Of course. The initial wave could too. Antibody data could change everything. We simply don’t know where the ceiling on infection is and what its nature (massive asymptomatic infection rate with great antibody response, genetic resistance, viral evolution) is.
All scientific conclusions are provisional. Is that clear enough?
That’s because I found your phrasing of it to be profoundly disturbing, so I’d like clarification.
OK, how about if we trade some of our non-authorities for some of yours? I’m thinking of friendly folks like these:
[MOD: removed unprofessional photo]
The 1918 data tell us that harder lockdowns work better.
I thought that we were disagreeing about the appropriate degree of it. Do you think that these data have no value today?
Crystal. Seems kind of similar to what I’ve been saying. As we’re looking back at the 1918 pandemic, it’s worth mentioning that it should actually be called the 1918-1920 pandemic as it came in 3 waves spanning two years. It was a different virus in a different time and in different circumstances but it should at least warn us that we may be in for a long haul.
What it comes down to is whether the higher number of deaths in Sweden as compared to Norway and Denmark is due to a systematic problem with Sweden’s social distancing policies or due to a more specific problem concerning the nursing homes. You seem to believe the former, I lean more towards the latter. This probably won’t be resolved until the pandemic is over.
Yeesh, no thanks.
Better than what, exactly? Doing nothing? Partying in the streets? This is hardly what’s going on in Sweden, is it?
That’s just it. We’re comparing a hard lockdown with a typical Swedish concensus version of social distancing where people are given recommendations rather than orders - we’re not comparing a hard lockdown with holding a massive parade. It really couldn’t be more apples and oranges.
People in Sweden take this pandemic seriously and I can give you a recent example. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Easter was considered a test of people’s willingness to follow the recommendations. Easter is traditionally the 3rd biggest travelling holiday (after Christmas and Midsummer) when people travel all across the country to visit family or go up north to one of the ski resorts. The numbers are now in (as measured by cell phone movements) and travelling was down by 90% as compared to a normal Easter holiday.
Which of the 1918 non-lockdown cities had that kind of commitment to social distancing? Which of the 1918 non-lockdown cities had a social structure where nearly half of the households consisted of only one person? In which of the 1918 non-lockdown cities was a large part of the population able to work from home (in Stockholm, it’s more than 50%)?
At what point do the comparisons completely break down and become meaningless? The data tells us that a lockdown is better than sticking your head in the sand and that’s fine but I’m genuinely mystified as to why you would think it has anything to tell us about the Swedish Corona response.
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
44
I should have added another difference between 1918 USA and 2020 Sweden that makes comparisons difficult: the risk groups are basically reversed. According to Wikipedia, in 1918-1919, 99% of influenza deaths in the US occurred in people under the age of 65 and nearly half of deaths were in young adults 20 to 40 years old. To date, 87% of Covid-19 deaths in Sweden have occurred in people over the age of 70 and only 1.5% in the 20-40 group (no-one under 20 has so far died from Covid-19 in Sweden).
Social distancing policies would look very different in Sweden if Covid-19 had the same mortality patterns as the Spanish flu.
People from the Swedish Public Health Authority (I really should start using the SPHA acronym) have clearly stated that the policy to keep primary and pre-schools open was informed by data showing that children are not a risk group. I also seriously doubt that keeping shops, restaurants and bars open (albeit together with recommendations against crowding and advising elderly people not living in nursing homes to maintain social distancing) would have been an option if the 20-40 year-olds were a high risk group.
I know that’s what you’re doing - I just don’t see the point. How is the US 1918 data in any way, shape or form relevant to the current Swedish social distancing policies?
Then it’s probably a good thing we’re practicing social distancing. BTW, both Norway and Denmark have decided to re-open their schools. Must be a Scandinavian thing.
How on earth does that matter when you have no data collected in a situtaion that bears any resemblance with present day Sweden?
Right. All the more reason not to make any definitive analysis until the pandemic has run its course.
Then we appear to be using different definitions of the term “social distancing.” Do at-risk adults have to go back to their jobs in the schools? If so, do they get ad libitum access to testing?
No, to save human lives, governments need to continuously analyze and make imperfect decisions with maddeningly incomplete information. All such decisions should always be subject to revision.
If you believe nothing but a hard lockdown qualifies as social distancing then yes, we apparently are.
Every Swedish workplace has a designated safety officer. This would definitely be an issue that people who feel at risk could take up with them. I doubt there would be any severe consequences if they stayed home. If nothing else, I guess they could always call in sick. There’s a pandemic going on, after all. I read that there’s a bill currently being processed in the Swedish parlament which would formalize this right for at-risk persons to stay home and still get paid.
Of course, if enough school personnel don’t show up for work, this would be a de facto closing of the school, which is also a definite possibility. What happens then is a matter of debate atm. The problem is what to do with the kids who no longer have a school to go to. We don’t have a lot of stay-at-home moms in Sweden, everybody tends to work. Some have been furloughed due to the pandemic but most haven’t. Worse, many of these working parents are right now fighting Covid-19 in our hospitals and would be sorely missed if they had to go home to take care of their children. It’s a tough one, to be sure.
My Norwegian relatives are strong believers. Part of my testimony includes learning about their faith when I traveled there to meet them and they shared why they believe with me along with books on apologetics
No, I’m pointing out that you have first excluded nursing homes, and now schools, from your definition. Both are parts of society.
Ethically, opt-out is just not enough.
Initially, it should be entirely opt-in with written informed consent, just as everyone in the world requires for any experimentation on human subjects–because that’s essentially what this is.
Oh, so when people lose their livelihood and have to worry about making rent and food or get driven to depression because of isolation or live in constant fear because they have to stay cooped up with an abusive husband/father, that’s because they opted into it? Is that how lockdowns work? I mean, anything else would be unethical, right?
I’m sure it’s a great relief to these people that they’re not being subjected to anything experimental. It’s all under control.
Reopening schools is a drastic reduction in social distancing.
I have no idea what you think that you are responding to with that. I’m talking about the ethics of reopening schools.
For a 63-year-old asthmatic teacher, quarantine is far less experimental than working in a school full of untested children, many of whom will certainly have asymptomatic, active SARS-CoV-2 infections.
We were discussing the risk to teachers. The CDC:s recommendation concerning social distancing is to stay 6 feet away from other people. Are you saying it’s impossible for teachers to do that?
I’m pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in denouncing Sweden’s Coronavirus response as an experiment while pretending that a hard lockdown of an entire society is somehow just a routine procedure that will have no unintended consequences.
The 63-year-old asthmatic teacher has the possibility of opting out, the people suffering under the giant lockdown experiment do not.
How did we learn that and why is the CDC still recommending a distance of 6 feet?
In my opinion, having the possibility to opt out is better than not having that possibility (which is the case for people suffering under a lockdown). It’s also my opinion that launching a hard lockdown of an entire society with all the unpredictable variables that entails is a huge experiment.
This is where the pandemic gets really interesting, because it’s exposing massive systemic flaws in many societies.
A lockdown should not have been necessary in the first place. Lockdowns were necessary for nations which were not properly prepared for this kind of event. The UK government received a report back in 2016 warning they were not prepared for a pandemic. They ignored it. The US government received a report back in 2017 warning they were not prepared for a pandemic. They ignored it. I don’t know if Sweden’s government ever believed they would need to be prepared for a pandemic, but they clearly weren’t, so they’ve decided on a response which has on the one hand resulted in preventable deaths, and on the other hand damaged the economy. Interesting choice, but the rationale is unclear to me. It looks to me like Sweden has been one step behind the virus all the time, gradually being compelled to change their strategy as the death toll climbs (though at least they’re responding).
If a lockdown results in mass unemployment and depression, that’s illuminating serious socio-economic flaws in a country. This has happened in the US. That should be a wake-up call to make changes to the economy and society.
If a lockdown results in the economy grinding to a halt, that’s illuminating serious socio-economic flaws in a country. This has happened in the US. That should be a wake-up call to make changes to society.
When a pandemic results in impossibly high healthcare bills for a large number of people, that’s illuminating serious flaws in a country’s healthcare system. This has happened in the US. That should be a wake-up call to make changes to the system.
When a pandemic results in hospitals furloughing hundreds of staff they can’t afford to pay, because they have traditionally relied on a for-profit model which funds the hospital through lucrative elective procedures and treatments, which they now have to cancel or postpone due to prioritizing COVID-19 patients (massively reducing their income), that’s illuminating serious flaws in a country’s healthcare system. This has happened in the US. That should be a wake-up call to make changes to the system.
