Jump to content
BANGKOK
Bender Rodriguez

Sweden - is the rest of the world dumb, blind or worse ?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Sweden only kept their lower schools open, higher schools from 16 + tutorial centers and Universities were all asked to close, that said the bulk of schools did indeed remain open, it was a perfect opportunity missed to do a full study on the effects of covid on school communities, yet the outbreaks they did have in schools the officials failed to track infections among students. Many parents in Sweden are afraid for their childrens safety and are complaining to no avail.

 

New Zealand, Australia are just 2 example countries with successful outcomes based on their circumstances, they both had serious outbreaks in schools with students infected and locked down those schools as a result, to re open when cleared, sensible approach for them that worked.

The perplexing thing is that we've had a very good study which said that closing schools made a significant difference, however, the fact that Denmark, Norway and Iceland opened schools but did not have any increase in cases and that Sweden had schools open all the time but no notable outbreak among pupils (rather some where adults brought the virus to school) would suggest that schools need not be a risk factor for the virus spread at all.

 

You'd think schools, being the disease incubators they normally are, would be huge virus spread machines. But not according to the figures coming out of Denmark etc. Very odd.

 

 

Edited by Logosone
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

In the UK, 15000 flu associated deaths per year would be a fair estimate, whereas covid19 has already been linked with 40,000 deaths in around 3 months.  

 

In my view, Covid19 deaths should only be counted in people under 70, who do not have significant underlying health conditions.  This would give us a more honest picture of how deadly the virus is, since it could really be argued that most deaths are really a matter of old age, or obesity, or diabetes, etc.

Bad boy. Mommy might get angry!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Bad boy. Mommy might get angry!

Better anger than nausea😀

 

Seriously, look covid 19 is something that has to be managed in the most humane way possible.  Lockdown isn't the answer long term.  Neither, will there be a 'magic bullet' vaccine.  We have to develop a feel for acceptable risk, as we have done for things like road fatalities, and measles.  What is really needed is a better treatment regime which prevents otherwise reasonably healthy people from dying.  There is no cure for old age- something's going to get you unfortunately.  Up til now that has been heart disease or cancer, and for some reason people feel comfortable with that arrangement; I suppose because we understand it and it is in part controllable.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

A more obvious explanation would be that Iceland is right, and only 0.8% of people have the virus.

Even if that were right, a study from Iceland with a population size of 340,000 which tested 6% of the population made a suggestion that the whole population would have a contamination rate of 0.8% then you making the assumption that this indicates the whole world has this as an average rate of infection. However this would be an average, in a whole world population size of 7.8 billion people then the outlining variables to get to that median figure can be enormous taking into account how severe the virus is in different countries, towns and cities. For instance in New York the infection rate is around 5% with that being a vast under estimate due to recent immunity tests but I don't trust those yet.

 

33 minutes ago, Logosone said:

After children were once again sent to school the virus should have circulated again, even now in the UK they are telling us how the virus is still active. It is the case that it's not clear if children can transmit the virus, but of course plenty of adults in and around the school building as well. 

If children can transmit the virus though, and that's a big if, then in theory all these measures of distancing and masks (lol) would have made no difference. If you had any experience with children you'd know they wipe the snot of their own nose and grab anything in sight. No mask, no distancing can prevent diseases, and indeed in the past many disease outbreaks were traced to schools (general non-covid19 ones). So it is rather remarkable that neither Denmark, nor Norway, nor Iceland, nor Germany nor Austria etc have seen major school outbreaks.

School opening were only made when the virus was already well under control and yes it did circulate again, I gave examples of that and where it didn't then there are again very strict measures in places to minimize the risks where schools are open again. Yes I had extensive experience working with children and young people who displayed challenging behaviour in school and hospital settings so I'm aware of what can be achieved with the correct procedures and small class sizes and all the other measures explained.

 

38 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Obviously I have the benefit of hindsight now, so it's a bit unfair, but of course the way to end the pandemic at the start would have been a lockdown combined with testing and isolating the infected, plus clinical mangement for those affected. If you isolate the carriers in safety and find them, then you prevent a pandemic, it's obvious. Sadly China failed in this. But they were the first to indentify the disease. Which was a feat in itself.

 

After a country is ravaged with the virus only testing, tracing and isolating the infected would make sense, lockdowns no longer work in any meaningful way. Special focus would have to be on care homes. 

Yes sure I was referring to the pandemic already at the start of the spread throughout the world after it had already been released from China, as then it was just an emergency epidemic but I agree with your thoughts on the situation in China at the start.

 

So if a country was able to act quickly then my strategy would be to follow the South Korea and Taiwan models with a clear back up plan for a 2 week lockdown or longer if the first actions did not succeed. The hammer approach testing and tracing from SK was impressive and the technology used by way of app was astounding. The independent international reporters on the ground were daily reporting the work achieved in detail. Success was indeed achieved but as we see its impossible to stop this virus and cases will still come back.

 

The other option for me would be New Zealand with its complete lockdown for 5 weeks which brought success, much easier of course for them with it being an Island country.

 

If a country left it too late, such as the UK or the USA, then to get a sense of the spread then first a test and trace model then once its discovered its widespread this method becomes overwhelmed with cases that it cannot cope. The only option now would be full lockdowns, length of those? Probably weeks, combined with mass testing, extensive test and trace.

 

I've deliberately not commented on your approach aside from China as that would lead to endless to and fro's between us.

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

But frankly I don't think governments can stop or prevent pandemics. That's fanciful and wishful thinking. 

I don't really understand this statement? Maybe I'm missing something. Surely governments are the ones responsible for implementing all the measures and paying for them along with funding the hospitals, drugs supplied and vaccine costs which hopefully we will get, but if not then effective therapeutic meds

 

Anyway we're not so far apart, thanks for your input.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Even if that were right, a study from Iceland with a population size of 340,000 which tested 6% of the population made a suggestion that the whole population would have a contamination rate of 0.8% then you making the assumption that this indicates the whole world has this as an average rate of infection. However this would be an average, in a whole world population size of 7.8 billion people then the outlining variables to get to that median figure can be enormous taking into account how severe the virus is in different countries, towns and cities. For instance in New York the infection rate is around 5% with that being a vast under estimate due to recent immunity tests but I don't trust those yet.

 

Iceland tested 13% of its population on 4 May, probably more now.

 

https://time.com/5831580/iceland-coronavirus-tests/

 

The USA is not just New York, as a whole, taking the USA's case numbers they suggest 0.4% of the American population have the virus. Allowing for undiscovered cases you could still come up to the 0.8% figure like in Iceland, indeed 0.4% is already fairly close to the 0.8% of Ireland. Of course there are many variables but in all countries that have tested significantly the figure of cases is in that ballpark, even lower of course in countries where there was no meaningful testing.

 

Quote

so I'm aware of what can be achieved with the correct procedures and small class sizes and all the other measures explained

I wish that were true, having children myself, I speak from experience in that they endlessly catch diseases from school, so these procedures you speak of never worked in Germany. Maybe you mean older children?

 

I certainly agree that a "hammer" approach to testing and isolating the infected, ie heavy and large scale testing at the very start is the best approach. Only very early on do you have a chance to contain the outbreak. South Korea's companies, like Germany's, reacted extremely fast in producing test kits. This was not due to the SK government btw. Their early high volume testing was a good model. Also their efforts to trace with CCTV and credit cards, however, despite that cases jumped from 18 February onwards. 

 

In a way, testing and tracing is of course always being a step behind, so SK could not prevent rising case numbers with it, though they probably limited the scope of the outbreak.

 

On 24 February, 15 countries imposed travel restrictions to and from South Korea because they were so concerned about the spread of the virus in SKorea.

 

What is not reported widely in the Western media, for obvious reasons, is that South Korea just had another superspreader event. A member of the Korean LGBT community went on a nightclub bender and managed to infect 79 people. He had contacted with at least 1300 people and SK has been unable to trace them all. As usual, it was the media on the ground that identified the gay clubs, and SKorean tracing would appear to have its limits.

 

Overall though it would seem to be clear that testing and isolating was what caused SKorea's success.

 

On New Zealand we disagree completely. As there were a number of other factors that explain New Zealand's success, an incredibly low population density, the absence of Chinese Tourists, the fact that it is an island country that finds it easy to close its borders and above all the fact that New Zealand tested in incredibly large numbers, far more than South Korea actually, it seems wrong to ascribe New Zealand's success solely to lockdown.

 

I do agree that the US and UK just left it too late. In the UK Public Health England was to blame for simply saying there would not be enough test kits and sitting on their hands. In the US it was the CDC that failed to produced tests on time, and when they came out they didn't work. Unfortunately, as we have seen lockdowns did not work in the UK.


 

Quote

 

Surely governments are the ones responsible for implementing all the measures and paying for them along with funding the hospitals, drugs supplied and vaccine costs which hopefully we will get, but if not then effective therapeutic meds

 

 

 

No, actually that's not true. The reason why South Korea and Germany were able to do large scale testing was because private companies out of themselves started producing test kits as soon as the genome was published by China. This had nothing to do with the governments. So it appears the key measure was not down to government. Of course it's the taxpayers that pay for hospitals, drugs, vaccine but as we have seen the performance of governments has been nothing short of shockingly incompetent.

 

The reason why I say governments can not prevent pandemics is a look at history. None of the major pandemics was ever stopped by a government. This has never happened. Consider the enemy. It is invisible. A tiny virus that spreads by stealth. Governments have never stopped it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Logosone
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Iceland tested 13% of its population on 4 May, probably more now.

The study that you get your figure of 0.8% was completed from a sample of 6% of the population, obviously Iceland does not stop testing but that is not included in the study as its finished.

 

Yes I'm aware hence why a made the comparison of New York population not the USA or the world.

 

I have children to, and no I was not referring to older children, I stated children and young people.

 

I agree, population density is extremely important when making country comparisons along with population totals and numerous other measures, demographics, urban and country living etc. Its notable that out of the top 10 countries that have tested their population the most, 8 have a population size under 700k. Comparisons with population density should also be taken into account as you pointed out with New Zealand, for instance, Iceland has the lowest population density of all European countries at just 3 people per square kilometer, as opposed to South Korea at 514 people per square kilometer.

 

Regards the government intervention I do wholly disagree, without them there would be no coordinated measures to organize the numerous interventions that are needed to take place.

 

For those countries that do not have effective governments you can see how devastated they are Brazil being one where the president stated its just a mild flu, 3rd world countries in particular will rely on handouts from organisations such as WHO, who in turn get their donations from governments.

 

From the models you suggested, its refreshing for me to see some logical interventions although I do not agree with all, however I did also say 

 

"I've deliberately not commented on your approach aside from China as that would lead to endless to and fro's between us."

 

I'm happy to keep to that and look forward to future discussions on separate topics, lets see how that herd immunity is going when they release the results of the latest testing round in Sweden.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The study that you get your figure of 0.8% was completed from a sample of 6% of the population, obviously Iceland does not stop testing but that is not included in the study as its finished.

 

Yes I'm aware hence why a made the comparison of New York population not the USA or the world.

 

I have children to, and no I was not referring to older children, I stated children and young people.

 

I agree, population density is extremely important when making country comparisons along with population totals and numerous other measures, demographics, urban and country living etc. Its notable that out of the top 10 countries that have tested their population the most, 8 have a population size under 700k. Comparisons with population density should also be taken into account as you pointed out with New Zealand, for instance, Iceland has the lowest population density of all European countries at just 3 people per square kilometer, as opposed to South Korea at 514 people per square kilometer.

 

Regards the government intervention I do wholly disagree, without them there would be no coordinated measures to organize the numerous interventions that are needed to take place.

 

For those countries that do not have effective governments you can see how devastated they are Brazil being one where the president stated its just a mild flu, 3rd world countries in particular will rely on handouts from organisations such as WHO, who in turn get their donations from governments.

 

From the models you suggested, its refreshing for me to see some logical interventions although I do not agree with all, however I did also say 

 

"I've deliberately not commented on your approach aside from China as that would lead to endless to and fro's between us."

 

I'm happy to keep to that and look forward to future discussions on separate topics, lets see how that herd immunity is going when they release the results of the latest testing round in Sweden.

 

 

 

As it turns out the figure of 0.8% has fallen further as Iceland continued testing:

 

https://www.icelandreview.com/ask-ir/whats-the-status-of-covid-19-in-iceland/

 

I find it somewhat funny how governments are getting the blame or the praise for the performance of their health systems and scientists. See New Zealand, where the PM is lauded because the scientists did well, same as in Germany. However, wherever the scientists and health systems did poorly the politicians are seeing heavy criticism, see UK, Brazil, US.

 

It's particularly distasteful and highly amusing when politicians, like in Germany, are trying to claim the credit, for the hard work on the ground of testers, medics, and scientists.

 

If anything can be done against the virus it is by people who have nothing to do with politics.

 

Brazil is obviously suffering because of various factors, one is the poor health system and scientific infrastructure. It's not really down to politics at all. However, leftwingers are heavily instrumentalising the virus to attack those they don't like, which is kind of distasteful as well.

 

Regarding herd immunity, did you see the SAGE files that were recently released? The UK did very much get the advice that herd immunity was worth pursuing. I have no doubt, particularly given what Tegnell said about Stockholm, that he received similar advice.

 

If it does not happen, then most likely because the number of infected is much smaller than was feared.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Brazil is obviously suffering because of various factors, one is the poor health system and scientific infrastructure. It's not really down to politics at all. However, leftwingers are heavily instrumentalising the virus to attack those they don't like, which is kind of distasteful as well.

Which is the responsibility of the Government, not politics, basic Government duties 101 be they left or right wing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 2:14 PM, kekalot said:

for people who don't want to bother clicking and or reading, "Up to 650 000 people die of respiratory diseases linked to seasonal flu each year"

 

seasonal flu doesn't mean whole year, obviously.

they said it started in December so we are technically sitting at 7th month of this (58% of a year) and last I checked it was a close to 55-60% those normal figures

Flu is seasonal in that it affects countries differently during different parts of the year - but the figures given are for the whole year and despite its seasonality, flu is present in every single country for the entire year.

 

CoVid-19 may have started in December but at that time it was pretty much confined to only one small part of one country in the entire world. Cases weren't reported elsewhere in the world until January, and after that it spread fairly gradually and didn't really become widespread in many countries till several months later. So while the flu figures span the the entire year in all countries, we're definitely not talking about a whole year's worth of data for CoVid-19 yet. In many countries the virus only became prevalent throughout the country about 3 months ago.

 

It's only when this virus has been widespread throughout every country in the world for the entire year, that we can start to make a comparison with flu figures. We're still about nine months or so away from that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Seriously....the opportunity for management in the most humane way slipped away when the virus was allowed to spread out of China. 

 

Lockdown isn't the answer long term - I know. There will be a vaccine but nobody knows how 'magic' it will be and when.  

 

Acceptable risk is fine but the definition and level of 'acceptability' will vary, depending on who is ranking it and what their reasons are.

 

What is really needed is a better regime which prevents deaths of people, healthy or not, especially w.r.t. control of the first (spread) item (above).  

 

Several remedies for diseases have been found - that's why life expectancy has been increasing around the world for so long. Do you want that to slip back to Victorian numbers? I don't really think that you alone can speak for what 'people' feel comfortable with.

 

My best wishes to your mum.

 

 

I am surely allowed an opinion and there is nothing really prescriptive in what I have written.  I am giving my thoughts just as you have done.  Or are you saying only people with whom you agree should be allowed to post?

 

An early lockdown is surely the best way of eradicating the problem short term but as we have seen it didn't happen in key countries and it also comes with an enormous cost, which may seem preferable now but won't when the true financial ramifications hit home.  And in any case Pandora fled the box as is obvious.  Many in any case think a pandemic will have its way sooner or later.

 

The fact that acceptable risk is difficult to gauge, is not a reason why it should not be defined, indeed there is an imperative that it must be done.  Looking at what is happening in the UK, it seems that in the absence of the Government making a reasonable judgement, people are making up their own minds.

 

It's not about what I want, it's about what life has presented us with.  No, I do not wish to see a return to Victorian times.... there again I do not see much to cheer about in these times.

 

I was also referring specifically to a remedy for covid19, what did you think I was talking about- indigestion?😀

 

By accident and negligence, the UK has arrived at the point where it can both manage a moderate rate of new cases and resume some semblance of normality.  This may allow a degree of herd immunity to be built up by the end of the new year.  With better treatment regimes- convalescent immune therapy- needless deaths may be avoided.  What shocks me is that we have not found a way of better protecting the elderly and vulnerable against infection; perhaps it is not feasible.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happening now all over the place in the US. I suppose the end of the world is near, right? 

 

 

DA29DCCC-6348-409C-B009-948BFAAAE63E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Happening now all over the place in the US. I suppose the end of the world is near, right? 

 

 

DA29DCCC-6348-409C-B009-948BFAAAE63E.jpeg

Nah... those losers will crawl back under their rocks soon enough.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...