By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I've spoken to a few Swedes at length about this and also read a fair bit of the debate in Sweden. This is a bit of a skimmy article that focuses on a few things at the wrong time (like the economy) and so misses some of the bigger points.
Certainly Tegnell and the health authority are the first to admit that the care homes weren't protected nearly enough and just weren't prepared. It's mirrored the UK problems as it's one part of healthcare that's been privatised and thus has huge difficulty with lots of staff moving around and looking after large residences and wards. It's been a wake up call in Sweden that outsourcing care has a knock-on effect when times change and there's a pandemic. Those perceived efficiencies come back to bite you on the @rse.
A vast majority of these care homes have been in Stockholm that was hit very early like London, Paris, Madrid, Milan etc. Stockholm (and Sweden generally) is an international centre compared to its Nordic neighbours and it's pretty obvious the initial situation was very different.
Having said that, there is a crucial aspect to the Swedish approach that the author missed here: "What about the economy? “This has never been done to save the economy. It’s been done to save public health,” says Tegnell. And that means public health in a broad sense, he adds, not just the coronavirus."
The author used this to focus on the economic argument rather than taking it at face value. Because Sweden really has been looking at the overall health impact of Covid-19 and counter-measures. From the very start there's been the understanding that this is something that needs to be lived with for 18-24 months at least.
Not withstanding the awful mistake with the care homes, this has been about kids going to school and seeing their friends, most adults going about life somewhat normally with milder but more sustainable guidance, and the elderly and those otherwise at risk self-shielding and taking necessary precautions. All for a much more holistic and long-term picture of national health.
It's certainly not an approach that suits many other countries. The health authority is entirely separate from the elected government and so this is minimally a political argument from more widely trusted and respected experts. Similar expert advice comes via a government filter here in the UK, for example, and would have limited traction which is why more extreme lockdowns are needed just to bring infection rates down.
The UK is managing all areas of the pandemic badly from the short-term pandemic management to the long-term and more indirect effects e.g. A level results, child development, likely mental health issues, preventive healthcare re: cancer screening etc. And we'll be dealing with the fallout for years.
Sweden certainly does share the care home feature but I'm pretty convinced that their overall management of the nation's health is on a different level by making that long-term and wider view central to their approach.
Pronouns: He/Him
4
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 08:55 - Aug 17 with 2562 views
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 08:42 - Aug 17 by Darth_Koont
I've spoken to a few Swedes at length about this and also read a fair bit of the debate in Sweden. This is a bit of a skimmy article that focuses on a few things at the wrong time (like the economy) and so misses some of the bigger points.
Certainly Tegnell and the health authority are the first to admit that the care homes weren't protected nearly enough and just weren't prepared. It's mirrored the UK problems as it's one part of healthcare that's been privatised and thus has huge difficulty with lots of staff moving around and looking after large residences and wards. It's been a wake up call in Sweden that outsourcing care has a knock-on effect when times change and there's a pandemic. Those perceived efficiencies come back to bite you on the @rse.
A vast majority of these care homes have been in Stockholm that was hit very early like London, Paris, Madrid, Milan etc. Stockholm (and Sweden generally) is an international centre compared to its Nordic neighbours and it's pretty obvious the initial situation was very different.
Having said that, there is a crucial aspect to the Swedish approach that the author missed here: "What about the economy? “This has never been done to save the economy. It’s been done to save public health,” says Tegnell. And that means public health in a broad sense, he adds, not just the coronavirus."
The author used this to focus on the economic argument rather than taking it at face value. Because Sweden really has been looking at the overall health impact of Covid-19 and counter-measures. From the very start there's been the understanding that this is something that needs to be lived with for 18-24 months at least.
Not withstanding the awful mistake with the care homes, this has been about kids going to school and seeing their friends, most adults going about life somewhat normally with milder but more sustainable guidance, and the elderly and those otherwise at risk self-shielding and taking necessary precautions. All for a much more holistic and long-term picture of national health.
It's certainly not an approach that suits many other countries. The health authority is entirely separate from the elected government and so this is minimally a political argument from more widely trusted and respected experts. Similar expert advice comes via a government filter here in the UK, for example, and would have limited traction which is why more extreme lockdowns are needed just to bring infection rates down.
The UK is managing all areas of the pandemic badly from the short-term pandemic management to the long-term and more indirect effects e.g. A level results, child development, likely mental health issues, preventive healthcare re: cancer screening etc. And we'll be dealing with the fallout for years.
Sweden certainly does share the care home feature but I'm pretty convinced that their overall management of the nation's health is on a different level by making that long-term and wider view central to their approach.
Some fair points there regarding it not being about the economy but you seem to have glazed over the more like-for-like country comparisons and compared to the UK. The UK has done rubbish but I am not sure it's a valid comparison. This really doesn't support the approach they have taken:
Sweden has about 8200 confirmed cases per million people as of 12 August, compared with 1780 in Norway and 2560 in Denmark. (For the UK it is 4600 and the US 15,400.)
Sweden has had 57 deaths per 100,000, compared with five in Norway and 11 in Denmark. (For the UK it is 70 and the US 50.)
Five to ten times as many cases and deaths as very similar bordering countries is a huge difference so whilst I agree scientific views likely gain more traction there perhaps it would be even worse if they didn't? Is that large disparity in cases and deaths acceptable to allow more freedom?
As you say, it's not a model that most countries could follow. My point was that some were advocating that approach for here as little as 2 weeks ago and it clearly would have been a bad idea.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 09:21 - Aug 17 with 2503 views
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 08:55 - Aug 17 by StokieBlue
Some fair points there regarding it not being about the economy but you seem to have glazed over the more like-for-like country comparisons and compared to the UK. The UK has done rubbish but I am not sure it's a valid comparison. This really doesn't support the approach they have taken:
Sweden has about 8200 confirmed cases per million people as of 12 August, compared with 1780 in Norway and 2560 in Denmark. (For the UK it is 4600 and the US 15,400.)
Sweden has had 57 deaths per 100,000, compared with five in Norway and 11 in Denmark. (For the UK it is 70 and the US 50.)
Five to ten times as many cases and deaths as very similar bordering countries is a huge difference so whilst I agree scientific views likely gain more traction there perhaps it would be even worse if they didn't? Is that large disparity in cases and deaths acceptable to allow more freedom?
As you say, it's not a model that most countries could follow. My point was that some were advocating that approach for here as little as 2 weeks ago and it clearly would have been a bad idea.
SB
No, I'd agree with you there. It's not a suitable approach for the UK for a whole host of underlying societal, health and even political reasons.
The issue with Sweden and Stockholm compared to Norway and Oslo is that they aren't like for like in terms of how the pandemic started back in late February/early March. It's similar to comparing London with say Manchester in terms of the initial timeline and volume of cases. You see that effect repeated in Denmark compared to Norway. But again Denmark and Copenhagen still don't have the comparable global connections and population volume as Sweden and Stockholm that really appear to have accelerated and magnified the problem for a lot of countries.
There are also been reports that generally in Norway there are fewer of the larger care homes with smaller units being much more common, perhaps due to their being significantly fewer elderly as a percentage of the population compared to Sweden. As not protecting the elderly in care homes has been the core failure of the Swedish approach then that would explain a lot of the discrepancy.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 09:25 - Aug 17 with 2492 views
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 09:21 - Aug 17 by Darth_Koont
No, I'd agree with you there. It's not a suitable approach for the UK for a whole host of underlying societal, health and even political reasons.
The issue with Sweden and Stockholm compared to Norway and Oslo is that they aren't like for like in terms of how the pandemic started back in late February/early March. It's similar to comparing London with say Manchester in terms of the initial timeline and volume of cases. You see that effect repeated in Denmark compared to Norway. But again Denmark and Copenhagen still don't have the comparable global connections and population volume as Sweden and Stockholm that really appear to have accelerated and magnified the problem for a lot of countries.
There are also been reports that generally in Norway there are fewer of the larger care homes with smaller units being much more common, perhaps due to their being significantly fewer elderly as a percentage of the population compared to Sweden. As not protecting the elderly in care homes has been the core failure of the Swedish approach then that would explain a lot of the discrepancy.
Anders Tegnell explains in this excellent interview how Sweden is different to Denmark and Norway, and that it is more accurate to compare them with European Countries like the UK.
1
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 09:38 - Aug 17 with 2460 views
On a related note, this might be useful for understanding the overall approach and how different the mentality is.
Someone sent me this and asked me how accurate it was having lived in Sweden. It's UnHerd so naturally they come at it from the obsessive libertarian angle (only to debunk it to the author's credit) but the basis is actually a pretty good description of the Swedish cultural values.
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 09:38 - Aug 17 by Darth_Koont
On a related note, this might be useful for understanding the overall approach and how different the mentality is.
Someone sent me this and asked me how accurate it was having lived in Sweden. It's UnHerd so naturally they come at it from the obsessive libertarian angle (only to debunk it to the author's credit) but the basis is actually a pretty good description of the Swedish cultural values.
From a glance at what is available in that article it doesn't look great.
SB
Hmmm. A lot of this is based on speculative discussions between Tegnell, a former state epidemiologist and the Finnish epidemiologist still at the beginning of the spread in Europe. When I look at the original source a lot of these comments are taken out of context.
For example, the discussion about herd immunity is the idea that increasing immunity during the first wave plays a part in flattening the curve and reducing the rate of infection. Tegnell is specific that reaching herd immunity in terms of stopping infection isn't the goal and isn't possible without a vaccine.
He also talks about 10% more CASES amongst the older population based on the Finnish modelling and that's with the assumption that the most at risk of serious problems and fatalities are shielded. The Guardian have converted that into an "acceptable" 10% increase in the DEATH rate which isn't what's been discussed.
I think the journalist here is trying to create a scoop and give it a specific angle that doesn't really stack up on closer inspection.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 14:00 - Aug 18 with 1032 views
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 13:55 - Aug 18 by Darth_Koont
Hmmm. A lot of this is based on speculative discussions between Tegnell, a former state epidemiologist and the Finnish epidemiologist still at the beginning of the spread in Europe. When I look at the original source a lot of these comments are taken out of context.
For example, the discussion about herd immunity is the idea that increasing immunity during the first wave plays a part in flattening the curve and reducing the rate of infection. Tegnell is specific that reaching herd immunity in terms of stopping infection isn't the goal and isn't possible without a vaccine.
He also talks about 10% more CASES amongst the older population based on the Finnish modelling and that's with the assumption that the most at risk of serious problems and fatalities are shielded. The Guardian have converted that into an "acceptable" 10% increase in the DEATH rate which isn't what's been discussed.
I think the journalist here is trying to create a scoop and give it a specific angle that doesn't really stack up on closer inspection.
Thanks.
I can't read any of that and I don't trust Google to translate it with the nuance required to state whether it's been taken out of context or not.
New Scientist article on Sweden's C19 approach on 14:00 - Aug 18 by StokieBlue
Thanks.
I can't read any of that and I don't trust Google to translate it with the nuance required to state whether it's been taken out of context or not.
SB
The discussions are also very involved which makes it difficult even if you understand the language.
But that was just to show that the original context is much deeper and more detailed than the Guardian's summary.
It did introduce me to the idea of group immunity helping slow the rate of infection. In the hardest hit states and cities, it seems that with the situation under control they've levelled off at around 15-20% immunity. There are very few places beyond that except places like prisons or the Diamond Princess cruise ship where antibody levels settled above 20% which they put down to massive exposure in those more confined and restricted environments.
What's disturbing is that these are all communities where the response to the virus was very different but ended up with the similar result. So I think we're still very much playing by the virus's rules whatever we do.
A short thread about covid herd immunity.
First let's look at New York & Sweden. NY wears masks, closed business, closed schools, and mandates social distancing. Sweden did not but both reached near zero deaths at the same time.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
