Next, YMMV but I take anonymous 'someone says" reports with a big swig of doubt and lumpy reporting needs no nefarious explanations. 100% though their elder care plan was a fail. Many of their deaths would not have occurred if they had not failed in that critical part of the plan.
No question that Sweden does not exist in isolation to the world’s economies, and that while their “orders” were a less heavy hand, behaviors were still altered. How fast they recover along with what happens during the next wave(s) are still questions to be answered by time.
Also I am sure you know that your “at this moment” metric is a bit silly at best if not disingenuous.
Finally, yes Denmark’s lack of a new spike is very interesting. They opened schools (split classes moving from younger kids to older), daycares, and small businesses over a month ago. No mass testing or contact tracing (plans to do not implemented yet). No wide use of masks. Now going on two weeks with shopping malls open and restaurants/cafes/older kids in schools a few days back.
New cases still happening but still dropping (no eradication there), and very few new deaths reported. So why is this level of light mandated restrictions with kids in school (and without “testing testing testing”) working when pretty much everything else is as it was at the start of their wave? Basically they are now doing mostly what Sweden did just time shifted. No the virus has not suddenly become less virulent or infectious only there. I cannot find anything about any specific approach to elder care facilities there but would be curious.
It’s fair to say that the publication might not be reputable. I don’t know the reputation of Swedish publications. But questioning the one anonymous source is like saying that any publication that reports on whistleblowers are completely without merit. There are two other sources who gave their names in those articles that basically said the same as the anonymous doctor. I just added the quote from the doctor because he or she was more specific about the drugs normally used.
I have no idea what this means.
I added the words “at this moment” just to denote that the stats were current as I knew them and not from May 7-20 which was the time of the 7 day rolling average. Those stats were in reference to the 7 day rolling average for a week in May that had Sweden having the highest death rate of any country in the world.
I added the death rate from Worldometer for the UK, Italy and Belgium as mentioned in the article above and another I reference in that post. I also added the death rate for Finland, Norway and Denmark since those were the countries in the other article that were considering closing the borders to Sweden.
I think Sweden is proof that the persistent COVID optimists have been misguided. By no means am I saying we should be eternal pessimists, but I think that, particularly among Westernized societies that pride themselves for being “open” and mobile, coronavirus has presented them with an identity crisis: we wanted to believe that this was not really that scary, maybe a little worse than the flu, that we could figure out an antiviral cocktail, and whatever else. Sweden and the UK tried tinkering around with “herd immunity,” and it has pretty evidently backfired. And the US really never figured out a strategy, and we still haven’t come up with a coherent strategy nationwide, although some states have done a reasonably good job of implementing strategies at the local level.
You really do not understand why comparing a rate long after a country has had its peak and is now low enough that they are re-opening to a country still at its plateau is minimally silly? C’mon, really?
Out of curiosity, what do you think happens in a particular country/city at a particular time that causes a wave to peak and to begin to drop? My understanding is that there are too few susceptibles getting exposed so R drops below 1. The level that is “too few” is altered by degrees of social distance, behaviors, and other factors local to the place at that particular time. Do you think something else happens? asahi, not really sure which approach is more consistent with unflagging optimism and which with a pessimistic realism or at least resignation. To me the idea that avoiding a significant surge now and forever seems to be the (likely unrealistic) optimistic position. Surely in a few months there will be that cocktail or vaccines coming over the hill! The Swedes seem to be anything but the optimists … they are resigned to having at least one surge and understand the position of many modelers that a moderate surge now means less chance of having one that overwhelms the system in the Fall/Winter.
Judging whether the Swedes pessimistic approach is better or worse than an optimistic view is premature. I was, as noted in the beginning of this thread, of the doubtful mindset. But even with their complete fail in regards to elder care facilities they have not been a disaster to date, and the risk of a bigger surge happening in sync with influenza is to me the persistent biggest nightmare to be afraid of and to want to reduce the risk of. I’ll continue to reserve judgement on their approach until next Spring hits.
UK - so our infection rate is appearing to increase, however this is likely to be the results of increased testing over the last week or so - the results will be starting to come in, there has been some delay in getting the returns from the labs.
I also expect our rate will appear to increase for at least a week and maybe more due to the backlog, along with more people being able to access testing.
What it is likely to reveal - especially as the antibody test program expands - is the true rate of infection as opposed to all the informed guesswork.
We are in for a long old slog though - 50 thousand deaths is entirely possible.
That was enjoyable.
Description: A short nicely-written story about how Mongolia did everything right, and has essentially no Covid-19 presence. They welcomed in WHO, and took their advice. They listened to the news from other countries and launched major preventative measures in January.
Indeed, a very enjoyable read. I don’t have much say in anything, but I do talk to development aid politicians (in my small country) and I will be making the point that countries that have suffered economically from COVID 19 should not be deprioritized for economical aid just because the incidence of the disease was low. We should not be punishing them for electing to take the beating on the economy instead of their population.
What a strange paragraph. That’s precisely how we should be perceiving this even if you disagree with the Swedish health authorities. This pandemic should be a wake up call before an actual existential problem pandemic arrives but this isn’t it.
I find it frustrating that countries are being judged by current death rates while the virus is still active and spreading. How long can people hide from this while the world economy continues to falter. Lives are not being saved only delayed. Many additional lives will be lost due to the damage we have allowed to control our lives an economies. Huge resources going into tracing that should be spent protecting those at risk.
I’m probably what might be called on the hawkish end of the cautious crowd. I am for targeted (but fairly quickly progressively wider) openings despite a lack of accurate testing, comprehensive contact tracing or a vaccine.
I think you have to realize that a significant part of this economic damage would have happened with or without government fiats on closures. Fear and a tonne of people getting actually sick from the disease would have done that. The US just had about two average flu seasons in two months.
What that graph shows is that New Zealand had the toughest lockdown of all of the countries mentioned.
What that graph also shows is that since when we dropped to Level 2 a couple of weeks ago New Zealand is currently imposing the least strict restrictive government policies. Schools are back. Shops are open. The economy is moving. My business has started taking bookings again.
We took a science-lead approach to Covid-19 that has resulted in both a re-opening of the local economy **and **prevention of massive loss of life. We have less restrictions than even Sweden has now. We protected those that are at risk. But we have also invested in tracing as well as testing because we know that doing both of these things will also protect those at risk.
The evidence strongly suggests that the approach you have advocated on these boards since we started this discussion just a few months ago is one that would both lead to significant excess deaths **and **leave no path to reopening the local economy properly.
And you don’t have to look around for an example to prove this: this thread would surely suffice. I think judging the success of different strategies based on death rates while the virus is still active and spreading is a perfectly valid metric to determine which strategy is the best to pursue.
And the strategy we followed here in New Zealand is, in my opinion, far superior to the one that was followed in Sweden, and is far superior to anything that you have suggested here. We’ve only had 21 deaths: over half of those deaths from a single cluster. We’ve gone several days with no new cases and we are conducting (on average) 4000 tests per day. Lives are being saved here and we aren’t delaying anything: if we do get a new outbreak we’ve already demonstrated that isolation, testing and tracing can work to save lives. By no metric is the approach you have consistently promoted on these boards a sensible approach to a global pandemic.
NZ has done a great job… for NZ. It is a small island nation with a small population. Do you think the same thing could have been implemented in, say, the US?
Also, NZ’s current measures will only continue to work if it doesn’t let anyone new in (or takes an extremely cautious approach to letting anyone in). Especially since no one there will have immunity, and it will be gasoline and a match all over again. That’s the hell of this thing.
Sweden only has twice the population of the New Zealand. Here in Australia we are hoping to tread the same path as NZ. Where I live we are for all intents virus free. Australia has twice the population of Sweden. We are currently accelerating our opening up, not for political reasons, but because the science says we can.
No doubt at all that we have the advantage of isolation.
For the US. Well it depends. Isolation isn’t just about physical distance. Australia has a massive tourism industry dependant upon overseas travellers, and also has a significant overseas student populace. The economic issues seem to be less a matter of distance, but more about interdependency. The US doesn’t have a much of a different set of issues about sovereignty than Australia. Our states have all shut borders and instituted mandatory 14 day quarantine for all but specially exempt travellers (basically transport drivers and a few other special classes of workers.) Our constitution explicitly says:
There was the faintest murmur from the peanut gallery about the imposition of restrictions on intercourse, and now restrictions are in. Currently there is a bit of political shoush, with one state complaining, and the federal government muttering that they never actually suggested closures. But we did it without much issue. It isn’t great. Our tourism industry is in free fall and one major airline has gone into administration. But we are now planing not on a second wave, but on being able to open up the internal economy to near full throttle with very possibly no repercussions.
Political will and the support of the populace makes these things possible. Not geography.
The same strategy seems to work in all the countries that implement it though, despite differences between them. Not everyone has managed complete extermination of the virus yet but getting it down to very low levels has been accomplished in many countries.
Is there any specific reason why the strategy would not work in the US, if implemented?
Nations with similar epidemiological profiles are in the process of opening to one another. It seems that it is the nations that cannot get their infection under control that will be shut out.
…our size and status weren’t at issue: the coronavirus was here, it ripped through one rest-home and if it had have gotten a foothold here our statistics would be looking just like everywhere else.
What we did was follow the science. Are people in the US capable of following the science? If they are not then you have the answer to that question.
We had a choice of either closing the borders or letting thousands of people die an unnecessary death. We chose the former. That gave us the opportunity to reopen the local economy **now **while most of the rest of the world will continue in semi-lockdown with excess deaths continuing at a constant rate probably for the next couple of years. Most of us aren’t wearing masks here. I went and got a haircut today. People are out and about. Shutting down hard and shutting down early has paid off.
Yeah, that’s a hell of a thing to deal with all right. We’ve bought ourselves time and with time that gives us the opportunity to take be able to “figure things out” without people dying. Some economic sectors have been hit hard: but those same sectors would have been hit even worse if we hadn’t taken the measures that we did.
And if we did get a new outbreak it wouldn’t be like “gasoline and a match” all over again. We are significantly better prepared for an outbreak than we were just a couple of months ago. On top of testing everyone who feels sick and wants a test we are doing random surveillance testing nationwide to look for community spread and we are testing on average 30,000 people a week. And we have set up the infrastructure so we can rapidly isolate a region with a localised alert level to give us time to track and trace contacts.
Would the New Zealand plan work for the USA? Well the first thing we did was “lockdown before community spread” so obviously its too late for that to happen. But this ProPublica thread lays out a straightforward 7-point strategy that mimics almost everything we did. 1) Build an army of contact tracers. 2) Test. Constantly. 3) Isolate people with suspected infection. 4) Protect health care workers. 5) Don’t try to go back to normal 6) Watch out for the second wave. 7) Comunicate. Clearly. Constantly.
There were a couple of things that encouraged buy-in from the NZ public. The first was the focus on the concept of “bubbles.” When we locked down (to level 4) the people that we locked down with were “in our bubble.” You were fine to interact with anyone in your bubble but you had to keep 2 meters away from any every other bubble. Families would walk down the street and when they saw another family would yell “BUBBLE FORMATION!” and the family would reform in a way to maintain distancing. When we dropped to level 3 the rules allowed two bubbles to merge, so families that had been separated could then start visiting each other. It was a very simple concept that was easily understood.
The second was having a timeline. When we went into lockdown we were given both a goal and an exit strategy. We’ve all heard about “flattening the curve.” But we had a secondary goal, one that isn’t talked about nearly enough and that was to “break the chain of transmission.” To do that we were given timelines. Remain at Level 4 for at least 2 incubation periods (we ended up staying at Level 4 for 2.5 periods). Stay at level 3 for an additional incubation period (we were there for 1.5 periods). Then at level 2 (where we are at now) for an indefinite amount of time, which still mandates social distancing but allows groups up to 10 people to meet (this amount to be reassessed periodically), and essentially every store to reopen.
Having that timeline: and watching what was happening around the world while we kept to that timeline was both horrific and convinced us we were doing the right thing. The government told us that what we saw “right now” would be based on our actions 2 weeks prior. And, as if on cue, two weeks into the lockdown we saw our first wave of deaths. In Italy and in the UK and in America the death toll is so big its almost to hard to comprehend. But here it was almost the opposite: it was a slow trickle of deaths, mainly from a single rest home, that firmed our resolve. If we had locked down a week later: how many more rest-homes would have been hit? If our lockdown hadn’t been so strict, how many more would have died?
Our remoteness and our population size made our particular strategy of elimination a strategy with a good chance of success. But at least we had a strategy. The UK, America, Sweden, Brazil, there is no strategy. No plan. And these countries with no clear strategy and no plan basing policy on “bad science” are trying to “open up.” With the greatest of respects: I’d much rather be “here” right now than “there”, even if our airports remain closed for the immediate future.
This is sheer nonsense. Lives can indeed be saved. Staying in place slows the pace of spread, as the evidence clearly shows virtually every place on the planet. Such measures buy us all time, and it allows healthcare workers to do their job while simultaneously reducing the risk to critical front-line workers.
Not trying to be overtly partisan or political, but the reason it has failed so badly in the US is that we were simply not prepared. We’ve fumbled around for literally months trying to come up with things like PPE, contact tracing, and testing - and we’re still fumbling. And we have a cultural problem as well as a political problem: far too many people are viewing this crisis in terms of their own individual desires and ‘freedom’ to wear a mask or not, to congregate or not, to listen to science or not. And the longer we do this, the longer the virus will last.
About 2/3 of people want to stay in place anyway. The danger is that this patchwork response will have some states opening while others are closing, and we will be spinning wheels. And the danger of that is that we all reach the conclusion that it doesn’t matter what we do because death is inevitable – which is wrong. Other countries have clearly shown how we can actually kinda, sorta live with this virus even as some of the more vulnerable may die from time to time.