The Swedish experiment of doing remarkably little about Covid-19

[Hawkeye10]

I hate to tell you this, reality has set in, we dont have the capability to make the stuff. That means getting more is problematic at best. Just telling why there are no tests and why they aren't coming soon.

I am the one who has been saying that it would take years to get the medical supply chain back, that till then we need to go begging to The New Chinese Empire.

Now that they have gained this power over us they are not going to give it up.

We are serfs in their plan you understand.....

We are so screwed.

 

[Chagos]

One of the pitfalls of trying to make any model into a one-all-to-fit-all is the tendency to compare "uncomparables".

Without arguing the merits of the Swedish model over that of others (since the outcome will remain unknown to even the Swedes for quite some time), one need see that any plan to achieve herd immunity thru exposure is undertaken under much different parameters in Sweden than originally envisaged in (and for) the UK.

For one thing the whole of Sweden has a population that surpasses that of alone London by "only" 20 pct (around 11 million of the former to around 9 million of the latter). Secondly around half of the overall Swedish population is centered in and around Stockholm, the rest of the country being comparatively sparsely populated, with Sweden's size being around 450,000 sq. kms, IOW over twice the area of Great Britain.

So if we work on the premise of population density being a prime factor of infection, applying the parameters that govern(ed) the Swedish model to Britain would have constituted total stupidity and fortunately found abandonment, albeit, as we now see, too late.

Add to that the prospective capacities of respective medical facilities in both countries, and one need say no more.

Whether the Swedes' plan ends up showing the merits envisaged or not (and I sure wish them that it does), saying that everyone else should have pursued it would show massive imprudence.

Just ask Cuomo.

 

[PeteEU]

One of the pitfalls of trying to make any model into a one-all-to-fit-all is the tendency to compare "uncomparables".

Without arguing the merits of the Swedish model over that of others (since the outcome will remain unknown to even the Swedes for quite some time), one need see that any plan to achieve herd immunity thru exposure is undertaken under much different parameters in Sweden than originally envisaged in (and for) the UK.

For one thing the whole of Sweden has a population that surpasses that of alone London by "only" 20 pct (around 11 million of the former to around 9 million of the latter). Secondly around half of the overall Swedish population is centered in and around Stockholm, the rest of the country being comparatively sparsely populated, with Sweden's size being around 450,000 sq. kms, IOW over twice the area of Great Britain.

So if we work on the premise of population density being a prime factor of infection, applying the parameters that govern(ed) the Swedish model to Britain would have constituted total stupidity and fortunately found abandonment, albeit, as we now see, too late.

Add to that the prospective capacities of respective medical facilities in both countries, and one need say no more.

Whether the Swedes' plan ends up showing the merits envisaged or not (and I sure wish them that it does), saying that everyone else should have pursued it would show massive imprudence.

Just ask Cuomo.

Actually there is far more to it than just demographics/population density imo.

Look at the main centres of infection in Europe, minus the Evangelical morons in France. Milan, Madrid, Barcelona and London. What do these 4 places have in common other than being big cities?

Pollution, which means more pulmonary issues by default.

Add to that in Italy and Spain, a higher smoking population.

On top of that high elderly populations and suddenly you have factors that might be much more important than population density.

Same with New York.. Sure dense population, but also one of the heaviest polluted cities in the world.

Now Sweden as you said is sparsely populated but also has relatively low pollution.

But I think the most important thing is weather...Swedes and Danes are traditionally self isolating during the cold months but now the weather is getting better and in Sweden they are seeing spikes in infections....wonder why?

Sent from my Honor 8X

 

[Chagos]

Actually there is far more to it than just demographics/population density imo.

Look at the main centres of infection in Europe, minus the Evangelical morons in France. Milan, Madrid, Barcelona and London. What do these 4 places have in common other than being big cities?

Pollution, which means more pulmonary issues by default.

Add to that in Italy and Spain, a higher smoking population.

On top of that high elderly populations and suddenly you have factors that might be much more important than population density.

Same with New York.. Sure dense population, but also one of the heaviest polluted cities in the world.

Now Sweden as you said is sparsely populated but also has relatively low pollution.

But I think the most important thing is weather...Swedes and Danes are traditionally self isolating during the cold months but now the weather is getting better and in Sweden they are seeing spikes in infections....wonder why?

Sent from my Honor 8X

By all I get to hear the virus doesn't care whether anyone it infects has lungs that suffer from a polluted environment. That's more of an interest to the grim reaper.

And where people intermingling to a large extent (your reference to nice weather achieving that) clearly favors the spread, half of Sweden's population living in a space that's remarkably larger than the whole of Britain will be a hindrance to that intermingling, especially if one considers that those Swedes we speak of in this respect amount to around 10 pct of the overall population of Britain, not to mention not even reaching that of London.

In this respect population density will indeed more speedily achieve the 60-70pct overall infection deemed necessary for the herd immunity that stops the virus spreading altogether. The question is at what cost of human life.

With (greater) Stockholm being pretty near to the above 60 pct, maybe the idea is to thus save the "other"Swedes from infection altogether.

 

[Sven Karma]

Sweden prepares for possible tighter coronavirus measures as death toll climbs | World news | The Guardian

The strategy has come under increasingly heavy fire from some of the country’s health experts. Stefan Hanson, a respected Swedish infectious diseases expert, said the situation was not lost in the whole country, with large parts of the south and north so far displaying low infections rates. “But in Stockholm it is fast becoming critical,” Hanson said. “There is a real risk now that cases will rise so high that the hospitals cannot cope. Treatment choices are already having to be made by biological age.”

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Actually there is far more to it than just demographics/population density imo.

Look at the main centres of infection in Europe, minus the Evangelical morons in France. Milan, Madrid, Barcelona and London. What do these 4 places have in common other than being big cities?

Pollution, which means more pulmonary issues by default.

Add to that in Italy and Spain, a higher smoking population.

On top of that high elderly populations and suddenly you have factors that might be much more important than population density.

Same with New York.. Sure dense population, but also one of the heaviest polluted cities in the world.

Now Sweden as you said is sparsely populated but also has relatively low pollution.

But I think the most important thing is weather...Swedes and Danes are traditionally self isolating during the cold months but now the weather is getting better and in Sweden they are seeing spikes in infections....wonder why?

Sent from my Honor 8X

The Swedes I know tend to fly to very hot extremes as soon as it gets warmer - Thailand seems a very popular location. I agree however they are getting more and more infections - it was predictable without lockdown of any kind - just as we saw here.

Anyhow, back to the main thrust - you raise some interesting points about pollution and population desnity - my county has a pretty high infection rate - I know several friends at the local University who have had COVID-19 and nearly all returned from a course trip to Berlin not so long ago. That completely goes against the theory that polution alone or population density accounts for the majority of cases. I think in some instances - it's simple "Sod's Law" principle at work.

I'm curious however that places like Monaco and similar are very close to the northern Italian border and average age is 54+ yet few cases - unless it's easy for billionaires and multi-millionaires to self isolate. I suppose Chagos being our local multi-millionaire can add detail? :mrgreen:

 

[Sven Karma]

Multi-milionaires in Brazil managed to create their own coronavirus hotspot: Brazil's super-rich and the exclusive club at the heart of a coronavirus hotspot | World news | The Guardian

The connection between the spread of coronavirus and Brazil’s super-rich has sparked discussion over their role in introducing the ailment to Brazil – and the gulf between rich and poor in one of the most unequal societies on earth.

Many fear that while the first coronavirus wave has crashed over Brazil’s largely white political and economic elite, it is the poor and mostly black masses who will eventually suffer the most – without the luxury of being able to self-isolate at home or resort to expensive private hospitals.

One of the first deaths recorded in Brazil was that of Cleonice Gonçalves, a 63-year-old domestic helper who was reportedly infected by her wealthy employer when she returned from holiday in Italy.

 

[What if...?]

I think they are doing the right thing by not ruining the economy over this. People who are high risk are adult enough to quarantine themselves against others, right?

What are 20+% of the population going to do for a year or more until a vaccine comes out? Because that's how long you will have to quarantine them.

I know conervatives aren't going to feed and house them for a year or more.

 

[What if...?]

The collated data-points from different nations strongly suggest that Sweden (and Belarus) will rue their decisions to not implement distancing and other mitigation strategies.

Hell, I predict we're gonna see whether early SD efforts worked better than "this is my hot body! I'll do what I want" approaches.

Bunch of states are weeks behind California.

We are gonna see who had it right and who didn't.

(And those in states who didn't can keep the **** out of California if they find out their plans were stupid)

 

[What if...?]

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell argued that “even if the country's comparatively permissive policies are an anomaly, they are more sustainable and effective in protecting the public's health than “drastic” moves like closing schools for four or five months…

The goal is to slow down the amount of new people getting infected so that health care gets a reasonable chance to take care of them. And that's what we all do in every country in Europe. We just choose different methods to do it.”

We will see in a couple of weeks how well Sweden approach work. Quarantine of the elderly and preexisting condition while at the same time low risk people practice the recommended guideline to reduce the spread of the coronavirus looks a reasonable method to handle the health crisis.

Except for the fly in the ointment:

Highly contagious asymptomatic carriers.

Left to its own devices the virus will saturate a population very quickly.

But we are going to see if it works or not.

I'm not particularly hopeful.

Except for the lethality, this is the kind of outbreak epidemiologists have feared for decades. Because of those highly contagious asymptomatic carriers. Who also have a long period of being contagious.

And everybody is really quirmet about the other "monster" lurking in the nature of RNA viruses: mutation.

This virus, if I understand correctly, has an opportunity to mutate every other transmission. Those mutations can go either way. But the Spanish flu was mild the first round and deadly when it came back the following year. Due to mutation.

That would be the other reason to limit the spread of the virus. To limit the number of times those dice get rolled.

 

[What if...?]

Sweden has recorded more than 4,000 coronavirus cases, which is comparable to those of Japan where daily life has been continuing largely as normal. There is no need to panic if there are only few thousand cases. In both countries, large gatherings were banned, while restaurants, bars and shops are still serving customers. Probably there is a low level of migration to Sweden from other EU member states like Spain and Italy.

Not so fast.

Looks like Tokyo is taking off right now:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw0-2ZdclcHfP75ugPuE9thP

Check out the animated graph of infections in japan.

Looks eerily similar to the early doubling we've seen elsewhere.

 

[What if...?]

Respecting a person's right to freely chose who he/she associates is, in modern times, only a privilege granted by the central authority - something to be denied to any person or group the state overseers designate.

Hence, we have ended up with a fiasco "remedy" - the closing down of society and termination of thousands of businesses and jobs in order to do exactly what, protect the only truly vulnerable...the cohort of oldsters over 60? Are they now considered senile, unable to make up their own minds and arrange there own affairs to protect themselves?

Oldsters are no more a danger to themselves now than they were before this infection; all had a choice over their own self-care, health and lifestyle, and associations. Instead we are not only locking them up (so to speak) but society at large who are not in significant danger of out of control dying.

The real insanity is that EVEN FOR AN AUTHORITARIAN the collective strategy is stupid. Rather than lose a trillion or two in the production of goods and services, one could have spent a fraction of that amount (10s of billions) setting up sheltering centers for millions of truly vulnerable folks (if they chose), fed em, isolated them, and kept them 100 percent quarantined. The rest of society good hum along, its prosperity helping to pay for this strategy.

Rather, the pinheads decide to try to quarantine ALL OF SOCIETY from old people, rather than vice versa. And at a huge economic cost.

Go figure.

So you don't know that every demographic except those under 19 sees over 20% needing hospitalization?

Folks without underlying conditions.

Your narrative managers are getting people killed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What are 20+% of the population going to do for a year or more until a vaccine comes out? Because that's how long you will have to quarantine them.

I know conervatives aren't going to feed and house them for a year or more.

How would they get by with the draconian measures? Why should that be any different?

The faster we allow the majority of the population to contract it, the less time those in danger need to be isolated.

 

[PeteEU]

By all I get to hear the virus doesn't care whether anyone it infects has lungs that suffer from a polluted environment. That's more of an interest to the grim reaper.

Yes and no. It looks more and more like, lungs that have suffered from pollution or smoking have a higher tendency to need hospitalisation..

And where people intermingling to a large extent (your reference to nice weather achieving that) clearly favors the spread, half of Sweden's population living in a space that's remarkably larger than the whole of Britain will be a hindrance to that intermingling, especially if one considers that those Swedes we speak of in this respect amount to around 10 pct of the overall population of Britain, not to mention not even reaching that of London.

Yes but we are all going to get it at some point..

In this respect population density will indeed more speedily achieve the 60-70pct overall infection deemed necessary for the herd immunity that stops the virus spreading altogether. The question is at what cost of human life.

Speed certainly kills I agree, hence high population density is a problem in that respect. The cost of human life will be there regardless until we have a way to fight this thing.

 

[PeteEU]

I'm curious however that places like Monaco and similar are very close to the northern Italian border and average age is 54+ yet few cases - unless it's easy for billionaires and multi-millionaires to self isolate. I suppose Chagos being our local multi-millionaire can add detail? :mrgreen:

Its a tax haven.. no one wants to really live there. Just like Gibraltar.. So they are not there, but elsewhere in the world.

 

[Chagos]

Yes and no. It looks more and more like, lungs that have suffered from pollution or smoking have a higher tendency to need hospitalisation..

Oh, no doubt about that one.

Yes but we are all going to get it at some point..

same thing (no doubt).

Speed certainly kills I agree, hence high population density is a problem in that respect. The cost of human life will be there regardless until we have a way to fight this thing.

With some of that cost perhaps avoidable by slowing down the spread to the point that the health system can keep up.

Ideally from the beginning and not, like with Italy and Spain, at a later point when the infection rate slowly decreases to the capacity of facilities.

 

[PeteEU]

Oh, no doubt about that one.same thing (no doubt).With some of that cost perhaps avoidable by slowing down the spread to the point that the health system can keep up.

Ideally from the beginning and not, like with Italy and Spain, at a later point when the infection rate slowly decreases to the capacity of facilities.

If you are unlucky to need a ventilator, then your chance of survival are not good. Doctors have a hard time stablizing people and they more than often die.

Reports in Danish media paint a really shocking picture of how this **** constantly changes in the lungs and keeps nurses and doctors on high alert because seconds matter in change of air flow to the lungs. One minute you need X amount of oxygen and then 2 minutes later you need double that.

Sent from my Honor 8X

 

[Chagos]

~.....................I'm curious however that places like Monaco and similar are very close to the northern Italian border and average age is 54+ yet few cases - unless it's easy for billionaires and multi-millionaires to self isolate.

Oh, with a population of around 38,000, I reckon 50 cases (including Albert) isn't doing too badly. And it's difficult to stop at (in), seeing how the traffic will whoosh you at again at the other end before you can even say "Hey, there's a free parking place over there"

I suppose Chagos being our local multi-millionaire can add detail? :mrgreen:

I'm not quite there yet but the donkey taxi business looks promising. Lock this place down for the rest of the year and I'll be on a roll.:lol:

 

[Chagos]

If you are unlucky to need a ventilator, then your chance of survival are not good. Doctors have a hard time stablizing people and they more than often die.

Reports in Danish media paint a really shocking picture of how this **** constantly changes in the lungs and keeps nurses and doctors on high alert because seconds matter in change of air flow to the lungs. One minute you need X amount of oxygen and then 2 minutes later you need double that.

Sent from my Honor 8X

Yeah, and even if you survive, chances are that you'll be pretty ill for the rest of your life. Scarred lungs aren't comfortable.

 

[maxparrish]

So you don't know that every demographic except those under 19 sees over 20% needing hospitalization?

Folks without underlying conditions.

Your narrative managers are getting people killed.

So don't you know that you are not honoring the truth? Time for a fact check:

1) It's not "every demographic", it is every demographic of "confirmed COVID patients".

2) Of those, every age group BELOW 44 years of age and above 19 years of age have a hospitalization rate of 14.3%. Below 20 years of age it is tiny 1.6%.

3) Of those, every age group from 45 to 64 have an average of 20-21% hospitalization.

4) My narrative managers (in this case the CDC) also illustrate that "hospitalization" is not a proxy of "getting killed". Those between 20 and 54 have an average combined rate of just .3% of "getting killed" (less than 1 in 300 patients). Those 19 and below have a 0% chance of dying.

6) Even Covid patients between 55-64 only have a fatality rate of 1.4%.

7) Finally, these averages do not distinguish between those with and without underlying conditions, they reflect the entirety of the age group.

My narrative "gets" no one killed, people are responsible for their own choices. If, at 68 and with underlying conditions, I choose to ignore precautions and die no one "got me killed", other than myself.

You might re-read my entire post as most of it is a moral statement that you didn't absorb in the slightest.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Its a tax haven.. no one wants to really live there. Just like Gibraltar.. So they are not there, but elsewhere in the world.

And Leichtenstein? Luxembourg? They all have older populations too. 41 and 39 as their average age. This virus tends to get the older populations.

Yeah, and even if you survive, chances are that you'll be pretty ill for the rest of your life. Scarred lungs aren't comfortable.

I know viruses adapt and mutate too so any vaccine needs to keep up - but if there's no cure, pretty much all of us will get hit by it at some point.

 

[What if...?]

So don't you know that you are not honoring the truth? Time for a fact check:

1) It's not "every demographic", it is every demographic of "confirmed COVID patients".

2) Of those, every age group BELOW 44 years of age and above 19 years of age have a hospitalization rate of 14.3%. Below 20 years of age it is tiny 1.6%.

3) Of those, every age group from 45 to 64 have an average of 20-21% hospitalization.

4) My narrative managers (in this case the CDC) also illustrate that "hospitalization" is not a proxy of "getting killed". Those between 20 and 54 have an average combined rate of just .3% of "getting killed" (less than 1 in 300 patients). Those 19 and below have a 0% chance of dying.

6) Even Covid patients between 55-64 only have a fatality rate of 1.4%.

7) Finally, these averages do not distinguish between those with and without underlying conditions, they reflect the entirety of the age group.

My narrative "gets" no one killed, people are responsible for their own choices. If, at 68 and with underlying conditions, I choose to ignore precautions and die no one "got me killed", other than myself.

You might re-read my entire post as most of it is a moral statement that you didn't absorb in the slightest.

Long response to say pretty much the same thing.

First there are some deaths in the under 19 cohort.

As to the rest is is about 20% of all age groups 20 and up that are exposed that require hospitalization.

Not confirmed cases. Exposed. Virus in the respiratory tract. No existing immunity. That is what "novel" means. It lands, it hooks up, it starts forcing your body to replicate and disperse it. At some point your body's immune system responds and kills it. You may be asymptomatic. You may need some nyquil. And you have an average 20% chance to end up in the hospital and small chance of dying. Which increases in direct proportion to how many are exposed around the same time you were. Too many and it comes down to who gets there first.

At this point in tike nobody knows how many are infected. At best we know who got exposed a week or two ago and then got sick enough to merit a test.

It's getting to the point where it's just wilful ignorance masquerading as knowledge coming from the right.

Whole arguments that fail on obvious errors.

 

[Sandokan]

Except for the fly in the ointment:

Highly contagious asymptomatic carriers.

Left to its own devices the virus will saturate a population very quickly.

But we are going to see if it works or not.

I'm not particularly hopeful.

Except for the lethality, this is the kind of outbreak epidemiologists have feared for decades. Because of those highly contagious asymptomatic carriers. Who also have a long period of being contagious.

And everybody is really quirmet about the other "monster" lurking in the nature of RNA viruses: mutation.

This virus, if I understand correctly, has an opportunity to mutate every other transmission. Those mutations can go either way. But the Spanish flu was mild the first round and deadly when it came back the following year. Due to mutation.

That would be the other reason to limit the spread of the virus. To limit the number of times those dice get rolled.

We will see is Sweden approach of common sense is more effective than the draconian measures taken by other European countries. Sweden way is to take care of both economy and virus simultaneously, without the need of a total lockdown.

So far Sweden on April 5, total cases 6830 and death 401 are in the middle range of number of death per 1 million population in Western Europe. The government can evaluate the spread of the virus from day to day and adjust policies along the way. When this is over, it can be used to see which of the approach worked better.
Link: Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,272,860 Cases and 69,424 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Outbreak - Worldometer

 

[What if...?]

We will see is Sweden approach of common sense is more effective than the draconian measures taken by other European countries. Sweden way is to take care of both economy and virus simultaneously, without the need of a total lockdown.

So far Sweden on April 5, total cases 6830 and death 401 are in the middle range of number of death per 1 million population in Western Europe. The government can evaluate the spread of the virus from day to day and adjust policies along the way. When this is over, it can be used to see which of the approach worked better.
Link: Coronavirus Update (Live): 1,272,860 Cases and 69,424 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Outbreak - Worldometer

The numbers we have here aren't good for estimating the spread because they are all lagging indicators and we are only testing those ill enough to meet the criteria.

They are good for mitigation. Because that's what we have to do now.



We blew our shot at containment. We can argue about how and why and whether it was somebody's fault or nobody could have predicted this we did not move to contain this. We made strange decisions on how to deal with this with the CDC for instance placing itself as a bottleneck in a situation almost certain to overwhelm its physical capacity instead of mustering as many labs as possible to he ready, leveraging various university research facilities to make and conduct tests, they test for coronavirus during the course of coronavirus research.

South Korea went broadband and called industry to the table as soon as they had a first case. Got started making tests, got those tests out and done. Did contact tracing and targeted quarantined and surveillance testing where you just do random samples and see if anything pops up.

They started on this immediately.

We meandered and lollygagged for weeks. We did. We downplayed and dismissed and declared victory. And here we are. Not doing so great. Playing catch-up. Hoping we have bought enough tike with social distancing.

Sweden won't know they have a major problem until they already have the problem. They won't get much warning.

We may see a similar pattern in states that rejected the premise of social distancing until reality advised otherwise. And when you go "Oh ****!" with a virus like this it's already up your ass.

It just hasn't gotten hard yet.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Sweden's chief adviser is a virologist who is skeptical of the UK's switch to lockdown, however Sweden's infection rate remains higher than neighbouring Finland and Norway where lockdown has been imposed - Finland is doing best.

Coronavirus: why the Nordics are our best bet for comparing strategies

The same reason Sweden's virologist is skeptical of the UK abandoning herd immunity is the same reason why if this experiment is to continue - he shouldn't compare the UK with Sweden in that Swedish households have a higher percentage of single person households compared to the UK.