Was Sweden right after all ?

[Justin Smith]

Has anyone seen this :

Do they realise how significant it is ?
Remember, Sweden has never had a lockdown (BBC News link).......

I have said right from the beginning I thought Sweden was right and we were wrong, though I thought it might take a few years to prove it. At first I concluded their strategy was correct because I thought the social and economic cost of the lockdown was too high, but increasingly,as more evidence comes to light, I think it has been of dubious benefit for its intended purpose of keeping the Covid death toll down. And that's before factoring in all the deaths that are being (and will be) caused by it.
Time will tell, for sure I mean.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Justin The cost of our lockdown has yet to be seen
The sweds don't get things wrong very often

 

[mattk]

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if Sweden's approach worked on either a public health or an economic level when you compare them neighbouring countries:

https://www.businessinsider.com/swe...h-toll-no-economic-gain-data-2020-7?r=US&IR=T

 

[Interestedobserver]

Has anyone seen this :

Do they realise how significant it is ?
Remember, Sweden has never had a lockdown (BBC News link).......

I have said right from the beginning I thought Sweden was right and we were wrong, though I thought it might take a few years to prove it. At first I concluded their strategy was correct because I thought the social and economic cost of the lockdown was too high, but increasingly,as more evidence comes to light, I think it has been of dubious benefit for its intended purpose of keeping the Covid death toll down. And that's before factoring in all the deaths that are being (and will be) caused by it.
Time will tell, for sure I mean.

There's proven to be very little economic difference or benefit to what Sweden did compared to places like Denmark next to them

The major difference between the countries was Denmark imposed lockdowns whereas Sweden encouraged their population to social distance without imposing lockdown

Something the Swedes proved to be very good and disciplined at

But end result of lockdown imposed and social distancing encouraged was that overall spend in Denmark and Sweden reduced by 25 per cent to 30 per cent in both places

Many in Sweden who were scared of the lack of lockdown just self imposed lockdown anyway those that did go out did so less often and very cautiously. They were all very careful about what they did and didn't do

Which kind of shows that just because things are allowed to remain open - people don't flock to go to those places.

Hope that makes sense. Sweden didn't impose lockdown on its people but they ended up with similar self imposed spending losses to the economy - just in a different way

And sadly more deaths at the same time

They've not gained any herd immunity benefits as many of their citizens were either very careful when out and about and/or stopped going out and socialising full stop of their own choice

And the final interesting thing is that the cautious habits in Sweden have continued and that now that the rest of Europe has released lockdown the Swedes haven't really changed - they are all more cautious than the rest of us and that isn't helping their economy rebound

All very interesting stuff about what people do when they have choices compared to what they do when they don't have choices

 

[Interestedobserver]

So they've had the economic impact of lockdown. Just in a different way. I would trust Swedes to be cautious and disciplined. God help us if we allowed such personal choice and asked for similar self discipline in UK.

But there's no point pretending they werent effectively and economically in lockdown - the same as the rest of us. Their spending went down the same as the rest of us.

 

[Bob Morgan]

The sweds don't get things wrong very often

I can't really forgive Sweden for selling Volvo out to Ford (Now Chinese), and GM when they destroyed SAAB! - Just a couple of occasions when they may have got it wrong

 

[Justin Smith]

Has anyone seen this :

Do they realise how significant it is ?
Remember, Sweden has never had a lockdown (BBC News link).......

I have said right from the beginning I thought Sweden was right and we were wrong, though I thought it might take a few years to prove it. At first I concluded their strategy was correct because I thought the social and economic cost of the lockdown was too high, but increasingly,as more evidence comes to light, I think it has been of dubious benefit for its intended purpose of keeping the Covid death toll down. And that's before factoring in all the deaths that are being (and will be) caused by it.
Time will tell, for sure I mean.

The UK equivalent of Swedens's graph, not much better, and at HUGE cost :

 

[Interestedobserver]

The UK equivalent of Swedens's graph, not much better, and at HUGE cost :

I think you seem to be imagining Sweden hasnt faced the same economic losses as the rest of us

The UK equivalent of Swedens's graph, not much better, and at HUGE cost :

Justin - I think you are failing to grasp that Sweden's economy has faced the exact same drop in spending as its neighbouring countries

Just because the shops and restaurants and bars weren't forced to close didn't stop people doing self imposed lockdown

And they've continued to be more careful than us to this date

Can you get your head round that?

They've faced the same huge cost as the rest of us. Just that theirs was from self discipline and their population being extra careful when going out or not going out hardly at all

Does that make sense?

Their economy hasn't carried on anywhere near like normal?

They didn't close stuff down. But their population stopped going out and spending much regardless.

 

[Justin Smith]

There's proven to be very little economic difference or benefit to what Sweden did compared to places like Denmark next to them

The major difference between the countries was Denmark imposed lockdowns whereas Sweden encouraged their population to social distance without imposing lockdown

Something the Swedes proved to be very good and disciplined at

But end result of lockdown imposed and social distancing encouraged was that overall spend in Denmark and Sweden reduced by 25 per cent to 30 per cent in both places

Many in Sweden who were scared of the lack of lockdown just self imposed lockdown anyway those that did go out did so less often and very cautiously. They were all very careful about what they did and didn't do

Which kind of shows that just because things are allowed to remain open - people don't flock to go to those places.

Hope that makes sense. Sweden didn't impose lockdown on its people but they ended up with similar self imposed spending losses to the economy - just in a different way

And sadly more deaths at the same time

They've not gained any herd immunity benefits as many of their citizens were either very careful when out and about and/or stopped going out and socialising full stop of their own choice

And the final interesting thing is that the cautious habits in Sweden have continued and that now that the rest of Europe has released lockdown the Swedes haven't really changed - they are all more cautious than the rest of us and that isn't helping their economy rebound

All very interesting stuff about what people do when they have choices compared to what they do when they don't have choices

I disagree. Look at the death rate graphs of every country which has had significant exposure to Covid (as defined by 1 in 2000 to 1 in 1000 deaths), all have the same shape, and none have the much threatened "second spike".
Either every single country has had an effective lockdown*, or these lockdowns have had relatively little effect on the death rate. I think it's the latter

* against a highly infectious virus. No country in the world has achieved anywhere near the required 60% plus immunity (as defined by positive antibody tests) required for herd immunity. So the only possible explanations are either that the virus isn't actually that infectious and relatively mild social distancing (which almost every country has now adopted because their economies and societies cannot cope with hard lockdowns), or most people are not susceptible to the virus. The Diamond Princess Covid outbreak also supports these arguments.

 

[fisicx]

On the other hand:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/03/analysis-did-sweden-get-it-wrong

Deaths per 100,000 is comparable to many other countries (eg: Sweden 55, Italy: 58, Spain 60)

And Sweden is less of a social country than many others in Europe, they don't like crowds and prefer to stay at home rather than meet others. All of which suggests they self isolated without being being told to.

 

[Interestedobserver]

Not sure what your point is Justin?

I thought you were saying this was proving you could beat Covid without huge economic and social cost?

Whereas Sweden has still had the same economic and social cost as the rest of us?

If you are just talking about death rates then that's a different debate altogether

Here are some interesting stats:

In the UK restaurants and pubs are now allowed to open

Only 50 per cent have chosen to open

And the ones that have chosen to open are reporting income is down 40 per cent on same weeks last year

So despite only half the choice of places for people to eat or dine out - the places that have opened are still seeing a fraction of their previous business and income

So lockdown or no lockdown - public choice means that spend goes down significnatly

Exactly what happened in Sweden

Their bars and restaurants never closed but people voted with their feet and stopped socialising like they did before

Gyms have been complaining they can't open. I've read surveys where only 20 per cent of gym members want to go back in the gyms anyway?

Lockdown or no lockdown. People make choices to stay safe.

Complain about that all you want but you won't be able to change that.

 

[Interestedobserver]

On the other hand:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/03/analysis-did-sweden-get-it-wrong

Deaths per 100,000 is comparable to many other countries (eg: Sweden 55, Italy: 58, Spain 60)

And Sweden is less of a social country than many others in Europe, they don't like crowds and prefer to stay at home rather than meet others. All of which suggests they self isolated without being being told to.

And even more so than normal.

And they have continued to stay safe and not socialise as their good habits have stuck. Maybe that's something to learn from them. Stay careful ongoing rather than stop start like everywhere else

It's a myth that Sweden hasn't been in lockdown - it's just that the people drove the lockdown rather than the Government

Meanwhile the Government got too complacent there - especially in their Care Homes I believe

 

[John Hemming]

Many countries failed to protect care home residents which is where a lot of people died.

We will not be able to compare death rates between countries until the impact of the virus has settled down. Looking at the USA, for example, the areas suffering a "second wave" are really those which didn't have a first wave before they locked down.

The peak deaths in the UK were about the same time as those in Sweden and the evidence from that and hospital admissions was that the lockdown in the UK was too late to impact on the peak deaths and that other factors (including the limitation from disease resistance from infection aka herd immunity) limited the death rate in the UK (particularly urban areas of England, Scotland and NI). The Welsh hospital admission chart is quite different to that of England which could imply that the lockdown in Wales had more of an impact. However, it could also be that there is a difference in the way the figures are prepared.

Sweden would have suffered economically from the virus as would the UK even if no-one in the country was infected. However, it appears that the level of economic damage is lesser and in any event Sweden knows from experience it does not need to introduce any more lockdowns.

 

[Justin Smith]

On the other hand:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/03/analysis-did-sweden-get-it-wrong

Deaths per 100,000 is comparable to many other countries (eg: Sweden 55, Italy: 58, Spain 60)

And Sweden is less of a social country than many others in Europe, they don't like crowds and prefer to stay at home rather than meet others. All of which suggests they self isolated without being being told to.

So we're saying that the fact the Swede's are reputed to be less sociable hs stopped the spread of a highly infectious virus and, in fact, worked as well as a (temporary) lockdown ? Doesn't sound realistic to me, unless of course, the virus actually isn't anywhere near as infectious as we've been told which I can believe actually, since most of what we have been told has been wrong anyway. Where do you want me to start ?
How about :
"This virus is indiscriminate".
Or
"We'll have a second wave if we unwind the lockdown or reopen schools".
What actually happened is the death rate kept dropping as fast as it did before....

The government have done a very effective job of scaring the population (those who haven't actually researched it anyway) and it's now coming back to bite them on the bum as they try to get the country back to work, just as I said it would.

But, to an extent, it's irrelevant anyway, the Swede's graph line is very similar to ours and Belgium's, and every other country which has had deep exposure to the virus.
I'm still sticking to my theory that the lockdown / social distancing made little difference to the death rate, particularly if all the deaths caused by it are subtracted.
We'll see who is right

 

[Mr D]

On the other hand:

https://www.euronews.com/2020/06/03/analysis-did-sweden-get-it-wrong

Deaths per 100,000 is comparable to many other countries (eg: Sweden 55, Italy: 58, Spain 60)

And Sweden is less of a social country than many others in Europe, they don't like crowds and prefer to stay at home rather than meet others. All of which suggests they self isolated without being being told to.

The geographical makeup of the country is also different.
Cannot quite see so many clicking to the beaches... Or having maskless protests.
Did not notice much BLM protests there - perhaps reported in local news.

 

[Bob Morgan]

HERE WE GO AGAIN! - "Can we have the Budgies, Charlie?"

 

[Mr D]

So we're saying that the fact the Swede's are reputed to be less sociable hs stopped the spread of a highly infectious virus and, in fact, worked as well as a (temporary) lockdown ? Doesn't sound realistic to me, unless of course, the virus actually isn't anywhere near as infectious as we've been told which I can believe actually, since most of what we have been told has been wrong anyway. Where do you want me to start ?
How about :
"This virus is indiscriminate".
Or
"We'll have a second wave if we unwind the lockdown or reopen schools".
What actually happened is the death rate kept dropping as fast as it did before....

The government have done a very effective job of scaring the population (those who haven't actually researched it anyway) and it's now coming back to bite them on the bum as they try to get the country back to work, just as I said it would.

But, to an extent, it's irrelevant anyway, the Swede's graph line is very similar to ours and Belgium's, and every other country which has had deep exposure to the virus.
I'm still sticking to my theory that the lockdown / social distancing made little difference to the death rate, particularly if all the deaths caused by it are subtracted.
We'll see who is right

Death rate follows the virus by weeks or months. Not just a day.

Have a look at Spain or the US for post lockdown infection in particular places.

 

[ecommerce84]

Only 50 per cent have chosen to open

Really?

Other than 1 tea room, every single other cafe, restaurant and pub on our local high street is open which is around 30 and even then that tea room is doing meals delivered.

 

[Bob Morgan]

Justin The cost of our lockdown has yet to be seen

Don't worry Jeremy, Rishi Sunak's forest of Money Trees has it all covered!

 

[John Hemming]

Doesn't sound realistic to me, unless of course, the virus actually isn't anywhere near as infectious as we've been told which I can believe actually, since most of what we have been told has been wrong anyway.

The evidence is in fact that the lockdown in England made no difference to the death rate. Social distancing may have, protecting people in care homes would have.

I think the disease is very infectious. However, about half of the population have resistance through CD4 and CD8 T-Lymphocytes as a result of a prior infection with a different coronavirus. Hence the percentage infection for herd immunity is around the 20-30% mark rather than 60-80% mark.

Additionally the disease does not have an IFR of 1% as has been suggested. I personally think it is in the range of 0.2-0.3%, but there are people who argue for the figure of 0.1% which is much the same as most flus.

 

[Interestedobserver]

So we're saying that the fact the Swede's are reputed to be less sociable hs stopped the spread of a highly infectious virus and, in fact, worked as well as a (temporary) lockdown ? Doesn't sound realistic to me, unless of course, the virus actually isn't anywhere near as infectious as we've been told which I can believe actually, since most of what we have been told has been wrong anyway. Where do you want me to start ?
How about :
"This virus is indiscriminate".
Or
"We'll have a second wave if we unwind the lockdown or reopen schools".
What actually happened is the death rate kept dropping as fast as it did before....

The government have done a very effective job of scaring the population (those who haven't actually researched it anyway) and it's now coming back to bite them on the bum as they try to get the country back to work, just as I said it would.

But, to an extent, it's irrelevant anyway, the Swede's graph line is very similar to ours and Belgium's, and every other country which has had deep exposure to the virus.
I'm still sticking to my theory that the lockdown / social distancing made little difference to the death rate, particularly if all the deaths caused by it are subtracted.
We'll see who is right

If you want to use Sweden as your back up for your theory then it basically must mean they all carried on going out and socialising the same as before but stopped spending any money whilst they did it

Just accept the fact that the Swedish people despite not being forced to lockdown did so voluntarily overall

And the ones that kept going out as much as before observed social distancing etc

Many stopped going out at all because of the fear of being the only country not under lockdown etc

Your posts suggest they all carried on with normal life yet their economy and spending contracted at the same level of Denmark ish when they were under lockdown

Can you understand what I'm saying?

 

[Interestedobserver]

HERE WE GO AGAIN! - "Can we have the Budgies, Charlie?"

The poster who complains about people talking about Covid but actively opens each Covid thread in the Covid part of the forum to complain about them?

There must be a name for this?

 

[gpietersz]

Sweden's economy did not contract in Q1 ( https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-sweden-will-covid-19-economics-be-different ) and their deaths are inline with the rest of Europe and and have not been able to find Q2 numbers other than estimates.

Nothing I have seen suggests a self-imposed lockdown is anything like a real one - more like what was happening in the UK before lockdown.

No country in the world has achieved anywhere near the required 60% plus immunity (as defined by positive antibody tests) required for herd immunity.

Anti-body tests greatly underestimate the number immune because they do not those who are cross immune after having a related virus, and those who have T-cell immunity.

 

[Ian J]

The evidence is in fact that the lockdown in England made no difference to the death rate.

How can anyone possibly know that?

 

[Interestedobserver]

Really?

Other than 1 tea room, every single other cafe, restaurant and pub on our local high street is open which is around 30 and even then that tea room is doing meals delivered.

Kate Nicholls
[URL='https://mobile.twitter.com/UKHospKate']@UKHospKate[/URL]

A note of caution - just over half of our venues are open and these figures are from those which are able to trade

She's the spokesperson for pubs and restaurants in UK responding to the fact that pubs and restaurants were reporting only 40 per cent of revenue for the same week previous year in week 2 of lockdown being eased. In week 1 it was 30 per cent of revenue. So 40 per cent was actually an improvement.

She's pointing out that half the venues approx haven't even re-opened

 

[fisicx]

It’s social distancing rather than lockdown. In Sweden people keep apart because that’s how they are. In cafes nobody crowds. In bars they don’t stand three deep at the bar.

Lockdown enforced social distancing. If the uk population could be trusted to keep apart from each other we wouldn’t need a lockdown.

All SARS are highly infectious. It’s just that this one is more dangerous than the others we all get each year.

 

[Interestedobserver]

Sweden's economy did not contract in Q1 ( https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-sweden-will-covid-19-economics-be-different ) and their deaths are inline with the rest of Europe and and have not been able to find Q2 numbers other than estimates.

Nothing I have seen suggests a self-imposed lockdown is anything like a real one - more like what was happening in the UK before lockdown.




Anti-body tests greatly underestimate the number immune because they do not those who are cross immune after having a related virus, and those who have T-cell immunity.

From the New York Times:

Sweden Has Become the World’s Cautionary Tale
Its decision to carry on in the face of the pandemic has yielded a surge of deaths without sparing its economy from damage — a red flag as the United States and Britain move to lift lockdowns.


Ever since the coronavirus emerged in Europe, Sweden has captured international attention by conducting an unorthodox, open-air experiment. It has allowed the world to examine what happens in a pandemic when a government allows life to carry on largely unhindered.

This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.

“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”

 

[Interestedobserver]

New York Times Continued:

Sweden’s central bank expects its economy to contract by 4.5 percent this year, a revision from a previously expected gain of 1.3 percent. The unemployment rate jumped to 9 percent in May from 7.1 percent in March. “The overall damage to the economy means the recovery will be protracted, with unemployment remaining elevated,” Oxford Economics concluded in a recent research note.

This is more or less how damage caused by the pandemic has played out in Denmark, where the central bank expects that the economy will shrink 4.1 percent this year, and where joblessness has edged up to 5.6 percent in May from 4.1 percent in March.

In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains.

The coronavirus does not stop at national borders. Despite the government’s decision to allow the domestic economy to roll on, Swedish businesses are stuck with the same conditions that produced recession everywhere else. And Swedish people responded to the fear of the virus by limiting their shopping — not enough to prevent elevated deaths, but enough to produce a decline in business activity.

Here is one takeaway with potentially universal import: It is simplistic to portray government actions such as quarantines as the cause of economic damage. The real culprit is the virus itself. From Asia to Europe to the Americas, the risks of the pandemic have disrupted businesses while prompting people to avoid shopping malls and restaurants, regardless of official policy.

 

[Interestedobserver]

NYT Continues

“There is just no questioning and no willingness from the Swedish government to really change tack, until it’s too late,” Mr. Kirkegaard said. “Which is astonishing, given that it’s been clear for quite some time that the economic gains that they claim to have gotten from this are just nonexistent.”

Norway, on the other hand, was not only quick to impose an aggressive lockdown, but early to relax it as the virus slowed, and as the government ramped up testing. It is now expected to see a more rapid economic turnaround. Norway’s central bank predicts that its mainland economy — excluding the turbulent oil and gas sector — will contract by 3.9 percent this year. That amounts to a marked improvement over the 5.5 percent decline expected in the midst of the lockdown.

Sweden’s laissez faire approach does appear to have minimized the economic damage compared with its neighbors in the first three months of the year, according to an assessment by the International Monetary Fund. But that effect has worn off as the force of the pandemic has swept through the global economy, and as Swedish consumers have voluntarily curbed their shopping anyway.

Researchers at the University of Copenhagen gained access to credit data from Danske Bank, one of the largest in Scandinavia. They studied spending patterns from mid-March, when Denmark put the clamps on the economy, to early April. The pandemic prompted Danes to reduce their spending 29 percent in that period, the study concluded. During the same weeks, consumers in Sweden — where freedom reigned — reduced their spending 25 percent.

Strikingly, older people — those over 70 — reduced their spending more in Sweden than in Denmark, perhaps concerned that the business-as-usual circumstances made going out especially risky.


So there you go - they've gained zero economically and lockdown or not people change their habits. No matter what a Govt tells you what you can do or not.

That's why restaurants and pubs and retail shops and hotels etc etc in UK are still struggling more than ever. Even without lockdown.

You can blame the Government as much as you want in UK etc

You can't blame the Government in Sweden though. And their economy and consume spending is doing as bad as everybody elses around them

As soon as the deaths started in Sweden - everybody stopped going out and spending even though they were allowed to still do so

A great experiment and example. But they've faced the same huge costs as everybody else. So please don't anyone pretend different.

The more deaths we start getting in UK again the less people will go out and spend. As it stands this might be the best we will see people spend money for a long time as people aren't scared at the moment as not much Covid around. Still being very cautious though

People see the news and what's happening elsewhere

Whether you like it or not. People choose what they do and what they spend their money on. Not governments.

 

[Mr D]

How can anyone possibly know that?

We can know that. After about the 4th public inquiry into the events of 2020 and 2021.
Now? No.

 

[Mr D]

Whether you like it or not. People choose what they do and what they spend their money on. Not governments.

Protect yourself rather than simply follow government rules to protect yourself.
Wait for government and its 3 months after the virus is in the news before they take action.
Virus spreads worldwide how far on day one?

 

[gpietersz]

This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.

Death rates in line with rest of Europe. Final death rates will not be known until the pandemic is over.

That is assuming the numbers are comparable - England and Belgium have high apparent death rates because how they are counted is more pessimistic. Leaving for those discrepancies all we really know is that death rates in Western Europe are roughly the same in most countries, which suggests (not prove, but we cannot prove anything either way) that government policy does not make much difference.

Economic forecasts are opinions, not facts. Lets see what eventually happens.

If Sweden ends up doing no better, but no worse, in both death rates and economics, which is where we seem to be headed, then what is the point of lockdowns?

 

[Interestedobserver]

We can know that. After about the 4th public inquiry into the events of 2020 and 2021.
Now? No.

It amazes me how many people who want us to carry on as normal etc are purely basing Covid on whether you live or die?

There are people surviving this having gone into comas for 50 days plus

The average amount of days people spend in hospital with this is about 14 isn't it?

There are people severely impacted by the disease ongoing who have survived

Yet despite the death rates themselves being bad enough whichever ones you quote - the actual impact on the health of the population as a whole is far more widespread than purely the deaths they cause

But in a single sentence that impact just gets entirely ignored or discounted?

 

[gpietersz]

It amazes me how many people who want us to carry on as normal etc are purely basing Covid on whether you live or die?

Because we do not have metrics for that. The only numbers we have are 1) number infected (which reflects testing levels as well as infections so its not comparable internationally) 2) number hospitalised (also probably not comparable internationally) and 3) deaths (also not really comparable, but better than the other two).

Yet despite the death rates themselves being bad enough whichever ones you quote - the actual impact on the health of the population as a whole is far more widespread than purely the deaths they cause

That is also true of many other infectious diseases - some of which kill more people globally annually, every year, than covid has done so far this year.

 

[Justin Smith]

What is really sad, almost criminal, is that if I'm right (that our high exposure to this virus - reflected in our high death rate - means we've more or less burnt out the virus in this country) we should be taking advantage of that hard won position to get back to normal as soon as possible, thus limiting any additional damage to our society and economy. As I said, if I'm right, and there is evidence to indicate that, all these measures we're continuing to take against the virus are essentially inflicting more damage on our society and economy for very little return.
Time will tell.

 

[ecommerce84]

She's pointing out that half the venues approx haven't even re-opened

Shes pointing out that half of the venues that are members of UK Hospitality aren't yet open.

A great many more, particularly independents aren't members and she'll have no data for these.

Across the board, there is far in excess of 50% open - I couldn't tell you exactly how many and I couldn't tell you how busy they are, but I can tell you that to say '50% of restaurants and pubs haven't reopened' is wildly inaccurate.

 

[John Hemming]

How can anyone possibly know that?

People who are really ill from Covid-19 tend to go to hospital after 13/14 days and die after 21/23 days. The peak death rate in hospitals in England was 8th April. That was too early for the lockdown to have had an effect.

 

[Mr D]

It amazes me how many people who want us to carry on as normal etc are purely basing Covid on whether you live or die?

There are people surviving this having gone into comas for 50 days plus

The average amount of days people spend in hospital with this is about 14 isn't it?

There are people severely impacted by the disease ongoing who have survived

Yet despite the death rates themselves being bad enough whichever ones you quote - the actual impact on the health of the population as a whole is far more widespread than purely the deaths they cause

But in a single sentence that impact just gets entirely ignored or discounted?

On facebook is a few ME groups, chronic fatigue as some know it.
A chunk of the people on there over the years (and well before Covid 19) became ill as a result of a virus - didn't need to be a particular bad virus. Even Norovirus has been identified as a trigger event - and lots of people have had that over the years.

Early indications are that some of the people who survive Covid 19 - maybe not even being particularly ill with it - will find their way to the ME groups. Either from dealing with symptoms on an ongoing basis or actually getting diagnosed with ME (may be some years later).

Years of impact on social life, employment, finances, holidays, relationships etc.

 

[Forgot password]

He is wildly inaccurate full stop so don’t take much notice of him. Wallows in misery.

He has guaranteed us a strict lockdown in another three and a bit weeks that we are all eagerly closely watching out for. (Rolls eyes)

Plus two months ago when he declared the sky has fallen in that in two months time ie now there wouldn’t be much difference in the way we were living (can provide his predictions) (again more eye rolls)

Death Data vastly inaccurate due to counting people dying ‘with’ c19 and not ‘of’

Circa 1500 to 20,000 deaths in reality.

We are being played. Why? Time will tell.

 

[gpietersz]

People who are really ill from Covid-19 tend to go to hospital after 13/14 days and die after 21/23 days. The peak death rate in hospitals in England was 8th April. That was too early for the lockdown to have had an effect.

That is because people had hugely changed their behaviour before lockdown.

The media likes to focus on the minority who did not, often with misleading photos of one of events presented as typical behaviour nationally.