Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120805778/coronavirus-to-swedes-its-the-rest-of-the-world-engaging-in-a-reckless-experiment?fbclid=IwAR0YuWt7yRVS7_6UIfr9hcIVvKzq739J0ZOQ16SYUi6VCENjvMHuuT8uVjc

Before I get told I'm looking for things to support a certain argument, I just follow this site from when I was in New Zealand last year. It's just an opinion piece and I'm just sharing it for debate. Figures would obviously been accurate at the time of publication.

Now and again, my wife asks if it's worth getting Swedish passports for our children. She has never got around to seeking British citizenship and I try to tell her that she'd better get her skates on before Home Secretary Priti Patel comes around asking for her papers. But the kids: how would a Swedish passport possibly benefit them? We run through what might go wrong for a country and, in every eventuality, Britain always seems the better bet. But now Swedes have a fresh argument: that their country might be the only one in Europe to come out of the coronavirus crisis with the economy semi-intact.

There is, still, no lockdown there. Shopping centres remain open, as are most schools and firms. Many work from home, many don't – all are at liberty to choose. When I called a friend in Stockholm to ask about the Swedish experiment, he was on his way to a book launch. He's still taking his sons to football matches and is proud that Sweden is keeping calm and carrying on. To him there is no Swedish experiment: it's the rest of Europe that is experimenting – by locking down economies in response to a virus which may prove to be no more deadly than flu.

It's not that Sweden is in denial. It has had 5466 confirmed cases, 282 deaths. Coronavirus has been found in a third of Stockholm's (many) elderly care homes. But the debate there is still where the British debate was three weeks ago when the Prime Minister was resisting lockdown. This changed for Britain when Imperial College London published its study suggesting that avoiding lockdown could mean 250,000 deaths. This logic applies to Sweden – but the country of the Nobel Prize and the Karolinska Institute believes its own experts. They disagree with Imperial. They still see Covid-19 as a manageable risk.

The face of Sweden's response has been Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist, who has held daily press conferences. Politicians have taken a back seat. His team have published their own assessment of the virus and its likely trajectory, showing it peaking with about 250 needing intensive care in Stockholm. The nation's hospitals, he says, can cope. A 600-bed temporary ward is opening tomorrow, south of the city – and when it does, a quarter of all intensive care beds will be used. So for now, no reason to impose any more restrictions.

He urges caution, and Swedes are responding. Sixth formers and university students are learning from home. Sports fixtures continue, but with spectators more spaced out. Online meet-ups are replacing real ones, elbow-bumping (remember that?) replaced handshakes long ago. A naturally cautious country is taking Tegnell's advice.

But crucially, he isn't asking Swedes to trust him. Hospital data is published all the time, so Sweden's "experiment" is being conducted in the open. Every time a patient is admitted, the data is updated on a Covid live website in striking detail. Average age: 60. Those with diabetes: 26 per cent. With cardiovascular or lung disease: 24 per cent. With at least one other underlying health condition: 77 per cent. Sweden is also updating its statistics to say if someone died from Covid, or of something else – but with Covid. This might reduce the "death" figure by two thirds.

If Tegnell's analysis proves wrong, the public will be able to see it unravel on his dashboard. In which case, he says, he stands ready to tighten things up. Sweden's famous love of transparency – you can look up your neighbour's salary online if you feel the urge – is being used as a tool to foster trust. So far, it's working: polls show that three quarters of Swedes support the strategy. The debate, overall, is very different from Britain's. There is no shortage of epidemiologists in the Swedish press, backing Tegnell and denouncing the "desk-based theory" of the Imperial College study.

The Swedish prime minister is asked if he has ceded power to Tegnell: he doesn't seem offended. Time will tell if we made the right choice, he says. Over here, this would be seen as dangerous, even heartless. Doesn't he want to save lives? But Swedes are also looking at Britain's surging unemployment, one in five small firms on the verge of going bust, children deprived of education, working mothers edged out of their job. That also hits lives.

And this case is being made, in Sweden, in a way it might not be over here. Kerstin Hessius, who runs a government pension fund, has been arguing that money vs lives is a false choice. Rising unemployment hits pensions directly," she says. "What's more, the tax base disappears - then we have to start cutting welfare." And Swedes should be proud that "we have not extinguished the entire society, as many other countries have done".

The risk is pretty obvious. Tegnell might soon find out that the virus spreads far faster than he thought – and by then it would be too late. Sweden's hospitals would be overrun. A letter signed by 2000 luminaries appeared in the papers this week saying it was time for Sweden to fall in line with the rest of the world. Åre, where I had hoped to be skiing next week, will shut its lifts the week leading up to Easter. Posters had started appearing in train stations, put up by locals, telling visitors they were endangering lives by refusing to stay home.

Sweden is not immune from what is, now, a fierce global recession. Unemployment has spiked and bailouts have started – albeit ones that will be easier to pay off than Britain's. Swedes tend to have more of a sense of the economy as the engine of the welfare state: damage one, and you damage the other. You also damage public health, society, education and democracy. As one former politician told me, Sweden is not resisting lockdown in spite of being a strong social democratic state. It's doing it because it's a strong social democratic state.

For now, Stockholm is perhaps the last capital in Europe where there are signs of normal life – with shoppers, skateboarders, pensioners and commuters (albeit in far fewer numbers). They know who to thank for their liberty. On Vasagatan, there's a poster taped to a wall saying "All power to Tegnell, state epidemiologist". Whether they'll be saying this at the end of the month is, of course, another question entirely.
 
Maybe we're getting crossed wires.

If your healthcare system is better prepared to handle a large scale outbreak, then while you need to take precautions (lockdown) you can be a bit more balanced about it and not have to dive in head first. The gov's idea was to put off lockdown as long as possible. Well they could and should have done a lot more to ensure the systems were in place to help that happen, surely?

But is lockdown really the issue? Is it as big of a deal as people are making out?

Like I say, to me, preparedness should only be measured in terms of avoidable deaths.
 
But is lockdown really the issue? Is it as big of a deal as people are making out?

Like I say, to me, preparedness should only be measured in terms of avoidable deaths.

In terms of everyday life for now, I'm fine with it because hopefully it will lead to less deaths/lower infection rate.

Long term it obviously is a huge issue. You've got people under house arrest in some countries (not here I know). Businesses crashing. People losing jobs and having to rely on the government for handouts (if your lucky enough to qualify). People who have set up successful businesses or trades in the last year and are now facing having to live off £94 a week.

So yes, it is an issue if it goes on for an undefined amount of time. Especially when it feels, if there had been some more preparation, it could all helped 'avoidable deaths'?
 
Yes, there is, but those on free school meals are still getting something at home from the gov. As to the child abuse you’re alluding to that’s gonna happen with or without school and is a completely separate issue.
Many will but apparently the system has been a nightmare to administrate with another change next week expected to cause further mayhem - electronic vouchers.

Add to that, you're talking about a £10 voucher per week (per child) that is non-transferable - if you miss it, you miss it - and relies on responsible purchasing.

Many of these families aren't responsible and will not purchase in a frugal, well-thought out way, and that's before considering electricity and gas meters topped up.

Vulnerable children who attend the hubs will be fed, but the percentage of attendance isn't great and relies on over-stretched social workers following it up.

Believe me, the official figures for reports of DA, sexual abuse and/or maltreatment will show a huge spike because the internal data is already showing a spike.

Right now, the best thing we can do is sustain the lock down, but it would be naive if not ignorant to ignore the negative social impact it is having before economic.

There's been a huge spike of commercial properties being raided at the moment, with no chance of protecting them, so many businesses will come back to chaos.

It will upset people, but we have to discuss the long-term impacts and continuously balance the pros and cons of a lock down situation.
 
“The UK may need to reconsider a “herd immunity” strategy to defeat coronavirus, a senior adviser to the Prime Minister has warned.

Professor Graham Medley of Imperial College London, the government’s chief pandemic modeller, says the country has “painted itself into a corner” as it battles the deadly bug with no clear exit plan.


He said the UK needed to face the trade-off between harming the young versus the old.

Describing the stark choices facing the government, he says that long, indefinite periods of lockdown could cause more harm than the virus itself by leading to soaring unemployment, domestic violence, food poverty and mental illness.



Speaking to the Times, Professor Medley said: “We will have done three weeks of this lockdown so there’s a big decision coming up on April 13.

"In broad terms are we going to continue to harm children to protect vulnerable people, or not?

“The measures to control [the disease] cause harm. The principal one is economic, and I don’t mean to the economy generally, I mean to the incomes of people who rely on a continuous stream of money and their children.”

Professor Medley has described the choice facing ministers as a trade-off between harming the young or the old


“If we carry on with lockdown it buys us more time, we can get more thought put into it, but it doesn’t resolve anything — it’s a placeholder,” he continued.

The public health expert added that there is no way to relax lockdown rules, such as allowing people to return to work and schools to re-open, without a surge in infections.

He has therefore urged the government to reconsider allowing people to catch the flu-like virus and build up resistance in the population, following a controversial strategy known as “herd immunity”
I voiced options like that on here and was widely criticized, likely by the same people who'll complain and moan about the austerity coming their way and how their take home pay is heavy taxed if they are lucky enough to still have a job.
 
Worries me that people seem to think this 80% furlough is any more than a plaster on a gunshot wound for the economy.
Many people believe (or expect) that they will walk back into their position, on their original pay, and business will automatically go back to normal.

In reality, we will have businesses that will fold once the restrictions are lifted, people will be laid off and taxes will almost certainly be raised with no wage rises.
 
Many people believe (or expect) that they will walk back into their position, on their original pay, and business will automatically go back to normal.

In reality, we will have businesses that will fold once the restrictions are lifted, people will be laid off and taxes will almost certainly be raised with no wage rises.

You survive in the present not the future so 80% is really helpful right now for a lot of people.
 
What I dont get is why isnt this plasma injection thing not been mass produced/used if its shown to work historically?

So much red tape crap about - if I was in an ICU they could shoot anything into me if they thought it had a good chance of keeping me alive I dont get all this months of study on animals then human crap when we are in the middle of a pandemic.

As others have said - without mass scale antibody testing realistically herd immunity with the occasional lock down put in place seems the only real way of getting life back to normal without the fantasy vaccine we are all hoping/waiting for.
 
Inappropriate Behaviour
What I dont get is why isnt this plasma injection thing not been mass produced/used if its shown to work historically?

So much red tape crap about - if I was in an ICU they could shoot anything into me if they thought it had a good chance of keeping me alive I dont get all this months of study on animals then human crap when we are in the middle of a pandemic.

As others have said - without mass scale antibody testing realistically herd immunity with the occasional lock down put in place seems the only real way of getting life back to normal without the fantasy vaccine we are all hoping/waiting for.
Plenty of peado's in jail where they could test anything on them and there wouldn't be too many complaints, straight to human testing without the issues of people being bothered about really bad side effects.
 
I voiced options like that on here and was widely criticized, likely by the same people who'll complain and moan about the austerity coming their way and how their take home pay is heavy taxed if they are lucky enough to still have a job.

I do think playing it as 'the young v the old' is slightly misleading mind. Anyone can have this virus and anyone can get it badly enough to end up in hospital. Depends on a lot of factors and obviously if you have a weakened immune system then you're more likely to be hit bad by it if you get it (though no guarantee of that obviously and no guarantee you won't get a bad hit even if you're in perfect condition).

I do think the measures we have atm, because of a lack of action in the previous months, is the only thing we can do right now and it's also the best course of action.

The gov's aim will be to get through this as quickly and as safely as possible as in the long run that will save more lives. April will be a total lockdown I'm sure, but if we can at least see some light in 9-10 days' time in terms of a flattening of confirmed cases and hopefully the start of a decline in deaths, then by mid-May we may see a gradual easing of measures.
 
Lockdown measures could be relaxed in a few weeks to enable herd immunity. When they say relaxed would they slowly start to open businesses? Possibly open gyms but have measures in place like they did before they closed?
 
They can go out in yards and gardens, they can go to the bigger parks/beaches for walks with the dog etc. every day.

It’s been 2 weeks. Literally 2 weeks... people talk like we’ve been on lockdown since the 90’s.

I think kids handle it better than the adults tbh.

The kids are just happy on their tablets etc, all the parents filing for divorces and having mental breakdowns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top