Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Apr 20
11:12
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Aug 05
Looks like the policy of protecting the vulnerable and allowing the rest to continue is working
Less deaths per million than Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, UK and Netherlands.
No big issue of when to end lock down for them.
In retrospect the original policy of protecting the vulnerable (and really doing it with focusing resources on care homes etc where old people are) and allowing the young fit people to continue may have been the best policy afterall.
Less deaths per million than Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, UK and Netherlands.
No big issue of when to end lock down for them.
In retrospect the original policy of protecting the vulnerable (and really doing it with focusing resources on care homes etc where old people are) and allowing the young fit people to continue may have been the best policy afterall.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 680
|
By:
Would the number of deaths in the countries you have quoted been lower, higher, or the same if they had not implemented lockdown measures ?
|
|
By:
No idea.
Countries that locked down will go Sweden's route eventually |
|
By:
It
Is it worth considering the population density of those countries you have mentioned. Even the UK figures look a lot better if have "UK excluding London" (and the number of people per square KM should still be high compared to Sweden) |
|
By:
Remember the Imperial Model assumed fixed numbers of ICU beds.
|
|
By:
Who'd have thunk that the socialist hellhole that is Sweden would be more business friendly than "screw business"-Boris?
|
|
By:
and less infringing on rights
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Angoose,
I would say the same. Ultimately if you getting the lowest total deaths is your goal you protect those most likely from dying from it properly. Sweden failed to do this as well to be fair. But surely if older people die at, far instance 10%, then you protect them like crazy with massive resources. If people under 40 die at 1 in 5000 then why 'protect' them from this virus? Makes no sense. A million under forties could get it and a few hundred might die. |
|
By:
Why do Norway and Denmark have significantly fewer deaths per capita, IT?
|
|
By:
and again, what might somewhat work for Sweden, doesn't need to work for countries with different circumstances like the UK where the population is one of the fattest and unhealthiest of the world to begin with.
|
|
By:
It seems odd to me that the UK government are opening up 'Nightingale Hospitals' in quite a few places and making 30,000 temporary mortuary spaces when they have a policy designed to keep deaths down to around 20,000,
Also, if there are now 2,000 spare ITU beds (a good thing) why keep on opening Nightigales? I suggest that once they know they will have enough beds, ventilators and PPE to always meet a high level of demand, the lockdown will be eased and the virus let rip. Herd immunity remains the best prevention without a vaccine and the economy will not stand too much more of a lockdown otherwise, in the long run, we will kill far more people than the virus could. Hence, that policy is the direction where we might be headed. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Compare Sweden to its Nordic neighbours not cherry picked from elsewhwere.
|
|
By:
Knight
Even if everybody who had access to a ventilator (& 1-2-1 care from a trained nurse) there would still be hundreds of thousands of deaths if allowed the virus to "let rip" Even with a month of social distancing we have 50% more deaths than would normally expect (for start of April). Who exactly would be staffing these hospitals if demand is 10 times what it is now. Still the most important thing is it will allow the young to carry on life as normal, maybe head to the pub & then watch the football. |
|
By:
The Knight
22 Apr 20 10:40 Joined: 02 Sep 01 | Topic/replies: 629 | Blogger: The Knight's blog It seems odd to me that the UK government are opening up 'Nightingale Hospitals' ^ My understanding is ultimately you make the Nightingale's Covid only and let the others go back to being completely green zones. |
|
By:
Yep, I think the trick is getting the right benchmark before judging success or failure. Average life expectancy, number of smokers, lung diseases, healthy diets etc then also things like population density and other factors that make it easier or not for the disease to spread.
So is it better to compare Sweden to France or to Denmark? |
|
By:
It's also that Swedes are probably by and large healthier than a lot of other populations. Eating elks all day is better than eating fried chocolate bars and KFC
If I were Professor Johor Van Tam I might say I have seen no scientific evidence that supports that argument |
|
By:
WD
UK is pretty unhealthy on various metrics. Obesity, heart disease, drinking. They have been studied. BTW - haven't a clue where Sweden is but would guess they score much better in the obesity/ healthy weight category. |
|
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
22 Apr 20 10:59 Joined: 03 Dec 15 | Topic/replies: 9,373 | Blogger: PorcupineorPineapple's blog Yep, I think the trick is getting the right benchmark before judging success or failure. Average life expectancy, number of smokers, lung diseases, healthy diets etc then also things like population density and other factors that make it easier or not for the disease to spread. So is it better to compare Sweden to France or to Denmark? ^ Is being close a good measure? Should we compare Spain to Portugal OR Spain to France? Should we compare Belgium to the Netherlands OR Belgium to Germany? I am not sure. |
|
By:
Exactly. Need to look at those factors in the first line of my post.
|
|
By:
more lack of understanding from a troll
|
|
By:
682 new cases reported today, 545 yesterday. A further 172 deaths reported, 185 yesterday.
|
|
By:
you should only be comparing countries like for like. UK with other major western European countries france, germany, Italy and spain really
you could easily argue france and spain are doing the worst of those. both big largely empty countries with no massive city - madrid 3 million and paris only 2 whereas London is 9 million comparing major western countries with smaller countries with much less international travel pretty pointless |
|
By:
spain and italy did not have benifit of 2 weeks of news from spain and italy.
|
|
By:
Uk has 6 times the population of Sweden and far more dense a population, so the figure of 172 is not good and it would be equivalent to the uk having 1032 in one day.
|
|
By:
Why no replies ?
Exactly. |
|
By:
the op has two new threads on same ideas
none going well, he may return when trump rally is finnish |
|
By:
Sweden never had a curve to flatten. Educate yourselves about the social distancing Sweden has in place naturally and you'll soon realise they were never going to have a spread like the UK or other non-Nordic countries.
Ibrahim, I'll reply. It is ridiculous to compare a country which hasn't locked down and hasn't killed its economy with one which has. What do you think the UK death numbers at or near peak would be without a lockdown? Compare that to Sweden. |
|
By:
That may have been relevant 50 years ago but Sweden has seen a big increase in immigration numbers in recent year, now just under 25% of people living in Sweden are of an immigrant background and they tend to live in dense inner city areas in places like Malmo. And the characterised introverted nature of Swedes are a) more confined to the middle class Swedes and b) not really relevant to migrants from eastern europe/asia etc.
|
|
By:
if you had looked at a thread on here a couple of months ago it likely would have told you 'stockholm has fallen' as the cultural marxists were intent on hordes of invaders raping their way across the country. now, it seems, sweden is the country to follow. all a bit confusing imo.
|
|
By:
A nuclear submarine sinks off the coast of Sweden ......
|
|
By:
50 years ago? What are you on about?
25% is 2.5m. That's people with an immigrant background, that goes back decades. Malmo has a population of about 320k. The 50+% figures for Stockholm and small villages are current. Again, what are you on about? |
|
By:
They are 2015 figures for Malmo, so they are probably higher today. But despite immigration they still say 50+% in Stockholm live alone and that's where the bulk of it is located, with over half the deaths, many of them in care homes, but only about 20% of the population.
|
|
By:
the whole country could live alone, but everyone has visitors, everyone brushes past each other in supermarkets, churches, banks, IKEA, everyday, they have lots of annual public gathering events including the Malmo festival which has 1.5 million visitors over the week, Stockholm international fiim festival etc, held the Eurovision song contest final 2016, big fanzones every 2 years for the football tournaments etc, you're making out like nobody ever sees or touches each other lol.
The immigration numbers could go back decades, but people keep their culture and viruses spreads like wildfire. |
|
By:
Sweden is different to us in her demographics etc. HOWEVER, we’re being told that sitting on a bench or beach risks lives. That makes little sense.
That’s where I think Sweden’s looser approach is worth watching very closely. |
|
By:
Why lockdowns are the wrong policy - Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke https://youtu.be/bfN2JWifLCY
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I think the key piece of information in that post was the reference to hosting Eurovision 2016.
Highly likely that bad music encourages natural social distancing. |