Sweden - success story?
Discussion
It appears (subject to possibly some small revisions) that Sweden is over the worst of the CV19 matter.
https://softwaredevelopmentperestroika.wordpress.c...
I wonder if they will see a further spike or if they put beyond doubt the question of their actions being right.
https://softwaredevelopmentperestroika.wordpress.c...
I wonder if they will see a further spike or if they put beyond doubt the question of their actions being right.
philv said:
Death rate per million -
Sweden 545
uk 658
Population density per square km -
Sweden 25
uk 275
international visitors each year -
Sweden 7.5 million
uk 38 million
Sweden may have have been successful.
But consider the above facts before drawing any conclusions about the uk.
Apples and oranges.
Population density doesn’t really mean anything as the population aren’t spaced out evenly all over the landmass. Sweden 545
uk 658
Population density per square km -
Sweden 25
uk 275
international visitors each year -
Sweden 7.5 million
uk 38 million
Sweden may have have been successful.
But consider the above facts before drawing any conclusions about the uk.
Apples and oranges.
Their population is actually quite urban 88% like in Australia 86.2% whereas U.K. is 83.9%
Obviously this is all calculated differently by different countries but it shows most Swedish people live in urban areas not dispersed evenly around the countryside at the 25/ sq km figure. That’s just a ratio of country size and population. It’s doesn’t show where people actually live.
It’s relevant when looking at likelihood of virus transmission.
It’s the same with Australia where people say the population density is less than the U.K. which is true but actually a higher % of the population live in urban areas and most of the country is empty desert.
Chartr think Sweden wasn't a success story: https://www.chartr.co/newsletters/2020/7/10/sweden...
El stovey said:
philv said:
Death rate per million -
Sweden 545
uk 658
Population density per square km -
Sweden 25
uk 275
international visitors each year -
Sweden 7.5 million
uk 38 million
Sweden may have have been successful.
But consider the above facts before drawing any conclusions about the uk.
Apples and oranges.
Population density doesn’t really mean anything as the population aren’t spaced out evenly all over the landmass. Sweden 545
uk 658
Population density per square km -
Sweden 25
uk 275
international visitors each year -
Sweden 7.5 million
uk 38 million
Sweden may have have been successful.
But consider the above facts before drawing any conclusions about the uk.
Apples and oranges.
Their population is actually quite urban 88% like in Australia 86.2% whereas U.K. is 83.9%
Obviously this is all calculated differently by different countries but it shows most Swedish people live in urban areas not dispersed evenly around the countryside at the 25/ sq km figure. That’s just a ratio of country size and population. It’s doesn’t show where people actually live.
It’s relevant when looking at likelihood of virus transmission.
It’s the same with Australia where people say the population density is less than the U.K. which is true but actually a higher % of the population live in urban areas and most of the country is empty desert.
But it seems comparing population densities isn't so easy.
Many factors may make a country more susceptible to a virus.
Unless you can accurately take into count all those factors, it would be difficult to measure success or failure, particularly against other countries.
We are still in the early stages of this pandemic so the death rate between us and Sweden will need to be looked over a longer period of time.
Australia has gone back into lockdown due to the weather turning colder and the main outbreaks in Europe seem to be related to meat processing where the ambient temperature is 7c so next summer would be earliest to compare imo.
Australia has gone back into lockdown due to the weather turning colder and the main outbreaks in Europe seem to be related to meat processing where the ambient temperature is 7c so next summer would be earliest to compare imo.
Sweden is not an example of the virtues of doing nothing in this crisis.
They are an example that certain specific, and targeted, measures are sufficient to keep this virus spreading within controlled parameters and avoid overwhelming their health service.
We have basically destroyed our economy, and are currently praying we can at least most of it back together again, and most of the lockdown measures taken were not necessary.
They are an example that certain specific, and targeted, measures are sufficient to keep this virus spreading within controlled parameters and avoid overwhelming their health service.
We have basically destroyed our economy, and are currently praying we can at least most of it back together again, and most of the lockdown measures taken were not necessary.
Edited by JagLover on Friday 10th July 18:02
Sweden are actually having to drag this out for longer than they'd expected because of their milder measures, despite having a smaller outbreak in the first place. They originally thought it will be all over by May, which hasn't quite panned out.
Currently the infection prevelance is still high, which not good going into winter. They can't open up fully because of this as well, so not convinced their economy will be in better shape than their neighbours who are in better shape at least in deaths/mortality.
They've done poorly in terms of mortality because they have not really been able to protect their vulnerable population as well as they could have, despite having a healthier demographic. They've somehow done that and rationed their ICU resources and claimed their health service wasn't overwhelmed, which is pretty poor.
Unless there is a massive winter wave in the other Scandinavian countries that brings the mortality level with Sweden and kills off a similar demographic...well I very much hope this thing is over, and the world is not subjected to another wave.
Currently the infection prevelance is still high, which not good going into winter. They can't open up fully because of this as well, so not convinced their economy will be in better shape than their neighbours who are in better shape at least in deaths/mortality.
They've done poorly in terms of mortality because they have not really been able to protect their vulnerable population as well as they could have, despite having a healthier demographic. They've somehow done that and rationed their ICU resources and claimed their health service wasn't overwhelmed, which is pretty poor.
Unless there is a massive winter wave in the other Scandinavian countries that brings the mortality level with Sweden and kills off a similar demographic...well I very much hope this thing is over, and the world is not subjected to another wave.
Europa1 said:
untakenname said:
the main outbreaks in Europe seem to be related to meat processing where the ambient temperature is 7c so next summer would be earliest to compare imo.
Could you expand on this, please? It's a new theory to me.Real problem seems to have been poorly controlled subcontracting using transient labour in low quality housing with no social isolation. The German plants are fixing their problem by moving to salaried staff, not by changing the conditions inside.
DeWar said:
I keep hearing about how well Sweden has done.
Compare their numbers with Norway, then revisit the thread.
They’ve done murderously poorly.
The most recent of the four coronaviruses that make up the common cold emerged in 1890 (according to scientific studies). So we've lived with that one for 130 years.Compare their numbers with Norway, then revisit the thread.
They’ve done murderously poorly.
Lets assess Sweden against their neighbours after a little bit of time has elapsed, maybe not 130 years, but sufficient time. In America if you had assessed things in May you would have said New York had done far worse than most other states. Now it is sweeping through the southern states, who barely caught it before lockdown.
JagLover said:
The most recent of the four coronaviruses that make up the common cold emerged in 1890 (according to scientific studies). So we've lived with that one for 130 years.
Lets assess Sweden against their neighbours after a little bit of time has elapsed, maybe not 130 years, but sufficient time. In America if you had assessed things in May you would have said New York had done far worse than most other states. Now it is sweeping through the southern states, who barely caught it before lockdown.
You do know the US never went into lockdown. The southern states specifically rejected the idea of closing businesses and even threatened workers who wanted to stay home of their own accord. Only a few states went into an effective lockdown like NY and their infection rate plummeted and has remained low whilst southern states have skyrocketed. Quarantines have had demonstrated success dealing with SARS-COV-2.Lets assess Sweden against their neighbours after a little bit of time has elapsed, maybe not 130 years, but sufficient time. In America if you had assessed things in May you would have said New York had done far worse than most other states. Now it is sweeping through the southern states, who barely caught it before lockdown.
Also the common cold is causes by over 200 known strains of virus, most of them rhinoviruses, human coronaviruses make up less than 15%. Novel coronaviruses are different because they are not part of the human virome (they are not human coronaviruses). That is the reason they are far deadlier than most other viruses.
SARS-COV-2 has a mortality rate of 5-12% in western countries (and it's likely the counties reporting lower rates are being less than honest). Malaria and Yellow Fever have a global mortality rate of 17% and 5% respectively but most of these fatalities are in countries with poor medical services. In western countries they have mortality rate approaching 0% because if treated early theyre near 100% survivable. We still consider these amongst the deadliest viruses and millions upon millions each year is spent on prevention alone.
For perspective, the deadliest human viruses have a much lower mortality rate than SARS-COV-2 when treated.
Dr Z said:
They can't open up fully because of this as well, so not convinced their economy will be in better shape than their neighbours who are in better shape at least in deaths/mortality.
Economic numbers so far show Sweden has not won anything at that front and has only lost on health front. Its hard to do business when all export partners are in various stages of lockdown.captain_cynic said:
JagLover said:
The most recent of the four coronaviruses that make up the common cold emerged in 1890 (according to scientific studies). So we've lived with that one for 130 years.
Lets assess Sweden against their neighbours after a little bit of time has elapsed, maybe not 130 years, but sufficient time. In America if you had assessed things in May you would have said New York had done far worse than most other states. Now it is sweeping through the southern states, who barely caught it before lockdown.
You do know the US never went into lockdown. The southern states specifically rejected the idea of closing businesses and even threatened workers who wanted to stay home of their own accord. Only a few states went into an effective lockdown like NY and their infection rate plummeted and has remained low whilst southern states have skyrocketed. Quarantines have had demonstrated success dealing with SARS-COV-2.Lets assess Sweden against their neighbours after a little bit of time has elapsed, maybe not 130 years, but sufficient time. In America if you had assessed things in May you would have said New York had done far worse than most other states. Now it is sweeping through the southern states, who barely caught it before lockdown.
Also the common cold is causes by over 200 known strains of virus, most of them rhinoviruses, human coronaviruses make up less than 15%. Novel coronaviruses are different because they are not part of the human virome (they are not human coronaviruses). That is the reason they are far deadlier than most other viruses.
SARS-COV-2 has a mortality rate of 5-12% in western countries (and it's likely the counties reporting lower rates are being less than honest). Malaria and Yellow Fever have a global mortality rate of 17% and 5% respectively but most of these fatalities are in countries with poor medical services. In western countries they have mortality rate approaching 0% because if treated early theyre near 100% survivable. We still consider these amongst the deadliest viruses and millions upon millions each year is spent on prevention alone.
For perspective, the deadliest human viruses have a much lower mortality rate than SARS-COV-2 when treated.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff