So, Sweden may well have been right.....

talldave · 27 Aug 2020

If we're apparently "not that different" to Sweden, why are we in the midst of a ramping up requirements competition across the UK and forcing masks onto the faces of schoolchildren? [That makes my blood boil, but not for this thread].

We are not like Sweden at all. We're flailing around imposing an ever more dystopian lifestyle on society whilst trying to achieve the impossible outcome of eliminating a virus but not admitting that that's what we're trying to do.

It's time to simplify things - protect the vulnerable protect the NHS.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 27 Aug 2020

talldave said:
It's time to simplify things - protect the vulnerable protect the NHS.

Which isn't how Sweden is doing it. What they are doing is similar to us but without masks.

Yew · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Note this one:

That is, even they don't think they could pull restrictions entirely. They have essentially achieved herd immunity at the level of restrictions they have (which other than masks is very similar to what we do). I don't think we're far off that, but that is not the thing some one here are using to justify their view of pulling everything.

Indeed, the chances are that the equations would be something like

Apparent R = R with mitigations * (1 - proportion of people with herd immunity)

Obviously if we change things so that the "R with mitigations" (Rm) increases, we will see the "actual R" (Ra) increase correspondingly. The question is if that would cause a health system overwhelming peak or not.

I have the feeling that they would be okay, their hospitals are in a good position, and if their R is less than one currently, then they have some wiggle room before anything starts increasing. Therefore any resulting increase would be gradual.

Huntergreed · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Which isn't how Sweden is doing it. What they are doing is similar to us but without masks.

Indeed, but their attitude and messaging is also more rational, mature and well balanced.

I do truly hold the strong belief they’ve handled this exceptionally well, a moderate, sensible level of restrictions to mitigate the risk of overwhelming their health board whilst also ensuring minimal damage to the economy and livelihoods.

Yew · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Which isn't how Sweden is doing it. What they are doing is similar to us but without masks.

I think that Dave was discussing in terms of overall strategy, rather than the restrictions that we just happen to have at this moment.

Bletchleyite · 27 Aug 2020

Huntergreed said:
Indeed, but their attitude and messaging is also more rational, mature and well balanced.

I do truly hold the strong belief they’ve handled this exceptionally well, a moderate, sensible level of restrictions to mitigate the risk of overwhelming their health board whilst also ensuring minimal damage to the economy and livelihoods.

I think you're probably right, but they're also culturally more mature.

You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

Etc.

Yew · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think you're probably right, but they're also culturally more mature.

You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

Etc.

You've mentioned this before, and unless you have practical experience of what's going on in Sweden, then I think you're just taking an imagined, idealised case rather than what actually happened.

talldave · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

Etc.

We did it perfectly well until the masks stupidity kicked off. I know nobody will ever admit that that was a mistake, but it was.

My perception is that Sweden has treated people like adults. We've been treated like naughty schoolchildren who see the "teachers" flouting their own rules. There's no respect for UK government left. I bet that's not the case in Sweden.

big_rig · 27 Aug 2020

Yew said:
You've mentioned this before, and unless you have practical experience of what's going on in Sweden, then I think you're just taking an imagined, idealised case rather than what actually happened.

Precisely. People in every country think that their population is unique and that 'you couldn't do that here.' It's no different from people interviewed at a railway station when there's a delay saying 'well they never have signalling failures in Germany do they.'

If we are going by anecdote anyway, I can draw a line around my house which has nearly a hundred thousand people in it which has had ZERO recorded cases of Coronavirus for twelve weeks, but people still jump into the street instead of passing normally on the footpath. Is this a sign that Brits take the virus more seriously than any other country in Europe? Of course not, it's just an observation. There are many different ones to be made during the course of a day as well.

yorkie · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think you're probably right, but they're also culturally more mature.

You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

This is disingenuous at best; we've debunked this time and time again; it is disappointing to have to keep doing this.

Pubs were deserted in the week before lockdown; anyone who claims otherwise is either mistaken or talking about a small number of isolated cases.

The only reason some pubs were busy on the final day is because we said we would be closing them for a long time after that day. Sweden did not do this and instead moved more quickly to a more similar approach to what we are doing now.

Bletchleyite said:
You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

You'll need to include yourself in that!

This idea that everyone in Sweden is not going within 2m of anyone else is absurd.

I think you need to accept that we got it wrong and Sweden's approach has been far better than ours.

43066 · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think you're probably right, but they're also culturally more mature.

You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

We’re not necessarily culturally less mature, but perhaps we are a little less likely than other cultures to accept what we are told at face value. You appear to prefer authoritarian, North Korean style collectivism, and following rules for the sake of it “because that’s what we’ve been told to do”, even when there’s no evidence underpinning the effectiveness of said rules (reference masks).

Personally I’d much rather live in a culture where we are governed and policed by consent, and people take a rather more critical, discursive approach to authority, rather than unquestioningly behaving as a hive mind.

Bantamzen · 27 Aug 2020

talldave said:
We did it perfectly well until the masks stupidity kicked off. I know nobody will ever admit that that was a mistake, but it was.

My perception is that Sweden has treated people like adults. We've been treated like naughty schoolchildren who see the "teachers" flouting their own rules. There's no respect for UK government left. I bet that's not the case in Sweden.

Exactly this, Sweden took a calm & measured approach including how they engaged with the Swedish public. Not like the fractured, immature, media/opinion driven flapping about that was our government's chosen route. Sweden didn't scream "you're killing granny" at everyone, didn't try to make out that you would be a "hero" for following random one way systems, didn't encourage us to bang pots to make the virus go away, and so their citizens reacted accordingly. They carried on their lives, went to the pubs, went to eat out, but just a little more reserved. And it worked....

Bletchleyite · 27 Aug 2020

43066 said:
We’re not necessarily culturally less mature, but perhaps we are a little less likely than other cultures to accept what we are told at face value. You appear to prefer authoritarian, North Korean style collectivism, and following rules for the sake of it “because that’s what we’ve been told to do”, even when there’s no evidence underpinning the effectiveness of said rules (reference masks).

Personally I’d much rather live in a culture where we are governed and policed by consent, and people take a rather more critical, discursive approach to authority, rather than unquestioningly behaving as a hive mind.

That of course isn't binary. The UK is probably an extreme of selfishness and individualism (though the US is worse), whereas North Korea is the extreme of blind compliance (because you get shot if you don't). A level of collectiveness in between the two is probably a better way to go, as typified by the democratic Asian nations like South Korea.

In that context you have a debate (e.g. in Parliament) but then everyone accepts the outcome of that debate for the greater good.

yorksrob · 27 Aug 2020

Our approach now seems to have moved to be more like Sweden, so that suggests to me they must have got something right.

43066 · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
A level of collectiveness in between the two is probably a better way to go, as typified by the democratic Asian nations like South Korea.

It probably comes as no surprise that I disagree completely with that. Democracy is thin on the ground is south east Asia, because those collectivist cultures aren’t really compatible with it. The suicide rate in these countries is also absolutely through the roof due to the need to conform at all times. They are not the utopias some would believe.

It strikes me that many people in this country have perhaps become a little too used to the benefits of living in a mature democracy, centred around the individual, and can only ever find things to criticise. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

greyman42 · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

Pubs were very quiet in the run up to lockdown. It was only when the government announced that pubs had to shut that people went for the "last massive blow-out"

JonasB · 27 Aug 2020

yorksrob said:
Our approach now seems to have moved to be more like Sweden, so that suggests to me they must have got something right.

Maybe it was our natural behaviour that gave us a certain protection against the virus? :lol:

DB · 27 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
There's a thread for that if you want to discuss further, but most people think masks are a very minor component of it all and a very minor inconvenience.

It's other distancing measures and closures of things that have a big impact on the economy. Not masks.

There you go again, ascribing your views to 'most people'. A large number hate masks and don't regard them as a 'very minor inconvenience' - just because they put up with them really does not mean that they aren't bothered by them.

yorksrob · 27 Aug 2020

JonasB said:
Maybe it was our natural behaviour that gave us a certain protection against the virus?

View attachment 82823

That's overdoing the guidance a bit :lol:

JonasB · 27 Aug 2020

yorksrob said:
That's overdoing the guidance a bit

And that photo was taken before the pandemic…

43066 · 27 Aug 2020

DavidB said:
There you go again, ascribing your views to 'most people'. A large number hate masks and don't regard them as a 'very minor inconvenience' - just because they put up with them really does not mean that they aren't bothered by them.

The majority of people I know who wear them hate them with a passion and try to avoid situations where they are required. That means they barely use public transport, do as little shopping as possible etc.

That is clearly going to be extremely damaging for the economy going forward and is doing the absolute opposite of encouraging people to venture out.

158756 · 27 Aug 2020

yorksrob said:
Our approach now seems to have moved to be more like Sweden, so that suggests to me they must have got something right.

Assuming we were never planning to eradicate the virus, and that lockdown could not go on forever, the idea had to be that once case numbers came down they could be kept down as restrictions were lifted - so something like what we or Sweden have now had to work.

My take on it would be that there were signs the government wanted to try something like Sweden earlier, but they didn't communicate it well at all ("herd immunity", which almost certainly hasn't happened in Sweden in the sense it was talked about here), and the time when the virus was in the community but testing was only available if you'd been to China allowed the situation to become worse than it ever was in Sweden. With the benefit of hindsight it probably could have been done, but you couldn't say that with any certainty at the time, the government lost control of the situation and pressure on them and the health service forced lockdown.

The lack of trust in politicians in the UK and the desire to turn everything into a political football doesn't help either.

yorkie · 27 Aug 2020

158756 said:
...the government lost control of the situation and pressure on them and the health service forced lockdown.

We should have acted to impose measures earlier, but you don't have any evidence that we had to lock down; what we have seen in countries such as Switzerland and Sweden is that measures short of a lockdown have a huge effect on reducing transmission.

A hard lockdown doesn't really achieve much, as France and Spain are now finding out.

158756 · 27 Aug 2020

yorkie said:
We should have acted to impose measures earlier, but you don't have any evidence that we had to lock down; what we have seen in countries such as Switzerland and Sweden is that measures short of a lockdown have a huge effect on reducing transmission.

A hard lockdown doesn't really achieve much, as France and Spain are now finding out.

I'm not saying lockdown was the only possible way to reduce infection rates, I'm saying that because we didn't introduce measures earlier and the government wasn't trusted by a large part of the population; a) lockdown became the only politically feasible option; and b) the Swedish approach carried some risk that it might fail to reduce cases, and by that point our health service had less room for risk.

If the plan was to be like Sweden, which it sort of sounded like for a bit, the execution was incompetent.

trebor79 · 27 Aug 2020

43066 said:
We’re not necessarily culturally less mature, but perhaps we are a little less likely than other cultures to accept what we are told at face value. You appear to prefer authoritarian, North Korean style collectivism, and following rules for the sake of it “because that’s what we’ve been told to do”, even when there’s no evidence underpinning the effectiveness of said rules (reference masks).

I think it's a combination of people being utterly confused with what they are meant to be doing. And utterly hacked off at the government's behaviour, and the individual behaviour of so e of those involved in government (eg Cummings).

DavidB said:
There you go again, ascribing your views to 'most people'. A large number hate masks and don't regard them as a 'very minor inconvenience' - just because they put up with them really does not mean that they aren't bothered by them.

Even my wife, a total mask believer (three layers of cotton and it helps protect me as well as other people nonsense), complained after 15 minutes in an aquarium with our eldest son today. "I can't breath, this is horrible" and removed it for a few minutes. Commented again after we exited how horrible it was, I just smiled. I realised that's the longest she's had to wear one, as I do the weekly shop and she barely goes in a shop. It'll be interesting to see if I get harrangued as often in future.
My wife and mother in law both sincerely believe these damp bits of cloth will help protect them (based on some off the cuff remark Bozza made aeons ago). I asked them over dinner yesterday what they think happens to any droplets that land on them, positing that they soak into the material and then get transferred directly to their lips and nose. Mother in law exploded in rage and told me that was completely wrong, was unable to explain where they disappeared to but stated it's better than them going "straight up your nose". I started talking about surface area and the conversation was diverted by her saying she thinks we should all wear one all the time to prevent colds and flu. We had to agree to disagree when I asked her why she doesn't wear one all the time then?

MikeWM · 28 Aug 2020

Swedish Public Health Authority now proposing to increase the upper limit on 'mass gatherings' from 50 to 500. They know it is all but over now. Unfortunately most of the rest of our countries are going backwards instead.

farleigh · 28 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think you're probably right, but they're also culturally more mature.

You tell British people not to go to the pub, and what do they do? Go to the pub for a last massive blow-out (I saw this on 16th March). You tell Swedes not to go to the pub, and they don't go to the pub.

You tell British people to stay 2m apart, and they do it for a bit then get bored.

Etc.

I think that is part of what what makes Britain great. People make their own minds up and go and have a great time in the face of adversity. Who has the right to tell them not to go to the pub?

I respect the right of people to stay away from pubs and sit at home worrying about other people enjoying themselves. Me - I'd rather enjoy myself and forget about the worriers. Everybody is happy that way. Worriers at home - people having a great time doing what they want. Perfect IMO.

43066 · 28 Aug 2020

trebor79 said:
I think it's a combination of people being utterly confused with what they are meant to be doing. And utterly hacked off at the government's behaviour, and the individual behaviour of so e of those involved in government (eg Cummings).

Yep. And quite a bit of lip service being paid. Speaking to a friend of mine yesterday, who has started going into the office a couple of times per week, she wears a mask but deliberately doesn’t cover her nose to make it less uncomfortable. She’s fully aware that renders it pointless*, but is one of those people who doesn’t like to rock the boat.

*albeit, as we know, there's scant evidence it isn’t equally pointless when worn “correctly”.

trebor79 said:
Even my wife, a total mask believer (three layers of cotton and it helps protect me as well as other people nonsense), complained after 15 minutes in an aquarium with our eldest son today. "I can't breath, this is horrible" and removed it for a few minutes. Commented again after we exited how horrible it was, I just smiled. I realised that's the longest she's had to wear one, as I do the weekly shop and she barely goes in a shop. It'll be interesting to see if I get harrangued as often in future.
My wife and mother in law both sincerely believe these damp bits of cloth will help protect them (based on some off the cuff remark Bozza made aeons ago). I asked them over dinner yesterday what they think happens to any droplets that land on them, positing that they soak into the material and then get transferred directly to their lips and nose. Mother in law exploded in rage and told me that was completely wrong, was unable to explain where they disappeared to but stated it's better than them going "straight up your nose". I started talking about surface area and the conversation was diverted by her saying she thinks we should all wear one all the time to prevent colds and flu. We had to agree to disagree when I asked her why she doesn't wear one all the time then?

Sheesh. The mother in law alone sounds like grounds for divorce

.

JonasB · 28 Aug 2020

trebor79 said:
My wife and mother in law both sincerely believe these damp bits of cloth will help protect them (based on some off the cuff remark Bozza made aeons ago). I asked them over dinner yesterday what they think happens to any droplets that land on them, positing that they soak into the material and then get transferred directly to their lips and nose. Mother in law exploded in rage and told me that was completely wrong, was unable to explain where they disappeared to but stated it's better than them going "straight up your nose". I started talking about surface area and the conversation was diverted by her saying she thinks we should all wear one all the time to prevent colds and flu. We had to agree to disagree when I asked her why she doesn't wear one all the time then?

The point of wearing a face mask is not that it protects you from the virus, it protects other if you have it.

DB · 28 Aug 2020

JonasB said:
The point of wearing a face mask is not that it protects you from the virus, it protects other if you have it.

There is no evidence for it protecting the wearer, and very little for it protecting others...

So, Sweden may well have been right.....

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Guest

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Guest