Posted on 07/06/2020 9:01:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sweden's controversial decision not to lock down during COVID-19 produced more deaths and greater healthcare demand than seen in countries with earlier, more stringent interventions, a new analysis finds. But Sweden fared better than would be expected from its public-health mandates alone, roughly similar to France, Italy and Spain—countries that had more stringent measures but adopted them after the pandemic took hold there.
Sweden's unusual approach also saw fewer patients admitted to intensive-care units than expected. But the country has seen a higher percentage of deaths in older patients outside ICUs than other countries when ICU beds were not limited. That suggests health authorities there have considered patients' chances of recovery in deciding who receives access to intensive care, the researchers say.
"Our study shows that individually driven infection-control measures can have a substantial effect on national outcomes, and we see Sweden as a good example of this case," said Peter Kasson, MD, Ph.D., of the University of Virginia School of Medicine and Sweden's Uppsala University. "Higher levels of individual action would further suppress the infection, while a complete lack of individual action would likely have led to runaway infection, which fortunately hasn't happened."
Kasson and Uppsala's Lynn Kamerlin set out to analyze the effects of the country's public-health response using population, employment and household data. They say the insights gained from their work can guide future public-health policies. In particular, the findings will help doctors understand the effects of individual compliance with infection-control measures.
The researchers conclude that Sweden's "mild" government restrictions, coupled with a population willing to voluntarily self-isolate, produced results quite similar to those seen in countries that enacted more stringent measures later in the pandemic.
Sweden's per capita death rate was 35 per 100,000 as of May 15. Meanwhile, Denmark's death rate was 9.3 per 100,000, Finland's 5.2 and Norway's 4.7. All three neighboring countries enacted stricter policies. For comparison, the United States had 24 deaths per 100,000 as of May 15. But Sweden has fared better than hard-hit countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain.
"Sweden is perhaps the most prominent example of mitigation—limiting the extent of socially and economically disruptive interventions while still aiming to slow spread and allow for an effective medical response," the researchers wrote in a new paper outlining their findings. "Studying the effects of this strategy, which elements are key to reducing mortality and healthcare need, and how it might compare to other approaches, is thus of critical importance to the global understanding of pandemic responses."
Key Measures in Sweden
While it did not opt for full lockdown, Sweden took several steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The researchers created computer models to measure the effects of these steps, including voluntary self-isolation by symptomatic people and those over 70, closing schools and other interventions. They then validated their results by comparing the models with Sweden's death rate and compared Sweden's results to other countries'.
The researchers' models anticipated that Sweden's public-health mandates would result in 40 times more patients needing ICU beds than the number of ICU beds available before the pandemic. Voluntary self-isolation reduced this to five-fold, and the country essentially doubled its number of ICU beds as the pandemic emerged.
That still leaves many patients without a bed, however, and yet the country's ICUs weren't overrun. That outcome—and the fact older patients in Sweden were several times more likely to die than to be admitted to an ICU—prompted the researchers to analyze choices that Swedish health authorities made about who would receive intensive care.
"Analyzed by categorical age group, older Swedish patients with confirmed COVID-19 were more likely to die than to be admitted to the ICU, suggesting that predicted prognosis may have been a factor in ICU admission," the researchers wrote. "This likely reduced ICU load at the cost of more high-risk patients dying outside the ICU."
"The key finding is that individual actions matter," Kasson said. "If enough individuals stay home and take precautions when in the community, it can really change the infection curve. And we can't let up now."
Sure, if a study says so... LOL
Because of course it did.
Don't mean to be cold hearted but this article certainly seems to be fishing for a justification for the collateral damage the lockdowns have caused. To Businesses, to personal lives. If you think people feel insecure because of covid, I'd multiply that times ten for insecurity people feel about their governments. (Although I have to say -> people SHOULD feel insecure about the overreach of their governments. Perhaps that's a silver lining -> that people have glimpsed government for the inept dishonest entity it always is, and why it must be kept as tiny as possible. I know - preaching to choir and horse out of barn :-))
Depends on how one defines “lockdown”.
Elderly should certainly have been protected, which they didn’t do.
Probably a more accurate description of their failure.
Well, we’re all gonna die....
What happened is that it sped up the rate that people were infected. It cut to months what will take up to two years to accomplish everywhere else.
But Sweden has fared better than hard-hit countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain.
why not just state facts clearly?
Sweden did better than BELGIUM, UK, ITALY AND SPAIN.
Belgium has 853.35 deaths per million.
Sweden has 523.71 deaths per million
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
Sweden’s death toll should be MULTIPLES - like 6 to 8 times - of the top four, according to “experts”.
Because facts would bear out that Sweden was better off doing what it did and cut the argument to lock everybody up.
The only thing that matters is, on a regular basis, that the story shifts back and forth and back and forth and back and forth confirming that there are no knowable facts regarding CV - 19. However, it is very important that the propaganda steer all of us one way, then the other way then back the other way and then back the other way. That is the main goal in all of this so-called information. It is, and will continue to be simply a continuous gaslighting operation.
Won’t believe it until it’s published in Lancet. </s
However, if the virus is indeed mutating to weaker strains - then the Swedish death rate due to COVID will remain high when compared to the other nations. Still, they didn’t kill their economy, nor dehumanize their population (leading to high unemployment, suicides, and other ‘non-COVID’ afflictions) - so I’d still say they made the right call.
So not as deadly as Spain, Italy, UK, France or Belgium. Plus no lock down. Their businesses are all operating. Their schools are open. I think Sweden got it right. Sure there are some countries that did better. But there have been no studies that have figured out why Germany was so much more successful than France or Belgium. You can fight about Sweden all you want. But what they proved is that without a lock down they were average in deaths and cases within Europe. And that is to be expected if lock downs don’t work.
Of course the real difference is Sweden chose to grit their teeth and treat this as a severe "epidemic", a little worse than a bad flu season, and maintain their economy in the process.
The USA, on the other hand, chose a "pandemic panic" and proceeded to lock down and nearly destroy their economy in the process. It's not yet clear how many additional lives have been lost due the the resulting economic problems.
It seems to me their relative success up to now depended on adopting a coordinated, consistent approach based on the facts at the time, and tweaking the models as data developed. They also made hard-headed and fact-based estimates of the risks and decided to accept them. Those who created the plan simply accepted the responsibility for doing so. The population had enough trust in the government assessment to follow guidelines without much cheating or complaining. It never would have worked here.
“A few years at the end of the lives...”. Man, this sounds like death panel rationale!
I’m known around here for being pretty liberal, but one thing I completely agree with Freepers on is the sanctity of life. Abortion is a selfish act. It’s a similarly selfish act to decide to reopen the economy and disregard the lives of elderly people.
Also, Nick Cordero would probably beg to differ with your premise entirely.
There are people who are avoiding or denied medical treatment for other ailments during lockdown (testing for cancer, heart-attack-in-progress) who are suffering, dying but those numbers are not being collected,
If Sweden allowed international travel during its herd immunity project, then nations that are using Covid-19 to break the public will (e.g., would send sick people into Sweden. They CAN’T have the truth exposed - normal living works).
“That suggests health authorities there have considered patients’ chances of recovery in deciding who receives access to intensive care, the researchers say.”
That’s Socialized Medicine lingo for Death Panels.
But there is much much much much more to the damage caused by the government.
Something I have always argued is that, for example, YES it's true that lefty ideologies killed 100 million in the 20th century. But it's not only about those who were killed. BILLIONS had their lives negatively impacted to serious serious serious degrees.
The sanctity of life is important. But to take it to an extreme that makes it clear, is it worth saving 1 life if it means 1 million people are blinded and have 3 limbs cut off?
I would argue 'no'. So I'm merely establishing a boundary that yes there is sanctity of life. But there is also the sanctity of the experience of life.
What has been the cost to the experience of life for those affected by the government action? How much will this lead to government being BOLDER in the future about such action?
If you really think it through, a rational case can be made NOT ONLY that the years that were saved were worth it, but quite frankly a case can be made that no lives were saved.
So I don't buy the sanctity of life argument when the sanctity of other and future lives is arguably the price.
Now somewhere in there of course people can argue whether the cost was or wasn't too great.
But I don't think one can argue EXCEPT BASED ON AN ARGUMENT BASED ON FEELING, WHICH IS WHAT LIBERALS DO!!! (since you mentioned it) ... I don't think one can argue that the years that may have been saved are ONLY balanced by financial cost. THAT is myopic.
I will allow that I stated it coldly, but I also acknowledged that.
By YOUR argument, a country should never go to war, because surely soldiers would be lost ... and 'sanctity of life' and all that.
Agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.