Sweden's liberal pandemic strategy questioned as Stockholm death toll mounts

[Arcade22]

And could you tell us why that appears to be the only alternative you can imagine to the lax attitude to the Covid-19 epidemic in Sweden?

I only mentioned that for rhetorical effect. The reality of the situation is that the most serious problems were not going to be solved by just shutting down the entire country. It sure isn't working any miracles in Denmark. In that regard it's really strange that people get the impression that it somehow make all the difference in the world.

The people who are most vulnerable to the disease are going to need to be cared for by people who could not be tested for infection and who would lack access to sufficient protective equipment to minimize the risk of infecting them. That's the basic problem. A so called total "lockdown" would buy Sweden a little bit more time to get supplies and try to reorganize the care of the elderly to decrease the risk of infection, but at the same time cause even greater socioeconomic damage than the mix of current coercive methods and voluntary recommendations have already done.

In the end a "lockdown" is not sustainable. Just because it lowers the rate of infection does not mean that this somehow eliminates the virus. It is still there and at some point society has to return to some degree of normalcy. At that point it's going to start all over again unless you somehow can prevent it from spreading via vaccination. That's at least a year away from now, not a couple of months.

It's really telling that in other countries they are increasingly talking about "opening up" but still maintaining some specific and general restrictions. That's where Sweden is now. It's not like we are doing nothing, yet somehow that's how people choose to portray it. Sometimes jumping on the bandwagon is not worthwhile.

 

[Klimax]

Sweden could have tried Czech approach...

 

[dann]

Your defense of the Swedish corona strategy is pathetic and inconsistent:

I only mentioned that for rhetorical effect. The reality of the situation is that the most serious problems were not going to be solved by just shutting down the entire country. It sure isn't working any miracles in Denmark. In that regard it's really strange that people get the impression that it somehow make all the difference in the world.

That depends on your defintion of "the most serious problems". I suppose your reference to "miracles", "entire country" and "all the difference in the world" is also only a rhetorical effect since no country has been entirely shut down yet.
It serves the purpose of defending a strategy that didn't want to make a difference by claiming that differences don't matter if they are not the perfect solution to the entirety of the most serious problems.

The people who are most vulnerable to the disease are going to need to be cared for by people who could not be tested for infection and who would lack access to sufficient protective equipment to minimize the risk of infecting them. That's the basic problem. A so called total "lockdown" would buy Sweden a little bit more time to get supplies and try to reorganize the care of the elderly to decrease the risk of infection, but at the same time cause even greater socioeconomic damage than the mix of current coercive methods and voluntary recommendations have already done.

Who could not be tested or who just weren't tested? And why did they lack protective equipment?
And yes, you got that part of it right: A lockdown (why would it be so-called and in quotations marks?) would actually have made it possible to test hosptial and nursing home employees and get them into protective gear, which would have cost money, of course, which to you isn't what other people would call necessary expenses but instead "greater socioeconomic damage".
'Sorry, Granma!'

In the end a "lockdown" is not sustainable. Just because it lowers the rate of infection does not mean that this somehow eliminates the virus. It is still there and at some point society has to return to some degree of normalcy. At that point it's going to start all over again unless you somehow can prevent it from spreading via vaccination. That's at least a year away from now, not a couple of months.

Nothing makes a lockdown (again the quotation marks used the way Trump uses them) unsustainable. And your argument is absurd: Nobody at all claims that it "somehow eliminates the virus" (not at this point, it doesn't!). Lowering the rate of infection is the whole point! And yes, when you open up again, it starts spreading again, but this time at a speed where you can prevent it from running wild until you get a vaccination. You don't simply open up, you do so in a limited and controlled fashion.
You pretend that countries using some form of lockdown will just be opening up again completely, eliminating all restrictions. You may be ignorant of the fact that this is not how it's done (DR.dk, April 6, 2020), but I think you actually know that and that you are just pretending not to know the same way you keep using your hyperbole.

It's really telling that in other countries they are increasingly talking about "opening up" but still maintaining some specific and general restrictions. That's where Sweden is now. It's not like we are doing nothing, yet somehow that's how people choose to portray it. Sometimes jumping on the bandwagon is not worthwhile.

No, that's not where Sweden is now. This is where Sweden is now (or was two days ago: the country has since then gone up from 477 deaths to 696 - and counting):
Sweden, which refused to implement a coronavirus lockdown, has so far avoided a mass outbreak. Now it's bracing for a surge in deaths. (Business Insider, April 7, 2020)

To a very large part of humanity, trying to protect the elderly and the immuno-deficient is worthwhile in and of itself and has nothing to do with "jumping on the bandwagon."
Jumping on the bandwagon of people like Trump and Bolsonaro to avoid "socioeconomic damage" is disgusting.
I pity you, Swedish far- och morföräldrar!

 

[uke2se]

I really see no point in jumping to the defense of the Swedish Corona response. Either it will work in the long run, or it won't. We don't know. Nobody does. I get the feeling my government is taking the problem seriously and doesn't involve magical thinking or pseudo science. They have left scientists in charge of determining the correct course of action. These scientists may be wrong, and there are other scientists saying so. The problem is that we don't have time to test the various approaches.

We are left with two bad options, and we've picked the one who seemed best for us.

 

[dann]

In the current situation, it is self-evident that "we don't have time to test the various various approaches," which is why you're left with having to choose the one that doesn't seem least likely to succeed.

Deaths per million
San Marino 1.004
Spanien 317
Andorra 298
Italien 292
Belgien 219
Frankrig 167
Holland 132
Schweiz 106
Storbritannien 105
Luxembourg 75
Sverige 68 Iran 48
Irland 48
USA 45Danmark 38Portugal 37
Østrig 33
Tyskland 28
Liechtenstein 26
Monaco 26
Slovenien 21
Antigua Barbuda 21
Norge 19

The most recent number: Sverige: Totalt 793 personer, Danmark: 237 personer i Danmark er nu døde.

By the way, I don't know how to describe this grotesque piece of Danish 'reporting' (My translation):

Another 19 persons have died with coronavirus. Now 237 coronainfected persons have died, the Danish Serum Institute informs us. (...) On the positive side, the number of hospitalized patients continues to fall. Today, Thursday, 433 patients are hospitalized with coronavirus. 20 fewer than Wednesday19 døde med coronavirus i Danmark det seneste døgn (TV2, April 9, 2020)

 

[uke2se]

In the current situation, it is self-evident that "we don't have time to test the various various approaches," which is why you're left with having to choose the one that doesn't seem least likely to succeed.



The most recent number: Sverige: Totalt 793 personer, Danmark: 237 personer i Danmark er nu døde.

By the way, I don't know how to describe this grotesque piece of Danish 'reporting' (My translation):

I just don't see how the numbers you present paint Sweden's approach as a necessarily poorer one than other the approach of other countries. Sweden's approach is unique. The nations with fewer deaths per million citizens are using the lock-down strategy, but so are the nations with more deaths.

Again, I think it's completely up in the air. If you feel that the Danish approach is better, good on you. It's good that the Danish government has chosen an approach that you feel is sensible. I feel the same for the Swedish approach. I think that it's sensible in the absence of a definitive answer.

 

[Arcade22]

In the current situation, it is self-evident that "we don't have time to test the various various approaches," which is why you're left with having to choose the one that doesn't seem least likely to succeed.



The most recent number: Sverige: Totalt 793 personer, Danmark: 237 personer i Danmark er nu døde.

By the way, I don't know how to describe this grotesque piece of Danish 'reporting' (My translation):

Your own numbers show that a "lockdown" is not a panacea for anything. The countries with the most deaths are the ones with most severe restrictions. Apparently that point keeps flying over your head.

Again, I've tried to explain this to you before but you refuse to acknowledge it: a lack of a lockdown is not the problem. It's not going change very much. The simple fact remains that the lack of preparedness for major health crises like this cannot be undone by shutting down everything.

"But-but my graphs! I'm a genius epidemiologist because I can read graphs and I'm much smarter than the Swedes!"

 

[bruto]

liberal disbursement of traps retards beaver growth in Sweden

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.na...vers-animals-science-sweden-world-wild-cities

Disbursement? Are you sure you're using the right word here?

 

[dann]

I just don't see how the numbers you present paint Sweden's approach as a necessarily poorer one than other the approach of other countries. Sweden's approach is unique. The nations with fewer deaths per million citizens are using the lock-down strategy, but so are the nations with more deaths.

Yes, now they are! The nations with more deaths are the ones who came to their senses too late.

Again, I think it's completely up in the air. If you feel that the Danish approach is better, good on you. It's good that the Danish government has chosen an approach that you feel is sensible. I feel the same for the Swedish approach. I think that it's sensible in the absence of a definitive answer.

It's not a question of how I feel. It appears to be in your case. In the absence of a definitive answer, it's usually recommendable to go with a preliminary one based on your gut feeling - the Trump way.

 

[dann]

Your own numbers show that a "lockdown" is not a panacea for anything. The countries with the most deaths are the ones with most severe restrictions. Apparently that point keeps flying over your head.

Yes, now they are. At least, they were able to learn from their own experience. Swedes appear to be unable to learn from the experience of other countries.

Again, I've tried to explain this to you before but you refuse to acknowledge it: a lack of a lockdown is not the problem. It's not going change very much. The simple fact remains that the lack of preparedness for major health crises like this cannot be undone by shutting down everything.

Again you resort to hyperbole. Nobody in the world has recommended "shutting down everything," but your strawman seems to comfort you. Similarly, nobody has claimed that "the lack of preparedness" can be undone, but again: Why not invent a strawman when you have no argument against the actual argument?
The superior strategy for countries that were better prepared from the beginning is the one pursued by Iceland and the Faroe Islands: Test and isolate, preferably not in their own homes if they can infect others there.

Iceland
Infected: 1616
Deaths: 6
Recovered: 633
Faroe Islands
Infected: 184
Deaths: 0
Recovered: 136
Nyeste corona-tal fra Danmark og verden: Så mange er smittede, døde og indlagte (TV2, April 9, 2020)

"But-but my graphs! I'm a genius epidemiologist because I can read graphs and I'm much smarter than the Swedes!"

"But-but why resort to facts when hyperbole and wishful thinking are superior to knowledge about reality!"

 

[dann]

If you are in Sweden and get cancer, you should consider getting it some other time: Tusentals operationer ställs in – cancersjuke Ridvan en av de drabbade (SVT.se, April 9, 2020)
Translation: Thousands of operations are cancelled - cancerpatient Ridvan is one of those who are affected

Allting handlar om Stockholm har alltid gjort och kommer alltid att göra. Det bästa hade varit om Skåne tillhört Danmark, då hade vår gräns varit stängd
Lars Kruuse
Senaste nytt om coronaläget i Malmö och Skåne – chatta här (Aftonbladet, April 9, 2020)

(Probably a disappointed nationalist, I don't know.)

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Yes, one wonders if certain readers understood.


Or not. It's a somewhat niggardly interpretation.

I don't what made me think of this but are African Swedes or other immigrant communities in Sweden suffering disproportionately from the coronavirus the way African Americans are?

 

[Arcade22]

"But-but why resort to facts when hyperbole and wishful thinking are superior to knowledge about reality!"

"Wishful thinking" is that a danish communist without a clue somehow knows better than Sweden's leading epidemiological experts, bureaucrats and managers of the healthcare system because he can google up news articles. In fact they are IDIOTS compared to you and your graphs. You know better than all of them.

 

[Arcade22]

I don't what made me think of this but are African Swedes or other immigrant communities in Sweden suffering disproportionately from the coronavirus the way African Americans are?

Yes. At least in some areas where immigrants make up a large majority of the population the amount of people who have been infected is way above the norm.

This is at least partially due to the fact that the authorities did not inform them sufficiently, as many immigrants in these areas are more or less cut-off from the rest of Swedish society because of language barriers and a tendency of self-segregation among their own communities. The elderly are especially unlikely to learn Swedish or otherwise interact with native Swedes, meaning that they are unlikely to have been informed about the need to maintain social distancing and self-isolation.

Edit: Again, a large source of deaths are from the inability to protect the elderly because of among other things a more or less complete lack of protective equipment.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, now they are! The nations with more deaths are the ones who came to their senses too late.

Well, in that case, there's really no use for us to change our strategy either, is it?

It's not a question of how I feel. It appears to be in your case. In the absence of a definitive answer, it's usually recommendable to go with a preliminary one based on your gut feeling - the Trump way.

Yes, to me it's a question of how I feel, because I don't know. You don't know either. I trust that my government is not putting my and the people I love's lives at risk out of malice or even stupidity. The rules they have set up might be wrong-headed, but we don't know that yet, and the numbers you have presented do not show that.

I understand that it's provoking a lot of people who are suffering under a lock-down that other people aren't. I am starting to believe that this is the main reason for this ire against Sweden.

 

[uke2se]

"Wishful thinking" is that a danish communist without a clue somehow knows better than Sweden's leading epidemiological experts, bureaucrats and managers of the healthcare system because he can google up news articles. In fact they are IDIOTS compared to you and your graphs. You know better than all of them.

His political persuasion is not relevant.

 

[dann]

"Wishful thinking" is that a danish communist without a clue somehow knows better than Sweden's leading epidemiological experts, bureaucrats and managers of the healthcare system because he can google up news articles. In fact they are IDIOTS compared to you and your graphs. You know better than all of them.

No, not better than all of them: Swedish scientists call for evidence-based policy on COVID-19 (For Better Science, April 7, 2020).
Unlike you, I just think that evidence-based science is superior to wishful thinking - in particular in questions of health and medicine.

 

[dann]

Edit: Again, a large source of deaths are from the inability to protect the elderly because of among other things a more or less complete lack of protective equipment.

No, it's not. It has nothing to do with "inability". It has everything to do with a refusal to do anything about it. Besides, a "complete lack of protective equipment" is one of the reasons why a lockdown would have served the purpose of slowing down the virus until that protective equipment had been acquired, but ... sorry, Granma, ... that's your problem!

Sweden's "curve" -- the rate of infections and deaths caused by coronavirus -- is certainly steeper than that of many other European countries with stricter measures. A study by Imperial College London estimated that 3.1% of the Swedish population was infected (as of March 28) -- compared to 0.41% in Norway and 2.5% in the UK.
As for deaths, by April 8, coronavirus accounted for 67 fatalities per 1 million Swedish citizens, according to the Swedish Health Ministry. Norway had 19 deaths per million, Finland seven per million. The number of deaths rose 16% on Wednesday.
Sweden challenges Trump -- and scientific mainstream -- by refusing to lock down (CNN, April 10, 2020)

 

[dann]

Well, in that case, there's really no use for us to change our strategy either, is it?

There's every reason to change your strategy:

Söderberg-Nauclér says the situation in Stockholm, where the great majority of the country's infections have occurred, is "lost," but adds: "It is not too late for rest of the country. I wish we would lock down and take control of regions not affected in same way."
Sweden challenges Trump -- and scientific mainstream -- by refusing to lock down (CNN, April 10, 2020)

Yes, to me it's a question of how I feel, because I don't know. You don't know either. I trust that my government is not putting my and the people I love's lives at risk out of malice or even stupidity. The rules they have set up might be wrong-headed, but we don't know that yet, and the numbers you have presented do not show that.

I understand that it's provoking a lot of people who are suffering under a lock-down that other people aren't. I am starting to believe that this is the main reason for this ire against Sweden.

The rules that they have set up are wrong-headed, and your own attitude is based on nothing but feelings and trust. It is true that many things will only be known when this pandemic is over, but you refuse to learn from what we do know at this point, which means that all you do is pick sides: You choose to trust that your "government is not putting my and the people I love's lives at risk out of malice or even stupidity" over the recommendations of the WHO:

The World Health Organization (WHO) is skeptical of Sweden's approach. Noting a fresh surge in the country's infections, the WHO told CNN Wednesday that it's "imperative" that Sweden "increase measures to control spread of the virus, prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the population."
Sweden challenges Trump -- and scientific mainstream -- by refusing to lock down (CNN, April 10, 2020)

Which, by the way, is one point where Trump seems to agree with the Swedish government.

 

[dann]

His political persuasion is not relevant.

Don't take away the only argument he's got: ad hominem.