Sweden

[Frijj]

I've told you half of their deaths due to covid occurred in care homes so it skews their numbers over adjoining countries

Don't worry- the evidence for the cost/benefits of lockdowns will be with us soon and I'm confident we'll never lockdown again for a virus which is only fatal for specific cohorts of the population

There's a group of people - some on here - who are confident that lockdowns are the only way to deal with a pandemic. I think they're wrong

We were told that it would save the NHS - it hasn't because we have a waiting list of missed appointments, scans, cancer diagnoses and treatments which with the current capacity cannot be fulfilled in time to save lives - and an economy that's been trashed

Some estimate that we're 12 million appointments behind


I don't mind debate but they're determined to quash reasonable scepticism over a completely unproven policy - that's not close to scientific discourse

They act as if the evidence is overwhelming when it is not

That isn’t evidence that’s just you telling me. Can you please provide the actual source for your claims?

If someone could tell me how they expected the NHS to be able to deal with waiting lists AND even more COVID cases…I’d love to hear it

 

[squavers]

Their death figures are terrible compared to norway,estonia,finland,lithuania,germany,latvia.

Are you sure about that?

And you appear to have missed out Poland, which is situated between Germany and Lithuania. I can't for the life of me think why.

 

[bomber]

Are you sure about that?

And you appear to have missed out Poland, which is situated between Germany and Lithuania. I can't for the life of me think why.

All the counties i stated have worse deaths PMP,Poland as you say is worse.Depends how far are you wanting to span out.

 

[squavers]

All the counties i stated have worse deaths PMP,Poland as you say is worse.Depends how far are you wanting to span out.

Apologies, I thought you were being serious not sarcastic

 

[bomber]

Apologies, I thought you were being serious not sarcastic

The stats are there,how bigs ya pan?

 

[yamar1]

Apologies, I thought you were being serious not sarcastic

Its bomber remember.

 

[AC Mack]

I must admit that I'm a bit confused. When they say "compare Sweden with their neighbouring countries", do they mean all their neighbours are just the cherrypicked ones?

Isn't that exactly what you did?

 

[squavers]

Isn't that exactly what you did?

I was obviously being flippant, in response to the way people pretend that Sweden's only neighbours are Finland and Norway (to suit their agenda).

 

[humbug]

80% live on 2% of the land, plus they do like apartment blocks...it's well crowded.

sweden 23 people per km2. england 424 people per km2.

 

[Gelan]

sweden 23 people per km2. england 424 people per km2.

Ok Ill play...how many people do you have to have on a square metre of pavement for it to be officially classed as crowded?

I know you'll look that up
ps. The Stockholm metro gets well jammed...yes I am aware that the words jammed and crowded are subjectve, and my defense lies there.

 

[Rustie Trombone]

1

That isn’t evidence that’s just you telling me. Can you please provide the actual source for your claims?

If someone could tell me how they expected the NHS to be able to deal with waiting lists AND even more COVID cases…I’d love to hear it

They failed in protecting the most vulnerable in care homes

Coronavirus: What's going wrong in Sweden's care homes?

Swedish healthcare is under scrutiny over the high rate of Covid-19 deaths in care homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

If they'd managed that then their numbers would have been better than all of their neighbours and almost every country which had much stricter lockdowns

We need to learn from ours and everyone else's mistakes if we ever go through something like this again

My point regarding the NHS is we haven't protected it - the worst is yet to come especially for those in the lower socioeconomic groups - and we've caused huge damage to our economy which again will affect those at the bottom most

 

[Frijj]

1


They failed in protecting the most vulnerable in care homes

Coronavirus: What's going wrong in Sweden's care homes?

Swedish healthcare is under scrutiny over the high rate of Covid-19 deaths in care homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

If they'd managed that then their numbers would have been better than all of their neighbours and almost every country which had much stricter lockdowns

We need to learn from ours and everyone else's mistakes if we ever go through something like this again

My point regarding the NHS is we haven't protected it - the worst is yet to come especially for those in the lower socioeconomic groups - and we've caused huge damage to our economy which again will affect those at the bottom most

That article is nearly 15 months old.

What was the alternative for the NHS?

In a hypothetical no lockdown scenario, cases would be higher because people would be mixing more. More cases means more people needing hospital care, and more demand on acute services.

In a hypothetical lockdown, but normal NHS activity scenario, how would the NHS have been able to manage the elective (people on waiting lists) workload whilst under the pressure we know the service was under?

Finally, in a hypothetical no lockdown and normal NHS activity, how do you honestly expect it to cope?

I firmly believe that if we had not reduced NHS elective activity AND not had a lockdown, multiple hospitals would have failed.

More people would have died in the community, more people would have died in hospitals.

I really don’t see how this hypothetical scenario could possibly have worked.

Please - enlighten me how the NHS could have carried on as normal, because all I can see from your hypothetical approach, is a wave of hospital trusts literally failing to cope, turning patients away and suffering serious incidents due to pressure and lack of capacity.

 

[Rustie Trombone]

That article is nearly 15 months old.

What was the alternative for the NHS?

In a hypothetical no lockdown scenario, cases would be higher because people would be mixing more. More cases means more people needing hospital care, and more demand on acute services.

In a hypothetical lockdown, but normal NHS activity scenario, how would the NHS have been able to manage the elective (people on waiting lists) workload whilst under the pressure we know the service was under?

Finally, in a hypothetical no lockdown and normal NHS activity, how do you honestly expect it to cope?

I firmly believe that if we had not reduced NHS elective activity AND not had a lockdown, multiple hospitals would have failed.

More people would have died in the community, more people would have died in hospitals.

I really don’t see how this hypothetical scenario could possibly have worked.

Please - enlighten me how the NHS could have carried on as normal, because all I can see from your hypothetical approach, is a wave of hospital trusts literally failing to cope, turning patients away and suffering serious incidents due to pressure and lack of capacity.

That's when most of their deaths occurred

The alternative is to properly protect those who were at risk from serious illness or death which was a relatively small portion of the population

We've delayed the damage by trying to protect the NHS but we've also caused massive damage to our economy

We'll never lockdown again

Do you know of any country which had lockdown as part of their contingency plans for a pandemic? It seems to me we all just followed China and Italy

Please - enlighten me how the NHS could have carried on as normal, because all I can see from your hypothetical approach, is a wave of hospital trusts literally failing to cope, turning patients away and suffering serious incidents due to pressure and lack of capacity.

I think one thing we can agree on is our NHS is not fit for another pandemic

 

[ravydavygravy]

The alternative is to properly protect those who were at risk from serious illness or death which was a relatively small portion of the population

How do you propose to isolate 15 million people marra?

Ye daft twat

 

[Frijj]

That's when most of their deaths occurred

The alternative is to properly protect those who were at risk from serious illness or death which was a relatively small portion of the population

We've delayed the damage by trying to protect the NHS but we've also caused massive damage to our economy

We'll never lockdown again

Do you know of any country which had lockdown as part of their contingency plans for a pandemic? It seems to me we all just followed China and Italy


I think one thing we can agree on is our NHS is not fit for another pandemic

That's not true - Sweden has recorded 14,651 deaths from COVID-19 as of July 22, 2021, and by May 14, 2020, the day the BBC quote Sweden's public health agency, Sweden had 3,529 deaths. That's not even a quarter of the total, let alone 'most of their deaths' mate. Source: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Deaths - Statistics and Research

An alternative could have been 'properly protect' those who were at risk, but that's a lot of people, an awful lot of people. Around 10m to 15m people, that we'd be somehow expecting to live under a lockdown, whilst everyone else carries on as normal.

For example, you'd be expecting care home staff to be 'living as normal' which we know would mean they'd be catching COVID, yet also expecting them to work in care homes, where they'd take COVID, cause outbreaks and put their residents in hospital or even kill them.

It was either everyone locks down, or nobody locks down, because there's absolutely no way, you could lock away 10m to 15m people, and not expect them to ever be exposed to the rest of society, whom you'd be expecting to carry on as normal.

People such as yourself seem to have this frustrating belief, that there was some alternative, where we didn't lockdown, yet still managed to keep everything running. I'm sure you'll lean on the example of Sweden here, but it isn't that straightforward - it really isn't. We're not dealing with a laboratory situation here where we can switch one button off and clinically observe the effects.

I don't know if lockdown was part of any contingency for us or any other country. What I suspect, is that pandemic planning would have been based on the kinds of pandemic we'd expect. It isn't that coronavirus is unexpected - SARS was only 2003, and we've known about MERS for some time...however COVID presented a significant challenge that we'd not really faced before, in that COVID is exceptionally contagious amongst both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.

If COVID only spread when people were symptomatic, or was only most likely to spread when people were symptomatic, then we'd have a much easier time of it...we could ask people to self-isolate when unwell etc. Unfortunately that isn't what COVID is like.

 

[Rustie Trombone]

That's not true - Sweden has recorded 14,651 deaths from COVID-19 as of July 22, 2021, and by May 14, 2020, the day the BBC quote Sweden's public health agency, Sweden had 3,529 deaths. That's not even a quarter of the total, let alone 'most of their deaths' mate. Source: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Deaths - Statistics and Research

An alternative could have been 'properly protect' those who were at risk, but that's a lot of people, an awful lot of people. Around 10m to 15m people, that we'd be somehow expecting to live under a lockdown, whilst everyone else carries on as normal.

For example, you'd be expecting care home staff to be 'living as normal' which we know would mean they'd be catching COVID, yet also expecting them to work in care homes, where they'd take COVID, cause outbreaks and put their residents in hospital or even kill them.

It was either everyone locks down, or nobody locks down, because there's absolutely no way, you could lock away 10m to 15m people, and not expect them to ever be exposed to the rest of society, whom you'd be expecting to carry on as normal.

People such as yourself seem to have this frustrating belief, that there was some alternative, where we didn't lockdown, yet still managed to keep everything running. I'm sure you'll lean on the example of Sweden here, but it isn't that straightforward - it really isn't. We're not dealing with a laboratory situation here where we can switch one button off and clinically observe the effects.

I don't know if lockdown was part of any contingency for us or any other country. What I suspect, is that pandemic planning would have been based on the kinds of pandemic we'd expect. It isn't that coronavirus is unexpected - SARS was only 2003, and we've known about MERS for some time...however COVID presented a significant challenge that we'd not really faced before, in that COVID is exceptionally contagious amongst both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.

If COVID only spread when people were symptomatic, or was only most likely to spread when people were symptomatic, then we'd have a much easier time of it...we could ask people to self-isolate when unwell etc. Unfortunately that isn't what COVID is like.

OK - Sweden is 17th in the table of European deaths per capita - the only country that did not lockdown completely and would be much further down that list if they hadn't fucked up with care homes like we did in the early stages

We didn't need to protect 10 to 15m people - Covid kills about 1% of those infected which would be 1 million at most we need to shield in the UK - even India has coped with the delta variant despite the media telling us they were doomed

This is not bubonic - it's covid 19

Do you think we'll ever lockdown again faced with a virus like this?

 

[Gaggoears]

OK - Sweden is 17th in the table of European deaths per capita - the only country that did not lockdown completely and would be much further down that list if they hadn't fucked up with care homes like we did in the early stages

We didn't need to protect 10 to 15m people - Covid kills about 1% of those infected which would be 1 million at most we need to shield in the UK - even India has coped with the delta variant despite the media telling us they were doomed

This is not bubonic - it's covid 19

Do you think we'll ever lockdown again faced with a virus like this?

You are suggesting we pick the 1 million out we need to shield ?

India has coped ?

Planet rustle is a scary place.

 

[Gelan]

How do you propose to isolate 15 million people marra?

Ye daft twat

You are so right...building robots to look after them away from humans is the only way.

 

[Rustie Trombone]

You are suggesting we pick the 1 million out we need to shield ?

India has coped ?

Planet rustle is a scary place.

Yes - pretty easy with a virus which is non lethal to 99% of people who get it

At their peak India had 400,000 cases per day which equates to 10,000 cases per day in the UK

India are now at 35,000 cases per day - which would equate to 1,700 cases per day in the UK

Some of the reporting around this pandemic has been something the Nazis would be proud of

 

[Gaggoears]

OK - Sweden is 17th in the table of European deaths per capita - the only country that did not lockdown completely and would be much further down that list if they hadn't fucked up with care homes like we did in the early stages

We didn't need to protect 10 to 15m people - Covid kills about 1% of those infected which would be 1 million at most we need to shield in the UK - even India has coped with the delta variant despite the media telling us they were doomed

This is not bubonic - it's covid 19

Do you think we'll ever lockdown again faced with a virus like this?

You are suggesting we pick the 1 million out we need to shield ?

India has coped ?

Planet rustle is a scary place.

Yes - pretty easy with a virus which is non lethal to 99% of people who get it



India are now at 35,000 cases per day - which would equate to 1,700 cases per day in the UK

Some of the reporting around this pandemic has been something the Nazis would be proud of

well now how lethal is it for over 80s ? 1% you say.
Well now how lethal is it for the vulnerable ? 1% you say.

India put in restrictions, fancy that.