Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
DTP02, how are they doing better than Finland and Norway right now 'flattening' the curve thus far? Those death total curves don't show they are. If Finland and Norway's health care systems are similarly not overwhelmed, but Sweden's deaths per capita is 5X+ more than those two countries, I don't know how as of now anybody can point to Sweden definitely doing a better job than its neighbors (yet). So nobody has had their hospital system overwhelmed but 5X more people are dying in Sweden per capita so Sweden's approach is best? I guess a year from now we can look back and judge better.DTP02 said:Pumpkinhead said:I agree with posters that more time is required before passing some final judgement on Sweden's approach, but as of right now (April 16th) it is becoming more difficult to argue in favor of what they are doing, compared to their immediate neighbor countries.HotardAg07 said:
It depends. Sweden is doing the best job of trying to flatten the curve to this point. They've kept more of their society and economy open, but their hospitals haven't been close to their breaking point. It's hard for some to remember, but that was the original goal when we all started our various measures to slow the spread.
But the goalposts people are using now have moved. We've gone from "flatten the curve" to, in many people's minds, trying to eliminate as many deaths as possible. That wasn't really the goal when we started this.
So, according to the original criteria we all started with, Sweden has actually done a better job than the other Scandinavian countries precisely because they've allowed the virus to progress thru their population a little more, while staying well on the safe side of the line re healthcare capacity.
When most of the world is about to start looking more like Sweden as things start to reopen in the next few weeks, it's actually hard to argue against what Sweden has done at this point:
"Sweden did this all wrong. Let's loosen things up like Sweden."
We're all going to be dancing the razor's edge of loosening restrictions while monitoring to make sure things don't get so out of hand we get overwhelmed. Sweden just seems to have started that process weeks earlier than the rest of us.
In the absence of an established game-changing treatment protocol, they're that many weeks closer than the rest of us toward the endgame of herd immunity. If we do get an established treatment protocol in the next few weeks, then you can easily argue that Sweden would have been better off being more strict.
Squadron7 said:Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
Good question: The argument against the Swedish policy is that the hospitals get over-run. But if their hospitals are not overrun then why the disparate numbers from their neighbors?
other than South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, are there any other sane countries by this definition?Duncan Idaho said:Squadron7 said:Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
Good question: The argument against the Swedish policy is that the hospitals get over-run. But if their hospitals are not overrun then why the disparate numbers from their neighbors?
The argument against Sweden's approach isnt just that the hospitals get overrun. It is that the BEST case you have 1-2% of your population die. If the hospitals get over run, you are looking at 2-20% dieing.
The sane first world countries are working towards strategies of containment through testing/tracing/quarantine of the infected.
Pumpkinhead said:DTP02, how are they doing better than Finland and Norway right now 'flattening' the curve thus far? Those death total curves don't show they are. If Finland and Norway's health care systems are similarly not overwhelmed, but Sweden's deaths per capita is 5X+ more than those two countries, I don't know how as of now anybody can point to Sweden definitely doing a better job than its neighbors (yet). So nobody has had their hospital system overwhelmed but 5X more people are dying in Sweden per capita so Sweden's approach is best? I guess a year from now we can look back and judge better.DTP02 said:Pumpkinhead said:I agree with posters that more time is required before passing some final judgement on Sweden's approach, but as of right now (April 16th) it is becoming more difficult to argue in favor of what they are doing, compared to their immediate neighbor countries.HotardAg07 said:
It depends. Sweden is doing the best job of trying to flatten the curve to this point. They've kept more of their society and economy open, but their hospitals haven't been close to their breaking point. It's hard for some to remember, but that was the original goal when we all started our various measures to slow the spread.
But the goalposts people are using now have moved. We've gone from "flatten the curve" to, in many people's minds, trying to eliminate as many deaths as possible. That wasn't really the goal when we started this.
So, according to the original criteria we all started with, Sweden has actually done a better job than the other Scandinavian countries precisely because they've allowed the virus to progress thru their population a little more, while staying well on the safe side of the line re healthcare capacity.
When most of the world is about to start looking more like Sweden as things start to reopen in the next few weeks, it's actually hard to argue against what Sweden has done at this point:
"Sweden did this all wrong. Let's loosen things up like Sweden."
We're all going to be dancing the razor's edge of loosening restrictions while monitoring to make sure things don't get so out of hand we get overwhelmed. Sweden just seems to have started that process weeks earlier than the rest of us.
In the absence of an established game-changing treatment protocol, they're that many weeks closer than the rest of us toward the endgame of herd immunity. If we do get an established treatment protocol in the next few weeks, then you can easily argue that Sweden would have been better off being more strict.
Quote:
The argument against Sweden's approach isnt just that the hospitals get overrun. It is that the BEST case you have 1-2% of your population die. If the hospitals get over run, you are looking at 2-20% dieing.
The sane first world countries are working towards strategies of containment through testing/tracing/quarantine of the infected.
California Ag 90 said:other than South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan, are there any other sane countries by this definition?Duncan Idaho said:Squadron7 said:Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
Good question: The argument against the Swedish policy is that the hospitals get over-run. But if their hospitals are not overrun then why the disparate numbers from their neighbors?
The argument against Sweden's approach isnt just that the hospitals get overrun. It is that the BEST case you have 1-2% of your population die. If the hospitals get over run, you are looking at 2-20% dieing.
The sane first world countries are working towards strategies of containment through testing/tracing/quarantine of the infected.
i'm not sure about your 2-20% population number dying if hospitals overrun. 20% of cases, ok maybe, but 20% of the population?
Squadron7 said:Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
Good question: The argument against the Swedish policy is that the hospitals get over-run. But if their hospitals are not overrun then why the disparate numbers from their neighbors?
Because they have not limited exposure and allowed more people to get sick now rather than later, and one possibility is that later there are additional treatments or even a vaccine available. AS mentioned before, we can't really judge any nation's response yet and probably won't be able to with accuracy for a year or more.Squadron7 said:Quote:
The argument against Sweden's approach isnt just that the hospitals get overrun. It is that the BEST case you have 1-2% of your population die. If the hospitals get over run, you are looking at 2-20% dieing.
The sane first world countries are working towards strategies of containment through testing/tracing/quarantine of the infected.
This doesn't answer the question. Swedish hospitals are not overrun right now. Until they are overrun why would their mortality numbers be worse than those of their neighbors?
DTP02 said:Squadron7 said:Beat40 said:
So, here's the question regarding Sweden. What's their hospital situation like right now and projected to be? I haven't
That's one of the main drivers of the lockdowns, correct? Not to overrun hospitals being the main driver while having time to stock up on PPE and find treatments.
Good question: The argument against the Swedish policy is that the hospitals get over-run. But if their hospitals are not overrun then why the disparate numbers from their neighbors?
Because their infection rate is much higher. Higher infection rate means more deaths, but also more progress toward herd immunity.
That, in particular, is an assumption that's far from proven.Quote:
Their more restrictive neighbors have a curve that is too flat. This results in less deaths in the short term, but also less progress toward the endgame and more economic pain.
Quote:
Sweden has seen a renewed spike in coronavirus cases today after another 613 people tested positive.
The 613 new cases mark the biggest jump for seven days and the third-largest since the crisis began, taking Sweden's total from 11,927 to 12,540.
Deaths were up by 130, the second-highest daily death toll after yesterday's 170, bringing the total from 1,203 to 1,333.
Sweden is continuing to hold out against a national lockdown despite growing criticism and calls for 'rapid and radical measures' to contain the outbreak.
Gordo14 said:
That's not exactly it. The goal was to not just to avoid our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed, but it was also to build up our testing infrastructure and get a handle on the virus so that it's out of control. Once thay genie is out of the bottle there is no going back. There is a very calculated and measured path forward and just because you only heard what you want to hear and refuse to use critical thinking on the best path forward does not mean "goal posts have been moved". Furthermore, we still have a lot to learn about this virus so we would be idiots to not adjust as we learn things about this virus. But I'm sure that would qualify as "moving goal posts" to people too stubborn to actually think about it. "Moving the goal posts" is just a useless phrase to shut down critical thinking.
There is a possible outcome where we get a handle of this virus until we get a vaccine and have measured steps towards reopening a large portion of the economy without the curve taking off on us again. And there's a possible outcome where Sweden gets the majority of their population sick and humans don't get permenant immunity from the coronavirus (like all of the other 4 coronavirus) after infection so they are basically permenantly sick until we get a vaccine. We always have the chance to to Sweden's route if we have to, but Sweden will never be able to turn back to our route if they wait much longer. The virus RNA will be too prevalent in their society.
TXAggie2011 said:That, in particular, is an assumption that's far from proven.Quote:
Their more restrictive neighbors have a curve that is too flat. This results in less deaths in the short term, but also less progress toward the endgame and more economic pain.
Pumpkinhead said:
DTP02, I don't see how folks can yet argue that Sweden is doing a better job 'flattening' the curve when it doesn't yet look like their curve has even flattened.
Finland on the other hand looks like they've not only flattened their curve in new cases, but may even be on the downward slope on the other side.
Okay. I don't think that's clear at all, but okay.DTP02 said:I was clearly talking about as of now. I don't think it's debatable that the tradeoffs to this point of Sweden vs Finland have been less death on one side, and more progress toward immunity + less economic pain (not to mention societal disruption) on the other side.TXAggie2011 said:That, in particular, is an assumption that's far from proven.Quote:
Their more restrictive neighbors have a curve that is too flat. This results in less deaths in the short term, but also less progress toward the endgame and more economic pain.
Quote:
While authorities have closed senior high schools and banned gatherings of more than 50 people, they have asked rather than ordered people to avoid non-essential travel, work from home and stay indoors if they are over 70 or are feeling ill.
Statistics show roughly half the Swedish workforce is now working from home, public transport usage has fallen by 50% in Stockholm and the capital's streets are about 70% less busy than usual but Swedes are still able to shop, go to restaurants, get haircuts and send children under 16 to class even if a family member is ill.
The government's refusal to close primary and junior high schools and authorities' insistence that only children who are themselves ill may stay at home has caused some families and teachers particular concern, staff and parent groups have said.
-----
Some experts have speculated that Sweden's approach to managing the spread of the virus may also be influenced by its demographic profile more than 50% of households are single-person and relatively low population density of about 25 people per square kilometre, compared with, for example, 205 in Italy and 259 in the UK.
Although the longer-term impact is obviously unknown, Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
---
The chief epidemiologist has repeatedly stressed that the world is in uncharted territory with the coronavirus, arguing that while Sweden might have more infections in the short term, it will not face the risk of a huge infection increase that many other countries might face once their strict lockdowns are lifted.
Quote:
Although the longer-term impact is obviously unknown, Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
PJYoung said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/sweden-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-1000
That article gives a great outline of what is happening in Sweden. It seems to all be going according to plan so far, not without complaints.Quote:
While authorities have closed senior high schools and banned gatherings of more than 50 people, they have asked rather than ordered people to avoid non-essential travel, work from home and stay indoors if they are over 70 or are feeling ill.
Statistics show roughly half the Swedish workforce is now working from home, public transport usage has fallen by 50% in Stockholm and the capital's streets are about 70% less busy than usual but Swedes are still able to shop, go to restaurants, get haircuts and send children under 16 to class even if a family member is ill.
The government's refusal to close primary and junior high schools and authorities' insistence that only children who are themselves ill may stay at home has caused some families and teachers particular concern, staff and parent groups have said.
-----
Some experts have speculated that Sweden's approach to managing the spread of the virus may also be influenced by its demographic profile more than 50% of households are single-person and relatively low population density of about 25 people per square kilometre, compared with, for example, 205 in Italy and 259 in the UK.
Although the longer-term impact is obviously unknown, Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
---
The chief epidemiologist has repeatedly stressed that the world is in uncharted territory with the coronavirus, arguing that while Sweden might have more infections in the short term, it will not face the risk of a huge infection increase that many other countries might face once their strict lockdowns are lifted.
Quote:
Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
DTP02 said:Gordo14 said:
That's not exactly it. The goal was to not just to avoid our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed, but it was also to build up our testing infrastructure and get a handle on the virus so that it's out of control. Once thay genie is out of the bottle there is no going back. There is a very calculated and measured path forward and just because you only heard what you want to hear and refuse to use critical thinking on the best path forward does not mean "goal posts have been moved". Furthermore, we still have a lot to learn about this virus so we would be idiots to not adjust as we learn things about this virus. But I'm sure that would qualify as "moving goal posts" to people too stubborn to actually think about it. "Moving the goal posts" is just a useless phrase to shut down critical thinking.
There is a possible outcome where we get a handle of this virus until we get a vaccine and have measured steps towards reopening a large portion of the economy without the curve taking off on us again. And there's a possible outcome where Sweden gets the majority of their population sick and humans don't get permenant immunity from the coronavirus (like all of the other 4 coronavirus) after infection so they are basically permenantly sick until we get a vaccine. We always have the chance to to Sweden's route if we have to, but Sweden will never be able to turn back to our route if they wait much longer. The virus RNA will be too prevalent in their society.
I won't get personal with you like you chose to with me, but I think I'll stick with my ability to think critically.
I can only write it for you, I can't read it. I already said on this thread that the US hitting pause was generally the right idea for the purpose of building up testing capacity and procuring PPE, as well as working on treatment protocols, although for many parts of the country it was probably more counterproductive. The great ventilator shortage is looking like a nonissue regardless.
The goal posts absolutely have been moved. A month ago we were all in "get the curve down to 'this' acceptable level" mode. Now, many/most of those same people are in "get the death rate down as low as possible" mode.
Remains to be seen which strategic decision proved correct, but there are plenty of decisions being made on this not because they are the correct decision, but because they are the easiest decision politically. That was the case early on, when politicians in NY weren't nearly proactive enough, and that's the case now.
California Ag 90 said:Quote:
Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
but straight logic would dictate that a country that closes up less than another will experience less economic contraction. it will still have a lot of pain, but less than a lockdown country, especially depending on what happens when the lockdown country reopens.
agreed. the point being that it is way too early to make definitive statements like that article makes.Gordo14 said:California Ag 90 said:Quote:
Sweden's strategy is not expected to preserve the country's economy this year any more than those of countries imposing stricter lockdowns: Magdalena Andersson, the finance minister, said on Wednesday GDP could shrink by 10% this year and unemployment rise to 13.5%.
but straight logic would dictate that a country that closes up less than another will experience less economic contraction. it will still have a lot of pain, but less than a lockdown country, especially depending on what happens when the lockdown country reopens.
Maybe in the short run, but if it leads to uncontrollable spread of the virus, the evidence suggests that their economy will be hurt more in the long run.
California Ag 90 said:
'flatten the curve' was THE public statement of intention behind the broad directives to shut down non-essential enterprises.
pointing out that has changed as an objective, after the fact, is NOT 'calling everything about controlling spread' goal post moving.
to the broad American public, the objective as communicated by leaders at every level was to flatten the curve. that's just reality.
it falls into the same category of 'masks don't help'. communication that was, at best, partial honesty because authorities were worried about PPE shortages and buy-in to 'stay-home' directives.
when leaders choose to use this approach, then the backlash that comes once the truth comes out has to be expected.
i'm not arguing that we should open up or making any statements about opening the economy.Gordo14 said:California Ag 90 said:
'flatten the curve' was THE public statement of intention behind the broad directives to shut down non-essential enterprises.
pointing out that has changed as an objective, after the fact, is NOT 'calling everything about controlling spread' goal post moving.
to the broad American public, the objective as communicated by leaders at every level was to flatten the curve. that's just reality.
it falls into the same category of 'masks don't help'. communication that was, at best, partial honesty because authorities were worried about PPE shortages and buy-in to 'stay-home' directives.
when leaders choose to use this approach, then the backlash that comes once the truth comes out has to be expected.
You're just being ridiculous. Yes that was the public statement. That was easy for people to understand. We are flattening the curve. It is helping the hospitals. But if you open things up without controlling the curve... Guess what happens???? Flattening the curve is literally about everything we do from today to a vaccine. It's still the same objective, it's just a shifting strategy based on data which will change and evolve over time. It should evolve with time.
