Sweden?

[Lennys Tap]

I wonder if we will not even know whether Sweden's technique is better in a few months?  We might need a full year, assuming a second wave hits.  Maybe they get clobbered now and then are better prepared for the second wave?

Compared to their neighbors (which is the best comparison given locale, wealth, culture, similar health care, etc.) they are not doing well.  Compared to the US,  they are doing about the same.

Doesn't herd immunity mean no second wave. Or waiting (hoping) for a vaccine that may never come?

[Pakuni]

Stockholm is as dense (or denser) than much of the USA. Their plan (protect the most vulnerable, get to herd immunity ASAP) will save their economy and likely save lives. In areas where our health care providers aren't in danger of being overwhelmed it is the 'least bad" plan I've seen. My guess is other countries will follow.

How is saving or will it save lives?
So far, it's costing lives at many times the rate of its similarly situated neighbors.

[Hards Alumni]

Doesn't herd immunity mean no second wave. Or waiting (hoping) for a vaccine that may never come?

This was always discussed as a possible way to deal with the disease. 

Their method is putting all of their faith in the hope that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity.  If there isn't such a thing, they've made a very reckless decision, and it will cost far more lives.

[Lennys Tap]

How is saving or will it save lives?
So far, it's costing lives at many times the rate of its similarly situated neighbors.
(And punch yourself in the face if you feel tempted to say any variation of "people will kill themselves.")

They'll lose more in the short run while developing herd immunity. But once it's done, it's done. No second wave, no trying to protect the most vulnerable for periods that extend for what, years? (Which will be impossible) And even if lives aren't saved, which is preferable - 100,000 deaths in 6 months with a damaged economy or 100,000 deaths over 2 years with a destroyed one.

There are no perfect solutions. This is awful - people will die, futures will be ruined. In a war you have to practice triage - make difficult decisions. The enemy is not going away. Retreating while we made sure our health care system wouldn't be overwhelmed made sense. I think that time has passed. Sweden's plan makes sense to me.

[The Sultan]

They'll lose more in the short run while developing herd immunity. But once it's done, it's done. No second wave, no trying to protect the most vulnerable for periods that extend for what, years? (Which will be impossible) And even if lives aren't saved, which is preferable - 100,000 deaths in 6 months with a damaged economy or 100,000 deaths over 2 years with a destroyed one.

If these were the only two choices, you may have a point.  But they aren't.

[Hards Alumni]

They'll lose more in the short run while developing herd immunity. But once it's done, it's done. No second wave, no trying to protect the most vulnerable for periods that extend for what, years? (Which will be impossible) And even if lives aren't saved, which is preferable - 100,000 deaths in 6 months with a damaged economy or 100,000 deaths over 2 years with a destroyed one.

There are no perfect solutions. This is awful - people will die, futures will be ruined. In a war you have to practice triage - make difficult decisions. The enemy is not going away. Retreating while we made sure our health care system wouldn't be overwhelmed made sense. I think that time has passed. Sweden's plan makes sense to me.

Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions being made here.  War is fought with the information on the ground.  And we have a total lack of information because we do not have adequate testing.  Sweden's plan makes sense because it seems like it could work... all things being equal.  But they aren't.  The US is larger, unhealthier country.  What would have happened in Italy without a lockdown?  What about China?  Applying Sweden as a model for all countries would be reckless given the information that we have.

We need more time.  Time for testing and planning.  The economy will recover.  It will certainly be different, but this isn't the first time that humanity has been turned upside down by this sort of thing... and yet, here we stand.

[The Sultan]

The US is testing more people per capita than Sweden is.

[Lennys Tap]

This was always discussed as a possible way to deal with the disease. 

Their method is putting all of their faith in the hope that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity.  If there isn't such a thing, they've made a very reckless decision, and it will cost far more lives.

I'd rather put my faith in something that has worked against viruses (herd immunity) than wait for a vaccine. Something, btw, that has NEVER been successfully developed for a Corona virus.

I think the rope a dope, pull the covers over your head and hope strategy is the reckless one for people's health (physical and mental) and our economy's survival. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

[Lennys Tap]

If these were the only two choices, you may have a point.  But they aren't.

Fair enough, Fluff. I'm OK with tweaks to the Swedish plan, especially to suit our populace better.  Still, Sweden's core solution (IMO) is the most logical I've seen. On Scoop or elsewhere.

Time will tell.

[Pakuni]

They'll lose more in the short run while developing herd immunity. But once it's done, it's done. No second wave, no trying to protect the most vulnerable for periods that extend for what, years? (Which will be impossible) And even if lives aren't saved, which is preferable - 100,000 deaths in 6 months with a damaged economy or 100,000 deaths over 2 years with a destroyed one.

Besides Fluffy's point about these not being the only options, you (and Sweden) seem to be taking a massive leap of faith that effective herd immunity without an accompanying vaccine is a foregone conclusion and there won't be a second wave.
This is something that the vast majority of the scientific community says is impossible to know at this point, which is why they're not supporting this approach.
What makes you more confident than they are?

Also, scientists say any chance of herd immunity with COVID-19 would require an infection rate of at least 70%. Even at the lower end of the mortality rate - let's say 0.15% - that's nearly a half million dead in this country, many times more than current projections (which, admittedly, are shaky at best).
Is that acceptable for a gamble on the effectiveness of herd immunity?

[Hards Alumni]

I'd rather put my faith in something that has worked against viruses (herd immunity) than wait for a vaccine. Something, btw, that has NEVER been successfully developed for a Corona virus.

I think the rope a dope, pull the covers over your head and hope strategy is the reckless one for people's health (physical and mental) and our economy's survival. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

The common cold a lot of people get on a yearly basis is a coronavirus that has no vaccine and there is no herd immunity.

[tower912]

Lenny, I think you make a legitimate argument worth contemplating.  And I would be lying if I said I haven't pondered it.    But as I posted earlier, Sweden has one the most thorough and effective government run health care systems in the world.   They have a lower percentage of the population with co morbidities.  They have few dense population centers.  And with all that they have a higher death rate than their neighbors.   They are banking on the theory of herd immunity for the long run.

If the USA had done the same, the original death estimates likely would have come to fruition.   In hopes that herd immunity would kick in.    Quite a gamble.  I'm not ready to make the same leap you are.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I'd rather put my faith in something that has worked against viruses (herd immunity) than wait for a vaccine. Something, btw, that has NEVER been successfully developed for a Corona virus.

I think the rope a dope, pull the covers over your head and hope strategy is the reckless one for people's health (physical and mental) and our economy's survival. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

We don't need to wax poetic.  NYC basically executed on the Sweden plan (except with no restrictions -- so herd immunity quicker!)....What we need to know is how many people have been infected in that area and are they immune.  It nearly broke the health system and would have had they not locked it down.

[forgetful]

Just curious, do people believe Sweden's numbers. If so, what are the metrics one uses in determining which nation they trust numbers from, and which they do not?

[MarquetteDano]

They'll lose more in the short run while developing herd immunity. But once it's done, it's done. No second wave, no trying to protect the most vulnerable for periods that extend for what, years? (Which will be impossible) And even if lives aren't saved, which is preferable - 100,000 deaths in 6 months with a damaged economy or 100,000 deaths over 2 years with a destroyed one.

There are no perfect solutions. This is awful - people will die, futures will be ruined. In a war you have to practice triage - make difficult decisions. The enemy is not going away. Retreating while we made sure our health care system wouldn't be overwhelmed made sense. I think that time has passed. Sweden's plan makes sense to me.

I wonder if some way we will end up going with the Sweden model at a state level?  Georgia plans to open up soon.  As I mentioned in another thread,  you have the CDC right in the backyard so they can try to test and contact trace.  We could see how it turns out?

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, I think you make a legitimate argument worth contemplating.  And I would be lying if I said I haven't pondered it.    But as I posted earlier, Sweden has one the most thorough and effective government run health care systems in the world.   They have a lower percentage of the population with co morbidities.  They have few dense population centers.  And with all that they have a higher death rate than their neighbors.   They are banking on the theory of herd immunity for the long run.

If the USA had done the same, the original death estimates likely would have come to fruition.   In hopes that herd immunity would kick in.    Quite a gamble.  I'm not ready to make the same leap you are.

Tower, I acknowledge that we're not Sweden but we're not all New York City either. We're now discovering that California's first infection (LA, I think) was in early February. They had no restrictions for a long time thereafter and still never became NYC.

Sweden has a higher death rate than their neighbors right now. If their plan works I don't think it will be higher down the road. And their war will be over when others worry about second waves, next year's flu season, etc. And their economy won't be destroyed. I'm not saying Sweden's plan is a panacea or that it fit every situation in the USA. Only that where it's feasible it appears the best of a lot of bad options.

[Lennys Tap]

The common cold a lot of people get on a yearly basis is a coronavirus that has no vaccine and there is no herd immunity.

True, but I haven't heard any evidence that suggests that will be the case with Covid19. Please provide if there is.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Tower, I acknowledge that we're not Sweden but we're not all New York City either. We're now discovering that California's first infection (LA, I think) was in early February. They had no restrictions for a long time thereafter and still never became NYC.

Here in Connecticut, my daughter's tell me that one of their friends (and also the friends younger brother) believe they had Coronavirus in mid-February.  Both had a respiratory illness, hard to breath, low grade fever and no nose blowing.  Lasted about 2 weeks.  Their doctor gave a flu test which came back negative. 

[WarriorDad]

"But Sweden's 1,937 deaths is far higher in number and proportionally to Denmark's 370 and Finland's 141."

That's a lot of "pain."

I would like to see that on a per capita basis, not absolute numbers.  Yes, it is more pain, but at what cost.  For instance, if Sweden pulls this off and their numbers drop while Denmark, Finland, and others continue to have deaths while also destroying their way of life that is the pain of a different kind which leads to more deaths (suicides, stress-related illnesses).

[WarriorDad]

So, on the same day Tengell gave this interview (praising his own policy), 545 new cases were reported in Sweden. That's up 39 percent from the previous day's 392. 185 additional deaths were reported as well. the largest number since the outbreak began.
Could be a one-day anomaly, could be him spiking the ball on the 5 yard line.

But given that no one has any idea whether herd immunity is a sure thing with this virus, or how long it lasts, let's hope for Sweden's sake this isn't a "Mission Accomplished" moment.

Per capita numbers, please.  These raw numbers are misleading. The age of the population also is important.  I get the sense that some people are going to be upset if what Sweden has tried, worked.  That's the feeling from reading here the last month.

[WarriorDad]

"Covid-19 is a "mild disease" and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people."

Provably false.

Goes to show not all scientists agree with the characterizations, including epidemiologists.  The answer will truly not be known until everyone is tested.  Once that is done, he may well be completely accurate and provably true.  We do not know at this point because we don't know how many people have antibodies and were not impacted negatively in any severe way.  More data is needed.  It may be provably false today based on your opinion and the data we have, but that could change with more data and anaylsis.

[rocky_warrior]

True, but I haven't heard any evidence that suggests that will be the case with Covid19. Please provide if there is.

I'm not sure you're understanding "herd immunity" - it's rare without a vaccine:
https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic

Or, you're just willing to gamble on it, as is Sweden.

[rocky_warrior]

I get the sense that some people are going to be upset if what Sweden has tried, worked.  That's the feeling from reading here the last month.

Really?  You think people want it to fail.  No, people think it's dangerous.  Please provide ANY proof that it has "worked" at all so far.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Per capita numbers, please.  These raw numbers are misleading. The age of the population also is important.  I get the sense that some people are going to be upset if what Sweden has tried, worked.  That's the feeling from reading here the last month.

Deaths per M:

Sweden 192
Denmark 66
Norway 34
Finland 27

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Sweden has the equivalent of ~64,000 deaths vs. the U.S. ~47,000 and appears to be accelerating sharply based on the "Death per Day" chart for every country.

[tower912]

Per capita numbers, please.  These raw numbers are misleading. The age of the population also is important.  I get the sense that some people are going to be upset if what Sweden has tried, worked.  That's the feeling from reading here the last month.

Nobody wants that.  Choose to be smarter than that.