Coronaviruset i verden: Nyheter og diskusjon

[Simen1]

Nytt verdenskart fra ECDC

Forrige:

Spoiler

 

[Morromann]

William_S skrev (43 minutter siden):

Bevare meg vel - tid til ettertanke og refleksjon? Jeg mener man må tenke litt nytt rundt karantenereglene - da det er ekstremt vilkårlig og da tenker jeg særlig på skolebarn. Du ser overhodet ingen problemer med at elever i Osloskolen har sittet over 13000 døgn i karantene siden skolestart og at karantenen rammer antagelig barn fra ressurssvake familier mest som VG sitt kart viser. Hjemmeskole er ingen fullgod erstatning for den vanlige skolen. Synes man feks kan få lov å teste seg ut av karantene for det er langt fra sikkert at man har smitte når man er i karantene. 

Når jeg ser hvor lite du bryr deg om "gamlinger på gamlehjem" som du foraktfullt omtaler de som stiller jeg meg veldig tvilende til din "omsorg" for skoleelever. Hadde det vært snakk om hjemmeskole for evig og alltid hadde det jo vært et problem, men det er jo ikke snakk om det og det vet du veldig godt. Forøvrig er jeg mildt sagt sjokkert over den holdningen du har til våre gamle men desverre ikke overraskert. Eldrehatet i samfunnet er ganske utbredt, det visste jeg fra før.

Nå er det vel ingen som har sittet 13 000 døgn i karantene? Pandemien har da vitterlig ikke vart så lenge og den kommer ikke til å vare så lenge heller. Latterlig påstand - som vanlig. Karantenen er 10 dager den - ikke 13 000 dager.

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av Morromann

[Morromann]

0laf skrev (2 timer siden):

Så den artikkelen, reagerte på det samme, det var også bilder av flere som sto helt oppå hverandre, men hvor de forklarte at de var i samme "kohort", så det var greit liksom.

De tok også temperaturen på alle litt sånn underveis, men det ser mer ut som et artig innslag på en galla, enn noe som har med smittevern å gjøre ?



Når det er sagt, så er det vel svært få som forventer noe særlig mer fra disse nautene, som knapt klarer å formulere setninger !

De er ikke kjent for å være de skarpeste knivene i skuffen nei. Helt utrolig at slike arrangementer i det hele tatt er tillatt. Var dette atpåtil i Oslo?

[ok67]

Og til alle som var så kritisk til begrensingar rundt barar og restaurantar, i Trondheim er no 700 personar i karantene etter å ha vore på Lille London.

https://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/2020/10/15/Fire-nye-smittetilfeller-i-Trondheim-700-i-karantene-22824108.ece

[Morromann]

ok67 skrev (1 minutt siden):

Og til alle som var så kritisk til begrensingar rundt barar og restaurantar, i Trondheim er no 700 personar i karantene etter å ha vore på Lille London.

https://www.adressa.no/nyheter/trondheim/2020/10/15/Fire-nye-smittetilfeller-i-Trondheim-700-i-karantene-22824108.ece

Huff a meg, skal de behandles som jøder i Auschwitz nå, slik noen tydeligvis mener at karantenen er. Karantene i Norge er ikke en gang "husarrest" det er mer "restraining order" på folk utenfor ens egen husstand i 10 dager.

[William_S]

Morromann skrev (23 minutter siden):

Når jeg ser hvor lite du bryr deg om "gamlinger på gamlehjem" som du foraktfullt omtaler de som stiller jeg meg veldig tvilende til din "omsorg" for skoleelever. Hadde det vært snakk om hjemmeskole for evig og alltid hadde det jo vært et problem, men det er jo ikke snakk om det og det vet du veldig godt. Forøvrig er jeg mildt sagt sjokkert over den holdningen du har til våre gamle men desverre ikke overraskert. Eldrehatet i samfunnet er ganske utbredt, det visste jeg fra før.

Nå er det vel ingen som har sittet 13 000 døgn i karantene? Pandemien har da vitterlig ikke vart så lenge og den kommer ikke til å vare så lenge heller. Latterlig påstand - som vanlig. Karantenen er 1o dager den - ikke 13 000 dager.

Du er ikke veldig skarp om du ikke forstår hva dette betyr. Om 1 elev sitter 1 døgn er dette 1 døgn i karantene. Om 2 elever sitter 1 døgn er dette tilsammen 2 karantenedøgn. Hvorfor er du egentlig så sint?  Hva med å ta en luftetur ?

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av William_S

[Oddvardm]

0laf skrev (På 13.10.2020 den 19.50):

In other news, her er Ronaldo i går, på fest med sine lagkamerater



Og i dag :

Det Portugisiske fotballforbundet bekrefter : Cristiano Ronaldo testet positivt på coronaviruset.

Det Ronaldo usetter seg for er å få varige skader på lungene. Det samme gjør alle spillerne som er med i dette 'lystige' laget. Fotballspillere er gode med ballen, men de er egentlig store unger med mye penger. Hvis de ante hva de risikerer (uten lunge kapasitet kan en foballspiller bare pakke eska si) ville de nok heller sittet på rommet sitt tenker jeg.

[Morromann]

William_S skrev (14 minutter siden):

Du er ikke veldig skarp om du ikke forstår hva dette betyr. Om 1 elev sitter 1 døgn er dette 1 døgn i karantene. Om 2 elever sitter 1 døgn er dette tilsammen 2 karantenedøgn. Hvorfor er du egentlig så sint?  Hva med å ta en luftetur ?

Ja, jeg skjønner jo det men dette med 13 000 er bare et forsøk på "emotional blackmail" for at det skal høres mer dramatisk ut for at noen skal "skamme seg" over å forsvare det. Men det blir like latterlig som å slå opp at alle skoleelever i Norge tilsammen er flere hundre tusen år gamle. Like meningsløst og tåpelig argumentasjon, men det er utelukkende for å spille på følelser at du trekker det frem. Så noen skal skamme seg og gjenåpne samfunnet for fullt og satste på "flokkimmunitet". Sorry, men det er ikke den politikken som føres. Du kan flytte til Sverige hvis du er misfornøyd. Der har de ikke satset så mye på hensynet til "gamlingene på gamlehjem" som du så foraktfullt kaller dem. Over 5000 døde, de fleste "gamlinger på gamlehjem". Men om jeg ikke tar feil har de vistnok karanteneregler for nærkontakt med smittede der også så det er kanskje ikke bra nok. Hviterussland da?

Og du er ikke veldig skarp om du betrakter den meget milde formen for karantene som praktiseres i Norge for "fascisme". Anbefaler deg å lese noen bøker å se noen filmer fra nazistenes konsentrasjonsleire om du vil vite hva fascisme er for noe.

Sint? Nei, mer opprørt over menneskesynet og menneskeforakten mot de svakeste av oss jeg ser her. Og hvordan noen skyver skoleelever og andre(som meg)som har vært i denne meget meget milde formen for "karantene" foran seg for å argumentere for at vi skal glemme det hele.

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av Morromann

[0laf]

William_S skrev (41 minutter siden):

Du ser overhodet ingen problemer med at elever i Osloskolen har sittet over 13000 døgn i karantene siden skolestart og at karantenen rammer antagelig barn fra ressurssvake familier mest som VG sitt kart viser. 

Mnja, er det virkelig et problem?

Karantene er i dag 10 dager, så egentlig burde det vel være 1300 elever som har hatt en karantene i løpet av 8 måneder eller noe sånt?

Så er det jo slik, at Oslo kommune på sine sider opplyser at Osloskolen for et par tre år siden hadde 89 552 elever, det tallet har trolig steget noe nå.

Nå er ikke artikkelen helt klar på hva de mener med "osloskolen", det inkluderer jo egentlig alle skoler i Oslo, men la oss for sikkerhets skyld si at det dreier seg om grunnskolene, som har 63 838 elever.

Det betyr i så fall at elevene i Oslo i gjennomsnitt jevnt fordelt har sittet 4 timer hver i karantene.
Trolig er det nok heller slik at 2% av elevene i Oslo har vært ti dager i karantene.

Det fremstår ikke særlig dramatisk?

[Morromann]

0laf skrev (1 minutt siden):

Mnja, er det virkelig et problem?

Karantene er i dag 10 dager, så egentlig burde det vel være 1300 elever som har hatt en karantene i løpet av 8 måneder eller noe sånt?

Så er det jo slik, at Oslo kommune på sine sider opplyser at Osloskolen for et par tre år siden hadde 89 552 elever, det tallet har trolig steget noe nå.

Nå er ikke artikkelen helt klar på hva de mener med "osloskolen", det inkluderer jo egentlig alle skoler i Oslo, men la oss for sikkerhets skyld si at det dreier seg om grunnskolene, som har 63 838 elever.

Det betyr i så fall at elevene i Oslo i gjennomsnitt jevnt fordelt har sittet 4 timer hver i karantene.
Trolig er det nok heller slik at 2% av elevene i Oslo har vært ti dager i karantene.

Det fremstår ikke særlig dramatisk?

Jeg tar ikke noen som linker til VGs sensasjonsoiverskrifter seriøst. Det er nettopp slikt VG driver med, sensasjonsjournalistiskk. Selvfølgelig høres "13 000 døgn" dramatisk ut o clickbait-overskriften men igjen; ikke noe mer sensasjonelt at alle skoleelevene er flere hundre tusen år gamle til sammen.

[William_S]

Morromann skrev (10 minutter siden):

Jeg tar ikke noen som linker til VGs sensasjonsoiverskrifter seriøst. Det er nettopp slikt VG driver med, sensasjonsjournalistiskk. Selvfølgelig høres "13 000 døgn" dramatisk ut o clickbait-overskriften men igjen; ikke noe mer sensasjonelt at alle skoleelevene er flere hundre tusen år gamle til sammen.

Men det er også rektorer som er intervjua som er bekymra. Tross alt de som sitter tettest på situasjonen ved den enkelte skole. 

[Subara]

William_S skrev (35 minutter siden):

Det er ikke uvanlig at det er flere journalister som jobber med en sak og særlig ikke når det er en sak som oppdateres litt kontinunerlig. 

Artikkelen var forvirrende å lese, men kildene var nok også det. Ikke bare mange kokker.

Nesten litt absurd, og det får meg til å smile selv om temaet er alvorlig.

Det som skjer når man møter noen er at man nærmer seg mer og mer etter som tiden går. Mens rådet er først å holde 1 meter avstand og etter 15 minutter gå over til 2 meter avstand. 2- meteren var en påminnelse fra Høie, ettersom han synes det virker som folk har glemt det. Men det som skjer i praksis er altså motsatt, så kan det være grunnen til at folk har dårlig hukommelse?

I begynnelsen da samfunnet var nedstengt holdt vi 2 meter avstand. Vanskelig å gå tilbake på det nå. Og barna lever sitt eget liv. Noen ganger kan man også lure på om de voksne oppfører seg som barn. Det er ikke å så lett å være menneske for tiden.

[knipsolini]

knipsolini skrev (På 10.10.2020 den 10.37):

Oppdatering fra Tsjekkia: ny rekord i går med 8617 nye smittede. 1741 innlagt hvorav 360 er alvorlig syke. Dødsfall har de siste dagene ligget mellom 35 og 40 personer.

Ny rekord i Tsjekkia i går med 9544 nye smittede. 2678 innlagt hvorav 518 er alvorlig syke. Dødsfall de siste dagene ligger på ca 60 personer om dagen.

Nye restriksjoner ble innført fra i går. Restauranter og barer har blitt stengt for servering, skoler på lavere trinn (ikke barnehager) har blitt stengt og overført til fjernundervisning, og det har blitt forbud mot offentlig drikking og sammenkomster med flere enn seks personer. Statsminister Babiš brukte også anledningen til å vise frem bilder av unge mennesker som sto tett i tett uten munnbind, og legger skylden for utviklingen på alle som ikke følger regler og retningslinjer lenger. Det er delvis riktig, folk oppfører seg helt annerledes enn på våren, hvor Tsjekkia ble trukket frem som et foregangsland i kampen mot corona. Men Babiš skal ha sin andel kritikk for manglende håndtering, og stadig skiftende meninger. Her skulle Tsjekkia lært av Norges håndtering, som har vært langt mer stabil og konsis. Forøvrig blir det nå opprettet et provisorisk sykehus, i et senter som normalt brukes for messer, i påvente av at sykehuskapasiteten vil overgås.

[Maabren]

Norges håndtering etter sommeråpninga har vore ganske så elendig. Flaks og smittesporing har holdt smitteeksplosjonen godt nede samtidig som erna & co ikkje tek tak i problemet som stadig vekk gir påfyll av ny smitte. Heller skulde alle andre for at smitten brer seg i norge synast å være den nye retningen. Tsjekkia og Babis har i så måte lært av norge korleis skuldfordelinga skal fungere når man ikkje vil innrømme at oppåpninga av samfunnet er grunnen for smitteauken.

[0laf]

Time Magazine - The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
 

Sitat

The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering.

As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino).

But perhaps more striking are the findings of a study published Oct. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which pointed out that, of the countries the researchers investigated, Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that have failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic has progressed.

Yet the architects of the Swedish plan are selling it as a success to the rest of the world. And officials in other countries, including at the top level of the U.S. government, are discussing the strategy as one to emulate—despite the reality that doing so will almost certainly increase the rates of death and misery.

Countries that locked down early and/or used extensive test and tracing—including Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand—saved lives and limited damage to their economies. Countries that locked down late, came out of lock down too early, did not effectively test and quarantine, or only used a partial lockdown—including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Spain, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K.—have almost uniformly done worse in rates of infection and death.

 

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av 0laf

[0laf]

Sverige på sjunde plats i överdödlighet i Europa

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/sverige-pa-sjunde-plats-i-overdodlighet-i-europa
 

Sitat

Coronapandemin har lett till att över 200 000 människor, bland 21 jämförda länder i Europa samt Australien och Nya Zeeland, dött i förtid, enligt en ny studie.

Cirka 50 fler personer dog per 100,000 invånare i Sverige under den första vågen av covid-19 än vad vi hade sett om pandemin inte hade inträffat. 

Med den siffran hamnar Sverige på sjunde plats för män och sjätte plats för kvinnor i Europa, enligt en ny studie publicerad i Nature Medicine.

England och Wales, Spanien, Italien, Skottland och Belgien ligger högst upp på listan.

— Det som är nytt med den här studien är att de har samlat in bra data från alla de här länderna och gjort ordentliga beräkningar där många parametrar tagits med, säger Karin Modig, epidemiolog vid Karolinska Institutet där hon arbetar med en egen studie om överdödlighet under pandemin.

 

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av 0laf

[Camlon]

10 minutes ago, Maabren said:

Norges håndtering etter sommeråpninga har vore ganske så elendig. Flaks og smittesporing har holdt smitteeksplosjonen godt nede samtidig som erna & co ikkje tek tak i problemet som stadig vekk gir påfyll av ny smitte. Heller skulde alle andre for at smitten brer seg i norge synast å være den nye retningen. Tsjekkia og Babis har i så måte lært av norge korleis skuldfordelinga skal fungere når man ikkje vil innrømme at oppåpninga av samfunnet er grunnen for smitteauken.

Men mening er at Norge gjorde det tragisk dårlig fra februar til april, men fra mai og utover så fikk man litt kontroll over situasjonen og gikk vekk fra symboltiltak til tiltak som faktisk fungerer.

Norge var ikke best i verden, men det er definitivt mulig å gjøre det dårligere enn Norge. Tsjekkia, Storbritiania, Spania og USA er eksempler på land som gjorde det vesentlig dårligere enn Norge. Norge har sett en smitteøkning, men imotsetning til Tsjekkia så begynte man å stramme inn når tallene økte og ikke når det gikk ut av kontroll.

[0laf]

0laf skrev (22 minutter siden):

Time Magazine - The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World

Det var en lang artikkel, men poster like gjerne hele, for de som ikke gidder å klikke seg videre, da det var en særdeles opplysende artikkel også :

 

Spoiler

The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World

A man wearing a protective mask walks next to travelers as they queue up to board a boat in Stockholm on July 27, 2020.

 

OCTOBER 14, 2020 5:00 AM EDT
 

The Swedish COVID-19 experiment of not implementing early and strong measures to safeguard the population has been hotly debated around the world, but at this point we can predict it is almost certain to result in a net failure in terms of death and suffering. As of Oct. 13, Sweden’s per capita death rate is 58.4 per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University data, 12th highest in the world (not including tiny Andorra and San Marino). But perhaps more striking are the findings of a study published Oct. 12 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which pointed out that, of the countries the researchers investigated, Sweden and the U.S. essentially make up a category of two: they are the only countries with high overall mortality rates that have failed to rapidly reduce those numbers as the pandemic has progressed.

Yet the architects of the Swedish plan are selling it as a success to the rest of the world. And officials in other countries, including at the top level of the U.S. government, are discussing the strategy as one to emulate—despite the reality that doing so will almost certainly increase the rates of death and misery.

Countries that locked down early and/or used extensive test and tracing—including Denmark, Finland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and New Zealand—saved lives and limited damage to their economies. Countries that locked down late, came out of lock down too early, did not effectively test and quarantine, or only used a partial lockdown—including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Spain, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K.—have almost uniformly done worse in rates of infection and death.

Despite this, Sweden’s Public Health Agency director Johan Carlson has claimed that “the Swedish situation remains favorable,” and that the country’s response has been “consistent and sustainable.” The data, however, show that the case rate in Sweden, as elsewhere in Europe, is currently increasing.

Average daily cases rose 173% nationwide from Sept. 2-8 to Sept. 30-Oct. 6 and in Stockholm that number increased 405% for the same period. Though some have argued that rising case numbers can be attributed to increased testing, a recent study of Stockholm’s wastewater published Oct. 5 by the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) argues otherwise. An increased concentration of the virus in wastewater, the KTH researchers write, shows a rise of the virus in the population of the greater Stockholm area (where a large proportion of the country’s population live) in a way that is entirely independent of testing. Yet even with this rise in cases, the government is easing the few restrictions it had in place.

---

From early on, the Swedish government seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that many people would die. The country’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on April 3, “We will have to count the dead in thousands. It is just as well that we prepare for it.” In July, as the death count reached 5,500, Löfven said that the “strategy is right, I am completely convinced of that.” In September, Dr. Anders Tegnell, the Public Health Agency epidemiologist in charge of the country’s COVID-19 response reiterated the party line that a growing death count did “not mean that the strategy itself has gone wrong.” There has been a lack of written communication between the Prime Minister and the Pubic Health Authority: when the authors requested all emails and documents between the Prime Minister’s office and the Public Health Authority for the period Jan. 1—Sept. 14, the Prime Minister’s Registrar replied on Sept. 17 that none existed.

Despite the Public Health Agency’s insistence to the contrary, the core of this strategy is widely understood to have been about building natural “herd immunity”—essentially, letting enough members of a population (the herd) get infected, recover, and then develop an immune system response to the virus that it would ultimately stop spreading. Both the agency and Prime Minister Löfven have characterized the approach as “common sense“ trust-based recommendations rather than strict measures, such as lockdowns, which they say are unsustainable over an extended period of time—and that herd immunity was just a desirable side effect. However, internal government communications suggest otherwise.

Emails obtained by one of the authors through Freedom of Information laws (called offentlighetsprincipen, or “Openness Principle,” in Swedish) between national and regional government agencies, including the Swedish Public Health Authority, as well as those obtained by other journalists, suggest that the goal was all along in fact to develop herd immunity. We have also received information through sources who made similar requests or who corresponded directly with government agencies that back up this conclusion. For the sake of transparency, we created a website where we’ve posted some of these documents.

One example showing clearly that government officials had been thinking about herd immunity from early on is a March 15 email sent from a retired doctor to Tegnell, the epidemiologist and architect of the Swedish plan, which he forwarded to his Finnish counterpart, Mika Salminen. In it, the retired doctor recommended allowing healthy people to be infected in controlled settings as a way to fight the epidemic. “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster,” Tegnell noted at the top of the forwarded email.

Salminen responded that the Finnish Health Agency had considered this but decided against it, because “over time, the children are still going to spread the infection to other age groups.” Furthermore, the Finnish model showed that closing schools would reduce “the attack rate of the disease on the elderly” by 10%. Tegnell responded: “10 percent might be worth it?”

The majority of the rest of Sweden’s policymakers seemed to have agreed: the country never closed daycare or schools for children under the age of 16, and school attendance is mandatory under Swedish law, with no option for distance learning or home schooling, even for family members in high risk groups. Policymakers essentially decided to use children and schools as participants in an experiment to see if herd immunity to a deadly disease could be reached. Multiple outbreaks at schools occurred in both the spring and autumn.

At this point, whether herd immunity was the “goal” or a “byproduct” of the Swedish plan is semantics, because it simply hasn’t worked. In April, the Public Health Agency predicted that 40% of the Stockholm population would have the disease and acquire protective antibodies by May. According to the agency’s own antibody studies published Sept. 3 for samples collected up until late June, the actual figure for random testing of antibodies is only 11.4% for Stockholm, 6.3% for Gothenburg and 7.1% across Sweden. As of mid-August, herd immunity was still “nowhere in sight,” according to a Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine study. That shouldn’t have been a surprise. After all, herd immunity to an infectious disease has never been achieved without a vaccine.

---

Löfven, his government, and the Public Health Agency all say that the high COVID-19 death rate in Sweden can be attributed to the fact that a large portion of these deaths occurred in nursing homes, due to shortcomings in elderly care.

However, the high infection rate across the country was the underlying factor that led to a high number of those becoming infected in care homes. Many sick elderly were not seen by a doctor because the country’s hospitals were implementing a triage system that, according to a study published July 1 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, appeared to have factored in age and predicted prognosis. “This likely reduced [intensive care unit] load at the cost of more high-risk patients”—like elderly people with confirmed infection—dying outside the ICU.” Only 13% of the elderly residents who died with COVID-19 during the spring received hospital care, according to preliminary statistics from the National Board of Health and Welfare released Aug.

In one case which seems representative of how seniors were treated, patient Reza Sedghi was not seen by a doctor the day he died from COVID-19 at a care home in Stockholm. A nurse told Sedghi’s daughter Lili Perspolisi that her father was given a shot of morphine before he passed away, that no oxygen was administered and staff did not call an ambulance. “No one was there and he died alone,” Perspolisi says.

In order to be admitted for hospital care, patients needed to have breathing problems and even then, many were reportedly denied care. Regional healthcare managers in each of Sweden’s 21 regions, who are responsible for care at hospitals as well as implementing Public Health Agency guidelines, have claimed that no patients were denied care during the pandemic. But internal local government documents from April from some of Sweden’s regions—including those covering the biggest cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö—also show directives for how some patients including those receiving home care, those living at nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and those with special needs could not receive oxygen or hospitalization in some situations. Dagens Nyheter published an investigation on Oct. 13 showing that patients in Stockholm were denied care as a result of these guidelines. Further, a September investigation by Sveriges Radio, Sweden’s national public broadcaster, found that more than 100 people reported to the Swedish Health and Care Inspectorate that their relatives with COVID-19 either did not receive oxygen or nutrient drops or that they were not allowed to come to hospital.

These issues do not only affect the elderly or those who had COVID-19. The National Board of Health and Welfare’s guidelines for intensive care in extraordinary circumstances throughout Sweden state that priority should be given to patients based on biological, not chronological, age. Sörmlands Media, in an investigation published May 13, cited a number of sources saying that, in many parts of the country, the health care system was already operating in a way such that people were being denied the type of inpatient care they would have received in normal times. Regional health agencies were using a Clinical Frailty Scale, an assessment tool designed to predict the need for care in a nursing home or hospital, and the life expectancy of older people by estimating their fragility, to determine whether someone should receive hospital care and was applied to decisions regarding all sorts of treatment, not only for COVID-19. These guidelines led to many people with health care needs unrelated to COVID-19 not getting the care they need, with some even dying as a result—collateral damage of Sweden’s COVID-19 strategy.

Dr. Michael Broomé, the chief physician at Stockholm’s Karolinska Hospital’s Intensive Care Unit, says his department’s patient load tripled during the spring. His staff, he says, “have often felt powerless and inadequate. We have lost several young, previously healthy, patients with particularly serious disease courses. We have also repeatedly been forced to say no to patients we would normally have accepted due to a lack of experienced staff, suitable facilities and equipment.”

In June, Dagens Nyheter reported a story of one case showing how disastrous such a scenario can be. Yanina Lucero had been ill for several weeks in March with severe breathing problems, fever and diarrhea, yet COVID-19 tests were not available at the time except for those returning from high risk areas who displayed symptoms, those admitted to the hospital, and those working in health care. Yanina was only 39 years old and had no underlying illnesses. Her husband Cristian brought her to an unnamed hospital in Stockholm, but were told it was full and sent home, where Lucero’s health deteriorated. After several days when she could barely walk, an ambulance arrived and Lucero was taken to Huddinge hospital, where she was sedated and put on a ventilator. She died on April 15 without receiving a COVID-19 test in hospital.

---

Sweden did try some things to protect citizens from the pandemic. On March 12 the government restricted public gatherings to 500 people and the next day the Public Health Agency issued a press release telling people with possible COVID-19 symptoms to stay home. On March 17, the Public Health Agency asked employers in the Stockholm area to let employees work from home if they could. The government further limited public gatherings to 50 people on March 29. Yet there were no recommendations on private events and the 50-person limit doesn’t apply to schools, libraries, corporate events, swimming pools, shopping malls or many other situations. Starting April 1, the government restricted visits to retirement homes (which reopened to visitors on Oct. 1 without masks recommended for visitors or staff). But all these recommendations came later than in the other Nordic countries. In the interim, institutions were forced to make their own decisions; some high schools and universities changed to on-line teaching and restaurants and bars went to table seating with distance, and some companies instituted rules about wearing masks on site and encouraging employees to work from home.

Meanwhile Sweden built neither the testing nor the contact-tracing capacity that other wealthy European countries did. Until the end of May (and again in August), Sweden tested 20% the number of people per capita compared with Denmark, and less than both Norway and Finland; Sweden has often had among the lowest test rates in Europe. Even with increased testing in the fall, Sweden still only tests only about one-fourth that of Denmark.

Sweden never quarantined those arriving from high-risk areas abroad nor did it close most businesses, including restaurants and bars. Family members of those who test positive for COVID-19 must attend school in person, unlike in many other countries where if one person in a household tests positive the entire family quarantines, usually for 14 days. Employees must also report to work as usual unless they also have symptoms of COVID-19, an agreement with their employer for a leave of absence or a doctor recommends that they isolate at home.

On Oct. 1, the Public Health Authority issued non-binding “rules of conduct” that open the possibility for doctors to be able to recommend that certain individuals stay home for seven days if a household member tests positive for COVID-19. But there are major holes in these rules: they do not apply to children (of all ages, from birth to age 16, the year one starts high school), people in the household who previously have a positive PCR or antibody test or, people with socially important professions, such as health care staff (under certain circumstances).

There is also no date for when the rule would go into effect. “It may not happen right away, Stockholm will start quickly but some regions may need more time to get it all in place,” Tegnell said at a Oct. 1 press conference. Meanwhile, according to current Public Health Agency guidelines issued May 15 and still in place, those who test positive for COVID-19 are expected to attend work and school with mild symptoms so long as they are seven days post-onset of symptoms and fever free for 48 hours.

People on a crowded beach in Lomma, Sweden on Aug. 16, 2020.

 

Johan Nilsson—TT/Sipa

Sweden actually recommends against masks everywhere except in places where health care workers are treating COVID-19 patients (some regions expand that to health care workers treating suspected patients as well). Autumn corona outbreaks in Dalarna, Jönköping, Luleå, Malmö, Stockholm and Uppsala hospitals are affecting both hospital staff and patients. In an email on April 5, Tegnell wrote to Mike Catchpole, the chief scientist at the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC): “We are quite worried about the statement ECDC has been preparing about masks.” Tegnell attached a document in which he expresses concern that ECDC recommending facemasks would “imply that the spread is airborne which would seriously harm further communication and trust among the population and health care workers” and concludes “we would like to warn against the publication of this advice.” Despite this, on April 8 ECDC recommended masks and on June 8 the World Health Organization updated its stance to recommend masks.

Sweden’s government officials stuck to their party line. Karin Tegmark Wisell of the Public Health Agency said at a press conference on July 14 that “we see around the world that masks are used in a way so that you rather increase the spread of infection.” Two weeks later, Lena Hallengren, the Minister of Health and Social Affairs, spoke about masks at a press conference on July 29 and said, “We don’t have that tradition or culture” and that the government “would not review the Public Health Agency’s decision not to recommend masks.”

All of this creates a situation which leaves teachers, bus drivers, medical workers and care home staff more exposed, without face masks at a time when the rest of the world is clearly endorsing widespread mask wearing.

On Aug. 13, Tegnell said that to recommend masks to the public “quite a lot of resources are required. There is quite a lot of money that would be spent if you are going to have masks.” Indeed, emails between Tegnell and colleagues at the Public Health Agency and Andreas Johansson of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs show that the policy concerns of the health authority were influenced by financial interests, including the commercial concerns of Sweden’s airports.

Swedavia, the owner of the country’s largest airport, Stockholm Arlanda, told employees during the spring and early summer they could not wear masks or gloves to work. One employee told Upsala Nya Tidning newspaper on Aug. 24 “Many of us were sick during the beginning of the pandemic and two colleagues have died due to the virus. I would estimate that 60%-80% of the staff at the security checks have had the infection.”

“Our union representatives fought for us to have masks at work,” the employee said, “but the airport’s response was that we were an authority that would not spread fear, but we would show that the virus was not so dangerous.” Swedavia’s reply was that they had introduced the infection control measures recommended by the authorities. On July 1, the company changed its policy, recommending masks for everyone who comes to Arlanda—that, according to a Swedavia spokesperson, was not as a result of “an infection control measure advocated by Swedish authorities,” but rather, due to a joint European Union Aviation Safety Agency and ECDC recommendation for all of Europe.

As early as January, the Public Health Agency was warning the government about costs. In a Jan. 31 communique, Public Health Agency Director Johan Carlsson (appointed by Löfven) and General Counsel Bitte Bråstad wrote to the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, cautioning the government about costs associated with classifying COVID-19 as a socially dangerous disease: “After a decision on quarantine, costs for it [include] compensation which according to the Act, must be paid to those who, due to the quarantine decision, must refrain from gainful employment. The uncertainty factors are many even when calculating these costs. Society can also suffer a loss of production due to being quarantined [and] prevented from performing gainful employment which they would otherwise have performed.” Sweden never implemented quarantine in society, not even for those returning from travel abroad or family members of those who test positive for COVID-19.

Not only did these lack of measures likely result in more infections and deaths, but it didn’t even help the economy: Sweden has fared worse economically than other Nordic countries throughout the pandemic.

---

The Swedish way has yielded little but death and misery. And, this situation has not been honestly portrayed to the Swedish people or to the rest of the world.

A Public Health Agency report published July 7 included data for teachers in primary schools working on-site as well as for secondary school teachers who switched to distance instruction online. In the report, they combined the two data sources and compared the result to the general population, stating that teachers were not at greater risk and implying that schools were safe. But in fact, the infection rate of those teaching in classrooms was 60% higher than those teaching online—completely undermining the conclusion of the report.

Refrigeration containers to be used on standby as makeshift morgues to store people who have died from COVID-19 set up behind Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Sweden on March 26, 2020.

 

IBL/Shutterstock

The report also compares Sweden to Finland for March through the end of May and wrongly concludes that the ”closing of schools had no measurable effect on the number of cases of COVID-19 among children.” As testing among children in Sweden was almost non-existent at that time compared to Finland, these data were misrepresented; a better way to look at it would be to consider the fact that Sweden had seven times as many children per capita treated in the ICU during that time period.

When pressed about discrepancies in the report, Public Health Agency epidemiologist Jerker Jonsson replied on Aug. 21 via email: “The title is a bit misleading. It is not a direct comparison of the situation in Finland to the situation in Sweden. This is just a report and not a peer-reviewed scientific study. This was just a quick situation report and nothing more.” However the Public Health Agency and Minister of Education continue to reference this report as justification to keep schools open, and other countries cite it as an example.

This is not the only case where Swedish officials have misrepresented data in an effort to make the situation seem more under control than it really is. In April, a group of 22 scientists and physicians criticized Sweden’s government for the 105 deaths per day the country was seeing at the time, and Tegnell and the Public Health Agency responded by saying the true number was just 60 deaths per day. Revised government figures now show Tegnell was incorrect and the critics were right. The Public Health Agency says the discrepancy was due to a backlog in accounting for deaths, but they have backlogged deaths throughout the pandemic, making it difficult to track and gauge the actual death toll in real time.

---

Sweden never went into an official lockdown but an estimated 1.5 million have self-isolated, largely the elderly and those in risk groups. This was probably the largest factor in slowing the spread of the virus in the country in the summer. However, recent data suggest that cases are yet again spiking in the country, and there’s no indication that government policies will adapt.

Health care workers, scientists and private citizens have all voiced concerns about the Swedish approach. But Sweden is a small country, proud of its humanitarian image—so much so that we cannot seem to understand when we have violated it. There is simply no way to justify the magnitude of lost lives, poorer health and putting risk groups into long-term isolation, especially not in an effort to reach an unachievable herd immunity. Countries need to take care before adopting the “Swedish way.” It could have tragic consequences for this pandemic or the next.

 

Endret 15. oktober 2020 av 0laf

[Pc Lynet]

Sitat

Bedrifter i hele landet avlyser julebord

En undersøkelse blant 1853 av NHOs medlemsbedrifter viser at 53 prosent dropper årets julebord, 26 prosent opprettholder tradisjonen og 21 prosent er usikre.

https://www.dinside.no/okonomi/bedrifter-i-hele-landet-avlyser-julebord/72953172

[Pc Lynet]

Sitat

What Young, Healthy People Have to Fear From COVID-19

The White House’s new science adviser says: nothing. The science disagrees.

COVID-19 presents an array of health challenges that are serious, if not imminently fatal. The disease occasionally sends people’s immune system into a frenzy, wreaking havoc on their internal organs. Several studies of asymptomatic patients revealed that more than half of them had lung abnormalities. A March study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that 7 to 20 percent of sick patients showed heart damage associated with COVID-19.

 

As my colleague Ed Yong explained, many COVID-19 patients experience protracted illness. These “long-haulers” suffer from a diabolical grab bag of symptoms, including chronic fatigue, shortness of breath, unrelenting fevers, gastrointestinal problems, lost sense of smell, hallucinations, short-term-memory loss, bulging veins, bruising, gynecological problems, and an erratic heartbeat. And according to the neuroscientist David Putrino, chronic patients are typically young (the average age in his survey is 44), female, and formerly healthy.

We don’t know how many long-haulers are out there. But by combining the conclusion of several well-regarded studies, we can arrive at a decent estimate.

For men in their 30s, like me, about 1.2 percent of COVID-19 infections result in hospitalization, according to a July study published in Science. Once the disease has progressed to this point, the risk of chronic illness soars. Research from Italy found that roughly nine in 10 hospitalized patients said they still had symptoms after two months. A British study reported a similar risk of long-term illness.

 

Now the math: When you multiply the hospitalization rate for 30-something men (about 1.2 percent) by the chronic-illness rate of hospitalized patients (almost 90 percent), you get about 1 percent. That means a guy my age has one-in-100 chance of developing a long-term illness after contracting COVID-19. For context, the estimated infection-fatality rate for a 60-something is 0.7 percent, according to the same study in Science.

 

 

You might be used to thinking of 30-somethings as safe and seniors as at risk in this pandemic. But if a man in his 30s and a man in his 60s both contract COVID-19, it is more likely that the 30-something will develop a months-long illness than that the 60-something will die, according to this research. (The calculation above doesn’t even include the countless long-haulers who never went to the hospital.)

More frightening than what we’re learning now is what we cannot yet know: the truly long-term—as in, decades-long—implications of this disease for the body. “We know that hepatitis C leads to liver cancer, we know that human papillomavirus leads to cervical cancer, we know that HIV leads to certain cancers,” Howard Forman, a health-policy professor at Yale, told James Hamblin and Katherine Wells of The Atlantic. “We have no idea whether having had this infection means that, 10 years from now, you have an elevated risk of lymphoma.”‪

Det blir ganske dyrt om 1 av 100 unge blir kroniske syke.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-young-healthy-people-have-fear-covid-19/616087/