Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Here is the link to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden


Until now it looks that Sweden starts much much better into the corona season than Ireland, which had similar numbers so far but made many measures. We will see.

 

Boots to offer 12-minute Covid testing service within weeks

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-12-minute-covid-testing-service-within-weeks

 

New cases per day (7 day average) in Sweden are once again reaching new highs and deaths are rising once again. By no stretch of the imagination is the pandemic under control in Sweden!

 

Our Leaders in Canada to Canadians, "grow up". I agree.

 

An addition to my post above on https://www.endcoronavirus.org/

Some links on the website don't work, so here they are:

Psychology and Strategy for Getting to Zero:

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/papers/psychology-and-strategy-for-getting-to-zero

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/all-guidelines

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/how-win

From the section on health-care / medical workers this guideline from April I think is still very relevant:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e7b914b3b5f9a42199b3337/t/5e8e8a8f6bff992fe2682186/1586399887415/MedicalGuidelines+(2).pdf

 

I didn´t claim this. But in comparison to Ireland, which had similar numbers so far, Sweden is until now better.

Furthermore, until now - but it may easily change - the numbers in Sweden would not be of general concern at all, if they won´t rise any further. (Interesting should also be the ratio between positive tests and all tests, of course, which I didn´t check, as cases look high.)

There is a small chance that in Sweden the virus might have spread in undangerous levels through the summer with ppl having developed some immunity, whereas in Ireland this may not have happend.

 

I had a quick look, noticed that it hasn't been updated to reflect the current situation. So, probably not the best page if one is looking for facts...

For example, it doesn't say that the upper limit for seated culture and sports events has been raised from 50 to 300 people, nor does it mention that the rule for doctor's notes/sick leave is being changed now.

Also, 1 870 new cases were reported in Sweden on Friday, which is the highest number in a day so far

 

Yes, but smittade (or so, = infected people) itself aren´t saying anything. Covid19 Deaths have risen with 15 people today. In Sweden there might die in each year 90.000 people, which would be 7500 in a month. I think the graph on wiki looks - so far - not bad.

Another question is, if we are going to see again a sharp rise in general, which would resample the Gomperz curve, or if the rise will be not as sharp.

 

Well, Anders Tegnell and the Swedish Public Health Agency (FHM) would disagree, as would the local governments and their experts ("smittskyddsläkare", what's the correct term in English?) in Skåne and other regions.

FHM is literally using the word "worrying" to describe the situation/development.

The number of covid patients receiving intensive care i Skåne has doubled since yesterday, and restrictions have been tightened.

(Just one example of many.)

Here's a pretty informative page with current info in English, by The Local:
https://www.thelocal.se/20200902/co...bout-the-outbreak-in-sweden-timeline-part-two

Here's an article from two days ago where The Local wrote about the the steady rise in infections, the non-coercive strategy etc:
https://www.thelocal.se/20201025/sweden-sticks-to-non-coercive-strategy-as-covid-cases-rise

 

The reality behind the graph is that nearly 6 000 lives have been lost. 6 000 people, whose family and friends are now grieving.

6 000 is ten times more than in our neighbouring countries.

To be completely honest, I personally find it pretty offensive that someone would call that "not bad" Especially seeing the monumental tragedy that took place in care homes earlier in the year.

The fact is that the Swedish government and FHM since the very beginning has had a comparatively relaxed attitude to general restrictions, testing, tracking and tracing, PPE, quarantine, travel restrictions, protecting vulnerable people in care homes etc, as well as rejecting WHO's recommendations regarding face masks.

How many of those 6 000 people (people! not numbers in a spreadsheet/dots on a graph) could still be alive today, if things had been handled differently? How many more avoidable deaths will be added in the coming months, years? What about the suffering of all those that fell ill but didn't die, and the longhaulers?

I will never be okay with anyone calling this immense loss "not bad" or "the right thing" etc. Never.

 

As I see it Sweden obviously took the wrong path when other countries introduced restrictions and got their case and death rates well down. Sweden does not look quite so bad now because these other countries relaxed their restrictions too early and have caught up or even overtaken Sweden.

I do not see how that can in any way be an argument for not using restrictions It is absolutely the opposite. Restrictions got things under control and relaxation of restrictions lost all the gains. Nobody needs to 'see the science' in any more detail than that.Just eyeball the graphs. Put in restrictions and people do not get ill. Remove restrictions and they do.

It isn't really any more complicate than that.

And perhaps to add that the impact on cancer care is not due to restrictions, as so many commentators have suggested. Cancer care was impacted when failure to introduce restrictions led to high case numbers. When restrictions came in and case numbers came down cancer care was able to start up again.Now we are back to high case numbers and no cancer care. And of course all the businesses going to the wall after all despite spending six months of tax payers money on simply delaying the economic damage.

 

The opinion analytics organisation The SOM Institute at Gothenburgh University in Sweden published a report on corona 30 September.

https://www.gu.se/som-institutet/re...set#Oro-vaccination-och-den-svenska-strategin

 

I am sorry to say that, but this is a problem of numbers, not one on the personal level. Who decides - the politicians and their helpers- has only the choice between bad and bad in an unclear situation.

The question is not if you can hinder the bad, but if you can minimize the bad.


I personally never forget since I am fifteen yeas old that in this current world many lives are destroyed on a daily level, and this unnecessarily. In some sense even my own (ME) life, but I rather mean non-european lives. There is on a basic level also no guarantee in this world that everything is fine, and the developed world is more vulnerable than one might want to think, also.

 

If you compare Ireland and Sweden which both had from begin until recently similar numbers, so must one say that Ireland is now worse than Sweden, if I didn´t get it wrong, and it is Ireland, that made strong restrictions.

I admit, that it could change rapidly, but we don´t know now.

 

I agree; just look at the benefits of doing everything you can to reduce the incidence - e.g. you can access hospitals/health care with lower risk. I'm not sure controlling the virus does damage your economy; if you look at Australia etc. it's hard to imagine that their economy is in a worse state than the UKs.

 

I'm with @mango here. Its terribly important not to gloss over or minimise the seriousness of the COVID problem in any way. Its minimising the problem that has led to this worldwide failure to take action over the past 9 months, and to all the death and devastation we have experienced.

Its also important to acknowledge the effectiveness of restrictions. They work - look at Victoria, Australia. A couple of months back, they had a surge in cases, which peaked at around 700 new cases a day. They imposed hard restrictions. The daily cases has now dropped to less than 3 new cases on average over the last two weeks. That's not a typo, the current daily cases are less than three. Victoria imposed their restrictions when the rate of cases reached 500 a day. To put this in perspective, Sweden's daily cases have consistently averaged at 150 cases or more since late March, and currently run at over 1,200 a day (which is huge, even correcting for the size of the population, which is twice that of Victoria). What Sweden treat as "okay" or "not bad", Victoria treated as a cause for serious action, and they got on top of it.

So yes, restrictions work.

Now, you can argue that its better to let some people die or become chronically ill than to make everyone endure the kinds of restrictions Victoria did (they were pretty tough in Melbourne). I would disagree, but at least you're being honest. Or you can argue that those people will die/become ill eventually, because the virus is unstoppable, so we might as well get it over with. Again, I would disagree, but at least that's defensible on some level. But you can't argue that restrictions don't work. They clearly do. And they're all we've got right now.

I'm pretty angry with every well-resourced country in the world who minimised the problem at the start and did not take action. Not only because that led to the deaths of many of their own citizens, but because it allowed the virus to spread unchecked to poor nations with few resources, who ended up facing even worse devastation. I'm maddest at the US, the wealthiest country in the world, but I'm also mad at Sweden, who for all its wealth and resources and socially progressive policies could have done so much better.

What have we learned for next time we have a global pandemic? Restrict hard, and restrict early. Don't close your ears and eyes and say its all "okay" or "not bad". Don't try to massage the statistics to whitewash it all away. Take it bloody seriously. If we'd done that right at the start, none of this would have happened.

Edited to correct statistics for Sweden (sorry, Sweden).

 

More cheerful news:

Second Covid wave forecast to be more deadly than first

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...than-first/ar-BB1as1bc?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=ASUDHP

 

Does anyone know how many people have died because of the restrictions, rather than because of Covid?
I have held off from giving my opinion on the management of the spread of the virus mostly because I really don’t know what the right course of action is.

I feel that we should be trying to reduce transmission - but that the costs are so high in terms of the reduction in care for other health conditions - that lockdowns may be killing more people through indirect means than saving people by direct action. Certainly the figures for heart attacks, strokes, cancer etc are looking horrible in many parts of the world....

Somehow the health systems around the world need to find a way to manage Covid (in stand-alone facilities) so that other people can still access the healthcare they need in a timely and safe manner.

My mother was having regular chemo before Covid. Since the outbreak, she hasn’t even had a face-to-face check-up with a doctor of any kind....

 

That's a tricky one, @Daisybell. I get that the restrictions themselves might be preventing some people from accessing the health care they need. Particularly in places with strict lockdowns. I worry about those with severe mental illness too. But then in countries where the incidence of acute coronavirus cases is high, the extra demands on healthcare also limit access for those with other conditions, independently of any restrictions you impose.

Another problem is that restrictions and coronavirus incidence are not independent factors but are yoked. One affects the other. So an easing of restrictions can lead to a spike in cases, which in turn can lead to an even longer and tighter lockdown further down the line.

In our part of the world (NZ), our policies have been conservative, with tight restrictions that some might argue are tighter than necessary. But on the other hand, our healthcare system is pretty impoverished, and I suspect we would be totally ***ed if the virus got out of hand.

Where does your mum live?