Who's watching or critiquing Sweden? No lock downs there. Where's the outrage?

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
a reply to: harold223

And just watch them be excused by the left wing media outlets for causing more death and disease per capita than Trump.

What "left wing" media outlets? I'm actually a socialist in my political views, mostly, I wish to live in a system of democratic market socialism, similar to Socialist Yugoslavia in the 70's, but a bit more democratic. I don't see any major news outlet as even remotely "left wing" from my position on the spectrum.

In my opinion, Swedens response to this pandemic was misguided, and that's putting it mildly. I certainly wouldn't be excusing them, I urge them to change course and condemn them for unnecessary loss of life. Sweden is not a socialist state either, social democratic capitalist with a somewhat Keynesian system of economics, but not socialist by any definition.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Ain't no victim here, just use your brain to a further degree and whinge less mate.

Look at the discussion happening right now above your post...

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM


Imagine the hysteria if Boris Johnson took this approach in the UK as an example.

He followed the same exact same 'herd immunity' approach as Sweden up until recently.

There was no hysteria or outrage.

In fairness to Johnson (and I may need to shower after posting this) he seems to have sensibly followed the scientific advice he was been given at the time.

Agreed and I think it's great they put public health in front of their own public image. The approach followed the data and numbers, lockdown was only introduced as a 'last resort' due to people not following the social distancing guidelines and once the containment phase of the virus had elapsed. Apart from the whole lack of PPE and testing, there's pretty much nothing I can fault the government on pandemic-wise.

I am sure there are things they have got wrong but I think most of that needs to be looked at after the fact rather than.second guessing every decision they have made with incomplete information.

Testing was more a communication issue than anything else. Most countries are struggling with testing however they shouldn't have made stupid promises about the anti body tests prior to checking they actually bloody worked.

Doing know enough about why the PPE has been such an issue. It is disgraceful that more hasn't been supplied but it doesn't seem clear what the issues. I get the high end full gear difficult to /manufacture however there doesn't seem any excuse for not providing the basic kit.

This is from Aftonbladet newspaper, they interviewed a nurse who works in elderly care

One third were infected

Alexandra has worked for many years at the same accommodation located in the Stockholm region. There, about 100 people from the age of 70 are treated. She estimates that more than a third of them have been infected by the virus. A handful have died.

How did the infection come in? Who's in charge? Alexandra asks.

- We are the ones who should protect and help the elderly, but instead there is the risk that we are the ones who kill them.

She says she gets angry when she hears that the blame is being laid on the staff for having gone to work despite symptoms.

- Previously, we had to work as long as we had no cough and fever. It is probably we who brought in the infection, but they were the directives we received.

Right now, more than ever, it's becoming clear that underage nurses are a low-priority professional group, she says.

- They rely on the goodwill of the staff. Most of the information we have received we have had to search for ourselves. But it is actually the employer's responsibility to ensure that we receive guidelines and the right knowledge.

you can read translation of whole article HERE

I have been watching news in Sweden, its our neighboring country with still open borders. According news they are going to make changes for restrictions but procedure is slow.

Sweden has asked our help as it is only 50% self contained with food, also there were in news that Sweden is going to have lack of drinking water

"Affecting already"

In addition, food deliveries can be affected to some extent. There was a shortage of drivers in Sweden before, and when the situation is now further strained with sick leave and layoffs, the situation becomes even more vulnerable.

- We are very transport dependent in Sweden. We can already see today that it has affected some transport in terms of vegetables and fresh produce, but also some health transport.

TT: How many delays can it be?

- I can't exactly say that. But we may not see all the products in the vegetable dish that we are used to, for example, it may be a little sparse here and there. This is a problem that has already been reported, ”says Bergstrand.

You can read translation of article HERE

We have a problem with Sweden as we share a town which part of it is in Sweden called Haparanda and other part is in Finland called Tornio, the problem is border control, people goes back and forth all the time, lot of people from Tornio go to work in Swedish side and cases of Corona has increased a lot in finnish side of Lappland because people have brought if from Swedish side. Lappland in general is very sparcely populated area.

Yes we are critiquing swedish ability to handle the corona virus crisis

a reply to: harold223

Their death toll and case load is alarmingly higher than their Scandinavian neighbours per head of population and talk of enforced lockdowns is starting to occur in Sweden. Their experiment may be failing, unfortunately.

We won't know if their approach is failing until other nations stop slowing the spread, and we see what their FINAL numbers are.

If what we're told is true, Sweden is just letting it take its natural course, and will get it behind them in its natural time. Other nations are deliberately and artificially slowing the spread and dragging it out.

It's not about how many lives will be lost, just the time frame those lives will be lost.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: harold223

Their death toll and case load is alarmingly higher than their Scandinavian neighbours per head of population and talk of enforced lockdowns is starting to occur in Sweden. Their experiment may be failing, unfortunately.

We won't know if their approach is failing until other nations stop slowing the spread, and we see what their FINAL numbers are.

If what we're told is true, Sweden is just letting it take its natural course, and will get it behind them in its natural time. Other nations are deliberately and artificially slowing the spread and dragging it out.

It's not about how many lives will be lost, just the time frame those lives will be lost.

That isn't correct.

One of the determining factors of how many lives Will be lost is the ability of health care systems to cope. If it peaks faster then it could overwhelm hospitals and dramatically increase death rates.

The rate which each country can cope obviously differs and Sweden may be able to handle a faster rate of infection. However its not as simple as a fixed number of deaths over a variable time frame.

a reply to: ScepticScot

That isn't correct. One of the determining factors of how many lives Will be lost is the ability of health care systems to cope. If it peaks faster then it could overwhelm hospitals and dramatically increase death rates.

In theory, yes, that could prove true. In theory, they could also find effective treatments in the meantime, which would also improve recovery rates. But this is all theory -- not practice. This a hope, not their purpose.

Their purpose is to slow down rates of infection and hospitalization. Period. All the rest is possible, falling under the law of unintended consequences, but that is not their intention or purpose.

The rate which each country can cope obviously differs and Sweden may be able to handle a faster rate of infection. However its not as simple as a fixed number of deaths over a variable time frame.

Well, obviously, those places with the most hospital beds per capita can better "handle" a faster rate of infection... if we're just talking about getting folks in the hospital. But if we don't know how to effectively treat them when hospitalized -- and we don't -- then the death rates will remain pretty constant.

I will also add that we sure aren't helping anyone when people can't get the necessary healing products they need to take care of themselves, and avoid the worst complications and going to the hospital at all. And, yes, that is exactly what is happening, and I know personally because I've been desperately searching for things for my niece, who is home with pneumonia and Big Pharma's antibiotics are not helping.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

That isn't correct. One of the determining factors of how many lives Will be lost is the ability of health care systems to cope. If it peaks faster then it could overwhelm hospitals and dramatically increase death rates.

In theory, yes, that could prove true. In theory, they could also find effective treatments in the meantime, which would also improve recovery rates. But this is all theory -- not practice. This a hope, not their purpose.

Their purpose is to slow down rates of infection and hospitalization. Period. All the rest is possible, falling under the law of unintended consequences, but that is not their intention or purpose.

The rate which each country can cope obviously differs and Sweden may be able to handle a faster rate of infection. However its not as simple as a fixed number of deaths over a variable time frame.

Well, obviously, those places with the most hospital beds per capita can better "handle" a faster rate of infection... if we're just talking about getting folks in the hospital. But if we don't know how to effectively treat them when hospitalized -- and we don't -- then the death rates will remain pretty constant.

I will also add that we sure aren't helping anyone when people can't get the necessary healing products they need to take care of themselves, and avoid the worst complications and going to the hospital at all. And, yes, that is exactly what is happening, and I know personally because I've been desperately searching for things for my niece, who is home with pneumonia and Big Pharma's antibiotics are not helping.

It is explicitly the point of the mitigation measures to keep the numbers going into hospital at anyone time down. That isn't an unintended consequences, it is the plan.

If the numbers needing intensive care exceed the capacity to provide then the number of deaths,will rise significantly.

We don't who yet how to treat the virus but we do know how to treat the symptoms and complications. That is what will reduce the death rate.

Not sure where you stay but here pharmacies and other shops selling health products are still open here.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It is explicitly the point of the mitigation measures to keep the numbers going into hospital at anyone time down. That isn't an unintended consequences, it is the plan.

As I stated.

If the numbers needing intensive care exceed the capacity to provide then the number of deaths,will rise significantly.

Not necessarily, so you cannot know that, and therefore do not know that. Your presumption is that anyone who gets hospital care and survives would not have survived without it. That's not necessarily true. Some people will suffer severe complications and recover without hospital care.

You are also presuming that hospital care in and of itself cannot and will not cause additional complications, such as the adverse effects of hydroxychlorquine on the heart, other allergies and adverse reactions to medications, and antibiotic-resistant ventilator-associated pneumonia. All of these are known risks and will contribute to death rates. (Unintended consequences...)

It should also be noted that your overall premise completely disregards the many many people who will suffer and, yes, die BECAUSE of the shutdowns. There is no doubt. Deaths have already occurred. And more will occur.

How do you quantify and qualify the number of lives saved with the number of lives sacrificed?

Who gave you the wisdom or authority to decide whose lives are definitely expendable to protect you from a possibility???

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

It is explicitly the point of the mitigation measures to keep the numbers going into hospital at anyone time down. That isn't an unintended consequences, it is the plan.

As I stated.

If the numbers needing intensive care exceed the capacity to provide then the number of deaths,will rise significantly.

Not necessarily, so you cannot know that, and therefore do not know that. Your presumption is that anyone who gets hospital care and survives would not have survived without it. That's not necessarily true. Some people will suffer severe complications and recover without hospital care.

You are also presuming that hospital care in and of itself cannot and will not cause additional complications, such as the adverse effects of hydroxychlorquine on the heart, other allergies and adverse reactions to medications, and antibiotic-resistant ventilator-associated pneumonia. All of these are known risks and will contribute to death rates. (Unintended consequences...)

It should also be noted that your overall premise completely disregards the many many people who will suffer and, yes, die BECAUSE of the shutdowns. There is no doubt. Deaths have already occurred. And more will occur.

How do you quantify and qualify the number of lives saved with the number of lives sacrificed?

Who gave you the wisdom or authority to decide whose lives are definitely expendable to protect you from a possibility???

I don't assume that everyone who gets hospital cars would die without it. However many would, people who requires ventilators to breath for example would have low survival rates without them.

Yes there can be complications from medical treatments. In the real world of evidence based medicine these are considered. If you prefer wishful thinking based medicine that is your prerogative.

I don't have the authority. The people we elect to make these decisions do and thankfully seen to be acting on the actual scientific advice they are given.

Sweden, a country, has roughly 2 million more people then NYC, a city, while being roughly 170,413 miles in size compared to 302 miles for NYC.

It's a bit easier to take the approach they are taking when population wise they aren't much bigger than one single city in a big country with that bigger population being substantially more spread out and dispersed .

Picking one random city in Sweden, if Stockholm was as dense and packed as NYC then they wouldn't have been able to take the same approach but it isn't so they didn't have to.

Didn't we have a thread on this already?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Right now, Sweden is on a similar trajectory to the US though, and their medical system has not been overwhelmed.

If it remains that way, it's a powerful argument that in most places, the US should not have locked down to the degree it did because most of us did not need to be quarantined as tightly as we are.

a reply to: opethPA

But don't you think that perhaps we could have tailored our own national response? As you say, Sweden lives more spread out, but there are plenty of places in the US where our living conditions are similar to Sweden.

Did we have to react as though all of the US lives as densely packed as NYC when we came up with our own plan to deal with this?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Right now, Sweden is on a similar trajectory to the US though, and their medical system has not been overwhelmed.

If it remains that way, it's a powerful argument that in most places, the US should not have locked down to the degree it did because most of us did not need to be quarantined as tightly as we are.

Sweden had by some measure the highest number of deaths per capita of any Scandinavian country. It also has about 50% higher rate than US. There approach may work better but early indications aren't positive.

It's probable that a lot of the US could have used less stringent measures, however there are problems within this. Because of incubation period you don't know what level is required until it's too late to get the full effect of the lockdown. Also unless you ban travel then many people will travel from high lockdown to low level areas potentially spreading the virus faster.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes there can be complications from medical treatments. In the real world of evidence based medicine these are considered. If you prefer wishful thinking based medicine that is your prerogative.

Really? I bring in the documented evidence-based facts of adverse outcomes directly related to hospitalization, that you conveniently ignored in your hypothetical conclusions, and then suggest that I am engaging in wishful thinking???

I have stated and repeated the known facts.

You have spouted faulty theories based upon faulty premises and faulty data and formed your own opinion in your best interests and to hell with anyone else's best interests. You have made it very clear that you don't give a damn who gets hurt or dies because of these actions, as long as YOU are hypothetically protected.

That's all I need to know.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes there can be complications from medical treatments. In the real world of evidence based medicine these are considered. If you prefer wishful thinking based medicine that is your prerogative.

Really? I bring in the documented evidence-based facts of adverse outcomes directly related to hospitalization, that you conveniently ignored in your hypothetical conclusions, and then suggest that I am engaging in wishful thinking???

I have stated and repeated the known facts.

You have spouted faulty theories based upon faulty premises and faulty data and formed your own opinion in your best interests and to hell with anyone else's best interests. You have made it very clear that you don't give a damn who gets hurt or dies because of these actions, as long as YOU are hypothetically protected.

That's all I need to know.

No I addressed the points you raised in my reply. Medical treatment takes into account potential complications.

I am the arguing for following scientific and medical advice. Trying to pretend that makes me not care just shows how weak your argument is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: opethPA

But don't you think that perhaps we could have tailored our own national response? As you say, Sweden lives more spread out, but there are plenty of places in the US where our living conditions are similar to Sweden.

Did we have to react as though all of the US lives as densely packed as NYC when we came up with our own plan to deal with this?

6 states made the choice to not follow the same approach basically saying that , outside of Wyoming with no reported deaths, that 1 or more deaths was an acceptable costs vs following the recommendations given. As of the 2019 US Census Wyoming is the least populated state in the US and the second least densely populated so the 0 deaths stat makes sense.

www.worldatlas.com...

Reading your other posts tells me you are most likely in one of those small town areas not really impacted as hard as other parts so I can totally understand you not wanting your location to be restricted.

I live in NJ about 15 mins away from Philadelphia and 2 hours South of NYC so basically the hot zone of the US for the Virus. I actually wish things would have been locked down harder in this area when this started . Rip the band aid off for 30 days vs spreading it out over months like has been going on now.

Nothing I say is going to make you believe that things should be locked down more and nothing you say is going to make me believe things should be locked down less. What I will say is that taking half measures with poor leadership, both parties, has allowed the chaos of this scenario to be drawn out over time.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I am the arguing for following scientific and medical advice. Trying to pretend that makes me not care just shows how weak your argument is.

Weasel words. You know that people are being harmed by this advice. You are therefore putting some lives before and above others. And dismissing it with "someone said so."

You also know damn well that entire medical industry serves their best interests, not necessarily and not always ours. They have a vested interest in advocating for that which benefits them -- not us.

Finally, we've been told again and again that the numbers and known "facts" are faulty in various ways, in large part just political propaganda. All theories and therefore all hypotheticals are questionable to say the least. Garbage in and garbage out.

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
Did you know that Sweden have not enforced a lock down? Wait, what?

That's right, the Socialist Democrat Party that rules Sweden have decided that the style of lockdown we are witnessing across the rest of the West is not necessary for them. They are entrusting their citizens to do the right thing in regards to social distancing (that term really rubs me the wrong way for some arbitrary reason).

Schools, restaurants, bars etc. are all open however, with some limitations on occupancy. Essentially business as usual. But have you heard about this anywhere in the MSM? Where is all the outrage in regards to Sweden's negligence, idiocy and the sheer and utter threat of death by COVID they are spreading?

It's ok guys, they're socialists so they know better. A CNN article I just read even carries water for that claim, check this;

In some ways, however, Sweden is better prepared to weather the storm than other countries. Some 40% of the country's workforce worked from home regularly, even before the virus struck and Sweden has a high ratio of people living on their own, whereas in southern Europe it's not uncommon to have three generations under one roof.
Emma Grossmith, a British employment lawyer working in Stockholm, says another factor in Sweden's favor is a generous social welfare net that means people don't feel obligated to turn up for work if their young child is sick. State support kicks in on day one of absence from work due to a child being sick. "The system here was already well set up to help people to make smarter choices which ultimately benefit the wider population," she told CNN

Full Article

Did you know Sweden have 10,293 confirmed cases and 990 deaths in a population of just 10.23 million?

Where is the outrage? Oh yeah....they're from the acceptable side of politics.

Keep watching Sweden and what happens there. That will determine just how dangerous this thing really is and if our governments and modelling completely got it wrong elsewhere.

For comparison they have roughly the same population as Michigan which enacted some of the more severe lockdown measures.

We have more cases and death....