Why did Sweden decide to act differently?

[tontie]

Sweden is an outlier, any ideas as why they decided to do things differently? protect the economy or because they think this is the best long term strategy?

I know there was shock and outrage at the herd immunity thing but I really can't see how we come out of this without it.

Either most of us have had it mildly without realising or we'll all get it as soon as we go back to normal. I seem to be in a minority but it seems to me policing the lockdown too vigorously actually makes things worse. Yes we needed to slow the spread for the NHS but the obsession with protecting ourselves must mean we can never come out until there's a vaccine.

So, all the time their healthcare system can cope (is it?) they're doing what we hope to do through lockdown anyway and won't have the new surge the rest of us will get when restrictions are lifted.

If course if they've judged it wrong their healthcare system won't cope and there will be carnage.

i thought they ended their winter hibernation in April.

Maybe that's because many in the UK believe that their government is incompetent and uncaring @imamearcat ? On a count of their track record. I guess Swedish politicians dont engender that sort of distrust in their population.

I dont know why people are acting like the Swedes are a totally different species- they are human like the rest of us. There will be people who follow government advice and people who dont in Sweden. Its not like every Swedish person is a borg lol
Ive been to Sweden- Stockholm is very busy and full of people. Clearly their government took a different approach and we will see shortly what the effects are of that. I do note that Sweden has a higher death rate than all their Scandinavian neighbours so there's that.
It does make me lol how when Sweden adopts herd immunity its suddenly viewed as sensible yet when we did it, its foolish. Stockholm is full of people so the idea that they have a sparse population and therefore wont spread it is rubbish.

The herd immunity thing confuses me because some on here liken it to murder but is the alternative to stay like this for 2 yrs?

The idea that it wont spread quickly throughout the sparsely populated hinterland isnt rubbish though.

I’m really interested in this as I think the herd immunity strategy is more of a policy decision than a scientific one.

They are (as a population) happy to accept a higher death rate (compared to neighbouring countries) in exchange for lockdown lite. Bit like we are actually

Can I ask what what evidence there is for this, why is it the case? I don’t think there’s any evidence that the UK is willing to accept a higher death rate either.

They have much less poverty and they are much more accepting of people taking sick leave

But wouldn’t that imply lower anticipated economic impact of lockdown, therefore greater ability to lockdown and save lives? Or are you associating economic health with population health?

their health system is better by measure of hospital beds / 1,000 people it’s the same. By measure of healthcare spend / capita its about 20% higher. But don’t forget that we have increased the capacity of our healthcare system dramatically over recent weeks so I’m not sure that healthcare Pre-CV v after is comparable, unless again there’s evidence of it having greater effect on population health. I think Germany’s system is rightly cited as being a factor in outcomes but theirs is dramatically different to ours.

I wouldn't be surprised if, when we look back in a few years at the genuine statistics, the only thing that made any real difference was density of population

I don’t think so. I think that policy measures will also have a huge impact. It will be obvious what worked and what didn’t.

I could show you some photos of göteborg this weekend which shows we definitely aren't all social distancing! As with all countries right now, there are people who are and people who think the whole thing is ridiculous.

There will be people who follow government advice and people who dont in Sweden.

Of course

It does make me lol how when Sweden adopts herd immunity its suddenly viewed as sensible yet when we did it, its foolish

I find this interesting though, are there dissenting voices in the public, politics and media?

I mentioned this on another thread that our media seems batshit at the moment. Across 2 papers in one day I read "lockdown must continue", "lockdown must end", "shame those shopping for non essentials" "we must shop to save the economy", "contact tracing & surveillance is the only way out of this", "we are in danger of losing our civil liberties", "vaccine in 18 months", "vaccine won't save us" 🤷‍♀️

I think it depends if you think the risk to most people is low (as we've been told) or if you think the very occasional deaths of young people with no know underlying conditions mean it's more dangerous than we've been told.

If it really is dangerous enough that everyone needs to avoid getting it, yes we need to stay locked away until there's a vaccine. Is that 2 years or longer? If it is relatively mild for most people we "only" need to control it enough so that the serious cases don't overwhelm the NHS.

The people who get very ill from it are sadly going to get very ill anyway, if not now, then when they come out of lockdown. It's just that we don't want them to all be ill at the same time. People seem to think lockdown is to stop them personally getting ill. It isn't and it won't, unless they stay there forever.

The idea that it wont spread quickly throughout the sparsely populated hinterland isnt rubbish though

Of course it wont spread through areas with only sparse population. But there is no country I can think of that only has sparse areas of population and no towns or cities. Most countries have sparse areas and also very populated areas. Stockholm is populated. Therefore, the idea that Sweden has "hardly any people" so it'll all be fine is simply untrue.

I don't know personally but from what I have read and seen, Sweden's approach is actually quite similar to our own lockdown, which is not as extreme as in countries like Italy and Spain. In many countries, people are not allowed out for anything more or less, only food and medicine. We are allowed out for shopping and exercise and people often go out more than once a day, we don't carry passes, we can have takeaways/collect them, masks are not compulsory, it is not nearly as restrictive as many lockdowns (which is why the fact that it still feels restrictive is so annoying!) I don't think people in Sweden are behaving 'normally' at all, from the pictures I have seen they are social distancing, not traveling, working from home as much as possible and generally being fairly similar to us.

Firstly you need to understand that "herd immunity" derived from people catching and surviving something alone never gets rid of any virus, that's why we dont rely on it for things like measles but vaccinate instead.

Then you have to understand that herd immunity only works at all if you get a good level of protection from having had a virus. With coronavirus we dont yet know if this is true.

Finally you have to know the short and long term effects of a virus to know what measures are proportionate to take. Until you do, better react with caution w any new virus.

The alternative to doing nothing is certainly not to stay like this for 2 years. "This" is letting the population catch it bit by bit so we dont overwhelm the NHS, whilst buying time to research - for treatment, for outcomes, for a vacccine.

Also- in the UK people are only socially distancing in shops because the shops made them change about 2 weeks ago, before that I knew quite a few people who were having a family outing to the shops most days which they were permitted to do by the regulations.

Will they get a higher death rate though, or the same number of deaths condensed into a shorter timeframe?

The only way lockdown reduces total deaths is by enabling more people to get the medical help they need. If Sweden can do that anyway (can they?) they won't get more overall deaths and they'll have it over with sooner.

Will they get a higher death rate though, or the same number of deaths condensed into a shorter timeframe

Their current death rate is significantly higher at the moment than all their Scandi neighbours.

Yes, but is that becuase all their deaths are coming at once and their neighbours have spread them out by flattening the curve?

The alternative to doing nothing is certainly not to stay like this for 2 years. "This" is letting the population catch it bit by bit so we dont overwhelm the NHS, whilst buying time to research - for treatment, for outcomes, for a vacccine.

What's the alternative?

There's also the issue of people not going to GPs & A&Es when they should be which will result in deaths too.

@PerfPower I agree

Yes, but is that becuase all their deaths are coming at once and their neighbours have spread them out by flattening the curve

Yes, it would appear so since the neighbouring countries have locked down.

Not necessarily @Makeitgoaway. If, for example, effective treatments for COVID are discovered in the next 3 months, then countries who delayed exposing their population will end up with a lower deathrate. If it is discovered that having a mild case of covid just weakens your lungs making you susceptible to a second, more serious infection 3 months later, then countries where it spreads rapidly will have a higher deathrate.

In a situation where no treatment or vaccine is forthcoming and where you cant catch it twice then the scenario you outlined will be the case.

There is just so much that isnt known.

@Makeitgoaway agree with your post, it’s not sustainable for most of the population to hide at home until a vaccine is found IF a vaccine is ever found, life is short and this is a temporary stall on life as we know it but I for one would like to return to my life before this as much as possible when the time comes and if I get the virus I get it

It is also true that a large number of severe COVID cases will survive with access to good hospital care but die without it, which is another good reason not to rush into all catching it simultaneously.

There is just so much that isnt known.

I agree with this & that's what I find scary.

Plus I was hospitalised with pneumonia some yrs ago & needed oxygen & IV antibiotics. Honestly it was the most awful experience, I thought I might died & was quite tachycardic, I was 30 & 30 wks pregnant.