I don't see it that way, to me they are just feeling confident they are winning their particular war, not that they're winning in comparison to their neighbours. And in my opinion, it does look they are winning their war. However different that war may be to ours, or any other country.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I don't see it that way, to me they are just feeling confident they are winning their particular war, not that they're winning in comparison to their neighbours. And in my opinion, it does look they are winning their war. However different that war may be to ours, or any other country.
Jeff Bezos has probably earned a couple more yachts since this all started.
Which is basically what I said, just worded differently.
I think the point is that every country has to do a balancing act between letting life and businesses continue as near to normal as possible while ensuring their health service isn’t overwhelmed. Sweden’s health service is far from overwhelmed and their economy hasn’t contracted as sharply as neighbouring countries with more drastic measures (I think? Would actually like to see evidence of this? @Regulus Arcturus Black)
Then there’s the herd immunity thing. Swedish epidemiologists and politicians have been claiming that their approach has helped them get them much closer to herd immunity than other countries. In Stockholm anyway. Even if you don’t get herd immunity a big pool of previously infected people will act like a firebreak in any future outbreaks. I remain to be convinced that these claims are true.
As am I.
Behind a paywall
Edit: found the article on my phone - which for some reason didn't get a paywall - and it doesn't mention Norway, Finland, or Denmark.
And beyond that... are we now in a counter-conspiracy? One side saying deaths are being overreported by the thousands, another saying they're underreported by the thousands?
Not for me. Weird.
445 deaths in English hosptials today. Certainly a good time to add care home figures!
I dunno, I think id be buying shares now in loads of stuff whilst they are rock bottom because they surely will rise again
Got it to pull up on my phone. Gave a response above.
601 hospital deaths today (UK as a whole). So for the fourth straight day, a solid reduction in numbers from the previous week , by 160 or so (763 was the figure last Wednesday).
Care home figures will be released later today in a full statement which I guess is going to be an overall total of deaths in the UK today. That will definitely make for some grim viewing I think we can all agree.
Care home figures will be released later today in a full statement which I guess is going to be an overall total of deaths in the UK today. That will definitely make for some grim viewing I think we can all agree.
Saw this last night although completely missed the black dude who famously was accidently put on air to give his view on a major story when he was just coming for a job interview for production job or something! Oh I see adding that guy is just a meme.
Big edgy from Dan Walker there sport will return whether you like it or not!
NYTimes has a monthly limit so its technically a soft paywall.
It's not that simple because there are so many unknown knock-on effects that make a lot of big plays risky.
Herd immunity is not a strategy and certainly not one Sweden is employing.
People seem to think you are either locking down or actively aiming for herd immunity, this is one of the most frustrating aspects of debate surrounding this.
Herd immunity is effectively a by-product of existence and society during a pandemic.
Tell that to the families of the extra deaths. We can shame them for now, certainly.
What may happen is that we might have to recognise "we" were wrong in the future.
For the time being, yes, I will shame them because the number of deaths they already have is only comparable to unlucky micro-nations or countries where everyone else assumes things have gone wrong (UK, Italy, Spain, US, Netherlands, Belgium...).
Isn't the overreporting just anecdotal evidence so far with one poster sharing posts on social media whereas underreporting of Covid-19 related deaths is really happening (such as the UK not including deaths in home care)?
There is one thing with regards to the Sweden discussion that doesn't make sense to me though. And that is the constant comparing of their current case numbers to their neighbouring countries. Shouldn't it be obvious that they have more infections than those who imposed stricter lockdowns? I mean, that is literally their strategy. The assumption being that they'll come of the pandemic better in the long run because their ecomomy is still intact. If they hadn't, wouldn't that mean that what other countries have been doing is useless, i.e. why lock down when a laissez-faire approach has the same results. That's oversimplifiying it perhaps but if they manage to keep the social and economic cost (which eventually leads poverty/illness and death) at a minimum whilst not overloading their health system, that would be a great outcome.
Didn't the study that showed 11% of people in Sweden had antibodies have a tiny sample size.. I think it was 200 or something really low..
To extrapolate from that and claim herd immunity could be reached by May is quite a leap.. unless they have more testing behind the scenes..
Either way,, things clearly havent spiraled out of control there.. so they are able to carry on as normal.. its working.
To extrapolate from that and claim herd immunity could be reached by May is quite a leap.. unless they have more testing behind the scenes..
Either way,, things clearly havent spiraled out of control there.. so they are able to carry on as normal.. its working.
There are an insane amount of variables when it comes to this virus in terms of every individual country. It amounts to little more than pot luck as to how many "original" cases entered a country then further luck as to the demographic of those case holders, the luck as to what they work as, how many people are in their social circle, the demographic of their social circle, what they work as, how many people are in their social circle.... you get the point.
It makes little sense to praise or indeed condemn any individual country for their numbers in my opinion as each has so specific circumstances related to themselves that can ether be a gift or a curse that can see the numbers go one way or the other. I think how much randomness there is involved is drastically underplayed when i would argue it plays and has played a much larger role on average that any action(s) taken or not taken.
My point is that your article doesn't address anything I've posted. I'm comparing Sweden with its Nordic neighbors and you're posting an article that compares Sweden with none of them.
The thing is, their "laissez-faire" approach isn't giving similar results. Sure, you can say more infections would be expected with an open society approach, but they've 3x the death toll of those 3 countries combined as well.. and those 3 countries combined have 5 million more people than Sweden.
If the economy remaining relatively normal is the most important thing, then sure... Sweden is doing better. But for me, it isn't.
The other point with the Swedish strategy is that it's also too early to compare economic impacts, which should be one of the pluses of their approach. I guess the extent of the benefit they get from being less strict will only really be known once we see how countries bounce back post-lockdown and how much the international impact will hit Sweden's economy?
So New Zealand's response was just random chance and makes little sense to praise?
No - their PM and their people have handled this amazingly well.
I would say they were dealt a better hand and played it well.
Seems a bit silly praising NZ when they are probably the best-positioned nation to deal with summat like this. Remote, island, low population, good healthcare, well-educated people, decent government.
Another poster earlier in the thread gave a list of a good dozen factors about NZ itself that would have definitely played a major hand in their success, in terms of society/social scene/culture etc. They definitely handled it immaculately but they also had a very strong base from which to start. Funnily enough, that's something that's thrown at Sweden too - lower population density, a bit less 'social' as a society in general etc. The general feeling is "well it could only work like that in Sweden because of x,y,z....." but x,y,z are also huge contributing factors in NZ.
They could have also played it oppositely and totally fecked it up.
Of course their response was excellent. And the UK's response has in many ways been total crap.
They should be praised, just as the Tories should be lambasted.
But the original poster is correct. People want to jump to direct comparisons (I've seen the Ireland UK on here a bunch of times) and this makes no sense to me.
New Zealand is actually bigger than the UK, with roughly 7% of its population (or for easier reference, half the population of London). Not rocket science to say their population density is significantly less than it is in the UK.
Not to mention that the UK gets roughly NZ's annual number of international visitors every month.
These direct comparisons are just so off to me.
For what it's worth, I'm not comparing NZ to the UK. I'm simply pointing out that "random chance" shouldn't be cited to offset praise for good policy.
They could, just as much as another country dealt a bad hand could have played it well but be criticised for "handling it terribly" because their numbers are big when there is a possibility their numbers were a consequence of luck and as I said individual circumstances related to their country/population, seed cases etc etc.
Here in Switzerland the lock down is almost at an end.
From 11th May, Restaurants, all Shops and stores will open. Schools will go back. Public tansport will go back to normal and there will be a reopening of the border (not sure this is a great idea).
I could be wrong but it seems the only places to remain closed will be bars.
From 11th May, Restaurants, all Shops and stores will open. Schools will go back. Public tansport will go back to normal and there will be a reopening of the border (not sure this is a great idea).
I could be wrong but it seems the only places to remain closed will be bars.
Yeah, considering the policies they implemented, I seriously doubt that they'd have been characterized as that.
Excellent news. I would imagine it would be better to delay opening the borders for a few more weeks, and bars yeah my friend who's living there is expecting maybe late summer for those.
Actually, I don't think we should or can.
And that is an overly emotive approach to something that, at the highest levels, I am hoping is not led by emotion but by a utilitarian, scientific approach. Tell that to the families of the extra 400 deaths. Ok. What are we telling the families that are going to default on their mortgages and end up on the street? How about the families who'll lose their businesses forever? How about the patients not getting treatment for other things because we've directed all attention to Covid? What do we tell the cancer sufferer in normal times who isn't getting the newest drug because their insurance doesn't cover it? Or because its not included in the NICE drugs as its too expensive? What about all the extra people worldwide who'll be pushed into poverty, which we know worsens health outcomes? What are we telling all of these people?
I saw someone got jumped on earlier in this thread for saying he feels some people seem to have an almost morbid excitement for how bad this is getting and people almost revelling in lockdown. I don't necessarily agree with this but I do think some people are almost desperate for Sweden to fail. My question is, why? If their approach works for them, amazing. If we can find a way to keep a hold on the virus, not overwhelm their healthcare system and not crush their economy (fundamentally the thing that pays for things like the healthcare system), superb. If some other countries can do a similar model, even better. We're already starting to see i China that perhaps this isn't quite as simple as lockdown and end the outbreak.
I feel some people (not referring to you) are taking such an authoritative approach to this problem which, let us be completely honest, nobody knows how it will play out in the long term. I will put my hand up and admit I completely misread the threat initially.
Sometimes, what seems the most humane approach, most obvious one at the time, is not always the best one. A slightly niche example but the Biafran civil war is often pointed out as perhaps the first example of concerted international non-governmental humanitarian action. How can it be bad? All we were doing was helping poor, innocent, starving kids caught up in a war not of their own doing. Yet what it actually did was prolong the suffering and probably caused more damage overall than no intervention.
We have to be careful to consider all options and not become ideological zealots to one policy or another.
True. And like I said, they've done a very good job.
I just think these direct comparisons in general, whether its China or SK, Japan, UK, Sweden or Denmark are very difficult. Doesn't mean we can't praise or criticise...but we have to understand there are more nuances than just the raw figures.
NZ especially has a lot of natural advantages in these situations, its why so many of these rich end of world prep nutters buy their bunkers there.
Good post, agree with it all. Sweden felt this was best for them, so far it hasn't been a catastrophe - it could have been better but so could everything apart from a few countries.
I wasn't talking about NZ, I said "just as another country" but I would argue that the policies implemented by any country are largely dictated by the circumstances it has been dealt and by factoring in it's own individual circumstances.
In other news on the frontline, my trust, one of the richest in the UK, one of the most well prepared, which started preparing for this well before most others (and seemingly even the government) did....is now asking us to preserve surgical gowns to be washed and reused.
Getting pretty grim. At least our numbers are starting to go down.
Getting pretty grim. At least our numbers are starting to go down.