Did Sweden end up taking the best approach?

260,906 Views | 1675 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by Enzomatic
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it bothers me because situations can evolve but there should be a clear communication why the objectives are changing and if success has ever been achieved in any of the preceding steps

as soon as hospitals didn't get overrun, there was never any clear details as to what was next and how we'd achieve it. and predictably the public mood is wtf are we even doing?
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old enough to remember when so few cases were a sign of failure

Now it's too many cases are a sign of failure

The messaging has been completely abysmal
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cone said:

it would be nice to define what success looks like moving forward

all frustration comes from us not knowing what we're doing this for and whether or not we're succeeding

and of course the goal post moving

first it was hospital capacity, then it was % positives as a share of overall region testing, now what is it?
Good point. IMO winning is not overwhelming local hospital/ICU's.

We are clearly winning.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe splitting hairs but to me that's a component of winning, but kind of a Pyrrhic victory. That should be baseline, IMO. Winning is avoiding unnecessary community spread or another wave in the fall.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fitch said:

DadHammer said:

Fitch

I hear you but IMHO, the virus is here and if your hospitals have plenty of capacity locking down your economy does nothing but kill more in the long run and ruin your country. The deaths are coming whether we can stomach them or not. Texas hospitals are not even close to having issues, actually the opposite. Without patients people are getting furloughed and no one is getting treated. How many deaths are we going to see now from a multitude of other conditions not getting treated? It will dwarf covid before long. Someone posted early the suicide hotline calls have increase like 8,000% alone. I haven't read that study myself so don't quote that.

Open being safe, not stupid. Americans can do anything they put their minds to. I think people are taking safety serious now and want to get back to work and living.
To clarify, I'm in the pro-reopening camp. I'm also hopeful we'll approach this thoughtfully and seriously.

I'd argue the deaths aren't necessarily coming regardless -- but there is a higher chance of more loss of life if as a society we let frustration overtake reason and "go back" to normal practices, come what may. In that same vein, a disconcerting pattern I've seen here on TexAgs is some posters ruminating on herd immunity as a goal to achieve without apparently acknowledging that even with a lower (and apparently falling) IFR of 0.5-1.0%, that's a crap ton of people when multiplied by the US population.

I'll quit flogging the horse on this one, though.

With no guarantee of a vaccine, the deaths may very well be the exact same, only delayed causing even further destruction. You nor I know this and it's obviously up for debate. No one really knows. Our current lifestyle instead of going back to relative normal might create even more jobless, even more depression and/or deaths from other causes, all the while not changing the end results of coronavirus deaths. Again, it's all speculative, but I don't think there's a single person in the world who has the best answer to that.

Yes, if you add up herd immunity deaths, lets say 0.7% for 70% of American's, that's 1.6mm deaths. And yes, no matter how you look at it, it's awful. But what if we did everything we can to stop it, effected the lives more severely than necessary for 328mm people, and in the end, only reduce the deaths by 100k? Or less? Was it all worth it? Again, assuming ZERO extra lives lost due to depression/suicide/overdose/abuse/homelessness. Or not just the lives lost, but millions of families taking a decade before getting their normal back, or maybe never getting fully back?

Sounds terrible. But here are some numbers. What if we assume it takes 5 years to achieve herd immunity at our current rate. 14 million Americans will die with or without coronavirus over the next 5 years. Out of the 1.6 that die from Coronavirus if 0.7 and 70% are correct, how many could be saved with more extreme measures? How many of the 1.6mm naturally die in the next 5 years? And no, this doesn't make it "okay". If en elderly or comorbid person can live for 2 more years, but dies in the next 3 months from the virus, obviously it's better for that person to have had those extra 21 months of life(just an example). So I don't want people to think I'm a monster, but in the grand scheme of things, I would be willing to bet that at least half of the 1.6mm that die wouldn't have lived beyond those 5 years. This is attacking the elderly and comorbid folks, so I don't think that's an unreasonable thought. So again, not trying to sound like a monster, but in terms of perspective, instead of 14mm, maybe 14.8mm die over the next 5.

Then again, with the current lifestyle affecting millions of others, what extra percent die because of fear of the virus, depression, joblessness, etc? If we all went back to normal ASAP, and 1.6mm die instead of maybe 350k, but then 1mm lives were saved by getting back to normal sooner. Along with 30 extra million getting their jobs back and thus potentially saving even more lives long term, it all evened out and then some. What if by taking extra measures, we save minimal, if any extra lives to corona, but the effect causes more hidden losses of lives elsewhere?

Despite the herd immunity deaths being a terrible number, one can still easily argue that getting back to normal asap is still best overall for the country. With or without a vaccine. This doesn't make me a monster. This just means I care more about 328+mm over the next 3, 4,5 years or even a decane than I do about potentially 1mm, or half a million, or 100k, or however many we can truly save by taking extreme measures.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry for the long post. In short:

Everyone says the numbers without doing anything is terrible. But you still have to factor out those that would die even with more extreme measures, and then those that might die and/or have severe consequences each and every month their life isn't back to relative normal.
goodAg80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

Sorry for the long post. In short:

Everyone says the numbers without doing anything is terrible. But you still have to factor out those that would die even with more extreme measures, and then those that might die and/or have severe consequences each and every month their life isn't back to relative normal.
Why is it either shutdown or do nothing?

I vote for something in between, delay the deaths while we improve treatments and look for a cure, but try to resume business with practical risk reduction.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fitch said:

Maybe splitting hairs but to me that's a component of winning, but kind of a Pyrrhic victory. That should be baseline, IMO. Winning is avoiding unnecessary community spread or another wave in the fall.
I think you are being over-optimistic. This virus is so insidious it is almost impossible to avoid outbreaks until or if a vaccine comes.

I would be glad to be wrong but I doubt it based on the 5-7 days of asymptomatic spread.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
goodAg80 said:

beerad12man said:

Sorry for the long post. In short:

Everyone says the numbers without doing anything is terrible. But you still have to factor out those that would die even with more extreme measures, and then those that might die and/or have severe consequences each and every month their life isn't back to relative normal.
Why is it either shutdown or do nothing?

I vote for something in between, delay the deaths while we improve treatments and look for a cure, but try to resume business with practical risk reduction.
It sounds great in theory, but the problem with resuming business is when the a good portion of the public is still scared and/or misinformed(lazy in some cases, but that's not for this thread). I'm not referring to shutdown or nothing. Mild social distancing of the proper crowds is my vote. Just being generally aware of the risks and rewards of everything. hey, you want to have a block party? go for it. It's good for general well being. But why not 6-8 people instead of 40? Just little things like that across the board likely make a huge difference.

Even if you vote for the in between, this still affects millions, and if you delay things, it affects them for potentially longer. There is no right answer here. but my belief is that each and every month we delay normal, you are building up hidden issues on the other end of the spectrum.

In our case, for the most part, we went back to work, but millions are still out of jobs and will continue to be. Some people are still terrified because of the media hype of this. Some are still milking not working and/or unemployment(we all know this is true).

How about we get the information out to the public, so we can increase confidence and consumer spending again. Make people realize that vast majority of us will come out just fine on the other end. Again, not only increasing spending / activity, but naturally increasing confidence and happiness as well. Our well being plays a major factor in moving on from this, and the general well being of the country is probably not as good as it can be right now.
BowSowy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
goodAg80 said:

beerad12man said:

Sorry for the long post. In short:

Everyone says the numbers without doing anything is terrible. But you still have to factor out those that would die even with more extreme measures, and then those that might die and/or have severe consequences each and every month their life isn't back to relative normal.
Why is it either shutdown or do nothing?

I vote for something in between, delay the deaths while we improve treatments and look for a cure, but try to resume business with practical risk reduction.
Agreed. That's what we're going to end up doing. Social distancing, wearing masks (for those who want to wear them - not gonna start that debate again), banning large events and gatherings, heightened public awareness, etc. Those things are going to allow us to open up and keep this thing more at bay than it would've been if we didn't do something back in March.
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
goodAg80 said:

beerad12man said:

Sorry for the long post. In short:

Everyone says the numbers without doing anything is terrible. But you still have to factor out those that would die even with more extreme measures, and then those that might die and/or have severe consequences each and every month their life isn't back to relative normal.
Why is it either shutdown or do nothing?

I vote for something in between, delay the deaths while we improve treatments and look for a cure, but try to resume business with practical risk reduction.


This is where I'm at.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Because unless you impose the correct restrictions, reduce restrictions at the correct times to increase jobs, happiness, livelihoods while actually proving that it's working to lower deaths/hospitalizations, etc., the delay may just be causing more destruction while not actually having a positive end goal / outcome.

The quicker we can get back to our old normal, I'll argue the better overall for America. Now, what is the quickest we can do that and stay under the curve(my goal, maybe not yours.) I don't know. In texas, I have a sneaking suspicion it's to go back to December 2019 way of life and we'd be fine. But that's just my opinion and my goals, which may not fall in line with others opinions and goals.

What we are attempting to do might be the better way to do it. Or it might just be delaying it making things worse behind the scenes. Again, no way of knowing. We all have our own opinions.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Financial Times article from over a week ago, may have already been posted - if so my apologies. Some interesting financial info but much of it is still predictions and need to play out. It should be noted Sweden isn't in complete control of it's financial hit due to it's participation in the global economy, it's just not a black and white situation at all.

https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e

Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach | Free to read
Analysts forecast that growth will contract at a similar rate to rest of Europe

Mickes, unlike most record shops in Europe, is still open for business. The compact store in southern Stockholm, crammed with thousands of vinyl LPs, last week enjoyed a steady stream of customers taking advantage of Sweden's no-lockdown approach to coronavirus. But owner Micke Englund said that while he was happy his shop was not closed, his business had still been hit hard by Covid-19. "When people became aware of coronavirus around March 12, we lost almost overnight 30 per cent. It's OK. For a couple of months, it will work. But after that it will be very, very tough," he said. Sweden refused to follow other European countries in closing its primary schools and kindergartens or banning people from leaving their homes, arguing that taking such "draconian measures" was not sustainable and could unnecessarily harm the economy. Swedish business leaders such as Jacob Wallenberg have urged authorities to take a broader "life versus life" approach that considers the economy as well as health, or risk social unrest. Sweden, with a population of 10m, has had 3,220 deaths so far from coronavirus more than triple the number in neighbouring Denmark, Finland and Norway, which have a combined population of 15m. Relative to population 311 people have died per million in Sweden, while in neighbouring Norway the toll so far is 40 per million. Early figures for Sweden's gross domestic product in the first quarter of 2020, released this week, suggested that at least in March it had performed better than much of the EU as it recorded a decline of just 0.3 per cent, compared with a 3.8 per cent fall for the eurozone. It is too early to say that we would do better than others Christina Nyman

But economists argue that Sweden is unlikely in the long term to escape the severe economic pain of the rest of Europe. The European Commission forecasts that Sweden's GDP will fall by 6.1 per cent this year. The Riksbank, the country's central bank, has an even gloomier outlook, estimating that GDP will contract by 7-10 per cent, with unemployment peaking at between 9 and 10.4 per cent. These are disastrous figures for the Scandinavian country. Architect of Sweden's no-lockdown strategy insists it will pay off "It is too early to say that we would do better than others. In the end, we think Sweden will end up more or less the same," said Christina Nyman, a former deputy head of monetary policy at the Riksbank who is now chief economist at lender Handelsbanken. One big reason is that Sweden is a small, open economy with a large manufacturing industry. Truckmaker Volvo Group and carmaker Volvo Cars were both forced to stop production for several weeks, not because of conditions in Sweden but due to lack of parts and difficulties in their supply chains elsewhere in Europe. Ms Nyman noted that despite being relatively little hit directly by the 2008 financial crisis Sweden's economy still suffered more than many. Data on the use of public transport, credit cards and restaurants show big falls in Sweden as authorities urge people to work from home where possible and maintain social distancing. But the declines are less precipitous than other European countries under full lockdown. Recommended Coronavirus economic tracker: latest global fallout "Activity in Sweden is grim, maybe not as grim as elsewhere, but it is still unprecedented declines," said David Oxley, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics. He argued that the relatively healthy first-quarter growth figures were helped by January and February being stronger than expected. For March, he added: "It's certainly reasonable to expect that they wouldn't experience the same sudden stop as other economies." Ms Nyman said she believed that without the no-lockdown policy, Sweden would have been harder hit, as in 2008. "If we didn't have these better circumstances, we would have done worse. Usually, we are more severely hit by a global recession," she added. Economists at Swedish bank SEB estimate Sweden's GDP will drop 6.5 per cent this year, about the same as the US and Germany, but a little better than Norway and ahead of 9-10 per cent falls in Finland and Denmark, all of which have had lockdowns. The Riksbank has focused on keeping the supply of credit functioning rather than rate cuts. Governor Stefan Ingves told the Financial Times that much of the economy had shut down "in one way or the other" and that "if people are staying at home, it's hard to stimulate". Asked if Sweden's economy would fare better than others', he replied: "We simply don't know. I'm not an epidemiologist. There are so many unknowns in all this. Different countries will do different things because they have different ways of deciding. Time will tell where we end up compared with other countries." Some suggest that Sweden may reap some benefits as it continues with its current path while other countries grapple with how to reopen their economies. "Sweden's strategy should be sustainable for a long time. When you open up, people can be more afraid, there's more uncertainty," said Ms Nyman. But Mr Oxley stressed that Sweden was still dependent on demand and supply chains in other countries. "There's only a limited amount of upside to being contrary when the rest of the world is doing the opposite," he added. Back at Mickes record shop, Mr Englund said that many had compared Sweden's high death toll unfavourably with neighbouring Denmark, Norway and Finland, but that it came out well compared with the UK, France or Italy. "When they open up the countries again, they will start from square one. We won't. But no one knows if our strategy was good, very good, or a disaster. Maybe we will know in a year's time," he added. This article has been updated to include Sweden's
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The central bank forecast was gloomier than what the actual reported numbers were.

The thing that Sweden's critics overlook when talking about the economy is that, of course, Sweden's economy is going to suffer along with everyone else, setting aside any internal slowdown that resulted from their limited social distancing, because they are negatively impacted by the worldwide economic contraction. However, that provides zero support for the argument that they should have shut down, because you can't say how many lives would have been saved, nor identify how much economic activity would have been lost.

It's circular logic--because the rest of the world enters a depression by locking down, Sweden should have done the same and incurred more economic pain than it otherwise did. That makes no sense.

Don't move the goalposts now. Social distancing was sold to the world by the public health experts as all about flattening the curve to stay at a level where hospitals were not overburdened. Sweden did that without going to the kind of extreme lengths that others did. To claim that their policy was a failure, you have to set up some other criteria.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But again, what Sweden did wasn't that different than many other places. They were more voluntarily compliant but did a lot of the same things other places were doing under mandatory orders, and I'd imagine will continue to do so. Early on when staying home was only suggested in the US we still saw packed beaches, crowded bars, etc.

That's the biggest thing that concerns me about the US situation, people tired of being cooped up that are now going to totally ignore social distancing, masks, etc. either because they can or because they view it as some grand act of defiance. If people were willing to work towards the greater good it would be one thing, but this has unfortunately turned into an us vs them situation.

As far as success, both in case/death rate and economically, anyone calling anything a win or a loss at this point is probably at least a year too early to accurately do so.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I noticed you replied to my post but I am not sure if your response was directed at the contents in my post. You mentioned "don't move the goalposts" and "to claim their policy was a failure", but I don't think the article I posted did either of those things. I think it stuck to facts and current predictions and balanced the pros and cons and also complexity, financially speaking, of the issue. I didn't add any commentary to the article specific to the hideously overused buzzterm "moving the goalposts" and I didn't claim anything was a failure.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fig96 said:

But again, what Sweden did wasn't that different than many other places. They were more voluntarily compliant but did a lot of the same things other places were doing under mandatory orders, and I'd imagine will continue to do so. Early on when staying home was only suggested in the US we still saw packed beaches, crowded bars, etc.

That's the biggest thing that concerns me about the US situation, people tired of being cooped up that are now going to totally ignore social distancing, masks, etc. either because they can or because they view it as some grand act of defiance. If people were willing to work towards the greater good it would be one thing, but this has unfortunately turned into an us vs them situation.

As far as success, both in case/death rate and economically, anyone calling anything a win or a loss at this point is probably at least a year too early to accurately do so.
IMO not closing primary schools is a pretty significant difference.

Otherwise I agree with your assessment.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fair.
Rocky Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
KidDoc said:

fig96 said:

But again, what Sweden did wasn't that different than many other places. They were more voluntarily compliant but did a lot of the same things other places were doing under mandatory orders, and I'd imagine will continue to do so. Early on when staying home was only suggested in the US we still saw packed beaches, crowded bars, etc.

That's the biggest thing that concerns me about the US situation, people tired of being cooped up that are now going to totally ignore social distancing, masks, etc. either because they can or because they view it as some grand act of defiance. If people were willing to work towards the greater good it would be one thing, but this has unfortunately turned into an us vs them situation.

As far as success, both in case/death rate and economically, anyone calling anything a win or a loss at this point is probably at least a year too early to accurately do so.
IMO not closing primary schools is a pretty significant difference.

Otherwise I agree with your assessment.


Did Sweden put almost 1/3 of their workforce out of work? To say their approach is similar to the US (but voluntary) is false
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wish people would stop saying Sweden is getting hit as hard economically as it's neighbors are because that is completely false.

We have posted the facts many times in this thread. They are doing way way better than their neighbors are and their approach is sustainable where lock downs are not. Leaving lower grade schools open is huge. Lockdowns are being used for political purpose, the curve has been broken and lots of countries are coming out now. Locking down healthy people under 60 is just stupid. Hell hospitals are furloughing doctors and nurses and sick people are missing treatments for all kinds of other illnesses.

The second wave will not occur because the infected people will have immunity that will either keep them from getting the virus and making it minor when they do. The Dr. that has the running thread posted a study with monkeys proving that theory weeks ago. Thousands of people are getting infected every day and thousands are recovering every day. There just will not be as many people to infect and spread the virus.

Not only that, where is the massive death in Sweden all the leftest in our media were screaming about? Complete BS.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
" Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April"

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

I think that's good news for saying that stay at home orders aren't necessary. But it's bad news for hoping that there were a ton of asymptomatic cases and the virus would burn itself out.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
amercer said:

" Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April"

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

I think that's good news for saying that stay at home orders aren't necessary. But it's bad news for hoping that there were a ton of asymptomatic cases and the virus would burn itself out.

It isn't an all or nothing thing like people are making out. There isn't some magical point where less than 70% we still see major outbreaks and above 70% people don't get sick anymore. Rather there is a slow reduction of R as the % of people who are not susceptible increases.

If there is another wave in Sweden, they have already shown how they can handle it. And if they shore up the weak points (Elder care facilities) in their strategy, they will be more effective for the next time. On the other hand, here we have people saying if/when there is another wave, we will have to go into lockdown again rather than even considering if we could be effective with a lesser approach.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Only 1100 people tested so far, and they're supposed to test that many every day for eight days so we should know more soon.

Also I especially liked this part:

" Sweden's percentage of people with antibodies is not far off that of other countries that did enforce lockdowns. In Spain, 5% of people had developed coronavirus antibodies by May 14, according to preliminary results of an epidemiological study by the government."

Strange that they chose that tidbit but left off that Spain locked down but has roughly double the cases and deaths per million of Sweden, that didn't.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it an argument for Sweden's approach, but I think it's also a disappointment for anyone hoping this thing would burn itself out quickly. At this rate we'll reach heard immunity in 2023 or something
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agreed
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiochemAg97 said:

amercer said:

" Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April"

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

I think that's good news for saying that stay at home orders aren't necessary. But it's bad news for hoping that there were a ton of asymptomatic cases and the virus would burn itself out.

It isn't an all or nothing thing like people are making out. There isn't some magical point where less than 70% we still see major outbreaks and above 70% people don't get sick anymore. Rather there is a slow reduction of R as the % of people who are not susceptible increases.

If there is another wave in Sweden, they have already shown how they can handle it. And if they shore up the weak points (Elder care facilities) in their strategy, they will be more effective for the next time. On the other hand, here we have people saying if/when there is another wave, we will have to go into lockdown again rather than even considering if we could be effective with a lesser approach.
Yep.

So is it fair to say that, even if we aren't at herd immunity, if we get to 20%, then 25%, then 30% immune, you can start easing back the restrictions the more people that have had it as there is less and less concern of major flare ups that can potentially overwhelm hospitals?

Meaning a 2nd wave if we has 25% immune won't have anywhere near the same numbers as the 1st, assuming this thing hasn't mutated into something else and those that were immune still are susceptible.
PJYoung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

BiochemAg97 said:

amercer said:

" Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April"

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

I think that's good news for saying that stay at home orders aren't necessary. But it's bad news for hoping that there were a ton of asymptomatic cases and the virus would burn itself out.

It isn't an all or nothing thing like people are making out. There isn't some magical point where less than 70% we still see major outbreaks and above 70% people don't get sick anymore. Rather there is a slow reduction of R as the % of people who are not susceptible increases.

If there is another wave in Sweden, they have already shown how they can handle it. And if they shore up the weak points (Elder care facilities) in their strategy, they will be more effective for the next time. On the other hand, here we have people saying if/when there is another wave, we will have to go into lockdown again rather than even considering if we could be effective with a lesser approach.
Yep.

So is it fair to say that, even if we aren't at herd immunity, if we get to 20%, then 25%, then 30% immune, you can start easing back the restrictions the more people that have had it as there is less and less concern of major flare ups that can potentially overwhelm hospitals?

Meaning a 2nd wave if we has 25% immune won't have anywhere near the same numbers as the 1st, assuming this thing hasn't mutated into something else and those that were immune still are susceptible.

That makes sense to me.
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

BiochemAg97 said:

amercer said:

" Sweden has revealed that despite adopting more relaxed measures to control coronavirus, only 7.3% of people in Stockholm had developed the antibodies needed to fight the disease by late April"

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

I think that's good news for saying that stay at home orders aren't necessary. But it's bad news for hoping that there were a ton of asymptomatic cases and the virus would burn itself out.

It isn't an all or nothing thing like people are making out. There isn't some magical point where less than 70% we still see major outbreaks and above 70% people don't get sick anymore. Rather there is a slow reduction of R as the % of people who are not susceptible increases.

If there is another wave in Sweden, they have already shown how they can handle it. And if they shore up the weak points (Elder care facilities) in their strategy, they will be more effective for the next time. On the other hand, here we have people saying if/when there is another wave, we will have to go into lockdown again rather than even considering if we could be effective with a lesser approach.
Yep.

So is it fair to say that, even if we aren't at herd immunity, if we get to 20%, then 25%, then 30% immune, you can start easing back the restrictions the more people that have had it as there is less and less concern of major flare ups that can potentially overwhelm hospitals?

Meaning a 2nd wave if we has 25% immune won't have anywhere near the same numbers as the 1st, assuming this thing hasn't mutated into something else and those that were immune still are susceptible.

Good post.
goodAg80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As of today the US has had a larger percentage of the population get the virus and we have a lower death rate.

Viewed from a medical point of view the US is doing better than Sweden.

Viewed from a business point of view I can't find good data. Sweden is being impacted too, but clear data are hard to come by.



twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The economic numbers for Sweden are better than their neighbors, but they are experiencing a major contraction, too. I don't think the point is that a small country, like Sweden, can escape the global recession by not locking down (or not doing so as strictly as elsewhere). I think the point is that, if that approach had been taken in the US and other countries across the world, we might have avoided the catastrophic damage to the global economy that we are now seeing, at an acceptable cost on the health front. Obviously, that's a matter of opinion, and there is no clear right answer, but it's the kind of thing that we need to discuss going forward, particularly if we are going to see another round in the Fall/Winter.
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
twk, there is no way for any country to avoid it. Too many countries way over reacted and killed their economies.

No one ever said Sweden wouldn't be effected. The entire world is and way more people are going to die from the economic fall out than will ever die from covid and it will the mostly the young not the 84 year old average. They are doing way better and will recover faster. But you bet they are getting hit by the worldwide fallout.

On the health front they will probably end up with the same dead that they would have had anyway. There is absolutely no proof showing they will end up with more dead. That is to be seen. Heck they are doing better than a lot of lock down countries already by far.

Time will tell. Good post twk.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DadHammer said:

twk, there is no way for any country to avoid it. Too many countries way over reacted and killed their economies.

No one ever said Sweden wouldn't be effected. The entire world is and way more people are going to die from the economic fall out than will ever die from covid and it will the mostly the young not the 84 year old average. They are doing way better and will recover faster. But you bet they are getting hit by the worldwide fallout.

On the health front they will probably end up with the same dead that they would have had anyway. There is absolutely no proof showing they will end up with more dead. That is to be seen. Heck they are doing better than a lot of lock down countries already by far.

Time will tell. Good post twk.
I tend to agree. I think that if everyone had done as Sweden, on balance, we'd be better off, but, it's not something one can say, at this point, with certainty.

Going forward, I don't think one can reasonably make a case for imposing the same kind of lockdown, if coronavirus comes back in the Fall. We've learned enough now that it would be incredibly stupid to do exactly the same thing, or something close to it, again.
DadHammer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sweden projected deaths fell below 6,000 by August 4th. Small improvements just about every week. That's good for everyone as the least locked down country is looking better all the time.

https://covid19-projections.com/sweden
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting to contrast the situation in Sweden against the unfolding issue in Brazil, where arguably they had no national policy of isolation and the President is actively pulling back on the city-imposed restrictions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-11/bolsonaro-criticizes-lockdown-measures-as-brazil-becomes-hotspot
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
At the end, let's not forget some perspective. 2.8mm Americans die every year in average. Let's say another country has 2.8mm die every year that we want to directly compare. Our listed covid 19 deaths by years end is 200k. There's is 10k. So it looks like they win, right? In a vacuum, maybe.

But at the end of the year, the data comes back and each country has 2.9mm die. Did one really win? Was one really better at handling this? It's still about deaths per capita and the overall well being of society which goes beyond any individual graph can show. All deaths matter and I think, even though we are 60k or so over normal thus far(not sure on that number), that the end of the year is going to show a negligible difference amongst most countries. At the end, what we are doing is likely a futile effort that even if it saves some lives from covid, the lives lost elsewhere may just offset that. Or be worse. Time to move on. Way past time in my mind.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.