Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
That depends upon R.
And it will reduce the risk.
We know that the R of covid-19 is somewhere near 3 in normal situations, only dropping significantly with social distancing measures, or test and isolate policies.
I don't believe that Sweden has an infection rate 10 times its neighbours. If it did it would have had many more deaths.
But R will not be in normal situations as various amounts of social distancing, hand washing and self isolation will be taking places.
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
And he also made one of the greatest films set in WWII!
Always liked Niven, he's one of those people who I'd be hugely disappointed to find out that he was a shit, which hasn't happened so far (don't spoil it for me if anyone has evidence to support this proposition).
His Autobiography "The Moon is a Balloon" is one of the best. Very funny, both about his military service and his early days in Hollywood.
Like James Stewart, he seems to be one of the genuine good guys.
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
My favourite is Richard Todd who participated in the assault on Pegasus Bridge on D-Day and then went on to play the commander of that mission (Major Howard) in The Longest Day.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
More to the point, why should Sweden have more immunity than the UK, when the UK has had more deaths as a percentage of population (on the official figures)?
The UK has had so many deaths, because of the mind blowingly stupid policy of moving old people of of hospitals and in to care homes, bringing the virus with them.
Sweden has more heard immunity because of the policy of letting schools and businesses stay open so the the healthy chaldran and working age people who very very relay die form the virus get it and become immune.
If that is the Swedish plan, then they have failed both at getting enough young people infected to gain herd immunity, and at protecting their elderly.
I think Sweden may well show that social control measures have only a modest effect on the size of an epidemic peak. I think that is what the redacted bits of the SAGE documents said.
The Swedish althoratys have admitted that they have failed to properly protect the elderly in care homes in the early days and that is where most of the deaths have come form, (ether in the homes or hospital from people who came form homes) but now they have better practises in place the number of theses sad cases is drooping.
The number of young people getting them is not a static thing it is an ongoing process, that will take many months, they are increasing at perhaps 0.5% of the population a day so it till take another 3 to 5 months, as a back of an envelope calculation
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
Isn't the point rather you need infection rates of around 80% to achieve herd immunity?
Infection rate of 26% will not achieve herd immunity, in fact you'll end up with the worst of all worlds?
The herd immunity threshold with Covid-19 is 29–74% because R0 lies between 1.4 and 3.9. Source, Wiki. edit: critical proportion for herd immunity = 1 - 1/R0.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
So why are infection rates in Stockholm going down?
Because they've been observing a de facto lockdown.
Who could have forecast that today given the government's mixed messaging?
Maybe it's just the weather. Tomorrow will be freezing by comparison with today: it'll be interesting to see if the number of people venturing outside is much smaller.
Much less warm up here in Northumberland than yesterday. Extremely quiet out today. Yesterday was busier than at any time since the week before lockdown.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
So why are infection rates in Stockholm going down?
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
And he was also in one of the greatest films set in WWII!*
Always liked Niven, he's one of those people who I'd be hugely disappointed to find out that he was a shit, which hasn't happened so far (don't spoil it for me if anyone has evidence to support this proposition).
*It's not The Guns of Navarone though that's perfectly decent.
The Moons a Balloon is a good read. And I'm not a fan of actors autobiographies. Seemed a fascinating, modest and decent bloke.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
So why are infection rates in Stockholm going down?
I think it in the nature of epidemics that a wave burns itself out in 3-4 months, with some endemic disease smouldering away afterwards.
Funny how all these people polled say god this coronavirus is dead scary, I couldn't possibly go back to work....what's that Bob, you are having a BBQ in the park, can you get us a pack of cold ones from the shop on the way, cheers, be with you in 10, just filling in this survey.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
So why are infection rates in Stockholm going down?
If most of the people not distancing (for whatever reason) have already caught it and those who are distancing carry on doing so, the spread will slow?
Its basically a factor of 2 difference between my estimate and the flu jab, not 4, isn't it? 14 million in 3 months is 200k a day, I went with 100k a day. Brilliant.
So, yeah, months to administer fully.
Now, that doesn't rule out targeted vaccinations in certain risk groups etc
NHS staff and over 80's first
Over 70's and those with multiple conditions next
Over 60's and those with one condition next
Over 50's, over 40s, over 30's....etc, eventually.
You could get those first three tranches done in not many weeks. And you have protected the NHS form the worst of any second wave. Probably no need for Nightingale hospitals after that.
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
Funny how all these people polled say god this coronavirus is dead scary, I couldn't possibly go back to work....what's that Bob, you are having a BBQ in the park, can you get us a pack of cold ones from the shop on the way, cheers, be with you in 10, just filling in this survey.
Annoyingly (not really I suppose) I have been working all through the lockdown. No stop to drilling operations just because of a pesky bug. But the guys offshore have to really jump through hoops to try and keep the rig clear.
I have been hoping I might get me some of this lockdown downtime but no such luck.
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
And he was also in one of the greatest films set in WWII!*
Always liked Niven, he's one of those people who I'd be hugely disappointed to find out that he was a shit, which hasn't happened so far (don't spoil it for me if anyone has evidence to support this proposition).
*It's not The Guns of Navarone though that's perfectly decent.
The Moons a Balloon is a good read. And I'm not a fan of actors autobiographies. Seemed a fascinating, modest and decent bloke.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
Nah, does Boris Johnson want to be known as the PM that willingly allowed the preventable deaths of circa 150,000 Brits?
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
And he was also in one of the greatest films set in WWII!*
Always liked Niven, he's one of those people who I'd be hugely disappointed to find out that he was a shit, which hasn't happened so far (don't spoil it for me if anyone has evidence to support this proposition).
*It's not The Guns of Navarone though that's perfectly decent.
It is interesting that he returned to the UK against the advice of the British embassy in the US which was advising all British actors to stay put in America.
For anyone interested in that sort of thing, some remarkable colour footage of Germany at the end if the war. Probably a consequence of the very muted dubbed on sound, but everyone looks like their tiptoeing around for fear of waking something or someone up.
There was a very good documentary series about 5 US film directors - including George Stevens who shot this - and how the war affected them. John Ford of Western fame was on Midway when it was attacked and carried on filming.
Holywood had a pretty good war, with an apparent bias to the USAAF (Stewart, Gable & Palance off the top of my head). Always a disappointment to me that the Duke was a bit of chickenhawk.
David Niven always impressed me on that score. He was safely ensconced in Hollywood when the war broke out in 1939 but immediately went back to Britain and joined the Commandos serving with their special reconnaissance unit in command of A Squadron.
He took time off to make two films during the war, both designed to help the war effort including The First of the Few which is a brilliant film. After filming he returned to the front lines and served in Normandy with his unit often operating behind enemy lines.
My favourite is Richard Todd who participated in the assault on Pegasus Bridge on D-Day and then went on to play the commander of that mission (Major Howard) in The Longest Day.
I believe there’s a scene in that film where Todd is with a fellow officer surrounded by sandbags, just as the relief force arrives at the bridge, where Todd is playing Howard and the actor next to him is actually playing Todd(!)
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
There seems to be plenty of social distancing happening in that picture.
So what are we left with ?
Some people in an urban environment are sitting in a park.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
That depends upon R.
And it will reduce the risk.
We know that the R of covid-19 is somewhere near 3 in normal situations, only dropping significantly with social distancing measures, or test and isolate policies.
I don't believe that Sweden has an infection rate 10 times its neighbours. If it did it would have had many more deaths.
But R will not be in normal situations as various amounts of social distancing, hand washing and self isolation will be taking places.
I think it reasonable to consider which of the lockdown measures have been most effective at flattening the curve, and to do a cost benefit analysis of these.
Consideration of other matters to do with testing policy, contact tracing and isolation is the other big question, as these are the realistic alternatives to severe social control measures, and also the exit strategy.
It is not just about numbers. A testing policy needs to test the right people at the right time and then act on these results. I think we have comprehensively failed at this. To me the March 11th decision to stop testing was incomprehensible.
I am not a supporter of the "have symptoms? then don't go near health services" policy either. Early assessment is a key to better outcomes in my opinion.
Funny how all these people polled say god this coronavirus is dead scary, I couldn't possibly go back to work....what's that Bob, you are having a BBQ in the park, can you get us a pack of cold ones from the shop on the way, cheers, be with you in 10, just filling in this survey.
Annoyingly (not really I suppose) I have been working all through the lockdown. No stop to drilling operations just because of a pesky bug. But the guys offshore have to really jump through hoops to try and keep the rig clear.
I have been hoping I might get me some of this lockdown downtime but no such luck.
I've never been busier, dammit!
Then again the wheels of international finance need constant oiling I suppose. Not your sort of oil.
Stochastic has a specific technical meaning in physical science/numerical methods.
Witless probably is the mot juste, you are right. I don't mind hacks not knowing what stochastic means but it really ought to have been obvious this was a technical or jargon word. Shades of Bernard and Sir Humphrey trying to explain meta-dioxin by parsing meta as a Latin or Greek term rather than a chemical one.
that is a great example. like it.
It would help if science were bolder about naming things in some other way than finding a vaguely analogous word in ancient Greek. Gas and quark are excellent names for instance.
[though I believe "gas" is partly based on "chaos"].
Charm and strangeness aren’t helping...
hadron is Greek, charm Latin or French, strangeness Latin to French to middle English.
The word “hadron” was taken from the Greek, yes, but charm and strangeness are perfectly well known and used words in English, used in particle Physics in a fairly different way to the normal. The problem being discussed was having words which have a particular meaning in one context (stochastic was the example) and trying to work out what the technical meaning must be from the normal one (or the derivation from Latin or Greek if appropriate). How many here who don’t have a science background would be able to explain what I mean when I say that “Strangeness is not conserved in a weak interaction”?
I don't think we are disagreeing about anything, except that stochastic in its original meaning is actually a perfectly good metaphor for its meaning in statistics - as good a metaphor as monte carlo simulation, anyway - shooting an arrow at a target vs putting a stake on 17. The problem here is that Hitchens is pretending to think that just guessing is the same as having multiple guesses and testing what the consequences would be.
But of course the Monte Carlo method isn't a matter of averaging multiple "guesses". Mathematical modelling isn't the same as "guessing".
Sure. But random or pseudo random inputs are probably, from the Hitchens pov, even worse than guessing.
Monte Carlo can mean anything from just using a simuated random sample, to converging to good estimates of posterior probability distributions with many interacting inputs.
The good monte carlo algorithms are a very very long way from just guessing.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
I have no idea if that is a correct figure (we need accurate serum antibody testing for that), but:
A ) 26% is too low for herd immunity unless R<1.25, which requires considerable social distancing.
B ) The rate outside Stockholm County is much lower than 26%.
The whole "Swedish experiment" is so politicised, both by Swedes who have waged their careers on it, and non-Swedes who want to justify their own position, that I think it unlikely to give a clear outcome. Not until reviewed in the history books anyway.</p>
Yes, we do not know the immunity rate, but the Swedish heath athoratys are the ones whoa re best able to estimate it.
1) By my maths R needs to be below 1.35 to have transition below 1
2) I think the avareage for the nation is 20% so yes less than 26% outside Stockholm.
and Yes so many people have staked there reputation on both sides that the arguments will be bitter and whatever the results, lots of people will be saying yes but XXXX had a big impact.
And also if a vaccine is developed in the next few months Sweden will/might look like the wrong disition, but with that caviate out the way, It is IMHO the way we should have gone.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I recall that early results from the NE in 2015 were rather good for Labour with much bigger swings than occurred nationally - though the opposite did happen in 2017. Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 and 2017 than it had been in 1983 - or even as far back as 1959! There was a general concensus that seats such as Putney and Battersea had moved away from Labour - and that the Tories were only likely to lose them in landslide Labour years such as 1997 and 2001. That view appeared to be confirmed when the Tories won back Putney in 2005 and came very close in Battersea. No longer though.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
Isn't the point rather you need infection rates of around 80% to achieve herd immunity?
Infection rate of 26% will not achieve herd immunity, in fact you'll end up with the worst of all worlds?
I disagree,
the higher the level of infection the lower the rate of transition, yes 80%+ would be required if there was no change in people behaviour at all, but 26% (or whatever Stockholm has, does appear to be sufficient to bring Stockholm to a R number of less than 1, given the behaviour in Stockholm at them moment.
As more people start to go to bars and so on the transition rate will increase, but that will be balanced to some extent by the increasing immunity, there is no guarantee that theses will exactly balance, but I would suggest, less risk of a spike, than suddenly changing the rules in a contrary that has been on lock down.
As to worst of both woulds, no I think the opposite, the death rate is relay a proportion of the very old and ill who have got it, and not real replanted to the general transition in population.
Therefor is the old and ill do there best to stay safe, while the rest of the population gradually take more risks and get infected gradually then Sweden can/will:
1) Get to heard immunity and be safe from a new wave of infections. 2) Have a lower overall death rate then other nations. 3) Not have trashed there economy to any where like the extent it has elsewhere.
Time will tell, but I think they have the right approach.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
More to the point, why should Sweden have more immunity than the UK, when the UK has had more deaths as a percentage of population (on the official figures)?
The UK has had so many deaths, because of the mind blowingly stupid policy of moving old people of of hospitals and in to care homes, bringing the virus with them.
That makes no sense at all. Even before the UK numbers included deaths outside hospitals, there were 40% more deaths per head of population in the UK than in Sweden.
I don't believe for a moment that a larger percentage of the Swedish population than of the British has been infected.
Funny how all these people polled say god this coronavirus is dead scary, I couldn't possibly go back to work....what's that Bob, you are having a BBQ in the park, can you get us a pack of cold ones from the shop on the way, cheers, be with you in 10, just filling in this survey.
Annoyingly (not really I suppose) I have been working all through the lockdown. No stop to drilling operations just because of a pesky bug. But the guys offshore have to really jump through hoops to try and keep the rig clear.
I have been hoping I might get me some of this lockdown downtime but no such luck.
I've never been busier, dammit!
Then again the wheels of international finance need constant oiling I suppose. Not your sort of oil.
Ditto, I have never been busier.
I thought I'd save around 2.5 hours a day in commuting but that's been gobbled up with extra work.
So, if/when London's numbers don't shoot up in 7 - 14 days do we get the Swedes on the phone?
Most look young (this has been noticeable around here too, I'm talking thirties, maybe forties, and under). So they will maybe get ill, some a bit serious, but they will then take it to their place of work or to a relative and so on.
It's like a game of pass the parcel, sooner or later the music stops and someone gets it.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
At current rates of infection, there is no way that Sweden has any more herd immunity than us. Depending on the amount of asymptomatc disease, we either both have it or neither do.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
25% is no where near even half what you need for herd immunity.
So why are infection rates in Stockholm going down?
If most of the people not distancing (for whatever reason) have already caught it and those who are distancing carry on doing so, the spread will slow?
Good question, as I understand it, like elsewhere people are slowly beginning to take more risks, mostly that is amongst young and healthy people, so it will depend on the rate at which they come out.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I recall that early results from the NE in 2015 were rather good for Labour with much bigger swings than occurred nationally - though the opposite did happen in 2017. Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 and 2017 than it had been in 1983 - or even as far back as 1959! There was a general concensus that seats such as Putney and Battersea had moved away from Labour - and that the Tories were only likely to lose them in landslide Labour years such as 1997 and 2001. That view appeared to be confirmed when the Tories won back Putney in 2005 and came very close in Battersea. No longer though.
In 2015 Labour gained Ealing, Brentford, Enfield N and Ilford N (Conservative in 2005) plus Lancaster, Chester, Hove, Wirral W and Wolverhampton SW from the Conservatives - a pretty urban, middle class bunch.
Whereas Conservative gains from Labour included Morley, Telford, Bolton W, Southampton Itchen and Plymouth Moor View - a rather more different group.
And to say that Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 (tiny Conservative majority) and 2017 (no Conservative majority) rather than in Conservative landslide years proves nothing - Labour had a majority in Grimsby of over 8k in 1987 by comparison.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
More to the point, why should Sweden have more immunity than the UK, when the UK has had more deaths as a percentage of population (on the official figures)?
Unless you can target the virus at low risk groups the price of immunity by infection rather than vaccine is approximately 3,000 deaths per million of population.
I have recently been commenting on the failing health of my son in laws father (87) who has been prevented from going into care or hospital despite multiple health issues and falls. His wife is in dementia care and he has not seen her since february
His falls became so serious, often several a day, that his doctor undertook a health review and managed to find a care home for him. He had a covid test and once clear was admitted into care last wednesday
Yesterday he fell in the care home pulling out his catheter and the paramedics decided to admit him from the care home into A & E. Eventually he was admitted onto a ward and his family were told the nurse in charge of him would phone his family today with an update
The phone call this lunchtime by the nurse confirmed he was on the 'red ward' (covid) after coming through A & E. They said he was having another test for covid and the result should be to hand tomorrow, following which he will remain on red ward, or be placed on amber or green wards. She said that he was having problems with his bowels this morning and when they were not looking he got up and promptly fell across the ward
Furthermore, they had no idea about the catheter or his early dementia as A & E had not sent on his notes. She said that the catheter will be inserted and that a nurse will be at his bedside as long as he was on the ward
She did say that once he is well enough he will be scheduled to be sent back to care but only after another test
When we all discuss these matters I do think we tend to be rather superficial and partisan and I am sure few of us realise the practical difficulties between care and hospitals or hospital and care homes
It is complex, and very worrying for families because they cannot see or communicate with their loved ones
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
It depends on the R0 number - at a low enough R0 number 26% would be very significant.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I accept the reality of the demographic trend - and that is likely to continue. It is the dramatic shift over a short period which I am not persuaded is permanent.I find it reminiscent of the big swings to Labour in Kent and Essex in the elections of 1997 & 2001. Seats such as Siitingbourne, Thanet South,Bexleyheath, Medway and Harwich have reverted to being safely Tory. Also worth pointing out that some areas which had returned Tories within living memory in the North East failed to do so in 2019. Sunderland South was Tory-held until 1964 and Tynemouth only fell in 1997 for the first time.
Urban areas have trended leftwards while conurbation sprawl areas have trended rightwards.
Which is why Doncaster was Conservative in the 1950s and Don Valley Labour while the opposite happened in 2019.
Doncaster was a single seat represented by Anthony Barber until 1964 - but the boundaries were very different.
Barber's Doncaster constituency was very similar to the current Doncaster Central.
The factors which have shifted the constituency leftwards can be seen in urban areas across the country - public sector middle classes shifting leftwards, private sector middle classes moving out, big houses being turned into bedsits, increasing non-white population, increasing students.
I am not sure that explains what has happened in seats such as Battersea and Wandsworth where gentrification in the 80s and 90s was said to be driving those seats away from Labour. Nor am I sure that Reading East , Bristol NW , Warwick & Leamington, Enfield Southgate , Portsmouth South fit that pattern either. More generally, I am not denying the trend in many Red Wall areas , which can indeed be seen over an extended period, but rather questioning why a sudden anti-Labour pro -Tory swing should happen on such a massive scale in 2019 . Why were those former Labour voters so more alienated in 2019 compared with 2017 or 2015?
I would imagine that all of those constituencies are significantly more non-white than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
I recall that early results from the NE in 2015 were rather good for Labour with much bigger swings than occurred nationally - though the opposite did happen in 2017. Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 and 2017 than it had been in 1983 - or even as far back as 1959! There was a general concensus that seats such as Putney and Battersea had moved away from Labour - and that the Tories were only likely to lose them in landslide Labour years such as 1997 and 2001. That view appeared to be confirmed when the Tories won back Putney in 2005 and came very close in Battersea. No longer though.
In 2015 Labour gained Ealing, Brentford, Enfield N and Ilford N (Conservative in 2005) plus Lancaster, Chester, Hove, Wirral W and Wolverhampton SW from the Conservatives - a pretty urban, middle class bunch.
Whereas Conservative gains from Labour included Morley, Telford, Bolton W, Southampton Itchen and Plymouth Moor View - a rather more different group.
And to say that Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 (tiny Conservative majority) and 2017 (no Conservative majority) rather than in Conservative landslide years proves nothing - Labour had a majority in Grimsby of over 8k in 1987 by comparison.
The Tory popular vote lead in 2015 was bigger than in 1959!
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
No, I just disagree with you.
There is disagreeing and there is advocating a policy which you accept will kill 150,000 people. That was the premise of my comment and that was what you agreed was acceptable. That is what is insane.
The current Government policy is also going to kill thousands of people (lost cancer referrals and treatments, deferred medical consultation, a lower tax base leading to a lower quality and less well funded health service) and will ruin the education and livelihoods of millions of young people. Possibly for good. These all need to weigh in the education.
Please don't talk to me about insanity just because I've made a different judgment on priorities than you.
So you dismiss the Swedish government clams that 26% of people in Stockholm have had the virus at some point?
Isn't the point rather you need infection rates of around 80% to achieve herd immunity?
Infection rate of 26% will not achieve herd immunity, in fact you'll end up with the worst of all worlds?
I disagree,
the higher the level of infection the lower the rate of transition, yes 80%+ would be required if there was no change in people behaviour at all, but 26% (or whatever Stockholm has, does appear to be sufficient to bring Stockholm to a R number of less than 1, given the behaviour in Stockholm at them moment.
As more people start to go to bars and so on the transition rate will increase, but that will be balanced to some extent by the increasing immunity, there is no guarantee that theses will exactly balance, but I would suggest, less risk of a spike, than suddenly changing the rules in a contrary that has been on lock down.
As to worst of both woulds, no I think the opposite, the death rate is relay a proportion of the very old and ill who have got it, and not real replanted to the general transition in population.
Therefor is the old and ill do there best to stay safe, while the rest of the population gradually take more risks and get infected gradually then Sweden can/will:
1) Get to heard immunity and be safe from a new wave of infections. 2) Have a lower overall death rate then other nations. 3) Not have trashed there economy to any where like the extent it has elsewhere.
Time will tell, but I think they have the right approach.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
More to the point, why should Sweden have more immunity than the UK, when the UK has had more deaths as a percentage of population (on the official figures)?
The UK has had so many deaths, because of the mind blowingly stupid policy of moving old people of of hospitals and in to care homes, bringing the virus with them.
That makes no sense at all. Even before the UK numbers included deaths outside hospitals, there were 40% more deaths per head of population in the UK than in Sweden.
I don't believe for a moment that a larger percentage of the Swedish population than of the British has been infected.
Why? serisoe question, don't you believe that?
The diferance in age vanrabilaty in this virus is shocking,
looking at the numbers who have dies in the different age cohorts, then the virus is between 1,000 to 10,000 more leathal to an over 80 as to an under 40.
To me this is like being toled that the enemy tanks have 1 meter think armer at the front and only 1 mm think armer at the sides, and not saying 'lets try to get around the sides and shoot there'.
my parents are late 70s and late 80s they are sensibly staying at home, but every day this goes on is a day they could fall over and brake an arm and need to go in to hospital, which at the moment would be very risky for them. meanwhile I am stuck at home, with my wife. and based on our good health, would have a perhaps 1 in 100,000 change of dying if we got it. Let me take the risk so my parents don't have to.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
That's not true because the Swedish strategy is to avoid further waves of the virus. You can't compare the number/rate of deaths at the moment when all countries are still in the first wave.
It is true because you are ignoring basic human nature. If we had 150,000 deaths in 3 or 4 months then forget about elections, they would be dragging the politicians out of Westminster at the head of a torch lit parade.
Im not sure that’s true. Arguably that should be happening now and I don’t get the sense that there is all that much anger.
Because the public know that the mistakes that have been made are just that - mistakes. The advice was that even with lockdown we would lose 20,000 people. We have exceeded that because of errors by the Government as well as the basic difficulty in predicting these things precisely but no one has seriously suggested the Government set out on a policy to kill those people deliberately. A policy of herd immunity such as is supposedly being advocated by those supporting the Swedish plan would be exactly that. The deliberate killing of 150,000 people - all of them someone's loved one - for the 'greater good'. And all against the background of other countries having a 10th of that number of deaths by following a different policy.
You honestly think people would sit back and just let that happen?
There is no deliberate killing going on.
Hyberbolic language like that doesn't help advance your case.
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
No. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile, give them a mile and they'll take a tour of the city.
No-one. The Government heavily trailed that going outside and having a picnic or sunbathing is ok (which indeed, objectively, it is) so people are doing so.
Rather than picking on and harassing people the police should be monitoring total numbers in parks only and just checking groups are not mixing together in groups of more than 4-6 with officers on the beat and wardens.
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
No. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile, give them a mile and they'll take a tour of the city.
I don't agree with this.
People understand it's serious and are willing to be taken on a sensible proportionate journey.
But, if they're treated like children, they will take matters into their own hands and the Government will lose control.
No-one. The Government heavily trailed that going outside and having a picnic or sunbathing is ok (which indeed, objectively, it is) so people are doing so.
Rather than picking on and harassing people the police should be monitoring total numbers in parks only and just checking groups are not mixing together in groups of more than 4-6 with officers on the beat and wardens.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
I would have taken those terms.
In that case you are genuinely insane.
I repeat: the point of the Swedish approach is to avoid further waves of the virus. All other countries are likely to have further peaks whereas Sweden is not thanks to herd immunity.
How does 20% give herd immunity, all the experts said 80% so it appears they are avoiding nothing.
More to the point, why should Sweden have more immunity than the UK, when the UK has had more deaths as a percentage of population (on the official figures)?
Unless you can target the virus at low risk groups the price of immunity by infection rather than vaccine is approximately 3,000 deaths per million of population.
Does there come a point with a government where it's so embarrassingly obvious that no one gives a f*** what they're saying that they decide to cut their losses and go with the flow?
No-one. The Government heavily trailed that going outside and having a picnic or sunbathing is ok (which indeed, objectively, it is) so people are doing so.
Rather than picking on and harassing people the police should be monitoring total numbers in parks only and just checking groups are not mixing together in groups of more than 4-6 with officers on the beat and wardens.
Its basically a factor of 2 difference between my estimate and the flu jab, not 4, isn't it? 14 million in 3 months is 200k a day, I went with 100k a day. Brilliant.
So, yeah, months to administer fully.
Now, that doesn't rule out targeted vaccinations in certain risk groups etc
NHS staff and over 80's first
Over 70's and those with multiple conditions next
Over 60's and those with one condition next
Over 50's, over 40s, over 30's....etc, eventually.
You could get those first three tranches done in not many weeks. And you have protected the NHS form the worst of any second wave. Probably no need for Nightingale hospitals after that.
In amongst NHS staff and over 80's, you need to do people in institutions, so care homes obviously, but psychiatric hospitals and etc too, who have a large number of elderly people, maybe with dementia, in amongst younger people, often with comorbid conditions, learning disabilities , a hug spread of vulnerable groups, also homeless hostels. Who all should have been first in line for testing really, more so than the frontline staff who are exposed continually and are around patients who are already in the best place to have covid.
Swedish egghead - ours is a workable long term strategy. Lockdown isn't feasible. Working vaccine for so far in the future, need a sustainable strategy to be maintained over the course of years.
IF they are right, I really fear for our media class. They will have a mental breakdown in trying to come to terms with the horrible reality of the situation.
If they are right it would unfortunately still not have been a course we could have followed. They have had death rates probably 5 times of what they would have had with lockdown and there is no way that the Government would have survived 150,000+ deaths. We would simply have ended up in lockdown much later but with many more dead.
I really really hope the Swedes are right that this was the best way for their country. But it needs a small population and the willingness to have significant 'necessary' deaths to make it work as an experiment.
That's not true because the Swedish strategy is to avoid further waves of the virus. You can't compare the number/rate of deaths at the moment when all countries are still in the first wave.
It is true because you are ignoring basic human nature. If we had 150,000 deaths in 3 or 4 months then forget about elections, they would be dragging the politicians out of Westminster at the head of a torch lit parade.
Im not sure that’s true. Arguably that should be happening now and I don’t get the sense that there is all that much anger.
Because the public know that the mistakes that have been made are just that - mistakes. The advice was that even with lockdown we would lose 20,000 people. We have exceeded that because of errors by the Government as well as the basic difficulty in predicting these things precisely but no one has seriously suggested the Government set out on a policy to kill those people deliberately. A policy of herd immunity such as is supposedly being advocated by those supporting the Swedish plan would be exactly that. The deliberate killing of 150,000 people - all of them someone's loved one - for the 'greater good'. And all against the background of other countries having a 10th of that number of deaths by following a different policy.
You honestly think people would sit back and just let that happen?
There is no deliberate killing going on.
Hyberbolic language like that doesn't help advance your case.
What you are advocating is deliberate killing. It is in no way hyperbolic to describe a policy of allowing 150,000 people to die who would otherwise survive as anything other than deliberate killing.
Comments
Timber.......more magic money tree incoming...
Like James Stewart, he seems to be one of the genuine good guys.
The number of young people getting them is not a static thing it is an ongoing process, that will take many months, they are increasing at perhaps 0.5% of the population a day so it till take another 3 to 5 months, as a back of an envelope calculation
edit: critical proportion for herd immunity = 1 - 1/R0.
Yesterday was busier than at any time since the week before lockdown.
https://twitter.com/MPSHackney/status/1259128381452533761
They would also tend to have more students and lower home ownership now.
It should also be noted that generally the old industrial areas didn't only swing to the Conservatives in 2019 but also had done in 2017, 2015, 2010 and in some cases all the way back to 1979.
Over 70's and those with multiple conditions next
Over 60's and those with one condition next
Over 50's, over 40s, over 30's....etc, eventually.
You could get those first three tranches done in not many weeks. And you have protected the NHS form the worst of any second wave. Probably no need for Nightingale hospitals after that.
I have been hoping I might get me some of this lockdown downtime but no such luck.
#withdrawal
So I doubt it will be a general game-changer although it might be for some individually.
So what are we left with ?
Some people in an urban environment are sitting in a park.
Consideration of other matters to do with testing policy, contact tracing and isolation is the other big question, as these are the realistic alternatives to severe social control measures, and also the exit strategy.
It is not just about numbers. A testing policy needs to test the right people at the right time and then act on these results. I think we have comprehensively failed at this. To me the March 11th decision to stop testing was incomprehensible.
I am not a supporter of the "have symptoms? then don't go near health services" policy either. Early assessment is a key to better outcomes in my opinion.
Then again the wheels of international finance need constant oiling I suppose. Not your sort of oil.
The good monte carlo algorithms are a very very long way from just guessing.
1) By my maths R needs to be below 1.35 to have transition below 1
2) I think the avareage for the nation is 20% so yes less than 26% outside Stockholm.
and Yes so many people have staked there reputation on both sides that the arguments will be bitter and whatever the results, lots of people will be saying yes but XXXX had a big impact.
And also if a vaccine is developed in the next few months Sweden will/might look like the wrong disition, but with that caviate out the way, It is IMHO the way we should have gone.
There was a general concensus that seats such as Putney and Battersea had moved away from Labour - and that the Tories were only likely to lose them in landslide Labour years such as 1997 and 2001. That view appeared to be confirmed when the Tories won back Putney in 2005 and came very close in Battersea. No longer though.
I don't believe for a moment that a larger percentage of the Swedish population than of the British has been infected.
I thought I'd save around 2.5 hours a day in commuting but that's been gobbled up with extra work.
It's like a game of pass the parcel, sooner or later the music stops and someone gets it.
Whereas Conservative gains from Labour included Morley, Telford, Bolton W, Southampton Itchen and Plymouth Moor View - a rather more different group.
And to say that Grimsby was more Labour in 2015 (tiny Conservative majority) and 2017 (no Conservative majority) rather than in Conservative landslide years proves nothing - Labour had a majority in Grimsby of over 8k in 1987 by comparison.
His falls became so serious, often several a day, that his doctor undertook a health review and managed to find a care home for him. He had a covid test and once clear was admitted into care last wednesday
Yesterday he fell in the care home pulling out his catheter and the paramedics decided to admit him from the care home into A & E. Eventually he was admitted onto a ward and his family were told the nurse in charge of him would phone his family today with an update
The phone call this lunchtime by the nurse confirmed he was on the 'red ward' (covid) after coming through A & E. They said he was having another test for covid and the result should be to hand tomorrow, following which he will remain on red ward, or be placed on amber or green wards. She said that he was having problems with his bowels this morning and when they were not looking he got up and promptly fell across the ward
Furthermore, they had no idea about the catheter or his early dementia as A & E had not sent on his notes. She said that the catheter will be inserted and that a nurse will be at his bedside as long as he was on the ward
She did say that once he is well enough he will be scheduled to be sent back to care but only after another test
When we all discuss these matters I do think we tend to be rather superficial and partisan and I am sure few of us realise the practical difficulties between care and hospitals or hospital and care homes
It is complex, and very worrying for families because they cannot see or communicate with their loved ones
NEW THREAD
Please don't talk to me about insanity just because I've made a different judgment on priorities than you.
The diferance in age vanrabilaty in this virus is shocking,
looking at the numbers who have dies in the different age cohorts, then the virus is between 1,000 to 10,000 more leathal to an over 80 as to an under 40.
To me this is like being toled that the enemy tanks have 1 meter think armer at the front and only 1 mm think armer at the sides, and not saying 'lets try to get around the sides and shoot there'.
my parents are late 70s and late 80s they are sensibly staying at home, but every day this goes on is a day they could fall over and brake an arm and need to go in to hospital, which at the moment would be very risky for them. meanwhile I am stuck at home, with my wife. and based on our good health, would have a perhaps 1 in 100,000 change of dying if we got it. Let me take the risk so my parents don't have to.
This only progresses in one direction now. If the Government does attempt to reimpose a tighter lockdown then it won't work.
Hyberbolic language like that doesn't help advance your case.
My twitter is full of people fuming (or enjoying judging) lots of others due to shoddy camera angles.
We all know how deceptive that can be:
Rather than picking on and harassing people the police should be monitoring total numbers in parks only and just checking groups are not mixing together in groups of more than 4-6 with officers on the beat and wardens.
People understand it's serious and are willing to be taken on a sensible proportionate journey.
But, if they're treated like children, they will take matters into their own hands and the Government will lose control.