Reply With QuoteWhy Sweden? The most similar countries to Sweden are their Scandinavian neighbours.Originally Posted by TWGL1
Per capita, their deaths are 6x higher than Norway’s and 5x higher than Finland’s.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Surely this is straightforward? As mentioned earlier in the thread, official Government figures have cases at one per fifteen people in England, compared to one in twenty in Scotland and Wales.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...onsanddiseases
Clearly then, the official figures show that Covid rates are worse in England than they are in the other two countries. However, one in twenty is bad, as bad as I can remember it being for Scotland and Wales and so it seems to me that the debate to be had is that, while England are in a worse place than us, does the slightly better infection rate justify the restrictions imposed by the Welsh and Scottish Governments? For myself, I was against the closing of sports stadia in particular and I’ve not seen anything in the last fortnight to change my opinion.
Why Sweden? The most similar countries to Sweden are their Scandinavian neighbours.
Per capita, their deaths are 6x higher than Norway’s and 5x higher than Finland’s.
You don’t need the exact numbers as the population difference is about 48m , the percentage is what counts and it’s weekly.
I wonder how many are discharged every day ?
How many in hospital are waiting to be placed in care homes ?
Got to take into account the ability of the NHS to care for those admitted to hospital aswell.
The numbers of beds (including critical care), staffing levels (including sickness ) all are taken into account, not just the headline figures we see every day.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...34948211047137
You would think every country in the world would have the same rules , but even in the Uk we don’t , that’s what’s baffling
Assuming you’re replying to me, you’re missing my point. Saying “hospitalisations are down 20% in England and 10% in Wales compared to last year” doesn’t tell us anything. These are all made up numbers now to illustrate my point: England could’ve had 10% of the country in hospital so a 20% reduction means 8% of the country are now hospitalised. Compared to wales where last year we might’ve had 5% hospitalised so a 10% reduction means only 4.5% are hospitalised. The comparison could be being made when Wales could’ve been right in the middle of our peak and England in a trough.
That’s a fair point actually , but an easier variable would be to look at annual excess deaths and compare those year on year taking into account population growth.
I dont see how Bristol has any relevance. The question was have the restrictions worked.
Did closing nightclubs , stopping crowds at stadiums , the rule of 6 in pubs work.
Im 99.9 per cent sure if those things hadnt been restricted there would have been more close contacts more infections more people isolating.
I have no idea on why Bristol is currently less.
Im pretty certain its not because they can go to the football , go to packed nightclubs and pubs though.
If you can find those numbers by all means post them here.
I’d argue an easier way of measuring is just looking at “Hospitalisations per 100k” and “Deaths per 100k” since the current restrictions were announced. We’re talking about the current restrictions so looking at annual excess deaths would only cover restrictions in 2020 and 2021.
Good post. For me, the difference isn't significant enough and I haven't supported the restrictions this time around. I've written enough as to my reasons why and it's not because I can't go to the football (though of course, that's p*ssed me off).
Have the restrictions in Wales seen businesses collapse, people lose jobs , increase mentality risk and future health issues , effected young children education and state of mind.
Was the under performing health sector before Covid in Wales resulted in greater restrictions and added risk .
You just can't leave it alone, can you? Stop being foolish.
The disease (Omicron) is the same everywhere so there is the same true relationship between the actual (not reported) cases and actual (not reported) deaths. Reported death data is probably the most reliable indicator of the prevalence of the disease. Reported case numbers are almost completely useless cross sectionally and as time series for a plethora of reasons.
You're asserting Wales' policy has made no difference. You're offering no acceptable evidence.
In 2019, there were 530,841 deaths registered in England and Wales, a decrease of 2.0% compared with 2018 (541,589 deaths).
Taking into account the population size and age structure, age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) in England and Wales decreased significantly, by 3.7% for males and 4.7% for females
2020 data
Using the Deaths Registered in England and Wales publication, there have been 607,922 deaths registered in 2020. 569,700 in England and 37,399 in Wales. Year-end figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland can be found in the links below:
2021 data
Using the Deaths Registered Weekly in England and Wales publication, there have been 393,733 deaths registered in England and Wales as of 3 September 2021. 23,911 of these deaths were registered in Wales. This publication is updated every Tuesday.
UK. E & W. Eng. Wal. Scot. N.I
2018 616,014 541,589 505,859 34,406 58,503 15,922
2017 607,172 533,253 498,882 33,248 57,883 16,036
2016 597,206 525,048 490,791 33,066 56,728 15,430
2015 602,782 529,655 495,309 33,198 57,579 15,548
I don't think they are that similar. Have you looked at the variation in population densities?
Sweden to introduce stricter restrictions including work from home mandate
Stricter pandemic measures are to be introduced in Sweden in response to a rising number of Covid cases and pressure on hospitals, the prime minister has said.
“The situation has deteriorated, without doubt. The level of infections in Sweden is at a historically high level,” Magdalena Andersson told a news conference, according to Reuters.
The new measures include a work from home mandate where possible and a cap on the number of people allowed at public events. Restaurants will have to close at 11pm and guests will have to be seated and in groups no bigger than eight people. Adults are also being asked to limit social contacts indoors.
The measures will be evaluated after two weeks, but are expected to be in place for at least four weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...08ad63cf67466f
The pubs thing is a joke anyway, you get 3 or 4 people booking tables in a place and by 9/10 pm no one has a clue who was where.
I heard the landlord in the Albany couldn’t control people in the pub nye so decided to close it early, being a bit peed off most of the pub then went back to one guys house for a party, about 40 people….maybe things like this are why it’s worse here and I bet this is occurring everywhere.
They are not the best , but definitely not the worse ,that’s all , and a more favourable strategy allowing for social responsibility.
Sweden has been both praised and vilified for its “light touch” stance during the pandemic, but with a second covid winter approaching, how do its experts rate the country’s pandemic control now, asks Marta Paterlini
“Swedish statistics do not differ from other European countries,” Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist who has been the face of Sweden’s infamous pandemic strategy, tells The BMJ.
“After two years of pandemic Sweden does not stand out. We are not the best, but we are definitely not the worst.”
In contrast to the stricter, often lockdown focused, approaches of many European countries—including its neighbours in Scandinavia—Sweden’s strategy has relied on individuals taking responsibility under non-binding recommendations.1 In the first six months of the pandemic, the government enacted extensive work from home measures for those that could, as well as remote learning for over 16s.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3081
This is on Sky News today
Pretty much explains everything
https://news.sky.com/story/four-diff...-2020-12513215
Whatever the case, the Uk as a whole is setting the type of records you don't want to set.
Maybe the question should be " Has taking a lax approach been effective ? "
The answer is plainly "No".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-figures-show
What are the death rates in Japan, NZ or China where restrictions are much stricter ?
It's not as if the economy in the UK isn't suffering at greater levels than the rest of the continent either....if you want to bring money (and maybe brexit) into it.
You can say "look at Wales/Scotland stats vs England's ....the restrictions don't work" but that would be an extremely narrow way of looking at it. It might be that things are particularly shit in England and that our proximity means that even with tighter restrictions we are suffering from being in the fallout zone.
Restrictions obviously do work, but if there is a heavy cultural burden and heavy transit from an area with a lot of community transmission, which is undoubtedly the case in England, no amount of measures will curb the general trend.
It’s impossible to say. It’s probably
Slowed the spread down somewhat. What would the numbers be like in Wales now, if England had followed suit and been a little bit more careful in their approach too? With so much movement between wales and England obviously it will still spread.
I’m just glad that the Welsh gov have at least tried to do something to protect the public here. The uk gov were probably too afraid of setting any rules they couldn’t follow
Posting Permissions
