsanalys

BTW, Sweden took the advice of their head epidemiologist. However, several other Swedish epidemiologists protested the decision.

I don't know what other factors they considered, but we have to realize that tho this looks like a bad choice in hindsight, they did not have the luxury of hindsight at the time.

You don't really have hindsight now. It will be a long while before we can ascertain what countries have done well and which have chosen poorly

The Nordics are comparable in certain areas, and not in several others. Not all Nordics are part of the EU, or EFTA. Some are republics, some are monarchies. One is very oil-rich/dependent, One is an island in the middle of the ocean with a tiny population, etc.

Also, Sweden is a stand-out among the Nordics in many categories.

It has the largest population, by far.
It has the most highly-populated urban centers.
It has the highest number of refugee immigrants, by far.
It has the highest percentage of people 70+ years old.

And regarding their massive refugee population: They brought with them poor health, disease, and greater all-cause mortality rates.


So if you are going to single out Sweden for per-capita C19 deaths amongst only the Nordics, it would be prudent to include all other pertinent comparable data as well.
Population, population density, number of population-dense metros, population demographics, healthcare quality/access/infrastructure, pre-COVID mortality rates (all-cause and specific/relevant morbidities), pre-COVID volumes for international travel (and to where), domestic travel, trade/commerce, foreign tourism (and from where), border porosity/immigration numbers/policies, granted asylums, etc.

Then include the testing and death-reporting/COD protocols for each country, which can be vastly different and can/have changed mid-stream in some instances.

what a funny thread!