Definitely more accurate to say that it so far, through a first surge, has not been a disaster.
Clearly they failed at one very important aspect of their plan, and yet still were not a complete disaster.
The expectation of some is that there will be at least one more wave, possibly in the Fall, possibly around the same time as influenza might hit. The question is if their having had more now sets them up to do better then, and if they can recover faster otherwise than their peer group.
Sweden’s per capita death rate is now worse than the U.S.'s: US and Sweden: Different Coronavirus Responses, Both Could Lead to Deaths
It actually has been right from the start, but both the US and Sweden are still climbing relative to the other worst-hit countries. Since the per-day rates are still awful (only Belgium and UK are worse, though Ecuador seems to be making a surprise run for the title), this will probably be the case for a while
In contrast to Sweden, Denmark locked down early and heavily. They’ve eased restriction over 3 weeks ago and see no surge. If the trend holds, Denmark saw fewer deaths early without a spike after easing so far.
Danes and Czechs say easing lockdowns has produced no Covid-19 surge
Encouraging signs from EU states who acted early reported on 4/30/20
Denmark has 89 deaths per million vs. Sweden’s 301 deaths per million. In Denmark, active cases and daily deathsare decreasing on a trend basis. Denmark has 43 people in serious/critical condition as vs. Sweden at 425. Denmark has roughly 5.8M people vs. Sweden’s 10M population.
I feel sad for the people who have lost loved ones to the virus in Sweden. I understand that people die from preventable causes all the time. But the attitude of the government just seems so cavalier. They keep touting their success except for those pesky 2.7M elderly who died, If you’re elderly and survived in a home, you now can’t see your loved ones while they go on with business as usual. It’s also the responsibility of the elderly not in care homes to shelter in place without much support. I saw a video of a volunteer bringing an elderly person some groceries, but that’s not government assisted. I also saw a video of a woman whose father died from covid. She seemed all the more upset because she felt it was preventable.
I have read many conflicting articles about Sweden. Tegnell insists that people can continue on their path indefinitely. But I’ve seen other reports where they say they’re social distancing with one guy saying he hasn’t seen his relatives for a couple months. If so, that’s untenable for most people not to see relatives for a year or so. Now people can’t see people in elderly care homes. Will that go on for a year or more?
Tegnell says they’re not trying for herd immunity. But then what are they trying to do? Their economy is projected to be just as affected as neighboring countries, so leaving businesses open isn’t projected to eliminate that problem. I suppose they can be trying to avoid a second wave. But avoiding a second wave only counts if the first wave isn’t large and declines at some point.
Oops, typo. That should have been 2.7K.
Why do we still do that?
Hasn’t the advent of fast internet and browsers which display pdfs made that sorta redundant?
As I said, this was the midterm; there will be a final exam in the fall and winter, when flu season hits and when cooler temperatures bring more people together in one place.
It’s worse than cavalier; it’s public officials who were touting an approach that had absolutely no scientific basis to support it, and rather than acknowledge they made mistakes, it seems that from the looks of things they’re trying to defend themselves. They’ve been banging on the “herd immunity” drum for a long time, but guess what: it’s not always possible to develop a herd immunity. Each virus behaves differently. What we’ve seen in Sweden - and frankly in the US - is a shit load of hubris from public officials who were simply not at all prepared to do their fucking job, and they’re finding every excuse possible to explain it. It’s maddening to watch and to listen to.
Officially, yes.
But emphasis on “officially.”
The data are shit, both in Sweden and the US. I trust their data marginally more than ours though.
They’ve definitely declined. Death rates, ICU demands, hospitalization rates, so on, are all consistently off their peaks.
“Large” depends on what one defines it as. For the value of “large” defined as overwhelming the healthcare system (which btw DrDeth, does not have many hospital and ICU beds relative to most), their first wave was not large. For the value of “large” defined as relative to Denmark’s first wave, their first wave was large.
Their approach to nursing homes is a model in what not to do, albeit so far no one has provided a great model in what to do. That is clear.
But even with that horrific fail included their approach otherwise has not been a complete disaster so far, and end of all waves and their aftermaths might (or not) turn out to be a relative success.
Everybody is winging it: Tegnell is unique because he does have to get re-elected.
He’s doing exactly what his mission is: flattening the curve to under the capacity of the ICU’s. He is doing exactly that. He doesn’t have to justify his actions to the electorate: he has to do what the science, of there is any, says.
In Holland the schools were closed because public opinion demanded it. The RIVM still think that was unnecessary and not effective. I think all the numbers are more or less a matter of luck: Italy and Spain had an unfortunate football match (Bergamo-Sevilla?) in the southern part of the Netherlands the arrival of Corona coincided with carnival. Speed and communicating the importance of social distancing effectively: after that the timing of large gatherings just before the “lockdowns” has more influence than the extent of the lockdown. France and Spain have an especially rigid lockdown regime, Germany is much more permissive: yet the numbers favor the Germans.
That’s one mission - that’s the minimum standard for success. The hypothesis that you can just allow people in supposedly ‘low-risk’ categories to go on about their lives and segregate them from those with higher risk seems great on the surface, but it’s not sound public health policy at all. The fact that ICUs haven’t been overwhelmed isn’t evidence that they’re succeeding; it’s evidence that they’re not failing based on the worst metric.
You are right. :smack:I relied upon a Swedish poster on another board. They do have a excellent health system, however.
So now we went from “flattening the curve” to “do whatever it takes to save everyone”?
That is not normal behaviour for goalposts.
“it is not sound public health policy” – LOL – What does that even mean? Because I sure as shit didn’t get public health policy for nCOV-19 in school. Maybe I was sick that day.
This is a new virus in a world that is much more mobile than during earlier pandemics. If you know what “sound public health policy” in this case is you should probably go tell someone: Right now everybody making a WAG and, to misquote Rutte, “making 100% decisions with 50% information”. Complete suppression seems unlikely, immunity might not last, IF there is a vaccine developed it will take at least a year to produce in meaningful numbers… If you think there is a one-size-fits-all approach to this, I am jealous of your certainty.
Death rates do not make good comparisons until the virus has passed. One country might just take longer to get there.
It’s not a change in goal, though: it’s a recognition that it probably isn’t even possible to “just allow people in supposedly ‘low-risk’ categories to go on about their lives and segregate them from those with higher risk.” With COVID-19, it turns out that there are a lot more low-risk people who are actually asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) and shedding the virus, so allowing low-risk people who display no symptoms to take care of vulnerable people (e.g., in nursing homes) or deliver groceries or otherwise interact just allows the virus to spread almost unchecked in vulnerable populations.
Sweden’s goal was never “flatten the curve”; it was to stay within hospital capacity while protecting their vulnerable populations. So far, they’ve apparently succeeded in the former, but the second part of that initial goal has failed. They have not protected their vulnerable; their chief epidemiologist now says the high death toll came as a surprise and the Swedes thought nursing homes would be able to keep the disease at bay much more effectively. (cite)
Exactly what measures are necessary with this new virus is still largely unknown, but the broad general goals of “sound public health policy” are still basically the same as they have been for the flu and measles and AIDS and STDs and any number of transmissible diseases: reduce transmission to reduce morbidity and mortality. The argument here is that the Swedes did not worry overmuch about the “reduce transmission” part, and their vulnerable citizens have paid the price.
Nowhere did I say or even suggest that. I’m saying that Sweden has a public health system that each citizens invests a lot of their tax dollars to support, so ideally, you’d rather it be able to do more than just set the bar so low that all the health system is capable of is making sure that hospitals don’t quite get to the point where patients are admitted by the hundreds every few hours and have to lie down on floors or gurneys in the waiting area while waiting to be admitted. That’s a really low bar, and I suspect that the average Swede aims a bit higher than that.
Yes, it’s a new virus, but it’s not the first pandemic and pandemics are inevitable thanks to modern air travel. Unfortunately, Sweden is not alone in failing to take the threat of a deadly epidemic as seriously as they should have. Despite its obvious failures, Sweden still did some things right, like investing in a good healthcare system that provides universal access. Unlike here in the US, Swedes probably don’t have to waste precious time trying to determine whether they can afford tests, whether tests are covered by their insurance companies, whether they can afford to be admitted to the ER, whether any of these medical costs - from testing to treatment - are “in network” or “out of network”.
That article published on January 4 doesn’t give much information on how “long” the American flu season was. It does show the early start — but other graphs I’ve seen show an early stop, giving a “mild” flu season overall.
Although flu tests aren’t very good, they are comparable year on year. The 19-20 flu season was mild, and stopped before the start of the C19 season.
Don’t know where you are getting that impression but here’s the CDC site. Scroll down to “Outpatient Illness Surveillance. ILINet” and then to “Influenza-Associated Hospitalizations” and “Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality Surveillance”.
2019-20 was in no shape or form a mild flu season with an early stop. Possibly as bad as 2017-18 which was an exceptionally bad one. In lab confirmed influenza hospitalizations it was only behind that year. The issue mainly is if some later ILIs and pneumonia deaths were actually Covid-19, in retrospect. That lack of clarity is exactly the point that was being made.
Here is an interesting interview with Dr Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s top epidemiologist. While they have’t had a perfect response he feels that Sweden has done quite well in dealing with the virus. An interesting read.