Meanwhile, in Sweden...

Status
Not open for further replies.
borolad259 said:
Didn't see that. It seems likely though.

Btw, I am an idiot and my figure above is wildly wrong as I was using the population of Stockholm but the national death count. Just ignore any numbers I come up with (so much for my Pure Maths with Stats A level).
Click to expand...

Ye was gonna say from the admittedly early stage serological testing mortality rate is actually around 0.05-.1%
 
Cuthbert said:
"My mate has just told me that he personally knows 11 people who had Covid 19. Only one of those eleven was sick enough to be tested for live virus, so only he figures in the country's data for confirmed infections). Only two tested for antibodies subsequently (Carl being one of them) both positive. "

So surely what you're saying is that three had it..... and eight may or may not have? I think quite a few people will think they've had it at the moment, who won't have.

That said, I have a mate who thought he'd had it (correct sequence of mild symptoms), along with a number of people at his company. The company wanted to get them back to work, and because of the nature of the business, they had some tests shipped over from Germany. Only one out of about ten tested positive, (the rest had all recovered by then), but none of them tested positive for antibodies. So... either they hadn't had it, or it was a faulty antibody test. My mate is hoping it's the latter, obviously!

The point being, that I think quite a lot of people will think they've had it, but won't have. Also, until there are [almost] 100% reliable tests, we're not going to know the full scale - interesting to see how that pans out.

Edit: Sorry - I just saw that you'd already replied to that first part.
Click to expand...

Third option for ya Cuthbert.. it takes weeks after you've had it for antibodies to show up in the anti body tests even if they're reliable tests.
So essentially.. aaaaaargh 🙈
 
Alvez_48 said:
Third option for ya Cuthbert.. it takes weeks after you've had it for antibodies to show up in the anti body tests even if they're reliable tests.
So essentially.. aaaaaargh 🙈
Click to expand...

Aaaargh indeed! I know that my mate was disappointed to get the negative test (for antibodies) because he was pretty sure that he'd had it and recovered. I reckon he probably needs to get another test some time to see. He did have his antibody test immediately after recovering, so if that thing about three weeks after for antibodies to show is typical, then he had the test too soon.
 
A report on another thread quotes death rates of 0.045% to 0.06% which is consistent with figures quoted here - which is horrible for those that die and their families, but not exactly in the same league as the Black Death and bubonic plague.

I like others believe the infection rate is significantly higher than the 4% rate given by Government officials. I expect the officials want to be as cautious as possible to keep people in lock down to minimise infection at present.

Cuthbert - We have been told by Governement officals and other medical experts the anti body test is too unreliable to use.
 
Cuthbert said:
Aaaargh indeed! I know that my mate was disappointed to get the negative test (for antibodies) because he was pretty sure that he'd had it and recovered. I reckon he probably needs to get another test some time to see. He did have his antibody test immediately after recovering, so if that thing about three weeks after for antibodies to show is typical, then he had the test too soon.
Click to expand...
How are people getting these tests?
 
"Cuthbert - We have been told by Governement officals and other medical experts the anti body test is too unreliable to use. "

Yeah - I said that to my mate, after he got his negative test. However, we weren't sure if it was UK antibody tests that weren't sufficiently reliable yet, or ALL antibody tests, since his employers had shipped them over from Germany?

Is it ALL antibody tests that aren't currently reliable enough?
 
As with everything about this virus, we are so far from full understanding that we will have to treat every bit of news with caution. For all the 10% antibody detection in Sweden there will be less hopeful results like the 3% findings in The Netherlands.
Then you have the question of testing efficacy, the selection of those being tested etc.
This uncertain period will be a long one and it would be very foolish to expect that a release of restrictions won't see them being reimposed because we know so little about this virus.
Treat all good news and bad news the same and wait and see how things pan out.
 
One thing that does concern me is the number of small groups of lads on bikes you see who are clearly not all from the same family. For all the social distancing being done by the majority it is these people that could undo all the efforts of others.
 
borolad259 said:
Not in Sweden, but in Swedish news

Nine-year-old with covid-19 met 172 people - none were infected
A 9-year-old boy who was infected by the coronavirus in the French Alps did not carry the infection - despite coming into contact with over 170 people, according to an investigation. This indicates that children do not pass on the virus to the same extent as adults.
Click to expand...
It doesn't indicate that at all to be fair. I don't think you can gain much medical evidence from a sample set of one.
 
A few weeks ago I watched a video of the Canadian guy from the WHO doing a press conference after his visit to China in which he stated that there were no incidences where a child was the source of infection. Unfortunately I've watched that much stuff that I can't remember where it was to get a link.
 
There are plenty of people, not least in Sweden itself, that are not convinced that Sweden's approach is the best.

Many are comparing and contrasting their numbers to those of its Scandinavian neighbours, such as Norway, which has a lock-down policy. I think the graphic below needs no explanation.

5e9d6a5015ea4b315c0b4d0a


Also, their fatality rate per 1,000 people is currently the 10th-highest in the world (or 7th if you exclude tiny countries like San Marino and Sint Maarten, with populations under 80,000) and since as mentioned earlier, they only count deaths where a positive test result was obtained (and tests are not always done on the already-deceased) the true fatality rate must inevitably be somewhat higher than the official number.

Worldometers coronavirus statistics

Understanding Sweden's coronavirus figures
 
Last edited:
Liamo said:
There are plenty of people, not least in Sweden itself, that are not convinced that Sweden's approach is the best.

Many are comparing and contrasting their numbers to those of its Scandinavian neighbours, such as Norway, which has a lock-down policy. I think the graphic below needs no explanation.

5e9d6a5015ea4b315c0b4d0a


Also, their fatality rate per 1,000 people is currently the 10th-highest in the world (or 7th if you exclude tiny countries like San Marino and Sint Maarten, with populations under 80,000) and since as mentioned earlier, they only count deaths where a positive test result was obtained (and tests are not always done on the already-deceased) the true fatality rate must inevitably be somewhat higher than the official number.

Worldometers coronavirus statistics

Understanding Sweden's coronavirus figures
Click to expand...

I suggest you watch the whole Q&A with Giasecke upthread. As he points out, you won't know until much later. Sweden is much further ahead on the curve. It may be that Norway will have a more prolonged experience. One big difference is that Norway's elderly are housed in small numbers ... in contrast with Sweden, where they are in larger homes. They admit that they have not done as well as they'd hoped to keep it out of elderly housing. Pretty much everyone will get the disease eventually. Only when that happens can you make your final appraisal. And comparing the death rates between countries is pointless as they collect the data in different ways.
 
borolad259 said:
I suggest you watch the whole Q&A with Giasecke upthread. As he points out, you won't know until much later. Sweden is much further ahead on the curve. It may be that Norway will have a more prolonged experience. One big difference is that Norway's elderly are housed in small numbers ... in contrast with Sweden, where they are in larger homes. They admit that they have not done as well as they'd hoped to keep it out of elderly housing. Pretty much everyone will get the disease eventually. Only when that happens can you make your final appraisal. And comparing the death rates between countries is pointless as they collect the data in different ways.
Click to expand...
The facts don't support that. Had their highest number of reported deaths yesterday.
 
They've had reporting lag, which means they have had spikes (more or less every week). The Public Health Authority are saying that deaths have plateaued for now. Each death in Sweden is related to the individual's person number. The responsibility for the recording of the death is at local level. It takes time for the data to show in the daily figures. I believe hospital admissions have plateaued also ... in fact showing a slight decrease. What I would expect to see in Sweden though is the disease taking much longer to spread around the northern half of the country because the populations there are so disparate.
On a daily basis, they accept that hospitalisation and death will happen. It's inevitable. Their main concern was that the hospitals weren't over-stretched. They claim to still have significant capacity.
 
bear66 said:
The facts don't support that. Had their highest number of reported deaths yesterday.
Click to expand...

The deaths reported are actually spread over a number of days correcting previous under reporting on the preceding days (same as our figures).

Take a look on the official site and you will see the trend is down.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa

The graph in the top centre has four sections to it daily cases, cumulative cases, cases in intensive care & deaths.
 
Edit. Duplicate of the drilled down data posted above.

Incidentally, the researchers behind the 11% study yesterday have come out and said (as Bear pointed out at the time) that it's unsafe and have withdrawn it (as it was just a preliminary sample to the much wider and more rigorous study).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top