Sweden’s “Bold Experiment?”

[Ian S]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound The world will be watching to see how the UK PM is doing. He has had the virus for about 10 days now. Many COVID-19 patients hung on for a while, then turned bad suddenly. I wish no one ill will, and hope he will recover.

He's been moved to intensive care.

[Toocold]

It seems like Sweden has peaked despite the IMHE numbers. Perhaps their softer approach is appropriate for less dense parts of the population.

https://www.google.com/search?q=numb...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold It seems like Sweden has peaked despite the IMHE numbers. Perhaps their softer approach is appropriate for less dense parts of the population. https://www.google.com/search?q=numb...hrome&ie=UTF-8

That would certainly bode well for what will happen when we let loose. But it may be an artifact. As you note, the IHME numbers are still up. They are still projecting Sweden's peak on May 8 with 18K total deaths.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold It seems like Sweden has peaked despite the IMHE numbers. Perhaps their softer approach is appropriate for less dense parts of the population. https://www.google.com/search?q=numb...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Last I checked, Sweden’s death numbers 899 were far worse than GA numbers 433 with the same population. I’m not so sure their experiment is working particularly well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian S

OK, if that’s Sweden’s track, they have less cases than GA - 10,000 versus GA at over 12,000 (with only the sickest tested), but over twice as many deaths!

[Toocold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Last I checked, Sweden’s death numbers 899 were far worse than GA numbers 433 with the same population. I’m not so sure their experiment is working particularly well. OK, if that’s Sweden’s track, they have less cases than GA - 10,000 versus GA at over 12,000 (with only the sickest tested), but over twice as many deaths!

Sweden didn't need to do as much economic support and their latest estimates are -3.4% GDP. Health and Wealth. It's a tricky balance.

[ugeauxgirl]

Here is a chart with deaths per 1m residents. If this chart is right, perhaps we could have only shut down high density areas. Maybe a more relaxed approach ( or varied depending on population density) would have been almost as effective with much less economic damage.Screenshot_20200414-080705.jpeg

[Winemaker]

This article with a series of charts seems to point that the rates are the same in Sweden and the UK.


http://www.theblogmire.com/a-compari...ckdown-sweden/




As an aside, DD had her gall bladder removed this morning, was supposed to occur St. Patrick's Day but was postponed because of pandemonium. Most of our local hospital was laid off 2 weeks ago, recalls started yesterday.

[gauss]

Wouldn't it make sense the Sweden numbers would be up in the short term?

The whole part of the social distancing directive is to slow things down. At the end of the day, from the health perspective, what matters is the total number of # (deaths, injuries etc.). The prevailing theory is that by slowing things down, we won't overload the healthcare system in the short term and thus lower unnecessary deaths,injuries.

Does anyone know if Sweden has a different criteria for (C19) hospital entry during this period then most other countries?

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ugeauxgirl Here is a chart with deaths per 1m residents. If this chart is right, perhaps we could have only shut down high density areas. Maybe a more relaxed approach ( or varied depending on population density) would have been almost as effective with much less economic damage.Attachment 34634

One problem with that, is that hospitals are generally quite limited in the rural areas and easily overwhelmed. All it takes is a funeral or two, or a parade or some such and suddenly that small hospital is overwhelmed. We saw that in Albany GA which had a huge number of deaths compared to more urban parts of GA that were better able to handle outbreaks.

So at least no large gatherings is essential for even rural areas, given their typically poor medical resources.

[Willers]

An interesting article looking at the worldwide stats and the Sweden/Iceland data.


https://earlyretirementnow.com/2020/...-for-optimism/

[ugeauxgirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 One problem with that, is that hospitals are generally quite limited in the rural areas and easily overwhelmed. All it takes is a funeral or two, or a parade or some such and suddenly that small hospital is overwhelmed. We saw that in Albany GA which had a huge number of deaths compared to more urban parts of GA that were better able to handle outbreaks. So at least no large gatherings is essential for even rural areas, given their typically poor medical resources.

I'd agree with that. I think Sweden did ban large gatherings, but I think they didn't do a large scale business shut down like we did. I just wonder if there wasn't a better way to handle this than the way we did it which will cause a lot of small business failure and a lot of people to lose their jobs.

[Toocold]

Quote:

Wouldn't it make sense the Sweden numbers would be up in the short term?

That's what the IMHE numbers project. Because they have not been aggressive, the curve is supposed to rise more aggressively resulting in higher hospitalization and death. The actual death data is far lower vs projections (~120/150 deaths vs 16/17 on April 12/13).

People have been saying that aggressive social distance policies have flattened the curve, but in the case of Sweden, who employed moderate policies, they are seeing similar curves.

[audreyh1]

Large gathering bans and travel restrictions would seem to be the most effective as those both contribute significantly to spread. Then it comes down to figure out how to operate safely within a work environment and with customers.

[ugeauxgirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold That's what the IMHE numbers project. Because they have not been aggressive, the curve is supposed to rise more aggressively resulting in higher hospitalization and death. The actual death data is far lower vs projections (~120/150 deaths vs 16/17 on April 12/13). People have been saying that aggressive social distance policies have flattened the curve, but in the case of Sweden, who employed moderate policies, they are seeing similar results.

I don't know that their curve flattened, but it certainly seems to be turning.Screenshot_20200414-065105.jpeg

[ugeauxgirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Large gathering bans and travel restrictions would seem to be the most effective as those both contribute significantly to spread. Then it comes down to figure out how to operate safely within a work environment and with customers.

Yes, we'll know how to deal with it better next time. I hope.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold That's what the IMHE numbers project. Because they have not been aggressive, the curve is supposed to rise more aggressively resulting in higher hospitalization and death. The actual death data is far lower vs projections (~120/150 deaths vs 16/17 on April 12/13). People have been saying that aggressive social distance policies have flattened the curve, but in the case of Sweden, who employed moderate policies, they are seeing similar curves.

Not sure about your numbers. New deaths April 14 are +114.

[Toocold]

Quote:

New deaths April 14 are +144.

Using the same sources, it was 17, 12, and 20 for April 11, 12, 13. So today's numbers are either an anomaly or a trend. That's why most look at 3 day averages, which would support that they are flattening or going lower. Let's see what happens the next several days.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winemaker This article with a series of charts seems to point that the rates are the same in Sweden and the UK. http://www.theblogmire.com/a-compari...ckdown-sweden/

It's not clear that Sweden's approach has been inferior to lockdown countries. You would expect them to have more cases per capita, that's irrelevant. What matters is deaths per capita, regardless of health care capacity. If for example, Sweden has the same number of deaths per capita as the UK, Sweden will be far ahead in terms of immunity, which puts the few who aren't working back to work and reduces the impact of any second, third or other waves of Covid-19. A "bold experiment" that we won't know results from until it's almost over. We're not going to know which approach worked best until it's all over, but I'm betting on South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, and maybe China.

Quote:

Looking at these charts, particularly charts 2 and 4 which are a like-for-like comparison, as at 11th April, I think we can say the following: In terms of reported cases, the data shows no evidence that the UK lockdown approach has been any more successful than the Swedish approach. In fact, per million people, Sweden has had fewer cases than the UK. In terms of recorded deaths, again there is no evidence so far that the UK lockdown approach has been any more successful than the Swedish approach. In fact, per million people, Sweden has had fewer deaths than the UK. As I say, the situation may well change as the days and weeks go by, but so far, according to the official data from both countries, the approach taken in the UK of keeping people in their homes and closing down huge swathes of the economy, has not had any more positive effect on reducing Covid-19 cases or deaths than the Swedish approach. Yet it will put millions out of work, it will destroy thousands of businesses, it will lead to a massive deterioration of mental health, it will lead to an increase in suicides, it will lead to old people dying on their own without their carers, and it already has led to an increase of state power on a scale never seen before. There is that!

[donheff]

Well, I hope they made the right bet. If some of the data from broad testing small German towns and Iceland is correct, the real death rate could be in the .4% range or lower. In that case Sweden may be fine and we may be better off than anticipated during round 2.

[gauss]

It could also serve as a basis for scientific research going forward. Not a double-blind RCT, by any chance, but still having some "orthogonal" inputs (responses) to test on the virus by various countries may push forward our understanding of epidemic response in the modern times.