So sorry but I notice your arguments all lost, like "Sweden Herd Immunity"
It's actually the other way round. Sweden got it right. Here's Sweden vs the UK that is still masked up.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Pfizer jab deadlier than AstraZeneca across Europe – leaked study
- Thread starter Leongsam
- Start date
It's actually the other way round. Sweden got it right. Here's Sweden vs the UK that is still masked up.
spectator.co.uk
Fraser Nelson
9-11 minutes
Swedes enjoying the sun in April 2020 (Photo: Getty)
Over the last year, the debate about lockdown has been driven to extremes – everyone has, by now, made up their mind. Sweden has been used as an example of either a liberal heaven or Covid hell. To the outside world, Sweden is a country that defied lockdown, carried on regardless and ended up with what is (now) the highest case-rate in Europe. In reality, Sweden shows that you don't need lockdown to significantly reduce mobility: it forced down two waves. It failed to protect care homes, leading to a scandal of thousands of avoidable deaths. But the question is whether, by avoiding lockdown, it managed Covid while minimising damage to the economy, society, healthcare and schools. I looked at this in my Daily Telegraph column a few weeks ago. Seeing as this is such a contentious (and misrepresented) issue, I thought I'd include some of the data and sources here for those interested.
Sweden's story is more complicated than the UK narrative allows. We tend to see the problem only in terms of Covid cases, deaths, vaccinations etc. The BBC reads out these figures every day on the news - but we seldom hear about the aspects of the pandemic. The effect on society, schools (Swedens were kept open for the under-17s), unemployment, the public finances and the likely long-term implications of wider economic damage. The fall in Sweden's urgent cancer referrals, for example, was far less than that of the UK - meaning fewer avoidable deaths. Sweden also argues that lockdown brings isolation which can be fatal to the elderly.
Lockdown-related damage has (controversially) always been excluded from calculations used inside UK government. Seen through only one dimension - the spread of Covid - Sweden looks like a flop. But add other factors (as Swedes have always done) and the picture changes.
Let's start with a table where Sweden looks bad: Covid infections. Since the pandemic started, its per-capita infections have been amongst the highest in Europe - and remain so today.
But when you switch to looking at Covid deaths, Sweden about average How can that be, given that it has tolerated such high Covid cases for so long? Tegnell says that at present, the link between high cases and deaths has been broken by vaccinations: Sweden's targeted vaccination programme means 'we should not have to experience these high death rates again'. So a new wave of cases need not mean a new wave of hospitalisations – ergo, no need to inflict more harm on society and the economy. Here's how the picture looks for Covid deaths, to date.
In rejecting lockdown, Sweden deliberately tolerated higher Covid levels than locked-down countries in the hope of minimising other damage and protecting more lives in the round. Last year, Sweden's economy (which relies heavily on exports) fell 3 per cent vs 10 per cent for Britain. This isn’t just about money: years of experience of recession shows a clear link between economic downturns and public health damage: the effects are longer term. Most health economists would agree that a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later.
In spite of three UK lockdowns, Sweden has ended up with fewer Covid deaths. On a per capita basis, the UK and Sweden had almost identical Covid death levels by the end of the first wave. Both amongst the worst in Europe, but locking down didn't give Britain much of an advantage - a point Tegnell makes now and again. But locked-down Britain was hit harder in a second wave (still ongoing in Sweden).
The problem with 'Sweden vs its neighbours' Lockdown advocates often compare Sweden with its neighbours, but this mistakes the nature of Scandinavia. Sweden has lots of trees, but as a country it is more urbanised than even Britain, for example (ie: 88pc of Swedes live in cities, vs 84pc of Brits). Right at the start of the pandemic, Bristol Uni’s Oliver Johnson came up with an index to explain this point: population density and how it relates to Covid vulnerability. The below graph sums it up. Norway and Finland have very low population density, Sweden is in line with the European average (higher than Germany). On top of that we have Sweden's exposure to globalisation, high foreign-born population etc. Sweden falls down in comparison to Denmark, which has higher population density but suffered less excess death and comparable economic damage.
Collateral health damage The closure of society and discouraging people from seeking healthcare will inflict fatalities that will show up as ‘excess deaths’ for other reasons. Sweden avoided kind of school closure damage that the IFS thinks will cost British pupils £350 billion in lost future earnings. Swedish breast cancer referrals were down by about 10 per cent in the first ten months of last year. But the British figures are closer to 30pc decline. But, importantly, Sweden did take a hit. So it's wrong to attribute all declining A&E use, cancer diagnosis and economic damage to lockdowns (as some lockdown sceptics do) because Sweden suffered the same (albeit to a smaller degree).
The question is how far lockdown – and messages like 'protect the NHS' – exacerbate the deadly effect of healthcare hesitancy. The indirect deaths (especially of cancer) would take years to show up, so a 2020 graph will not give the whole story. Adjust for age (most Covid deaths were amongst the over-80s) and you end up with the below Oxford Uni study. Sweden’s figure was up 1.5 per cent last year, the England figure was 10.5 per cent. Is this the lockdown effect, or a coincidence? It's impossible to tell – it's just a piece of a still-incomplete picture.
The myth of Sweden being a liberal utopia. One of the biggest errors in the UK’s lockdown response was Imperial College's controversial cliff-edge hypothesis: the idea that measures/advice/anything less than full lockdown makes v little difference. But full lockdowns? Why, that shoots Covid out of the sky. (After lockdown, Imperial's Neil Ferguson predicted fewer than 7,000 net Covid-excess deaths.) This cliff-edge theory is still advocated fiercely in some circles, used to make the case for early and hard lockdowns.
Sweden matters to the world because it adopted another theory: that smaller measures (a ban on mass meetings, a bunch of homeworking advice) would be enough. That you have to look at this in the round, and lockdown would inflict too much collateral damage. Swedes also were big on the fundamental point that the state has no business criminalising everyday life.
So was Sweden right? The below graph uses Google mobility data to show that mobility to Swedish workplaces fell by a quarter and in transit stations by a third by 23 March - enough, it seems, to force its Covid into reverse. This also shows mobility in Britain (in red) falling even further - and long before lockdown was imposed. This matters. The idea that Brits needed to be locked down because they are not as obedient or sensible as Swedes is simply not borne out by the below data. The UK public is shown to take far stronger evasive action than the Swedes and and long before it was made mandatory.
Britain and Sweden's synchronised Covid waves Comparisons between the UK and Sweden are often rejected as absurd due to latitude, landscape etc. But our Covid experience has been eerily similar in the first and second wave. Whatever led Britain to get hit by Covid so badly at first also applied in Sweden. But as the below graph shows, Sweden twice forced down its Covid deaths without lockdown. This raises the question: how far would a similar common-sense, guidance-based approach have worked in the UK?
To repeat: this is not to say that Britain got it wrong and Sweden got it right. The above is simply a snapshot, clues in an unsolved mystery about a virus that keeps surprising us. It's premature to draw any firm conclusions at this stage. But the above might help explain why Swedes, even now, are not pushing for lockdown, even with cases so high as to have them placed in the UK's 'red' category. They seek to limit the damage inflicted on people’s lives and health and pursue a policy that will lead to least harm overall.
There’s plenty Sweden got wrong (chiefly, a failure to protect the elderly in care homes). Tegnell is keen to say that it will take months, perhaps years, for the picture to settle. But to understand Sweden, you need to look at more countries than its neighbours. You need to look at more than just Covid deaths. You need to compare Sweden to countries with similar levels of urbanisation, not just its neighbours.
All this explains why Sweden refuses to lock down and tolerates what is, at the time of writing, Europe's highest Covid levels. Polls show almost three-quarters of Swedes saying that the health authority’s handling of the crisis was either ‘good’ or ‘very good When these other points are factored in, it becomes easier to understand why, after all the last year has brought, Swedes still think they will be proved right in the end.
PS: I'm keeping this post updated : if you're interested in this topic please do check back from time to time as new data arrives all the time.
spectator.co.uk
Fraser Nelson
9-11 minutes
Swedes enjoying the sun in April 2020 (Photo: Getty)
Over the last year, the debate about lockdown has been driven to extremes – everyone has, by now, made up their mind. Sweden has been used as an example of either a liberal heaven or Covid hell. To the outside world, Sweden is a country that defied lockdown, carried on regardless and ended up with what is (now) the highest case-rate in Europe. In reality, Sweden shows that you don't need lockdown to significantly reduce mobility: it forced down two waves. It failed to protect care homes, leading to a scandal of thousands of avoidable deaths. But the question is whether, by avoiding lockdown, it managed Covid while minimising damage to the economy, society, healthcare and schools. I looked at this in my Daily Telegraph column a few weeks ago. Seeing as this is such a contentious (and misrepresented) issue, I thought I'd include some of the data and sources here for those interested.
Sweden's story is more complicated than the UK narrative allows. We tend to see the problem only in terms of Covid cases, deaths, vaccinations etc. The BBC reads out these figures every day on the news - but we seldom hear about the aspects of the pandemic. The effect on society, schools (Swedens were kept open for the under-17s), unemployment, the public finances and the likely long-term implications of wider economic damage. The fall in Sweden's urgent cancer referrals, for example, was far less than that of the UK - meaning fewer avoidable deaths. Sweden also argues that lockdown brings isolation which can be fatal to the elderly.
Lockdown-related damage has (controversially) always been excluded from calculations used inside UK government. Seen through only one dimension - the spread of Covid - Sweden looks like a flop. But add other factors (as Swedes have always done) and the picture changes.
Let's start with a table where Sweden looks bad: Covid infections. Since the pandemic started, its per-capita infections have been amongst the highest in Europe - and remain so today.
But when you switch to looking at Covid deaths, Sweden about average How can that be, given that it has tolerated such high Covid cases for so long? Tegnell says that at present, the link between high cases and deaths has been broken by vaccinations: Sweden's targeted vaccination programme means 'we should not have to experience these high death rates again'. So a new wave of cases need not mean a new wave of hospitalisations – ergo, no need to inflict more harm on society and the economy. Here's how the picture looks for Covid deaths, to date.
In rejecting lockdown, Sweden deliberately tolerated higher Covid levels than locked-down countries in the hope of minimising other damage and protecting more lives in the round. Last year, Sweden's economy (which relies heavily on exports) fell 3 per cent vs 10 per cent for Britain. This isn’t just about money: years of experience of recession shows a clear link between economic downturns and public health damage: the effects are longer term. Most health economists would agree that a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later.
In spite of three UK lockdowns, Sweden has ended up with fewer Covid deaths. On a per capita basis, the UK and Sweden had almost identical Covid death levels by the end of the first wave. Both amongst the worst in Europe, but locking down didn't give Britain much of an advantage - a point Tegnell makes now and again. But locked-down Britain was hit harder in a second wave (still ongoing in Sweden).
The problem with 'Sweden vs its neighbours' Lockdown advocates often compare Sweden with its neighbours, but this mistakes the nature of Scandinavia. Sweden has lots of trees, but as a country it is more urbanised than even Britain, for example (ie: 88pc of Swedes live in cities, vs 84pc of Brits). Right at the start of the pandemic, Bristol Uni’s Oliver Johnson came up with an index to explain this point: population density and how it relates to Covid vulnerability. The below graph sums it up. Norway and Finland have very low population density, Sweden is in line with the European average (higher than Germany). On top of that we have Sweden's exposure to globalisation, high foreign-born population etc. Sweden falls down in comparison to Denmark, which has higher population density but suffered less excess death and comparable economic damage.
Collateral health damage The closure of society and discouraging people from seeking healthcare will inflict fatalities that will show up as ‘excess deaths’ for other reasons. Sweden avoided kind of school closure damage that the IFS thinks will cost British pupils £350 billion in lost future earnings. Swedish breast cancer referrals were down by about 10 per cent in the first ten months of last year. But the British figures are closer to 30pc decline. But, importantly, Sweden did take a hit. So it's wrong to attribute all declining A&E use, cancer diagnosis and economic damage to lockdowns (as some lockdown sceptics do) because Sweden suffered the same (albeit to a smaller degree).
The question is how far lockdown – and messages like 'protect the NHS' – exacerbate the deadly effect of healthcare hesitancy. The indirect deaths (especially of cancer) would take years to show up, so a 2020 graph will not give the whole story. Adjust for age (most Covid deaths were amongst the over-80s) and you end up with the below Oxford Uni study. Sweden’s figure was up 1.5 per cent last year, the England figure was 10.5 per cent. Is this the lockdown effect, or a coincidence? It's impossible to tell – it's just a piece of a still-incomplete picture.
The myth of Sweden being a liberal utopia. One of the biggest errors in the UK’s lockdown response was Imperial College's controversial cliff-edge hypothesis: the idea that measures/advice/anything less than full lockdown makes v little difference. But full lockdowns? Why, that shoots Covid out of the sky. (After lockdown, Imperial's Neil Ferguson predicted fewer than 7,000 net Covid-excess deaths.) This cliff-edge theory is still advocated fiercely in some circles, used to make the case for early and hard lockdowns.
Sweden matters to the world because it adopted another theory: that smaller measures (a ban on mass meetings, a bunch of homeworking advice) would be enough. That you have to look at this in the round, and lockdown would inflict too much collateral damage. Swedes also were big on the fundamental point that the state has no business criminalising everyday life.
So was Sweden right? The below graph uses Google mobility data to show that mobility to Swedish workplaces fell by a quarter and in transit stations by a third by 23 March - enough, it seems, to force its Covid into reverse. This also shows mobility in Britain (in red) falling even further - and long before lockdown was imposed. This matters. The idea that Brits needed to be locked down because they are not as obedient or sensible as Swedes is simply not borne out by the below data. The UK public is shown to take far stronger evasive action than the Swedes and and long before it was made mandatory.
Britain and Sweden's synchronised Covid waves Comparisons between the UK and Sweden are often rejected as absurd due to latitude, landscape etc. But our Covid experience has been eerily similar in the first and second wave. Whatever led Britain to get hit by Covid so badly at first also applied in Sweden. But as the below graph shows, Sweden twice forced down its Covid deaths without lockdown. This raises the question: how far would a similar common-sense, guidance-based approach have worked in the UK?
To repeat: this is not to say that Britain got it wrong and Sweden got it right. The above is simply a snapshot, clues in an unsolved mystery about a virus that keeps surprising us. It's premature to draw any firm conclusions at this stage. But the above might help explain why Swedes, even now, are not pushing for lockdown, even with cases so high as to have them placed in the UK's 'red' category. They seek to limit the damage inflicted on people’s lives and health and pursue a policy that will lead to least harm overall.
There’s plenty Sweden got wrong (chiefly, a failure to protect the elderly in care homes). Tegnell is keen to say that it will take months, perhaps years, for the picture to settle. But to understand Sweden, you need to look at more countries than its neighbours. You need to look at more than just Covid deaths. You need to compare Sweden to countries with similar levels of urbanisation, not just its neighbours.
All this explains why Sweden refuses to lock down and tolerates what is, at the time of writing, Europe's highest Covid levels. Polls show almost three-quarters of Swedes saying that the health authority’s handling of the crisis was either ‘good’ or ‘very good When these other points are factored in, it becomes easier to understand why, after all the last year has brought, Swedes still think they will be proved right in the end.
PS: I'm keeping this post updated : if you're interested in this topic please do check back from time to time as new data arrives all the time.
Sweden, Covid and lockdown – a look at the data
Fraser Nelson
9-11 minutes
Swedes enjoying the sun in April 2020 (Photo: Getty)
Over the last year, the debate about lockdown has been driven to extremes – everyone has, by now, made up their mind. Sweden has been used as an example of either a liberal heaven or Covid hell. To the outside world, Sweden is a country that defied lockdown, carried on regardless and ended up with what is (now) the highest case-rate in Europe. In reality, Sweden shows that you don't need lockdown to significantly reduce mobility: it forced down two waves. It failed to protect care homes, leading to a scandal of thousands of avoidable deaths. But the question is whether, by avoiding lockdown, it managed Covid while minimising damage to the economy, society, healthcare and schools. I looked at this in my Daily Telegraph column a few weeks ago. Seeing as this is such a contentious (and misrepresented) issue, I thought I'd include some of the data and sources here for those interested.
Sweden's story is more complicated than the UK narrative allows. We tend to see the problem only in terms of Covid cases, deaths, vaccinations etc. The BBC reads out these figures every day on the news - but we seldom hear about the aspects of the pandemic. The effect on society, schools (Swedens were kept open for the under-17s), unemployment, the public finances and the likely long-term implications of wider economic damage. The fall in Sweden's urgent cancer referrals, for example, was far less than that of the UK - meaning fewer avoidable deaths. Sweden also argues that lockdown brings isolation which can be fatal to the elderly.
Lockdown-related damage has (controversially) always been excluded from calculations used inside UK government. Seen through only one dimension - the spread of Covid - Sweden looks like a flop. But add other factors (as Swedes have always done) and the picture changes.
Let's start with a table where Sweden looks bad: Covid infections. Since the pandemic started, its per-capita infections have been amongst the highest in Europe - and remain so today.
But when you switch to looking at Covid deaths, Sweden about average How can that be, given that it has tolerated such high Covid cases for so long? Tegnell says that at present, the link between high cases and deaths has been broken by vaccinations: Sweden's targeted vaccination programme means 'we should not have to experience these high death rates again'. So a new wave of cases need not mean a new wave of hospitalisations – ergo, no need to inflict more harm on society and the economy. Here's how the picture looks for Covid deaths, to date.
In rejecting lockdown, Sweden deliberately tolerated higher Covid levels than locked-down countries in the hope of minimising other damage and protecting more lives in the round. Last year, Sweden's economy (which relies heavily on exports) fell 3 per cent vs 10 per cent for Britain. This isn’t just about money: years of experience of recession shows a clear link between economic downturns and public health damage: the effects are longer term. Most health economists would agree that a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later.
In spite of three UK lockdowns, Sweden has ended up with fewer Covid deaths. On a per capita basis, the UK and Sweden had almost identical Covid death levels by the end of the first wave. Both amongst the worst in Europe, but locking down didn't give Britain much of an advantage - a point Tegnell makes now and again. But locked-down Britain was hit harder in a second wave (still ongoing in Sweden).
The problem with 'Sweden vs its neighbours' Lockdown advocates often compare Sweden with its neighbours, but this mistakes the nature of Scandinavia. Sweden has lots of trees, but as a country it is more urbanised than even Britain, for example (ie: 88pc of Swedes live in cities, vs 84pc of Brits). Right at the start of the pandemic, Bristol Uni’s Oliver Johnson came up with an index to explain this point: population density and how it relates to Covid vulnerability. The below graph sums it up. Norway and Finland have very low population density, Sweden is in line with the European average (higher than Germany). On top of that we have Sweden's exposure to globalisation, high foreign-born population etc. Sweden falls down in comparison to Denmark, which has higher population density but suffered less excess death and comparable economic damage.
Collateral health damage The closure of society and discouraging people from seeking healthcare will inflict fatalities that will show up as ‘excess deaths’ for other reasons. Sweden avoided kind of school closure damage that the IFS thinks will cost British pupils £350 billion in lost future earnings. Swedish breast cancer referrals were down by about 10 per cent in the first ten months of last year. But the British figures are closer to 30pc decline. But, importantly, Sweden did take a hit. So it's wrong to attribute all declining A&E use, cancer diagnosis and economic damage to lockdowns (as some lockdown sceptics do) because Sweden suffered the same (albeit to a smaller degree).
The question is how far lockdown – and messages like 'protect the NHS' – exacerbate the deadly effect of healthcare hesitancy. The indirect deaths (especially of cancer) would take years to show up, so a 2020 graph will not give the whole story. Adjust for age (most Covid deaths were amongst the over-80s) and you end up with the below Oxford Uni study. Sweden’s figure was up 1.5 per cent last year, the England figure was 10.5 per cent. Is this the lockdown effect, or a coincidence? It's impossible to tell – it's just a piece of a still-incomplete picture.
The myth of Sweden being a liberal utopia. One of the biggest errors in the UK’s lockdown response was Imperial College's controversial cliff-edge hypothesis: the idea that measures/advice/anything less than full lockdown makes v little difference. But full lockdowns? Why, that shoots Covid out of the sky. (After lockdown, Imperial's Neil Ferguson predicted fewer than 7,000 net Covid-excess deaths.) This cliff-edge theory is still advocated fiercely in some circles, used to make the case for early and hard lockdowns.
Sweden matters to the world because it adopted another theory: that smaller measures (a ban on mass meetings, a bunch of homeworking advice) would be enough. That you have to look at this in the round, and lockdown would inflict too much collateral damage. Swedes also were big on the fundamental point that the state has no business criminalising everyday life.
So was Sweden right? The below graph uses Google mobility data to show that mobility to Swedish workplaces fell by a quarter and in transit stations by a third by 23 March - enough, it seems, to force its Covid into reverse. This also shows mobility in Britain (in red) falling even further - and long before lockdown was imposed. This matters. The idea that Brits needed to be locked down because they are not as obedient or sensible as Swedes is simply not borne out by the below data. The UK public is shown to take far stronger evasive action than the Swedes and and long before it was made mandatory.
Britain and Sweden's synchronised Covid waves Comparisons between the UK and Sweden are often rejected as absurd due to latitude, landscape etc. But our Covid experience has been eerily similar in the first and second wave. Whatever led Britain to get hit by Covid so badly at first also applied in Sweden. But as the below graph shows, Sweden twice forced down its Covid deaths without lockdown. This raises the question: how far would a similar common-sense, guidance-based approach have worked in the UK?
To repeat: this is not to say that Britain got it wrong and Sweden got it right. The above is simply a snapshot, clues in an unsolved mystery about a virus that keeps surprising us. It's premature to draw any firm conclusions at this stage. But the above might help explain why Swedes, even now, are not pushing for lockdown, even with cases so high as to have them placed in the UK's 'red' category. They seek to limit the damage inflicted on people’s lives and health and pursue a policy that will lead to least harm overall.
There’s plenty Sweden got wrong (chiefly, a failure to protect the elderly in care homes). Tegnell is keen to say that it will take months, perhaps years, for the picture to settle. But to understand Sweden, you need to look at more countries than its neighbours. You need to look at more than just Covid deaths. You need to compare Sweden to countries with similar levels of urbanisation, not just its neighbours.
All this explains why Sweden refuses to lock down and tolerates what is, at the time of writing, Europe's highest Covid levels. Polls show almost three-quarters of Swedes saying that the health authority’s handling of the crisis was either ‘good’ or ‘very good When these other points are factored in, it becomes easier to understand why, after all the last year has brought, Swedes still think they will be proved right in the end.
PS: I'm keeping this post updated : if you're interested in this topic please do check back from time to time as new data arrives all the time.
spectator.co.uk
Sweden, Covid and lockdown – a look at the data
Fraser Nelson
9-11 minutes
Swedes enjoying the sun in April 2020 (Photo: Getty)
Over the last year, the debate about lockdown has been driven to extremes – everyone has, by now, made up their mind. Sweden has been used as an example of either a liberal heaven or Covid hell. To the outside world, Sweden is a country that defied lockdown, carried on regardless and ended up with what is (now) the highest case-rate in Europe. In reality, Sweden shows that you don't need lockdown to significantly reduce mobility: it forced down two waves. It failed to protect care homes, leading to a scandal of thousands of avoidable deaths. But the question is whether, by avoiding lockdown, it managed Covid while minimising damage to the economy, society, healthcare and schools. I looked at this in my Daily Telegraph column a few weeks ago. Seeing as this is such a contentious (and misrepresented) issue, I thought I'd include some of the data and sources here for those interested.
Sweden's story is more complicated than the UK narrative allows. We tend to see the problem only in terms of Covid cases, deaths, vaccinations etc. The BBC reads out these figures every day on the news - but we seldom hear about the aspects of the pandemic. The effect on society, schools (Swedens were kept open for the under-17s), unemployment, the public finances and the likely long-term implications of wider economic damage. The fall in Sweden's urgent cancer referrals, for example, was far less than that of the UK - meaning fewer avoidable deaths. Sweden also argues that lockdown brings isolation which can be fatal to the elderly.
Lockdown-related damage has (controversially) always been excluded from calculations used inside UK government. Seen through only one dimension - the spread of Covid - Sweden looks like a flop. But add other factors (as Swedes have always done) and the picture changes.
Let's start with a table where Sweden looks bad: Covid infections. Since the pandemic started, its per-capita infections have been amongst the highest in Europe - and remain so today.
But when you switch to looking at Covid deaths, Sweden about average How can that be, given that it has tolerated such high Covid cases for so long? Tegnell says that at present, the link between high cases and deaths has been broken by vaccinations: Sweden's targeted vaccination programme means 'we should not have to experience these high death rates again'. So a new wave of cases need not mean a new wave of hospitalisations – ergo, no need to inflict more harm on society and the economy. Here's how the picture looks for Covid deaths, to date.
In rejecting lockdown, Sweden deliberately tolerated higher Covid levels than locked-down countries in the hope of minimising other damage and protecting more lives in the round. Last year, Sweden's economy (which relies heavily on exports) fell 3 per cent vs 10 per cent for Britain. This isn’t just about money: years of experience of recession shows a clear link between economic downturns and public health damage: the effects are longer term. Most health economists would agree that a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later.
In spite of three UK lockdowns, Sweden has ended up with fewer Covid deaths. On a per capita basis, the UK and Sweden had almost identical Covid death levels by the end of the first wave. Both amongst the worst in Europe, but locking down didn't give Britain much of an advantage - a point Tegnell makes now and again. But locked-down Britain was hit harder in a second wave (still ongoing in Sweden).
The problem with 'Sweden vs its neighbours' Lockdown advocates often compare Sweden with its neighbours, but this mistakes the nature of Scandinavia. Sweden has lots of trees, but as a country it is more urbanised than even Britain, for example (ie: 88pc of Swedes live in cities, vs 84pc of Brits). Right at the start of the pandemic, Bristol Uni’s Oliver Johnson came up with an index to explain this point: population density and how it relates to Covid vulnerability. The below graph sums it up. Norway and Finland have very low population density, Sweden is in line with the European average (higher than Germany). On top of that we have Sweden's exposure to globalisation, high foreign-born population etc. Sweden falls down in comparison to Denmark, which has higher population density but suffered less excess death and comparable economic damage.
Collateral health damage The closure of society and discouraging people from seeking healthcare will inflict fatalities that will show up as ‘excess deaths’ for other reasons. Sweden avoided kind of school closure damage that the IFS thinks will cost British pupils £350 billion in lost future earnings. Swedish breast cancer referrals were down by about 10 per cent in the first ten months of last year. But the British figures are closer to 30pc decline. But, importantly, Sweden did take a hit. So it's wrong to attribute all declining A&E use, cancer diagnosis and economic damage to lockdowns (as some lockdown sceptics do) because Sweden suffered the same (albeit to a smaller degree).
The question is how far lockdown – and messages like 'protect the NHS' – exacerbate the deadly effect of healthcare hesitancy. The indirect deaths (especially of cancer) would take years to show up, so a 2020 graph will not give the whole story. Adjust for age (most Covid deaths were amongst the over-80s) and you end up with the below Oxford Uni study. Sweden’s figure was up 1.5 per cent last year, the England figure was 10.5 per cent. Is this the lockdown effect, or a coincidence? It's impossible to tell – it's just a piece of a still-incomplete picture.
The myth of Sweden being a liberal utopia. One of the biggest errors in the UK’s lockdown response was Imperial College's controversial cliff-edge hypothesis: the idea that measures/advice/anything less than full lockdown makes v little difference. But full lockdowns? Why, that shoots Covid out of the sky. (After lockdown, Imperial's Neil Ferguson predicted fewer than 7,000 net Covid-excess deaths.) This cliff-edge theory is still advocated fiercely in some circles, used to make the case for early and hard lockdowns.
Sweden matters to the world because it adopted another theory: that smaller measures (a ban on mass meetings, a bunch of homeworking advice) would be enough. That you have to look at this in the round, and lockdown would inflict too much collateral damage. Swedes also were big on the fundamental point that the state has no business criminalising everyday life.
So was Sweden right? The below graph uses Google mobility data to show that mobility to Swedish workplaces fell by a quarter and in transit stations by a third by 23 March - enough, it seems, to force its Covid into reverse. This also shows mobility in Britain (in red) falling even further - and long before lockdown was imposed. This matters. The idea that Brits needed to be locked down because they are not as obedient or sensible as Swedes is simply not borne out by the below data. The UK public is shown to take far stronger evasive action than the Swedes and and long before it was made mandatory.
Britain and Sweden's synchronised Covid waves Comparisons between the UK and Sweden are often rejected as absurd due to latitude, landscape etc. But our Covid experience has been eerily similar in the first and second wave. Whatever led Britain to get hit by Covid so badly at first also applied in Sweden. But as the below graph shows, Sweden twice forced down its Covid deaths without lockdown. This raises the question: how far would a similar common-sense, guidance-based approach have worked in the UK?
To repeat: this is not to say that Britain got it wrong and Sweden got it right. The above is simply a snapshot, clues in an unsolved mystery about a virus that keeps surprising us. It's premature to draw any firm conclusions at this stage. But the above might help explain why Swedes, even now, are not pushing for lockdown, even with cases so high as to have them placed in the UK's 'red' category. They seek to limit the damage inflicted on people’s lives and health and pursue a policy that will lead to least harm overall.
There’s plenty Sweden got wrong (chiefly, a failure to protect the elderly in care homes). Tegnell is keen to say that it will take months, perhaps years, for the picture to settle. But to understand Sweden, you need to look at more countries than its neighbours. You need to look at more than just Covid deaths. You need to compare Sweden to countries with similar levels of urbanisation, not just its neighbours.
All this explains why Sweden refuses to lock down and tolerates what is, at the time of writing, Europe's highest Covid levels. Polls show almost three-quarters of Swedes saying that the health authority’s handling of the crisis was either ‘good’ or ‘very good When these other points are factored in, it becomes easier to understand why, after all the last year has brought, Swedes still think they will be proved right in the end.
PS: I'm keeping this post updated : if you're interested in this topic please do check back from time to time as new data arrives all the time.
I have faith in him to deliver the goods when necessary
his opinions may be divisive, but his advice tends to be responsible when the chips are down.
you're wrong already. CNA is reporting about the pseudo vax passport via travel bubbles for the vaxed without need for SHN upon returning.
getting old Sam... not so zhun anymore
At the moment many kiasu countries are setting up various controls but they won't last because there is always a competition for for the tourist and business travelers $$$ so this scheme will unravel all on its own as more and more jurisdictions opt out of this requirement.
cnsnews.com
FL Gov. DeSantis Signs Into Law Ban on Vaccine Passports, Arbitrary Lockdowns
By Michael W. Chapman | May 4, 2021 | 11:41am EDT
5-6 minutes
Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Getty Images)
Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Getty Images)
(CNS News) -- Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation into law on Monday that prohibits private businesses, schools, and government offices from requiring citizens to show proof of vaccination against COVID, a so-called vaccine passport. In addition, the new law prohibits local governments from arbitrarily imposing lockdowns or closing the schools.
“Over the last year we’ve avoided protracted lockdowns and school closures in Florida because I have refused to take the same approach as other lockdown Governors," said Gov. DeSantis in a press release on Monday. "This legislation ensures that legal safeguards are in place so that local governments cannot arbitrarily close our schools or businesses.
“In Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision," said DeSantis. "I’d like to thank President Simpson, Speaker Sprowls and the Florida Legislature for getting this legislation across the finish line.”
The final version of the legislation, SB 2006, passed in the Florida Senate, 23-15, and in the Florida House, 78-36, on April 29.
“While many states around the country are just now beginning to re-open, under the leadership of Governor DeSantis, Florida has been responsibly opening back up over the last year," said Senate President Wilton Simpson (R).
"Our economy is bouncing back stronger than anyone could have imagined as more and more people flee high tax, high regulation states and chose the freedom we have here in Florida," said Simpson.
“This legislation strikes the appropriate balance between protecting one’s safety and one’s personal liberty,” said House Representative Tom Leek.
As for a "vaccine passport," the new law says that any business operating in Florida "may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state."
The same applies to all government offices in the state, such as the DMV or the Post Office, and to the schools. Any educational institution "may not require students or residents to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery for attendance or enrollment, or to gain access to, entry upon, or service from such educational institution in this state."
"SB 2006 will ensure that neither the state nor local governments can close businesses or keep students out of in-person instruction at Florida schools, except for hurricane emergencies, and caps all local emergency at seven-day increments," reads the governor's press release.
"The legislation also allows the Governor of Florida to invalidate a local emergency order if it unnecessarily restricts individual rights or liberties," according to the press release.
Which states are banning vaccine passports and why?
Greg Heilman
4-5 minutes
The rollout of covid-19 vaccines has given hope to relaxing restrictions put into place to slow the spread of the virus. But with herd immunity still a way off, vaccine passports are seen as a way to allow people to travel and businesses to safely operate without strict restrictions.
The concept has garnered fans and detractors, becoming yet another political fault line. States are taking different approaches, there are a couple that have implemented a digital verification system, while others are taking a hands-off approach. However, another group has banned the use of such systems, with more states introducing legislation to do the same.
Also see:
- West Virginia announces vaccine lottery to increase uptake
- What have Dr Fauci's emails revealed about the pandemic in the US?
- Biden proposes 'National Month of Action' to meet vaccination goal
- Employers can mandate that staff get vaccinated
Which states have implemented covid-19 passports?
So far, just two states have implemented a system whereby a person can verify their vaccination status or prove that they have tested negative for covid-19 recently. New York became the first state to set up a voluntary system where customers could verify either a covid-19 test or vaccination to businesses that choose to relax state pandemic restrictions for venues.Hawaii became the second state to implement a system for those who are fully vaccinated to upload proof of vaccination to the state’s “Safe Travels” system. Travelers who use the system can bypass pre-testing and quarantine restrictions for inter-county travel. The state hopes to expand the system to out-of-state travelers who come to Hawaii by 4 July.
Which states have banned vaccine passports?
There are currently 16 states that have some form of ban on vaccine passports or requiring proof of vaccination against covid-19. The main reason stated for banning the use of covid-19 passports or requesting people show proof of vaccination is an individual’s freedom to choose whether or not that person wants to get vaccinated. Many governors state that getting the covid-19 vaccine is completely voluntary and that it isn’t the state’s place to mandate nor compel its citizens “through vaccine passports, vaccine passes, or other compulsory means."These bans have been implemented either through Executive Order or via legislation. The bans also vary, with some states applying the ban to state agencies but letting private businesses do as they choose. Others include businesses that receive money from the state. A third group applies an outright ban on all use of vaccine passports in the state. Some states in all categories have put in exceptions to their ban.
Florida falls into this last group which could cause problems down the road with its ban on private businesses requesting proof of vaccination. Many cruise lines call Florida home and it is one of the state’s largest industries. The CDC is requiring that in order to set sail nearly all of both the crew and passengers need to be fully vaccinated entailing the need to show proof. This has resulted in a square off between Governor DeSantis and the cruise ship operators, with some threatening to pull up anchor and set up shop in another state if the Governor doesn’t make an exemption for the industry.
States that ban use of vaccine passports for state government agencies
- Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Utah, Wyoming
States that ban use of vaccine passports for state government agencies and businesses that receive state funds
- Georgia, Texas
States that ban use of completely vaccine passports
- Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota
States that are considering a ban on using vaccine passports
There are 11 states that are considering legislation to ban covid-19 passports but that haven’t passed or enacted the bills. These include:- Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont
the enlightened Amdk with strong support for human rights will eschew the vax passport.
but here in Asia, it will probably be long quarantines for the unvaxed traveller returning home.
Initially that could be the case but it will fizzle out on its own accord.
hoping you are right. I feel totally rotten about having to vax kids just so we can go on a vacay... seems too frivolous to run the risk on the young ones.
You can vote with your feet and visit only locations that do not require a vaccine passport.
it's more about coming home to a long quarantine.
and yes I would definitely choose a destination that allows unvaxed kids to enter over the alternative.
confirmed this morning. both katalin kariko and drew weissman are awarded the nobel prize in medicine.
Similar threads
