tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
“might have had some impact” is an interesting take on things
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
“might have had some impact” is an interesting take on things
D
Deleted member 48881
Guest
The point was made about back then. Not now.
Barnfred 55
Player Valuation: £80m
How the hell have I not got you on ignore already?
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Quite strange isn't how the countries that closed the borders like NZ and Taiwan have dealt with the pandemic the best. It's almost like the two are linked...
Cool_Blue
Player Valuation: £35m
Course they do. But like the majority of these idiots , because they haven’t caught it, they think the rules don’t apply to them. I’m alright Jack etc etc
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Depends on when the decision was made though doesn't it, even March may have been too late. The USA stopped a lot of international travel and they're not exactly doing great are they? If the UK stopped all international travel in February we'd be fine but the tories were never going to do that.
Once it reached the UK it grew massively, New Zealand were in a completely different position and they managed to benefit from that.
I do agree that it has been managed terribly anyway, the response at every point has been pitiful.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
the Yanks didn’t (and IIRC have never) stopped all international travel, just travel from China and Europe
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
If we stopped travel in February i agree we'd be fine but at the time they weren't even considering anything like that. March it might have been here already and by April it wouldn't have really made a difference as it was already widespread.
Just seen that Fauci is saying masks will be required until around 2022. Quite some time to go until normality.
CharliePotato
Player Valuation: £10m
Please put me on it you sad man
zzr45
#MURDERINGSCUM
All depends if you consider Wuhan part of the UK really.
But as Nymzee pointed out it is easier for those countries to do it as they're so far away from other places.
There is like 4 mil people in NZ - which is 2.5 hours from Australia at a minimum - and 1.8m live in the Auckland area.
However, it is also reasonable to point out that closing the borders would have been a sensible step for us since we are an island nation and could have used that to our benefit.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
Maybe also worth considering that it's summer in Aus/NZ at the moment so far easier to contain. Didn't Aus have some pretty harsh lockdowns in our summer/their winter?
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Does everyone wash their masks after every use? A lot of studies are based on masks being washed at a high temperature and kept clean. I think a lot of people probably wear masks multiple times before washing them.
SHUT THEM DOWN
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
14 DECEMBER 2020
James Savage - New Statesman
The tone was solemn, the message stark: “Don’t go to the gym. Don’t go to the library. Don’t have dinners. Don’t have parties. Cancel.”
The grim words came from Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven in a televised address on 16 November, in which he announced a ban on public events of more than eight people. At first glance, it appeared that Sweden, which had eschewed strict lockdowns since the start of the pandemic, had reversed its stance after spiralling Covid-19 infection rates. Was this an admission that the Swedish strategy had failed?
During the first wave of coronavirus, Sweden left most decisions on social distancing in the hands of individuals. People were asked to work from home if possible and avoid public transport, and many complied, but in legal terms the only major restriction on people’s freedoms was a ban on events of more than 500 people, a number that was later reduced to 50. A temporary law that allowed the government to close transport hubs, restaurants or shopping centres expired in July without being used.
Anti-lockdown activists around the world looked to Sweden for inspiration, and Swedish flags were waved at protests in London, Berlin and the US. Sweden’s strategy was fronted not by politicians, but by the country’s Public Health Agency and its chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell. His stated aim was to impose measures that would be sustainable over time and would prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, rather than completely suppressing the disease. He also thought natural herd immunity would play a role in slowing the virus’s spread
[See also: Sweden’s Anders Tegnell: We did not pursue “herd immunity” against Covid-19]
The first wave in Sweden was brutal: by June over 5,000 people had died after being infected with Covid-19. A study by Imperial College showed that while overall excess deaths in Sweden, at 58 per 100,000 for men and 49 per 100,000 for women, were lower than in countries including the UK, Spain and Belgium, neighbouring Norway, Denmark and Finland had no detectable excess deaths in the first wave.
By the autumn, however, the picture appeared more positive. As the second wave gathered pace in the UK and other parts of Europe, infections in Sweden remained low. As recently as the first week of October, Tegnell said he thought Sweden’s approach, with voluntary measures designed to gain public acceptance, might help it avoid a full-blown second wave.
That hope would soon be dispelled. By the end of November infections were rapidly accelerating, with a 14-day rate of 698 cases per 100,000, compared to 316 in the UK or 346 in Denmark. On 9 December Stockholm’s health authority declared that 99 per cent of its intensive care beds were occupied and asked national authorities to help them find extra staff.
The capital has since requested assistance from the country’s military, while Finland and Norway have offered outside support. Sweden’s cumulative death rate per million people (744) is around seven times higher than those of its Nordic neighbours and its caseload is rising at the fastest rate of almost any European country.
Amid increasing government alarm, and with the first part of a report on the handling of the pandemic due this month, the Public Health Agency has been sidelined. Recent decisions have seemingly been taken in the face of opposition from Tegnell. When public gatherings of more than eight were banned, Tegnell immediately took to the airwaves to distance himself from the decision: “We have absolutely not put our foot down [to insist on the restrictions],” he said.
But what has changed beyond the rhetoric? Reports that Sweden has now entered lockdown are incorrect: the rule of eight applies only to public gatherings such as plays, operas, film showings, lectures, religious services and markets. Löfven said he wanted people to treat eight as the maximum in all circumstances, but private gatherings of more than that are not banned. Restaurants remain open, though last orders of alcohol have been set for 10pm and tables, which can’t be set for more than eight diners each, must be spaced one metre apart.
Other rules technically have the force of law, but are in practice unenforceable. From 14 December a string of guidelines will take the form of “regulations”, which are legally binding, rather than “general guidance”, which is not. However, the regulations are mostly vague, encouraging people in general terms to limit their contacts with others, and there are no sanctions for breaking them.
In the case of protective masks, there are neither rules nor recommendations: the government is so far upholding the Public Health Agency’s insistence that masks’ effectiveness is unproven, despite the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Medicine Prize, last month endorsing them.
[See also: Masks are rare in Sweden as residents debate the pros and cons of its non-lockdown]
But even without strict regulations, there is evidence that many Swedes are socially distancing. Google mobility data shows that the number of people using public transport has fallen by 43 per cent since the pandemic began, a similar decline to the UK. While reports of people with desk jobs being forced to go into the office abound, home-working has become the norm for many. In a poll for the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency during the second half of November, a quarter of Swedes said they were following official guidance more closely than before.
Yet the government appears to believe that more is needed: on 9 December it published draft legislation that would allow it to close shops, gyms and public transport. The law, if passed, won’t take effect until 15 March.
Could the government have done more, sooner? Health minister Lena Hallengren claims opposition amendments made the pandemic law passed this spring unusable. Many legal experts disagree and say that a broader shutdown of society would have been possible.
So where does this leave Sweden’s famed strategy? The country’s death toll and significant second wave certainly give little succour to lockdown sceptics, even if the hit to economic growth (a fall in GDP of 3.4 per cent is projected for 2020 by the European Commission) has been lower than in most other EU countries (the average is 7.4 per cent). And with the Swedish government gradually moving in favour of more restrictions, the Swedish flag might flutter less often at anti-lockdown protests around the world.
James Savage - New Statesman
How Sweden is being forced to abandon its failing Covid-19 strategy
The country hailed by lockdown sceptics has suffered one of the worst second waves in Europe.
The tone was solemn, the message stark: “Don’t go to the gym. Don’t go to the library. Don’t have dinners. Don’t have parties. Cancel.”
The grim words came from Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven in a televised address on 16 November, in which he announced a ban on public events of more than eight people. At first glance, it appeared that Sweden, which had eschewed strict lockdowns since the start of the pandemic, had reversed its stance after spiralling Covid-19 infection rates. Was this an admission that the Swedish strategy had failed?
During the first wave of coronavirus, Sweden left most decisions on social distancing in the hands of individuals. People were asked to work from home if possible and avoid public transport, and many complied, but in legal terms the only major restriction on people’s freedoms was a ban on events of more than 500 people, a number that was later reduced to 50. A temporary law that allowed the government to close transport hubs, restaurants or shopping centres expired in July without being used.
Anti-lockdown activists around the world looked to Sweden for inspiration, and Swedish flags were waved at protests in London, Berlin and the US. Sweden’s strategy was fronted not by politicians, but by the country’s Public Health Agency and its chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell. His stated aim was to impose measures that would be sustainable over time and would prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, rather than completely suppressing the disease. He also thought natural herd immunity would play a role in slowing the virus’s spread
[See also: Sweden’s Anders Tegnell: We did not pursue “herd immunity” against Covid-19]
The first wave in Sweden was brutal: by June over 5,000 people had died after being infected with Covid-19. A study by Imperial College showed that while overall excess deaths in Sweden, at 58 per 100,000 for men and 49 per 100,000 for women, were lower than in countries including the UK, Spain and Belgium, neighbouring Norway, Denmark and Finland had no detectable excess deaths in the first wave.
By the autumn, however, the picture appeared more positive. As the second wave gathered pace in the UK and other parts of Europe, infections in Sweden remained low. As recently as the first week of October, Tegnell said he thought Sweden’s approach, with voluntary measures designed to gain public acceptance, might help it avoid a full-blown second wave.
That hope would soon be dispelled. By the end of November infections were rapidly accelerating, with a 14-day rate of 698 cases per 100,000, compared to 316 in the UK or 346 in Denmark. On 9 December Stockholm’s health authority declared that 99 per cent of its intensive care beds were occupied and asked national authorities to help them find extra staff.
The capital has since requested assistance from the country’s military, while Finland and Norway have offered outside support. Sweden’s cumulative death rate per million people (744) is around seven times higher than those of its Nordic neighbours and its caseload is rising at the fastest rate of almost any European country.
Amid increasing government alarm, and with the first part of a report on the handling of the pandemic due this month, the Public Health Agency has been sidelined. Recent decisions have seemingly been taken in the face of opposition from Tegnell. When public gatherings of more than eight were banned, Tegnell immediately took to the airwaves to distance himself from the decision: “We have absolutely not put our foot down [to insist on the restrictions],” he said.
But what has changed beyond the rhetoric? Reports that Sweden has now entered lockdown are incorrect: the rule of eight applies only to public gatherings such as plays, operas, film showings, lectures, religious services and markets. Löfven said he wanted people to treat eight as the maximum in all circumstances, but private gatherings of more than that are not banned. Restaurants remain open, though last orders of alcohol have been set for 10pm and tables, which can’t be set for more than eight diners each, must be spaced one metre apart.
Other rules technically have the force of law, but are in practice unenforceable. From 14 December a string of guidelines will take the form of “regulations”, which are legally binding, rather than “general guidance”, which is not. However, the regulations are mostly vague, encouraging people in general terms to limit their contacts with others, and there are no sanctions for breaking them.
In the case of protective masks, there are neither rules nor recommendations: the government is so far upholding the Public Health Agency’s insistence that masks’ effectiveness is unproven, despite the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Medicine Prize, last month endorsing them.
[See also: Masks are rare in Sweden as residents debate the pros and cons of its non-lockdown]
But even without strict regulations, there is evidence that many Swedes are socially distancing. Google mobility data shows that the number of people using public transport has fallen by 43 per cent since the pandemic began, a similar decline to the UK. While reports of people with desk jobs being forced to go into the office abound, home-working has become the norm for many. In a poll for the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency during the second half of November, a quarter of Swedes said they were following official guidance more closely than before.
Yet the government appears to believe that more is needed: on 9 December it published draft legislation that would allow it to close shops, gyms and public transport. The law, if passed, won’t take effect until 15 March.
Could the government have done more, sooner? Health minister Lena Hallengren claims opposition amendments made the pandemic law passed this spring unusable. Many legal experts disagree and say that a broader shutdown of society would have been possible.
So where does this leave Sweden’s famed strategy? The country’s death toll and significant second wave certainly give little succour to lockdown sceptics, even if the hit to economic growth (a fall in GDP of 3.4 per cent is projected for 2020 by the European Commission) has been lower than in most other EU countries (the average is 7.4 per cent). And with the Swedish government gradually moving in favour of more restrictions, the Swedish flag might flutter less often at anti-lockdown protests around the world.
- Status