So much for the "Swedish way"!

[peterfe]

On April 5th, I wrote this: "Well, the article in The Australian sparked a bit of a debate, which was the idea. I really have no idea whether the Wuhan way, the Swedish way or any other "way" is the solution."  I had posted an article from an anti-lockdown commentator in Australia and at the time the Covid-19 figures for Sweden (which didn't have a lockdown, bars and restaurants were open) were similar to those in Norway and Denmark.

Well, I've just looked at daily new cases for Sweden for the first time since the beginning of April, and they are still at the same level! Whereas cases in all the other Scandinavian countries have decreased a lot! And since Australia also seems to have managed very well with its lockdown since then, there seem to be very strong arguments in favour of lockdowns, however inconvenient we may find them. If you still have any doubt, take a look at the figures for Sweden and Norway, two very similar countries in terms of healthcare, climate and way of life.

[hk blues]

I suppose we should wait until the so-called 1st wave is over everywhere and then see how the numbers stack. The Swedes are saying they are taking the hit now but believe their strategy will be shown to be the best in the long run. I totally get their point but still feel instinctively they chose the wrong strategy. 

The timing of the vaccine is all - if no vaccine appears then it doesn't really matter which strategy was chosen, we're all getting it anyway! The caveat is always the preparedness of the health system - that's why I'm fully on-board with the strategy here. Exception being the alcohol ban - smacks of something to swat down the poor IMO.

[OnMyWay]

6 hours ago, peterfe said:

On April 5th, I wrote this: "Well, the article in The Australian sparked a bit of a debate, which was the idea. I really have no idea whether the Wuhan way, the Swedish way or any other "way" is the solution."  I had posted an article from an anti-lockdown commentator in Australia and at the time the Covid-19 figures for Sweden (which didn't have a lockdown, bars and restaurants were open) were similar to those in Norway and Denmark.

Well, I've just looked at daily new cases for Sweden for the first time since the beginning of April, and they are still at the same level! Whereas cases in all the other Scandinavian countries have decreased a lot! And since Australia also seems to have managed very well with its lockdown since then, there seem to be very strong arguments in favour of lockdowns, however inconvenient we may find them. If you still have any doubt, take a look at the figures for Sweden and Norway, two very similar countries in terms of healthcare, climate and way of life.

You are disregarding one big factor.  The cost of a shut down like so many countries are experiencing.  I assume Sweden still had a bit of this but nothing like the other countries.  Unemployment, long term financial issues, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.  I'm not sure about semi-socialist countries like some of those mentioned, but in the U.S., those are huge.  And the U.S. issues have a trickle down effect on the rest of the world.

The same as most countries, the Sweden deaths are really old people.  66% over age 80.  88% over age 70.  95% over age 60.  Perhaps, with lessons learned, they will take more steps to protect the elders, next time around.  In 2019, the life expectancy of a Swede was 82.17 years.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

[peterfe]

I think one of the lockdown rules that is actually in effect in Sweden is that you're not allowed to visit seniors. Anyway, comparing very different countries is futile. If there was another country very similar to the US that had tried a different system, maybe we could say something. Of course there are more mental health problems, suicides, domestic violence, job losses, etc. under a lockdown, and some weeks ago I was wondering whether lockdowns were worth the cost, on balance. But having looked at the recent figures for some countries I know well, I've come round to the idea that lockdowns are the best solution.

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, peterfe said:

I think one of the lockdown rules that is actually in effect in Sweden is that you're not allowed to visit seniors. Anyway, comparing very different countries is futile. If there was another country very similar to the US that had tried a different system, maybe we could say something. Of course there are more mental health problems, suicides, domestic violence, job losses, etc. under a lockdown, and some weeks ago I was wondering whether lockdowns were worth the cost, on balance. But having looked at the recent figures for some countries I know well, I've come round to the idea that lockdowns are the best solution.

I think it's too soon to make such judgements. Who knows what the impact of the increasing loosening of measures will be? 

I tend to agree that lockdowns are the best idea but countries like Japan have done well without them - Let's evaluate once the 1st wave is over.

[GeoffH]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

I tend to agree that lockdowns are the best idea but countries like Japan have done well without them - Let's evaluate once the 1st wave is over.

The trouble with 'wait until the first wave is over' is that the first wave is going to last different amounts of time in different contries because the peak occured at different times and because some countries locked down harder and flattened the curve more.  A few even managed to supress the first wave (like New Zealand).

It would work in a more local area (evaluation I mean).

 

[hk blues]

21 hours ago, GeoffH said:

The trouble with 'wait until the first wave is over' is that the first wave is going to last different amounts of time in different contries because the peak occured at different times and because some countries locked down harder and flattened the curve more.  A few even managed to supress the first wave (like New Zealand).

It would work in a more local area (evaluation I mean).

 

You're correct - it's not like a race where we all started at the same time. I was more thinking about a longer term analysis i.e. not before the end of the year by which time we SHOULD have passed the 1st wave most everywhere. Problem is the argument will begin that those countries hit hard by wave 1 may be better equipped to ride wave 2.

[Mike J]

Maybe the USA had decided to go Swedish as they hit 100,000 deaths and one point seven million cases?   

 

[Snowy79]

2 hours ago, Mike J said:

Maybe the USA had decided to go Swedish as they hit 100,000 deaths and one point seven million cases?   

 

I think the jury is still out as the expected second wave never hit Florida from the Spring break.  In fact I think it has more to do with where you put your resources. https://web.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=927837277651819

[OnMyWay]

4 hours ago, Mike J said:

Maybe the USA had decided to go Swedish as they hit 100,000 deaths and one point seven million cases?

100,000 deaths due to what?

CDC says only 7% did not have at least one comorbidity.  80% are over 65.  92% are over 55.  That is based on the 62,000 deaths that are coded right now, not the ~100k total.  The U.S. deaths are highly attributable to unhealthy people and unhealthy lifestyles.  And poor people are highly represented in the deaths.  They tend to be less healthy than the general population.

And keep in mind, U.S. hospitals have a financial incentive to blame a death on Covid, so when in doubt, Covid!  No test required.

CDC working on a new stat which may be interesting.  Excess deaths.  It is not ready for primetime because of the backlog of the coding and the time it takes to get death certificates.

What they do is take the weekly deaths from past years and project it it over the Covid period, which they have as starting Feb. 1.  So you have "weekly predicted deaths".  Then they look at the actual deaths and compare.  It is a bit confusing now, but I think they look at actual deaths with and without the "covid' deaths, for different views.  So, for instance, if the predicted deaths for week XX in April 2020 is 10,000, and the actual deaths are 11,000, you have 1,000 excess deaths over the normal.  You might infer that 1,000 deaths are due to Covid.

What I see in all the numbers is that without proper protections, Covid is the final nail in the coffin for unhealthy people who were going to die in the next 1-5 years anyway.  You can't deny the numbers.  In the video that Snowy posted, Florida did it right, or at least close.   Logically, Covid have moved those deaths up into these months, so overall death rates might be lower after Covid moves on.

And about 50% of the deaths were in nursing homes!  A total screw-up by the policy makers involved!  I think I read that, before Covid,  the average time spent in a nursing home before death is only 6 months!  So, during the Covid time, you are shortening their life by a few months with Covid.  Not right, but you have to think about it.

I have seen statements calling people who want to reopen the world, "selfish".  I call BS.  It is the people who don't want to reopen who are selfish.  The impact of lockdowns on the overall health and welfare of the world is terrible and worse than Covid.  If you don't see it you are not looking.  Many of the negative impacts are right out in the open, such as the unemployment, suicides, etc., but many underlying negatives will be felt far into the future.  For example, small business owners who lose their business forever, or have to tap into their savings to survive, and then have no money to send their kids to university.   People are suffering in so many ways that are not obvious to most.

I'm 63 with hypertension and mild asthma.  I will take steps to protect myself and my family, but I will never favor a total stay at home lock-down again.  These are a disaster for the world.