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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody said the dance would be easy.
I'm happy that Denmark appears to postpone stage four of the reopening: nightlife and increase of crowd size (e.g. concerts, I guess): The limit of gatherings won't be raised to 200 as planned (DR.dk, Aug. 6, 2020)

Thursday:
Coronavirus - countries (Worldometers, Aug. 6, 2020)
Deaths per million (Total deaths) New cases Serious/Critical
Sweden: 571 (5,766) 63* 38** *427 and **41 according to SVT.se.
Denmark: 106 (617) 121 2
Finland: 60 (331) 20 0
Norway: 47 (256) 35 3
Iceland: 29 (10) 4 0
Iceland has 95 active cases, New Zealand 23.

Faroe Islands: 200+ quarantined, 277 awaiting results.
My improved translation:
- So far 25 cases of corona have been confirmed today, but it may be as much as 30, says Lars Fodgaard Møller, surgeon general, on the radio.
At least 25 new cases (Aug. 6, 2020)
Click to expand...

I have no idea what most of the rest is supposed to mean:
Tað seems to be paid, all the polls are coughed up, some were ticked off by people in ravines, not well polled. A total of 1,500-1,600 people were examined in the gorge.
The toe was considered the largest, 28 people in the Faroe Islands received COVID-19. The tooth was removed on March 15. Higartil hava 241 people in the Faroe Islands have confirmed the infection, tøl refers to corona.fo
Click to expand...
But I think the second sentence means: "A total of 1,500-1,600 were tested yesterday."
The last sentence: "So far 241 people in the Faroe Island have been tested positive for the infection, according to corona.fo." - but that would be the total number of cases since the beginning of the outbreak.
I guess the vet responsible for salmon testing has been very busy recently. :)

At a press briefing today, Tegnell claimed that the situation in the rest of Europe is worse than in Sweden, which for the most part isn't really true if you look at per capita numbers, except for Spain and maybe Belgium. Even the UK appears to be doing much better than Sweden if you look at the number of new cases.
In the Nordic countries, Sweden had six deaths today, Denmark one, Finland, Norway and Iceland none. Sweden have 41 in ICUs, the four other countries combined have 5.
Yesterday, one of the predictions for autumn is Sweden mentioned that one scenario would be that 'the rate of infection stays low like it is now.' The other Nordic countries would have been horrified if they had Sweden's current per capita numbers. Denmark is almost in a state of emergency with the rise in numbers. In Sweden it's just another Thursday ...
 
Like I said in the discussion with the Swedish skeptics: If Sweden's 'corona general' had been an actual general, he would have been court martialed at this point! (As would the Commander in Chief in the White House.)

Today during the press briefing from Aarhus, one of the differences between sensible information to the population and what goes on in Sweden suddenly became apparent to me:
In Denmark, I never saw any attempt to justify the Danish strategy by claiming that other countries are doing much worse - whether they are or not. I also never saw anybody trying to justify the strategy by means of general claims that 'science says this is the right thing to do'! (And without bothering to tell people which study says what.)

It has always been down to earth, based on science, obviously, but with sensible explanations for why certain behaviors and precautions are necessary in the current situation. I haven't seen any attempts to claim that 'this isn't so bad and it will all be over sooner than you think' - what you get from guys like Trump and Tegnell all the time.
And I haven't seen the arrogant disrespect of other researchers that Tegnell has exhibited throughout the pandemic. I wonder why so many other Swedish researchers back him up to an extent that I would usually expect to see only in North Korea and the White House.
 
Last edited:
As you said, the dance is not easy, even when you're trying pretty hard. I'm not sure where we go from here. Here's where we are.

Eewx2KQXYAMfG-v


Large areas of the country with no new cases, some having been like that for some time, but be have an unfolding spike in Aberdeen that is spilling into the surrounding countryside and something is also happening in the Glasgow area (which has always been grumbling, inevitable I suppose in a city of that size).

People in Aberdeen are forbidden from travelling more than five miles except for work or education, and from entering anyone else's house. Pubs and restaurants have been closed. They're contact-tracing as fast as they can. Will this get on top of it as it did in Annan and in the Sitel/Port Glasgow outbreaks, or are we going to see more of the country turn unpleasant shades of burnt umber?
 
dann said:
It has always been down to earth, based on science, obviously, but with sensible explanations for why certain behaviors and precautions are necessary in the current situation.
Click to expand...
I note that the government went much further with lockdowns than the scientists recommended in March. Which was a good thing, but it is strange that the scientists were holding back, where it is usually the politicians who are reluctant to follow scientific advice.

Unfortunately, the government was not brave enough to admit that it was more restrictive than recommended by the scientists, and instead claimed that everything was done in accordance with recommendations. This is bringing them into political trouble now, despite the obvious success of the lockdown.

I also wonder about all those who complain about slow removal of the restrictions. Those who complain are only talking about the impact on business. Nobody are mentioning the impact on the epidemic, or the risk that a real lockdown will be necessary.
 
steenkh said:
I note that the government went much further with lockdowns than the scientists recommended in March. Which was a good thing, but it is strange that the scientists were holding back, where it is usually the politicians who are reluctant to follow scientific advice.
Click to expand...


No, that's a myth that the Swedes have been particularly fond of telling: Vilka nationella eller regionala åtgärder mot coronavirus är evidensbaserade? Page 1 (VoF.se, March 14, 2020)
Søren Brostrøm and Sundhedsstyrelsen were against the lockdown of schools. Certain right-wing parties in Denmark made a big deal out of it. But Kåre Mølbak and Statens Serum Institut were behind her, which is why the accusations against the government for not adhering to science stopped. Vilka nationella eller regionals åtgärder mot coronavirus är evidensbaserade? Page 23 (VoF.se, July 25, 2020)

Unfortunately, the government was not brave enough to admit that it was more restrictive than recommended by the scientists, and instead claimed that everything was done in accordance with recommendations. This is bringing them into political trouble now, despite the obvious success of the lockdown.
Click to expand...


No, if you think about it, it may occur to you that you haven't really heard about it since July 25. I haven't, and I've been on DR.dk and TV2.dk every day. Stinus Lindgreen, whom we both know from Copenhagen Skeptics in the Pub, was one of the critics, but he also stressed that he had nothing against the government's decision, but he thought that Frederiksen hadn't been honest when she said that she acted in accordance with scientific advice. She did. She just didn't make a big deal out of it - maybe because she didn't want to put Brostrøm in a bad light. I don't know if Brostrøm was offended by her decision, at first, but I doubt that he still is. He must have been relieved when he saw the Swedish train wreck.
And by not mentioning the issue at all, Frederiksen may have put a lid on inter-institutional rivalry in the realm of Danish health expertise instead of encouraging it.

I also wonder about all those who complain about slow removal of the restrictions. Those who complain are only talking about the impact on business. Nobody are mentioning the impact on the epidemic, or the risk that a real lockdown will be necessary.
Click to expand...


Tell me about it! :)
I can see why small business owners might be worried. If you are the owner of a pub or a disco, you won't make any money until we have all been vaccinated and they can reopen. When you let your bank account do your thinking for you, there isn't much room for compassion.
I hate Conservative snowflakes like Asger Aamund. At his age, he ought to have a little more compassion for his contemporaries who aren't able to self-isolate in luxury. (I still remember when his wife, the former soft-porn model, complained that Denmark didn't do enough for its multi-millionaires!)


ETA: In post 1509, I recommended a BBC video about what went wrong with the pandemic response in the UK. If you watch the last 4-5 minutes or so, you will notice the British politicians paying lip service to science. Swedish press briefings are very similar in this respect. Some Swedish journalists find it hard to reconcile what they hear from abroad with what the Swedish 'experts' tell them; right now about face masks and the reopening of schools, for instance. Tegnell, in particular (but he is not the only one), usually refers to science, but almost always without being specific: Which specific study has shown what?, for instance. And I'm starting to think that he's pulling it out of his ***. The Swedish numbers are almost useless. After the first week or so, they stopped testing, and even when an outbreak at a school occurred, they didn't follow up on it with testing and contact tracing. And I suspect that their reluctance to do so is mainly due to their desperate attempts to find (or make up) stuff to justify their failed strategy and the many deaths it resulted in.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what it will take to get it through to business owners that simply opening up while the virus is still circulating is not the answer. I have every sympathy with them. People running small restaurants and licensed hotels have a lot to worry about. But opening up prematurely isn't going to do them any good.

Look at Aberdeen. It's only been a couple of weeks since they opened, and thanks to the brain-dead behaviour of some customers (including a bunch of footballers who were supposed to be in a "training bubble" and are now out of the next three games self-isolating) and the equally brain-dead behaviour of the proprietors who didn't stop this behaviour, everybody has been shut down again.

Restaurants who stocked up with fresh produce for their new end-of-lockdown menus have had to close their doors. Even tea-rooms that don't serve alcohol have been closed. What does anyone suggest we do about this? Just carry on regardless while people start dying in their hundreds again and the hospital runs out of intensive care beds? No, things have to close.

Just opening up and getting on with it will solve nothing. There has to be a much more detailed assessment of what can and can't be done, and in the end venues that serve alcohol and allow customers to consume it standing up and circulating around the room are going to have to find another business model for the time being.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't know what it will take to get it through to business owners that simply opening up while the virus is still circulating is not the answer. I have every sympathy with them. People running small restaurants and licensed hotels have a lot to worry about. But opening up prematurely isn't going to do them any good.
Click to expand...


But that is exactly why capitalism (and capitalist thinking) encourages stupid behavior and stupid politics in this situation:
1) If you own a pub or a disco, you don't earn anything as long as the business is locked down. You can't work online from home, obviously.
2) If you don't own the building, you have to pay rent. So you not only don't make money, you have expenses, too.
3) If you do own the building, but have a mortgage, you have to pay rent: expenses.
4) If you own the building and don't owe anybody anything, it's dead capital, and there's nothing worse. It's goes against capitalist logic. And you may still have to pay property taxes.

Look at Aberdeen. It's only been a couple of weeks since they opened, and thanks to the brain-dead behaviour of some customers (including a bunch of footballers who were supposed to be in a "training bubble" and are now out of the next three games self-isolating) and the equally brain-dead behaviour of the proprietors who didn't stop this behaviour, everybody has been shut down again.

Restaurants who stocked up with fresh produce for their new end-of-lockdown menus have had to close their doors. Even tea-rooms that don't serve alcohol have been closed. What does anyone suggest we do about this? Just carry on regardless while people start dying in their hundreds again and the hospital runs out of intensive care beds? No, things have to close.
Click to expand...


Again: That's capitalism for you. The owner of the pub doesn't really care that his attempts to make money are what closed down the tea-rooms. (And the owners of the bars in Ischgl, Austria, and the local health authorities didn't care that their irresponsible practices would contribute to closing down most of Northern Europe.)

Just opening up and getting on with it will solve nothing. There has to be a much more detailed assessment of what can and can't be done, and in the end venues that serve alcohol and allow customers to consume it standing up and circulating around the room are going to have to find another business model for the time being.
Click to expand...


'But we can't afford to stay closed! Don't tell us that we will only make it much worse for ourselves in the long run by opening up because that is something we can be in denial about until it happens.'
It's Trump's way of thinking on a smaller scale.
That New Zealand's or South Korea's pandemic responses were superior to anything attempted in Europe is fairly obvious to many people in hindsight, but it's incredibly hard to understand for somebody acting on behalf of their investments.
It's difficult enough for many of their employees to grasp: They also need money to pay the rent, the grocery bill, gasoline etc.
 
They have dropped there cases and deaths down dramatically without ever having a lockdown!
 
Gavin said:
They have dropped there cases and deaths down dramatically without ever having a lockdown!
Click to expand...


They?! If you are talking about the Swedes, then, yes, their cases are decreasing as are their deaths, but the reason why you use the word "dramatically" is that they first let the virus run wil to the extent where they have 5,763 deaths, 4-5 times more than Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway combined. After that, it doesn't take much to make fewer deaths seem dramatic in comparison.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
They?! If you are talking about the Swedes, then, yes, their cases are decreasing as are their deaths, but the reason why you use the word "dramatically" is that they first let the virus run wil to the extent where they have 5,763 deaths, 4-5 times more than Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway combined. After that, it doesn't take much to make fewer deaths seem dramatic in comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes some countries have less deaths and some more it doesn’t change the fact that they have flattened the curve
 
Gavin said:
Yes some countries have less deaths and some more it doesn’t change the fact that they have flattened the curve
Click to expand...


That they have 'flattened the curve' doesn't change the fact that they have had 4-5 times more deaths than the rest of the Nordic countries combined. It also doesn't change the fact that they didn't even accomplished their explicit goal: to flatten the curve to the extent where the health-care system wasn't overloaded. Instead, we are told today that most of the people in nursing homes died there and were never hospitalized, which is one way of keeping down the number of hospitalizations. Something akin to the triage taking place in the Southern States of the USA right now:

Covidsjuka på äldreboende fick sällan vård på sjukhus
Endast en mindre andel av de på äldreboende som dött med covid-19 har fått tillgång till sjukhusvård. I stället har de vårdats och dött på boendet, enligt Socialstyrelsens preliminära statistik.
Socialstyrelsen för löpande statistik över hur många personer från äldreboenden som dör med covid-19. Men hur många av dem som har sjukhusvårdats undersöks endast vid enstaka tillfällen. Senaste körningen visar att bara 13 procent fick tillgång till vård på sjukhus, till och med mitten av maj. Eller 111 av totalt 882 avlidna.
Trots att dödsfallen sedan dess blivit betydligt fler borde andelen från äldreboende som fått sjukhusvård vara densamma, tycker Henrik Lysell, chef för Socialstyrelsens statistikenhet.
- Jag ser inte att det skulle finnas någon uppenbar anledning till att det ser annorlunda ut i dag.
Aktuell statistik visar att covidsjuka från äldreboenden utgjort en mindre andel av samtliga covidpatienter på sjukhus – drygt fem procent eller 1 093 av 20 929 personer, enligt siffror från Socialstyrelsen.
Senaste nytt om coronaviruset (SVT.se, Aug. 7, 2020 - 16:08)
Click to expand...


The Trump bots appear to be busy today.
 
dann said:
That they have 'flattened the curve' doesn't change the fact that they have had 4-5 times more deaths than the rest of the Nordic countries combined. It also doesn't change the fact that they didn't even accomplished their explicit goal: to flatten the curve to the extent where the health-care system wasn't overloaded. Instead, we are told today that most of the people in nursing homes died there and were never hospitalized, which is one way of keeping down the number of hospitalizations. Something akin to the triage taking place in the Southern States of the USA right now:
.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize there success or failure was based on how well they did compared to other Nordic countries they have had 5,763 deaths out of 10 million people that’s 0.0576 percent of the population and have dropped their deaths and case down to almost nothing without a lockdown yes some countries have less deaths and some have more.
 
There's an interesting thread here about the improved outcomes for covid patients in intensive care. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, this is a new disease and it was an absolute certainty that doctors would get better at treating it. Many people who would have died in March, April and May are now surviving. Which makes the decision to front-load the deaths and get them over with even more criminal.

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1291736127448260621
 
dann said:
'But we can't afford to stay closed! Don't tell us that we will only make it much worse for ourselves in the long run by opening up because that is something we can be in denial about until it happens.'
It's Trump's way of thinking on a smaller scale.
That New Zealand's or South Korea's pandemic responses were superior to anything attempted in Europe is fairly obvious to many people in hindsight, but it's incredibly hard to understand for somebody acting on behalf of their investments.
It's difficult enough for many of their employees to grasp: They also need money to pay the rent, the grocery bill, gasoline etc.
Click to expand...


The fact that your investment is likely to do a lot better in the medium to long term is relatively few people die and your country isn't massively disrupted by widespread serious illness seems to have escaped most of these people. A short (or even a longer) closure to get rid of the virus at the beginning is vastly preferable to a cycle of repeated opening and closure, and many customers staying away because they know the virus us out there.

The fact that a bit of money spent in the early stages supporting people who can't work due to the lockdown, or who have to isolate for public health reasons, will save a fortune compared to the later effects of mass redundancies and poverty, and indeed the effect of infectious people going out to drive their taxi or deliver their parcels rather than isolating, is also lost on many governments.
 
Despite my concerns about Scotland's situation, today was looking a bit better. New cases down to 43 in the entire country, with most of these in the Aberdeen/shire cluster which is in special measures. Other than that, just grumbling along mostly at a low level in the central belt. Whatever appeared to be happening in Glasgow/Renfrewshire hasn't as yet developed into anything. A wee bit of a surge in Fife (four cases) but overall not so bad.

Ee1FltBX0AAwUQH


If they really can get on top of that cluster (now up to 101 cases) it will actually be a pretty impressive achievement and leave the country as a whole still in decent shape. However that's the fourth cluster we've had in as many weeks, and by far the most serious.

I think the takeaway message is that the clusters that weren't linked to bars or clubs were relatively small and easy to contain. If you look at the trend data for the areas where these things happened, they've been shut down. There's little or no sign of increased virus prevalence there now, and the clusters only reached the twenties. Now we have one that's linked to pub-crawling and it's a much bigger deal. I still don't know if they're going to succeed in stamping it out although hopefully they will. But this is going to happen again unless they tighten up procedures for opening these sorts of venues. There was a hint in today's briefing that they're thinking about that.

ETA: This extract from today's briefing suggests that most of what I was saying needed to be done was already supposed to be being done (table service, no circulating and no standing together) but obviously it was being ignored. They're going to make leaving contact details mandatory (it was just a guideline until now) and I think tighten up on the enforcement of the rest of it, possibly by legislating to enforce it.

Ee1NIh-XgAADnLd


I'd like to see more attention being paid to ventilation. Open doors and windows (even in Aberdeen!), air conditioning that recycles air turned off, opening up of spaces to give the biggest possible airspace for example.

It's blindingly obvious from the photos of that venue in Aberdeen where the footballers were infected that this simply wasn't happening. There's a picture in this article and it's clear that these guidelines were being completely ignored. The footballers in question are now facing a severe carpeting.
 
Last edited:
They may as well close down the bars. Rules and regulations like these will be in vain: "Customers should not be standing together to watch football, dancing or queuing at the bar."
What's the purpose of going to a bar without those things?
I would like to see a follow up on this measure from July 15:


I wonder if he'll be tasing those who sing or dance. I'm sure that will go down well with the regulars. :)

I got my hair cut today for the second time since the pandemic started. He was now wearing a mask, the door stayed open, and I was the only customer in the shop. Very few are wearing masks in shops and malls. One ******* insisted on standing much too close to an elderly woman (wearing a mask; he wasn't) in a line. I considered getting into a fight with him but didn't, since it only took about 30 seconds to get to the cashier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom