Reduction in social gatherings.

[DB]

No, we didn't reach that with a lockdown.

That doesn't mean that we can now stop making efforts to reduce spread and we'll be fine.

And there is no evidence that we would have reached it without a lockdown either.

And for various reason - increased general immunity, more hospital capacity, etc - the risk is now even lower. So the constant media / politician threats of lockdowns are unnecessary and damaging.

 

[Meerkat]

And there is no evidence that we would have reached it without a lockdown either.

And for various reason - increased general immunity, more hospital capacity, etc - the risk is now even lower. So the constant media / politician threats of lockdowns are unnecessary and damaging.

Do you have any evidence that a lockdown wasn’t needed. And no, I won’t accept “but Sweden!”

 

[Huntergreed]

Do you have any evidence that a lockdown wasn’t needed. And no, I won’t accept “but Sweden!”

Again, the onus isn’t on us to produce a negative, but on you to prove why it was needed.

Why won’t you accept Sweden, when they coped fine without one?

 

[Meerkat]

Again, the onus isn’t on us to produce a negative, but on you to prove why it was needed.

Why won’t you accept Sweden, when they coped fine without one?

Wrong, it’s on you to prove that the enormous drop in cases/deaths/hospitalisations wasn’t due to lockdown.
i won’t accept Sweden because it is one, very small, outlier.
If one friend touches the third rail and survives with almost no effect do you decide that touching the third rail is safe for everybody?

 

[Bantamzen]

Wrong, it’s on you to prove that the enormous drop in cases/deaths/hospitalisations wasn’t due to lockdown.
i won’t accept Sweden because it is one, very small, outlier.

An outlier it might be, but it is one that took a very different route, one that was widely condemned by lockdown supporters, yet ended up no worse.

If one friend touches the third rail and survives with almost no effect do you decide that touching the third rail is safe for everybody?

 

[AdamWW]

Again, the onus isn’t on us to produce a negative, but on you to prove why it was needed.

Why won’t you accept Sweden, when they coped fine without one?

Simple answer (actually I'm sure it won't be this simple and maybe I'm completely wrong - I'm no expert, but this is on the same level as most of this discussion):

Sweden acted when infection levels were low enough that getting R to 1 was all they needed to cope.

We acted when infection levels were much higher, and going straight to R=1 would have locked in an unacceptably high level of infections>hospitalisations>deaths.

So we needed a lockdown to knock infections down to a level at which we could cope.

The interesting thing is that now they're going up in the UK. But so far as I know not Sweden.

Some people are no doubt thinking "herd immunity".

But if we take deaths as a proxy for infection levels (gross oversimplifiction - apart from anything else depends on population age profile and how well you protect the vulnurable, though they didn't do well in care homes either) I find it hard to conclude they have a much larger percentage of the population infected than us.

An outlier it might be, but it is one that took a very different route, one that was widely condemned by lockdown supporters, yet ended up no worse.

Taking into account differences in infection levels when they started, what was so radically different about their route?

 

[Bantamzen]

Taking into account differences in infection levels when they started, what was so radically different about their route?

They didn't close large parts of the hospitality industry, they didn't (IIRC) mandate masks, they didn't send out "don't kill granny" messages, in fact they took a simple & calm approach, with the exception of the care homes which like us they got wrong which caused a significant proportion of the deaths.

 

[AdamWW]

They didn't close large parts of the hospitality industry, they didn't (IIRC) mandate masks, they didn't send out "don't kill granny" messages, in fact they took a simple & calm approach, with the exception of the care homes which like us they got wrong which caused a significant proportion of the deaths.

But their simple and calm approach did include telling everyone not to make any journeys unless essential, and to work at home.

I believe they are still telling people to work at home if they can and to avoid public transport (apart from long distance services with reserved seats and reduced capacity).

Yes we did have a stricter lockdown. I've given an explanation for why we may have needed it and they didn't.

I agree their approach was a lighter touch, but radically different? I'd buy that if they'd just said "Wash your hands a lot and don't shake hands with people". But they went - and continue to go - well beyond that.

 

[Bantamzen]

But their simple and calm approach did include telling everyone not to make any journeys unless essential, and to work at home.

I believe they are still telling people to work at home if they can and to avoid public transport (apart from long distance services with reserved seats and reduced capacity).

Yes we did have a stricter lockdown. I've given an explanation for why we may have needed it and they didn't.

I agree their approach was a lighter touch, but radically different? I'd buy that if they'd just said "Wash your hands a lot and don't shake hands with people". But they went - and continue to go - well beyond that.

I'll tell you what, take a quick search on the numbers of UK workers furloughed, and the estimated costs. Then tell me Sweden's approach was similar. For goodness sake Sweden has been at the centre of the discussions for the entire period because they took a very different route!

 

[AdamWW]

I'll tell you what, take a quick search on the numbers of UK workers furloughed, and the estimated costs. Then tell me Sweden's approach was similar. For goodness sake Sweden has been at the centre of the discussions for the entire period because they took a very different route!

Well that certainly is a big difference.

I think there must be an impact though from the fact that their economy is less reliant on the service industry than ours is.

And it does ignore the point that the earlier you take action the less drastic it has to be, and they took action at much lower infection levels than we did.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well that certainly is a big difference.

I think there must be an impact though from the fact that their economy is less reliant on the service industry than ours is.

And it does ignore the point that the earlier you take action the less drastic it has to be, and they took action at much lower infection levels than we did.

Its a massive difference, and not the only one. Shutting down a very large part of the economy, then restarting it in a hurry will potentially see very different results. As I say, Sweden was seen as the black sheep of the world for not going to a stricter lockdown, yet look where they are. Its not easily ignored.

 

[MikeWM]

And it does ignore the point that the earlier you take action the less drastic it has to be, and they took action at much lower infection levels than we did.

It is hard to tell accurately because of the many issues around testing, but I'm not convinced that is true.

On March 13th, they had 152 new cases, the UK had 189. Taking population differences into account, they were in a much worse place then. But other than restricting mass gatherings to 500, which they had done two days earlier, most of their mitigation actions were started in the following week (as they were here, bar the lockdown itself which wasn't until the 23rd).

 

[AdamWW]

It is hard to tell accurately because of the many issues around testing, but I'm not convinced that is true.

On March 13th, they had 152 new cases, the UK had 189. Taking population differences into account, they were in a much worse place then. But other than restricting mass gatherings to 500, which they had done two days earlier, most of their mitigation actions were started in the following week (as they were here, bar the lockdown itself which wasn't until the 23rd).

They almost certainly didn't.

They had 152 positive tests and we had 189.

Unless we were both doing the same level of testing that's pretty meaningless.

If we started in a similar place, that suggests that our strict restrictions led to rapidly rising infections, hospialisations and deaths whereas their looser ones had the opposite effect.

This doesn't seem to me to be very likely.

 

[MikeWM]

They almost certainly didn't.

They had 152 positive tests and we had 189.

Unless we were both doing the same level of testing that's pretty meaningless.

Ok, but you said 'they took action at much lower infection levels than we did'. Sounded a pretty definite statement, but now you're saying we don't actually know, as the only evidence we have is unreliable?

 

[Journeyman]

I made a decision right at the beginning of all this that I would follow the rules as best I can, but I would absolutely not stick my nose in other people's business, or snitch anyone up for rule-breaking.

It's a decision I've found extremely easy to live with.

 

[AdamWW]

Ok, but you said 'they took action at much lower infection levels than we did'. Sounded a pretty definite statement, but now you're saying we don't actually know, as the only evidence we have is unreliable?

Because I think that's what the evidence points to - not the direct evidence from counting positive tests which is not comparable, but the much higher number of hospitalisations and deaths we got despite getting R down so far below 1.

And - as I said above - maybe I'm completely wrong.

Maybe somehow making people stay at home actually increases transmission and our calculations for R were wildly off.

Then again maybe some previous infection went round Sweden some years ago and gave people some immunity to Covid-19.

There are a lot of unknowns at the moment.

 

[MikeWM]

Because I think that's what the evidence points to - not the direct evidence from counting positive tests which is not comparable, but the much higher number of hospitalisations and deaths we got despite getting R down so far below 1.

But that would imply that the virus spread more here than in Sweden up to the end of our lockdown period. Why are they not worse off now then?

Then again maybe some previous infection went round Sweden some years ago and gave people some immunity to Covid-19.

It's an aside, but this is one of the many reasons I think long-term social distancing and all the other stuff is deeply problematic. Being exposed to mild diseases is a good thing, even if they're not much fun at the time!

There are a lot of unknowns at the moment.

That I would certainly agree with! On current evidence though, I think it is pretty clear that Sweden has handled this better than we have so far. Yes, we can't make a final analysis for another year or two.

 

[AdamWW]

But that would imply that the virus spread more here than in Sweden up to the end of our lockdown period. Why are they not worse off now then?

I don't follow that.

 

[MikeWM]

I don't follow that.

I'm assuming that you're saying that the actions they took were 'effective' because they were done when the virus had spread less there than here. Presumably you therefore think the virus spread less in Sweden than here in March/April (unless you mean the actions they took reduced the severity of the disease, and I assume you don't mean that).

So now, the virus should be spreading more in Sweden than the UK, because Sweden would have less immunity. But that's not what we're seeing at all.

But if I'm misrepresenting your argument, my apologies.

 

[yorksrob]

But their simple and calm approach did include telling everyone not to make any journeys unless essential, and to work at home.

I believe they are still telling people to work at home if they can and to avoid public transport (apart from long distance services with reserved seats and reduced capacity).

Yes we did have a stricter lockdown. I've given an explanation for why we may have needed it and they didn't.

I agree their approach was a lighter touch, but radically different? I'd buy that if they'd just said "Wash your hands a lot and don't shake hands with people". But they went - and continue to go - well beyond that.

It depends on what they mean by "avoid public transport".

"avoid public transport if you have an alternative" is a very different prospect to "avoid public transport unless you are a key worker travelling to work".

And the work from home advice can't account for the difference as the vast majority of people here who can, are still working from home.

 

[MikeWM]

And the work from home advice can't account for the difference as the vast majority of people here who can, are still working from home.

Our Stockholm office did close for a while, but it has been back open for a few months now. I don't know how well you can extrapolate from that to the rest of industry in Sweden.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm assuming that you're saying that the actions they took were 'effective' because they were done when the virus had spread less there than here. Presumably you therefore think the virus spread less in Sweden than here in March/April (unless you mean the actions they took reduced the severity of the disease, and I assume you don't mean that).

So now, the virus should be spreading more in Sweden than the UK, because Sweden would have less immunity. But that's not what we're seeing at all.

But if I'm misrepresenting your argument, my apologies.

Ah OK.

I'm suggesting something along the lines of this grossly simplified model.

Sweden:
Start point: Level of infections which can be lived with. Put in restrictions and get R=1. This level of infections continues.

UK:
Start point: Level of infections which will lead to too much pressure on the health system + more deaths than considered acceptable.
Put in strong restrictions and get R=.5. Deaths still rise because of the lag between infection and death but they peak and then drop because infections are going down.
When the infection level is low enough, we can then reduce restrictions and get R=1 while maintaining an acceptable level of infections and deaths.

I'll tell you what, take a quick search on the numbers of UK workers furloughed, and the estimated costs. Then tell me Sweden's approach was similar. For goodness sake Sweden has been at the centre of the discussions for the entire period because they took a very different route!

Thinking about this a bit more...

We have people furloughed because they do jobs that aren't allowed or there is insufficient demand.

Quite a few of the reasons for this must also apply in Sweden, i.e. airlines mostly shut down, lots of people working from home, thing involving large groups of people being together...

 

[MikeWM]

Ah OK.

I'm suggesting something along the lines of this grossly simplified model.

Sweden:
Start point: Level of infections which can be lived with. Put in restrictions and get R=1. This level of infections continues.

UK:
Start point: Level of infections which will lead to too much pressure on the health system + more deaths than considered acceptable.
Put in strong restrictions and get R=.5. Deaths still rise because of the lag between infection and death but they peak and then drop because infections are going down.
When the infection level is low enough, we can then reduce restrictions and get R=1 while maintaining an acceptable level of infections and deaths.

Ok, that makes intuitive sense, but we have the data now and that isn't what has occurred.

Here's the death curve for the UK (7-day rolling average)



and here's Sweden



Other than a slightly slower burn-down in the Swedish case, they look remarkably similar despite the very different approaches.

 

[Bantamzen]

Ah OK.
Thinking about this a bit more...

We have people furloughed because they do jobs that aren't allowed or there is insufficient demand.

Quite a few of the reasons for this must also apply in Sweden, i.e. airlines mostly shut down, lots of people working from home, thing involving large groups of people being together...

I don't doubt there were quite a few jobs pub on hold, however because Sweden kept a lot of its retail & hospitality industry open, the proportion and thus the effect on the economic as well as social wellbeing is likely to have been a lot less.

 

[AdamWW]

Ok, that makes intuitive sense, but we have the data now and that isn't what has occurred.

Here's the death curve for the UK (7-day rolling average)

View attachment 83536

and here's Sweden

View attachment 83537

Other than a slightly slower burn-down in the Swedish case, they look remarkably similar despite the very different approaches.

So they do.

Interesting.

I don't know what to make of that.

The graphs I've seen of R values for Sweden and the UK certainly haven't looked the same...but they are presumably much harder values to get right than counting deaths.

I think it would be a simplistic though to assume just from those graphs that we could have started out with lighter restrictions and seen the same effect as we did.

 

[talldave]

Back on snitching, another approach to flag the stupidity of the suggestion would be for everyone to saturate the non-emergency number with 7-up reports and bring the system to its knees. Then we'll get a rapid clarification.

And for those who support "6", please explain the outdoors relevance, which I see as brain numbingly stupid.

 

[102 fan]

And also people wanting to have a final fling before lock down. Covidiots at their worst if you consider how many more people could have become infected while they were behaving in this manner

Would you classify the thousands that marched through London with the BLM as Covidiots? A protest which didn't see a spike in cases.

It's all about control.

 

[Cowley]

Hm. I do wonder how many pro Brexit/anti Brexit marches have been avoided with all of this.

 

[PTR 444]

This guidance from a BBC news article confirms that protests are exempt from the rule of six:

Covid: What are the social distancing rules?

Scotland and Wales are relaxing some of their restrictions around gatherings and mixing with others.

www.bbc.co.uk

Will any social events of more than six be allowed?
Exceptions allowed in England include:

• If your household or support bubble is larger than six
• Education and training settings
• Workplaces
• Protests and political events, if compliant with safety guidelines
• Jury duty or other legal commitments
• Children's play groups and youth clubs
• Support groups, such as for addiction or abuse
• Playing sport - either professionally or for fun

Weddings, funerals and special religious occasions can go ahead with up to 30 people attending, in groups of six or less. However, celebrations afterwards are limited to weddings or civil partnerships.

If you attend a protest, political event or other permitted outdoor event, you should attend in a group no larger than six. Although you might know others at the event, it is against the law to "mingle" with anyone outside your designated group.

I can totally understand the reasoning behind not wanting to ban protests completely, particularly with Brexit and BLM to add to the mix. Also good to hear that youth clubs and support groups can still function as normal. These must be more important than ever with the massive toll on people’s mental health this pandemic is having. Had no idea these were exempt until today funnily enough.

 

[Yew]

Some of the Left Wing commentators seem rather up in arms that normal people aren't allowed to meet, but fox hunting and grouse shooting are allowed in groups of up to 30.