Meanwhile, in Sweden...

Corcaigh_the_Cat

Well-known member
So in summary, Sweden haven't "performed" as well as their Nordic neighbours but have performed on a level with other Western countries who have, largely, invoked more restrictions in response to the pandemic?

Simple comparisons such as that aren't possible. You have to take into account standard of living, overcrowding, responsibility etc.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
Simple comparisons such as that aren't possible. You have to take into account standard of living, overcrowding, responsibility etc.
Population density and the time of lockdown are the major factors on whether the work properly.

The evidence is clear they work.

Sweden could have done a lot better, western countries could have done a lot better.
 

Statto1

Well-known member
Who is qualified as an expert? When holding opposing views, which expert is correct? The person who shouts loudest, has most followers on twitter, biggest corey? Are we to reject all future science that does not conform?

We can say that scientific consensus deemed locking down the best course of action. That is true. But i take issue with the way you have framed the decision of the swedes - A reckless gamble by a non-expert. And with the idea that one should follow the consensus even if their experience and learning leads them to another conclusion. Furthermore, your claim it has "killed 10k people" is truly absurd. And suggests you believe they would have recorded zero deaths, not a single one, had they just followed the experts.

Plus, the logic doesn't stack up. What you are saying is:

The decision made by an expert was wrong; you should always follow the experts.


Anyway, you have said your issue lies not with Sweden. Fair enough.
It is instead with people pushing the Swedish approach, failure of which, to you, was "blindingly obvious" And these "people need to be made aware" that they were wrong.

In other words, I Told You So.

Or as you have put it:

"im not saying i told you so, im saying they (the side that i backed) told you so"

The experts in Asia and elsewhere, who have dealt with SARS, and other similar pandemics, and who were also "ahead" of Europe's timeline, and who were sharing vital information.

Or, if you're short on "experts" internally, what you do is, you speak to a load of external experts and really smart people, that are the most skilled in their field, or the WHO's consensus and ask them what they would do. What you don't do is seemingly listen to one bloke (Tegnell) and let him blag you about herd immunity. It would be like us listening to Cummings about going on trips to Barnard Castle, when you have Covid, it's just not really the done thing.

It's not all the Swedes, it seems mainly steered by Tegnell, but is probably also a product of the way their people are and are governed, like I've always said, if it could work anywhere it would have been there. But it was still a reckless gamble (just like us taking 3 weeks to lock down), which was blatantly obvious when every single other European nation and Asia were advising or doing the opposite, as well as every country surrounding them. It's not a gamble I would take in his position, and not a gamble any others in his position did, and not sure if he had any evidence to back up his thoughts but it must have been weak to say the least.

No, that's your logic and your misguided interpretation of what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, some experts have more experience than others and with crucial decisions you don't put all your eggs in one basket, espeically if everyone's saying your basket has a massive hole in it. You listen to a wide range of experts, and listen most to those that are further ahead in the timeline. They were saying, Test, Test, Test, Trace, Isolate, Wear Masks, Social Distance, avoid unnecessary contact. Funnily enough, that's exactly what Sweden is doing now, and what has started to slow their cases. Or do you think they got a second bout of "herd immunity"?

Call it "I told you so" if you like, whatever floats your boat, that's not what I'm intending, and it's more complicated.
I'm intending "the experts and most experienced told you what to do, you ignored it, it bit you in the a$$, so you abandoned it, your king slates it, your PM slates it and yet still some people are still trying to defend it (from the UK). These same people then claim it would work over here where people can't even obey the rules, never mind do what is not asked."

The fact that the King of Sweden and the Swedish PM were going bananas about it recently and pleading with the people to stay home, avoid contact and wear masks etc say's it all.

You say "side I backed", no, I didn't back any side, I didn't bet, as it wasn't my bet to make, but I did side with consensus and being proactive rather than reactive or negligent. I've just looked at the number and graphs, compared them to the raw numbers and patterns and tried to figure out why some people are tying to mislead with them, or make people aware of the raw data, as that's my strong point basically.
That decision/ bet was for people who know a lot more than me, and who have a lot more experience than me. This then turned out to be the side that pretty much every semi-respectable country backed, problem is a boat load of them backed it late, and some did it late 2-3 times (like us in the UK). The proactive nations fared best, good on them.
 

Statto1

Well-known member
Well it is a simple comparison if you're hard of thinking and you think that geographical proximity is more important than population size, density, distribution, ethnic composition etc. That's where statistics can make a fool of you. You clearly know jack about nordic countries. You are right. It's a forum and you're free to expose your ignorance on it.
I don't think it's more important, I think as a combination there's not a massive difference, certainly not enough to warrant a massive difference in results. Your finite details (which you've not explained which make Sweden worse) probably make less than 20% of a difference, their decisions have likely made 80% difference.

Sweden 10k deaths 10m people, 1k per million (and currently 5k cases per day)
Others 2.7k deaths, 16m people, 0.17k per million (and currently 2.3k cases per day)

Sweden's has had nearly 6 x as many deaths per million, do you think Sweden is so different from the other Nordics, that it warrants 6 x more deaths?

Just because you're an admin (and extremely patronising) does not make you correct. The King of Sweden, the PM of Sweden and pretty much the consensus of the worlds experts slate their method too, and that's why they changed tact. That kind of gives me good company, unless you're more informed than the King and PM?
 

Randy

Well-known member
Bizzarely I don't think any country has got it right or wrong.
That turns things into a competition, which a virus has no knowledge of.

But even if there was a way of determining a winner and losers taking everything into consideration from deaths, hospital admissions, manageable sickness, economic impact, education impact etc it's still way too early to judge.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
Bizzarely I don't think any country has got it right or wrong.
That turns things into a competition, which a virus has no knowledge of.

But even if there was a way of determining a winner and losers taking everything into consideration from deaths, hospital admissions, manageable sickness, economic impact, education impact etc it's still way too early to judge.
I think, by any discernible measurement you can say that Taiwan had it spot on. The speed of reaction, the reaction itself and the economic return afterwards has been exceptional. A lot of Asia has dealt admirably with it despite having less time to prepare than the rest of the world. Also the lack of spread in the majority of Africa is a cause for celebration.

With a more parochial and narrow minded view we can certainly say the no country in europe has got it spot on. Italy: pretty severe and stringent initial lockdown didn't prevent them being hit badly, through to Sweden's approach and Belarus ignoring it. All of us have had a dose. I just think we might have done better due to our unique position as an island nation. Also competence from the government would have helped. Germany's working and normally priced track and trace system has probably helped them prevent some deaths and other countries seem to be handling it well. In the interests of balance we are not alone in out mishandling. I don't think, Belgium, for instance has been particularly great and it shows in their poor death figures.
 

Statto1

Well-known member
I think, by any discernible measurement you can say that Taiwan had it spot on. The speed of reaction, the reaction itself and the economic return afterwards has been exceptional. A lot of Asia has dealt admirably with it despite having less time to prepare than the rest of the world. Also the lack of spread in the majority of Africa is a cause for celebration.

With a more parochial and narrow minded view we can certainly say the no country in europe has got it spot on. Italy: pretty severe and stringent initial lockdown didn't prevent them being hit badly, through to Sweden's approach and Belarus ignoring it. All of us have had a dose. I just think we might have done better due to our unique position as an island nation. Also competence from the government would have helped. Germany's working and normally priced track and trace system has probably helped them prevent some deaths and other countries seem to be handling it well. In the interests of balance we are not alone in out mishandling. I don't think, Belgium, for instance has been particularly great and it shows in their poor death figures.
Lots of Asian countries got it right, but they had experience, so should be expected to do better. I would have expected us to have listened to them, before we ended up in a catastrophe.

Spain and Italy took a beating as they had 2-3 weeks less notice, and in that time cases were doubling every 3-7 days, so looked at it very simplistically their first peak could have been a lot, lot less. The speed at which they turned massive increase, to massive decline was really good though (a result of good lock downs). The angle and speed of change of their graphs was much better than ours.

Belgium have had a nightmare, but they have been over (or realistic) counting and have a conflicting government (or no real government), they also have a mass of transit through their country and people coming in and out from all over. They were not exact;y best prepared heading into this, to say the least. It’s not an excuse mind.
 

Zoophonic

Well-known member
Have you missed out the second part of my post for any specific reason?
I totally get your point that you cant pick a winner until all this is finished - I chose to pick up on your general premise that you cant judge who is a winner and who isn't - which is exactly how you ended your comment.

So I prefer to judge on quality of life right now ( not in two years time) because we all live in the moment - especially at my age. In NZ they can go to pubs, watch live sport and gigs, go to the cinema and theatre, drink beer in a pub, not wear a mask in shops, go to work in offices, not mourn the premature deaths of loved ones from a disease they needed protection from. If you still believe that these countries didn't manage their country any better than us then you are living in self denial.
 

ThirdLeg

Active member
The experts in Asia and elsewhere, who have dealt with SARS, and other similar pandemics, and who were also "ahead" of Europe's timeline, and who were sharing vital information.

Or, if you're short on "experts" internally, what you do is, you speak to a load of external experts and really smart people, that are the most skilled in their field, or the WHO's consensus and ask them what they would do. What you don't do is seemingly listen to one bloke (Tegnell) and let him blag you about herd immunity. It would be like us listening to Cummings about going on trips to Barnard Castle, when you have Covid, it's just not really the done thing.

It's not all the Swedes, it seems mainly steered by Tegnell, but is probably also a product of the way their people are and are governed, like I've always said, if it could work anywhere it would have been there. But it was still a reckless gamble (just like us taking 3 weeks to lock down), which was blatantly obvious when every single other European nation and Asia were advising or doing the opposite, as well as every country surrounding them. It's not a gamble I would take in his position, and not a gamble any others in his position did, and not sure if he had any evidence to back up his thoughts but it must have been weak to say the least.

No, that's your logic and your misguided interpretation of what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, some experts have more experience than others and with crucial decisions you don't put all your eggs in one basket, espeically if everyone's saying your basket has a massive hole in it. You listen to a wide range of experts, and listen most to those that are further ahead in the timeline. They were saying, Test, Test, Test, Trace, Isolate, Wear Masks, Social Distance, avoid unnecessary contact. Funnily enough, that's exactly what Sweden is doing now, and what has started to slow their cases. Or do you think they got a second bout of "herd immunity"?

Call it "I told you so" if you like, whatever floats your boat, that's not what I'm intending, and it's more complicated.
I'm intending "the experts and most experienced told you what to do, you ignored it, it bit you in the a$$, so you abandoned it, your king slates it, your PM slates it and yet still some people are still trying to defend it (from the UK). These same people then claim it would work over here where people can't even obey the rules, never mind do what is not asked."

The fact that the King of Sweden and the Swedish PM were going bananas about it recently and pleading with the people to stay home, avoid contact and wear masks etc say's it all.

You say "side I backed", no, I didn't back any side, I didn't bet, as it wasn't my bet to make, but I did side with consensus and being proactive rather than reactive or negligent. I've just looked at the number and graphs, compared them to the raw numbers and patterns and tried to figure out why some people are tying to mislead with them, or make people aware of the raw data, as that's my strong point basically.
That decision/ bet was for people who know a lot more than me, and who have a lot more experience than me. This then turned out to be the side that pretty much every semi-respectable country backed, problem is a boat load of them backed it late, and some did it late 2-3 times (like us in the UK). The proactive nations fared best, good on them.

I have not campaigned for a no-lockdown Swedish approach. I do not know why you are asking me rhetorically if I think they are getting a bout of herd immunity because ive not shown any support for it or commented on the validity of the concept in tackling covid-19.

I have simply taken issue with how well received their failure has been. And I respect that they tried to do what they thought best even when it was against the consensus.

That is it. That's my piece. No comment on who should lock what down and when. Ironically, my thinking is always to leave that to the experts.

On the topic of which, i am unsure how a state epidemiologist is deemed a non-expert. I think we need a new word for experts that don't meet your level of expertise.

And i think Its a bit contradictory how much stock you suddenly place in the King of Sweden's opinion, mentioning him in this post and subsequently, when he has even less knowledge than Tegnell. And the Swedish PM's opinion counts to you now, but surely they had some input into the course of action previously taken.

Your response to the bloke above:

"That kind of gives me good company, unless you're more informed than the King and PM?"

Your "good company" PM followed the route you considered "blindingly obviously wrong (words to extent)" a few months ago, and both he and the King are considerably less informed than the man who's expertise you have dismissed to easily throughout this thread. Which one is it? Or will you just attach yourself to anyone to add weight to you being in the right.



At the end of the day mate, you just come off a bit desperate for a pat on the back for proving you knew better, that's all. You keep telling me that's not the case and providing ever longer more rambling explanations for what it is you're actually doing. But they all boil down to the same truth.
And you, "Statto 1" have told me here within this post that stats are your strong point. I get the impression that image is important to you. Fair enough mate. We've all got to deal with the human condition somehow. And maybe your name is just Steve Atto or something. who knows.


But you did tell me Tegnell's gamble caused 10k deaths.

No statto i've ever met would suggest such nonsense. But perhaps they were experts.
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think it's more important, I think as a combination there's not a massive difference, certainly not enough to warrant a massive difference in results. Your finite details (which you've not explained which make Sweden worse) probably make less than 20% of a difference, their decisions have likely made 80% difference.

Sweden 10k deaths 10m people, 1k per million (and currently 5k cases per day)
Others 2.7k deaths, 16m people, 0.17k per million (and currently 2.3k cases per day)

Sweden's has had nearly 6 x as many deaths per million, do you think Sweden is so different from the other Nordics, that it warrants 6 x more deaths?

Just because you're an admin (and extremely patronising) does not make you correct. The King of Sweden, the PM of Sweden and pretty much the consensus of the worlds experts slate their method too, and that's why they changed tact. That kind of gives me good company, unless you're more informed than the King and PM?

I am admin but I can't be held accountable for your vague "probably"/"likely" guesswork or your lack of understanding of Nordic nations. You are on ignore now. Don't troll me.
 

Randy

Well-known member
I totally get your point that you cant pick a winner until all this is finished - I chose to pick up on your general premise that you cant judge who is a winner and who isn't - which is exactly how you ended your comment.

So I prefer to judge on quality of life right now ( not in two years time) because we all live in the moment - especially at my age. In NZ they can go to pubs, watch live sport and gigs, go to the cinema and theatre, drink beer in a pub, not wear a mask in shops, go to work in offices, not mourn the premature deaths of loved ones from a disease they needed protection from. If you still believe that these countries didn't manage their country any better than us then you are living in self denial.

Dude, all I'm saying is I don't agree with winners and losers. It's a naturally occurring virus, it does what it wants when it wants, it had no concept of competition.

That's the issue with this whole pandemic, too many leaders all trying to outdo one another instead of the entire globe coming together
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
“too many leaders all trying to outdo one another instead of the entire globe coming together”

Good luck trying to organise that! You can only effect you’re own sphere of influence and with that in mind do the right thing for your own people. It’s patently not a case of outdoing anybody else when Johnson and his motley crew come to make decisions on behalf of the population on these shores.
 
Top
X