Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

'Restrictions' , 'lockdown', same thing viewed from a different angle

From News.com
'On Friday, the Nordic nation’s government announced that it was time to “live as normal” with Covid-19 after 561 days of enduring some kind of restriction, whether that be venue capacity limits or stay-at-home orders.

Now, Norwegians can attend restaurants, night clubs, sporting events and anything else at full capacity, with social distancing thrown out the window.

They’ve even started encouraging travel outside of Europe, removing travel warnings.'

The term "lockdown" is often used sloppily, but it actually means restriction of movement -- locking people up.

"lockdown
lŏk′doun″
noun

1. A protocol followed in an emergency that involves confining people in a secure place, such as the confinement of prison inmates in cells after a disturbance, or the locking of students and teachers in classrooms after a violent attack.
2. A situation in which this protocol is undertaken.
3. A facility, such as a prison, where people considered to be dangerous are locked inside living quarters or otherwise confined.
4. The confinement of people in their own rooms (or cells) as a security measure after a disturbance"

https://www.wordnik.com/words/lockdown

In many countries around the world, pandemic measures including ordering people to stay in their homes. That is "lockdown".

In Norway, like in the rest of the region, there were limitations on the number of people who could gather in a single indoor space, and restaurants, gyms, and hair salons and the like were closed for a couple of months, and then were allowed to open with capacity restrictions and opening time restrictions, then later with requirements to show a negative test or vax cert.

This is not "lockdown".

Stay at home orders were considered in Norway, which had slightly stricter measures than any other Nordic country. The Government sent an inquiry to the National Institue of Health about lockdowns, and abandoned the idea after the health authorities strongly condemned lockdowns as human rights violations of marginal benefit to controlling the pandemic, and probably unconstitutional.

This was the view of all of the Nordic health authorities; and in Sweden and Finland lockdowns were definitively ruled to be unconstitional and unavailable as a measure, even if the government had wanted to.

See: https://www.thelocal.no/20210111/cou...d-19-pandemic/

[Anders]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I realised the other night what a cruel trick the Norwegian government had played on their people . After 561 days of the harshest lockdown since the second world war they were given freedom of movement just a few days after the sun had set for 6 months.
Almost a crime against humanity, no wonder they all went and got hammered.

There's nowhere in Norway where the sun sets for 6 months. At the moment you will get sun everywhere. Tromso you get a few months without sun but most of Norway has sun over the winter months.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Anders

There's nowhere in Norway where the sun sets for 6 months. At the moment you will get sun everywhere. Tromso you get a few months without sun but most of Norway has sun over the winter months.

Ping was just joking.


But yeah, a lot of people who've never been in the Arctic don't quite understand this stuff. The Arctic Circle is that place where the sun doesn't set for one day per year (and doesn't rise for one day per year). As you go North from there, there are more days without sunset or sunrise, but you have to be exactly at the North Pole to have six months of day or six months of night.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

….
Death rate is reasonable but not trivial:…..

Although it is only ⅓ of the daily COVID-19 death rate in the US, the daily rate in the UK of 2 per million is certainly not trivial .
It is around 8% of the total death rate in the last few years prior to the pandemic (an average of 25 per million died daily then).

I have been checking UK numbers most days as soon as they are released. Not so much specifically for the UK, but because given all government mandated internal restrictions were lifted in the UK mid July (combined with a high rate for vaccinating the vulnerable), if hospitalisations and the death rate remain low then the UK’s strategy may serve as a model for the rest of the world and will help us return to some sense of normality.

So it is good to see the average number for daily deaths dropping for the first time since all restrictions were lifted, even if only temporarily.

Today’s data enlarged shows that this slight trend is continuing:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Although it is only ⅓ of the daily COVID-19 death rate in the US, the daily rate in the UK of 2 per million is certainly not trivial .
It is around 8% of the total death rate in the last few years prior to the pandemic (an average of 25 per million died daily then).

I have been checking UK numbers most days as soon as they are released. Not so much specifically for the UK, but because given all government mandated internal restrictions were lifted in the UK mid July (combined with a high rate for vaccinating the vulnerable), if hospitalisations and the death rate remain low then the UK’s strategy may serve as a model for the rest of the world and will help us return to some sense of normality.

So it is good to see the average number for daily deaths dropping for the first time since all restrictions were lifted, even if only temporarily.

Today’s data enlarged shows that this slight trend is continuing:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

The Guardian is giving great presentation of the data.

From the cited article:



Despite the non-trivial death rate, this looks quite good

And this:



Maybe helps to explain. Case rates have fallen dramatically for everyone but teenagers and children.

Looking at this, I think we can hope that the death rates will fall.


The pandemic looks very, very different when you have a significant part of the population -- hopefully including all the vulnerable -- vaccinated.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Guardian is giving great presentation of the data.

From the cited article:

Attachment 246220

Despite the non-trivial death rate, this looks quite good

And this:

Attachment 246221

Maybe helps to explain. Case rates have fallen dramatically for everyone but teenagers and children.

Looking at this, I think we can hope that the death rates will fall.


The pandemic looks very, very different when you have a significant part of the population -- hopefully including all the vulnerable -- vaccinated.

I have found the Guardian’s presentation of data very good.

I do still think having a high proportion of the vulnerable vaccinated is the key, particularly since it is postulated the virus will be with us for many years. The unvaccinated will eventually become infected and protected to a similar degree. This is already occurring. In the UK vaccination of the vulnerable was done very systematically, with well less than 10% of those at high risk of severe disease unvaccinated for around 5 months now.

Cases have been predominantly amongst the younger age groups. Lots of possible reasons for this: higher mobility, coming into close contact with a high number of others through work or school or socialising, a lower rate of vaccination, less care taken with preventative measures……

They are not the ones predominantly responsible for hospitalisations or deaths.
The first image shows this.
Source:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ghts/hospitals
I can’t find any UK data what % of these younger age groups that were hospitalised had co-morbidities. I suspect it is a high %, but I may be wrong.

Couple that with the vaccination rate for various age groups and it gives lots to think about.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

SWL
PS Vaccination rate in the UK is fairly low now: about 10% of what it was at its peak around March to June.

[Dockhead]

Finland seems to be going its own way concerning ending pandemic restrictions. Restrictions have been more or less completely eliminated now in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but a few restrictions continue in Finland, and the government appears intent on leaving them in place long-term. A law on implementing a so-called "Corona Pass", proving either vaccination, recovery, or recent testing, and required for people to avoid restrictions such as midnight closing for bars, is working its way through parliament: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...irus-pass.html


Interesting. Other Nordic countries are going the opposite way; Denmark for example has just closed all of its rapid testing centers across the country.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I have found the Guardian’s presentation of data very good.

I do still think having a high proportion of the vulnerable vaccinated is the key, particularly since it is postulated the virus will be with us for many years. The unvaccinated will eventually become infected and protected to a similar degree. This is already occurring. In the UK vaccination of the vulnerable was done very systematically, with well less than 10% of those at high risk of severe disease unvaccinated for around 5 months now.

Cases have been predominantly amongst the younger age groups. Lots of possible reasons for this: higher mobility, coming into close contact with a high number of others through work or school or socialising, a lower rate of vaccination, less care taken with preventative measures……

They are not the ones predominantly responsible for hospitalisations or deaths.
The first image shows this.
Source:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ghts/hospitals
I can’t find any UK data what % of these younger age groups that were hospitalised had co-morbidities. I suspect it is a high %, but I may be wrong.

Couple that with the vaccination rate for various age groups and it gives lots to think about.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...inations-today

SWL
PS Vaccination rate in the UK is fairly low now: about 10% of what it was at its peak around March to June.

Interesting to note that daily infection rate continues to go up in the UK, whereas in the US it has come right down:





Death rate, however, is still quite low, about equal to the EU average at 1.65, and with no material increase during the last two months.





Inasmuch as the proportion of vaccinated people in the UK is no longer higher than many EU countries, I guess the low death rate as a function of daily infection rate must be the result of a high degree of natural immunity supplementing immunity from vaccination.

[Dockhead]

A very good article on pandemic measures in today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/o...-vaccines.html


Lamenting the polarization and all-or-nothing approach to measures in the U.S., which the author contrasts to sensible moderation and consensus in Europe.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Interesting. Other Nordic countries are going the opposite way; Denmark for example has just closed all of its rapid testing centers across the country.

I am just wondering for the Nordic countries, if at the highest scientific and political level between them, they have cooperated with different approaches to monitor the comparative effectiveness?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am just wondering for the Nordic countries, if at the highest scientific and political level between them, they have cooperated with different approaches to monitor the comparative effectiveness?

The Nordic countries cooperate very closely on a broad front of issues, looking in some ways like a single country, a loose federation of 4 or 5 countries.

The health authorities of the Nordic countries cooperate very closely and share data, insights, draft policies, ideas. The head of the Finnish covid response, Mika Salminen, is a personal friend of the much-maligned Swedish health chief Anders Tegnell.

But even more than that -- the Nordic countries share a political culture with following features, which greatly influenced the pandemic response:

1. Bureaucratic autonomy. The health authorities are insulated to a great degree from political pressure according to the structure of government. So pandemic policy has been much more science-driven with much less political influence than in other regions. This protects the politicians as much as it does the bureaucracies -- in Sweden for example the pandemic policies were subject to an international storm of outrageous slander which would have tested the mettle of any politicians responsible for implementing such policies, but in Sweden the politicians could hide behind bureaucratic autonomy, correctly referring to science being the driver of policy, and so weather the storm.

2. High degree of social trust. This drove the reliance on mostly voluntary pandemic measures, with minimum reliance on mandatory measures backed by threat of punishment (punishment as such is much less used in this region in any case; in Finland the prisons, which hold something like 50x less prisoners per capita than American prisons do, don't have walls, and the guards don't wear uniforms or carry guns). This factor also promotes a calm, long-term approach to the measures -- "this is a marathon, not a sprint" -- Tegnell, March 2020. So the Nordic measures were designed to be maintainable for a year and more, as they were in fact, so different from the slamming on hard measures, then taking them off suddenly, slamming them back on, like we did in the U.S.

3. Constitutional limitations on restrictions of freedom and strong culture against this. Lockdowns are clearly unconstitutional in Finland and Sweden, and probably so in Norway and Denmark. In the whole region restricting the right of citizens to leave the country and return is also constitutionally impossible. So even if someone had thought that lockdowns would be desirable, they would have been impossible to implement legally.

4. Lack of political polarization. Leading to inherent moderation of policies which take into account a variety of points of view. This made impossible a fantatic, fear-driven "just implement the strongest possible measures and don't consider the cost" approach impossible. Unlike most of the rest of the world, the interests of people at low risk from the virus -- young people, poor people, children -- were explicitly considered from the very beginning, and the harmful effects of strict measures on these demographics was a major rationale for avoiding strict measures.

These points are common throughout the Nordic countries, and together formed the very similar pandemic responses throughout the region.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Nordic countries cooperate very closely on a broad front of issues, looking in some ways like a single country, a loose federation of 4 or 5 countries.

The health authorities of the Nordic countries cooperate very closely and share data, insights, draft policies, ideas. The head of the Finnish covid response, Mika Salminen, is a personal friend of the much-maligned Swedish health chief Anders Tegnell.

But even more than that -- the Nordic countries share a political culture with following features, which greatly influenced the pandemic response:

1. Bureaucratic autonomy. The health authorities are insulated to a great degree from political pressure according to the structure of government. So pandemic policy has been much more science-driven with much less political influence than in other regions. This protects the politicians as much as it does the bureaucracies -- in Sweden for example the pandemic policies were subject to an international storm of outrageous slander which would have tested the mettle of any politicians responsible for implementing such policies, but in Sweden the politicians could hide behind bureaucratic autonomy, correctly referring to science being the driver of policy, and so weather the storm.

2. High degree of social trust. This drove the reliance on mostly voluntary pandemic measures, with minimum reliance on mandatory measures backed by threat of punishment (punishment as such is much less used in this region in any case; in Finland the prisons, which hold something like 50x less prisoners per capita than American prisons do, don't have walls, and the guards don't wear uniforms or carry guns). This factor also promotes a calm, long-term approach to the measures -- "this is a marathon, not a sprint" -- Tegnell, March 2020. So the Nordic measures were designed to be maintainable for a year and more, as they were in fact, so different from the slamming on hard measures, then taking them off suddenly, slamming them back on, like we did in the U.S.

3. Constitutional limitations on restrictions of freedom and strong culture against this. Lockdowns are clearly unconstitutional in Finland and Sweden, and probably so in Norway and Denmark. In the whole region restricting the right of citizens to leave the country and return is also constitutionally impossible. So even if someone had thought that lockdowns would be desirable, they would have been impossible to implement legally.

4. Lack of political polarization. Leading to inherent moderation of policies which take into account a variety of points of view. This made impossible a fantatic, fear-driven "just implement the strongest possible measures and don't consider the cost" approach impossible. Unlike most of the rest of the world, the interests of people at low risk from the virus -- young people, poor people, children -- were explicitly considered from the very beginning, and the harmful effects of strict measures on these demographics was a major rationale for avoiding strict measures.

These points are common throughout the Nordic countries, and together formed the very similar pandemic responses throughout the region.

There are common amongst many countries many of whom claimed a science based approach and are not socially polarised.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

There are common amongst many countries many of whom claimed a science based approach and are not socially polarised.

I think relatively few countries got through the pandemic without lockdowns. Besides the Nordic countries, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, some others? Estonia and Latvia. Germany never had a national lockdown, but couple of the Bunderländer, I think Bavaria and M-V, had state-ordered ones I think.



But a science-driven approach might eschew lockdowns in any case. Already since January of this year there has been peer-reviewed science showing that lockdowns are not actually effective: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484


I remember the furious arguments we had on here just a year ago, whenever anyone even raised the question whether lockdowns are in fact effective, showing the extent to which the question has been politicized.

[El Pinguino]

Find me a country that - if it didn't impose internal restrictions - didn't close its borders.
( That's a lock in/ lock out rather than a lock down / lock up - all non sense phrases)
LILOs were the order of the day in the SW Pacific and are still the order of the day in many jurisdictions as far west as Perth, the world's most isolated city.

I found this amusing re WA
https://www.theage.com.au/national/i...31-p58ne4.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Find me a country that - if it didn't impose internal restrictions - didn't close its borders.
( That's a lock in/ lock out rather than a lock down / lock up - all non sense phrases)
LILOs were the order of the day in the SW Pacific and are still the order of the day in many jurisdictions as far west as Perth, the world's most isolated city.

Yes, closing borders to foreigners was pretty much universal. Sweden for example followed the EU recommendations and closed up tight to visitors from outside of the EU without a "worthy purpose" (business trip, family visits, etc.) like pretty much the entire EU, and restricted border crossings even from within the EU during various times.

But restrictions on one's own citizens with regard to crossing the border did vary quite a bit. I think most countries allowed their citizens to come and go fairly freely (subject maybe to testing and some kind of quarantine; voluntary in the case of countries like Finland), but some like the UK imposed more severe quarantines, including hotel quarantine, others like Australia imposed hotel quarantine plus fairly severe quotas which left many Australians unable to come home for long periods of times, and others like Russia prohibited their citizens from leaving the country. Did Australia do that also? I don't quite recall. Living in Northern Europe, I have been somewhat thwarted at various times from travelling as I like, but nevertheless since the beginning of the pandemic, have visited 12 countries on three continents, and always returned to Finland without any impediment other than testing (sometimes free testing on arrival) and then vaccination, and during some periods voluntary quarantine. Cruising by sailboat in the Baltic Sea among the various littoral countries (original topic of this thread) was almost completely unrestricted during both summer of 2020 and summer of 2021.

But "lockdown" is certainly not a "nonsense phrase" -- "lockdown" has a precise meaning, even if the precise meaning is often ignored by sloppy writers and sloppy thinkers:
"Noun:
lockdown (countable and uncountable, plural lockdowns) The confinement of people in their own rooms (e.g., in a school) or cells (in a prison), or to their own homes or areas (e.g., in the case of a city- or nation-wide issue) as a security measure after or amid a disturbance or pandemic, etc. " https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lockdown

AKA "stay at home order". Like border restrictions, that is a movement restriction, but of an entirely different character, and different level of severity, to border restrictions, as almost all people ordinarily leave their houses every day or many times a day, and few people cross borders even every month. So profoundly disruptive of normal life for most people. If your thesis was "all countries restricted movement in some way or another, therefore all the restrictions were the same", then this is totally wrong, even looking only at border restrictions.