Meanwhile in Sweden
- Thread starter cruzzer
- Start date
TangerineBayern
Well-known member
Not according to the scientists who are advising our government!
Yes and they have been outstanding haven’t they?
Chunkylad
Well-known member
It’s a very interesting study. They had kids back in school pretty pronto, and their chief scientist was surprised at no change in R rates.
The argument here is that young pass it to the old who are isolating - so either that’s not true or in Sweden the young are staying away from the old and vulnerable?
I wonder what is different there in the terms of everyday activity by people to here?
The argument here is that young pass it to the old who are isolating - so either that’s not true or in Sweden the young are staying away from the old and vulnerable?
I wonder what is different there in the terms of everyday activity by people to here?
tangysider
Well-known member
Yes but a massive call to take.
It means that they have/can carry on with normal life and their economy did not suffer as the rest of Europe did.
It did however require protection of the most vulnerable and taking responsibly at a personal level.
It means that they have/can carry on with normal life and their economy did not suffer as the rest of Europe did.
It did however require protection of the most vulnerable and taking responsibly at a personal level.
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
You can only compare like with like - so comparing Sweden with its neighbours is the way to go.
Based on figures today.
Sweden:
Confirmed 87,885 +310
Deaths 5,864 +4
Norway:
Confirmed 12,499+106
Deaths 266 +1
Finland:
Confirmed
8,799 +49
Deaths 339
Not on those figures. Long term maybe?
Ask the question in 5 years.
Based on figures today.
Sweden:
Confirmed 87,885 +310
Deaths 5,864 +4
Norway:
Confirmed 12,499+106
Deaths 266 +1
Finland:
Confirmed
8,799 +49
Deaths 339
Not on those figures. Long term maybe?
Ask the question in 5 years.
Chunkylad
Well-known member
What about Denmark, Poland & Germany who also border them? I am guessing Germany are still in a decent position as they know how to actually test their population.
Finland and Norway are very low population density countries.
It means as a per capita that Sweden has probably half of our deaths per capita roughly.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
So is Sweden, that may be a part of the reason for their good figures
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Just gone like for like in terms of population, demography - rural living. Norway being the most obvious comparison. Denmark could be added quite rightly to the list
Confirmed
21,832 +1,162
Deaths 635 +2
Last edited:
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
about 15 years ago i was doing a lot of work in Sweden so was going out there every couple of weeks and spending 4 or 5 days ata time there. Their whole cultural model is different to the UK, community is still a thing or was (in fifteen years it may have changed but i doubt it). Communal living is not some alien concept for hippies and because community is valued personal responsibillity is taken more seriously.
Also the country is quite small population wise, and when you look at countries with small populations they tend to be better governed and managed, and they have fared better with COVID than most countries. There are exceptions to that rule such as Israel, another country i have spent a lot of time in, which on every level is a clusterf*** and so it seems with Covid.
Also the country is quite small population wise, and when you look at countries with small populations they tend to be better governed and managed, and they have fared better with COVID than most countries. There are exceptions to that rule such as Israel, another country i have spent a lot of time in, which on every level is a clusterf*** and so it seems with Covid.
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
Spot on.
Ormergod
Well-known member
Swedens medical expert nentioned this early in the lockdowns.Comparison with the surrounding countries should take into account the majority of the deaths in Sweden were mostly confined to Stockholm and were mainly in care homes. He mentioned along with Knut Witkowski how the population of the nursing homes in Sweden were far greater than the surrounding countries so any outbreak in a nursing home would have far bigger impact.
Wizaard
Well-known member
5 live were saying that there is very little extended family living in Sweden, with nearly 50% of the population in Stockholm in single person households. Much less chance of widespread contamination.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
I read that somewhere else recently as well, but people generally have been using bars and restaurants all the time. But i suppose if someone is contagious it means that once they know they can isolate properly. the UK is doing alsmost double the tests per capita of sweden which also might be throwing some false numbers into the mix.
Ormergod
Well-known member
If you can show any evidence that compliance from the population had any impact at all then because from the data it shows the moment the population and NHS began complying with government measures the deaths increased massively.
We should also see evidence of other respiratory diseases falling if this is the case.
Tangerinenick
Well-known member
It would also be helpful if China and the WHO actually told the truth. Anyone believing that this virus wasn't in the UK prior to Xmas needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
TangerineBayern
Well-known member
Absolutely cruzzer, the best thing they’ve done is sh!t everyone up!
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
It isnt confirmed that its a respitory disease, the latest reading seems to point towards it being more cardiovascular and also related to reduction in T cells, which has an effect on the whole immune system. The Government didnt react for a very long time, Italy and Spain were already deep in crisis before the UK acted. Isolation did flatten the curve, and we have seen numerous incidences where there have been spikes of the virus in places where large numbers of people were not compliant.
Just seen on the news that Bojo is thinking of introducing a new national lockdown to co-incide with the school holidays, either a lockdown is required in which case it needs to happen immediately or it doesnt need to happen. Waiting until a holiday period because it will be more convenient or better economically or some other bull5h17 is just f*****g insanity. Going back to the Sweden thing that is the difference between them and much of the rest of the world in that they dont generally have insane people pushing insane ideas running the country.
S
Scaramanga
Guest
Not many well done Sweden you got it right posts here. It seems some are incapable of posting something positive.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Because their higher death rate than their neighbours would indicate they haven't got it right?
Ormergod
Well-known member
But with respect you are just giving a statement. Why are the government not showing us evidence that the measures they are taking have had an effect.
S
Scaramanga
Guest
I rest my case
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
So far;
Sweden 580 deaths per million population
Norway 49
Denmark 110
Finland 61
Poland 60
Germany 113
Not sure that the Sweden approach can be called an unqualified success at the moment but after this winter things may be perceived differently. It just depends on what happens if / when the winter flu season gets going and where is affected badly.
UKs death rate is currently 614 per million even after the revised way of counting deaths
Your view will depend on what value you are prepared to spend to save a human life. So far no-one has been able to really address this fundamental in a public health crisis. It would perhaps give another tangible measure if the government gave us the estimated cost of every life saved. I know this sounds harsh but health care professionals do this all the time when prioritising interventions.
As it was we seemed to lurch from a Sweden type approach to a full on lockdown approach in the space of a few days.
All the stats are here;
www.worldometers.info
before Lost Seasider asks 
Sweden 580 deaths per million population
Norway 49
Denmark 110
Finland 61
Poland 60
Germany 113
Not sure that the Sweden approach can be called an unqualified success at the moment but after this winter things may be perceived differently. It just depends on what happens if / when the winter flu season gets going and where is affected badly.
UKs death rate is currently 614 per million even after the revised way of counting deaths
Your view will depend on what value you are prepared to spend to save a human life. So far no-one has been able to really address this fundamental in a public health crisis. It would perhaps give another tangible measure if the government gave us the estimated cost of every life saved. I know this sounds harsh but health care professionals do this all the time when prioritising interventions.
As it was we seemed to lurch from a Sweden type approach to a full on lockdown approach in the space of a few days.
All the stats are here;
Coronavirus Update (Live): 136,643,191 Cases and 2,949,419 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...
www.worldometers.info
deary
Well-known member
Im not sure if your observation & communal living theory is wholly accurate though?
I believe Sweden has a higher percentage of single people living in households than most Countries.
I certainly take your point that that Swedes may feel more communal in their attitudes towards each other though. So in that respect they have more of a 'we are in this together' community vibe.
Edit:
Here ya go more than 50% of Swedish households are single person dwellings. The Highest in the EU
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190821-why-so-many-young-swedes-live-alone
Last edited:
Wizaard
Well-known member
Don't think you've made a case at all, what with them having a much higher death rate than the rest of Scandinavia
R
rockontommy
Guest
If that is your only measure, aren't the highest death rates in the whole world found in (strict and early lockdowns) Belgium and Peru?
I'm asking the question but already know the answer btw.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
All the stats are here;
before Lost Seasider asksCoronavirus Update (Live): 136,643,191 Cases and 2,949,419 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...
Ahhhhhh.............. Worldometer, one of the more questionable stats sites.
Wizaard
Well-known member
The question was saying how well Sweden had done. I begged to differ.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
like i said i had seen that stat, and said that it might be a good reason why they have not had a massive social crisis, but saying that they do have a death rate which is approaching that of the UK so unless the figures are wrong it isnt quite as good as i would expect bearing in mind my own experiences of the more socially / community orientated nature of the country. It might be that they accept the risk of death in a way that most nations do not and therefore continuing normality is more important.
R
rockontommy
Guest
Fair dos. Sweden failed to sufficiently protect their care homes. Anders Tegnell has said as much. I don't think a country exists out there that has got this 100% right. For predicting how it would all pan out, the Swedes have been bob on from the start though. And because they haven't scared their own populace silly, they don't need to continually chase their own tail hyping up the threat level every two minutes.
Loco
Well-known member
An interesting article suggesting we've all got our knickers in a twist. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/...really-matters/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
S
Scaramanga
Guest
You can only see negatives, there’s positives in the story but you just refuse to acknowledge them.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Have you got a reference for that comment, can you justify it?
Which parts of their data are false (given that their data sources are all referenced on the site)?
Please expand.
Worldometers - Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Last edited:
S
Scaramanga
Guest
I would ask some questions from the negirati on here.
1) What would you of done back in March (without knowing what was really coming)
2) How would you of managed the economy better than Rishi Sunak.
3) Faced with being incredibly poorly with Covid and having Brexit to cope with and a new born baby, how would you of managed knowing your own fitnesss capability
4) Would you of listened to the pandemic experts as the government did and take their advice or would you of looked to another countries ideas on coping.
5) What would you do under the current situation ? Would you lock down again and if so how would you pay for this ?
6) If you decided on another lockdown why, we locked down for a long time and we’re thinking of doing it again, it didn’t really work the first time only slowed the inevitable.
only sensible and fact based answers please and save the abuse for Mex, BRR2 and Olygon.
1) What would you of done back in March (without knowing what was really coming)
2) How would you of managed the economy better than Rishi Sunak.
3) Faced with being incredibly poorly with Covid and having Brexit to cope with and a new born baby, how would you of managed knowing your own fitnesss capability
4) Would you of listened to the pandemic experts as the government did and take their advice or would you of looked to another countries ideas on coping.
5) What would you do under the current situation ? Would you lock down again and if so how would you pay for this ?
6) If you decided on another lockdown why, we locked down for a long time and we’re thinking of doing it again, it didn’t really work the first time only slowed the inevitable.
only sensible and fact based answers please and save the abuse for Mex, BRR2 and Olygon.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Very good questions Scara.
What would you have done in March?
What would you do now?
S
Scaramanga
Guest
No mex, no switcheroo just answer the question first, then I will answer.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Not seeing a positive in 945,000 deaths worldwide. My bad.
S
Scaramanga
Guest
Thought we were talking about Sweden, once again searching for another negative, I posted the survival rates across Europe the other day that were around 99,986% and you still found a negative with that. I suggest you need some light in your life mate.
Wizaard
Well-known member
1. Back in March I said we should implement a total lockdown, including a complete shutdown of anyone coming into the country and not the half arsed thing we did do.
2. I don't have an issue with what Sunak has done. Don't think he could have done much more, following Labour's economic policies.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Sweden has one of the highest death rates in Europe. That's not a positive.
RUSTY_2_STANDS
Well-known member
Are you still trying to convince yourself of that utter rubbish Wiz?
Come to think of it, what are Labour's policies under Sir Kier the Kneeler? All I ever hear from him is criticism but very little in the way of alternatives. Very negative. A bit like some posters on this board 
Wizaard
Well-known member
What's that high pitched whistle?Are you still trying to convince yourself of that utter rubbish Wiz?
Nationalisation of the railways. Tick
Guaranteed full wage when not in work. Tick
Subsidy of struggling industries. Tick
Massive infrastructure projects to boost the failing economy. Tick
Where were they in the Tory manifesto?
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
You have asked the questions so here goes.
1. We did know what was coming it was already apparent that there were issues in Italy and Spain and several other parts of the world. The UK should have had its best researchers and scientists in Italy, Spain and in China and all over the WTO looking for actual answers, not speculating on economic and political fallout associated with a pandemic. Testing, scientific research, more testing and more research should have been the way forward. Not: political posturing, then political manoeuvres leading to more political posturing and so on. By understanding the science; virality, infection rates, mortality rates better decisions could have been made, and in the meantime proceed with caution would have been the mantra. Actual rules could have been put in place rather than the vague guidelines that were implemented. Leaving the on the ground policy implementation to the “discretion” of individual police officers and other enforcement officers was also a mistake in getting everyone on the same page.
2. I would have managed the economy in a similar manner, probably put more control on the banks, and also more control on digital retailers to recoup the benefits that they have had. Sunak has done a reasonable job, but unfortunately what he has done so far was the easy bit. Going forward there is a bigger issue.
3. First of all when the first signs of the virus were appearing I probably would not have gone out shaking people’s hand’s and bragging about it, as though everything was ok. Boris (really, really) wanted the job of PM, he also claimed to want Brexit, the problems he has faced are problems he promised to resolve. I would have cancelled Brexit and then we can revert to my answer in 1. I’m also not an obese tub of lard like Boris was (but that’s being insulting before anyone else points that out).
4. First of all the government didn’t listen to the pandemic experts Bojo changed his mind from pursuing a policy of herd immunity in the early stages, also the question is not an either / or- why would you not do both.
5. Depends what the science is saying and the science, at a public level anyway, seems to be saying that we still do not know enough. The economics is another matter, but I wrote something on here a few days ago which explains how it could all get paid for. If there is justification for a lockdown then do it, immediately. What is more important, government costs or peoples lives?
6. It worked in relieving pressure on the NHS and flattening the curve of infections. The inevitable is that this is probably going to be around for 5 years or more, it will only be reduced by science. The science under this government and I have no doubt that it would have been the same or worse under labour, has always come second to politics.
Also, I know this is me being an arse, but please learn the difference between of and have, it’s embarrassing that so many natural born English speakers don’t know how to use those words.
RUSTY_2_STANDS
Well-known member
So Labour government would guarantee a full wage to everyone not in work? No wonder they've been in opposition for so long!
And we've been down this route so many times, but I'll say it again in the vain hope you can grasp it. These are extraordinary times, calling for extraordinary policies. You still haven't got it though have you? You just bang on about the Government using Labour policies as if these are ordinary times. No government would use these policies in ordinary times, not even a hard left Labour government under that lunatic Corbyn.
Anyway, I'm off for a pint and I hope it's sunk in by the time I get back. I won't be holding my breath.
Wizaard
Well-known member
When you get back you'll find Corbyn hasn't been in any sense of leadership for 9 months. Stop referring to him. It's completely irrelevant.
RUSTY_2_STANDS
Well-known member
As I suspected you still haven’t got it