Mens Tennis Forums banner

2141 - 2160 of 2303 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,566 Posts

Critics of the Swedish corona line have now been joined by Annika Linde, a former state epidemiologist who has given an interview to the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Linde held office from 2005 to 2013 before the current state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell.
Linde admits it’s easy to be wise and admits he had nothing against Sweden’s chosen coronal line at the time the virus was just beginning to spread in society. But he cannot help but acknowledge that one important point haunts the rearview mirrors: The preparation could have been better and the actions chosen different. In the light of current information, Linde would have closed society for a month to give Sweden more time to prepare for the spread of the coronavirus.
- We should have imposed clearly tougher restrictive measures at an early stage. It should have been understood how poorly prepared our health and elderly care was. Closure would have allowed us to prepare, reflect on things, and minimize the spread of infections.
That's what I've been saying. You're dealing with a novel virus - surely a wise approach is to be more aware where you stand before acting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,688 Posts

That's what I've been saying. You're dealing with a novel virus - surely a wise approach is to be more aware where you stand before acting.
When they see there isn't going to be a second wave (as seem to be the case so far) they will look really stupid with their approach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts





That's what I've been saying. You're dealing with a novel virus - surely a wise approach is to be more aware where you stand before acting.
That's a weird point of view, to be in favour of that strategy in the beginning and to be against it now. I think locking down everything for one month and then go for a loose approch opting for a herd immunity is or would have been a terrible idea. For that strategy to be better than the current one, the potential gain of information and preparation in that very month must be higher than the downsides of the lockdown. And I don't think that would have been the case at all, particularly given the massive downsides of lockdowns that people aren't even able to see yet.
  1. New information: I don't think anything has really changed there. IMO it was already known that the Virus isn't that lethal (I remember talking with my friends about it in January and how the actual lethality was probably much lower than the stated one due to the high number of undetected infections) and that its dangerousness was mostly restricted to a certain group of people that need additional protection.
  2. Preparation: As far as I know, the Swedes didn't have any problems with their hospital capacities, so I don't think any preparation was needed there. They obviosly did a rather poor job in protecting their risk groups, but I don't think that was an issue of lacking preparation but rather an underestimation of this particular situation that they realized over time and that would have been the same even with a 1-month delay (it is also an issue in lockdown-states).
Also this would have kind of been completely against their original philosophy of only following scientifically proven measures (read Gieseckes interviews recently, pretty much agree with him entirely)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
When they see there isn't going to be a second wave (as seem to be the case so far) they will look really stupid with their approach.
I think it's far too early too tell for that, since so far basically only measures with an arguably very limited efficiency have been lifted (that's the main reason I have been critizising them, regardless of the strategy). The number of infections didn't really go down from banning things that hardly ever caused any infections, so the numbers aren't going up either once these measures are lifted.

For that matter I really like this chart of the German reproduction number where I added the most important events (only marked the beginning of the reopening of businesses 'e' since it differed between the federal states, but I think everything is back open right now):

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,688 Posts
I think it's far too early too tell for that, since so far basically only measures with an arguably very limited efficiency have been lifted (that's the main reason I have been critizising them, regardless of the strategy). The number of infections didn't really go down from banning things that hardly ever caused any infections, so the numbers aren't going up either once these measures are lifted.

For that matter I really like this chart of the German reproduction number where I added the most important events (only marked the beginning of the reopening of businesses 'e' since it differed between the federal states, but I think everything is back open right now):

I agree that there were some totally unnecessary banning, but we are dealing with people and asking them to be reasonable is a very big ask, it is somewhat understandable that many governments went for total lockdowns.

By the way total lockdowns were never really total as many people still had to go to work every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,566 Posts
That's a weird point of view, to be in favour of that strategy in the beginning and to be against it now. I think locking down everything for one month and then go for a loose approch opting for a herd immunity is or would have been a terrible idea. For that strategy to be better than the current one, the potential gain of information and preparation in that very month must be higher than the downsides of the lockdown. And I don't think that would have been the case at all, particularly given the massive downsides of lockdowns that people aren't even able to see yet.
  1. New information: I don't think anything has really changed there. IMO it was already known that the Virus isn't that lethal (I remember talking with my friends about it in January and how the actual lethality was probably much lower than the stated one due to the high number of undetected infections) and that its dangerousness was mostly restricted to a certain group of people that need additional protection.
  2. Preparation: As far as I know, the Swedes didn't have any problems with their hospital capacities, so I don't think any preparation was needed there. They obviosly did a rather poor job in protecting their risk groups, but I don't think that was an issue of lacking preparation but rather an underestimation of this particular situation that they realized over time and that would have been the same even with a 1-month delay (it is also an issue in lockdown-states).
Also this would have kind of been completely against their original philosophy of only following scientifically proven measures (read Gieseckes interviews recently, pretty much agree with him entirely)
There were many issues regarding the preparedness to protect the at-risk groups which came to bear as the authorities decided to move forward with their controlled spread strategy too quickly. In regards to what is scientifically sound/unsound - they have even corrected their (previously false) positions as more information has come in. When you don't yet possess the data on the disease, the less likely you are to treat it successfully; and the more cases you have at this point, the more deaths you are likely to have as a result.

1. New information: FHM didn't e.g. initially recognize the role of asymptomatic spread - one of the reasons behind the spread into nursing homes - changed their stance later on. Advised that being free of symptoms 2 days (12 days less than WHO's recommendations) after having had Covid-19 is enough to be considered no longer contagious --> people possibly still contagious (same thing, being asymptomatic yet still infectious) going about their lives spreading the disease, again e.g. to nursing homes; now (3 days ago) they added to that guideline that it should also have been 7 days since you were infected, and 14 days in case you have been hospitalized due to Covid-19. Previously also instructed that asymptomatic people (confirmed Covid-19 positive) could nevertheless continue working; even some hospitals had abided by this rule, demanding asymptomatic people come to work; the new guideline from FHM 3 days ago states that asymptomatic people (confirmed C-19 positive) need to wait at minimum 7 days in order to be considered no longer contagious; hospitals then changed their policies as well Karolinska ändrar sig om symtomfri personal som testas positivt för covid-19 . Also, initially little to no awareness about thrombosis linked to Covid-19. Now considered one of the central issues.
2. Preparedness: Didn't have enough testing, PPE (including hospitals), and information to protect at-risk groups; elderly paid the price; economy was hit regardless.

The government’s decision to avoid a strict lockdown is thought unlikely to spare the Swedish economy. Although retail and entertainment spending has not collapsed quite as dramatically as elsewhere, analysts say the country will probably not reap any long-term economic benefit.
The European commission has said it expects Sweden’s gross domestic product to contract by more than 6% this year, on a par with much of the continent, while the country’s central bank has estimated an even sharper fall of 7%-10%, with unemployment forecast to rise to as much as 10.4%.
The World Health Organization has warned against pinning hopes on herd immunity as a means of containing the coronavirus, saying last week that studies had found antibodies in only 1%-10% of the global population.
Critics such as Olsen say Sweden has done “too little, too late” and note that the government’s laissez-faire approach has been catastrophic for older people, with roughly half the country’s 3,831 deaths so far occurring in care homes.
Tegnell’s predecessor as chief epidemiologist, Annika Linde, told Dagens Nyheter this week that the country’s strategy towards care homes had been “completely insufficient. The problems were underestimated. It was a clear misjudgment.”
Sweden with more deaths in just the past week than the neighbouring countries during the entire time.

---

Giesecke... what did he say in the interview? Where has he been correct so far... He has e.g. said that Stockholm will have herd immunity by mid-May, then changed it to end of May, and that other countries will have a similar number of deaths in a year...

Regarding the first point, they just had results of an antibody screening: Swedish antibody study shows long road to immunity as COVID-19 toll mounts . The Swedish math professor you referred to at some point in the past (who was saying 40-50% of the country would've already been infected at that point) is taken aback by the study and said "he needs to go back to the drawing board" A new Swedish coronavirus antibody study suggests the herd-immunity strategy isn't working ; Matteprofessorn: ”Kan betyda att dödligheten är högre”

Tom Britton, a professor who helped develop the agency's forecasting model, acknowledged that the calculations may have been wrong.
"It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that's the case it's surprising they are so wrong," he told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, according to The Guardian. "Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies."
Britton had previously suggested that about half of the country could become infected by the end of April.
Half of the country having become infected at that point is rather absurd in hindsight. Not even Stockholm was nowhere near at that point (and still isn't); and even within Stockholm the infections have been thought to be clustered (no wide ranging/balanced effect from immunity).

2nd point; So other countries should repeat the mistakes the Swedish authorities made in protecting the at-risk groups? It's not that they are so far ahead in the spread, but that the authorities failed systematically (as it pertains to protecting the at-risk groups).
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
Youtube at it again, removed this video from its website tagging it as containing dangerous information. Was forced to backtrack and restore the video.

Are you aware that the biggest study yet, just out today, across all continents, found that infected patients given chloroquine were 35% more likely to die?
And this does not include the increased instances of arrhythmia in patients that were given chloroquine?

Or is your post just bad timing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
Are you aware that the biggest study yet, just out today, across all continents, found that infected patients given chloroquine were 35% more likely to die?
And this does not include the increased instances of arrhythmia in patients that were given chloroquine?

Or is your post just bad timing?
The result of that study could easily be a result of the classic mixing of cause and effect. Patients with severe symptoms (that also have a higher likelyhood of dying) are far more likely to be treated with a drug like HCQ that has potential side effects and whose positive effect is yet to be proven than patients with just mild or even no symptoms at all (who obviously have a lower chance of dying from the disease).
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
52,637 Posts
Maybe more people died so they had to impose lockdowns? In some other areas where it was controlled better, lockdowns were not imposed. I think that could be a more telling factor. Certainly the case with HK for example. The figures don't have a time element but simply record whether or not a lockdown occurred, not the result.

The USA is obviously really bad despite having a lockdown because they acted very late. Suppose they didn't impose a lockdown, would the stats be in the favour of "no lockdown"?

There's also a lot of African countries included in the no lockdown list. Transit to and within Africa is not as great as in other continents, so it should be more manageable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Are you aware that the biggest study yet, just out today, across all continents, found that infected patients given chloroquine were 35% more likely to die?
And this does not include the increased instances of arrhythmia in patients that were given chloroquine?

Or is your post just bad timing?
The funny thing is, if Trump hadn't promoted the drug after watching Tucker Carlson they wouldn't give a rat's ass about hydroxychloroquine - but since his surrogates have such a profound emotional attachment to his perceived infallibility, they're dug in. Science, trials, evidence, be damned. Caesar can do no wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Maybe more people died so they had to impose lockdowns? In some other areas where it was controlled better, lockdowns were not imposed. I think that could be a more telling factor. Certainly the case with HK for example. The figures don't have a time element but simply record whether or not a lockdown occurred, not the result.

The USA is obviously really bad despite having a lockdown because they acted very late. Suppose they didn't impose a lockdown, would the stats be in the favour of "no lockdown"?

There's also a lot of African countries included in the no lockdown list. Transit to and within Africa is not as great as in other continents, so it should be more manageable.
My opinion is that large-scale lockdowns were, are and continue to be bogus and serve no benevolent purpose. "More people would die otherwise"? More people already die every year, because our population constantly grows, and they die anyway. Not to mention the c19 death rate is heavily skewed towards elderly people, the rest of the infected recover just fine to keep going.

There's not enough dead people to warrant these measures, which were largely based on fear (exponentiated by media outlets worldwide) and political pressure. All these lockdowns have damaged us far more than the virus ever had the potential to, and I'm not just talking about the US.

At this point I'm feeling pretty callous and don't care to try otherwise.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
The result of that study could easily be a result of the classic mixing of cause and effect. Patients with severe symptoms (that also have a higher likelyhood of dying) are far more likely to be treated with a drug like HCQ that has potential side effects and whose positive effect is yet to be proven than patients with just mild or even no symptoms at all (who obviously have a lower chance of dying from the disease).
Don’t you think that the authors of a peer-reviewed study that was published In the Lancet were capable of considering all parameters? Or are you a higher authority?

The authors actually say that testing should continue, but a more controlled study will take more time.

In the meantime, the evidence is strong that taking chloroquine while infected is more likely to kill a person than help them.
And therefore, almost conclusive, that taking it is dangerous.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
My opinion is that large-scale lockdowns were, are and continue to be bogus and serve no benevolent purpose. "More people would die otherwise"? More people already die every year, because our population constantly grows, and they die anyway. Not to mention the c19 death rate is heavily skewed towards elderly people, the rest of the infected recover just fine to keep going.

There's not enough dead people to warrant these measures, which were largely based on fear (exponentiated by media outlets worldwide) and political pressure. All these lockdowns have damaged us far more than the virus ever had the potential to, and I'm not just talking about the US.

At this point I'm feeling pretty callous and don't care to try otherwise.
Have you read about the non-elderly Broadway actor who lost a leg due to blood clots, had a couple of strokes, went in a coma, partially recovered andnow has relapsed and is near death.
Have you read about all the recovered people who are coming to terms that their breathing will be compromised for the rest of their lives?

How do you know that recovered people are "just fine"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,130 Posts
Weekly Death Toll:

21 Feb: 2,360
28 Feb: 2,923 (+563) rate of change:
06 Mar: 3,493 (+571) x1.01
13 Mar: 5,427 (+1,934) x3.39
20 Mar: 11,457 (+6,030) x3.12
27 Mar: 28,160 (+16,703) x2.77
03 Apr: 61,465 (+33,305) x1.99
10 Apr: 107,781 (+45,370) x1.36
17 Apr: 156,218 (+48,437) x1.07
24 Apr: 200,381 (+44,163) x0.91
01 May: 239,447 (+39,067) x0.88
08 May: 275,976 (+36,529) x0.94
15 May: 308,542 (+32,566) x0.89
22 May: 339,425 (+30,883) x0.95

Continual decline in weekly death figures week to week, but with a slight decrease in the decline this time likely from the increase in nations like Brazil and Mexico. Europe continues to show improvements and the USA is also gradually reducing its large figures, however the easing of lockdown measures will inevitably begin to have an effect in increasing the cases and hence the death count.
 
2141 - 2160 of 2303 Posts
Top