There are lots of reasons why any point about how well/badly Sweden has done compared to us need to be qualified or treated with caution. In health terms, you are comparing apples with a bag of chips.
I am not arguing how badly or not Sweden have done (although they have done better than us here in the UK). What I am asking is for someone to justify the following:
So why did their first peak decline in Sweden in the spring without lockdown? Why did a resurgence come again for Sweden in the autumn much like it did in the UK? Why has their second peak declined despite only 16% of the population being vaccinated?
So far I've not seen a convincing argument made by anyone. The only response when things start to get 'hot' for those promoting lockdown is to either resort to nit-picking, pointing out very slight differences that amount to very little, or they resort to slander. Instead of offering evidence or data they resort to calling people trolls or conspiracy theorists, or suggesting that people with the 'wrong opinion' get removed from the forum, as can be seen in Kelvin's post above.
I mean why would you resort to this sort of response if you think your argument is not in danger of being holed below the waterline?
People, including someone from Sweden, have tried to explain to you that measures were taken, that life did change.
I think you need to go back to the last page and read my post on air-borne virus transmission in dy and damp air, curlywhirly. many countires di better in the Spring and it was generally due to a combination of measures taken by gouvernements and drier, milder air.
The return to school resurgence of air-borne disease is a classic. Colder weather, damper air and people bundle back into the incubators that are school classrooms and work places. In France they show maps of how the seasonal flu is progressing on the news.
@curlywhirly, instead of keep asking questions please can you answer mine from several hours ago, now requested 3 further times.
And as for only those proposing lockdowns need to provide evidence for it - just no. You can't throw out a theory with no explanation and walk away (rather you can but some would suggest there's a specific term for it)
"but Sweden" is so last year
So, we are exporting vaccines now…
What happened to that exclusivity agreement for UK produced AZ/Oxford doses?
you can see here that movement of people in Stockholm decreased massively in the first wave, down to about 30% of normal
https://citymapper.com/cmi/stockholm
of course that was not enough to stop transmission and they had a much higher death rate than other nordics with similar demographics (tho sweden had an inbuilt advantage with lowest housing occupancy in Europe)
https://citymapper.com/cmi/copenhagen
Curly, the comparison with Sweden isn’t ideal. I’ve lived there and they’re not like us. Personal space, geographical space, self-control, etc.
Surely the lockdown argument is moot now that we’re about to exit our last one. Shops reopening on Monday here in Wales.
If they don’t work, we’ll see cases shoot up, no?
So, we are exporting vaccines now…
What happened to that exclusivity agreement for UK produced AZ/Oxford doses?
And why not do this if the aim is to save lives? No one over the age of 50 in the UK needs a vaccine to feel safe so best to send them somewhere else where they can be put to good use vaccinating the old and vulnerable. Can't understand why this is a problem for you?
Curly, the comparison with Sweden isn’t ideal. I’ve lived there and they’re not like us. Personal space, geographical space, self-control, etc.
Actually Sweden has a higher urban population percentage than the UK.
you can see here that movement of people in Stockholm decreased massively in the first wave, down to about 30% of normal
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
Surely the lockdown argument is moot now that we’re about to exit our last one. Shops reopening on Monday here in Wales.
It is not moot at all. We are only now starting to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of collateral damage that has been caused by lockdown. We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again.
Over-reaction. Really? It looked like a rabbit staring into the headlights and sitting there through January and February of last year. Go back to the start of this thread and read it.
We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again.
Who's the WE in that sentence? FWIW, as a front line health worker, I'd rather not have infected people coming to the surgery and coughing over all my staff, thanks all the same. I'd rather you stayed at home
Get yourself vaccinated, and get on with your life. make sure you don't make anyone else life worse by your actions.
It should not be up to people who think lockdowns don’t work to prove anything.
Qualified experts on here have patiently with evidence why and how lockdowns, for all their flaws, have worked.
Over to you now. Explain, with evidence, what the better alternative would have been. Because all you've come up with so far has been busted
curlywhirly - you really can't compare 'long covid' to CFS.
There are of course similarities as to your life being put on hold. However with Long covid there are real problems relating to organ failure, risk of a stroke at anytime, maybe long term damage to health for ever.
With cfs, it's more a case of one being unable to do everyday things. Some people end up in a wheelchair, some will be lucky enough to get a mild case and almost carry on some form of life.
Having had cfs for 5 years when I was younger and a now friend with 'long covid' there really is a huge difference.
The only hope is that the people with long covid can recover in time as is often the case with cfs.
Joe Pud - I do have a heart thanks very much. Love for my family, friends (especially my closest, who has spent the last year plus, working a hospital in conditions, I hope you never find yourself in).
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
Whether you are locked down because the government mandates it, or you stay away from others because you have a brain, the end result in terms of isolation is the same.
We need to make sure that such a failed, damaging, unnecessary and panicked over-reaction NEVER gets repeated again
OK I'll ask my usual question when someone comes up with this. How many dead bodies per day are you prepared to accept by not locking down? Going by past lockdowns the government's figure is somewhere between 50 and 500, I'd be interested to know what yours is.
There's some things I still don't understand.
If I understand your theory, it's that lockdowns have had no impact on controlling the virus, and the waves of cases and deaths and the subsequent reductions are coincidental with the lockdown and opening up? Many, myself included find this not credible, but it's your theory so let's go with it.
In support of your theory you presented a graph that showed there was no correlation (even an inverse correlation?) between 'lockdown severity' (still waiting for you explanation of that metric) and deaths.
Why do you think that so many Governments and Health Agencies have made the same mistake and got it wrong then? Or - is it no mistake and instead there's a reason why they have taken us down this path?
What do you need to see coming out of this UK lockdown that would change your mind? From my side; I expect cases to rise but at a lower rate due to the combined impacts of weather/season, vaccination, etc., but I expect there to be a rise. I also hope that the case numbers to hospitalizations to death linkage is reduced by the preferable protection of the vulnerable in the vaccination program.
BTW - I agree absolutely that the impact on the economy, mental health, future poverty and life chances is going to be horrendous and I have advocated for opening up of schools in particular whilst knowing there is a risk/cost to that. So I'm not against the same outcomes as you, I just don't follow the same reasoning.
Saying things as they are:
Even if the headline is loaded.
First jab for me today a few days ahead of the official start of over 60s here on 16/4. I could have waited a few weeks for pfizer or Moderna but if someone of my age isn't going to accept AZ who is? Second jab 11/6.
Well done. Someone across the channel may as well make use of it.
I could have waited a few weeks for pfizer or Moderna
Is that actually an option? You get to pick and choose?
So no need for a draconian lockdown then that ruins lives if people naturally limit movement?
So you ignored the servings part of my past that showed how much worss they did han similar demographic neighbours
OK I’ll ask my usual question when someone comes up with this. How many dead bodies per day are you prepared to accept by not locking down? Going by past lockdowns the government’s figure is somewhere between 50 and 500, I’d be interested to know what yours is.
Firstly you are assuming that lockdowns save lives which is a point that has now been thrown into question when you look at the real data from around the world.
I would also argue that over the next 5-10 years that lockdown, through an increase in poverty and damage to the economy, will cut short way more lives than even the strongest of lockdown protagonists will claim had ever been saved by lockdown. As we should all know, the health of the nation and its economy are intrinsically linked. No country in history ever improved the health of its population by making itself poorer.
But anyway since you asked for the number I refer you to the UK Government pandemic planning which plans for deaths of up to 750,000. No mention of lockdowns or of quarantine for the healthy in here that I can see. So there you go, there is your number.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pandemic-flu
So you ignored the servings part of my past that showed how much worss they did han similar demographic neighbours
I have already explained that rather than selecting individual countries to fit our chosen argument, in a global pandemic we need to take a global view, looking at all countries to see how the many factors that affect outcome could possibly be interplaying. If you look globally there is no clear correlation between lockdown stringency and the deaths per million from Covid. Therefore it would imply that there are many other factors that might be influencing outcomes, not necessarily whether a country locked down hard or not. If lockdown is indeed a factor in influencing outcome then the data would suggest it is a very small factor, and almost certainly the longer term damage caused by lockdown will far exceed any short term benefits it may bring.
Why do you think that so many Governments and Health Agencies have made the same mistake and got it wrong then? Or – is it no mistake and instead there’s a reason why they have taken us down this path?
Panic and the need to be seen to be doing something. Possibly following misleading information from China. Pressure from the media following the Italy hospital photos. Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests. Basically a contagious herd mentality amongst Western nations. As the famous quote goes:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Originally we though the IFR of Covid-19 was in the region of 3.5%, and that everyone was susceptible, therefore we can perhaps forgive the panic motivated first few weeks of lockdown.
Very quickly however we knew that the actual IFR was in the region of ten times less than we first thought, that the vulnerable were the elderly, and that there was very little risk to healthy people of working age, yet the inexcusable mystery is why we continued with damaging lockdown policy without an impact assessment being carried out, and even when we knew that this disease was not what we first thought it was.
What do you need to see coming out of this UK lockdown that would change your mind? From my side; I expect cases to rise but at a lower rate due to the combined impacts of weather/season, vaccination, etc., but I expect there to be a rise. I also hope that the case numbers to hospitalizations to death linkage is reduced by the preferable protection of the vulnerable in the vaccination program.
There is nothing that would change my mind. It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve. The cure is far worse than the disease if you like. And if you can't see this now then I suggest that in due course you probably will, or you are most likely currently living in a bubble or are in some way insulated somewhat from the most serious effects.
Covid-19 is here to stay in some form. We can either put aside our irrational fear and just learn to live normally with it, or we can carry on hobbling ourselves with crazy restrictions like masks and passports and testing of healthy people or some of the other ridiculous and over the top measures that actually cost a lot of taxpayers money, hurt the poorest in society the most, but yet have achieved very little.
Never again should our country or its law abiding citizens be held to ransom by the threat of panicked and badly thought out and over the top regulations, dreamt up by computer modellers, and put into place in an un-democratic fashion, circumventing due parliamentary process, at the whim of our increasingly authoritarian government ministers and their select few scientists. This is not how democracy works.
Never again should scientific debate or journalists, reasonably seeking to question the path we are following be censored, shut down or smeared. This is not how science works.
Never again should people be denied the right to be with the ones they love in their hour of greatest need. This is not how human nature works.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
You've yet to prove this
Covid-19 is here to stay in some form.
That's right and it's accepted that we'll live with it like flu, managed through provision of vaccines and therapies, likely targeted at the vulnerable only in the future and accepted that some will die.
Long covid might be a factor in deciding who gets vaccinated regularly as well once we understand it more but at the moment we're in beta testing.
Prior to that we had no scientific mitigation, we've seen what happens when restrictions are lifted without vaccines three times, you're just choosing to ignore that blatant fact.
Now we're in a different testing scenario and time will tell what the outcome is from lifting restrictions.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
I wouldn't go that far as case numbers, admissions, and deaths have clearly fallen. Anecdotally I heard a psychologist call lockdowns the "bluntest tool" we can use to stop the spread of a virus. However the social impact of lockdowns wont be felt for a while. It will take time to see the impact its had on school kids, peoples mental health, social mobility and even the economy. Its too soon to say lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve but there will be some fall out.
You should read your own article link curlywhirly:
Scientific modelling estimates that the UK could experience up to 750,000 additional deaths over the course of a pandemic. These figures might be expected to be reduced by the impact of countermeasures, but the effectiveness of such mitigation is not certain. The combination of particularly high attack rates and severe disease, resulting in this deaths figure, is also relatively (but unquantifiably) improbable.
Taking account of this, and the practicality of different levels of response, when planning for excess deaths, local planners have been set the target of preparing to extend capacity on a precautionary but reasonably practicable basis, and aim to cope with a population mortality rate of up to 210,000 to 315,000 additional deaths, possibly over as little as a 15 week period and perhaps half of these over 3 weeks at the height of the outbreak
So less than half of your clickbait attempt of 750,000. You do know when you make assumptions and post questionable evidential data it only serves to lessen your already pretty weak stance, right?
You also state no mention of countermeasures, read the first paragraph... so as much as it’s a bit galling to talk about “targets” when we are referring to friends and colleagues deaths, fwiw UK.gov is way above the target stated here with c19, deliberately or as we’d probably all acknowledge accidentally.
@curlywhirly thanks for your answers. Please ignore any abuse, you are IMHO better than the obvious trolls on here as you clearly have an opinion/theory that you are prepared to explain and defend. I see some truths in your position, eg: that there is a cost to lockdown that needs measurement against the benefits of lockdowns, but I still think you're wrong in the extent of that. Data will show, and in time maybe we will learn we should have responded differently. One thing's for sure, I can't wait to get 'back to normal' so we can learn the lessons from it.
It is obvious that the lockdowns cause way more damage than they could ever hope to solve.
I don't think it is yet.
You have referred, indirectly to this (I assume the graph you posted a day or so ago), in the answers you gave above:
"rather than selecting individual countries to fit our chosen argument, in a global pandemic we need to take a global view,
"Firstly you are assuming that lockdowns save lives which is a point that has now been thrown into question when you look at the real data from around the world.
- and then while you have cut and pasted specific questions from my post you still haven't answered one that I have asked several times now.
I'll make it easy, and repost here so you can see it.
Your graph:
My questions
what is the definition of 'average lockdown severity index'? I can't understand the chart without, and can't understand a graph where eg: Brazil is considered to have a more severe policy than the UK?
how do you consider an average / single number is truly representative when the data seems to suggest that infections rise and fall 'periodically' (me: in line with restrictions / opening up; you: you say this is coincidental and it's other factors)
A new question related to the one immediately before. We essentially have similar weather and seasonality to NEU, why are the UK's waves out of sync with eg: France if the cause is other, eg: environmental rather than 'man made'
and secondly - keeping this apart as I think this is substantially more contentious. As reasons for why the majority of nations have responded as they have, you said:
Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests.
Can you explain this further please? Who do you think they are and what are their vested interests?
Are any doctors on today?
I’ve been vaccinating for the last few days with AZ at my local pharmacy - obviously lots of questions about clots. Our advice has been any strong persistent headache seek immediate medical help.
Could someone explain to me the treatment for cvst and how successful swift treatment could be.
Would patients reporting symptoms be taken seriously?
Possibly too seriously based on this report
Of course; can't be 'too' careful but (IANAD) seems like headache is a common and unconcerning side-effect, but the list of effects for the CVST (from EMA, but I'm sure elsewhere) are:
Patients should seek medical assistance immediately if they have the following symptoms
- shortness of breath
- chest pain
- swelling in your leg
- persistent abdominal (belly) pain
- neurological symptoms, including severe and persistent headaches or blurred vision
- tiny blood spots under the skin beyond the site of injection
Member of my family has just been admitted to hospital with a blood clot on the lung following an AZ vaccine.
Risk factor appears to be recent surgery. Female, mid 40s.
Statistics aside I can understand why people are panicking about 'mild' symptoms, these are not normal times and a lot of people are a headache away from full on panic.
Can anyone tell me what travels further Covid aerosols or perfume aerosols?
If I can smell a strangers perfume are they too close? Non stalker question but I have recently been over powered by perfume when passing walkers outside. Maybe my nose sensors have been locked down too long?
or we can carry on hobbling ourselves with crazy restrictions like masks
So you think helping to prevent the transmission of a disease with something as simple and convenient and cheap as a mask is crazy? how is something like that hobbling anyone?
Could someone explain to me the treatment for cvst and how successful swift treatment could be.
Would patients reporting symptoms be taken seriously?
Blood thinners probably, and depends on how quickly you seek help. and yes currently you'd be taken extremely seriously
Can anyone tell me what travels further Covid aerosols or perfume aerosols?
I know what you mean but I don't think the two are comparable, perfumes contain volatile small molecules that evaporate and are essentially gases when you smell them.
Aerosol particles are liquids and fall to the ground. Air currents will carry them around (how far depends on size) but they're fighting against gravity and losing.
So perfumes will generally travel further, but you're not comparing like with like.
thanks theotherjonv I will stop holding my breath!
Pressure from a number of corporate and organisational vested interests.
Seems unlikely to me that a group of wildly divergent countries across the world would willingly choose to trash their economies.
It's a cabal of tech companies promoting lockdowns to sell more teams / zoom / internets licenses
So you think helping to prevent the transmission of a disease with something as simple and convenient and cheap as a mask is crazy? how is something like that hobbling anyone?
Many people find masks uncomfortable, they are a visual sign that prolongs the fear, they do not allow effective communication since as we all know, 90% of communication is non verbal. My 16 year old nephew who is mostly deaf has particularly struggled throughout this, not being able to see the usual facial expressions etc. Are these invalid points perhaps?
I am yet to see any credible evidence as to the effectiveness of wearing a mask in relation to viral transmission, such is the tiny size of viral particles. Can't remember who but have heard one respiratory doctor say that wearing a mask for a virus is like trying to catch a grain of sand in a football net.
The data is so far pretty inconclusive as to any benefits. I am afraid that it is just is not good enough to say 'well we think there could be some benefit' because under medical ethics code, when prescribing any medical intervention, a doctor needs to know that there is a good chance that it will work.
We have so far spent the best part of $166 billion on masks during the 2020 period, a good proportion of which now lay littered in hedgerows or are slowly killing marine life in the ocean. Think of the actual good we could have achieved with that money if we'd invested it in other areas of healthcare? Crazy does not even begin to describe the utter lunacy and short sightedness of this!
Still, if that doesn't worry you then this should:
https://twitter.com/wef/status/1379720605235175433
A smart mask that the government can check to see if you are being a good boy and wearing. What on earth have we stooped to as a society if this is the new normal? Still, I await the accusations of being a conspiracy theorist!
It’s a cabal of [s] tech companies[/s] lizards promoting lockdowns to sell more teams / zoom / internets licenses
FTFY
Many people find masks uncomfortable,
ah, diddums Sorry, but really who cares.
they are a visual sign that prolongs the fear,
now you're really straying into the realms of psycho-babble. There's no sensible evidence that folk are being traumatised because they have to wear a mask, (it's pretty common in SE Asia after all)
they do not allow effective communication since as we all know, 90% of communication is non verbal.
again, you state this like it's a fact, when you're just guessing.
I am yet to see any credible evidence as to the effectiveness of wearing a mask in relation to viral transmission
Here's just the first one I googled The evidence is all around you, you just have to look, and it's certainly better quality that that meaningless graph you posted
You've clearly made up your mind, and arguing on the internet never changed anyone's opinion. I hope you make good decisions that don't effect the people around you, and wish you good luck.