Sweden the only country with Correct Approach to CVD-19

Post Reply New Topic

Sweden’s approach to managing the coronavirus outbreak has received considerable attention. In contrast to other countries, Sweden has relied on recommendations about social distancing rather than restricting people’s movements, trusting citizens to follow the official advice.

While other countries have closed businesses, much remains up and running in Sweden, including cafes and bars. People are advised to limit their movements but not required to stay at home.

Within Sweden, the strategy has spurred a heated debate in the scientific community and drawn scepticism for being high risk.

Critics say making social distancing optional preserves the freedom of the young at the expense of the old, who are more seriously affected by COVID-19. But a new study shows that older people are more supportive of the approach taken by the government.
In a survey of more than 1,600 Swedes those aged 50 and above – those with elevated risk for severe complications from an infection – are most supportive of the Swedish response.
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus ... ach-137275

No face-masks...no shutdown....no economic collapse....no brainer.....

The end goal of opening all businesses and driving the economy at full force is what every country desires. But I'm not sure that it's realistic for every country to take the exact same approach. For example, what works for a Scandinavian country might not work for Brazil with its extroverted culture, or Italy with its high level of tourism and large elderly population. It's probably best for each nation to base their approach on a number of factors specific to their populace.

Even if you only look at the Scandinavian countries, Sweden doesn't look so good compared to its neighbors.

Covid-19 deaths:

Sweden: 2,669
Denmark: 475
Finland: 220
Norway: 211

Yes but it's a trade off and the Swedish population have supported their government. For the vast majority who aren't going to get sick they get to keep their jobs.

A reminder in general Autistics have a better chance of having a pre-existing condition.

As of now even here New York we are allowed to go out for exercise and only are required to wear a mask if you can not social distance. I walk outside sans mask. People are social distancing not only six feet but most often a lot more. If social distancing becomes optional I will probably have to lock myself inside and shelve walking to the detriment of my physical and mental health. But even inside will be more dangerous as any delivery I get will have a better chance of having the virus since every step of the way the person will have a better chance of being infected.

Like I have said before every choice is fraught because this is heavily guesswork based on the assumption that COVID-19 will behave as most other viruses.

I agree that pre-existing conditions mean taking necessary precautions regardless of lockdown or not.

If we in the US took Sweden’s approach, the mortuary industry would have been overwhelmed in many other places other than NYC.

Sweden’s population is only just above 10 million; whereas the population of the US is 330 million.

The US could manage the pandemic if each state cooperated with each other and the federal government and it had leadership that took the virus seriously

Listened to an interesting podcast about Sweden during this crisis and it was explaining how, due to their country and culture, the approach would likely not have worked elsewhere. It was basically explaining how they self isolate a lot anyway in normal times. They looked at the amount of people the average Swede is in touch with day to day and it is much less than other countries.

Norway took the more “conventional” approach....and had 1/10th the deaths of Sweden, though their population is about half that of Sweden’s.

I’m not convinced that Sweden will see much economic benefit. We will need to wait and see. They’d have to be some pretty incredible benefits to be worth five times as many deaths as their neighbours. And of course the social isolating they have done will probably lead to a recession.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... is-of-2008

I think the numbers from Sweden confirm the US did the right thing. I think the US would have had at least 10x more deaths. Probably more like 100x, compared to what we did have.

Walrus means that Sweden has almost 5x the collective deaths of Norway and Denmark. And more than triple the collective deaths of Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

Sweden has more than 10x the deaths of Norway.

The combined populations of Norway, Denmark, and Finland is about 17 million. Sweden’s is just over 10 million.

Sweden’s per capita death rate is 265 per million; the United States’ is 204.

I've found the statistics and the way they are often misleading to be the most interesting thing about this whole thing. On the BBC the first form of comparison with other countries was done using the numbers of covid cases. Then as the number of deaths went up it first looked like some countries like Germany had lots of covid and only a few deaths while other countries were visa versa. Once it became obvious many some countries such as the UK were only testing those sick enough to be hospitalised it became equally obvious that numbers tested positive did not tell how many actually had it. Then came the rearrangement of countries according to deaths. This too is misleading as countries count in different ways and at different speeds. Belgium includes those dead if suspected of covid in oap homes. I don't think it will be possible to evaluate how each country has done till well after this is all over, Sweden included.

My theory is that National populations are not the point, density of population is, not nationally but at a more local level.

Density of population IS the point.

Urban areas, by all measures, have gotten more cases per capita, and more deaths per capita, than rural areas.

Many rural counties in the US have zero deaths, and fewer than 100 total cases. Even in NY State, most counties have had under 500 cases and under 35 deaths. NYC has had 166,000 cases and 18,000 deaths, and has less land area than almost all counties in NY State.

Even within NYC, areas with less dense populations have less deaths and less cases per capita than more densely-populated areas.

NYC, with 300 square miles, has accounted for more than half the deaths and cases of a state with 55,000 square miles.

Belgium and the Netherlands are both densely-populated places, but the Netherlands less so. The Netherlands have had less cases and less deaths per capita than Belgium.

^Northern Italy is dense and in the UK it's been the densely populated areas that have seen the deaths. Am I right in thinking that New York is densely populated not just by American standards but by European ones? Hopefully your other cities will fare better.

NYC is one of the most densely-populated cities in the world.

NYC has has 18,000 deaths.

Philadelphia, 90 miles south of NYC, with about 1/5 of NYC’s population, has had 705 deaths.

Another very important factor is that NYC is a vast international hub, and Philadelphia is not.