Lockdowns never again: Sweden was right, and we were wrong

[vz71]

What of?

I posted that as well, but given the response, perhaps I was not clear.

Someone making a claim has the obligation to back it with research.

I immediately suspect the claim false when the person making the claim also tells others to do the research for them.

In a single phrase, do your own homework.

 

[Theo520]

Norway and Finland are doing way better than Sweden.

Yes, all the countries that opted to shut down till they crushed the virus are doing better than countries that focused on not overwhelming their hospitals. My hats off to NZ, AUS, Norway, Taiwan etc.

But if you compare the other group, the majority of developed countries, Sweden is doing comparably well with their strategy.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Yepper it is number 8 in that category
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[RidgeSprinter]

and #12 in Case-Fatality
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cathoholic]

umamibella . . .

Not to mention the vaccine

What vaccine?

Hopefully you are not talking about a corona virus vaccine
as that doesn’t exist.

So which “vaccine” are you talking about here?

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

Sweden is not doing well if you compare the number of deaths per capita.

What if you compare the number of people with corona virus immunity per capita?

How are they doing then? (I don’t know by the way. I am just asking the obvious question.)

There is more to risk-benefit ratios than deaths per capita without something.

 

[Wampa]

One of the problems with citing Sweden as a pattern that the US should have followed is that Sweden’s society and citizenry is far different from ours.

The jury is still out on whether Sweden will fare better or worse in the long run, but part of the reason they could even attempt a ‘no lockdown’ strategy is because their civil society involves the government taking care of its citizens and citizens trusting the government. So all the government had to do was ask that they (for example) social distance, work from home, and avoid travel, and they largely did it voluntarily. Just by recommending voluntary measures, the government gets a partial shutdown, without having to institute one.

This would never work in the US, for obvious reasons.

This article from late April explains many of the steps Swedes voluntarily took, such as an almost 75% drop in mobility in Stockholm, a 90% drop in Easter weekend travel, and ski resorts closing voluntarily during busy times:

Sweden is taking a very different approach to Covid-19

"[Swedish professor of history and civil society studies Lars Trägårdh] says Sweden’s social contract is based on a close alliance between the individual and the state, or what he calls “statist individualism.” Citizens have myriad protections provided by the state—unemployment, healthcare, good public schools, efficient government services—which allows them, in turn, to maximize their own choices (to live alone, to change jobs, to have children).

Trägårdh finds it amusing that libertarian groups in America are the ones cheering on Sweden now, since normally they would be the ones deriding Sweden’s “nanny state.” It is precisely because the government cares for and trusts it citizens, and because citizens trust the government, that Swedes are “free” to socially distance and keep each other safe."

 

[Cathoholic]

Wampa . . .

because their civil society involves the government taking care of its citizens and citizens trusting the government.

But that ignores the fact that the WHO is NOT one “of its citizens”.

The same WHO that referrs to Sweden’s response as a “model” mode of management.

Trägårdh finds it amusing that libertarian groups in America are the ones cheering on Sweden now . . .

Yeah but who cares what a history guy, merely giving his opinion on infectious disease medical management holds? The only exception to that would be lessons from history on this (but of course this is a “novel” virus so even historical application will have its limits).

 

[vz71]

The jury is still out on whether Sweden will fare better or worse in the long run

I strongly suspect we will know immediately after the election.

 

[Cathoholic]

But immunity would be about live Swedes. Not dead ones (which is WHY they are immune).

And we know masks, social distancing, quarantining HEALTHY people, etc. are effective at flattening out the infection curve.

But this does NOT translate into saving lives.

Again from here . . .

As Dr. Lisa Maragakis, Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Johns Hopkins Medical School explained, flattening the curve means that “ the same large number of patients arrived at the hospital at a slower rate. [emphasis mine]”

It puts off infections. And at great expense to society. But there is no proof these things save lives. None.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . . .

So, where’s the data?

There isn’t any data either way. That’s the point.

It might save lives, it might cost lives. But right now we do not know these things.

Edited.

 

[Cathoholic]

Well, there is data about the number dead from COVID, so I guess we’ll just have to use that until we have more evidence.

I could say the same thing.

Well, there is data about the number alive despite COVID, so I guess we’ll just have to use that until we have more evidence.

The difference is, the WHO’s affirmation of Sweden takes science and common sense into account.

Your affirmation of quarantining HEALTHY people, etc. does not.

 

[Cathoholic]

And we have data on some of the numbers with immunity.

Just taking into account “dead” and stopping is by definition NOT a risk-benefit analysis.

It is a feelings-based argument.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

I asked you to present the data and you didn’t. Is there data or not?

I already answered that.

Repeating this is still a mere feelings-based argument.

 

[Cathoholic]

I already told you (but it doesn’t matter to you).

No data of this sort with a NEW virus.

But there IS common sense.

In my paradigm I look at risks AND benefits.

In your paradigm you look ONLY at risks.

This is not the way to look at net gains or losses thbolt.

 

[Motherwit]

Well, there is data about the number dead from COVID, so I guess we’ll just have to use that until we have more evidence.

Of those ‘alive’ there’s a new epidemic that is seeing new rehab centers popping up to deal with the long term effects after the virus is gone from the body. It increasingly suggests that that data will have to influence any ideology of letting the virus spread willy nilly.

"Meanwhile, health authorities in the UK and Italy, two of the European nations worst hit by the coronavirus pandemic, are starting to offer rehabilitation services to Covid-19 survivors.

These will likely need to be wide-ranging, since research now indicates that coronavirus is a multi-system disease that can damage not only the lungs, but the kidneys, liver, heart, brain and nervous system, skin and gastrointestinal tract."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/19/health/long-covid-italy-uk-gbr-intl/index.html

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

So, you don’t have data, so let’s talk when you have data.

So, you don’t have data, so let’s talk when you have data supporting
quarantining healthy people,
wearing masks outdoors even when you’re alone,
wearing masks anytime to save lives,
and social distancing distances.

And oh yeah. I want to see the data about how NO immunity saves lives with no known vaccine.

 

[Cathoholic]

Thbolt . . .

The data I would base making recommendations of which country’s lead to follow for COVID would be deaths per capita and new cases per capita.

And you would be incomplete too.

You are ignoring the benefits of immunity.

That has no rational basis.

You are ignoring the risks of isolation and depression with increased suicide. Again, no basis to ignore such things.

You are ignoring the economic fallout and all the resultant hunger and deaths from that.

Your death stats ignore life-years LOST. (Remember. The average age of death in Corona virus patients, is the same as non Corona virus patient deaths.)

You are ignoring the fact that influenza is much more deadly to children (and thus influenza is responsible for many more life-years lost). And failing to ask WHY these questions are being neglected to be asked publicly.
And WHY will they be brought out AFTER the election almost certainly.)

You are ignoring the pain, suffering, and death people have because they can’t or are afraid and won’t see their doctors now because of phony doomsday scenarios that are based upon partial truths.

You are ignoring the fact that countries using liberal amounts of hydroxychloroquine, have lower death rates than countries neglecting to treat their Corona virus patients early with this intervention.

You are ignoring the WHO calling Sweden a model country for Corona virus approach. A label that to the best of my knowledge, has never been withdrawn or changed.

You are ignoring the spiritual dimension of all of this. And how a gal or a guy who is in the nursing home, is not allowed to have a priest come and administer the spiritual life saving Sacraments.

You are failing to even attempt to provide even pretend reasoning to fine or even jail (!) someone outdoors alone even in their own yards with no mask on.

You are attempting do do a risk-benefit ratio, without benefits and risks.

And I am saying this is not the way to approach the issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Still no data here. Again, feel free to write when you have some actual data to discuss as I would be interested. I’m not interested in conjecture.

But Cathoholic was not really making any conjectures. As I recall, the main point he made was that there is insufficient data at this point in time to declare Sweden an ultimate failure. That is why he said:

What if you compare the number of people with corona virus immunity per capita?

How are they doing then? (I don’t know by the way. I am just asking the obvious question.)

There is more to risk-benefit ratios than deaths per capita without something.

(bolding mine.)

If he had been making conjectures he would have said “I conjecture that Sweden has gained enough in herd immunity to justify the early deaths”. But he didn’t say that. He just indicated there might be data that supports that conclusion. (and there might not be)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But Cathoholic was not really making any conjectures. As I recall, the main point he made was that there is insufficient data at this point in time to declare Sweden an ultimate failure. That is why he said:

He’s making conjectures in a lot of the posts. Basically, there is no data, just speculation on what could potentially be relevant questions but no path to actually answer them.

That’s the way it is sometimes. There are important questions that we cannot answer at the moment. That does not mean we should not raise those questions.

Now there is a related fallacy that must be avoided, and that is raising irrelevant unanswerable questions. This is often done to sow the seeds of doubt when launching a conspiracy theory. We see that sometimes in CAF. But that is not the case here. The questions raised are not irrelevant and they do not launch a conspiracy theory.