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

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... As I said -- the success of any policy has to be measured against it's goals...

So, if you set a lofty goal, of growing your initial investment by 25% per year, and only achieve growth of 23%; and I set a more conservative goal of realizing 2.5% growth, and actually achieve 2.6% - I had the more successful investment policy?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . Unfortunately, we can’t all just stay home for two years. There are essential services, and folks just aren’t patient enough to make that sacrifice when we’re looking at a disease that doesn’t require strong medical intervention for 85% of us.

Yes, we can't AFFORD to all stay home for 2 years. The world would go back to the stone age. The deaths from hunger and poverty would dwarf the effects of the pandemic -- and that's focussing only on deaths and not even getting to quality of life. You cannot just take whatever measure seems most bold, with regard to cost.

This just in from Danish ministry of health, perhaps not in the news yet -- a big study of mortality and COVID-19 in Denmark has just shown that the mortality is the same as the worst strains of flu for anyone up to age 65. After that, COVID-19 is much more deadly, until you get to victims 90+, where again it is similar to flu. We should be protecting vulnerable people.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . .Sweden went with a voluntary approach that wouldn’t have worked everywhere. The relative effectiveness won’t be known for some time, but it does seem that as their herd immunity rises, their infection rate is diminishing, and their approach was less costly economically.

Unfortunately Swedish economy is being slammed like that of other countries. The voluntary measures also have economic costs as people are spending drastically less time in restaurants and travelling, a lot of workplaces have been disrupted, and we live in such an interdependent world that no one country will be able to sail through this thing economically. The biggest advantage of the Swedish approach is its sustainability, and also the lesser social costs. People's lives are disrupted far less. This won't prevent the severe recession or depression which is going to cover the whole world including Sweden, but may make the eventual recovery easier.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, if you set a lofty goal, of growing your initial investment by 25% per year, and only achieve growth of 23%; and I set a more conservative goal of realizing 2.5% growth, and actually achieve 2.6% - I had the more successful investment policy?

Sure you did, but not a big difference -- one case slightly better than the goal, the other slightly worse.

How could it be otherwise? To earn 25% a year, you have to take crazy risks. 23% is OK. To earn 2.5% you were investing in a completely different way. You did 2.6% -- very good. The investment manager who sold a 2.5% investment and produced 2.6% is slightly more successful than the other one who slightly underperformed, yes.

And how does this apply to this case? Earning more money is earning more -- it can only be good. But having fewer infections during a pandemic SO FAR, is not necessarily any kind of success -- if you will ultimately have the same number of infections anyway. In all but a few countries we cannot eradicate the disease -- we are in a pandemic. There is a considerable consensus among the experts that we will mostly all get the disease within the next few months. All of us except those who are able to stay in really severe isolation, which means almost no one in cities.

Lockdowns and other social distancing measures are not intended to reduce the number of infections -- just stretch them out over time to prevent health care systems from being overwhelmed. I could give you a dozen cites for this, but you are an expert in Google, so no need. So if health care systems are not being overwhelmed, the measures are a success.

If there are a lot less infections than the maximum amount which the health care system can deal with, then this could be a good or bad thing or both. It can be good to have a very slow progress of the pandemic because we are waiting not only for a vaccine, but for TREATMENTS to be developed, and there are some promising developments. If we delay people getting sick until that point where there are better ways to treat them -- that's a good thing. We are also waiting for better testing, and more widely available testing. That will allow us to slow down the progress of infections by the far less destructive means of contact tracing and selective isolation (rather than the mass isolation of lockdowns).

On the down side, however, a too slow progress of the disease stretches out the whole process and delays herd immunity. This can increase the social and economic damage for no purpose other than the possible advantages of better treatment and testing. Keeping the progress slow -- that is, much slower than the maximum which the health care system can deal with -- could be OK if it's done by SUSTAINABLE means. Doing it with an immensely destructive hard lockdown is probably not a good idea.

I keep mentioning Poland, but there are other countries with very low infection rates and really hard lockdowns. These countries are now waking up to the fact that they have now spent all they can afford on these measures, and have not achieved anything. They will be forced to lift their lockdowns soon and will just start all over again. They will be in a particularly bad position if there is a sudden explosion of cases, and no longer have any means to intervene. The low infection rate and low death rates in such countries is NOT indeed a measure of any kind of success of the policies in those countries. We are still at the beginning of this thing.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure you did, but not a big difference -- one case slightly better than the goal, the other slightly worse...

Your answer was much better than my rhetorical question.
But, being an a*%hole, I had to be a smart ass.
I should have merely stated my opinion that “the success of any policy has to be measured against it's goals” is a gross over-simplification, of some very complex algebra (for which, I don’t have the equation).

I’d also opine that “flattening the curve” will do more than just avoid overwhelming our healthcare system(s) - it will, in doing so, result in fewer deaths (& perhaps cases), overall.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You gave one metric -- comparison of death rates SO FAR with neighboring countries, ignoring Europe as a whole -- which is completely meaningless. That is not "substance."


As I said -- the success of any policy has to be measured against it's goals. It is ignorant to take death rates SO FAR as the measure success or failure when the stated goal of the policy is not to reduce deaths, but stretch the deaths out over time. During this stage of the pandemic, the goal is to preserve the functioning of health care systems. Sweden is succeeding SO FAR. Basic reproductive rate is supposed to be 0.85 -- very sustainable even with upticks. My friend from Danish ministry of health tells me this morning that it's 0.9 in Denmark.



Countries that slow down the progress of the pandemic too much just kick the can down the road -- so you spend 10% of GDP to delay the progress of the pandemic by 2 months. Now what? We're still at least 18 months from a vaccine. And you're still in a pandemic with the inevitable full development of infections ahead of you. That is not a policy success. That's what we see in Poland for example. The sustainability of measures taken is crucially important.

I wrote more than one post and have given more than one metric.


It was you who originally compared Sweden to it's Nordic neighbours as a more relevant comparison when I was comparing it to a similar sized country. Now it seems the numbers don't suit you so you're saying they're meaningless. They are very meaningful. You continually say that Sweden is doing well but when someone points out that the numbers indicate they aren't you play the 'too early to judge' card. You do see you're taking the cake and eat it too approach? Maybe you don't see that.



And are you really saying that the aims of the Swedish government response does not include reducing deaths?! To quote you, "what are you smoking?" You're building a straw man.


Let's look at your kick the can down the road argument. Do you know what happened to SARS? It mutated itself out of potency such that it was no longer a concern. Kicking the can down the road can save lives not only in that scenario but also in in the development of better treatment and responses. Your statement about the time to a vaccine? You don't know it's 'at least 18 mths' this is also a straw man. So your whole spend 10% of GDP (another made up number) to delay the pandemic by two months is based on the development of a whole lot of straw man arguments that don't hold water.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . I’d also opine that “flattening the curve” will do more than just avoid overwhelming our healthcare system(s) - it will, in doing so, result in fewer deaths (& perhaps cases), overall.

What makes you think that? How?


Here are just two reasons (out of many possible) why OVER-flattening the curve may be counterproductive:


1. Virus has more time to mutate over a long epidemic period, leading to re-infections and ineffectiveness of herd immunity.


2. More economic damage over a long versus short epidemic period, which leaves fewer resources for health care (and nutrition etc etc etc)


This debate is going on right now in Finland, where there is considerable opinion that the Finns have overshot the curve-flattening and will get bad consequences from that. The Minister of Health even talked about trying to ACCELERATE the spread of the disease.


I'm not saying that it's NECESSARILY counterproductive -- I don't know. On the plus side, slowing it way down might open the way to better treatment (antivirals etc.) which could be available in a few months.


But I submit that there is no reason at all to have any confidence, at this stage, that over-flattening the curve gives any benefit at all on balance.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by GordMay:
. . . I’d also opine that “flattening the curve” will do more than just avoid overwhelming our healthcare system(s) - it will, in doing so, result in fewer deaths (& perhaps cases), overall.
Reply by Dockhead:
What makes you think that? How?

In an overwhelmed system, deaths occur due to inability to provide therapeutic care.

Sweden & Dockhead say that its model worked (is working), but that assertion is supported by everything but the evidence. The numbers, analysis, and research all suggest a Different Story.
Ie: Sweden's Covid-19 deaths per capita are 3 to 6 times its Nordic neighbors. On a per capita basis, Sweden's Covid-19 deaths are 3 to 5.5 times the other Nordic countries.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

I wrote more than one post and have given more than one metric.

It was you who originally compared Sweden to it's Nordic neighbours as a more relevant comparison when I was comparing it to a similar sized country. Now it seems the numbers don't suit you so you're saying they're meaningless. They are very meaningful. You continually say that Sweden is doing well but when someone points out that the numbers indicate they aren't you play the 'too early to judge' card. You do see you're taking the cake and eat it too approach? Maybe you don't see that.

And are you really saying that the aims of the Swedish government response does not include reducing deaths?! To quote you, "what are you smoking?" You're building a straw man.

Let's look at your kick the can down the road argument. Do you know what happened to SARS? It mutated itself out of potency such that it was no longer a concern. Kicking the can down the road can save lives not only in that scenario but also in in the development of better treatment and responses. Your statement about the time to a vaccine? You don't know it's 'at least 18 mths' this is also a straw man. So your whole spend 10% of GDP (another made up number) to delay the pandemic by two months is based on the development of a whole lot of straw man arguments that don't hold water.

It's really hard to engage this because logic is lacking, and you don't appear to have attempted to understand the arguments which have been presented. Also like some other people on CF from time to time, you abuse the term "straw man". I'm not really interested in this kind of points-scoring argumentation, but I will make one more attempt to explain myself.


1. You totally missed the point of different comparisons with different countries. Different countries are different, and different sets of measures which are appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another. Thus the Nordic countries go a different way from France and Spain -- NONE of them has a hard lockdown, and within a couple of weeks ALL of them will have measures more or less like Sweden's. This does not necessarily mean that France and Spain should be doing like the Nordic countries. Maybe they needed their hard lockdowns. I don't know. Although I become increasingly skeptical.


But when you start screaming that Sweden is "getting hammered" because it has a higher death rate than Finland or Denmark, THEN you can't stop with those countries -- what does it mean to "get hammered"? THEN you have to look at the world as a whole. Sweden's death rate is moderate by European standards, and indeed it's about 1.5x of a normal flu so far. It is much less than Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, not to speak of Spain or Italy, though more than Germany.


Furthermore, you fail to understand the significance of the death rate. Just because X number of people have died SO FAR, doesn't mean this is twice as bad as x/2 having died in some other country SO FAR. The epidemic doesn't end tomorrow, so that you can make such a final tally today. All it means is that the curve is steeper in the first country, than the other. And this may not even be a bad thing, if the curve is not so steep that health care systems are struggling -- it may mean that they are getting the epidemic over with faster. There is broad consensus among the experts that (a) most of us will get it within the next few months; and (b) a certain percentage of us will die. No one claims that flattening the curve reduces deaths -- just spreads them out over time. Concretely: there is a vigorous debate going on right now in Finland, whose borders I am desperately waiting to open as I own property there. There are different points of view, but no one has asserted that fewer people will die in Finland than in Sweden. There is considerable opinion in Finland, that the Swedes handled it better, perhaps majority opinion.


2. As to the possible benefits of stretching out the epidemic -- the faint hope that the virus may mutate into a harmless form can probably be added to the other potential pluses of stretching it out. Do you know a single expert who considers that likely? We sure haven't seen it so far.



3. As to the timing of a development AND DEPLOYMENT of a vaccine -- do you know of a single expert who thinks it can happen before the end of 2021? I don't. And that is considered "best case". "Straw man argument"? -- like some others we have seen on CF, you clearly don't know what a straw man argument is, and just fling around because it sounds good.


4. As to the Swedish government reducing deaths -- of course they want to reduce deaths. No one said otherwise; you don't read what I write (which begs the question of why it's worth writing this). What I said is that they do not consider that it is possible to reduce deaths by excessively slowing down the rate of infection beyond what they have already done. There is a lot of reason to believe that they are right about that. The rate is of infection is pretty slow. Officially, 0.85, although I don't trust these statistics with the low level of testing which is being done. Less than Denmark at 0.9 as of today. If it's really like that (and we need a massive increase in testing to know for sure, and also to enable trace & isolate), then there is no reason whatsoever, according to any view, to introduce tighter restrictions in either country. And indeed, the Danes (and Finns) are loosening, converging with Sweden.


5. My changing position. When we started this discussion a month ago, my point, in response to several voices, was that what the Swedes are doing is not obviously stupid, although it is far too early to say for sure. I was not specifically defending the Swedish policy because I didn't think there was nearly enough data. But I didn't like what seemed to me the knee jerk reaction of some that because Sweden takes a different path, it must be stupid. The situation is VERY DIFFERENT today, a month later. And my position has changed with it. Since we started this discussion, the curve in Sweden has indeed flattened, and rate of infections and deaths has not only stopped increasing, it has started to fall off. It's still early days to draw final conclusions, but the explosion of cases which some predicted and which would have signalled the failure of the Swedish policy has clearly not happened and will not happen. Because of this, a lot of people have changed their views, and most of those voices are now silent. Just a very few grasping at straws of a comparison to other Nordic countries, as if comparisons to nearby Netherlands, Ireland, UK, etc. is not relevant, as if how many people have died so far is the final tally.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The rate of case growth seems to be slowing, but what evidence, have you, concerning their growth (or the existence) of herd immunity?

Yes, I am making the assumption that a higher infection rate also increases herd immunity. It's the best guess we have right now, and it is somewhat supported by the slowing infection rate.

My main point, in context, was that we don't have the numbers required to do an actual comparison yet, and won't for some time.

[CatNewBee]

There is no way to contain the Chinese virus, many peeople have it and spread it without symptoms because their immune system works as it should. Sorting out and quarantaining sick people will not help, so everybody will be exposed sooner or later to the virus and his body will either respond professionally and contain the virus or freak out and kill himself in an attempt to fight it.

The real victims of the Wuhan epidemy are the people with other health problems, that are not treated properly or timely because everybody is crazy about covid.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . .Sweden & Dockhead say that its model worked (is working)

and an increasing number of public health experts, especially in the Nordic countries. Even WHO has commented favorably on the Swedish approach

"Michael Ryan, a leading epidemiologist at the WORLD Health Organization (WHO) in coronavirus operations, said Wednesday that the Swedish model of adapting to a pandemic could serve as an example to many others. 'If we are going to reach a new normal, Sweden will represent the model of the future in many ways,' Ryan, director of the WHO health crisis program, told Reuters."

Reported in the leading Finnish daily newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006491738.html. The praise is because of the SUSTAINABILITY of the Swedish measures -- they achieved the necessary results in a manner which can be kept up for as long as necessary, a crucial advantage over economically ruinous lockdowns.

Originally Posted by GordMay

, but that assertion is supported by everything but the evidence. The numbers, analysis, and research all suggest a Different Story.Ie: Sweden's Covid-19 deaths per capita are 3 to 6 times its Nordic neighbors. On a per capita basis, Sweden's Covid-19 deaths are 3 to 5.5 times the other Nordic countries.

SO FAR. What makes you think that this "evidence" indicates failure? You clearly don't understand, or don't accept the purpose of curve-flattening.

Let me illustrate the principle of stretching out versus speeding up, since it seems to be difficult for some people.

You have two one liter buckets of water. You punch a big hole in the bottom of one of them, and a small hole in the other.

One minute later, one bucket is half empty and the other bucket is a quarter empty.

So the first bucket loses more water, right? It's a failure? It's like earning 2.6% on your investment versus 24.9%?

Well, no, it's not like that at all. If all the water is going to drain out of both of them anyway, it's just a question of timing. And that is the scientific consensus assumption behind curve-flattening. "The goal is to delay the number of infections, ideally keeping the peak below the threshold of capacity for national health services. This is critical to ensure the continued operation of health services, saving lives and reducing the overall negative impact on a country." https://flattenthecurve.co.uk/#flattenthecurve

Sweden has clearly fulfilled this primary goal, and fulfilled it "ideally" even, of "keeping the peak of infection below the threshold capacity for national health services". Hospitalizations and deaths are already falling. In what way is that a failure? Delaying deaths which will happen anyway is not necessarily a good thing. There are a couple of ways where delaying infections MIGHT save some people because of new treatments being developed, but whether or not this offsets the additional deaths and ruined quality of life from social and economic disruption resulting from prolonged lockdowns, is not obvious.

Also it is absolutely not correct to judge the policy by comparing only to other Nordic countries. Why is policy great in Ireland, and terrible in Sweden? When the death rate is the same? Why? If the death rate acceptable in Ireland (also about 150% of a normal flu) and justifies a costly lockdown, why is the same death rate not OK in Sweden? No logic to this other than justifying a prejudice in favor of harsh measures. And this is quite apart from the issue of what the number of cumulative deaths SO FAR has to do with the final tally.

In Finland, they just announced the opening of borders as of next week, opening of restaurants gradually starting 1 June, and lifting of most of the rest of the restrictions, so converging with the Swedish approach: Although Finland is at a much earlier stage of the epidemic and thus much more vulnerable than Sweden, where somewhere between 25% and 50% of residents of the capital have already had the virus and should be immune at least for some months (herd immunity should be achieved in Stockholm during May). The Finns are nowhere near herd immunity, and speculate they will have a big second wave in the fall, see: https://www.hs.fi/tiede/art-2000006496620.html. Their policy is aimed at maintaining a reproductive rate of about 1.8 for controlled spreading of the epidemic through the population.

At least we should have a decent summer in Finland.


P.S. -- note also the issue of comparability of death statistics:


"Many [up to 50%] of Sweden's official deaths have been recorded in nursing homes. The US and many countries in Europe only count deaths in hospital towards their official death tolls. . . ."

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-...ategy/12177514

Finland closed borders before the epidemic even really got started, so is in a very early stage. Denmark however looks more like Sweden. If you correct for how deaths are reported, the real death rate in Denmark is not so different from Sweden, which should not be surprising because Denmark also does not have a hard lockdown and has had similar Basic Reproductive Rates to Sweden's.

[Dockhead]

From Helsingin Sanomat, just now:


"One thing became clear on MONDAY evening: Finland's main goal in the fight against the new coronavirus is not to completely defeat the epidemic. In the memorandum of officials received by the Government ( available on the Government's website ), the matter is worded as follows:

"Complete suppression of the epidemic permanently is not a realistic option for Finland. Controlled but not too strong a slowdown to prevent health congestion and the resulting health damage and over-mortality is a strategic goal that will ultimately allow all restrictions to be lifted without the high risk of a new wave of epidemics.

"The report justifies the impossibility of eradicating the disease by, among other things, the lack of a vaccine and the global nature of the pandemic. The authors of the report therefore believe that even if the disease were to be depressed in Finland, the risk of it creeping back across the border is high.
"The same quote also contains another important sentence. According to it, the strategy is to “control but not too strongly slow the disease”. Controlled spread provides protection for at least a portion of the population against subsequent waves of disease. It could be inferred from the wording that the creation of such protection is in some cases even desirable. [i.e., herd immunity] . . .


"From the beginning of June, the Finnish road is reminiscent of the road that the neighboring country Sweden runs."


https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006496695.html

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's really hard to engage this because logic is lacking, and you don't appear to have attempted to understand the arguments which have been presented. Also like some other people on CF from time to time, you abuse the term "straw man". I'm not really interested in this kind of points-scoring argumentation, but I will make one more attempt to explain myself.

This is because you have a biased way of applying your logic and don't understand what a straw man argument really is. I agree, it's hard to engage with someone who does that.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

1. You totally missed the point of different comparisons with different countries. Different countries are different, and different sets of measures which are appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another. Thus the Nordic countries go a different way from France and Spain -- NONE of them has a hard lockdown, and within a couple of weeks ALL of them will have measures more or less like Sweden's. This does not necessarily mean that France and Spain should be doing like the Nordic countries. Maybe they needed their hard lockdowns. I don't know. Although I become increasingly skeptical.

Again, it was you initiated the comparison with Nordic countries. Not me. I'm following your lead. The other Nordic countries took stronger measures than Sweden. This is just more spin.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But when you start screaming that Sweden is "getting hammered" because it has a higher death rate than Finland or Denmark, THEN you can't stop with those countries -- what does it mean to "get hammered"? THEN you have to look at the world as a whole. Sweden's death rate is moderate by European standards, and indeed it's about 1.5x of a normal flu so far. It is much less than Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, not to speak of Spain or Italy, though more than Germany.

Interesting that you're using the word screaming. I think that's an emotional response. A metric I used earlier, which you've not addressed, is that Sweden is 10th in the GLOBAL leaderboard for deaths per million of population. So, sure, let's compare to Nordics and keep that comparison going to all countries. 10th. That's not a good thing, in case I needed to say that.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Furthermore, you fail to understand the significance of the death rate. Just because X number of people have died SO FAR, doesn't mean this is twice as bad as x/2 having died in some other country SO FAR. The epidemic doesn't end tomorrow, so that you can make such a final tally today. All it means is that the curve is steeper in the first country, than the other. And this may not even be a bad thing, if the curve is not so steep that health care systems are struggling -- it may mean that they are getting the epidemic over with faster. There is broad consensus among the experts that (a) most of us will get it within the next few months; and (b) a certain percentage of us will die. No one claims that flattening the curve reduces deaths -- just spreads them out over time. Concretely: there is a vigorous debate going on right now in Finland, whose borders I am desperately waiting to open as I own property there. There are different points of view, but no one has asserted that fewer people will die in Finland than in Sweden. There is considerable opinion in Finland, that the Swedes handled it better, perhaps majority opinion.

Now you're going back to your too early to tell argument. Despite the fact you've argued in favour of Sweden's response. You can't see you're having a bet each way. Let me make the point here that these aren't 'just' numbers and we aren't 'just' having a discussion around maths. These are people dying. So when you say 'all it means is that the curve is steeper' ... no, it means that two times the people died. You say 'it may mean that they are getting the epidemic over faster'. There's no evidence to support such a claim and therefore it's not to be used to inform a policy response. It may be that there's no herd immunity and that they'll get an even worse second wave, too. When you don't know what that looks like you should take a 'save lives' approach. That means flattening the curve because that DOES save lives.

There is no broad consensus among the experts that most of us will get it in the next few months. It is obvious that a number of us will die. Flattening the curve of deaths doesn't save lives? This is more tortured logic designed to support a chosen outcome. You've made it very clear that you own property that currently isn't making money. No one needs to assert that fewer people will die in Finland because the numbers bear that out. The two countries are basically at the same point except that Sweden's deaths per million of population significantly outstrips Finland's.

You keep making assumptions and treating them as though they're facts.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

2. As to the possible benefits of stretching out the epidemic -- the faint hope that the virus may mutate into a harmless form can probably be added to the other potential pluses of stretching it out. Do you know a single expert who considers that likely? We sure haven't seen it so far.

You're not very widely read on this subject. Covid-19 is SARS V2, remember, so we already have an example of that happening. I'm not saying make a policy decision based on it. I was using it to counter your claim re: flattening the curve is only kicking the can down the road. That could be very beneficial in the long term and IS very beneficial in saving lives in the short term.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

3. As to the timing of a development AND DEPLOYMENT of a vaccine -- do you know of a single expert who thinks it can happen before the end of 2021? I don't. And that is considered "best case". "Straw man argument"? -- like some others we have seen on CF, you clearly don't know what a straw man argument is, and just fling around because it sounds good.

You've made a number up to support your argument. You've got nothing to support that number - this is a classic straw man argument. I'd suggest you go read up on it again.

Did you know one of the richest men in the world is already building facilities to manufacture multiple vaccines that are already in testing stages? This could save a significant amount of time. How much? We don't know yet. And neither do you - so claiming it's 'at least 18 mths away' is a straw man.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

4. As to the Swedish government reducing deaths -- of course they want to reduce deaths. No one said otherwise; you don't read what I write (which begs the question of why it's worth writing this). What I said is that they do not consider that it is possible to reduce deaths by excessively slowing down the rate of infection beyond what they have already done. There is a lot of reason to believe that they are right about that. The rate is of infection is pretty slow. Officially, 0.85, although I don't trust these statistics with the low level of testing which is being done. Less than Denmark at 0.9 as of today. If it's really like that (and we need a massive increase in testing to know for sure, and also to enable trace & isolate), then there is no reason whatsoever, according to any view, to introduce tighter restrictions in either country. And indeed, the Danes (and Finns) are loosening, converging with Sweden.

I quoted exactly what you wrote and you've got the chutzpah to say I didn't read it? Give me a break. Maybe what you've written here was what you had in your head but not what made it to your post. There's plenty of evidence showing that stronger measures save lives. There's plenty of data showing that. The data we have of taking relaxed measures shows significant death rates. Quite frankly, you're wrong here. And the Danes and Finns may be loosening restrictions, as we are here in Australia, because the thing we have in common that Sweden doesn't have, is low death rates.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

5. My changing position. When we started this discussion a month ago, my point, in response to several voices, was that what the Swedes are doing is not obviously stupid, although it is far too early to say for sure. I was not specifically defending the Swedish policy because I didn't think there was nearly enough data. But I didn't like what seemed to me the knee jerk reaction of some that because Sweden takes a different path, it must be stupid. The situation is VERY DIFFERENT today, a month later. And my position has changed with it. Since we started this discussion, the curve in Sweden has indeed flattened, and rate of infections and deaths has not only stopped increasing, it has started to fall off. It's still early days to draw final conclusions, but the explosion of cases which some predicted and which would have signalled the failure of the Swedish policy has clearly not happened and will not happen.

Your position on this has changed any time data has been presented that challenges it. Firstly you said the Nordics because of, geography, culture etc and they are just as valid today. Also, Sweden globally is performing poorly. When we were having that discussion deaths in Sweden were below 100. Today it is 2,769. There were 90 new deaths in Sweden on May 4th.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Because of this, a lot of people have changed their views, and most of those voices are now silent. Just a very few grasping at straws of a comparison to other Nordic countries, as if comparisons to nearby Netherlands, Ireland, UK, etc. is not relevant, as if how many people have died so far is the final tally.

Grasping at straws? I had already made the argument that Sweden is 10th GLOBALLY in death rate in a post that you seem to have conveniently ignored. This is a silly comment.


I think you should either stick with your argument saying it's too early to tell and drop the backing of Sweden's approach (they're contradictory). Or drop your too early to tell and back Sweden.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

. . . Let me make the point here that these aren't 'just' numbers and we aren't 'just' having a discussion around maths. These are people dying. So when you say 'all it means is that the curve is steeper' ... no, it means that two times the people died.

So far. And half the number of deaths so far as UK or France. So what? It's not over yet. There is no evidence whatsoever, that getting it over faster, is not better. There is only a hope that perhaps some better treatment may appear with some unknown passage of time. Otherwise, it is certainly better and less costly in all regards, to get it over with faster.

Originally Posted by tp12

You say 'it may mean that they are getting the epidemic over faster'. There's no evidence to support such a claim and therefore it's not to be used to inform a policy response.

Sure there is, and trying to get it over faster definitely informs policy responses, all over the world. I cited the statement of the Finnish Ministry of Health about their desire to ACCELERATE the rate of infections, with a target of basic reproduction rate of 1.8 through the summer. That is to get the epidemic over faster.

Originally Posted by tp12

It may be that there's no herd immunity and that they'll get an even worse second wave, too. When you don't know what that looks like you should take a 'save lives' approach. That means flattening the curve because that DOES save lives.

Not a single official source claims that flattening the curve by itself saves lives. This is a fantasy. Except in a few unique cases like New Zealand, the measures are NOT "save lives" approach -- they are "delay the spread". That is the whole meaning of "flattening the curve". I suggest you read up on it.

As to future waves -- every country will have further waves. That's how all epidemics work. The future waves will be more or less severe depending on how well each country is set up to deal with them with SUSTAINABLE measures, how much immunity there is in the population, and how well the health care systems work. This will be with us at least until the end of 2021.

Originally Posted by tp12

There is no broad consensus among the experts that most of us will get it in the next few months. . .It is obvious that a number of us will die. Flattening the curve of deaths doesn't save lives?

I suggest further reading. For example, fhttps://promedicahealthconnect.org/news-and-community/what-it-means-to-flatten-the-curve-of-covid-19/%2Fwww.who.int%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fsearo%2Fthailand%2F2020-04-6-tha-sitrep-44-covid19.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3Df9155c7c_0&usg=AOvVaw0U1yGB JoBN6fKWcIQ-DVkQ


"Flattening the curve refers to the blunting effect of distributing a set number of infections over a relatively greater period time (the cases represented in gold). By doing so, we are less likely to overwhelm the capacity of healthcare systems"

Originally Posted by tp12

No one needs to assert that fewer people will die in Finland because the numbers bear that out. The two countries are basically at the same point except that Sweden's deaths per million of population significantly outstrips Finland's.

Totally illogical. Deaths which have occurred SO FAR at this early stage does not necessarily say anything at all about how many deaths there will be when this is over. If that were true, then Sweden has succeeded far beyond UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. etc. etc. But we can't say that either. We are just getting starting with this thing.



How can the Finns be "at the same point" if almost no one has been infected yet, whereas in Stockholm 25% (official estimate) to 50% (Giesecke) have already had it? The Finns don't say they are "at the same point". On the contrary, the Finns are at an earlier stage of the epidemic, say so, and worry about it. I gave a cite.






It may be a too subtle point for some people, but two things here may be simultaneously true, and this is not "having it both ways":


1. It is too early by far to make a final judgement about any country's policies.



2. However, we CAN today make a judgement about which countries have succeeded in stopping the exponential growth of infections which threatened to kill people by overwhelming health systems -- the explicit goal of curve-flattening and the first (but not last) job of fighting the pandemic and saving lives. Sweden has clearly succeeded in this.



Whether ultimately more or less people die in Sweden than elsewhere, we will have to see as time goes on. I don't know. Actually some people believe that the Italians, for all the carnage there, may do better than anyone. We don't know yet how long acquired immunity lasts, how effective it is, or what it takes to get effective herd immunity, but there are signs that it works -- the sharp downturn in the infection curve in Lombardy PRIOR to lockdown; the downturn in the infection curve in Stockholm without any lockdown. Note however that no one has got enough herd immunity yet to stop the pandemic; see the World Health Organization remarks cited below. That is why SUSTAINABILITY of measures is crucial. We cannot lock down a whole country for years or even for many more months without total economic collapse (if that's even avoidable now -- we don't know that either), and the pandemic won't be over in the next few months for sure. We hope for a vaccine, but there is no guaranty that there will EVER be an effective vaccine -- there isn't one against malaria despite a century of trying, there isn't one against HIV, and there isn't one against the coronaviruses which cause colds. Therefore, we cannot rely on unsustainable measures to control a problem which will be with us for at least until the end of next year and might be with us for years to come.



For final conclusions, we'll have to wait and see. We'll revisit this in a few months.



Dismissive views about Sweden's policies have become quite rare in the last couple of weeks as the INITIAL success of the policies has become clear. Certainly the World Health Organization does not share them:


"GU Thank you. My question is on Sweden. It's a country that's chosen a different road, strategy; basically no lock-down and an open society through the crisis. Could this mean that the population of Sweden and maybe other countries that have not had strict lock-downs have
a chance to be better-protected in case of a second wave as they have been more exposed and have had a chance to develop possible herd immunity? Thank you.
00:41:12
"MR Thank you. I think two things here. I think there's a perception out there that Sweden has not put in place control measures and has just allowed the disease to spread. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sweden has put in place a very strong public health policy around physical distancing, around caring and protecting for people in long-term facilities
and many other things. What it has done differently is that it's very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of citizens to implement physical distancing and to selfregulate,
if we want to use that word. In that sense they've implemented public policy through that partnership with the population. They've been doing the testing, they've ramped up their capacity to do intensive care quite significantly and their health system has always remained within its capacity to respond to the number of cases that they've been experiencing.
"Like many other countries in Europe Sweden has experienced many, many clusters of disease in long-term care facilities but that's unfortunately and tragically not a unique event in Europe. Many countries across Europe have experienced the same tragedies over the last number of months and that's something that really needs to be looked at very carefully all over Europe even as the numbers go down. . . .
00:42:56
"With regard to this concept of herd immunity, I think we'll wait. I believe seroprevalence studies are underway in Sweden as well as in many, many other countries . . . But I would say that the general outcome; even in areas of fairly intense transmission, the proportion of people who have seroconverted or who have antibodies in their blood is actually quite low, which is a concern because it does mean many, the vast majority of people remain susceptible. So the chance of the disease rebounding or returning is quite high, especially if control measures or lock-down-type measures are released too quickly without being replaced by case finding, contact tracing, testing and strong community compliance.
"I think if we are to reach a new normal in many ways Sweden represents a future model of, if we wish to get back to a society in which we don't have lock-downs then society may need to adapt for a medium or potentially a longer period of time in which our physical and social relationships with each other will have to be modulated by the presence of the virus. We will have to be aware the virus is present and we will have to, as individuals and families and communities, do everything possible on a day-to-day basis to reduce the transmission of that virus."


"MR" is Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director, WHO Health Emergencies Programme. Public Domain; available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hrpyRDOb9h2rI4


You may believe you are smarter than the WHO, but we shall see in a few months. In that, this is much better than some of the COLREGS arguments on here -- we'll have an objective answer with time

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So far. And half the number of deaths so far as UK or France. So what? It's not over yet. There is no evidence whatsoever, that getting it over faster, is not better. There is only a hope that perhaps some better treatment may appear with some unknown passage of time. Otherwise, it is certainly better and less costly in all regards, to get it over with faster.

You're now comparing Sweden to other countries in the top ten for deaths per million of population as though this is a good thing. It's not. Your view is massively skewed.

Yes, there is evidence to support that getting it over faster is not better. The number of deaths will be less and also the fact that there is zero evidence to support getting over it faster will be better. Again, in the absence of proof of a better approach you need to save lives. You have a very callous approach and this obviously doesn't concern you.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure there is, and trying to get it over faster definitely informs policy responses, all over the world. I cited the statement of the Finnish Ministry of Health about their desire to ACCELERATE the rate of infections, with a target of basic reproduction rate of 1.8 through the summer. That is to get the epidemic over faster.

There is no evidence to support the idea that 'getting it over faster' will help. Do you understand the fact that there is no evidence to support the concept of herd immunity? There's very real concerns that this won't happen. You'll expose more of the population to death and severe lung or even brain damage. You seem totally ok with this.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not a single official source claims that flattening the curve by itself saves lives. This is a fantasy. Except in a few unique cases like New Zealand, the measures are NOT "save lives" approach -- they are "delay the spread". That is the whole meaning of "flattening the curve". I suggest you read up on it.

You must be smoking crack. Flattening the death curve is self evidently meaning that there are less deaths. Even basic maths tells you this. You are the king of spin. Shane Warne, take note.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As to future waves -- every country will have further waves. That's how all epidemics work. The future waves will be more or less severe depending on how well each country is set up to deal with them with SUSTAINABLE measures, how much immunity there is in the population, and how well the health care systems work. This will be with us at least until the end of 2021.

Here you are again talking as though you know the answers to these questions when you don't. No one does and that's why studies are being done to inform this policy making. Once again making up numbers to suit your arguments with absolutely zero basis in fact. One of your favourite things to do it would seem.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I suggest further reading. For example, fhttps://promedicahealthconnect.org/news-and-community/what-it-means-to-flatten-the-curve-of-covid-19/%2Fwww.who.int%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fsearo%2Fthailand%2F2020-04-6-tha-sitrep-44-covid19.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3Df9155c7c_0&usg=AOvVaw0U1yGB JoBN6fKWcIQ-DVkQ


"Flattening the curve refers to the blunting effect of distributing a set number of infections over a relatively greater period time (the cases represented in gold). By doing so, we are less likely to overwhelm the capacity of healthcare systems"

This doesn't support your argument that flattening the curve doesn't reduce deaths. It's a death curve. If it's flatter it means that lives are saved. Go and draw it on a board and save yourself further embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Totally illogical. Deaths which have occurred SO FAR at this early stage does not necessarily say anything at all about how many deaths there will be when this is over. If that were true, then Sweden has succeeded far beyond UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. etc. etc. But we can't say that either. We are just getting starting with this thing.

Torturing logic again. Yes, saving lives now means that there are less deaths and you're in a position to take an informed policy decision down the track with more of your country's population alive. Sweden is 10th on the death rate leaderboard. You keep listing countries above 10 on that leaderboard as thought that's some sort of evidence that Sweden is doing well. It's not. Again, you're spinning as hard as you can and ignoring the fact that the entire rest of the world is doing better. You really need to do better.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

How can the Finns be "at the same point" if almost no one has been infected yet, whereas in Stockholm 25% (official estimate) to 50% (Giesecke) have already had it? The Finns don't say they are "at the same point". On the contrary, the Finns are at an earlier stage of the epidemic, say so, and worry about it. I gave a cite.

They're at the same point in time with the infections with far less deaths. Their measures have meant less infections. This seems to escape you and again points to your inability to apply non-biased logic. The data shows that you're wrong here. Look at the normalised graphs from infection day zero. Let me know if you need some help understanding it.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It may be a too subtle point for some people, but two things here may be simultaneously true, and this is not "having it both ways":


1. It is too early by far to make a final judgement about any country's policies.



2. However, we CAN today make a judgement about which countries have succeeded in stopping the exponential growth of infections which threatened to kill people by overwhelming health systems -- the explicit goal of curve-flattening and the first (but not last) job of fighting the pandemic and saving lives. Sweden has clearly succeeded in this.

Spin. You measure success in hospital beds. The rest of the world is measuring success by the number of citizens they've saved. Death rate is the key indicator for that. This is another failure of logic.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Whether ultimately more or less people die in Sweden than elsewhere, we will have to see as time goes on. I don't know. Actually some people believe that the Italians, for all the carnage there, may do better than anyone.

I can't let this pass. What a load of rubbish. You think that Italy, with nearly 30k deaths is going to do better than New Zealand or Australia? There can't be any clearer example of how you have zero clue about how this is going.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We don't know yet how long acquired immunity lasts, how effective it is, or what it takes to get effective herd immunity, but there are signs that it works -- the sharp downturn in the infection curve in Lombardy PRIOR to lockdown; the downturn in the infection curve in Stockholm without any lockdown. Note however that no one has got enough herd immunity yet to stop the pandemic; see the World Health Organization remarks cited below.

This is my argument that you're co-opting now. But you can't see how it's making a mockery of your previous arguments. If you don't know whether herd immunity will work, why would you expose your citizens to more risk? This is stupid, like your argument.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That is why SUSTAINABILITY of measures is crucial. We cannot lock down a whole country for years or even for many more months without total economic collapse (if that's even avoidable now -- we don't know that either), and the pandemic won't be over in the next few months for sure. We hope for a vaccine, but there is no guaranty that there will EVER be an effective vaccine -- there isn't one against malaria despite a century of trying, there isn't one against HIV, and there isn't one against the coronaviruses which cause colds. Therefore, we cannot rely on unsustainable measures to control a problem which will be with us for at least until the end of next year and might be with us for years to come.

Sustainability will be an issue, sure. However you're on the far right of the 'sacrifice people for money' spectrum. If it means saving half the population (the generators of the economy) then yeah, you'll lock down for a year or two. Maybe more. This is a ridiculously far fetched hypothetical argument because the reality is that you, and I, don't know anything about how long it will take. This is not support for an argument to stop the lockdowns now. This is an argument for lockdown now, save lives, see what we come up with in the near term. The opposite of what you're advocating.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For final conclusions, we'll have to wait and see. We'll revisit this in a few months.

For final conclusions, obviously. For conclusions based on the data we have? Definitely not. There is a clear indication that the approach that Sweden has taken is, quite frankly, reckless and uninformed.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Dismissive views about Sweden's policies have become quite rare in the last couple of weeks as the INITIAL success of the policies has become clear. Certainly the World Health Organization does not share them:


"GU Thank you. My question is on Sweden. It's a country that's chosen a different road, strategy; basically no lock-down and an open society through the crisis. Could this mean that the population of Sweden and maybe other countries that have not had strict lock-downs have
a chance to be better-protected in case of a second wave as they have been more exposed and have had a chance to develop possible herd immunity? Thank you.
00:41:12
"MR Thank you. I think two things here. I think there's a perception out there that Sweden has not put in place control measures and has just allowed the disease to spread. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sweden has put in place a very strong public health policy around physical distancing, around caring and protecting for people in long-term facilities
and many other things. What it has done differently is that it's very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of citizens to implement physical distancing and to selfregulate,
if we want to use that word. In that sense they've implemented public policy through that partnership with the population. They've been doing the testing, they've ramped up their capacity to do intensive care quite significantly and their health system has always remained within its capacity to respond to the number of cases that they've been experiencing.
"Like many other countries in Europe Sweden has experienced many, many clusters of disease in long-term care facilities but that's unfortunately and tragically not a unique event in Europe. Many countries across Europe have experienced the same tragedies over the last number of months and that's something that really needs to be looked at very carefully all over Europe even as the numbers go down. . . .
00:42:56
"With regard to this concept of herd immunity, I think we'll wait. I believe seroprevalence studies are underway in Sweden as well as in many, many other countries . . . But I would say that the general outcome; even in areas of fairly intense transmission, the proportion of people who have seroconverted or who have antibodies in their blood is actually quite low, which is a concern because it does mean many, the vast majority of people remain susceptible. So the chance of the disease rebounding or returning is quite high, especially if control measures or lock-down-type measures are released too quickly without being replaced by case finding, contact tracing, testing and strong community compliance.
"I think if we are to reach a new normal in many ways Sweden represents a future model of, if we wish to get back to a society in which we don't have lock-downs then society may need to adapt for a medium or potentially a longer period of time in which our physical and social relationships with each other will have to be modulated by the presence of the virus. We will have to be aware the virus is present and we will have to, as individuals and families and communities, do everything possible on a day-to-day basis to reduce the transmission of that virus."


"MR" is Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director, WHO Health Emergencies Programme. Public Domain; available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hrpyRDOb9h2rI4


You may believe you are smarter than the WHO, but we shall see in a few months. In that, this is much better than some of the COLREGS arguments on here -- we'll have an objective answer with time

What you seem to be missing here is the fact that Sweden's approach relies upon herd immunity being successful. This response from WHO you've quoted shows that there are no studies yet that support it. And this is a long time after Sweden made that policy decision. You are misrepresenting them. They are very carefully saying that we don't know yet. It's not surprising that you see this as support for 'expose the population and get the economy going' and that's evidenced by your attempt at pitting me against the WHO. This is your misunderstanding. Take the time to reread what they've said and take your blinkers off at the same time.

Oh and by the way, you said you were only doing this one more time in your previous post. Yet here you are posting again ...