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

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

This is unfortunately merely the beginning of the crisis. I think that it is impossible at this very early stage to know what the final outcome will be, so comments made by anyone (including CF members ) are purely speculative. It is certainly too early for Aussies to be patting themselves on the back.

I do find many posts here quite disturbing. There is no need for apparent glee each time figures rise in certain countries when their policies are not in line with personal views.

SWL

I see you edited your post to include the above.

Most countries are at the end of the first wave and lifting, or looking to lift, restrictions in one form or another. Some are still lagging with control over infections and deaths. This isn't the beginning anymore, we've moved past that now. Commenting on policy decisions and their impact so far isn't speculative; we have the data. And on that we can pat ourselves on the back. We've done well so far and that's why we're able to start easing restrictions.

It is true to say that commenting on the future is speculative and the reality is we don't know what the future holds, though we have a better idea now than we did at the start of the pandemic. This is why saving lives now and not betting on some sort of future 'leveling' is smart and the moral thing to do. Especially considering the lack of knowledge of the virus at the time those decisions were taken months ago.

Regarding your last paragraph, if you're referring to my posts then you simply don't understand what is going on here. If you're not, then I'm not seeing it.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Wottie,
How are you?

I, too, think that it is likely Australia is making an awful mistake with its “eradication” policy (that was not actually the original intention, we were initially just aiming to flatten the curve so that hospitals were not overwhelmed and also to give time to prepare for what was thought to be coming).

The “flattening” worked so well there were only 10 new cases countrywide in the last 24 hours, with zero cases for 6 of the 8 states:
https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...d-case-numbers

Despite zero new cases in neighbouring states, no state borders have yet been reopened. How can Australia maintain this self isolation until the bulk of the population is successfully immunised (which is not likely to occur for at least a year and maybe a lot longer)?

The economy has already been hit badly. Money is haemorrhaging to support those newly in need. Australia is now is recession and unemployment has increased, along with people being paid under the Jobkeepers allowance (36% more than unemployment benefits) that was put in place for 6/12 to help prevent businesses from collapsing. If this turns out to be a temporary prop for many businesses that will collapse anyway, the unemployment rate may shortly spike significantly. The economy is extremely unlikely to act in a V pattern even when this is “over” (and it possibly may never be).

Aussies seem to be very proud of the statistics for our infection rate, but this is only just the beginning of this saga and when the country’s border eventually reopens, I worry terribly that cases will spike uncontrollably and the country is back to “square one” in dramatically worse position financially.

SWL

Hi Lassie,

I too have some (many??) doubts about the Aussie approach but right now it is too early to tell IMO. I was interested to hear why DH held the views about Australia he stated upthread (but not in an argumentative way).

While the majority of the recent new cases in Vic and NSW are from returning Aussies who are in the 14 day quarantine periods, there is some evidence of ongoing community spread as well in those states. I understand why the closed Aussie states are electing to remain closed ATM while there is potential community spread in the "open" states. Really there needs to be at least one (but preferably two) 14 day periods of no new cases (with increased testing) to be sure that community spread has been eliminated. The economic cost of keeping the various states "closed" is IMO minimal when compared to the overall economic cost nationwide. What one state might gain from incoming traffic from another state will be similar to that they will lose from the outgoing traffic from their own state (if that statement makes sense ).

I do wonder how they plan to manage the re-opening the national borders. Probably some travel bubbles will happen and after that I think it will be a very staged approached with testing before and after entry with ongoing medical surveillance.

However the Aussie government didn't think up their approach from any methodical and intensive long term analysis. It was simply just good old fashion political pressure.

After the intense bushfire flamed summer, the PM was pretty much on the nose what with the secretive overseas holiday, the appalling lack of judgement and leadership during the fires, the failure to listen to the fire chiefs before summer etc etc plus the pork barrelling which was taken to new levels during the recent election, the poor fella wasn't getting high scores in the pub tests.

But the PM has a marketing background and the one thing any ad man knows is how to read the effects of spin and how to adjust the spin as required. If sales go down, revamp with a new ad as the old isn't working.

The pandemic was a lifeline for him and he certainly wasn't going to repeat the mistakes of the last crisis. He took advice from the medical experts and took bold action. Of course the medical guys know how to stop a virus from moving around the community - it isn't rocket science. You simply have to stop people from getting close to each other and stop them moving around. The virus has no new hosts. The medical guys aren't that interested in the finer points of the economy. It was just what the PM needed, a crisis to look strong in and some medical experts to take the fall if the virus got out of hand. As a backup to having some more fall guys, he used all the state premiers so there were others to share the heat if things didn't work out.

As to the massive costs incurred, he simply had to do what a previous government did during the last financial crisis (the GFC) which was to splash cash. Only thing is, the coffers weren't full this time around and the financial hit is a order or two greater in magnitude.

The punters aren't likely to accept any more trickle down stories so it remains to be seen what tricks he has up his sleeve although if I was a betting man, there aren't any aces... I don't see a happy ending.

Nothing about this has anything to do the relative merits or otherwise of either side of politics, it simply an opinion about how Australia got to this point in the pandemic.

As an aside, much had written about the downside of the social effects of semi forced isolation but I have to say, quite a few people I have been speaking with are reporting positive emotions about staying at home, working from home etc. Some aren't looking forward to the expectation of ongoing mixing etc. Maybe an age thing .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hi Lassie,

I too have some (many??) doubts about the Aussie approach but right now it is too early to tell IMO. I was interested to hear why DH held the views about Australia he stated upthread (but not in an argumentative way).. . . .

I hope it was clear from what I wrote about Australia, that I have no idea whether the policies will turn out to have been right or not. I am much more modest in my views than some people.


I was just stating what COULD turn out to be the case. Because I think it's too early to declare this or that country's policy either a success or a failure. I was just giving an example how POSSIBLY Australia's policy might look like a failure, a year from now. Not saying I know it will turn out like that -- I don't know.

[Montanan]

The European Union will not fully open internal borders before the end of June, meaning restrictions on travel to and from other countries will only start easing in July, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson said on Friday.

She told a news conference after a video call among EU and Schengen zone interior ministers that most governments would lift internal border controls by June 15, but that some were not ready to do so until the end of the month.

"So that means that (all) internal border controls are lifted by the end of June, I guess. We should consider the gradual lifting of restrictions on non-essential travel to the EU (in) early July," Johansson said.

The Schengen zone, which normally has no border controls between most EU states and some neighbours outside it, banned until June 15 non-essential visitors from elsewhere in response to the coronavirus outbreak.

But delays in opening some individual national frontiers meant most governments now believed a two-week extension was necessary,

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-start-...121613037.html

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If it turns out -- and we won't know for sure for a year -- that Australia ends up with the same number of deaths as everyone else, and is facing total economic collapse with hunger and breakdown of health care systems, then we will know that Australia got it wrong.

If it turns out that stay at home orders and closing businesses do little to stop the epidemic, and the same result could have been achieved with less destructive means, then we will know that Australia got it wrong.

We can't know yet -- we will have to wait and see.

Conversely, if the virus just disappears tomorrow, or if a vaccine is perfected and widely distributed in a few months, then we will know that Sweden got it wrong.

If we learn that stay-at-home orders and closing businesses are crucial to controlling the virus, and the epidemic spirals out of control in Sweden, then we will know that Sweden got it wrong.

We can't know yet -- we will have to wait and see.

That is what will be called "2020 hindsight".

[Montanan]

WHO shifts guidance on masks and urges governments to encourage people to wear them

"WHO advises that governments should encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a media briefing in Geneva on Friday.
Here's what the WHO's new recommendations say:

"In areas with community transmission, we advise that people aged 60 years or over, or those with underlying conditions, should wear a medical mask in situations where physical distancing is not possible," Tedros said.

"In areas with widespread transmission, WHO advises medical masks for all people working in clinical areas of a health facility, not only workers dealing with patients with Covid-19," WHO's Director-General added.

WHO recommends that where there is widespread transmission, limited capacity to contain Covid-19 outbreaks and physical distancing of at least a meter can not be achieved, then governments should encourage their public to wear a fabric mask, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO's technical lead for coronavirus response and head of the emerging diseases and zoonoses unit, told CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/...24c3220832285a

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I hope it was clear from what I wrote about Australia, that I have no idea whether the policies will turn out to have been right or not. I am much more modest in my views than some people.


I was just stating what COULD turn out to be the case. Because I think it's too early to declare this or that country's policy either a success or a failure. I was just giving an example how POSSIBLY Australia's policy might look like a failure, a year from now. Not saying I know it will turn out like that -- I don't know.

Perfectly clear -

[Wotname]

IMO, it must be difficult for northern hemisphere residents to get a sense of the Australian situation unless they search out local Aussie press. The daily numbers must seem so low compared to say the UK, Europe, North America etc. Here we sit up with alarm if double digits are used!

Here is a typical current press report where 4 new cases in WA is considered a significant rise

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/coro...20-%2020200605

Note, they had recently returned to Australia and were in quarantine at the time of testing positive!

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Montanan

That is what will be called "2020 hindsight".

Hahaha, yep. The reality here is that the decision makers, when they took their decisions, had very little information about the virus. Some chose to make assumptions about the virus, like death rates, immunity and so on, and take little action. Others chose not to do that and instead try to save as many lives as they can. As I have said all along, on day 1 the correct decision was to save lives now and get as much information as possible to make better, informed decisions down the track and not gamble with the lives of your citizens. Sweden chose to gamble with the lives of their citizens and this was the wrong decision to take even before you take into account the fact that they lost that gamble. Anders, their chief epidemiologist, the architect of their strategy who was championed along with his approach earlier in this thread, has admitted that he got it wrong. Let's be clear about that.

The post you've quoted is a painfully transparent attempt to save face through wishful thinking in the creation of a few unrealistic straw men for the future. If Australia ends up in the unlikely situation described the rest of the world will most likely be in worse shape. Likely far worse, in fact. But at least we'll have had 'lives in the bank' to face this apparent change in outcome and not be starting from an even worse position. In the scenario described for Sweden (virus disappearing or vaccine appearing - both unlikely) they'll not only know they got their initial approach wrong, they'll forever have to live with the fact that they would only have had to hold out for a few months under heavy restrictions, saving lives, for the threat to disappear and that the decision makers were responsible for a large number of unnecessary deaths of their own citizens.

What I hope for the future is that Anders, if he keeps his job, takes a more evidence based approach less reliant on assumptions. His citizens will be safer for it. I'll say this for him, though, at least he has enough integrity to accept that he got it wrong and admit it.

[Jonte]

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7487961

He didn't mean they did it wrong. But that they should add or remove some actions.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jonte

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7487961

He didn't mean they did it wrong. But that they should add or remove some actions.

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist and the architect of its light-touch approach to the coronavirus has acknowledged that the country has had too many deaths from Covid-19 and should have done more to curb the spread of the virus.


Anders Tegnell, who has previously criticised other countries’ strict lockdowns as not sustainable in the long run, told Swedish Radio on Wednesday that there was “quite obviously a potential for improvement in what we have done” in Sweden.


Asked whether too many people in Sweden had died, he replied: “Yes, absolutely,” adding that the country would “have to consider in the future whether there was a way of preventing” such a high toll.

So he thinks they did it right, but also thinks that too many people have died'. Yeah, ok. Looks to me like he's almost transitioned between denial and acceptance. Maybe I should take back my comment about his integrity and say he's half way towards having that instead. Or maybe we should just wait until he gets sureties on his job and a bit of time passes to see how open he is.

[Jonte]

Originally Posted by tp12

So he thinks they did it right, but also thinks that too many people have died'. Yeah, ok. Looks to me like he's almost transitioned between denial and acceptance. Maybe I should take back my comment about his integrity and say he's half way towards having that instead. Or maybe we should just wait until he gets sureties on his job and a bit of time passes to see how open he is.

Yes he thinks to many people have died, and me too. That's one thing they really looking closely to see what failed.

About his job, I hope he stays . It's not an easy task deliver strategies to a hole country. But he's not alone over 60% of the population is behind the strategy so far.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jonte

Yes he thinks to many people have died, and me too. That's one thing they really looking closely to see what failed.

About his job, I hope he stays . It's not an easy task deliver strategies to a hole country. But he's not alone over 60% of the population is behind the strategy so far.

I think we need to accept that 'too many people have died' and 'really looking closely to see what failed' are not congruent with 'it was the right strategy'. There's some cognitive dissonance going on there.

Over 60% of the population are behind it ... I could make a joke about stockholm syndrome but I fear it wouldn't go down well

In any case, a glance around at your Nordic neighbours can provide some guidance regarding the ease of delivering strategies.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tp12

Hahaha, yep. The reality here is that the decision makers, when they took their decisions, had very little information about the virus. Some chose to make assumptions about the virus, like death rates, immunity and so on, and take little action. Others chose not to do that and instead try to save as many lives as they can. As I have said all along, on day 1 the correct decision was to save lives now and get as much information as possible to make better, informed decisions down the track and not gamble with the lives of your citizens. . . ..

No, that's not obviously the correct decision. This is a simplistic and wrong way to look at the problem. It is not so simple as just suppress the epidemic as much as possible with every measure in the book regardless of cost and regardless of effectiveness of the meaure. Because different measures have unknown effectiveness and unknown cost -- like stay at home orders. It is quite possible that stay at home orders have little benefit and may be very costly in terms of lives. It is wrong to state that this approach requires assumptions and this other approach does not -- nonsense. All of these approaches required all kinds of guessing.

Politics play a role in all of this -- as Wotname said. It is politically easy to just take the boldest possible measure. When there is widespread fear, the population likes it when the politicians take bold action.

It takes political courage to do something other than the boldest possible thing. The boldest possible thing is not always the right thing.

[TeddyDiver]

What I think about this pandemic it's kind of rehearsal for the next, more deadly one and also as a wakeup call for politicians to be prepared for such medical emergencies. What I'm disappointed most is the "refusal" of aknowledging the experience of far east countries with SARS.