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?

@aurynne

Not really comparable unless you know for sure that deaths are being recorded identically. Also not comparable unless you understand how many cases there were in New Zealand when the borders were closed compared to that point in Sweden.

Or the demographics of the population and sufferers/fatalities.

It's a biological reality, viruses lose steam as their available pool of hosts dwindles

Normally, yes. But...
We don't know if we can develop any sort of long term immunity to this.
This is spreading very very fast without distancing. It needs about 30% of the population infected just to slow down on its own. And think that about 1% of those are likely to die. That's 3000 per million population. Or 3 in 1000. And that's just slowing down. It's 6 dead in 1000 people by the time it actually stops spreading. Or 2 person for every 167 people in the entire population. It's more if the health systems can't cope and there are not enough ICU beds. 10% of infected have been found to need to stay in hospital, which would mean 3000 people in hospital per million population, just as it slows down without distancing. Assuming the models are more or less correct.

This is why only relying on herd immunity is a terrible strategy. Proper distancing is needed to slow this down, as most countries who have not taken it seriously have found.
Even Russia has suddenly woken up.

We can perhaps better compare Portugal and Sweden.
Same population. Sweden has as of yesterday, twice the number of dead, and on average the daily number of dead is also almost 3x, but, supposedly, less cases.

At the moment the strategy in New Zealand is elimination, not flattening of the curve, and it looks we are winning in that sense.

The long-term plan is trickier, because obviously we cannot keep the country isolated from the rest of the World forever. But what we have gained is time: time to investigate this virus, to find a vaccine, to find its weaknesses, to find what is it about the young babies which makes them more resistant to it than the elderly, time for the virus to mutate into a less lethal form (as it happened with the Spanish flu, which did not just disappear, but turned into just "the flu").

I don't have the answers about tomorrow, but what I know is that, right now, there are about a thousand poeople in NZ who would be dead if we had not acted as we did. They will live a bit longer to hug their loved ones, to start a new hobby, to enjoy the view of the sea, and however long they live, they will do with the awareness that the whole country gladly sacrificed our freedom for them, because their lives matter, no matter how old or how immunocompromised.

Other countries can keep their economy.

I say again, how “well” any country has done really cannot be judged right now and probably not next month or next year. Total all cause deaths over time will I suspect be the true measure of success.

The problem with Sweden's approach is that it might be impacting the neighbouring countries. A region in Finnish Lapland that borders Sweden (borders are closed except for work travel, how many are travelling in and out of Sweden for work?) has one of the highest infection rates in Finland, maybe even the highest, and being Lapland it has less resources to deal with a lot of cases.

Might that not be to do with tourism over Christmas though?

Christmas was a while ago. There was an increase in cases in another part of Lapland after the ski holidays but that's another area altogether and that was a while ago too.

If it is a significant problem then I suppose Finland may need to close the border entirely or introduce some kind of permit system to limit movement in the short term?

Totally agree sunshinegirl it's going to take years to see what the unintended consequences of lockdown were. What collateral damage there is. How the virus spreads/changes.

Normally, yes. But...
We don't know if we can develop any sort of long term immunity to this.

I've not seen a single virologist say they have good reason to believe that there's not a baseline immunity for the short to medium term.

Erring on the side of caution is generally a good principle, but I think in this case it's completely disproportionate to the risk.

And think that about 1% of those are likely to die.

That's not true. I've come to accept that people who support the lockdown genuinely believe that the covid19 death rate is anywhere from 1-3%, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (and it's growing).

There remains enormous uncertainty about how many people have had it mildly or without knowing.

So I think any forecasts about how many people will need hospital stays or indeed death rates lweji are guesswork.

Which brings us back to the need for masses of testing...

Total all cause deaths over time will I suspect be the true measure of success.
So true.
There is really not sufficient data to say which approach is best at the moment. Only time will tell, and we have to make the best decisions we can with the knowledge we have.
Also, the austerity that will be needed to repay all this government support will never be measured in terms of concrete deaths, but undoubtedly there will be a significant human cost.

Fine balancing act - it must be weighing on our politicians hugely.

The problem for NZ Aurynne (and possibly for Australia as well) is that industries such as tourism and international students are a big part of the economy. You might have done well saving lives in the short term but unlike Sweden which can stay open to the world NZ will need to cut themselves off. In the process of eliminating the virus they have done huge damage to the economy.

What if there is no vaccine? Then they’re back at square one and probably have to endure lockdowns again at some stage to let the virus go through the population without decimating their health system.

yes tourism and student dollars are lost but the likely deep global recession will be easier to navigate and respond to without having so many dead and a crippled health system
There is already talk if NZ Aust and pacific islands do eradicate travel will likely open up travel between these nations.
Australia and NZ are in a good position - due to early interventions and high levels of testing to pivot and manufacture, supply and fill disrupted industries elsewhere. This could go a ways to soften the economic fallout.
We may just see a standard two week quarantine order placed on international arrivals for the forceable future until effective treatments are discovered (which is likely to happen more so than a vaccine in the foreseeable future)
Personally I'm really pleased and thankful for our countries sensible responses. For once it pays to live in the arse end of the world.

Yes, but in the short term you need to choose between the money or the lives. I am just saying I am very happy we chose the latter. Tomorrow we will deal with what comes.

The big question on Sweden is whether 2030 as a whole will show higher deaths than other years. So far, with total deaths from the virus of 1,500 and the daily deaths declining it looks like it won’t.

Even in the UK, the death rate for coronavirus for under 40s who are infected is 1 in 100,000. With that, it makes sense for schools to be open, younger people to be able to work and for older people and the vulnerable to be shielded.

2020 obviously!

With that, it makes sense for schools to be open, younger people to be able to work and for older people and the vulnerable to be shielded.

This is exactly the problem. How do you shield the vulnerable?
In practical terms. Please.

I'd say that at the very least:
They need protective equipment and to keep as much distance as possible.
Close relatives also need to wear protective equipment everywhere.
Intensive testing and tracking needs to take place.

Where is this applicable?

This is exactly the problem. How do you shield the vulnerable?
In practical terms. Please.

They stay home. The people who come in contact with them take special precautions. It's not perfect, some of the shielded people will die, particularly the elderly reliant upon carers.

If I had an at-risk child, I'd keep them home from school indefinitely and not mix with people. Why would I want to trust anyone's social distancing measures where it comes to my child's life?

What's the alternative?

Might as well let them die now, then.

Why do you say that?

What sort of system would you propose to look after the shielded population for the next year?

In practical terms, please.

There is another issue, though.

Some people not classed as vulnerable are dying as well.
And those who get sick may not die but may end up with damaged lungs, kidneys, heart, central nervous systems. We don't know the extent yet.

Do we want a huge number of non vulnerable people in hospital and possibly with long term consequences?

What sort of system would you propose to look after the shielded population for the next year?

In practical terms, please.

I did on my post.
The problem is that many countries aren't capable of doing it, due to lack of equipment or tests.
Certainly not the UK, as far as I can tell.