Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[DB]

How did Sweden’s death rate compare to neighbouring countries?
If it wasn’t lockdown what did stop the infection rates exploding across Europe?

Sweden was higher than some of the neighbouring countries, because they cocked up over care homes, which accounted for a large proportion of the deaths.

To take your second point, if lockdowns are effective why wasn't Sweden at the top of European table for numbers?

Epidemics and pandemics have natural peaks snd troughs.

 

[Meerkat]

It has been posted ad infinitum here that the infection rate was already going down (i.e. R<1) before we locked down, so no, they didn't. I'll just refer you to the R rate section of evidencenotfear

I can’t face those threads but that doesn’t match what I have read elsewhere.
i am surprised by this forum - elsewhere the government are getting slaughtered for not locking down early enough.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2020 ==

Sweden was higher than some of the neighbouring countries, because they cocked up over care homes, which accounted for a large proportion of the deaths.

To take your second point, if lockdowns are effective why wasn't Sweden at the top of European table for numbers?

Epidemics and pandemics have natural peaks snd troughs.

Sweden was lucky in being late - so things weren’t so bad when lesser measures than a full lockdown took place, meaning they were more effective.
I am not willing to bet the farm on the example of one small country’s experience, when we don’t fully understand what has caused the differences in countries’ experiences.

 

[DB]

I can’t face those threads but that doesn’t match what I have read elsewhere.
i am surprised by this forum - elsewhere the government are getting slaughtered for not locking down early enough.

Evidencenotfear isn't 'threads' - it's actual evidence, clearly presented.

It seems that people here are looking at the evidence, rather that following the hysteria prevalent in mainstream media and on social media.

 

[yorkie]

How did Sweden’s death rate compare to neighbouring countries?

See these posts:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/so-sweden-may-well-have-been-right.206968/#post-4687473
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/uk-face-coverings-discussion.206902/page-113#post-4756029

If it wasn’t lockdown what did stop the infection rates exploding across Europe?

Again this has been covered in various threads before, but I'll answer anyway.

If you want to completely "stop" infection rates you would have to lockdown forever; this is totally unrealistic!

Any measure you introduce to reduce the infection rate will have an effect; therefore a sustainable strategy is to introduce sufficient measures to avoid the health system collapsing, but locking down is not a sensible solution.

Some people think that a lockdown makes it go away, for example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53244688

...in the Czech Republic, a party has been held to give the coronavirus a "symbolic farewell".

Thousands of guests sat at a 500 metre-long (1640ft) table on the Charles Bridge in Prague on Tuesday sharing food and drinks they had brought from home...

Some people believed that, because they locked down early enough, the virus would be eliminated.

This is a complete fallacy.

The reality is that they are back to where they were without a lockdown. It was all for nothing. All they did was delay it.

I think most countries now realise locking down isn't the answer, but some people just can't see the big picture.

I can’t face those threads but that doesn’t match what I have read elsewhere.
i am surprised by this forum - elsewhere the government are getting slaughtered for not locking down early enough.

Really? Can you provide a link and quote so I can disagree with them.

Spain locked down early, and very harshly. How are they doing now compared to Sweden?

Sweden was lucky in being late - so things weren’t so bad when lesser measures than a full lockdown took place, meaning they were more effective.

I've no idea what you are saying here

I am not willing to bet the farm on the example of one small country’s experience, when we don’t fully understand what has caused the differences in countries’ experiences.

Your lack of understanding is clear, and noted, but what point are you actually making?

 

[DB]

Sweden was lucky in being late - so things weren’t so bad when lesser measures than a full lockdown took place, meaning they were more effective.
I am not willing to bet the farm on the example of one small country’s experience, when we don’t fully understand what has caused the differences in countries’ experiences.

Eh? Really not sure what your point is with Sweden. This country was also late but the outcome was worse despite a lockdown.

As regards differences, there have been a lot of countries which have imposed lockdowns, and in none of them is there clear evidence of it making any appreciable difference. Which would suggest that they are pointless.

Sweden has served as a 'control' to this experiment and has actually performed better. In any normal situation, that would be taken as evidence that lockdowns don't help.

Your point about betting the farm completely ignores the point that lockdowns have demonstrable and severe negative consequences for society, the economy and individuals. They should therefore not even be contemplated without strong evidence that they are effective - and that evidence doesn't exist.

 

[ChrisC]

I'm in my sixties, so still being quite cautious, but I have started some socialising with friends again. However I think younger generations have returned to normal social life much more quickly. I was out and about in London on bank holiday Monday, and most of those I saw on the streets and in pubs and restaurants were under-30s, often in groups of up to half a dozen with no social distancing. I could well imagine that the virus might circulate quite widely in such groups, but being basically strong and healthy they're unlikely to need hospitalisation for it in most cases.

Personally I think this must be the most likely reason for hospitalisation and death rates not reflecting infection rates. Overall I'd hope that this is a good thing, as it may be gradually improving immunity levels.

Exactly the same here. At the beginning of this pandemic I was not too worried, but soon realised that men in their 60’s perhaps do need to be a bit cautious. It’s made me feel old!

I’m continuing to be especially careful as I have my mother living with me who is in her late 80’s. I’m still mainly remaining in the rural area where I live and shopping in smaller village shops rather than venturing into large town and cities and large supermarkets. I am beginning to carefully socialise again with a few friends and I have been on holiday and will be doing so again next week. I’m not taking holidays in cities or crowded places but quiet country areas of the UK, staying in small hotels and doing lots of walking. I usually travel to my holiday destinations by train and use public transport whilst there but I am now using my car and haven’t been in public transport since February. I probably will use trains and buses again soon but it hasn’t been easy with reduced train and bus timetables from where I live.

Most of my friends who are aged 50 and over also continue to be cautious. I think the majority of older people are being very careful but are now getting out and about in relatively safe situations. This could be the reason why so few older people are currently contracting the virus. Most younger people, especially those aged under 30, now seem to have almost gone back to normal, but many older people have not. This could be the reason why younger people, who have mild version without hospitalisation are spreading the virus amongst themselves. This may even increase as the universities go back. I suppose the problems may come when younger people meet with older family members in their homes. It’s not going to be so easy to meet in gardens as winter and Christmas approaches.

 

[Meerkat]

If you want to completely "stop" infection rates you would have to lockdown forever; this is totally unrealistic!

Any measure you introduce to reduce the infection rate will have an effect; therefore a sustainable strategy is to introduce sufficient measures to avoid the health system collapsing, but locking down is not a sensible solution

Who said lockdown forever? We had to lockdown (though it’s all relative - we weren’t really all that locked down here) because we had an out of control level of infections and weren’t ready to deal with anything but a very low level.

Spain locked down early, and very harshly. How are they doing now compared to Sweden?

Different society, different economy.

Your lack of understanding is clear, and noted, but what point are you actually making?

Ignoring the unnecessary dig, have you got any other example than Sweden to Give some confidence they aren’t an outlier? Anyway what is your point- we should just open up completely and let it rip?

Eh? Really not sure what your point is with Sweden. This country was also late but the outcome was worse despite a lockdown.

We weren’t late, we were riddled by the time any kind of measures took place. Sweden had a bit more chance to use lesser measures without losing control.

 

[Bantamzen]

Who said lockdown forever? We had to lockdown (though it’s all relative - we weren’t really all that locked down here) because we had an out of control level of infections and weren’t ready to deal with anything but a very low level.

OK. let's call it. If we had to lockdown, what was the metric that would allow us to undo that?

 

[DB]

Who said lockdown forever? We had to lockdown (though it’s all relative - we weren’t really all that locked down here) because we had an out of control level of infections and weren’t ready to deal with anything but a very low level.

Different society, different economy.

Ignoring the unnecessary dig, have you got any other example than Sweden to Give some confidence they aren’t an outlier? Anyway what is your point- we should just open up completely and let it rip?

We weren’t late, we were riddled by the time any kind of measures took place. Sweden had a bit more chance to use lesser measures without losing control.

We did not 'have' to lockdown. It was a knee jerk reaction by useless prime minister. The NHS came nowhere near to being overwhelmed and numbers were already dropping before the lockdown could have had any effect.

As regards Spain and Sweden, if the comment you have made is the best you can do you would be better not commenting. They are both EU countries, and if anything Spain may have been expected to be less susceptible to spread as it would have been warmer than Sweden earlier in the year, so more people outside where it doesn't spread much.

How exactly do you think Sweden could be an 'outlier'? It's the same virus so would be expected to behave similarly.

While this country could have taken measures earlier, you are again implying that we had to have a lockdown, which is not the case. And in fact, even after the lockdown they were still discharging potentially infected people from hospitals to care homes. If they had protected the care homes as much as realistically possible that would have almost certainly been more effective than a damaging lockdown.

 

[yorksrob]

Ignoring the unnecessary dig, have you got any other example than Sweden to Give some confidence they aren’t an outlier? Anyway what is your point- we should just open up completely and let it rip?

Japan also didn't have an extreme lockdown.

They've had a rise in cases of late, but nothing close to being out of control.

 

[Meerkat]

Japan also didn't have an extreme lockdown.

They've had a rise in cases of late, but nothing close to being out of control.

We didn’t have an extreme lockdown.
Have you got the link for rates coming down before lockdown please? Are we just talking about a slowdown as the earlier near lockdown took place or a drop before we did anything?
And what are we supposed to be arguing about on this thread, I’m not sure??!!

 

[yorksrob]

We didn’t have an extreme lockdown.
Have you got the link for rates coming down before lockdown please? Are we just talking about a slowdown as the earlier near lockdown took place or a drop before we did anything?
And what are we supposed to be arguing about on this thread, I’m not sure??!!

I was effectively told not to leave my town or see another human being for several weeks. I consider that to be an extreme lockdown, however justifiable.

I didn't say anything about rates here coming down before lockdown, so I'm unsure as to why you think I would have such a statistic.

 

[Cowley]

And what are we supposed to be arguing about on this thread, I’m not sure??!!

We’re not supposed to be arguing about anything.
We’re just trying to decipher the facts from the froth in all of this, which we’ve actually been trying to do all the way through in this forum section.
Hopefully we can then debate things rationally.

 

[Meerkat]

We’re not supposed to be arguing about anything.
We’re just trying to decipher the facts from the froth in all of this, which we’ve actually been trying to do all the way through in this forum section.
Hopefully we can then debate things rationally.

Unfortunately Covid seems to be nearly as divisive as B*****!

 

[Crossover]

It was a necessary panic measure, and one that most countries took. There is a hell of a lot of hindsight going on here!

I was supportive of it at the time - maybe blinded by media, I don't know and I always expected hindsight may reveal other things. As for now, the numbers don't feel like they justify the somewhat punitive restrictions being put on life, particularly in certain areas

I was effectively told not to leave my town or see another human being for several weeks. I consider that to be an extreme lockdown, however justifiable.

I suspect the inference of it not being an extreme lockdown is maybe in comparison to the likes of Italy where one basically couldn't leave the confines of the 4 walls of home without writing a thesis on why it was required - I believe fines were handed out in some countries just for people washing their cars outside their homes as it wasn't deemed essential.

I, for one, am very glad the UK didn't come to this but for us would consider our lockdown to have been fairly extreme

 

[trebor79]

Indeed, even the BBC has no obvious articles about yesterday's figures. I suspect the media has been briefed that there's an element of catch up in yesterday's figures.

Hancock is deeply unimpressive though.

 

[scarby]

Can anyone explain why the outbreak in Stockholm (and Sweden in general) has massively diminished and continues to do so in terms of reported cases and hospitalisations, while in Paris and other parts of France, for example, the opposite is the case?

This despite France still in a flap about stopping it, such as mandating masks in some outdoor areas.

Meanwhile still in Sweden very few people wear masks and I would say in Stockholm (where I am) things are very much back to a normal state, albeit with physical distancing advice, many people working from home and big events still not taking place. But does France not have all that anyway?

There has to be a rational reason why Stockholm isn't experiencing a rise. (The international media has completely lost interest in Sweden since the outbreak subsided.)

 

[DB]

Can anyone explain why the outbreak in Stockholm (and Sweden in general) has massively diminished and continues to do so in terms of reported cases and hospitalisations, while in Paris and other parts of France, for example, the opposite is the case?

This despite France still in a flap about stopping it, such as mandating masks in some outdoor areas.

Meanwhile still in Sweden very few people wear masks and I would say in Stockholm (where I am) things are very much back to a normal state, albeit with physical distancing advice, many people working from home and big events still not taking place. But does France not have all that anyway?

There has to be a rational reason why Stockholm isn't experiencing a rise. (The international media has completely lost interest in Sweden since the outbreak subsided.)

Because Sweden has let is spread slowly, and Stockholm now has herd immunity, perhaps? Other countries trying to stop it could well be leading to peaks and troughs - the more effective their suppression measures, the bigger the peaks will be when they relax them.

That's assuming the measures have much effect of course, which is also unclear!

 

[Scrotnig]

Indeed, even the BBC has no obvious articles about yesterday's figures. I suspect the media has been briefed that there's an element of catch up in yesterday's figures.

Hancock is deeply unimpressive though.

The BBC had it as the lead story most of last night, however I can no longer find it.
It included a short video with Hancock saying it was 'deeply concerning'

 

[bramling]

Indeed, even the BBC has no obvious articles about yesterday's figures. I suspect the media has been briefed that there's an element of catch up in yesterday's figures.

Hancock is deeply unimpressive though.

There’s some pretty hysterical stuff on social media today, with the main theme being that young people are to blame for an “inevitable” second full lockdown.

I’m not quite sure what these Facebook types expect. Many older people have had the luxury of being able to shield without incurring much if any financial loss, whilst meanwhile many younger people have kept going. Surprisingly enough this means some of the latter group are more likely to have caught Covid.

There’s a rather unpleasant divisiveness brewing up, and people like Hancock seem to be encouraging it. Unsurprisingly younger people are going to get increasingly fed up when they’ve had pretty much every aspect of their lives turned upside down, in some cases with long-term consequences (e.g. the exams fiasco), only to be preached at by the Facebook furlough types.

The whole thing isn’t going away, and it seems to be increasingly the case that a vaccine isn’t going to offer a silver bullet.

 

[big_rig]

Can anyone explain why the outbreak in Stockholm (and Sweden in general) has massively diminished and continues to do so in terms of reported cases and hospitalisations, while in Paris and other parts of France, for example, the opposite is the case?

This despite France still in a flap about stopping it, such as mandating masks in some outdoor areas.

Meanwhile still in Sweden very few people wear masks and I would say in Stockholm (where I am) things are very much back to a normal state, albeit with physical distancing advice, many people working from home and big events still not taking place. But does France not have all that anyway?

There has to be a rational reason why Stockholm isn't experiencing a rise. (The international media has completely lost interest in Sweden since the outbreak subsided.)

It's a mystery, London is the same - there is so little of the stuff here. So media/public attention has as you note shifted to other areas where they can drum up fresh 'news'.

The only reasons I can think of are (beyond the population of London/Stockholm having had an awful lot more of the virus in March/April than thought, meaning there's less potential for it to spread if lots of us have had it already):

1) Travelling to Europe from the UK has been made so miserable/subject to sabotage by various lists that basically nobody is doing it (and maybe other European countries don't want to let Swedes in so it's the same affect?) as opposed to French people going away on holiday etc and bringing it back home in greater numbers?;
2) Are people working from home as much on the continent generally or have they flagged it and gone back to work en masse for a while now, hence having much greater levels of ongoing interaction?

 

[scarby]

It's a mystery, London is the same - there is so little of the stuff here. So media/public attention has as you note shifted to other areas where they can drum up fresh 'news'.

The only reasons I can think of are (beyond the population of London/Stockholm having had an awful lot more of the virus in March/April than thought, meaning there's less potential for it to spread if lots of us have had it already):

To me that’s really critical to investigate, if Stockholm and London have curbed the outbreak because of some sort of community immunity, then countries like France are just prolonging the agony by trying to stop it spreading.

 

[talldave]

To me that’s really critical to investigate, if Stockholm and London have curbed the outbreak because of some sort of community immunity, then countries like France are just prolonging the agony by trying to stop it spreading.

Indeed, as I've said all along, the lockdown approach is simply dragging out the inevitable. The great thing about London is that we got a lot of it over and done with early on by packing onto public transport and into non free-range offices.

Of course it takes guts to say "we could have done it differently" and ponder over why life in Sweden is so much better than here. All we seem to be doing here is digging our heels in with the unofficial, and impossible to achieve, elimination strategy.

 

[big_rig]

To me that’s really critical to investigate, if Stockholm and London have curbed the outbreak because of some sort of community immunity, then countries like France are just prolonging the agony by trying to stop it spreading.

Quite. There was simply an awful lot more of the stuff going round both places than anybody ever thought, is my take on it. There's also the point too that even if London/Stockholm have roughly the same % of people having tested positive for antibodies (between 10-15% or whatever) it sounds like that is only one specific type of antibody the test has looked for - there is another, new antibody test which finds a different type, and there's these T-cells. So you can make an argument that as well that a lot more people will have had the thing than the initial tests show.

Where this falls down a bit though is cities like Madrid, where they are recording thousands of new cases a day (despite mandating masks everywhere outside your front door) - what's the difference between them and us? From my memory of the news Madrid had an absolutely awful time in March/April, so why aren't they seeing the same affect now? It's a difficult one to figure out.

 

[trebor79]

Where this falls down a bit though is cities like Madrid, where they are recording thousands of new cases a day (despite mandating masks everywhere outside your front door) - what's the difference between them and us?

Don't go giving our powers that be ideas!

 

[DB]

Quite. There was simply an awful lot more of the stuff going round both places than anybody ever thought, is my take on it. There's also the point too that even if London/Stockholm have roughly the same % of people having tested positive for antibodies (between 10-15% or whatever) it sounds like that is only one specific type of antibody the test has looked for - there is another, new antibody test which finds a different type, and there's these T-cells. So you can make an argument that as well that a lot more people will have had the thing than the initial tests show.

Where this falls down a bit though is cities like Madrid, where they are recording thousands of new cases a day (despite mandating masks everywhere outside your front door) - what's the difference between them and us? From my memory of the news Madrid had an absolutely awful time in March/April, so why aren't they seeing the same affect now? It's a difficult one to figure out.

Perhaps Spain's draconian restrictions (kids under house arrest, etc) meant that a significant part of the population wasn't exposed to the virus earlier in the year?

 

[Kingspanner]

It's a mystery, London is the same - there is so little of the stuff here. So media/public attention has as you note shifted to other areas where they can drum up fresh 'news'.

Really, whatever do you mean? I sampled here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274 the only six London boroughs I could think of and all but one had more cases per 100,000 population than the England average.

 

[big_rig]

Perhaps Spain's draconian restrictions (kids under house arrest, etc) meant that a significant part of the population wasn't exposed to the virus earlier in the year?

It's tempting to think so, but I'm not sure if the outcomes of the two places would end up having been hugely different bar children - we had very high (i'm struggling to think of a word that doesn't make it seem like what happened was a good thing, like exceptional) compliance with drones chasing dog walkers and police out telling people to keep moving in parks etc. I hesitate to say one way or the other as I think back to the start of March when we were 'a few weeks behind Europe' in terms of the spread of it - could we be a few weeks behind whatever increase in social contact etc is driving it in some places? If we're not in a fortnight then something is definitely up.

 

[Halish Railway]

I think that the whole talk about herd immunity would probably be a good reason to test the entire population (i.e. everyone getting a test at some point). I think that would gauge just how many people got the virus at some point. Although there definitely isn’t enough capacity to do this at the moment, maybe this would be worth doing when sufficient 20 minute tests become available, something that would be very useful at Schools and offices.

 

[LAX54]

I can’t face those threads but that doesn’t match what I have read elsewhere.
i am surprised by this forum - elsewhere the government are getting slaughtered for not locking down early enough.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2020 ==


Sweden was lucky in being late - so things weren’t so bad when lesser measures than a full lockdown took place, meaning they were more effective.
I am not willing to bet the farm on the example of one small country’s experience, when we don’t fully understand what has caused the differences in countries’ experiences.

Sweden was lucky in being late? not sure that makes any sense, they were not late, those chose a different route, one that in hindsight the whole world should have followed.
We are letting the virus control us, not us control the virus !