How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?

Das Unkle wrote:

KaareV wrote:

[quote]careful out there wrote:

The WHO?

And you really want to trust them huh?

When the numbers correspond with what the Swedish Helth Authorities reports, absolutely. The WHO has a lot of excellent statistics. BTW, do you have any arguments?

It is foolish to accept that any numbers given to us from the establishment are honest and accurate without having any skepticism.

Yes, but there are a lot of "establishments". And there are a lot of journalists following every move. It is also extremely dangerous to think that it is an establishment conspiracy against the people. So these numbers are accurate. Why on earth should a lot of Swedes lie? If you ever have worked in a big organization ??? . The Swedes have no interest whatsoever to blow up their numbers? Even a normal skeptic would recognize that. But here is a limit of skepticism, when one crosses the border and are not skeptic to one own interpretations and ends up in conspiracy theories without any skepticism.

YMMV wrote:

In case you were wondering why no one in Japan or Hong Kong is dying despite no lockdowns:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CH8ULVVgdHQ/

Funny how Burger King seems to have a different effect on Asian populations because people are eating those burgers in the US as fast as they can cook them and dying of COVID 19.

The Unkle wrote:

Well, ok then wrote:

Sweden Nov 18 deaths from Covid revised to 25 per the WHO on Nov 23.

Yes.

I guess that means when I posted the CDC stats that showed 11 deaths for the day I was really lying.

We all know Sweden is late to fill in death #'s.

You are unaware of this, or it is too complicated for you to process.

You look like a fool when you cite numbers clearly in ignorance of their delayed reporting.

SWEDEN TODAY - previous on Friday:

94 new deaths and 17 725 new infected. Reports of deaths are always delayed.

Nov 24: 15

23: 7

22: 12

21: 13 +7

20: 11

19: 14 +8

18: 20 +9

17: 27 +7

16: 27 +2

15: 21 + 3

14: 22+2

13: 20 +2

12: 21+4

11: 25 +2

10: 34 +3

9: 34 + 1

8: 19

7: 26 +2

6: 25

5: 23

4: 21

3: 19

2: 20

1: 22

As you see, of the 94, some 10 not accounted for yet. Last 10 days of October daily average 9,1. First 10 days of November: 24,3, it might rise a little, but not much. The next 10 days? - at Friday we will get an indication.

Number of deaths in September: 53 October: 149 So far November: 498, but the real number we will know around December 10th. A dealy of more than 10 days in Sweden.

KaareV wrote:

Das Unkle wrote:

It is foolish to accept that any numbers given to us from the establishment are honest and accurate without having any skepticism.

Yes, but there are a lot of "establishments". And there are a lot of journalists following every move. It is also extremely dangerous to think that it is an establishment conspiracy against the people. So these numbers are accurate. Why on earth should a lot of Swedes lie? If you ever have worked in a big organization ??? . The Swedes have no interest whatsoever to blow up their numbers? Even a normal skeptic would recognize that. But here is a limit of skepticism, when one crosses the border and are not skeptic to one own interpretations and ends up in conspiracy theories without any skepticism.

There are a lot of establishments and there are a lot with varying degrees of corruption. The only dangerous thing to think is that masses of people are lying and that one or two "establishments" are telling the truth. This has not gone well for our well being and safety throughout history. There is a lot of money on one side right now. Probably trillions. IMF has so much power along with the Davos club crowd. Do you think they go behind closed doors to discuss how to improve our well being? Anyway, they own most of the information that is fed to the masses. They know that is the most critical thing if you're going to ensure compliance of the masses to a significant change. There are so many obvious holes in this whole pandemic nonsense that ones doesn't know where to begin. Just the other day there was a news report about a large hospital in central Europe that was allegedly overwhelmed with covid patients but a resident who lived directly across the street form the hospital called in the talk show and asked how is that possible when she sees very little activity and when it turns dark she only sees 5-6 rooms lit up with 90+% lights off, and as as said it she is disconnected from call. And it's not like any reporter will actually go check anything. There are no verifications being done. You are forced to take what you are told. But they have the information control. They have the "facts". And they're hard to overcome because you have so many Believers, but more importantly, it seems they are now untouchable.

What's interesting to me are things like "Coronavirus Relief Fund" and "Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust". . So nations have to qualify (they have perform certain things) in order to be able to receive part of $250 Billion in funds. Where do you think most of this money is going to? Do you think a country would have any resistance to implementing anything that is required? Probably not if we look at history.

"The IMF is providing financial assistance and debt service relief to member countries facing the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This page provides an overview of assistance approved by the IMF’s Executive Board since late March 2020 under its various lending facilities and debt service relief financed by the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT). Overall, the IMF is currently making about $250 billion, a quarter of its $1 trillion lending capacity, available to member countries.

As part of the COVID19-related rapid arrangements, borrowing countries have committed to undertake governance measures to promote accountable and transparent use of these resources."

Yes, the proper skeptic should be more skeptical of their own ideas than anything else. Secondly, I would be interested in letsrun posters’ opinions on how large a conspiracy can get before the secret blatantly gets out. I would say about 10. If it is a lot more than that, then the participants in these conspiracies are a whole lot smarter than the highly qualified highly paid people I’ve worked with throughout my life.

Your essay is not even an "essay". But , this a thread about Sweden. And you didn't answer about Sweden. And your "essay" consists of one claim after the other. Backed by what? Rhetorical questions. Using a lot of marxist jargon. And not even trying to back it by facts. The masses, for example. What is 'the masses'? Be percise. "But they (who are they?) have the information control". A massive Big Brother? And "they are now untouchable". And you use anectodical evidence. "Large hospital in Central Europe"? Where? When? Give me documentation. Come on, do it. And then we can discuss both reporters, Davos and IMF. What write is close too .... How do you know all this? Or may be...

Precious Roy wrote:

YMMV wrote:

In case you were wondering why no one in Japan or Hong Kong is dying despite no lockdowns:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CH8ULVVgdHQ/

Funny how Burger King seems to have a different effect on Asian populations because people are eating those burgers in the US as fast as they can cook them and dying of COVID 19.

Those burgers are not sold in the U.S., because instead of healthy meat for a bun, they are using addicitve and toxic processed flour and chasing it with fries made in oxidized oil and huge soft drinks. Don't blame the meat for what the carbs + linoleic acid did. Asians know how to eat, and it includes LOTS of meat. Hence the special burger.

A few days away from Let's Run, so didin't catch this one until now.

Well.. I haven't done a proper analysis on what percentage of the actual costs are when comparing mitigation vs inherent effects of a pandemic, but I did mention 20% in an example because I highly doubt the cost of mitigation is less than 20% of total cost of pandemic.

And those 20% would still price covid lifes at a significant premium of other lifes.

You're allowed to disagree, (but so far you don't back it up with anything that can be analyzed)

I agree the reason for this overreaction being that it hits so close to home to people (threatening their loved ones if you will).

Totally understandable, an overreaction never the less.

And I 100% with your last sentence.

Budda, you are well informed and it is interesting to read you. Learn a lot. But when you write that in ceratin areas in Norway it is ILLEGAL for a family of 5 to have their neighbor over for a cup coffee. Actually, that is not true. But it is ILLEGAL to have private gatherings with over 10. And the picture you paint of Norway is a bit biased. The early lockdown was done in a kind of panic, but not to protect the elderly from dying at all costs. It was done, first of all, because the Norwegian Government was afraid that the hospitals din not have enough ICU-beds. i was't even a hard lockdown. Could still go the shops, though some businesses were locked down; dentists and hairdressers, and some restaurants, but after 6 1/2 weeks back to "normal" again., though with some restrictions. I am 71 with an "pretty serious "underlying condition; but I have lived a pretty normal life. Going, .i.e. walking, to the grocery shops, cut my hair once at home, met friends, having people visting us at all times, last time at dinner at restaurant four weeks ago. But they don't serve wine anymore, so there is no point any longer. And for Gods sake I don't wear a mask outdoors. No scientific evidence. And when you write that criticism of the rules are being met with "Shut up, be loyal and do what your goverment say" that is a big, big, exaggeration, beacuse it isn't close to be true. Why you wrote that I don't know, but you might know. In Sweden even at Goverment level Norway has been criticed for the closing of the borders to Sweden. And there has been strong criticism from a lot of Norwegians too. But in my opinion it was a decision.[/quote]

I am sorry Kaare.

Read up then.

You're talking about the national mandate, but as I said: "In certain areas"

A family of 5 in Alver (or Bergen, Askøy, Os, Fusa, Sotra, Vaksdal, Straume+++) can't invite their old neighbor over for a cup of coffee.

They can invite a friend of family member aged elementary school or younger, but the old neighbor, no.

It's true for the municipality of Bergen and the municipalities around Bergen (except Samnanger which didn't just copy Bergen but had their own evaluation of the danger. Fair play to them).

It's even been quite a controversy going on for days (that have spread to more national news)...

The largest local newspaper BT has even pushed Mr. Valhammer on what where their legal basis for that measure.

Took 11 days until they could come up with the reasoning behind it, which was drafted 11 days after said measure went into legal effect..

Even the police adviced against said measure being implemented.

But the local politicians didn't have time to listen to their local doctor in charge of epidemology (which adviced against it and has left her office. Seemingly since the politicians don't listen to her.. or the police...)

I said that some time in march Norway changed their approach from flatten the curve to the new approach which is to avoid deaths at almost any cost.

I don't think it's debatable that all scandinavian countries had the same initial response (Flatten the curve)

And then beginning of march happen and planes started coming in from Austria with infected people.

Within a week the politicians in Norway and Denmark took over the reigns and with it started the panicking mandates. Initially they also just said flatten the curve, but that changed very quickly.

You definately had mandates limiting human rights that were uncalled for, like:

- You can't take a stroll certain places (Denmark)

- You're not allowed to go to your cabin (Norway)

I don't think that's debatable either, but if you insist I'll provide evidence for it.

You don't understand why I said: "Shut up, be loyal and do what your goverment say"?

Isn't that pretty much what happened to Fredrik Solvang (very well known journalist in Norway for you other non scandi peeps) when he dared question Bent Høie on the scientific basis on some governemt mandates?

Mr Høie might have worded it differently, like: "This is not the time to question your government", but yeah, it was pretty much the reaction he got...

If that doesn't help your memory, look at the response a doctor writing an opinion piece in BT recently got (when challenging the severity of lockdowns)

Budda wrote:

A few days away from Let's Run, so didin't catch this one until now.

Well.. I haven't done a proper analysis on what percentage of the actual costs are when comparing mitigation vs inherent effects of a pandemic, but I did mention 20% in an example because I highly doubt the cost of mitigation is less than 20% of total cost of pandemic.

And those 20% would still price covid lifes at a significant premium of other lifes.

You're allowed to disagree, (but so far you don't back it up with anything that can be analyzed)

I agree the reason for this overreaction being that it hits so close to home to people (threatening their loved ones if you will).

Totally understandable, an overreaction never the less.

And I 100% with your last sentence.

I still disagree strongly with your back of the envelope math on the "cost" of mitigation.

You're just taking the net economic hit from the pandemic and saying that's the cost of mitigation.

The fact that plenty of places without strict lockdowns (or any) are being slammed economically reveals that the demand shock that caused that est. $-35T hit is likely because people are scared of a pandemic and take steps to protect themselves.

More importantly, you can't just say "what if we applied that money to other goals" because I believe you're talking about GDP -- pretty far from a measurement of spendable money. The guardian article cited the IMF which says $28tn in "lost output." I get that missed economic growth hurts everyone -- but it's not like we are spending money we already have that could be spent on something else.

Lastly, what is the last event that killed so many people in the developed world? You act like we could avoid this "cost" if we hadn't tried to mitigate. There some theories that the 1957 recession (largest since great depression and one of the largest drops until 2008 housing crisis) was largely fueled by the flu epidemic that same year! I don't think you can just blame state policy for this -- lots of death has real economic cost that may largely be unavoidable.

I never said the initial lockdown was to prevent elderly dying (damned be the costs), that would merely be your interpretation of what I said.

I said that sometime in March norway changed their strategy to prevent all people from dying at almost any cost.

How is that incorrect?

Norway's initial response was: "Brems!"

In operational terms (from FHI) that meant keeping the R below 1,3 as to not overwhelm the health system.

This was the same initial response as the swedish and danish expert auhtorities had, because initially all 3 countries had the same approach as Sweden--> Listen to the experts and the experts said this can't be stopped.

In Norway it changed officially on March 24 to: "Slå ned!"

Basically from this time on the goal was to keep the famous R below 0,9.

WIth this strategy there is little or no stress on Health System.

Again according to FHI.

Mrs. Solberg held a press conference and everything..

"Fram til tirsdag var Norges offisielle strategi å forsøke å bremse coronavirus-epidemien i Norge. Tirsdag endret regjeringen strategi. Nå skal Norge forsøke å undertrykke og slå ned epidemien."

Nice effort in catching me with making up stuff, didn't quite work this time, but maybe next time. :)

Huh, I guess maybe a little more caution early on might have been wise. But you know, who needs those old people?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus

“We see no signs of immunity in the population that are slowing down the infection right now," Tegnell said.

Please feel free to disagree, and feel free to characterize it as back of envelope calculations, it is.

I've given you that lots of costs that we have in the pandemic is because of the pandemic itself, just to put a number of it in an example I've even given you that it could be as much as 80%....

So I've long since corrected that haven't I, at this point the more curious question would be why you keep repeating it?

Thing is, as I also wrote in previous post, it doesn't change my point as the cost of this has been so fantasticly high...

But there are also definately direct costs to mitigation in this pandemic, Like:

Cost of ICU and protection gear (Is obvious and might be reduced or not depending on good policy or not), loss of revenue in locked down industries (now we are talking about big sums), compensation to companies is obvious, some of these costs are directly because of mitigation (lockdowns and other rules), and some because of a demand shock (better stay home, it's safer), extra salary to military, police (actually doesn't come out as an gdp cost, but it's a cost nevertheless...)+++

And some of the gdp hit in countries without much mitigation might derive from mitigation in other countries, like travel bans, that would hit countries with a large tourism sector hard without them having done anything themselves, i.e Corona cost might materialize as lost gdp in the Seychelles, but the reason for that gdp loss might have been travel ban and quarantine rules in the EU.

In reality it's often more complex than either or though, so for instance some of that gdp loss in Seychelles probably would have occured just because of corona, but travel bans and qurantine rules have most definately made it worse (quarantine really is an economic killer in the tourism industry). A combination.

I guess it boils down to how you define mitigation cost eh?

Anyways, I very much stand by 20% (minimum) of lost world wide GDP as a number in the lack of other numbers as an estimate of the cost of mitigation.

When this is all said and done and we have an easier time of doing analysis I think it'll hold up well, especially as it is just a put your finger up in the air and think of a number-number..

Remember, those cost of covid estimates might go up too.. Costs often do when you look at them properly.

Harambe, you're funny!

I realize as I have realized all along (and I even wrote at the time, before you could respond for first time that this money would not have been spent on electric cars and stuff anyways)!

Thank you for repeating me and show me that you understand!

SOME, actually a significant portion (dare I say more than 10% of the world wide GDP loss) isn't just a gdp loss, but printing of brand new, fresh and dandy mostly virtual money?

These money can in theory be spent on ANYTHING...

Including electric cars and solar power plants and.. you know.. anything...

Now, I know that even 10% of $35 trillion would never be spent on those investments.. They could though. If our politicians just agreed on it. They won't. I know. They could though.

Thanks for the history lesson.

No, can't think of any one single event that's caused more people to die in western world post WW2.

I assume you mean the recession of 1958 (just being pedantic now, but technically there wasn't a world wide/european or US recession in 1957. I mean it started in Q457 but as we economists (I suspect you are one too) know it takes two quarters before it can be called a recession...)?

It certainly took it's time, 3 quarters, to manifiest into the economy if that's the case, nevertheless, it's an interesting thought that it was caused by the flu even if I've never seen that mentioned before....

(Have to be said though, that even if I have an mba, the economic history class I took focused on the Great war, Great Depression, WW2 and the 1973 Oil Shock)

But last I checked (5 mins ago), gdp in the US grew 2,1% in 1957, so if lack of mitigation is your argument it certainly worked for first 3 quarters of 1957...

I don't disagree with your last sentence. I agree.

Look. To repeat myself. I have absolutely nothing against this new found valuation of human life. I actually think it's great. Now I just hope this new found valuation of human life is as infectious as covid. Then we could be going places.

Budda wrote:

I don't disagree with your last sentence. I agree.

Look. To repeat myself. I have absolutely nothing against this new found valuation of human life. I actually think it's great. Now I just hope this new found valuation of human life is as infectious as covid. Then we could be going places.

Sure, OK, I appreciate your arguments. I guess I just push back on the idea that this is newfound value -- it doesn't seem unprecedented. Nothing any developed country is doing/has done seems particularly outrageous given the circumstances. After Italy had nightmarish hospital overfills lockdowns seemed like a good response. Distancing seems wise. Not gathering inside seems smart. Travel bans by countries seem wise, etc.

We haven't seen anything like COVID since WWII in the developed world. I think in that context the response doesn't particularly surprising.

But you're right, it would be great if we could treat less obvious threats to human life with similar urgency! Hard to gather political will to do that when the bodies aren't piling up. Not even a sea turtle with a straw in its nose could do that :(

I am sorry Kaare.

Read up then.

You're talking about the national mandate, but as I said: "In certain areas"

A family of 5 in Alver (or Bergen, Askøy, Os, Fusa, Sotra, Vaksdal, Straume+++) can't invite their old neighbor over for a cup of coffee.

They can invite a friend of family member aged elementary school or younger, but the old neighbor, no.

It's true for the municipality of Bergen and the municipalities around Bergen (except Samnanger which didn't just copy Bergen but had their own evaluation of the danger. Fair play to them).

It's even been quite a controversy going on for days (that have spread to more national news)...

The largest local newspaper BT has even pushed Mr. Valhammer on what where their legal basis for that measure.

Took 11 days until they could come up with the reasoning behind it, which was drafted 11 days after said measure went into legal effect..

Even the police adviced against said measure being implemented.

But the local politicians didn't have time to listen to their local doctor in charge of epidemology (which adviced against it and has left her office. Seemingly since the politicians don't listen to her.. or the police...)

I said that some time in march Norway changed their approach from flatten the curve to the new approach which is to avoid deaths at almost any cost.

I don't think it's debatable that all scandinavian countries had the same initial response (Flatten the curve)

And then beginning of march happen and planes started coming in from Austria with infected people.

Within a week the politicians in Norway and Denmark took over the reigns and with it started the panicking mandates. Initially they also just said flatten the curve, but that changed very quickly.

You definately had mandates limiting human rights that were uncalled for, like:

- You can't take a stroll certain places (Denmark)

- You're not allowed to go to your cabin (Norway)

I don't think that's debatable either, but if you insist I'll provide evidence for it.

You don't understand why I said: "Shut up, be loyal and do what your goverment say"?

Isn't that pretty much what happened to Fredrik Solvang (very well known journalist in Norway for you other non scandi peeps) when he dared question Bent Høie on the scientific basis on some governemt mandates?

Mr Høie might have worded it differently, like: "This is not the time to question your government", but yeah, it was pretty much the reaction he got...

If that doesn't help your memory, look at the response a doctor writing an opinion piece in BT recently got (when challenging the severity of lockdowns)[/quote]

OK, Budda, this post first. Yes, I misread you on some points. Sorry for that. You dig deep about the families in the counties. No need for that, very quickly I saw very that I was falsified. Though, I repeat that your "analyzis" of Norway is a bit biased.

You use this one example from Vestlandet You wrote in another posting " ANY CRITICISM of those rules,(which you excluded above and go on and say that I don't understand why you said, following), are being met with: "Shut up and , be loyal and do what your government say". I repeat, that is a big, big, exaggeration. You are trying to back that up with TWO examples, none of them can qualify as "evidence", only anecdotical. And, actually and those you pick (cherrypick?) arn't quite correct. It was strictly about the situation in Oslo and maskwearing. And the repeated answers he got from the minister of Health, Høie, was: You are creating uncertainty about what they do in Oslo", and not that "This is not the time to question your government". Though, I didn't like the way Høie answered. But to answer in that way isn't common at all.

And by your next example, when you rhetorically ("If that does'nt help your memory") makes a reference to a local doctor (In Norways number two city, population; Bergen) who by the way got nationwide attention , when he criticised the level of restrictions. He was answered by other doctors. Just common in an open society.

And since we speak about Bergen, strong political disagreement about the restriction of only five. In the open. Any criticism ? A professor of law critized the authorities of violating human rights. Strange example from you side, doesn't even qualify as anecdotical evidence. ANY CRITICISM?

All in all, Budda, you seem like a very reasonable guy, with some scientific training, I suppose. I have learned from you, but not when it comes to your somewhat biased interpretation of Norway. And excuse me for my, at some times, rusty English. I will answer your next post later on.

SWEDEN TO DAY:

55 new deaths 4954 infected.

Hmmm. 55, mostly back reported deaths. The peak death total day is still 11/10/2020 at 34, now 15 days out. In addition tot new 55 today (which gets spread out over the past week) is much less than the new #s that were being reported a week ago. Right now it seems like the Sweden might just have converted the big 2nd wave into a mild bump. 2-3 more weeks and we will know for sure, but even case reporting seems to be in the decline. What will it take for people to admit that maybe the European/Blue state approach to pandemic response might have been a failed experimental deviation from long time precedent.