Jump to content
Bender Rodriguez

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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Logosone said:

The anglo-saxon media has definitely tried to spin Sweden's policies as irresponsible, heartless and misguided. There were countless articles attacking Sweden's approach.


The reason was of course that the British were aware they were in a hard mandatory lockdown and another country keeping its cool, and not overreacting the same way, was making the Brits look a bit foolish, overly scared and over the top. So they wanted Sweden to fail. 


Now we know that Sweden got it right and the UK got it badly wrong and overreacted those articles have stopped, strangely. 




That's an odd take and inaccurate!


Taken from Daily Mail article on ONS figures: 


62k excess deaths - ONS 

There have been almost 62,000 deaths above what would normally be expected in the UK during the coronavirus outbreak, while deaths involving Covid-19 continue to fall.

There were 56,308 excess deaths in England and Wales between March 21 and May 22, compared with the average number of deaths for that period over five years, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.


I guess it could have been 100k if UK had not gone in to lockdown.


I do agree that lockdown is not the answer long term.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Logosone said:

UK's Professor Lockdown himself, Neil Ferguson, has just gone on record to say that Sweden may have surpressed Covid19 without using the draconian measures used in the UK. Says UK needs to learn from Sweden:


"Neil Ferguson whose grim warnings prompted Boris Johnson to order TOTAL LOCKDOWN admits Sweden may have suppressed Covid-19 to the same level but WITHOUT draconian measures"


  • Professor admitted there is lessons to be learned from Sweden moving forward
  • Sweden dodged major crisis without locking down and seeing economy implode

The professor whose grim warning that 500,000 Brits may die from Covid-19 without action triggered lockdown has admitted Sweden may have suppressed its outbreak as well as Britain - without imposing the draconian measures. 


Professor Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College London, revealed he had the 'greatest respect' for the Scandinavian nation, which has managed to suffer fewer deaths per capita than the UK. 


Professor Ferguson appeared to praise Sweden for keeping infections low without the economically crippling curbs and said 'they have gone quite a long way to [achieving] the same effect'.


The UK has a death rate of 575 people per million, while Sweden's is significantly lower at 436 per million. As well as fewer deaths, Sweden's GDP actually grew in the first quarter of 2020, suggesting it might avoid the worst of the economic fallout from the crisis. 


Professor Ferguson admitted he was stumped as to why Sweden had recorded just 4,000 Covid deaths when some calculations estimated the country would suffer 90,000 without the measures. 


'Lockdown is a very crude policy and what we'd like to do is have a much more targeted approach that does not have the same economic impacts.' 




Hmmm, what could that be Neil, hmmm, something targeted without the economic impacts, hmmm, could it be.....oh i don't know....maybe testing and isolating the infected? You know like South Korea and Germany have done?


This guy is unbelievable. Well, at least he admitted the draconian mandatory lockdown the UK imposed was unnecessary and that Sweden has lessons for all.


He also admitted he got it wrong and thought Asia tourists would be the main infection source in the UK, when it was Spain and Italy. It was pointed out to him that in view of the collection of the most vulnerable in one place in care homes, it should have been obvious they should have been protected more. He expressed shock they weren't, when it was his job to advise the government. 


No ones got the balls to mention the upside. It thins out overpopulated areas by culling the weak.  Truth is not part of this PC Generation anymore

  • Sad 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Do you remember someone on here previously said that Sweden had gained no economic benefit from not going into mandatory lockdown?


"Sweden’s first-quarter economic growth surprises as exports rise


Gross domestic product figures suggest ‘severe slowdown’ not imminent, say analysts


Sweden’s first-quarter growth rate rose by more than expected as exports increased, boosted by a weaker krona, as the Nordic economy appeared to weather international risks such as the escalating US-China conflict over trade.


The figures suggest that a “severe slowdown is not imminent”, Andreas Wallstrom, analyst at Swedbank, said in a note. “This is in line with our forecast and we keep our call that the Riksbank will lift its policy rate to 0.00 per cent in December.”



By comparison, the UK, which imposed mandatory lockdown, shrank by 5.8%.


"GDP contracted by 5.8%, coming close in a single month to the entire loss of output during the 2008-09 recession.


There is little doubt that worse is to come. The ONS figures show that after the government imposed lockdown on 23 March, output collapsed by roughly a quarter. Surveys of business activity paint a similarly grizzly picture.


In a scenario in which lockdown restrictions are only gradually eased from June (as is the case) – broadly as the government plans – Threadneedle Street expects GDP to shrink by 25% in the second quarter, a contraction more than 10 times greater than the worst quarter of the financial crisis. The Bank predicts the economy will shrink by 14% overall in 2020, an impact that ranks alongside that of the Great Frost of 1709."




So the UK government panicked, imposed heavy mandatory lockdown and the UK economy shrinks by an entire quarter, 25%, in the second quarter of this year.


By comparison Sweden sees no contraction at all in the first quarter and looks cool, calm and collected into the future.


So much for this guy on here posting that Sweden's decision not to go into mandatory lockdown had no economic benefits. 








Nobody is disagreeing with the facts, just your particularly gloating take.


I'm afraid if your country has a mega city, covid19 is likely to hit hard.  If we look at Norwich, UK we see very little infection rather as in Sweden. There's nothing magic here; it's about population densities.



Edited by mommysboy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drgoon said:


The UK, very likely, would have been much worse off.


I agree about lockdown, not a long term solution. 


Look at the situation in New Zealand in comparison to Sweden with approximately twice the population, similar lifestyles etc. 


NZ statistics 





Swedens Stats




Twice the population yet 20x the fatality rate.  Yep, that was the right approach alright.


New Zealand went into a prolonged lockdown, 6 weeks beginning March 25. Then to Level 3, now in Level 2. There was an announcement by the Prime Minister today that a move to Level 1 will be announced early next week, possibly Monday.


New Zealand has done well on a health perspective. The social and financial impact, as we all know, will be felt for a long time to come. 



New Zealand was a different case. No skiing tourists from Austria, no tourists from Spain or Italy. 


NZ is an island nation that can easily close its borders. No chinese tourists. 


And more importantly NZ started testing and isolating the infected on a grand scale. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mommysboy said:



I'm afraid if your country has a mega city, covid19 is likely to hit hard.  If we look at Norwich, UK we see very little infection rather as in Sweden. There's nothing magic here; it's about population densities.



That statement is problematic because the Northwest of England was affected twice as badly as London.


Some of the most heavily and densely populated cities in Germany were less affected than Heinsberg.


Population density is a factor. But it is not the only one.


The reason why the UK was hit so hard was because it reacted so late. It reacted so late because Public Health England said 'not enough test kits available' and the UK's scientific advisers just accepted this instead of seeking out private companies that were offering to produce tests kits.

  • Sad 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

I see the   foolish claim in respect to the Swedish economy. Perhaps we are to be taken  for fools who do not understand what Q1 means. For the ignorant, it refers to January, February and March. As of march 31, much of North America and Europe was only starting lockdowns towards the end of March. For example As of 31 march, only 32 of 50 US states were in "lockdown";  The UK lockdown phased in March 23-30.  Why would the  Q1 results  be negative if the Covid19 economic crisis was only starting?


It is the Q2 numbers that matter. To help the intellectually challenged, Q2 will include April, May and June and it will come as no surprise that financial results will be grim, even in Sweden.


Apparently we are to believe that all will be well. Someone had better inform 

Sweden's finance minister Magdalena Andersson because her most recent statement is 

that the Swedish economy will shrink 7% this year.

At the  same time, Sweden's debt office posted its highest  borrowing level with an increase to cover emergency spending amid record job losses.

One cannot expect an export driven economy to post   good results in Q2 when its largest exporters have cut jobs and its exports have disappeared.


It is hard to believe that such foolish people circulate, but they exist as  some of the posts demonstrate. The sad aspect is that they become very angry and aggressive when  people do not accept their incorrect conclusions and mangled  interpretations.

You forget Q3 and Q4. In case you haven't heard yet, Q3 is July, August, September and Q4 is October, November and December. The lockdown effects will be even more clear looking at them.

Nevertheless, and as said here already many times, a heavily export oriented country such as Sweden will suffer heavily from the economic meltdown in the lockdown countries. Nobody is denying that. However you use that now to claim that the no lockdown policy of Sweden has no positive effect on Sweden's economy, and that is simply wrong.


Sweden's exports will of course suffer from the economic lockdown disaster in the lockdown countries, but at least the countless small businesses serving the local population, which are not locked down there, are still alive and well, and that has a very positive effect on Sweden's economy, minimizing the damage, minimizing the suffering.

Edited by yuyiinthesky
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)




This infographic, which appears sound, provides a clue as to how the UK, and possibly many other countries including Sweden, might proceed to completely open its economy quickly, and achieve herd immunity, whilst providing a comprehensive shield to the most vulnerable throughout the course of the pandemic.


It would undoubtedly require all nursing homes to go in to a strict lockdown, and probably most households where there are elderly or vulnerable residents. 



Edited by mommysboy

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...