Coronavirus: Why Sweden is probably doing things the right way

I have pointed out that Sweden is not going full nuts and yet deaths are much lower than the UK [LINK].

The Daily Mail reports ‘Half of Sweden’s population could be infected by coronavirus in April, statistician warns’ [LINK]. It reports that Sweden has now ONLY 282. While this is almost 3 times as many as what I first reported on 30th March 2020 [LINK], it is still low next to the UK.

My understanding of what Sweden has done is allow those who are healthy to get the virus, as it is presumed they will be fine, while isolating the vulnerable.

What has happened in the UK seems to have been a full lock-down of everybody including the healthy.

It seems to have no logic to lock-down the healthy in the UK, as all this seems to have done is crush the economy. We are told that it is to stop the NHS from having too many people go into hospital, but one presumes hardly any healthy person would need to go into hospital.

My feeling is, the UK has based its conclusions on the report by Imperial College London [LINK]. My reading (and I may have read it completely wrong) is that the report treats everybody as one group and as such the death rate is the same for both healthy and unhealthy.

We seem to be putting great efforts into preventing healthy people getting the virus for no reason at all.

The danger comes if we get a more deadly wave of the virus [LINK] and people have not got vaccines or immunity.

We shall see if over the next few months if the Swedish model/approach works best, by (1) the death rate, and (2) how quickly it goes from Sweden.

By letting the virus spread, one presumes it will burn out quickly in Sweden. This in theory, reduce deaths, and the vulnerable should be exposed less time to the possibility of getting the virus.

If the death rate is lower or indeed is the same as the UK, the Swedish model, will have been proved to be correct, as they will with luck not have stuffed there economy. It may even be that if the death rate is higher than the UK in percentage terms, then it still may have been seen it, as worth it, if it saves Swedish economy.

However we must also factor into account that, we will find other deaths too to take into account. For instance, how many will die from not being diagnosed in time from such as cancer, or not getting the correct cancer treatment. Deaths too from people killing themselves, as they cannot cope in isolation /and loosing jobs and so on. Not to mention deaths from domestic abuse.

The BBC has posted an interesting article ‘Is coronavirus causing the deaths?’ [LINK].

Most people who die with coronavirus have an underlying health condition, such as heart disease or diabetes, that may be more of a factor.

For example, an 18-year-old in Coventry tested positive for coronavirus the day before he died and was reported as its youngest victim at the time.

But the hospital subsequently released a statement saying his death had been due to a separate “significant” health condition and not connected to the virus.

While some are reported not to have health conditions, one should not presume they have no health conditions, as one would need to do a full autopsy to know (or at least that is my understanding).

The article quotes Imperial College London modelling, as it is used to inform government.

Imperial College London modelling, used to inform government, has suggested 500,000 could have died by August in the UK if the virus was left to rip through the population.

It also warned the government’s previous strategy to slow the spread by asking those with symptoms to self-isolate and shield the most vulnerable could have led to 250,000 deaths.

Now, it is hoped the lockdown will limit deaths to 20,000.

But that does not mean 480,000 lives are being saved – many will die whether or not they get the virus.

Every year, about 600,000 people in the UK die. And the frail and elderly are most at risk, just as they are if they have coronavirus.

The question I would be interested in, is, did they feel that a full lock-down was needed, or simply to isolate the vulnerable.

The next question I would be interested in, is how many deaths do they expect from healthy people?

Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

Clearly this would defeat the lock-down ideology if this becomes the case.

It would also mean we would see deaths from healthy people who would have lived many years.

This entry was posted in jackhorny. Bookmark the permalink.