It hasn’t taken long for the Sweden haters to come out in force. The outpouring of schadenfreude at the apparent downfall of the arrogant Swedes who refused to fully shut down their economy to combat a virus that statistically (in Australia) had killed about one in every 25,000 people.
Retired British kidney specialist David Goldsmith — apparently posing as an epidemiologist — was especially critical of the Swedish response last week, claiming the Swedes were “caught up in their own bullshit”. “What was it about the Swedes that would simply mean they could sit there and expect not to have a second wave of such severity?” he asked.
The Telegraph claimed that the architect of Sweden’s lighter lockdown, Anders Tegnell, “appears to be being sidelined”, with Nicholas Aylott of Stockholm’s Södertörn University claiming that “by some counts, we’ve now got exactly the same level of spread of the virus that we had in the spring, and that’s about as clear a refutation of Tegnell’s strategy as you could wish for”.
Other critics of Sweden failed the most basic of tests. Last week Reuters claimed the country “has seen a surge in the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths in recent weeks” and “the country battles a growing second wave of a disease that has now killed more than 6000 Swedes”.
The problem with that is that Sweden’s first wave led to more than 6000 deaths; its second only 600. The writer apparently forgot to check when people died.
Under Tegnell’s strategy, Sweden undertook several targeted measures — specifically banning mass gatherings (more than 50 people) and stopping senior school and university attendance.
It did, however, allow most school students to attend campus and small businesses to remain open.
Although Sweden clearly didn’t eradicate the virus with herd immunity as some had hoped, Tegnell’s critics have been very selective in choosing their comparators.
Goldsmith and Aylott both compared Sweden with Finland and Norway (two of the lowest case-and-fatality Western countries) rather than say, Goldsmith’s own UK or France.
The data seems to indicate that Sweden’s relatively non-deadly second wave has absolutely vindicated Tegnell’s approach: Sweden is again able to bend the curve without implementing a strict lockdown.
Here’s Sweden’s recent case graph:
Now let’s look at the UK, which did lock down (albeit less strictly than Victoria in its second wave). Its curve looks remarkably similar to Sweden’s:
But caseloads are for all intents and purposes a less relevant data point than fatalities.
For example, Singapore — which alongside Taiwan has been the gold standard for COVID-19 management — has reported 58,230 cases, but a mere 29 deaths.
How deadly has Sweden’s second wave been? Not very. Its seven-day rolling averages of fatalities peaked at 31 and has dropped back to 12:
Meanwhile in France, which recently did lock down during its second wave, shutting restaurants and bars but not factories and schools, has seen a far worse fatality rate than Sweden. Its rolling average exceeded 500 earlier this month (so 18 times the deaths with about seven times Sweden’s population):
Sweden had proportionally fewer deaths in its second wave than its first wave, when authorities ineptly allowed the virus to cascade through aged care homes.
By contrast, the second wave in France appears to be more deadly than its first wave in total fatalities (albeit with a far lower case fatality rate than its first wave, presumably due to far more testing).
It appears the real person most “caught up in their own bullshit” is Goldsmith.
Meanwhile Japan, which has maintained a far less strict lockdown than most, announced that more people died from suicide in October alone than died from COVID-19 in 2020.
There is no doubt that the highly infectious COVID-19 absolutely kills people (median age: 83) but so too does locking down a population and cutting off community and livelihoods.
Time will tell which strategy was right, but so far Sweden seems to be defying its critics.
“Adam Schwab is a commentator, business director, and the co-founder of LuxuryEscapes.com.”
Ahh, that accounts for the anti-science rant piece this is. When your business is tourism, and you’re ruthless enough, you’d rather have more dead people than a lockdown.
Dear Sir/Madam, It is possible your comment is that Bridge Too Far.
From the beginning of all this the science or the interpretation of the science has always been ambiguous and indistinctive. Just because Goldsmith reads from the SAGE handbook does n’t justify Sweden being hung out to dry as the whipping boy of non cooperation.The globalist MSM love a whipping boy.
Just for my information, you speak about anti-science, which I take as meaning that there is no evidence to support his position his assertions are merely opinion. So what facts disproved his opinons or better still please point out the baseless opinions, or is it your opinion that someone in the travel industry could not read and decipher science.
I could not find a single sentence in this article that is valid, or not misleading, irrelevant or just wrong.
But it all comes down to this claim,
along with a chart of Swedish daily deaths showing a marked decline in the past week.
This is misleading, as explained here: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sweden-death-reporting
The basic problem is that deaths are not reported until several days later. Sweden counts its daily deaths according to the day the death occurred, not the the day it was reported. So the graphed daily deaths for the last few days is missing the deaths that have not been reported yet, and the chart will move higher as the deaths are reported over coming days.
Adam needs to wait a week or too before drawing any inferences from the Swedish daily deaths for the past week.
Another piece of MSM dribble.
Can you point to anything factually or logically wrong, or put up some counterargument? In other words, contribute something? ‘MSM dribble’ is just vacuous.
One thing I don’t do is quote from the MSM agenda driven handbook or from embedded Industrial Health & Medical Complex “experts” who work to said agenda. See my comment to Cap’n below.
You’ve not made one substantive contribution yourself.
You have n’t been watching Cap’n. I have put up more links and presented more independent investigative research than anyone else here bar your good self. So you will excuse my chuckle.
No links or research today, Davos, old bean, as far as I can see.
It is actually the obsession with infections and not death or disability that conflates the discussion.
“Disability” is key, yet rarely factored.
The recent Lancet Psychiatric study of 10’s of 000’s of US health records, that found 20 odd% of those who had ‘survived’ the viral infection, were found 3 (IIRC) months down the track to have readily diagnosable psychiatric conditions (DSM, whatever number it’s up to) where their long run health records had shown no indication of such conditions prior to becoming infected with the virus.
Or, the study that showed (relative) young ‘uns that presented with damage to one or multiple organs months (3, again, IIRC) after being pronounced clear of infection.
The ‘productivity hit’ from this ‘novel’ virus is nowhere near understood.
Personally, I try to avoid the ‘early crow’.
Schwab should try it.
So, according to Schwab, it’s selective to compare Sweden to Norway and Finland – comparable societies, which Covid hit about the same time, and where Sweden had 5x deaths – rather than France, where covid hit early, and has far more global travel. Why does Schwab think Sweden should be compared to France? Because the critics of Sweden are from France! Schwab then compares Sweden to France, to Sweden’s advantage.
Laughable, desperate. Worse than Adam Creighton, who has sensibly shut up about Covid. Victoria got eradication, thru a policy Schwab attacked all the way, and he’s the director of a luxury travel company, which had an interest in curtailing a policy that stopped an outbreak in its tracks. Beyond embarrassing this is in Crikey.
Yes, and then he brings in Japan – no tight lockdowns but low case and death rates, rising like other countries now – strangely to point out its increased suicide rate outnumbering its death rate; formerly, in his ‘argument’, suicides and other miseries would be the inevitable result of lockdowns! Like his earlier attempts to undermine the hugely successful and necessary Victorian lockdown, this article is a mess of unclear thinking.
Quel Courage! Mon brave, dans quel régiment avez-vous servi?
Let’s confine ourselves to the world ‘surpression’ Guy. There may be ONE virus (responsible for smallpox) that seems to have been eradicated and that not a comfortable average. As an aside, for various characteristics of the virus, HIV is on the decline.
The point is, Guy, that the pollies have, unwittingly, created a long race; one may anticipate for another year.
Agreed, Guy.
I love a controversial or contentious view — even one I disagree with — but for pity’s sake at least research competently first.
Sweden achieving herd immunity at low death-rate before the rest of the world had a workable vaccine would be a surprising and significant result. Everyone would have to pay attention. It should shape pandemic policy for decades to come.
But Sweden suffering worse economic and health outcomes in comparison to similar jurisdictions using tighter controls is not surprising. That’s one the experts might call ‘suffering as expected.’
Responsible journalism would have shut up with the conspiracy theories after Victoria reopened.
ALL that has been observed in Melbourne is the (hardly surprising) decline in Ro. That it is still lurking *is* a characteristic of ALL viruses.
On the command : ONE – deep breath everyone.
Erasmus wrote: ALL that has been observed in Melbourne is the (hardly surprising) decline in Ro.
I think you meant Re — the effective reproduction number and not the basic reproduction number R0. That number has been revised due to better data (it’s now about twice as high as it was estimated at in March), but it’s a function of virus and host species and not health policy. The one that changes due to health policy is Re.
To see how much of an outlier Australia now is in the world, the following chart of biweekly cases per million gives a picture: you just have to mentally grey out the under-reporting from Africa and parts of southeast Asia.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/biweekly-cases-per-million-people
Erasmus wrote: That it is still lurking *is* a characteristic of ALL viruses.
Not in general, Erasmus. Viral strains can be extinguished for the same reason that there’s a background extinction rate in evolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_extinction_rate)
But specifically for Sars-Cov-2? I agree that in a globalised world a highly contagious viral strain which can transmit without symptoms is a born survivor. :p
There’s a fair bit of epidemiological opinion that it’ll become endemic, just as did the 1918 H1N1 ‘Spanish flu’, and gradually get less lethal over time. (https://theconversation.com/covid-19-will-probably-become-endemic-heres-what-that-means-146435)
That opinion will need to be reviewed once we see what can be achieved with vaccines. There have been some amazing numbers coming out of stage 3 trials, but in the end what we see will be a function of politics and economics and not just immunology.
There’s definitely a case for some medium to long-term planning by late 2021, but currently most developed nations are just trying to manage week to week and quarter to quarter.
Yet again, Ruv, thank you for a most comprehensive reply to which I will try to do justice. I did intend Re (I’m noted for my finger problems) but it is instructive, as you point out, that Ro is somewhere about 5.7 (median value).
Nevertheless, I ought to mention the relationship between Re or Rt and Ro. Re = Ro × (1 – p) where p is the proportion of the population who are immune (at a given time). For low values of p (likely in the case in Australia – under1,000 deaths) Re becomes equivalent with Ro; at least to the error (std error) of Ro
While this (Ro) number is high it is by no means as high as some virus strains. New or further infections, as a matter of definition, WILL occur just based upon the value of the Ro. In fact (as I am sure that you are aware but I will make the point for others) the percentage the population that NOW needs to be immune to COVID-19, to arrest the transmission (through vaccination), is at (1 – 1/Ro) or 82%.
Thus Schwab, although he probably doesn’t realise it, is more right than wrong with regard to his last paragraph (and my original and embargoed post). Ro has to be less than 1.0 in order for the virus to die out naturally (and such hardly ever happens).
I am familiar with ‘background extinction rates’ but the fact of the matter is that the viruses that exist with us now [and every more WILL waft from animals to humans as population density increases long with a host of other reasons] have
been about for some millennia.
Moreover, regarding my remark in parenthesis, the world (as a collective noun) can expect additional viral effects into the future that may have either very low Ro or very high Ro or any Ro. As an aside, the correlation is that low Ro implies a high death rate.
The death rate from infection of the current virus is circa 2% (in broad terms) with the disability factor being about twice that (but difficult to measure on account of definitions; determining if one is dead is easier than determining if one has a disability). Either way, the recovery rate is high (94+%); Dutton, Trump and Johnson refer.
“There’s a fair bit of epidemiological opinion that it’ll become endemic, just as did the 1918 H1N1 ‘Spanish flu’, and gradually get less lethal over time. ”
Agreed – and my point along the way but it is not an overnight phenomenon. However, I don’t think that I have read anything that is informative from The Conversation or that I did not know previously.
“There’s definitely a case for some medium to long-term planning by late 2021”
I don’t mean to make light of the remark but while the pollies have anything to do with it we can expect further knee-jerking lock-downs for the aid of an age group that are pensioners. The stats are clear on this point.
I am reminded of some characters from Monty Python sketches exclaiming “just silly”! Very few will agree but the whole (hysterical) thing is a flash in pan at most – in (low) percentage terms.
It is just possible after a few more lock-downs that the pollies (in a dramatic reversal) will bite the bullet and defer to the economy.
Erasmus as often, our analyses might differ but we tend to agree on the facts. 🙂
I think governments may be judged on health in the short term and economics in the longer term. So they have to balance both infection control and economic recovery. Fail on either and they can take a bad hit.
That may explain Australia’s ‘suppression over elimination’ approach, but our federal system (and our history in past pandemics) might also explain why our suppression still looks a lot more like elimination when implemented. 🙂
Without workable vaccines I think we’d have much more serious problems to face. But the progress has been amazing and it may be that in (say) 24 months’ time, Australia’s approach may look more visionary in hindsight than it actually was at the time.
And to see why, just take a look at the world biweekly rolling infection rates I linked above, and think about how much economic signal/response you get when you can selectively vaccinate a population with low background infections, vs a population with high background infections.
Any recovery initiatives can be much more easily targeted with higher and more reliable bang for buck.
When Mr Schwab finally gets his snout back into the luxury travel trough he might have reason to be secretly thankful, even for Melbourne.
Can’t wait until Schwab can get back to normal business again. He can’t write, hope he’s better at his real job.
You, trying to book a holiday: I’d like to go to Vietnam.
Adam Schwab: Four tickets to Sweden.
You: There’s only two of us, and we want to go to Vietnam.
Adam: Six for Sweden, that will be $200,000.
As an aside, Vietnam has prevented inbound flights until further notice.
Two young sons of a friend have been teaching English there for 2yr+ – both made trips home to Ireland this year and were never happier than when they arrived back in Hue.
Nor safer.
I have told everyone that I know that I am in the best place and Hue is quite pleasant too.
As a further aside, it seems the Sveedes did a bit of locking down overnight…………
He writes perfectly well. His recent piece on BeforePay was excellent and clear.
He is aggressively, consistently and infuriatingly _constantly_ wrong on Covid-19 topics, and it is bewildering to me that Crikey hasn’t informed him that they will no longer publish his articles on the topic.
So, it’s OK for a travel agent to write about a health crisis, but it’s not OK for someone medically qualified (ie a retired British kidney specialist) to venture an opinion about the epidemiology of the health crisis.
Modern libertarian political PR and message control which requires the avoidance of experts to pass, aka Brexit.
As an advocate for science in any circumstances misleading or fraudulent remarks from those who DO know better do exist; the ‘cash for comment’ industry refers (from tobacco to vaccination to climate change).
Yet, while independent collaboration is important advances in knowledge and technique tend to be made by the minority.