Sweden is moving away from its no-lockdown strategy(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Sweden is moving away from its no-lockdown strategy
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-shifts-away-no-lockdown-strategy-amid-growing-case-numbers-2020-10
46 comments
The key is that there is a shift in the rhetoric from the architect of the herd immunity policy, Dr Tegnell:
> Dr Tegnell said on Thursday that the autumn resurgence in infections had changed his agency's understanding.
> "I think the obvious conclusion is that the level of immunity in those cities is not at all as high as we have, as maybe some people, have believed," he said.
Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course. Now even the Swedes are conceding that, you know, letting people die unnecessarily was ... unnecessary.
> Dr Tegnell said on Thursday that the autumn resurgence in infections had changed his agency's understanding.
> "I think the obvious conclusion is that the level of immunity in those cities is not at all as high as we have, as maybe some people, have believed," he said.
Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course. Now even the Swedes are conceding that, you know, letting people die unnecessarily was ... unnecessary.
The title is still wrong - Sweden has had a lockdown (light, certainly, but not "no-lockdown"), what appears to be a summary of new restrictions has actually been in place for months, and there's nothing in the article which says there will be new legal enforcements behind the stronger recommendations. If the old policies wasn't a lockdown then the new one isn't either.
Those folks you mention seem to deliberately use "no lockdown" to describe Sweden, when clearly (I linked to a source, and gave personal observations) there are restrictions, and so is more accurately "light lockdown". I can't help but wonder how it came to be used in this title.
BTW, I looked for mention of upcoming substantial changes at https://www.gp.se/ and found https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-... . Google Translate at https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... .
You can see the changes are in the "sharpness" of the recommendations, and in case of a local outbreak. For example, from "you shouldn't take public transport unless you can book a seat" changes to "you shouldn't take public transport."
But it's still as voluntary as it was a few weeks ago, so if we were "no-lockdown" then we'll still be "no-lockdown" tomorrow.
Those folks you mention seem to deliberately use "no lockdown" to describe Sweden, when clearly (I linked to a source, and gave personal observations) there are restrictions, and so is more accurately "light lockdown". I can't help but wonder how it came to be used in this title.
BTW, I looked for mention of upcoming substantial changes at https://www.gp.se/ and found https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-... . Google Translate at https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... .
You can see the changes are in the "sharpness" of the recommendations, and in case of a local outbreak. For example, from "you shouldn't take public transport unless you can book a seat" changes to "you shouldn't take public transport."
But it's still as voluntary as it was a few weeks ago, so if we were "no-lockdown" then we'll still be "no-lockdown" tomorrow.
My question is, has the spike in cases corresponded with a spike in hospitalizations? My understanding has been that this second wave has been far less deadly throughout the world, and likely because it's hitting younger people, who fend it off relatively easily on average, whereas the first wave tended to hit the most vulnerable (nursing home and assisted living populations).
Yes.
The stats are at https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb... . For non-IE browsers see https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6... for plots.
On the right top is "Sjukdomsfall per dag" - "illness cases per day". You can see the big peak ending around early July, and the new peak rising. Of course there's better ability to detect cases.
On the right middle is "Nya intensivvårdade fall per dag" - "new intensive care cases per day". IT's about 1/10th of the April peak, but at 2-3/day is several times higher than the low point of 1 about every 2-3 days.
On the right bottom is "Avlidna per dag" - "deaths per day". It's harder to tell without smoothing, but it seem to have increased too.
The stats are at https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb... . For non-IE browsers see https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6... for plots.
On the right top is "Sjukdomsfall per dag" - "illness cases per day". You can see the big peak ending around early July, and the new peak rising. Of course there's better ability to detect cases.
On the right middle is "Nya intensivvårdade fall per dag" - "new intensive care cases per day". IT's about 1/10th of the April peak, but at 2-3/day is several times higher than the low point of 1 about every 2-3 days.
On the right bottom is "Avlidna per dag" - "deaths per day". It's harder to tell without smoothing, but it seem to have increased too.
The first graph you reference is not really people being ill, instead it’s people with detected infections.
The fact you can’t really infer anything from the other graphs without a microscope might be a clue as to how much of a deal this is.
The fact you can’t really infer anything from the other graphs without a microscope might be a clue as to how much of a deal this is.
Yes, it looks like "Sjukdomsfall per dag" is more correctly translated as "Disease cases per day".
Though to point out, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Concepts says "many cases, terms such as disease, disorder, morbidity, sickness and illness are used interchangeably" and "The terms illness and sickness are both generally used as synonyms for disease;" so I'm not clearly wrong.
It then goes on to make your point "however, the term illness is occasionally used to refer specifically to the patient's personal experience of his or her disease. In this model, it is possible for a person to have a disease without being ill."
As you can see from my earlier comments, I agree that the "sharpening" of Swedish recommendations is nowhere the big deal that the referenced article implies it is, and the local media is not making a big deal of it. It's preparations for any local outbreaks, ahead of time so people can be prepared, and knowing that existing practices are no longer as effective.
But, why the emphasis on "without a microscope"? Isn't early the right time for things like this?
Though to point out, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Concepts says "many cases, terms such as disease, disorder, morbidity, sickness and illness are used interchangeably" and "The terms illness and sickness are both generally used as synonyms for disease;" so I'm not clearly wrong.
It then goes on to make your point "however, the term illness is occasionally used to refer specifically to the patient's personal experience of his or her disease. In this model, it is possible for a person to have a disease without being ill."
As you can see from my earlier comments, I agree that the "sharpening" of Swedish recommendations is nowhere the big deal that the referenced article implies it is, and the local media is not making a big deal of it. It's preparations for any local outbreaks, ahead of time so people can be prepared, and knowing that existing practices are no longer as effective.
But, why the emphasis on "without a microscope"? Isn't early the right time for things like this?
In other countries the hospitalizations, transfers to Intensive Care and ultimately fatalities quickly followed the rise in infections.
How long should we wait before we can accept that the increase here is tiny and much smaller than elsewhere?
How long should we wait before we can accept that the increase here is tiny and much smaller than elsewhere?
Isn't that what we see in the Folkhälsomyndigheten site I linked to? There's roughly 4x the number of reported cases since 1 September, roughly 4x the number of hospitalizations, and roughly 4x the number of deaths.
Again, eyeballed numbers, but you make it sound like something is significantly different.
Isn't the goal to keep the numbers from getting larger, like we see elsewhere?
Again, eyeballed numbers, but you make it sound like something is significantly different.
Isn't the goal to keep the numbers from getting larger, like we see elsewhere?
The goal cannot be to keep the numbers from getting larger. The goal must be to keep the disease under control and prevent overloading the hospitals.
Don’t forget that you can’t take prevention measures without causing other effects; if you keep people locked into their homes they will become unhealthier, if the economy crashes they will have a lack of food and health care.
Don’t forget that you can’t take prevention measures without causing other effects; if you keep people locked into their homes they will become unhealthier, if the economy crashes they will have a lack of food and health care.
Abstractly, sure, there's a possible limit. And concretely, sure, there are other effects. I want to be able to jump on the train to visit friends, but don't because it's not necessary travel.
But as is very well known - it's the topic of this HN posting! - we here in Sweden aren't locked into our homes, even with these new recommendations in place.
So since this posting and conversation is about Sweden, I don't really see what you're getting at. Are you expressing frustrations you have with the restrictions where you live?
I don't think it's impossible to keep the Swedish economy going, with enough food and health care, while also keeping the infection rate low by being a bit more mindful of what we do when there are local outbreaks.
And I think the 4x rate since 1 September is enough cause to be more mindful. Otherwise, it'll be 10x in a month, and more after that.
But as is very well known - it's the topic of this HN posting! - we here in Sweden aren't locked into our homes, even with these new recommendations in place.
So since this posting and conversation is about Sweden, I don't really see what you're getting at. Are you expressing frustrations you have with the restrictions where you live?
I don't think it's impossible to keep the Swedish economy going, with enough food and health care, while also keeping the infection rate low by being a bit more mindful of what we do when there are local outbreaks.
And I think the 4x rate since 1 September is enough cause to be more mindful. Otherwise, it'll be 10x in a month, and more after that.
Cmon Andy. According to the graphs you reference: October incidence is comparable to April, while October hospitalisation is much lower than in April.
Have another cup-o-joe and tell me why I'm wrong ;)
Have another cup-o-joe and tell me why I'm wrong ;)
I haven't gone by Andy since I was 8 years old. Using an unasked-for nickname feels condescending and even like infantilization - which admittedly is in line with the tone of the your response. The HN guidelines request that we "Be kind. Don't be snarky. ... Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
As I wrote in the comment you replied to, "Of course there's better ability to detect cases." I thought that was obvious enough to not need further elaboration. I seem to have been wrong, so I will further clarify.
June is roughly when covid screening was available to everyone. Eg, the local pharmacy offers antibody testing. You'll see that's when the number of known cases went up even though the intensive care and death rates decreased.
Thus, it makes no sense to compare as you did October's reported case incidence - when widespread testing was available - directly with April's - when it was not.
In addition, the question I replied to was "has the spike in cases corresponded with a spike in hospitalizations?" The answer is still "yes". There has been a roughly four-fold increase in reported cases over the last six weeks, and there has been a roughly four-fold increase in the number of intensive care cases over the same period of time. That's by eyeball, so increases might not match that precisely, but it's still a correspondence.
Since the lockdown we have is no longer effective at keeping the rates low, it makes sense to "sharpen" the recommendations.
Tell me how I'm wrong that that's not a correspondence. And hopefully with less snark.
As I wrote in the comment you replied to, "Of course there's better ability to detect cases." I thought that was obvious enough to not need further elaboration. I seem to have been wrong, so I will further clarify.
June is roughly when covid screening was available to everyone. Eg, the local pharmacy offers antibody testing. You'll see that's when the number of known cases went up even though the intensive care and death rates decreased.
Thus, it makes no sense to compare as you did October's reported case incidence - when widespread testing was available - directly with April's - when it was not.
In addition, the question I replied to was "has the spike in cases corresponded with a spike in hospitalizations?" The answer is still "yes". There has been a roughly four-fold increase in reported cases over the last six weeks, and there has been a roughly four-fold increase in the number of intensive care cases over the same period of time. That's by eyeball, so increases might not match that precisely, but it's still a correspondence.
Since the lockdown we have is no longer effective at keeping the rates low, it makes sense to "sharpen" the recommendations.
Tell me how I'm wrong that that's not a correspondence. And hopefully with less snark.
I honestly apologise. I did not pass my statement through my net post filter, as I should have done. That is completely my failure. No snarkiness or diminutisation intended, just my poor formulation.
As for the curves. Do I interpret your point correctly as follows? The major factor of the discrepancy was the undetected cases in April vs October, due to lower testing? Does that hold true when comparing with the quite low numbers coming out of antibody screening? I remember this being drastically overestimated (4x?).
As for the curves. Do I interpret your point correctly as follows? The major factor of the discrepancy was the undetected cases in April vs October, due to lower testing? Does that hold true when comparing with the quite low numbers coming out of antibody screening? I remember this being drastically overestimated (4x?).
Apology accepted, and thanks for it.
I cannot say if the major factor was due to lower testing. I can only say that the testing regimes were significantly different and so cannot be compared as directly as you did.
I cannot say if the major factor was due to lower testing. I can only say that the testing regimes were significantly different and so cannot be compared as directly as you did.
Younger folks are getting it, folks are tested and treated earlier, treatment has improved and viral load has fallen, meaning it's more likely to be fought off with lighter symptoms. The latter is mostly likely due to masks and social distancing.
Swedes by and large do not wear masks, schools have stayed open the whole time, bars and restaurants stayed open the whole time...https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jqjorS3oYlk
The goal of the Swedish pandemic strategy wasn't herd immunity. It was to keep the spread under control such that our healthcare wasn't overrun, and try our best to ensure that risk groups aren't exposed. It's not been about "wishing away" anything.
I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic.
My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks.
Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.
My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks.
Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.
> jacques_chester 3 hours ago
> Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course.
Also:
> jacques_chester 3 hours ago
> I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic.
----- For posterity.
> Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course.
Also:
> jacques_chester 3 hours ago
> I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic.
----- For posterity.
It seems more like jacques_chester means some countries have been pointing at Sweden's approach, using that as an excuse for "wishing away the pandemic".
Rather than meaning Sweden itself is doing so.
Rather than meaning Sweden itself is doing so.
Party A: Acting like there is no consequence
Party B: Acting like there is no consequence and believing it.
To observers, highlighting the difference makes no difference.
Party B: Acting like there is no consequence and believing it.
To observers, highlighting the difference makes no difference.
That is what I meant.
----- for posterity.
----- for posterity.
It’s not exactly the same, in the first quote there are some nebulous ‘folks’ saying something while in the second quote the Swedes are not saying that thing.
I don’t know what to call this fallacy. The ‘folks’ are unnamed and unspecified so I don’t think stating that they think anything is a useful argument at all.
I don’t know what to call this fallacy. The ‘folks’ are unnamed and unspecified so I don’t think stating that they think anything is a useful argument at all.
>95% of the deaths in Sweden are from people over 60 years old. Our mistake was to let the virus into our elderly homes. I don't really see the evidence that we should have had lockdowns. As OP says the are a lot of precautions set in place already and even more earlier in the pandemic. Most worked from home and followed safety precautions given.
That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
Elderly homes, and high death rates in elderly homes, are not unique to Sweden.
Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away.
It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away.
It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
The evidence in favor of the lockdowns is that Sweden (and many other countries) were unable to wall off their elderly, despite knowing that they needed to. This failure to quickly segregate the vulnerable isn’t really surprising: successfully isolating the elderly from a pandemic is very challenging, especially under crisis conditions where you have no warning and very little time to prepare. Other countries decided the only way they could handle the problem in the time allotted was to reduce the incidence of COVID in the entire population via lockdowns, on the theory that this would protect the vulnerable populations by preventing COVID from reaching them. Sweden rejected some of these restrictions and, tragically, had a much worse outcome among these vulnerable populations.
ETA: It is concerning that even several months into the epidemic, with time to prepare better to protect vulnerable populations, Sweden now feels that stronger general restrictions are the right approach. It’s hard to see how that isn’t also an admission that those restrictions shouldn’t have been used in the early phases as well.
ETA: It is concerning that even several months into the epidemic, with time to prepare better to protect vulnerable populations, Sweden now feels that stronger general restrictions are the right approach. It’s hard to see how that isn’t also an admission that those restrictions shouldn’t have been used in the early phases as well.
He'd dispute the "architect of the herd immunity policy" bit:
>On 28 April 2020, Tegnell was interviewed by Kim Hjelmgaard of USA Today. During the interview he "denied that herd immunity formed the central thrust of Sweden's containment plan"
>On 28 April 2020, Tegnell was interviewed by Kim Hjelmgaard of USA Today. During the interview he "denied that herd immunity formed the central thrust of Sweden's containment plan"
That article only says he discussed herd immunity, not set it as a policy goal. Their closing schools for over 16s suggests they were trying to limit infections amongst the young and healthy.
I disagree.
> “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster,”
The most reasonable interpretation of "reach herd immunity faster" is that he saw that as a positive outcome.
He's tried to avoid the herd immunity label, but then, what is the policy goal? Because what's left is "letting people die unnecessarily is fine".
> “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster,”
The most reasonable interpretation of "reach herd immunity faster" is that he saw that as a positive outcome.
He's tried to avoid the herd immunity label, but then, what is the policy goal? Because what's left is "letting people die unnecessarily is fine".
a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic
Highly infectious yes, but dangerous relative to what?
Current best data from CDC and elsewhere says that compared to flu:
- COVID is far less deadly if you are healthy and under 70
- COVID is a bit more deadly if you are old, unhealthy or both
The reason is that flu is willing to kill young and healthy people but COVID virtually never does this, is preference for people who are about to die anyway is so strong that the average age of COVID death is older than the average life expectancy.
If you look at the Swedish data there are ~no deaths either of or with COVID since about the end of July. It's been riding the noise floor, probably all false positives, since then, usually between 1-3 per day. Something that's not killing anyone is hard to describe as "relatively dangerous" unless you're comparing it to some kind of unnatural lifestyle in which as much risk as possible has been removed.
The new 'second waves' of COVID are not correlated with similar second waves of deaths. This is not predicted by any epidemiological model and frankly nobody seems able to satisfactorily explain it, but an increasing number of people testing positive may mean very little when the huge ramp up in testing and unknown/untracked (!) false positive rate is considered. At any rate, it hardly justifies lockdowns.
Highly infectious yes, but dangerous relative to what?
Current best data from CDC and elsewhere says that compared to flu:
- COVID is far less deadly if you are healthy and under 70
- COVID is a bit more deadly if you are old, unhealthy or both
The reason is that flu is willing to kill young and healthy people but COVID virtually never does this, is preference for people who are about to die anyway is so strong that the average age of COVID death is older than the average life expectancy.
If you look at the Swedish data there are ~no deaths either of or with COVID since about the end of July. It's been riding the noise floor, probably all false positives, since then, usually between 1-3 per day. Something that's not killing anyone is hard to describe as "relatively dangerous" unless you're comparing it to some kind of unnatural lifestyle in which as much risk as possible has been removed.
The new 'second waves' of COVID are not correlated with similar second waves of deaths. This is not predicted by any epidemiological model and frankly nobody seems able to satisfactorily explain it, but an increasing number of people testing positive may mean very little when the huge ramp up in testing and unknown/untracked (!) false positive rate is considered. At any rate, it hardly justifies lockdowns.
Did you know that Argentina has been on lockdown for 200 days and has mandatory mask orders? [1]
Did you also know their positivity rate is the highest in the world? [2]
1 - https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/200-days-the-worlds-l...
2 -https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/argentina-has-world-s-hi...
Did you also know their positivity rate is the highest in the world? [2]
1 - https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/200-days-the-worlds-l...
2 -https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/argentina-has-world-s-hi...
Saying Argentina is on lockdown is like saying that Greece is collecting taxes
The first paragraph of the NBC article:
> BUENOS AIRES - Argentina has the world’s highest rate of positive COVID-19 tests, according to Oxford-linked tracker Our World In Data, with nearly six out of 10 yielding an infection, a reflection of low testing levels and loose enforcement of lockdown rules.
If you were implying that strict lockdowns have paradoxically failed, then you've picked the wrong evidence.
> BUENOS AIRES - Argentina has the world’s highest rate of positive COVID-19 tests, according to Oxford-linked tracker Our World In Data, with nearly six out of 10 yielding an infection, a reflection of low testing levels and loose enforcement of lockdown rules.
If you were implying that strict lockdowns have paradoxically failed, then you've picked the wrong evidence.
The impracticality of actually "locking down" is one of the key arguments against the concept, so it's not wrong evidence at all. The idea society can be shut down for indefinite, unknown periods is not correct as we don't live in a world where all manual labour is performed by robots.
You also need to account for how much people respect their government and policies in their respective countries.
Maybe comparing pandemic response is more complicated than a dumping of numbers on wildly unrelated countries?
A more accurate comparison that controls for location, culture, political structure, economic situation, etc is between Sweden and the other Nordic countries where it had both higher mortality and worse economic outcomes than its sister nations. Carefully consider your preexisting biases when it comes to interpreting something as complex as the respond of entire nations to an unprecedented pandemic.
Maybe Argentinians just refuse to listen to their government? Maybe environmental factors or lack of infrastructure made it way worse down there and it would be even worse if it weren't for the lockdowns?
A more accurate comparison that controls for location, culture, political structure, economic situation, etc is between Sweden and the other Nordic countries where it had both higher mortality and worse economic outcomes than its sister nations. Carefully consider your preexisting biases when it comes to interpreting something as complex as the respond of entire nations to an unprecedented pandemic.
Maybe Argentinians just refuse to listen to their government? Maybe environmental factors or lack of infrastructure made it way worse down there and it would be even worse if it weren't for the lockdowns?
Honest question, what is unique about Nordic culture that makes it altogether different than the UK, France, Belgium and Italy, such that Sweden is not allowed to be compared to other European countries which fared worse or about the same as they did despite draconian lockdowns? Is the argument that Nordic people are more naturally resistant to this disease and therefore Sweden could have lost fewer people? Or is it merely that Norway and Finland were able to prevent the outbreaks among their most vulnerable since they had the benefit of the virus arriving later and so they could better prepare?
The most recent stat I read showed that Sweden currently has less than a dozen people in the hospital with Covid conditions. We're 8-9 months in to this and so far the Swedes are not dropping like flies. They had an early spike in deaths and it since fizzled out.
The most recent stat I read showed that Sweden currently has less than a dozen people in the hospital with Covid conditions. We're 8-9 months in to this and so far the Swedes are not dropping like flies. They had an early spike in deaths and it since fizzled out.
The Swedes are best compared to their neighbours Norway and Finland, who share contiguous borders, very similar climate, comparable cultures and similar economies.
As of today[0]:
Norway (pop 5.5Mn): 16,136 confirmed cases, 278 deaths in total, 915 new cases in the last 7 days.
Finland (pop 5.2Mn): 13,133 confirmed cases, 351 deaths in total, 1,553 new cases in the past 7 days.
Sweden (pop 10.3Mn): 103,200 confirmed cases, 5,918 deaths in total, 3,280 confirmed new cases in the past 7 days.
On each of these measures Sweden fares far worse. They have 4x the cases of Finland and Norway combined, 9x the deaths of Finland and Norway combined, 1.5x the new cases of Finland and Norway combined.
In absolute and relative terms, Sweden are not worthy of emulation.
[0] https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
As of today[0]:
Norway (pop 5.5Mn): 16,136 confirmed cases, 278 deaths in total, 915 new cases in the last 7 days.
Finland (pop 5.2Mn): 13,133 confirmed cases, 351 deaths in total, 1,553 new cases in the past 7 days.
Sweden (pop 10.3Mn): 103,200 confirmed cases, 5,918 deaths in total, 3,280 confirmed new cases in the past 7 days.
On each of these measures Sweden fares far worse. They have 4x the cases of Finland and Norway combined, 9x the deaths of Finland and Norway combined, 1.5x the new cases of Finland and Norway combined.
In absolute and relative terms, Sweden are not worthy of emulation.
[0] https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
That did not answer my question, at all. Why can't Sweden also be compared with the UK and Belgium?
There's no evidence that coronavirus has a climate-related outcome, save for vitamin D sufficiency, which is only partly related to climate.
According to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Sweden is at number 13 and falling. Many latin American countries as well as UK, Spain, Belgium, US, and Italy have all fared worse on a per capita basis than Sweden.
Coronavirus does not discriminate based on economy. Many first world nations have been hard hit. Coronavirus does not discriminate based on climate, many warm latin american countries are in the top 10. Coronavirus has hit many areas of the US the hardest during the summer.
Sweden has never locked down, never mandated masks, and they currently have only a couple dozen hospitalizations. Their deaths, even by your chart, have completely flatlined at near zero for now going on three months.
There's no evidence that coronavirus has a climate-related outcome, save for vitamin D sufficiency, which is only partly related to climate.
According to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Sweden is at number 13 and falling. Many latin American countries as well as UK, Spain, Belgium, US, and Italy have all fared worse on a per capita basis than Sweden.
Coronavirus does not discriminate based on economy. Many first world nations have been hard hit. Coronavirus does not discriminate based on climate, many warm latin american countries are in the top 10. Coronavirus has hit many areas of the US the hardest during the summer.
Sweden has never locked down, never mandated masks, and they currently have only a couple dozen hospitalizations. Their deaths, even by your chart, have completely flatlined at near zero for now going on three months.
Weather does affect spread, because it affects how often folks go outside, where and when they interact with others and so on.
In any case, you've fixated on one similarity and missed the larger point. Comparing Sweden to its immediate neighbours is a stronger comparison than any other. No other countries in the world are as comparable, not even close. When you control using that natural experiment, Sweden comes out much worse.
In any case, you've fixated on one similarity and missed the larger point. Comparing Sweden to its immediate neighbours is a stronger comparison than any other. No other countries in the world are as comparable, not even close. When you control using that natural experiment, Sweden comes out much worse.
As a Swede I'm astounded by how Sweden have become a pawn in other people's politics just because we had the "arrogance" of doing something they did not, but here we are. This entire article is false, especially the headline.
Anyway, regarding this point; there's wildly different infection-rates etc in different big cities in Sweden as well.
Anyway, regarding this point; there's wildly different infection-rates etc in different big cities in Sweden as well.
A more interesting issue is why Belgium can never be compared to Germany and Netherlands, in the same way as Sweden is constantly compared to Norway and Finland.
The way the beliefs are repeated is just as interesting as why the Groupthink has come about in the first place.
It’s a worldview. Note that the elderly have to be protected as though they are cattle rather than being told they can choose to protect themselves if they want.
Top down vs bottom up
The way the beliefs are repeated is just as interesting as why the Groupthink has come about in the first place.
It’s a worldview. Note that the elderly have to be protected as though they are cattle rather than being told they can choose to protect themselves if they want.
Top down vs bottom up
Sub headline of #2 (no body reading required)
> “Is there isolation? There is none. Are there (enough) tests? No there aren’t,” one pediatrician in Buenos Aires said.
> “Is there isolation? There is none. Are there (enough) tests? No there aren’t,” one pediatrician in Buenos Aires said.
But because of the two degrees of separation, it seems to have lost something. I suggest "Sweden is tightening it's light-lockdown strategy ... " as a more accurate description.
I say this because I was confused. It's titled "no-lockdown strategy", but as the article points out, the end result of these new changes is not lockdown, so it would still be a "no-lockdown strategy" - using the Business Insider's definition.
However, Sweden has had restrictions. Public events with 50 or more people were cancelled, many schools went to distance learning, and more. See https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... for the FAQ in English, listing many of the restrictions.
For example, the BI article says:
> It will give local authorities the power to strongly recommend people to avoid busy public places like shopping centers, museums, gyms, concerts, and sports matches. Swedes may also be asked to avoid public transport and contact with the elderly and vulnerable.
But we (I live in Sweden) have that already. School sports venues, for example, hosted games without audiences. The signs at the bus stops and train stations ask to avoid non-essential public transport. Places cap the number of people allowed.
The source article in The Telegraph is more accurate with "It's more of a lockdown situation - but a local lockdown" as it acknowledges that there has been a lockdown, defined as a restriction in allowed activities.