7 ms·

The key is that there is a shift in the rhetoric from the architect of the herd immunity policy, Dr Tegnell: > Dr Tegnell said on Thursday that the autumn resu

The key is that there is a shift in the rhetoric from the architect of the herd immunity policy, Dr Tegnell: > Dr Tegnell said on Thursday that the autumn resurgence in infections had changed his agency's understanding. > "I think the obvious conclusion is that the level of immunity in those cities is not at all as high as we have, as maybe some people, have believed," he said. Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course. Now even the Swedes are conceding that, you know, letting people die unnecessarily was ... unnecessary.

tim333 6y ago
He'd dispute the "architect of the herd immunity policy" bit: >On 28 April 2020, Tegnell was interviewed by Kim Hjelmgaard of USA Today. During the interview he "denied that herd immunity formed the central thrust of Sweden's containment plan"
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  He was lying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-19-strategist-under-fire-over-herd-immunity-emails https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-...
  - tim333 6y ago
    That article only says he discussed herd immunity, not set it as a policy goal. Their closing schools for over 16s suggests they were trying to limit infections amongst the young and healthy.
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      I disagree. > “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster,” The most reasonable interpretation of "reach herd immunity faster" is that he saw that as a positive outcome. He's tried to avoid the herd immunity label, but then, what is the policy goal? Because what's left is "letting people die unnecessarily is fine".
the-smug-one 6y ago
The goal of the Swedish pandemic strategy wasn't herd immunity. It was to keep the spread under control such that our healthcare wasn't overrun, and try our best to ensure that risk groups aren't exposed. It's not been about "wishing away" anything.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks. Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.
  - olodus 6y ago
    >95% of the deaths in Sweden are from people over 60 years old. Our mistake was to let the virus into our elderly homes. I don't really see the evidence that we should have had lockdowns. As OP says the are a lot of precautions set in place already and even more earlier in the pandemic. Most worked from home and followed safety precautions given. That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      Elderly homes, and high death rates in elderly homes, are not unique to Sweden. Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away. It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
dalke 6y ago
The title is still wrong - Sweden has had a lockdown (light, certainly, but not "no-lockdown"), what appears to be a summary of new restrictions has actually been in place for months, and there's nothing in the article which says there will be new legal enforcements behind the stronger recommendations. If the old policies wasn't a lockdown then the new one isn't either. Those folks you mention seem to deliberately use "no lockdown" to describe Sweden, when clearly (I linked to a source, and gave personal observations) there are restrictions, and so is more accurately "light lockdown". I can't help but wonder how it came to be used in this title. BTW, I looked for mention of upcoming substantial changes at https://www.gp.se/ https://www.gp.se/ and found https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-som-kan-begr%C3%A4nsas-mer-vid-ett-coronautbrott-1.35529022 https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-... . Google Translate at https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gp.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fplatserna-i-g%25C3%25B6teborg-som-kan-begr%25C3%25A4nsas-mer-vid-ett-coronautbrott-1.35529022 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... . You can see the changes are in the "sharpness" of the recommendations, and in case of a local outbreak. For example, from "you shouldn't take public transport unless you can book a seat" changes to "you shouldn't take public transport." But it's still as voluntary as it was a few weeks ago, so if we were "no-lockdown" then we'll still be "no-lockdown" tomorrow.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  My question is, has the spike in cases corresponded with a spike in hospitalizations? My understanding has been that this second wave has been far less deadly throughout the world, and likely because it's hitting younger people, who fend it off relatively easily on average, whereas the first wave tended to hit the most vulnerable (nursing home and assisted living populations).
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    Younger folks are getting it, folks are tested and treated earlier, treatment has improved and viral load has fallen, meaning it's more likely to be fought off with lighter symptoms. The latter is mostly likely due to masks and social distancing.
thu2111 6y ago
a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic Highly infectious yes, but dangerous relative to what? Current best data from CDC and elsewhere says that compared to flu: - COVID is far less deadly if you are healthy and under 70 - COVID is a bit more deadly if you are old, unhealthy or both The reason is that flu is willing to kill young and healthy people but COVID virtually never does this, is preference for people who are about to die anyway is so strong that the average age of COVID death is older than the average life expectancy. If you look at the Swedish data there are ~no deaths either of or with COVID since about the end of July. It's been riding the noise floor, probably all false positives, since then, usually between 1-3 per day. Something that's not killing anyone is hard to describe as "relatively dangerous" unless you're comparing it to some kind of unnatural lifestyle in which as much risk as possible has been removed. The new 'second waves' of COVID are not correlated with similar second waves of deaths. This is not predicted by any epidemiological model and frankly nobody seems able to satisfactorily explain it, but an increasing number of people testing positive may mean very little when the huge ramp up in testing and unknown/untracked (!) false positive rate is considered. At any rate, it hardly justifies lockdowns.

tim333 6y ago

He'd dispute the "architect of the herd immunity policy" bit: >On 28 April 2020, Tegnell was interviewed by Kim Hjelmgaard of USA Today. During the interview he "denied that herd immunity formed the central thrust of Sweden's containment plan"

jacques_chester 6y ago
He was lying. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-19-strategist-under-fire-over-herd-immunity-emails https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/swedens-covid-...
- tim333 6y ago
  That article only says he discussed herd immunity, not set it as a policy goal. Their closing schools for over 16s suggests they were trying to limit infections amongst the young and healthy.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    I disagree. > “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster,” The most reasonable interpretation of "reach herd immunity faster" is that he saw that as a positive outcome. He's tried to avoid the herd immunity label, but then, what is the policy goal? Because what's left is "letting people die unnecessarily is fine".

the-smug-one 6y ago

The goal of the Swedish pandemic strategy wasn't herd immunity. It was to keep the spread under control such that our healthcare wasn't overrun, and try our best to ensure that risk groups aren't exposed. It's not been about "wishing away" anything.

jacques_chester 6y ago
I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks. Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.
- olodus 6y ago
  >95% of the deaths in Sweden are from people over 60 years old. Our mistake was to let the virus into our elderly homes. I don't really see the evidence that we should have had lockdowns. As OP says the are a lot of precautions set in place already and even more earlier in the pandemic. Most worked from home and followed safety precautions given. That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    Elderly homes, and high death rates in elderly homes, are not unique to Sweden. Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away. It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago

dalke 6y ago

The title is still wrong - Sweden has had a lockdown (light, certainly, but not "no-lockdown"), what appears to be a summary of new restrictions has actually been in place for months, and there's nothing in the article which says there will be new legal enforcements behind the stronger recommendations. If the old policies wasn't a lockdown then the new one isn't either. Those folks you mention seem to deliberately use "no lockdown" to describe Sweden, when clearly (I linked to a source, and gave personal observations) there are restrictions, and so is more accurately "light lockdown". I can't help but wonder how it came to be used in this title. BTW, I looked for mention of upcoming substantial changes at https://www.gp.se/ https://www.gp.se/ and found https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-som-kan-begr%C3%A4nsas-mer-vid-ett-coronautbrott-1.35529022 https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/platserna-i-g%C3%B6teborg-... . Google Translate at https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gp.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsverige%2Fplatserna-i-g%25C3%25B6teborg-som-kan-begr%25C3%25A4nsas-mer-vid-ett-coronautbrott-1.35529022 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... . You can see the changes are in the "sharpness" of the recommendations, and in case of a local outbreak. For example, from "you shouldn't take public transport unless you can book a seat" changes to "you shouldn't take public transport." But it's still as voluntary as it was a few weeks ago, so if we were "no-lockdown" then we'll still be "no-lockdown" tomorrow.

chrisco255 6y ago
My question is, has the spike in cases corresponded with a spike in hospitalizations? My understanding has been that this second wave has been far less deadly throughout the world, and likely because it's hitting younger people, who fend it off relatively easily on average, whereas the first wave tended to hit the most vulnerable (nursing home and assisted living populations).
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  Younger folks are getting it, folks are tested and treated earlier, treatment has improved and viral load has fallen, meaning it's more likely to be fought off with lighter symptoms. The latter is mostly likely due to masks and social distancing.

thu2111 6y ago

a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic Highly infectious yes, but dangerous relative to what? Current best data from CDC and elsewhere says that compared to flu: - COVID is far less deadly if you are healthy and under 70 - COVID is a bit more deadly if you are old, unhealthy or both The reason is that flu is willing to kill young and healthy people but COVID virtually never does this, is preference for people who are about to die anyway is so strong that the average age of COVID death is older than the average life expectancy. If you look at the Swedish data there are ~no deaths either of or with COVID since about the end of July. It's been riding the noise floor, probably all false positives, since then, usually between 1-3 per day. Something that's not killing anyone is hard to describe as "relatively dangerous" unless you're comparing it to some kind of unnatural lifestyle in which as much risk as possible has been removed. The new 'second waves' of COVID are not correlated with similar second waves of deaths. This is not predicted by any epidemiological model and frankly nobody seems able to satisfactorily explain it, but an increasing number of people testing positive may mean very little when the huge ramp up in testing and unknown/untracked (!) false positive rate is considered. At any rate, it hardly justifies lockdowns.