From your linked article, the head of Australia at +60. And Banquet_Bear beat me to the head of New Zealand. The difference between Sweden and many of the other countries you named is that Sweden started with a very high trust rating of the government. It was touted as the reason they could take this course in the first place. In many other places, trust in government was very low, and the pandemic actually raised the approval rating of some leaders.
It appears that some citizens had better approval ratings for its leaders for their handling of the coronavirus situation.
Indeed. Sports and game analogies. That and all the dead people.
Even if Sweden comes out ahead in the “race”, it was still a bad strategy based on the information that people had at the time. It was a risky bet that they could do what the science was saying was a bad idea. It was a bet that didn’t pay off. Putting the time frame further out doesn’t change the information that was known at the time.
Yup, across the world we have Morrison with higher approval, and Modi. Arden has in fact dropped since May’s highs though. Down 9 points. Still at 54% personally (party at 50%), which is good, not quite a solid as Swedish leadership is doing but good.
GW I wish I could share your confident optimism that the countries that have had initial low rates won’t end up getting slammed in winter, at the same time as capacity is strained with handling influenza, with their systems getting overwhelmed. I do hope you are right. Really.
They’ve now got the rates of new cases down low enough that a good test and trace system, and local lockdowns, will keep any future flare-ups contained.
Sweden is likely to be harder hit than its neighbours this winter if it keeps casually strolling along. Herd immunity still looks like a unicorn at the end of rainbow.
Yes, I did find the answer to my own question and posted such as I asked it: not many. Most are some combination of less and also dropping. Maybe you thought the public developing more doubt as time goes on (with any response) was something special. It isn’t. Which again means less than diddlyshit as to whether or not their responses will end up having been the best possible ones.
No, not in any other country. But Sweden touted that its citizens had a high degree of trust in its government. There was a loss of that trust due to the handling of this crisis.
Based on your responses here, no one gets to determine the best possible outcome until some vague future date with some changing objectives.
How far on the other side of winter? I’ve seen you post that the damage won’t be known for years.
In the case of Sweden, one of the ways of not exceeding hospital capacity was to let some seniors take morphine and die. Another of the ways was to build tent hospitals. Will those count?
What are total harms? Death is a pretty big harm. What are the others? I’ve seen talk about economic damage, mental health damage, etc. How will these be valued and given objective value to compare?
Maybe you’ll get your wish to discuss this phrase, but it won’t be with me in this thread.
This might ordinarily just warrant a note. But as has been said previously, context matters. You deliberately posted this, then reported it yourself, to test whether it was warnable. Yes, as I’ve said before, such a statement is warnable in QZ. This is an official warning for being a jerk.
You have zero idea how it works here. These figures, relative to how Labour have polled the last 20-odd years are not just “good”, they are fantastic. The drop was to be expected, and to claim that it is “not quite a solid as Swedish leadership” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how polls are perceived from country to country.
With MMP New Zealand governments have always had to form via coalition. With the numbers as they are Labour would be (for the first time) able to govern alone. That is significant and shouldn’t be dismissed. This is an overwhelmingly popular government, and they got that way because they stamped out Covid-19 and kept us all safe.
Not only this, but countries that have a relatively good handle on COVID are going to be in far better shape to handle COVID + flu season. It’s a no-brainer, really.
We already know that, by comparison, COVID-19 infections are a huge drain on hospital resources compared to other infections. They result in longer ICU stays, and because there tend to be surges in infections, they typically require more personnel for a single patient. It’s not just about having enough beds; hospitals need enough workers to monitor and care for seriously ill patients. And that situation can deteriorate rapidly.
There aren’t many healthcare systems that aren’t being stressed right now, but there’s a difference between being able to identify, quarantine, hospitalize, and trace small outbreaks on one hand…and having a healthcare system completely on its heels, struggling to find PPE, struggling to find enough personnel who aren’t overworked or sick themselves, and essentially giving up even the thought of trying to trace because the epidemic is completely out of control.
But more than that, messaging matters. This half-assed response from Sweden gives a lot of Swedes, particularly those who are looking for a reason not to stay home, the impression that this disease shouldn’t be taken seriously. That’s what DSeid and others fail to realize, that messaging is part of a public healthcare response, and that if you communicate to the public that dangerous behavior is relatively safe and safe behavior is somehow dangerous or a threat to one’s liberty, then people are going to be engaging in all kinds of self-destructive behavior, which is what we’ve been seeing in Sweden, the UK, the US, Brazil, and elsewhere.
Mostly, the WHO has labelled Sweden one of eleven countries that are a “Special Risk”. English language analysis here:
Additionally, this Guardian article is quite damning:
I agree a lot with the text in that article about wearing a face mask in Stockholm. I’m 6’2" and still built like a rugby player despite my playing days ending over two decades ago, so no one wants to start on me. But I see the looks. People cross the road to get away from me. People take one look in the supermarket and quickly move off in the opposite direction. But I am lucky due to my size and being a white male. I have a Chinese ex coworker, a tiny quiet woman that is one of the sweetest people you will ever meet, that has told me of being spat on in the street.
This is from a study done in the UK. If it’s true, then it’s possible that Sweden’s strategy was 4 times more deadly than it would be if it had taken more of a lockdown strategy and saved as many lives on the front end. Some of the reasons given for the finding is that there are more effective treatments now than in April.
I would be thrilled if healthcare teams had indeed gotten that much better at care. I am surprised that they do not report out the death rate by age group. IF improved care is a large part of the reason then the death rates of older hospitalized patients should be dropping (while if it is that the demographics have changed and now more infections are in lower risk patients who die less often then the rate of the older group would be more stable). The greater portion of the deaths being over 60 unfortunately actually suggests to me care having improved is not the major contributing factor. I hope I am wrong.
I’m not following your reasoning. There are a greater proportion of people over 60 dying but that’s still at a lower rate overall than they were before. If it was just younger people surviving, then it might not be improved care, it might just be a more healthy demographic.
Sweden and Tegnell are still stubbornly refusing to get it at all, WHO has put Sweden in a list of nations in Europe that are at risk of Coronavirus resurgence. Sweden still seems to think its all about them, they really are not understanding how their situation fits into the wider picture - it took Tegnell 4 months to admit that maybe a few things might just possibly maybe perhaps have done better but his admission is very weaselly and now launches an attack on WHO - problem is that WHO really does have the bigger picture in mind and is looking at Sweden in relation to its near neighbours and has drawn very logical conclusions. Coronavirus: Sweden says WHO made 'total mistake' by including it in warning - BBC News
It’s a staggering degree of arrogance on the part of Tegnell and his supporters, really.
Sweden’s novel “approach” was based on the assumption that there would be heard immunity without regard to the fact that there may be no immunity. Well, okay, I can accept that even good health agencies occasionally make errors in judgment - even significant ones.
But when Sweden’s government doubles down in the face of criticism to the point where they’re not even willing to accept that maybe Asian countries have a point with wearing masks, we’re no longer talking about a mistake; we’re seeing institutional and culturally-ingrained arrogance, and heaps of it.
That’s one point that I’ve been trying to get across to DSeid. Sweden’s “approach” isn’t an approach – at all. Sweden’s response defies most public health conventions, which would be fine if they had the science - and more importantly the results to date - to back themselves up, but they don’t. Their response is nothing more than a bunch of unjustified hunches intertwined with cultural biases and exceptionalism.
