Sweden seeing much smaller increase in cases compared to rest of Europe

[SussexDeb]

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

No massive surge like in France, Spain, UK and Netherlands.

More and more it looks like Sweden has taken the right approach with limited restrictions. Avoiding fatigue among the public around the measures and making sure good hygiene is practiced.

Oh you are one of those....

I find Taiwan's approach interesting because they seem to have kept cases extremely low with no additional waves (although they did have spikes caused by travellers) without any real lockdown. They clearly benefited hugely by going against WHO advice & acting before most countries were even aware.

I also read an interesting article where it's estimating that maybe 50% don't infect others but then you have one super spreader who can infect thousands.

Some people don't seem to understand why lockdowns happened.
They did because cases and deaths were rising fast.
Some lockdowns were stricter than others. Because health care systems were already failing in some cases.

Sweden didn't feel the need to lockdown because they felt they could control the epidemic without full lockdown, although they implemented control measures. It wasn't too bad, but they didn't consider it successful on the whole, due to the number of people who died then.

Right now, everyone has learned a lot more about the virus. Case fatality rates are lower everywhere, but in some regions hospitals are getting to capacity again.
(Because many people thought it was over? - from MN pps shouting about how empty hospitals were )

There should be more testing and tracing capacity now, and more protective equipment for everyone. We should know the behaviours and conditions that are riskier and those that are safer.

It shouldn't be about blindly following any rules of 6, or whatever.

Ideally, countries shouldn't have to lock up. Realistically, and unfortunately, some countries, or some regions may have to. Because they are not Sweden, and they will do a lot worse than Sweden with the same measures.

And, again, Sweden is at the start of another (smaller or larger) wave. They will figure out what's best for them as the number evolve.
It's rather silly to claim they are doing very well before we see how their numbers progress and until they go down.

@LilyPond2

In threads about Sweden, someone will generally point out that their death rates are much higher than their neighbours Norway and Finland. But frustratingly the discussion about Norway and Finland always seems to end there. Does anyone know how Norway or Finland are doing? And if they are doing well overall, what measures have their governments taken?

Finland closed schools, restaurants, bars, sports and cultural clubs etc. in March, started reopening them in the summer. Public gatherings were limited to 10 at the strictest point but that only applied to organised gatherings, there has not been any restriction on people informally gathering at all (they can't restrict it, unconstitutional) but it was discouraged. No restrictions on shops or parks or things like that. Mask recommendations only came in recently but again only recommendations, not enforceable although private venues can enforce like my local ice rink does for hockey matches. So lockdown but nothing like the UK level of lockdown. Student parties and religious gatherings in the autumn have been leading to the newest spread which is getting worse so new measures are coming but they'll do it regionally this time rather than country-wide and I think they aren't planning on closing primary schools this time, and if they do it won't apply to 1st-3rd grades (6/7-9/10yr olds)

Sweden compared to the countries most resembling it, clearly has not done well and is still doing worse ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-7-day?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2020-10-16&country=DNK~FIN~NOR~SWE&region=World

An interesting read here

www.wired.co.uk/article/sweden-coronavirus-response-experiment

@Lweji

Some people don't seem to understand why lockdowns happened. They did because cases and deaths were rising fast. Some lockdowns were stricter than others. Because health care systems were already failing in some cases.

Sweden didn't feel the need to lockdown because they felt they could control the epidemic without full lockdown, although they implemented control measures. It wasn't too bad, but they didn't consider it successful on the whole, due to the number of people who died then.

Right now, everyone has learned a lot more about the virus. Case fatality rates are lower everywhere, but in some regions hospitals are getting to capacity again.
(Because many people thought it was over? - from MN pps shouting about how empty hospitals were )

There should be more testing and tracing capacity now, and more protective equipment for everyone. We should know the behaviours and conditions that are riskier and those that are safer.

It shouldn't be about blindly following any rules of 6, or whatever.

Ideally, countries shouldn't have to lock up. Realistically, and unfortunately, some countries, or some regions may have to. Because they are not Sweden, and they will do a lot worse than Sweden with the same measures.

And, again, Sweden is at the start of another (smaller or larger) wave. They will figure out what's best for them as the number evolve.
It's rather silly to claim they are doing very well before we see how their numbers progress and until they go down.

But it's also rather silly to claim they fucked up (when the jury is still out) just because you disagree with the approach they have taken. As people on here keep saying - and as others are wilfully ignoring - dreadful outcomes in terms of deaths were forecast for Sweden at the time it opted not to go into lockdown. They did not materialise. That, as others have said, is worthy of a debate about the efficacy of lockdowns. Yet nobody wants to have it as it would mean admitting they were wrong on Sweden. This reinforces my view that the pro-lockdown lobby are essentially mired in their own dogma. They can no longer see the wood for the trees.

I didn't say they fucked up, and nor did most people.
We're saying they did worse than their neighbouring countries. Even in terms of the economy.
And as I said, they didn't do too bad, but could have done better. Certainly not an example to follow.

Certainly not an example to follow. - in your view Lweji
Sorry but people have been falling over themselves to report rises in deaths/cases in Sweden.

I'm sure I read that Sweden changed its testing criteria at some point so now mild & asymptotic cases aren't counted in the R number.

News to me and I live there! The only change as far as I'm aware was that in mid May we started testing everyone with any symptoms, and we have a wider symptom list than the UK, instead of just those needing medical help. This is why you see a sudden huge spike in cases around that time.

We can’t say ‘Sweden has done terribly’ YET.

This is not over! Whilst cases are increasing they are not seeing the huge spikes many other European countries are who locked down are.

I don’t look at their policy based on just deaths/cases. What’s the mental health like of their population (better than ours on the whole probably). Stress levels? Wellbeing of children (who didn’t have to miss months of school?). Do they have all the issues we have with cancer cases and diagnoses missed. Thousands of businesses going under?

I know their economy hasn’t escaped some damage but I don’t think long term the impact will be as bad. They don’t have this constant uncertainty like we do.

As a model, looking at everything I think it’s one that is working ok. We’ll know more in a year or two.

This is what google brought up

www.thelocal.se/20201001/what-do-we-know-about-swedens-r-number-as-coronavirus-cases-rise

It may have been my neighbour who told me. He's Swedish & went back to see his parents last month & being me my favourite cheezy crisps !

As people on here keep saying - and as others are wilfully ignoring - dreadful outcomes in terms of deaths were forecast for Sweden at the time it opted not to go into lockdown.

Tbf didn't the UK have lots of headlines predicted x number of deaths during lockdown, when schools opened up etc.

I prefer the no lockdown approach however I'm just not convinced it can be extrapolated to the UK with similar outcomes.

I wouldn't say Sweden has done terribly. But they have not done well.
I don't know how they'll do in the future, but the past hasn't been brilliant, for sure.

As for the present, their number of cases is rising, and I will say it again, we simply don't know how the curve will end up, so I'd keep any conclusions (bad or good) until the wave is over.
Until then the discussion is useless.

And yes we all have a long way to go.

The US has 1000 deaths a day now and Iowa, who closed hardly anything, has businesses closing because they have no customers. Cant expect the economy to operate as normal when people think it may kill or permanently disable them.

Brazil has passed 155,000 deaths and 5.3 million infected.

We would not have been Sweden (which has still done more badly than it's neighbours and which is being criticised by its own scientists). We are far more like America or even Brazil.

As people on here keep saying - and as others are wilfully ignoring - dreadful outcomes in terms of deaths were forecast for Sweden at the time it opted not to go into lockdown. They did not materialise.

I would say having roughly ten times the number of dead than their neighbouring Nordic countries is a pretty dreadful outcome.

I’m not saying we could have done what Sweden did. We don’t have the healthcare structure for example or the low population.

What I am saying is we don’t just discount it ‘well we can’t do what Sweden did therefore discussion closed’

Let’s examine what they did and what has worked. For future learning. For example, yes we needed to lock down but did we need to lockdown for as long? Has Sweden shown us that keeping primary schools open worked ok? They don’t wear masks, what can we take from that? They don’t have lockdown fatigue so are more compliant of long term measures. Etc

Let’s examine what they did and what has worked. For future learning. For example, yes we needed to lock down but did we need to lockdown for as long? Has Sweden shown us that keeping primary schools open worked ok? They don’t wear masks, what can we take from that? They don’t have lockdown fatigue so are more compliant of long term measures. Etc

You have to look at the way things are in Sweden pre covid, and then you'd see that a lot of the things that worked were already the norm here. So in the examples you mention:

Keeping primary schools open: Primary schools have massively subsidised wrap around care. Parents can drop their child any time from when this starts to when it finishes, ours is 6-6. I only ever see 1 or 2 other parents when I pick my DS up under normal circumstances. The school have had to make no changes to make pick up/drop offs safe.

They don't wear mask: Some people do. My husband uses a proper full on armaggeddon one (and looks like a twat) because he uses public transport every day. He commutes into the city and says he does see others wearing similar but I don't see anyone wearing them. That said there really is no point where I live. I went to the supermarket the other day around midday and there was only 1 other customer in the entire shop. A mask would be pointless. Again this isn't unusual even pre covid. We have 4 big supermarkets in our town and there's only ever a handful of people in them. Even at Christmas they're quieter than a UK supermarket at its quietest time. I've been in Sweden 15 years and I've never been in any shop and thought it was busy.

More housing, less crowded, more people living alone, less family gatherings? Easy.