Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works3 mins ago
Was Sweden Right After All?
No compulsory lockdown there. Roundly criticised by its neighbours.
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
However the countries which protected its citizens from the virus previously are now seeing growing numbers of cases while Sweden’s is now by comparison very low.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//…so did Sweden just ignore it and carry on as normal?//
Near enough. They banned gatherings of more than 500 at sporting events and the like and they closed the universities. In July or early August (I think) I published a transcript of a post by somebody who lives in Sweden which was from another forum which I use. He reported that life there was near enough normal (certainly compared to some of the rabid goings on which have occurred here). Schools, shops, bars and restaurants were all open and well frequented. It made very little in the way of news – just a small item in each evening’s bulletin with the day’s figures. Sweden did make a similar error to the UK early on with infections in care homes. Their economy has been hit (mainly due to the loss of tourism) but has seen about half the damage the UK has (last time I looked).
//It's un-chartered waters for everyone.//
No it isn’t. The waters were charted in 1957 and 1968 (and to a far worse degree in 1918). The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK (with a population almost 25% lower) and far worse worldwide. But there the comparison ends. Life went on; nobody walked around masked up; it scarcely got a mention on the news or in Parliament; schools didn’t close; businesses didn’t ban their staff from entering their premises; hospitals worked fairly normally; pubs and restaurants remained open, sporting events and theatres/cinemas with audiences continued. For those who say “this is different”, how do you know? The 1968 outbreak was similarly “unchartered waters”. Nobody knew how it would pan out but a more pragmatic approach was taken. The approach taken by this government (and most others worldwide) has been an unmitigated disaster. I don’t blame Mr Johnson or the Tories – nobody would have done anything significantly different. But Sweden did. The UK was scared witless by the “forecast” of 500,000 deaths if had adopted a similar strategy. By that measure Sweden should have seen about 75,000 deaths pro rata. It has recorded 5,800 – about 13 times fewer deaths that it should have based on the UK’s forecast if no lockdown had been imposed. I find it hard to understand that difference when the strategies to cope with the outbreak were so vastly different.
Still, never mind. The worst is yet to come. The UK’s economy has been slaughtered and the damage imposed to the health of the non-Covid sufferers in the nation (who, incredible as it may seem, continued to fall ill with equally serious or even worse conditions but were not properly treated because the non-Covid section of the health service has been at a virtual standstill since March) is yet to be assessed. The deaths and suffering that will follow from that negligence will make Covid seem like an outbreak of chicken-pox at a local primary.
//or they make a big show on AB about how they won't follow the rules and make themselves look like idiots. Why do they feel the need to boast about it?//
Just for the record, I have followed the legislation implicitly up to now. Where I might draw the line is with the "Rule of Six" inside my house. I've followed the rules to the letter even though I believe many of them to be pointless. But I've now had enough and I may just break this latest episode of lunacy when it comes to who I can have in my house.
Near enough. They banned gatherings of more than 500 at sporting events and the like and they closed the universities. In July or early August (I think) I published a transcript of a post by somebody who lives in Sweden which was from another forum which I use. He reported that life there was near enough normal (certainly compared to some of the rabid goings on which have occurred here). Schools, shops, bars and restaurants were all open and well frequented. It made very little in the way of news – just a small item in each evening’s bulletin with the day’s figures. Sweden did make a similar error to the UK early on with infections in care homes. Their economy has been hit (mainly due to the loss of tourism) but has seen about half the damage the UK has (last time I looked).
//It's un-chartered waters for everyone.//
No it isn’t. The waters were charted in 1957 and 1968 (and to a far worse degree in 1918). The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK (with a population almost 25% lower) and far worse worldwide. But there the comparison ends. Life went on; nobody walked around masked up; it scarcely got a mention on the news or in Parliament; schools didn’t close; businesses didn’t ban their staff from entering their premises; hospitals worked fairly normally; pubs and restaurants remained open, sporting events and theatres/cinemas with audiences continued. For those who say “this is different”, how do you know? The 1968 outbreak was similarly “unchartered waters”. Nobody knew how it would pan out but a more pragmatic approach was taken. The approach taken by this government (and most others worldwide) has been an unmitigated disaster. I don’t blame Mr Johnson or the Tories – nobody would have done anything significantly different. But Sweden did. The UK was scared witless by the “forecast” of 500,000 deaths if had adopted a similar strategy. By that measure Sweden should have seen about 75,000 deaths pro rata. It has recorded 5,800 – about 13 times fewer deaths that it should have based on the UK’s forecast if no lockdown had been imposed. I find it hard to understand that difference when the strategies to cope with the outbreak were so vastly different.
Still, never mind. The worst is yet to come. The UK’s economy has been slaughtered and the damage imposed to the health of the non-Covid sufferers in the nation (who, incredible as it may seem, continued to fall ill with equally serious or even worse conditions but were not properly treated because the non-Covid section of the health service has been at a virtual standstill since March) is yet to be assessed. The deaths and suffering that will follow from that negligence will make Covid seem like an outbreak of chicken-pox at a local primary.
//or they make a big show on AB about how they won't follow the rules and make themselves look like idiots. Why do they feel the need to boast about it?//
Just for the record, I have followed the legislation implicitly up to now. Where I might draw the line is with the "Rule of Six" inside my house. I've followed the rules to the letter even though I believe many of them to be pointless. But I've now had enough and I may just break this latest episode of lunacy when it comes to who I can have in my house.
LOL at Spicerack! Being a non cantankerous old person I have done as I am told and self isolated which has meant I haven't had to meet any of the cantankerous old people roaming around without masks, going round shops in the wrong direction, or going to Raves and ignoring safe distancing. I have only met them on line! So I can't be blamed.
"or they make a big show on AB about how they won't follow the rules and make themselves look like idiots. Why do they feel the need to boast about it?"
Well it isn't the ones standing up to bad law/rules that are making themselves look stupid, it's the ones unable to work it out for themselves how bad throwing away personal liberties, and speading panic, is, that achieve that. And it's probably not boasting but desperate attempts to set a good example in the hope others see the light and follow.
Well it isn't the ones standing up to bad law/rules that are making themselves look stupid, it's the ones unable to work it out for themselves how bad throwing away personal liberties, and speading panic, is, that achieve that. And it's probably not boasting but desperate attempts to set a good example in the hope others see the light and follow.
//And it's probably not boasting but desperate attempts to set a good example in the hope others see the light and follow.//
And hopefully people don't see their particular light and follow like sheep. There have been many wrong moves in what is a new situation, but the last place I would go to find out how to act sensibly would be on AB where people blatently disregard following the advice and think they are helping.
And hopefully people don't see their particular light and follow like sheep. There have been many wrong moves in what is a new situation, but the last place I would go to find out how to act sensibly would be on AB where people blatently disregard following the advice and think they are helping.
APC2604 @14.25. assuming someone is bitter and twisted, is worlds apart from knowing. I (assume) that you think you're far superior than others on here, because you say you have followed all government rules and regulations imposed. You (assume) other people are not following the rules, you really assume to much.
There will always be attempts to justify the errors with the overreaction from most countries, since folk have invested their past arguments supporting it and aren'tkeen to admit to being wtong; but since Sweden has indicated that their calm approach was certainly no worse, and apparently better, then it's already most likely that they got it right. I suspect final death figure results, and being first to gain herd immunity will just confirm this. The rest of the world needs to catch up and stop inflicting unjustifiable restrictions on folk as if they were totalitarian governments accountable to no one; while trying turn turn back time to a point where Covid didn't exist and no one caught it.
// The 1968 outbreak of “Hong Kong ‘Flu” was higher in its death toll to that which Covid has caused up to now in the UK (with a population almost 25% lower) and far worse worldwide. //
NJ keeps saying this, and it's still not true. The estimated global toll from that flu in 18 months was around 2 million (4 million at most); Covid-19 has accounted for at least 930,000 deaths so far in half the time, and that is certainly an undercount. The estimated UK toll was 30,000 in the same 18-month period, which is half of that from Covid so far.
It's tiring to have to continue to correct his broken statistics. The rest of his argument may be more reasonable -- it's certainly not impossible that our Government "panicked" at the end of March, although, faced with such a high potential death toll, what choice did they have? -- but he really shouldn't exaggerate the scale of the 1968 flu and underplay Covid-19.
NJ keeps saying this, and it's still not true. The estimated global toll from that flu in 18 months was around 2 million (4 million at most); Covid-19 has accounted for at least 930,000 deaths so far in half the time, and that is certainly an undercount. The estimated UK toll was 30,000 in the same 18-month period, which is half of that from Covid so far.
It's tiring to have to continue to correct his broken statistics. The rest of his argument may be more reasonable -- it's certainly not impossible that our Government "panicked" at the end of March, although, faced with such a high potential death toll, what choice did they have? -- but he really shouldn't exaggerate the scale of the 1968 flu and underplay Covid-19.
One other point, that doesn't necessarily undermine NJ's analysis but certainly places it in context, is that even if the UK had followed Sweden's approach, the economy would still have suffered. Firstly, because we wouldn't have been able to escape the effects from what every other nation was doing; and secondly, because the effect of so many deaths and the net effect it had on work, healthcare, etc, would still have been pretty devastating economically.
What I'm saying, Jim, is that the figures are in the same ball park. The UK has a population 25% higher now than it was then and it is far more mobile. This simply is not an unprecedented event. It has happened before, maybe not identically, but similarly. An unknown virus which caused tens of thousands of deaths appeared on the scene; it claimed principally elderly victims and those with other health problems. But the strategy to deal with this outbreak is simply not comparable. If the government in 1968 had adopted the same strategy as today's has we would still be paying for it now. More than that, if the NHS had effectively all but closed down for six months in 1968 the death toll (from non-virus conditions) would have been appalling - as I have no doubt the toll from this fiasco will be.
//...because the effect of so many deaths and the net effect it had on work, healthcare, etc, would still have been pretty devastating economically.//
Yes I agree. But firstly the death toll and infection rate without measures taken is unknown but secondly the biggest problem the UK faces currently (apart from lack of testing) is restarting the economy. Workers who want to are not allowed back to work; many are completely off work with probably no job to return to; public transport will probably never recover (the government is paying the Rail Franchisees to essentially transport fresh air and has pledged to do so for the next year at least) and nobody has any idea how to get out of any of this. If we hadn't got into it in the first place we wouldn't need to get out of it.
Yes I agree. But firstly the death toll and infection rate without measures taken is unknown but secondly the biggest problem the UK faces currently (apart from lack of testing) is restarting the economy. Workers who want to are not allowed back to work; many are completely off work with probably no job to return to; public transport will probably never recover (the government is paying the Rail Franchisees to essentially transport fresh air and has pledged to do so for the next year at least) and nobody has any idea how to get out of any of this. If we hadn't got into it in the first place we wouldn't need to get out of it.
They may have been in the same ball-park at the end of the outbreak (although, again, I must emphasise that we aren't at the end of Covid-19 yet) -- but what is relevant is the speed of the pandemic was different. During the 1968 pandemic, hospitals never really ended up inundated with patients or stretched beyond capacity. To be callous, then, a lot of people died back then, but they weren't dying fast enough to justify a reaction. Covid-19 throughout the world was clogging up hospitals very quickly to the point that the system was overwhelmed.
There really is no sense in comparing to the 1968-69 flu. The comparison is broken, because it simply seems to ignore the significance of so much extra time to spread out the effect. The death rate matters, and in Covid-19 the death rate is much greater than was the case for the 1968 flu.
There really is no sense in comparing to the 1968-69 flu. The comparison is broken, because it simply seems to ignore the significance of so much extra time to spread out the effect. The death rate matters, and in Covid-19 the death rate is much greater than was the case for the 1968 flu.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.