Toggle sidebar

Was Sweden right after all ?

Sort by date Sort by votes
gpietersz said:
@Interestedobserver read the article.

They did not have a lockdown. People voluntarily avoiding public places is very different. its more like what was happening in the UK before lockdown.

"Word from home if you can" allows businesses and services that cannot be done from how to continue functioning. It slows the spread without causing much collateral damage.

You seem to interpret people who say we should do what Sweden did as meaning we should do nothing, whereas what we mean is that we should take sensible and proportionate measures.

They had fewer restrictions, have done do worse than other western countries so far, and seem to be doing better now: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavi...othing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

We (and most other countries) have panic based policy. We had lockdown to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, but we now have restrictions reimposed and a threat of return to full lockdown with no particular aim in mind. Lockdowns, slow, not prevent, the spread of covid. In the end it will spread until we have heard immunity.

The main point is that there is no justification in the UK numbers (low deaths, low hospitalisation) for reimposing restrictions, let alone a return to full lockdown. People getting covid without dying or being seriously ill is a golden opportunity to get closer to herd immunity without killing people.
Click to expand...

You haven't really answered my question

What benefits have Sweden gained from what they have done?

Are you actually claiming Sweden are trying to get herd immunity?

Because if they are they haven't succeeded at all?

They are asking everybody to work from home who possibly can until after Xmas now?

Is that what you want us to do over here? As that tbh sounds more than what we are doing to restrict Covid

And they are limiting events to a max of 50 people?

Would you like that over here as well? As to me that's no real difference or any better to what we have over here?

Please be specific about what you think Sweden are doing that is actually different to what we are doing?

If 64 per cent of Swedes are avoiding public spaces then I would suggest that's no different or no better to what we are doing?

40 per cent of Swedes live alone. We can't copy that any time soon.

You haven't answered as to which bits we should be copying and what benefits it will give us this stage?

Please be specific as to which bits you want us to copy and what we would gain compared to what we have now?

Otherwise you are no different to anybody else who says copy Sweden without backing it up as to how it will improve anything here?

Such a throwaway comment people make about copying Sweden. They are pretty much in same boat as the rest of us IMO

They haven't found answers either other than to stop being normal like the rest of us
 
Upvote 0
ecommerce84 said:
This is a brilliant post, rational and sensible.

Any chance you could go and give the government some advice?

One of the things I’m seeing increasingly on social media is that people seem to think a lockdown is a magic wand, but as you say it doesn’t really work in the long run.

It’s not practical to have lockdowns every few months for the next few years, so governments really have to figure out a long term strategy rather.
Click to expand...


Is it more practical to have rise in people infected, people hospitalised, people becoming disabled, people dead?

Yes lockdown is a brutal and costly method. Its also so far the only method that has worked in the UK.
Its worked in Sweden too - just was not quite like ours. Are the Swedes behaving differently than us?

Perhaps other methods could be used to limit the spread of the virus. How many times a year can it be caught? How much damage can it do the heart, the lungs, the brain?

Until a working vaccine is rolled out we are all vulnerable. Some more than others....
A chunk of us on here are male. Older. A few of us have tans. A few have at risk conditions / damage.
We are protected by both our own actions and the actions of those around us and those they come into contact with.
Boy are we screwed.
 
Upvote 0
Interestedobserver said:
You haven't really answered my question

What benefits have Sweden gained from what they have done?

Are you actually claiming Sweden are trying to get herd immunity?

Because if they are they haven't succeeded at all?

They are asking everybody to work from home who possibly can until after Xmas now?

Is that what you want us to do over here? As that tbh sounds more than what we are doing to restrict Covid

And they are limiting events to a max of 50 people?

Would you like that over here as well? As to me that's no real difference or any better to what we have over here?

Please be specific about what you think Sweden are doing that is actually different to what we are doing?

If 64 per cent of Swedes are avoiding public spaces then I would suggest that's no different or no better to what we are doing?

40 per cent of Swedes live alone. We can't copy that any time soon.

You haven't answered as to which bits we should be copying and what benefits it will give us this stage?

Please be specific as to which bits you want us to copy and what we would gain compared to what we have now?

Otherwise you are no different to anybody else who says copy Sweden without backing it up as to how it will improve anything here?

Such a throwaway comment people make about copying Sweden. They are pretty much in same boat as the rest of us IMO

They haven't found answers either other than to stop being normal like the rest of us
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, is there that much difference between limiting events to 50 people and limiting to 30 people?
Both can allow considerable virus spread in the group.
So its a difference in numbers rather than a difference in allowing a group.
 
Upvote 0
Mr D said:
Is it more practical to have rise in people infected, people hospitalised, people becoming disabled, people dead?
Click to expand...
Depends - which 'people' are you?

mail
 
Upvote 0
Interestedobserver said:
If 64 per cent of Swedes are avoiding public spaces then I would suggest that's no different or no better to what we are doing?
Click to expand...

its similar to what we were doing before lockdown. Do you have numbers to show otherwise?


Interestedobserver said:
40 per cent of Swedes live alone. We can't copy that any time soon.
Click to expand...

So why did other countries that have a high proportion of one person hosueholds AND lockdown not have low death rates? Belgium for example, or France: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/one-person-households?country=FRA~NLD~USA~PRT~POL~SWE~BEL~GBR

The Imperial model, when applied to Sweden, predicted far higher (an order of magnitude higher) deaths - so Sweden discredits the model that justified the UK's lockdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
Interestedobserver said:
News for you
UK COVID-19 cases could rise to 50k a day by mid-October, say Whitty and Vallance
Click to expand...

Are they the same people who said we could have up to half a million deaths ?
Are they the same people who said "this virus is indiscriminate" ?
To me it's an absolute mystery how so many people still believe a word they say.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
Justin Smith said:
Are they the same people who said we could have up to half a million deaths ?
Are they the same people who said "this virus is indiscriminate" ?
To me it's an absolute mystery how so many people still believe a word they say.....
Click to expand...

Have we had the virus finish yet? Or still killing people?

Do we have people dying from multiple groups of people rather than being limited to say the whitey ones?
 
Upvote 0
Justin Smith said:
And they do not have to wear masks......
Click to expand...

Justin if Boris made a statement today saying tomorrow we are going to start copying Sweden and will make announcements accordingly then many who are anti lockdown would be happy

Am I right?

The next day when he asks everybody in UK who possibly can to work from home until after Xmas then he would be hammered left right and centre by every industry going who rely on people going back to work

But he can say well that's what the Swedish Government have asked everyone to do

Then he can say I'm going to increase mass event attendance to 50.

Again all the people putting Sweden forward would be complaining that's not normal and it's stopping us from getting back to normal.

Be honest - everybody championing Sweden would be complaining.

But he can just turn around and say well you asked us to copy Sweden so that's what weve done!

What Sweden are doing and asking people to do is either more careful or similarly restrictive than over here?

And end results are very similar.

64 per cent of Swedes avoiding public places

I hazard a guess that's a higher figure than we have.

They have social distance floor markers in their shops and restaurants and bars. They don't allow people to dance in bars etc.

It's just the same as us in reality in most ways other than their people are better at adhering to to ours

88 per cent of Swedes are washing their hands far more often

I wonder what the stats are for that in UK?

Their authorities have to break down the rare party etc that goes over 50 people and fine people just like us. Just far less often than us.

It's an absolute myth that they are much different to the rest of Europe

They've certainly not gone for herd immunity as otherwise none of the above would be happening and they wouldn't be restricting anything would they?

And they certainly wouldn't be urging everybody to work from home who possibly can until after Xmas would they?

How will that create herd immunity?

I suggest that one request is potentially more damaging to the economy than anything we've done so far

And as I say if Boris asked that he would be hammered for it.

He's tried to do the opposite at least for a while.

Swedish normal life is as far away from normal as ours if not further away

Am I wrong?
 
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
Its killing about 2% the number of people a day it was killing at its peak - so I think mostly finished is a fair conclusion.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
It instead sounds like we no longer have that peak. Nor do we operate the exact same way we did back then in terms of viral load, treatment etc.

If we can go without anyone dying from it for a while then maybe we could say its no longer killing people.
At the moment it does indeed appear to be killing people - and the number so low because the infection was brought under a measure of control.
 
Upvote 0
Mr D said:
At the moment it does indeed appear to be killing people - and the number so low because the infection was brought under a measure of control.
Click to expand...

The main reason is so low is that people confirmed infected are far less likely to die.

Infections are at nearly two thirds of the peak, while deaths are about 3% of the peak .

Its not a delayed effect either, because the climb in infections is slower than last time and we were already about at half of the peak two weeks ago.
 
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
The main reason is so low is that people confirmed infected are far less likely to die.

Infections are at nearly two thirds of the peak, while deaths are about 3% of the peak .

Its not a delayed effect either, because the climb in infections is slower than last time and we were already about at half of the peak two weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Try looking at the numbers.

Now, at peak, how much testing outside of hospitals and care homes was going on?
Similar to now? Or lower than now?
Or is the number at peak actually unknown because we weren't doing much testing outside care & medical facilities?
We know certain numbers tested positive at peak. We don't know how much the virus was in the general population at the time.

Even now we aren't testing everyone so we have a partly incorrect figure. We know that of xxx number (a self selecting group out of the public) who had a test done that yyy number tested positive.
We could extrapolate from that and figure there are more people who have the virus but have not been tested. Rather than the total number infected is yyy only.
 
Upvote 0
I think the point is being missed on the Sweden vs. Britain lockdown debate. It is somewhat ironic to my mind that a Scandinavian state, often associated with ultra-nannying government, has shone the light on how to do it. Whether Swedes observed changes or not is simply not as important as their entitlement to decide for themselves if change was warranted...or not. We've made sacrifices on something quite precious (and if you don't think it is then read up on history); they haven't and yet we've got basically the same result. That is quite significant where power-sweeping precedents have been set, particularly in a country where we don't have a codified constitution as a safety check. All these decisions form a basis of what the country actually is, essentially. An evolving constitution.

Sweden at least keep truer to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon field
Upvote 0
SillyBill said:
I think the point is being missed on the Sweden vs. Britain lockdown debate. It is somewhat ironic to my mind that a Scandinavian state, often associated with ultra-nannying government, has shone the light on how to do it. Whether Swedes observed changes or not is simply not as important as their entitlement to decide for themselves if change was warranted...or not. We've made sacrifices on something quite precious (and if you don't think it is then read up on history); they haven't and yet we've got basically the same result. That is quite significant where power-sweeping precedents have been set, particularly in a country where we don't have a codified constitution as a safety check. All these decisions form a basis of what the country actually is, essentially. An evolving constitution.

Sweden at least keep truer to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Click to expand...

The population as a whole here was not doing a lot to stem the infection rate prior to lockdown. Though as time wore on more and more people wearing masks when around others became visible it was not a large majority.
Then we had lockdown - not the first time government has made big decisions on what people can do.
We still had millions working, we still had many businesses running.
Even 30 years ago we could not have done a lockdown like that. Probably even 20 years ago it would have been incredibly difficult.


Like it or not the government is in power and can make decisions.

Safety?

People appear to want the world to be like last year. They appear willing to give up the lives of others to get that back. Even if it's their own family.
Which is kind of sad.
 
Upvote 0
Mr D said:
Now, at peak, how much testing outside of hospitals and care homes was going on?
Similar to now? Or lower than now?
Or is the number at peak actually unknown because we weren't doing much testing outside care & medical facilities?
We know certain numbers tested positive at peak. We don't know how much the virus was in the general population at the time.

Even now we aren't testing everyone so we have a partly incorrect figure. We know that of xxx number (a self selecting group out of the public) who had a test done that yyy number tested positive.
We could extrapolate from that and figure there are more people who have the virus but have not been tested. Rather than the total number infected is yyy only.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. I said "people with confirmed infections are less likely to die".

We have a much higher number of confirmed infections, but with a much lower number of deaths we should not be tightening restrictions.

I do not even know what the aim of the current restrictions are. The original intention was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. What is the current aim?
 
Upvote 0
Gpietersz

You like what Sweden is doing?

But in the same way you question the aim of UK policies - please can you tell us the aim of the current Swedish restrictions?

Asking everybody to work from home home until after Xmas?

Limiting mass events to 50 people max?

What is the aim in Sweden Gpietersz?

Clearly not aiming for herd immunity are they?

Clearly not aiming to get their economy kickstarted again are they?

So what is the aim of the Swedish Government right now ?

I'm confused?

And how does their aim differ from ours? Other than to control the spread at the detriment to their economy?

I'm really interested in what you think the Swedish target is that is actually anything other than keep Covid to a minimum for the next 6 months?

Same as ours?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Is it clear they are not aiming for herd immunity? They seem to be avoiding using the word, but what other end point can their strategy have?

It may be that they, like the British government, have now lost their nerve. In which case I will say I like what they were doing earlier, not what they are doing now.

There are three ways Covid can go:

1. We eventually reach herd immunity through infections. Lockdown can slow this down.
2. We reach herd immunity through a vaccine. Lockdown can buy time to do this, but it may mean years of lockdown and all the deaths and suffering caused by lockdown.
3. It evolves to be less dangerous. Lockdowns slow this down.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
It's beyond clear now isn't it. This is the planned destruction of middle class, small business and freedoms, All under the guise of your safety.

Mass gatherings from 50 to 500 returning to Sweden In 8 days (1st) We are stuck on 6 and pubs/restaurants will be closing at 10pm.

Sweden advises work from home if you can if not no problem- We will be today you must work from home if you can.

We must start fighting back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bodgitt&scarperLTD
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
Is it clear they are not aiming for herd immunity? They seem to be avoiding using the word, but what other end point can their strategy have?

It may be that they, like the British government, have now lost their nerve. In which case I will say I like what they were doing earlier, not what they are doing now.

There are three ways Covid can go:

1. We eventually reach herd immunity through infections. Lockdown can slow this down.
2. We reach herd immunity through a vaccine. Lockdown can buy time to do this, but it may mean years of lockdown and all the deaths and suffering caused by lockdown.
3. It evolves to be less dangerous. Lockdowns slow this down.
Click to expand...

Their strategy is simply to avoid Covid spreading same as us as far as I can say

And that's not new it's been like that since the start

I think it's time people stop saying we should be copying Sweden

Sweden havent lost their nerve. They asked people to work from home long before this. It's only recently they asked it to continue until after Xmas. Why did nobody report this when they kept saying Sweden was business as usual. Check it out. It's all rumour. They've been asking people to work from home throughout this.

They've had the max 50 people for events in place for months as well. Again why has nobody reported this?

I think when you research it becomes clear their policies were never aiming for herd immunity.

And as damaging to an economy as anything we've done as they've been constant

At least we tried to kickstart stuff after our lockdowns

It's a myth that's it's been business as usual in Sweden. It been far from it and it's time once and for all people stopped saying we should be copying Sweden

As in fact they are pretty much doing exactly what we are doing. You can argue they are copying us

It's amazing how few people have picked up on this.

And that's why we have to read behind the headlines.

There's no magic answer or magic policy or target we can copy from Sweden right now

They are bought in to preventing the spread and keeping people away from each other

No different from us in that respect
 
Upvote 0
James Johnson said:
Sweden advises work from home if you can if not no problem- We will be today you must work from home if you can.
.
Click to expand...

We arent forcing people to work at home either as you well know James. We are just asking it if possible.

Difference is we haven't said that is until Xmas James unlike Sweden. We are trying not to scare people.

How does Sweden saying work at home until Xmas at least start the fightback for them that you want?

They should be on your hitlist for saying that.

They are worse than us in that respect and you know it
 
Upvote 0
Why are we still comparing ourselves to Sweden. Both countries should be judged against other countries of similar population density, lifestyles and cultures.
Sweden should be being compared to it neighbours and Scandinavia cousins and Finland. Doubt they had as many idiots packing the beaches in their thousands and illegal parties during lockdown.
 
Upvote 0
"Sweden has today told staff to work from home for the rest of the year to manage crowding on public transport after revealing it is seeing a 'very positive' drop in new covid cases yesterday.

The recommendation, which is directed at those 'who have the possibility to work from home,' will remain in place until the New Year and is designed to make things easier for those who need to physically go to work."

The date of that message - July 30th !!

Imagine if our Govt had said that back in July. You guys would have gone mental.

It's an absolute myth that Sweden has just got on with normal life.

We've actually encouraged people to go back to work heavily since then. We've done more than them to help the economy. We've tried a fightback

That's way more of a fightback than Sweden have tried.

We've done stuff to actively encourage people to get out again. Sweden have done the opposite.

What a message to give to the Nation - and they gave that message out back in July!!

Lol

You lot who champion Sweden as being the country to follow really have no idea what's actually been happening there do you?
 
Upvote 0
James Johnson said:
It's beyond clear now isn't it. This is the planned destruction of middle class, small business and freedoms, All under the guise of your safety.

Mass gatherings from 50 to 500 returning to Sweden In 8 days (1st) We are stuck on 6 and pubs/restaurants will be closing at 10pm.

Sweden advises work from home if you can if not no problem- We will be today you must work from home if you can.

We must start fighting back.
Click to expand...


You must start fighting back????


You are the reason for the restrictions!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllUpHere
Upvote 0
Maybe tell all the top level scientists/professors/medical experts and pretty much most of the wider world that ‘YOU’ want everyone to stop saying let’s copy Sweden just to suit you and your controlling ways.

Anyway no point arguing with you about it as can’t be arsed so let’s see in time who was right ie Sweden or the rest of the world.
 
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
Is it clear they are not aiming for herd immunity? They seem to be avoiding using the word, but what other end point can their strategy have?

It may be that they, like the British government, have now lost their nerve. In which case I will say I like what they were doing earlier, not what they are doing now.

There are three ways Covid can go:

1. We eventually reach herd immunity through infections. Lockdown can slow this down.
2. We reach herd immunity through a vaccine. Lockdown can buy time to do this, but it may mean years of lockdown and all the deaths and suffering caused by lockdown.
3. It evolves to be less dangerous. Lockdowns slow this down.
Click to expand...


1 great. Then we catch it again.
Antibodies do not remain at high level in the body. So you get it in January and get it again in May and again in October. Oh wait that sounds like a covid virus.

2 a vaccine can be given annually. Or more often if needed. Both preventing you getting sick - if correct vaccine used - and stopping you passing the virus on to someone who is able to catch it.
The anti vaxxers, the organ transplant recipients (if live vaccine), those on chemo etc.
 
Upvote 0
gpietersz said:
Exactly my point. I said "people with confirmed infections are less likely to die".

We have a much higher number of confirmed infections, but with a much lower number of deaths we should not be tightening restrictions.

I do not even know what the aim of the current restrictions are. The original intention was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. What is the current aim?
Click to expand...

Hate to inform you of this but people have been infected without it being confirmed. No tests done - does not mean people were not getting the virus.

Have you been tested this week? If not how do you know you do not have the virus today?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tony84
Just a little story about a side project...
Replies
6
Views
621
General Business Forum
DavidReed
D
AI THINK TANK
AI is Here — What Is Holding You Back?
Replies
65
Views
2K
General Business Forum
DontAsk
D
xiazhi56
My brand was hijacked by my former Chinese supplier
Replies
1
Views
197
Overseas Trade
Ozzy
Ozzy
Disputly
What legal tasks would you handle yourself if it was easier?
Replies
15
Views
6K
General Business Forum
BubbaWY
B
S
Tax investigation. Have you experienced one? Were you insured and was it worth the premium?
Replies
3
Views
1K
General Business Forum
Gecko001
G

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back