Denmark and Sweden: An apples to apples comparison

[Yard sale]

[S209]

Once again, you seem to be ignoring the apples to apples part of this thread title.

I also noticed you didn’t include the 90% of countries around the world performing significantly better in your little chart.

[S209]

I have an idea. Put the other Nordic countries on that chart, and see which of them hangs out on top over there with Sweden and which are way below that black line across the bottom. That’s apples to apples.

[Yard sale]

I have an idea. Put the other Nordic countries on that chart, and see which of them hangs out on top over there with Sweden and which are way below that black line across the bottom. That’s apples to apples.

Not my chart. By all means go for it.

[S209]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/did-sweden-make-the-right-call-on-limiting-its-lockdown/2020/05/18/7ac732ac-96d9-11ea-91d7-cf4423d47683_story.html

[skyguy918]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

[S209]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

Crazy. Thanks for posting!

[Yard sale]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus-intl/index.html

“Sweden's percentage of people with antibodies is not far off that of other countries that did enforce lockdowns. In Spain, 5% of people had developed coronavirus antibodies by May 14, according to preliminary results of an epidemiological study by the government”

Hmm.... say that again? Sweden stayed open and 7% developed antibodies. Other countries locked up and still got close to 7% of the population with antibodies. Doesn’t this demonstrate that the lockdown was ineffective since the same percentage were exposed to the virus in the same period of time??

And if the exposure was identical how do you explain increased deaths in Sweden unless the numbers are an aberration as some want to claim by comparing Sweden to the hard hit Belgium? Something doesn’t add up. Logic says if you have increased exposure you have increased prevalence. Either the antibody numbers are off, or you have to go out on a limb and make  the claim that many got infected without ever developing antibodies. If so we would be seeing massive amounts or second time infections, unless one developes immunity without measurable antibodies. That would make the point of this article moot. Either way there is some glaringly faulty logic somewhere.

[S209]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus-intl/index.html

“Sweden's percentage of people with antibodies is not far off that of other countries that did enforce lockdowns. In Spain, 5% of people had developed coronavirus antibodies by May 14, according to preliminary results of an epidemiological study by the government”

Hmm.... say that again? Sweden stayed open and 7% developed antibodies. Other countries locked up and still got close to 7% of the population with antibodies. Doesn’t this demonstrate that the lockdown was ineffective since the same percentage were exposed to the virus in the same period of time??

And if the exposure was identical how do you explain increased deaths in Sweden unless the numbers are an aberration as some want to claim by comparing Sweden to the hard hit Belgium? Something doesn’t add up. Logic says if you have increased exposure you have increased prevalence. Either the antibody numbers are off, or you have to go out on a limb and make  the claim that many got infected without ever developing antibodies. If so we would be seeing massive amounts or second time infections, unless one developes immunity without measurable antibodies. That would make the point of this article moot. Either way there is some glaringly faulty logic somewhere.

I didn’t even read through your post, or the article, because I see you doing something we’ve discussed many times once again.. don’t point to Spain and Belgium. Either use any random European country, not the few who didn’t lock down early, or use an actual apples to apples comparison. Do you think antibody levels in Denmark will be similar to Sweden? Because that is what this thread is about.

Spain was hit really hard, early on, well before lockdowns were a thing. Yet they still have a significantly lower antibody level percentage than Sweden.

ETA: Now I read your post and skimmed the article and see what you’re saying. Yes, the underlying sentiment of the article is self-contradictory.

[Yard sale]

I didn’t even read through your post, or the article, because I see you doing something we’ve discussed many times once again.. don’t point to Spain and Belgium. Either use any random European country, not the few who didn’t lock down early, or use an actual apples to apples comparison. Do you think antibody levels in Denmark will be similar to Sweden? Because that is what this thread is about.

Spain was hit really hard, early on, well before lockdowns were a thing. Yet they still have a significantly lower antibody level percentage than Sweden.

ETA: Now I read your post and skimmed the article and see what you’re saying. Yes, the underlying sentiment of the article is self-contradictory.

You can edit out your first two paragraphs:)

[Ergel]

Was just here to post this. So let me get this straight. Sweden failed because too many people died because too many people were infected AND not enough people developed antibodies because not enough people got infected LOL

[AsherO]

Was just here to post this. So let me get this straight. Sweden failed because too many people died because too many people were infected AND not enough people developed antibodies because not enough people got infected LOL

Precisely. So many people got infected that they have much higher death rate (per capita) than other similar countries. OTOH if their goal was herd immunity (which some goalpost-movers are claiming), they failed miserably.

Similar in NYC with 21.2% having antibodies (wish be had a more updated/accurate number on that by now).

[Yard sale]

Precisely. So many people got infected that they have much higher death rate (per capita) than other similar countries. OTOH if their goal was herd immunity (which some goalpost-movers are claiming), they failed miserably.

Similar in NYC with 21.2% having antibodies (wish be had a more updated/accurate number on that by now).

Yet the article touts the fact that other countries had almost just as many people with antibodies per capita as if that is a good thing (in other words people infected). How do you have it both ways?

[AsherO]

Yet the article touts the fact that other countries had almost just as many people with antibodies per capita as if that is a good thing (in other words people infected). How do you have it both ways?

That I can agree with you on, I didn’t read the article.

[Ergel]

Yet the article touts the fact that other countries had almost just as many people with antibodies per capita as if that is a good thing (in other words people infected). How do you have it both ways?

Exactly. I was a big proponent for a long time of stay at home orders, and I still think considering the data at the time it was the right move. But the more data that comes out, the more it seems (as hard as this is to understand) that they have very little effect.

What I believe now:
1. Stay at home orders have minimal effect because people are bad at following the rules
2. There is some serious regional differences effecting the spread and/or severity of the virus.
3. We really know very little how all of this works
4. Round 2 is inevitable and will likely be worse

I'm not sure what the correct course of action is based on the above, other than tefillah

[yuneeq]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus-intl/index.html

“Sweden's percentage of people with antibodies is not far off that of other countries that did enforce lockdowns. In Spain, 5% of people had developed coronavirus antibodies by May 14, according to preliminary results of an epidemiological study by the government”

Hmm.... say that again? Sweden stayed open and 7% developed antibodies. Other countries locked up and still got close to 7% of the population with antibodies. Doesn’t this demonstrate that the lockdown was ineffective since the same percentage were exposed to the virus in the same period of time??

And if the exposure was identical how do you explain increased deaths in Sweden unless the numbers are an aberration as some want to claim by comparing Sweden to the hard hit Belgium? Something doesn’t add up. Logic says if you have increased exposure you have increased prevalence. Either the antibody numbers are off, or you have to go out on a limb and make  the claim that many got infected without ever developing antibodies. If so we would be seeing massive amounts or second time infections, unless one developes immunity without measurable antibodies. That would make the point of this article moot. Either way there is some glaringly faulty logic somewhere.

I think it’s all explainable.

Lockdowns around the world are not full lockdowns. And Sweden, despite not locking down, still had many people that were practicing social distancing and being careful despite what the law said. (There’s actually plenty of evidence of this phenomenon in the US, where states were effectively in self-lockdown before any order was given from the governor.)

In addition, not all people are created alike. If I told you 30% of a specific demographic have antibodies, it makes a significant difference if that demographic consists of 30 year olds or if it consists of nursing home residents. I think what we are seeing is that in Sweden, many people are being careful, but more high risk people are putting themselves in high risk situations due to their policies. If Sweden’s antibody numbers went up from 6% to just 7% due to high risk people, it would explain all the deaths.

[S209]

Exactly. I was a big proponent for a long time of stay at home orders, and I still think considering the data at the time it was the right move. But the more data that comes out, the more it seems (as hard as this is to understand) that they have very little effect.

Which data has shown you that? There may be other strategies that work as well but where have you seen that early stay at home orders haven’t worked?

What I believe now:
1. Stay at home orders have minimal effect because people are bad at following the rules

Not a self evident truth. Stay at home orders early on have had a very dramatic effect on stunting spread, see Sweden vs. other Nordic countries. Still, they are not the way to go long term. Clear guidelines and targeted restrictions will need to be implemented instead.

2. There is some serious regional differences effecting the spread and/or severity of the virus.

That’s for sure, and armed with lots of that knowledge we can be smarter about what strategies we implement in fighting the spread.

3. We really know very little how all of this works

We still have many questions, but we have a good idea of how this spreads and how to stop it

4. Round 2 is inevitable and will likely be worse

It’s not inevitable in and of itself. It seems that if we return to normal than it will come back (as there is no immunity, so no reason it shouldn’t return as long as it exists) so our goal should be staying as safe as possible while we get back to ourselves, buying us time to see the trend early next time and in general lowering the R0 number to manageable non-pandemic proportions.

I'm not sure what the correct course of action is based on the above, other than tefillah

This is always true, all the more so in times like these. BH we have the zechus if tefillah betzibur going forward be”h!!

[Afrages6]

It seems that if we return to normal than it will come back (as there is no immunity, so no reason it shouldn’t return as long as it exists)

{citation needed}

It is actually seemingly more likely that more of the population is immune then we realize then it is that there as no immunity as you claim.

[S209]

It is actually seemingly more likely that more of the population is immune then we realize then it is that there as no immunity as you claim.

{citation needed}

[S209]

{citation needed}

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cent-of-stockholm-had-covid-19-antibodies-by-end-of-april-study-sweden-coronavirus