Coronavirus and the impact on football

[LFC vs PFC]

Hi Taksin,
Sweden appears to have a very similar death rate per million of population v England/UK. (1 in about 1500)
One had lockdown the other did not.
Sweden death rate in this regard also seems higher than its neighbouring countries.
What do you predict will happen to this comparison over the next year for example.
You mention Dr Mike Yeadon - why should we listen to him above others.
My favourite trusted virologist is Dr Chris Smith who appears on BBC fairly regularly. Do you discount his views?

The thing about Sweden though is their country us far more widely spread. Per square kilometre, we have 275 people, they have 25, do whether or not they go into lockdown, they're already socially distancing.

It's no coincedence that as lockdown restrictions have eased the infection rate has gone back up again.

[scientificred]

The thing about Sweden though is their country us far more widely spread. Per square kilometre, we have 275 people, they have 25, do whether or not they go into lockdown, they're already socially distancing.

It's no coincedence that as lockdown restrictions have eased the infection rate has gone back up again.

I stand to be corrected but has not Taksin portrayed the Sweden model as the best way to proceed?

[Steveo]

The thing about Sweden though is their country us far more widely spread. Per square kilometre, we have 275 people, they have 25, do whether or not they go into lockdown, they're already socially distancing.

It's no coincedence that as lockdown restrictions have eased the infection rate has gone back up again.

True to an extent but again evidence of how isolated stats can be misleading. For instance 85% of Swedes live in 1.3% of the large land mass. Overwhelmingly Swedes live close together and not spread out evenly across the territory.

[Taksin]

I stand to be corrected but has not Taksin portrayed the Sweden model as the best way to proceed?

It seems the best way to proceed to me. They have used good science as guidance, different science to the UK and others (you have to choose your scientific advice). They have relied more on people taking their own measures - trusted their people - and the population actually has undergone a lot of changes. For example domestic flights have all but stopped as have/had international holidays. Crucially they believe in herd immunity, which will stand them in good stead now - no need for vaccines. New Zealand in contrast must stay closed for as long as the virus exists. How long will that be? How much damage will total lockdown cause?

Sweden has a culture of very large nursing homes - often with hundreds of residents - which caused them high numbers of excess deaths early on. Norway, by contrast, has a culture of small nursing homes. These type of things have probably counted. There are some eventualities you just can't see coming.

I was against lockdown from the start, seeing it as a bizarre overreaction (and I had the disease quite badly before lockdown started). But I was prepared to remain quiet and give way to the opinion of people I respected who thought that it was not acceptable to let the health system of a developed country be overrun. This government initially said they wanted herd immunity and the lockdown was going to be short-lived to flatten the curve so the curve wasn't too steep for the NHS. Boris even said some reassuring (to me) words about how this is a liberal country and we are not suited to or willing to undergo police state treatment.

What's happened since then? He got badly ill, which seems to have shaken him up, if not neutered him all together, and now we hear nothing of the flat curve. The curve is long since gone to zero. The hospitals have been empty for months and the Nightingale hospitals were shut down, unused. We are pursuing a different policy - eradicating the disease (and even eradicating the virus) altogether. Why?

I think one of the problems is the population has become scared out of its wits. Everyone thinks they might die, even though they won't. The government is demonstrating governance by focus group, which I think is a disgrace. We need leadership and decision making, not fear of losing support. The media is even worse, unable to ask questions or think critically.

'As long as one life is saved, that's good enough for me', I heard one football manager say - can't remember who. But this is such a naíve thought. There are so many other problems to consider. We could be like Sweden, getting back to normal life, but instead we are sleep walking into the Great Depression of 2020. It is already more likely you'll die of suicide than Covid and all kinds of suffering will follow economic collapse. All kinds of suffering will also follow the shut down of the NHS for a year - that calculation is starting to look truly horrible.

LFC vs PFc's comment above about infection rate going up as a result of easing restrictions seems wrong to me. We've been eased for months and there are two reasons for it that I can see. One, there is much more testing and the testing seems dodgy ('up to ten times too high a positive rate'). I accept the positive ratio is also increasing, but there are other possible reasons for that. And two, we are going back into winter and the sun has been receding since June 22nd, altering vitamin D levels as well as many other things.

My prediction is that death rates will not rise proportionately (or won't rise much if at all in other words) - there may be some rise for winter but not for 'spreading'. Governor Cuomo was shocked to find that 60% of hospital admissions in New York were people observing full lockdown. I think LFC vs PFc's perception is the thing we need to change if we are to move on because the effing government aren't going to change strategy unless public opinion changes. That's why I'm writing all this.

So if spreading isn't the problem, why aren't we back in football stadiums enjoying our short and miserable lives again?

[Steveo]

I stand to be corrected but has not Taksin portrayed the Sweden model as the best way to proceed?

To be fair it wouldn’t be a bad shout. They have had very low adverse domestic social, economical or educational effects due to Covid 19 as they did not act in similar draconian ways to much of the planet - preferring to believe in their amazing health service and wider public.

Their Mortality rate due to Covid is the highest in Scandinavia and the 5th highest in Europe BUT they did not lock down at all - their population is Scandinavia’s largest and right now they are the only country in Europe where infections are in decline.

[Crimson Dynasty]

I actually did check the Brazil statistics at the time, CD, and the number was still below the UK at that point. They are still similar, roughly equivalent and that fact is relevant to the question Dicko asked quite some time before you entered the debate. I tried at the time to post the graph, which was indeed easily available but this website wouldn't accept the format.

Assuming you're referring to the date you responded on and posted that comment (below...)

and in a late reply to dicko, Brazil still has a lower death rate per million of population than Britain, and that is without a lockdown.

....and the date you posted it on (12th September 2020, )


.......then that's not really true either.
On September 12th, the UK had a reported 41,623 total confirmed deaths (and a 613 deaths per 1 million) while Brazil had 131,274 confirmed deaths of (and a 621 deaths per 1 million )

(sources : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Brazil numbers :- https://g1.globo.com/bemestar/coronavirus/noticia/2020/09/16/casos-e-mortes-por-coronavirus-no-brasil-em-16-de-setembro-segundo-consorcio-de-veiculos-de-imprensa.ghtml
UK numbers : - https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ )


As for Sweden....let's break this down into parts...
RE : their decision to not go for a Lockdown unlike virtually all their immediate neighbours - in the (misguided) attempt to shoot for a level of "herd immunity" in hoping that they would overall suffer a less severe hit (both in terms of deaths and more pertinently their Economy), firstly let's look at how they fared among confirmed deaths....

Not surprisingly when compared to their most immediate neighbours (with similar population profiles) - and all of whom went for strict lockdowns, masking, Social distancing...etc.....


One of these is not like the others. See if you can figure out which one (I've helped you out a little bit)

Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths as of September 16th, 2020

Denmark 633
Finland 339
Norway 265
Estonia 64
Latvia 35
Lithuania 87

Sweden 5,851


Even if you add the total deaths in all the other countries (1,423), you still have close to 4 times a higher death count in Sweden compared to all their neighbours. So clearly, that's not good.

Secondly, as for their original underlying reasoning in going a different way and eschewing the lockdowns - unlike their neighbours (and most places in the world), being the aim of attaining "Herd immunity":-

"The health authorities predicted that 40% of the Stockholm population would have had the disease and acquired antibodies by May 2020.
However, the actual prevalence figure was around 15%."

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-covid-herd-immunity-sweden-materialize.html

To successfully attain what is understood to be 'herd immunity' to a particular contagion within a given population, most epidemiologists agree that you need to have at least 70% (... and really, preferably 90%) of the population having had the disease, recovered from it and showing clear antibodies against it.
Which would mean with (only) a 15% rate showing antibodies 6 months into the epidemic (...and 9-20 times the deaths of their neighbours, to boot...), their attempt could be surmised as being a total failure.

And this is even putting aside the consideration that nobody quite yet knows whether such an immunity would be lasting as the data is yet unclear as to how long COVID-19 antibodies last in the human body and for how long during that period they are truly effective against re-infection.

Lastly, the Economic hit...

>>>"“The economic consequences of the pandemic will be considerable,” Sweden’s central bank said in a recent report as it forecast an economic contraction for Sweden of between 7 and 10 percentage points for this year and unemployment of between 9 and 10 percent. Last year the jobless figure was 6.8 percent. The European Commission's current forecast for the eurozone for 2020 is for an economic contraction of 7.75 percent."

https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/press-and-published/notices-and-press-releases/press-releases/2020/monetary-policy-april-2020--the-riksbank-is-supporting-an-economy--in-crisis/


So a bigger contraction of their Economy (not surprising, given the fact that they are primarily an Export-based economy and all their trading partners had their respective economies halted so,......no one to sell to), and a resulting bigger jobless and unemployment rate than the forecast for the Eurozone average.

So no benefit there either.
Which brings us back to....more people died than needed to (if you compare them to their neighbours), they got no "herd immunity" benefit, and their Economy seems like it might end up even far worse.

Brazil has had a bungled response and there's no question about it. If you speak to anyone on the ground there, with their 'mini-Trump' president Bolsonaro, who fired 3 health ministers that were all saying the same thing and urging him to listen to the science and to the scientists and institute the proper measures to prevent deaths, only to end up with what looks like a higher death rate (only second to the US in the Americas).
Thanks to Bolsonaro they didn't have a national lockdown like their medical authorities were urging him to institute, so individual cities and state governors were taking it upon themselves to institute regional lockdowns as their health systems were becoming overwhelmed and the crisis worsened , in what become a disjointed response that was mostly too late for most of the people who died - again, much like the US response.
And then to top it all off, Bolsonaro himself got infected after weeks of mocking social distancing and masking efforts of his own government and health officials.



The underlying and recurrent theme in all these instances is that the science got it pretty much spot on, insofar as the best way to respond to the initial outbreak of the virus, which included the usual measures of social distancing, masking and locking down to reduce transmission rates and give Healthcare services a chance to cope with, and to manage the incoming sick, as well as to give any infected a better chance to recover rather than die.
Even in the countries that decided to ignore the science.
The numbers simply bear it out.

It just depends on whether you believe a higher confirmed death rate (and potential prolongation of the pandemic ) is justified and worth the "freedom" you believe you're being deprived and denied, as well as the Economic benefit you think will be "gained" by not doing what medical experts say you should do.

[CCTV]

The thing about Sweden though is their country us far more widely spread. Per square kilometre, we have 275 people, they have 25, do whether or not they go into lockdown, they're already socially distancing.

It's no coincedence that as lockdown restrictions have eased the infection rate has gone back up again.

The differnce between Sweden and her neighbours on deaths should imo be weighted against the cost of lockdown (which includes lives), the level of cases and potential herd immunity threshold another to consider.
At a guess they got it right with hindsight.

Comparing countries there are loads of factors, the ones id suspect are relevant:

Blood type composition of nations
Average age/life expectancy of each nation- older folks
Vitamin d deficiency
Number of other high risk factors - say obesity
Levels of daily exposure to uv light - seemingly the virus doesnt appear to be well adapted to uv
Racial/ethnic demographics tied to the above
Burqa v Mankini wearing culture
Black folk and the lesser ability to derive vitamin d from sun
The level of preexisting t-cell reactions: seems to be about 20-50% of non infected people have t-cells that can attack the not so novel virus
No of people whove been infected - likely unkown in truth
Population data for mobility/travelling nationally and internationally.
Population data denisty variances
Number of borders and border security
Were sick people put back into nursing homes, were asylum seekers permitted to travel whilst infected
Levels of compliance to authority in a nation
Level of national cohesion
Level of authoritarian power by the state
Level of trust in WHO & China
Reliability of data
Performance of health care systems
Drug treatments and practices

Probably many more for consideration

[scientificred]

The differnce between Sweden and her neighbours on deaths should imo be weighted against the cost of lockdown (which includes lives), the level of cases and potential herd immunity threshold another to consider.
At a guess they got it right with hindsight.

Comparing countries there are loads of factors, the ones id suspect are relevant:

Blood type composition of nations
Average age/life expectancy of each nation- older folks
Vitamin d deficiency
Number of other high risk factors - say obesity
Levels of daily exposure to uv light - seemingly the virus doesnt appear to be well adapted to uv
Racial/ethnic demographics tied to the above
Burqa v Mankini wearing culture
Black folk and the lesser ability to derive vitamin d from sun
The level of preexisting t-cell reactions: seems to be about 20-50% of non infected people have t-cells that can attack the not so novel virus
No of people whove been infected - likely unkown in truth
Population data for mobility/travelling nationally and internationally.
Population data denisty variances
Number of borders and border security
Were sick people put back into nursing homes, were asylum seekers permitted to travel whilst infected
Levels of compliance to authority in a nation
Level of national cohesion
Level of authoritarian power by the state
Level of trust in WHO & China
Reliability of data
Performance of health care systems
Drug treatments and practices

Probably many more for consideration

That is some list.
Has anyone devised a model based on such manifold inputs? If so is there a corresponding prognosis?

[LFC vs PFC]

The differnce between Sweden and her neighbours on deaths should imo be weighted against the cost of lockdown (which includes lives), the level of cases and potential herd immunity threshold another to consider.
At a guess they got it right with hindsight.

Comparing countries there are loads of factors, the ones id suspect are relevant:

Blood type composition of nations
Average age/life expectancy of each nation- older folks
Vitamin d deficiency
Number of other high risk factors - say obesity
Levels of daily exposure to uv light - seemingly the virus doesnt appear to be well adapted to uv
Racial/ethnic demographics tied to the above
Burqa v Mankini wearing culture
Black folk and the lesser ability to derive vitamin d from sun
The level of preexisting t-cell reactions: seems to be about 20-50% of non infected people have t-cells that can attack the not so novel virus
No of people whove been infected - likely unkown in truth
Population data for mobility/travelling nationally and internationally.
Population data denisty variances
Number of borders and border security
Were sick people put back into nursing homes, were asylum seekers permitted to travel whilst infected
Levels of compliance to authority in a nation
Level of national cohesion
Level of authoritarian power by the state
Level of trust in WHO & China
Reliability of data
Performance of health care systems
Drug treatments and practices

Probably many more for consideration

Quite right, I also think that the main reason we have had it so bad is the fact that by and large we're a nation of entitled cunts, and any seeming infringements of our rights, we pull up the ladder in an 'I'm alright Jack' fashion, I'm going out on the piss.

[CCTV]

That is some list.
Has anyone devised a model based on such manifold inputs? If so is there a corresponding prognosis?

Not that I've seen, most of the stuff I've seen is mostly very basic analysis and highly politicised ie for points scoring.

Probably out there somewhere but not come across it yet. If not should be due soon as the understanding grows.