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

[takno]

Although reduced capacity on trains wouldn't be a sensible precaution if the article referred to above saying that the epidemic was pretty much over in Sweden now is correct, I'd have thought.



How do you conclude an absence of differences between train companies from looking at the rules for one company?
Of course Sweden doesn't have the number of operators we have.

Also:

suggests that at some point they made the restrictions more strict, which is interesting.

I also find it interesting that apparently the principle in Sweden was to bring in restrictions that weren't too onerous so could be lived with long term.
And that seems to have included restricted capacity on long distance trains and telling everyone to drive instead of using local trains, buses and trams...

Far and away the most important thing here is that they fundamentally didn't lock down, and people who felt they needed to for mental health or practical reasons were still able to access the wider world.

On public transport though, it seems like they had the same rule as we did post lockdown, but they had actually messaged the rule they had in place. There is nothing wrong with which telling people to cut down the crowds by considering walking or cycling, and they don't anywhere suggest driving. By contrast whatever our rules said, we had ministers daily telling us to use cars, trains with taped up seats, stations full of aggressive announcements, a complete suspension of affordable fares for anybody honest enough to pay, and an army of people in hi-vis questioning our motives and pushing us around crazy one-way systems.

 

[AdamWW]

Far and away the most important thing here is that they fundamentally didn't lock down, and people who felt they needed to for mental health or practical reasons were still able to access the wider world.

On public transport though, it seems like they had the same rule as we did post lockdown, but they had actually messaged the rule they had in place. There is nothing wrong with which telling people to cut down the crowds by considering walking or cycling, and they don't anywhere suggest driving. By contrast whatever our rules said, we had ministers daily telling us to use cars, trains with taped up seats, stations full of aggressive announcements, a complete suspension of affordable fares for anybody honest enough to pay, and an army of people in hi-vis questioning our motives and pushing us around crazy one-way systems.

OK they don't. But just like here (at least in Wales) while they have been quite coy, saying "Don't use public transport - consider walking or cycling", what are most people actually going to do?

And they didn't just ask people to consider cycling or walking, they also said

"We advise you to avoid any travel by public transport where you cannot book a seat in advance, e.g. trams, subway and local buses. "

which I think is a bit stronger than suggesting people should give other methods of transport a bit of thought.

 

[DB]

OK they don't. But just like here (at least in Wales) while they have been quite coy, saying "Don't use public transport - consider walking or cycling", what are most people actually going to do?

And they didn't just ask people to consider cycling or walking, they also said

which I think is a bit stronger than suggesting people should give other methods of transport a bit of thought.

Yes, I'd have to agree with that point - they are basically implying a 'use cars if you can' message without actually saying so, as that would go against years of encouraging a reduction in car use. The aim seems to be to get people to use cars while leaving enough wriggle-room that they can deny that this was the intention!

 

[takno]

OK they don't. But just like here (at least in Wales) while they have been quite coy, saying "Don't use public transport - consider walking or cycling", what are most people actually going to do?

And they didn't just ask people to consider cycling or walking, they also said


which I think is a bit stronger than suggesting people should give other methods of transport a bit of thought.

I think you may be missing the point that a somewhat higher proportion of people who would otherwise get the subway are able to cycle in Sweden. The same doesn't necessarily hold true in Wales where the journeys might well be longer and along faster roads.

"Advise to avoid" is much the same as "consider other options" - at the end of the day people can see publicly-funded transit still running, and the government not running around in full-on panic mode, and they can reasonably draw the conclusion that by "advise" the government meant "advise" rather than really meaning "require". The government in the UK "advise" people not to drink more than 14 units of alcohol a week, which millions are more than happy to ignore, so really it's not that strong a word. In contrast, whatever the actual law, in the UK it was heavily messaged that the services were only running for the benefit of key workers, and almost every ministerial or operator announcement deliberately conflated "recommend" with "require".

 

[AdamWW]

I think you may be missing the point that a somewhat higher proportion of people who would otherwise get the subway are able to cycle in Sweden. The same doesn't necessarily hold true in Wales where the journeys might well be longer and along faster roads.

Hmmmm.

Whatever the proportion is, given that this was talking about travel "within Sweden" that includes long distance journeys. How many people are going to walk or cycle to Gothenburg? (Or get the subway).

"Advise to avoid" is much the same as "consider other options" - at the end of the day people can see publicly-funded transit still running, and the government not running around in full-on panic mode, and they can reasonably draw the conclusion that by "advise" the government meant "advise" rather than really meaning "require". The government in the UK "advise" people not to drink more than 14 units of alcohol a week, which millions are more than happy to ignore, so really it's not that strong a word. In contrast, whatever the actual law, in the UK it was heavily messaged that the services were only running for the benefit of key workers, and almost every ministerial or operator announcement deliberately conflated "recommend" with "require".

I would argue that "consider other options" doesn't include staying at home instead, where "advise against" would include that. But a fair point about advice not to drink, smoke etc.

However I wasn't comparing to the UK in the "key workers only" phase - I was referring to how the advice is now in the UK (well not Wales), "Travel safely this summer" and with what seems to be contemporary advice in Sweden to avoid public transport.

 

[Yew]

However I wasn't comparing to the UK in the "key workers only" phase - I was referring to how the advice is now in the UK (well not Wales), "Travel safely this summer" and with what seems to be contemporary advice in Sweden to avoid public transport.

Perhaps the crux of this issue is that, if cases rose, I could easily see heavier restrictions introduced here; I don't think that would be the case in Sweden unless their Health Services were on the verge of being overwhelmed.

 

[scarby]

Hmmmm.

Whatever the proportion is, given that this was talking about travel "within Sweden" that includes long distance journeys. How many people are going to walk or cycle to Gothenburg? (Or get the subway).

The official advice is:

You have a personal responsibility to travel as safely as possible. In the first instance, you should walk, cycle or use other means of transport than public transport. Those who need to travel by public transport should choose alternatives where it is possible to book a seat. Travel by means of transport where it is not possible to book a seat, such as trams, metros and city buses, should be avoided if possible.

 

[AdamWW]

The official advice is:

Thanks for that.

And to me, this wording is also clearly asking people to drive without actually saying it: "walk, cycle, or use other means of transport". What else would they have in mind for those "other means"?

It doesn't even suggest that walking or cycling should be preferred to "other means of transport".

Comparing with what I think is the latest official advice for England, we not longer seem to be suggesting that people should avoid public transport or even consider alternatives.

On the whole this is just laying down a long, tedious, list of things to do in order to travel "safely" and looks to me rather less strict than the Swedish advice to avoid [unreserved] public transport if possible regarding the need for travel to be necessary.

The English document is not concise and sometimes one part of documents like this seem to contradict another so I may have missed something - but I searched on the words "need", "essential", "necessary" and "consider" and all I could find was:

In the "Children" section

Where travel is necessary, consider whether children could walk or cycle

which my be beacuse someone forgot to update as there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for adults any more.

And there is also

consider walking or cycling from the station or stop you arrived at

I'm not sure what that's saying - don't drive to the station?

 

[greyman42]

Sweden largely seems to be doing what we are doing, they just aren't having to enforce some things because their mindset is more collectivist than ours so enforcement isn't needed, people are just doing those things anyway.

No they are not as they don't mandate masks and people don't wear them.

 

[yorkie]

Exactly. British people mostly are to some extent, and so will not, generally speaking, inconvenience themselves for the benefit of the wider community. Hence the difference. They socially distance voluntarily, whereas Bozza offered us that option and the outcome was for everyone to go to the pub as if he hadn't said anything, so it had to be legislated.

Not true; this has been debunked in numerous threads before.

 

[Justin Smith]

Deaths by country is a totally meaningless statistic, in fact in my opinion no respectable organisation should list anything in that order, certainly not be default. The only relevant stat is deaths per one million population. The worst for that, of larger countries, are Belgium and the UK with Spain not far behind. I think you'll find that although those statistics are rather depressing at the moment, what it actually means is we have less to fear from this virus because it is burning itself out, Belgium graph :
View attachment 81277
I don't know for sure what the explanation is but my theory, and this fits with most current information (including the Diamond Princess, adjusting for age the death rate on the DP was more or less the same as the UK and Belgium), is that up to 75% of the population is not susceptible to Covid.

And it is for that reason that the death rate in the UK is dropping, it has little to do with any (highly damaging) lockdowns / social distancing. The graph for Belgium is even starker in its support for my theory, i.e. higher death rate = higher exposure to the virus = lower death rate.

Now this is VERY interesting.....

The theory that I have had for a couple of months now is that up to 75% of the population are not susceptible to Covid, it's the only thing I can think of which explains all the death rate graph curves previously mentioned.

The people with hidden immunity against Covid-19

While the latest research suggests that antibodies against Covid-19 could be lost in just three months, a new hope has appeared on the horizon: the enigmatic T cell.

www.bbc.com

The clues have been mounting for a while. First, scientists discovered patients who had recovered from infection with Covid-19, but mysteriously didn’t have any antibodies against it. Next it emerged that this might be the case for a significant number of people. Then came the finding that many of those who do develop antibodies seem to lose them again after just a few months.

In short, though antibodies have proved invaluable for tracking the spread of the pandemic, they might not have the leading role in immunity that we once thought. If we are going to acquire long-term protection, it looks increasingly like it might have to come from somewhere else.

But while the world has been preoccupied with antibodies, researchers have started to realise that there might be another form of immunity – one which, in some cases, has been lurking undetected in the body for years. An enigmatic type of white blood cell is gaining prominence. And though it hasn’t previously featured heavily in the public consciousness, it may well prove to be crucial in our fight against Covid-19. This could be the T cell’s big moment.

This BBC article postulates that T cells etc mean that possibly up to 60% of people are not susceptible to Covid, not that much different from my predicted "up to 75%". It all fits, but time will tell. If it is the case then this also proves that all these lock downs and social distancing (and those soddin' masks) have achieved very little, certainly in countries already heavily exposed to Covid.

And that's before taking into account there massively negative social and economic effects.....

 

[yorkie]

Now this is VERY interesting.....

It is indeed; some of us have been following this development for several weeks now.

See the following thread:

We have more immunity to SARS-CoV-2 than thought

Firstly, a lot of people appear to think that anyone who does not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has no immunity against the virus; this is false. Anyone who has been exposed to other coronaviruses (some of which are deemed to be "common cold" viruses, though not all "common cold" viruses are...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AdamWW]

Now this is VERY interesting.....
The theory that I have had for a couple of months now is that up to 75% of the population are not susceptible to Covid, it's the only thing I can think of which explains all the death rate graph curves previously mentioned.
This BBC article postulates that T cells etc mean that possibly up to 60% of people are not susceptible to Covid, not that much different from my predicted "up to 75%". It all fits, but time will tell. If it is the case then this also proves that all these lock downs and social distancing (and those soddin' masks) have achieved very little, certainly in countries already heavily exposed to Covid. And that's before taking into account there massively negative social and economic effects.....

It looked to me as if they were suggesting that pre-existing T cells might reduce the severity of Covid-19 in a large fraction of the population, not make then not susceptible at all to it.

(Edited to remove rogue text left from a previous aborted post)

 

[Justin Smith]

They aren't doing what we are doing - though they still have restrictions (e..g social distancing on public transport) I don't think they are as strict as here.
What they do have seems to be enough to keep infections


It looked to me as if they were suggesting that pre-existing T cells might reduce the severity of Covid-19 in a large fraction of the population, not make then not susceptible at all to it.

It amounts to the same thing. I have never used the word immune to Covid, because I don't think people are, I prefer "not susceptible".

 

[yorkie]

They aren't doing what we are doing - though they still have restrictions (e..g social distancing on public transport) I don't think they are as strict as here.
What they do have seems to be enough to keep infections


It looked to me as if they were suggesting that pre-existing T cells might reduce the severity of Covid-19 in a large fraction of the population, not make then not susceptible at all to it.

I think there is some confusion; I refer you to the links in the thread I've linked to above. Also let's not forget that you can be infected with Sars-Cov-2 but not go on to develop Covid19.

Back to Sweden, I see the 7 day moving average deaths is down to zero.

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



Cases remain low; I'd imagine, rather like in the UK, the number of tests is increasing (perhaps @scarby can confirm?) so any small increase is nothing to worry about.

Cases peaked in June but deaths peaked in April, so I believe this indicates that more of the recent cases were picked up by increasing cases, and/or are among younger/healthier parts of the population and/or perhaps some other factors. Either way, it's all good news.

 

[Justin Smith]

This graph is very significant :

View attachment 81270

Remember, Sweden has had no significant lockdown (BBC News link).

It certainly make me even more sure we (and most of the world) have gone down the wrong path...... I have always thought this lockdown and social distancing (they're two sides of the same coin really) was the wrong course to take, I wanted support and isolation for vulnerable groups and everyone else carry on as normal. That was primarily because I was concerned at the effect on society and the economy but in actual fact, as more and more evidence comes to light, I am unconvinced the lockdown has had any significant effect on the death rate, certainly if additional deaths caused by the very same lockdown (e.g. cancer patients whose diagnosis and treatment has been devastated by the lockdown strategy) are factored in.

The UK equivalent of the above graph (not much better really, and at a HUGE cost.....) :

View attachment 81271

Was Sweden right after all ?

Sweden last quarter "growth" : minus 8.6% (no lockdown)
UK last quarter "growth" : minus 20.4% (lockdown)

 

[scarby]

Cases remain low; I'd imagine, rather like in the UK, the number of tests is increasing (perhaps @scarby can confirm?) so any small increase is nothing to worry about.

Cases peaked in June but deaths peaked in April, so I believe this indicates that more of the recent cases were picked up by increasing cases, and/or are among younger/healthier parts of the population and/or perhaps some other factors. Either way, it's all good news.

I haven't followed it that closely but I believe around the beginning of June free and easy to get testing became available to everyone and predictably there was an absolute surge of people who were tested.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Sweden has had less than 2 deaths per day for the last three weeks so it must be doing something right now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sweden has had less than 2 deaths per day for the last three weeks so it must be doing something right now.

What definition does it use? The UK definition is very wide - it seems to encompass if you die in a car crash on the way home from a positive test!

 

[DB]

What definition does it use? The UK definition is very wide - it seems to encompass if you die in a car crash on the way home from a positive test!

Yes, and therefore whatever measure Sweden use isn't likely to over-inflate the figures so much as the UK does!

 

[Domh245]

What definition does it use? The UK definition is very wide - it seems to encompass if you die in a car crash on the way home from a positive test!

Whatever difference in how a COVID death is defined, it won't be able to explain a death difference of almost 200 per week. ONS numbers for 3 and 2 weeks ago are 217(31/day) and 193(27.5/day)

 

[AdamWW]

Whatever difference in how a COVID death is defined, it won't be able to explain a death difference of almost 200 per week. ONS numbers for 3 and 2 weeks ago are 217(31/day) and 193(27.5/day)

Maybe not but the difference in population goes some way towards that, doesn't it?

Swedish population < 1/6th of UK.
So 30 UK deaths per day is the equivalent of ~5/day in Sweden.

 

[Domh245]

Maybe not but the difference in population goes some way towards that, doesn't it?

Swedish population < 1/6th of UK.
So 30 UK deaths per day is the equivalent of ~5/day in Sweden.

Absolute population numbers, not really. COVID doesn't kill people in a country with respect to how many people are in the country, only with respect to how many people it's infected. To have such a low number of deaths means that Sweden has a very low number of cases, or more specifically, a low number of cases amongst clinically vulnerable people - that number doesn't change with population. Recall the early days of the pandemic, most countries had very similar death graphs which only then diverge as measures are put into place (or not). It's not as simple as going "Sweden has 1/6th the population, so you'd expect 1/6th the deaths"

The demographics of a country will make some difference however

 

[AdamWW]

Absolute population numbers, not really. COVID doesn't kill people in a country with respect to how many people are in the country, only with respect to how many people it's infected. To have such a low number of deaths means that Sweden has a very low number of cases, or more specifically, a low number of cases amongst clinically vulnerable people - that number doesn't change with population. Recall the early days of the pandemic, most countries had very similar death graphs which only then diverge as measures are put into place (or not). It's not as simple as going "Sweden has 1/6th the population, so you'd expect 1/6th the deaths"

The demographics of a country will make some difference however

I do not think so.

Of course COVID doesn't kill with respect to the number of people within the borders of a country, but that's why you have to normalise to population size for the figures to make sense.

Each country didn't start with sealed borders and then one infected person dropped into it, to start spreading infection. Apart from China it came from outside, and (to a first approximation) the larger the population, the more people there are to bring it in. (Though this does mean that all other things being equal, the larger the country, the sooner the first case is likely to be).

And in any case I'm not arguing whether you would or wouldn't expect 1/6th the deaths, but in terms of how well a country is doing in terms of its residents dying of COVID-19 per capita figures are absolutely the ones to look at.
The chance of any one individual becoming one of those 2 deaths a day absolutely depends on the overall population size - how could it not?

 

[Justin Smith]

Very interesting, isn't this almost exactly what I have said ? In fact it's even more negative as regards lockdowns, social distancing and face masks, it's implying they actually do more harm than good (without even allowing for their social and economic damage)

The Times 24 Aug (p10)

Sweden claims fall in coronavirus infection rate is down to immunity

Sweden is beating many European countries in the fight against new coronavirus infections, possibly because of its decision not to implement tough lockdown measures.As cases surge across Europe, leading to new restrictions such as the mandatory wearing of facemasks in many public areas, the infectio

www.thetimes.co.uk

Sweden claims fall in infections rate is down to immunity

Sweden which decided not to implement compulsory measures and which rejected the use of masks has a [infection] rate of 37 per 100,000. The government is recording between 200 and 300 cases aday, with deaths down to three last Friday. Anders Tegnell, the Swedish state epidemiologist leading the response to the pandemic, has noted that infection rates have increased in countries such as Spain, Belgium and France during and following the mandatory wearing of masks in many public areas. The belief that masks can solve our [Covid] problem is very dangerous he said last week.

One key factor in Sweden's lower infection rate is thought to be the emergence of a form of "herd immunity" that is more advanced among Swedes than in countries where lockdowns were implemented. This means that Sweden is now, according to some evidence, benefitting from avoiding compulsory restrictions.

The higher level of cases among the general population in Sweden is thought - by Dr Tegnell and other Swedish scientists - to indicate a form of immunity much wider than that accounted for by the numbers of people carrying antibodies for the virus.

 

[scarby]

I was discussing this with a friend in a pub, in Stockholm, yesterday evening. He follows these developments more closely than I do. He explained this quite rationally:

Those who have had the virus and are immune

PLUS

Those who are immune/resistant to the virus

PLUS

The very elderly and at-risk being protected or choosing not to mix

PLUS

The restrictions in place meaning many people mix with far fewer people than they usually would, and of course physical distancing

PLUS

Those 5,800 who have sadly died, the hard fact being that they can no longer pass on the viris

PLUS

A small drip drip of more people catching the virus

= that the virus simply has so few places left to turn to so that the outbreak has effecitvely finished.

The hospitalisation figures are still going down - I thought they had stalled at around 200 but over the last week or so they have dropped even further from around 210 to 166 - which is a 20% or so drop in just a week. So just 166 people in hospital with the virus in the whole country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note this one:

The restrictions in place meaning many people mix with far fewer people than they usually would, and of course physical distancing

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.

 

[takno]

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.

Once again, saying "apart from masks" like masks are just nothing isn't realistic. Plus, while the actual restrictions in Sweden may be similar, the mood is very different. They aren't suffering nearly the same level of special "invented here" restrictions, where everyone seems to have to go over and above, requiring masks where masks don't belong and inventing one way systems for your comfort and convenience. They particularly aren't as bad as Scotland, where as soon as you get comfortable with something Sturgeon marches herself into the gobbing aff chamber (it's real Scots - I read it on Wikipedia) at Bute House and tells you you're murdering grannies and she's set to ban it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once again, saying "apart from masks" like masks are just nothing isn't realistic.

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.

 

[big_rig]

Once again, saying "apart from masks" like masks are just nothing isn't realistic. Plus, while the actual restrictions in Sweden may be similar, the mood is very different. They aren't suffering nearly the same level of special "invented here" restrictions, where everyone seems to have to go over and above, requiring masks where masks don't belong and inventing one way systems for your comfort and convenience. They particularly aren't as bad as Scotland, where as soon as you get comfortable with something Sturgeon marches herself into the gobbing aff chamber (it's real Scots - I read it on Wikipedia) at Bute House and tells you you're murdering grannies and she's set to ban it.

I think this is a really good point. It is my suspicion that a package of measures comprising of asking people who can to work from home, not having large indoor events, the odd spot of distancing on transport etc is all that needs to be done to keep the virus at very low levels and that the myriad of other ever-changing restrictions in place throughout the last six months or so have made an absolutely marginal impact on virus spread but a massively disproportionate impact on making life generally miserable and/or feeding the endless state of both panic and curtain twitching the media has enjoyed promoting to make endless news out of nothing.

I would be interested in seeing whether the % of Swedes suffering depressive symptoms has doubled (or tripled for people under 40) as they have in the UK. If we placed any value on people's general well-being instead of purely focusing on Covid that would surely make for a simple tradeoff.