https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/19/lockdown-may-cost-200k-lives-government-report-shows/ Lockdown may cost 200,000 lives, government report shows Research shines a light on the reasons why the Government has been keen to lift lockdown, in spite of experts claiming it happened too soon By Sarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR 19 July 2020 • 9:00pm More than 200,000 people could die from the impact of lockdown and protecting the NHS, an official government report shows. As national restrictions were imposed, experts from the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office forecast the collateral damage from delays to healthcare and the effects of recession arising from the pandemic response. It estimated that in a reasonable worst case scenario, around 50,000 people would die from coronavirus in the first six months of the pandemic, with mitigation measures in place. But in the report published in April they calculated that up to 25,000 could die from delays to treatment in the same period and a further 185,000 in the medium to long term - amounting to nearly one million years of life lost. It comes amid debate over the easing of lockdown restrictions, with some arguing it is both too early to lift the measures and that they should have been imposed earlier, while other politicians have questioned whether the cure is worse than the disease. The Prime Minister has stressed his desire to avoid a return to national lockdown. In an interview in The Telegraph, Boris Johnson likened the measures to a nuclear deterrent, and said he did not want to impose blanket restrictions again, or think it would be necessary. The UK's National Statistician, Prof Sir Ian Diamond also said on Sunday that there had been no uptick in cases since lockdown measures had been eased but warned the nation would need to be vigilant come the autumn. Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), and Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific advisor (GSCA) have both expressed concern that the damage from lockdown could be severe. The report came to light after Sir Patrick told MPs at the Science and Technology Select Committee last week that calculations had been made to predict the number of deaths caused by the effects of lockdown, which was announced on March 23. The report produced in the following weeks warned there could be 500 more suicides during the first wave, and between 600 and 12,000 more deaths per year resulting from a recession which had a significant impact on GDP. They also forecast around 20 more deaths this year through domestic violence, and an increase in the number of accidents at home - in the ‘low tens.’ In total, under a worst case scenario, around quarter of a million people would die because of the pandemic response. The figures were based on 75 per cent of elective care being cancelled over six months without significant reprioritisation when things returned to normal. The number of elective hospital appointments dropped to around a quarter of usual levels in March and April and had only recovered to around half by the beginning of July. Charities have increasingly warned that delaying diagnosis, pausing surgery and postponing treatment is a ‘ticking time bomb’ which will cause long-term harm. Figures released by Cancer Research UK today show that as of May 30, there were more than 180,000 people in England waiting for an endoscopy - a rise of 44 per cent from the same time in 2019. And around 2.3 million fewer tests that help diagnose cancer have taken place since lockdown compared to the same time last year, and 51 per cent more people are waiting for colonoscopies. Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on cancer patients and services across the UK. “In the early weeks of lockdown urgent referrals plummeted, screening programmes were paused, surgeries were cancelled, clinical trials were put on hold, and existing health inequalities were exacerbated. “It’s now more crucial than ever that the Government works closely with the NHS to ensure it has the staff and equipment it needs to clear the mounting backlog and get services back on track before this situation gets even worse – especially in the event of a second wave.”
If you want to see a Jackass as president just wait until The Biden Administration------oh wait that's not going to happen.
A buffoon and his friends run the UK right now and the need to cover this was discussed months back, testing services needed to be kept running. You will find that much of this actually was still operating. Had the exponentially driven hockey stick of ill people overwhelmed the health services, there would also have been no testing. Worst case numbers being lead with? CRUK is correct in part but as a major cancer charity, they also cry sky is falling at the drop of an acorn. (OK it was a big acorn).
The latest from Sweden..... Do the Contact Tracing yourselves.... your government doesn't really care how many other people you infect with COVID. Sweden says people infected with COVID-19 should do contact tracing themselves https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-do-contact-tracing-themselves-idUSKCN24L28P Sweden’s health agency said on Monday it was changing its COVID-19 contact-tracing guidelines so that tracing is done to a larger extent by the individuals infected. The new guidance breaks from a strategy adopted by most countries where authorities trace and notify people who have had close contact with a carrier of the disease. An agency spokeswoman said it was much better that individuals themselves contact people they may have infected, rather than official tracking units which currently have this responsibility. The existing system worked well when the number of infections was lower but had become less effective as the number grew, she said. Unlike most tracing systems, the Swedish system is not anonymous as individuals are expected to deliver the news of their infection to anyone they’ve been in close contact with. It is not yet clear how this will work in practice or whether authorities will check up on this do-it-yourself arrangement. The health agency is expected to issue full guidelines in the coming days. Although the number of infections in Sweden has slowed in recent weeks, a total of 78,048 people have been infected since the pandemic began, a figure far outstripping its Nordic neighbours. (More at the above url)
Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb COVID-19. Don't do what we did. It's not working. Sweden's approach to COVID has led to death, grief and suffering. The only example we're setting is how not to deal with a deadly infectious disease. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...munity-drove-up-death-toll-column/5472100002/ Sweden has often been considered a leader when it comes to global humanitarian issues, regarded as a beacon of light in areas such as accepting refugees and working against global warming. In the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden has also created interest around the world by following its own path of using a “soft” approach — not locking down, introducing mostly voluntary restrictions and spurning the use of masks. This approach has been perceived as more liberal and has shown up in “Be Like Sweden” signs and chants at U.S. protests. Wherever measures have been lenient, though, death rates have peaked. In the United States, areas that are coming out of lockdown early are suffering, and we are seeing the same in other countries as well. The motives for the Swedish Public Health Agency's light-touch approach are somewhat of a mystery. Some other countries that initially used this strategy swiftly abandoned it as the death toll began to increase, opting instead for delayed lockdowns. But Sweden has been faithful to its approach. Why? Gaining herd immunity, where large numbers of the population (preferably younger) are infected and thereby develop immunity, has not been an official goal of the Swedish Public Health Agency. But it has said immunity in the population could help suppress the spread of the disease, and some agency statements suggest it is the secret goal. An unnerving death rate Further evidence of this is that the agency insists on mandatory schooling for young children, the importance of testing has been played down for a long time, the agency refused to acknowledge the importance of asymptomatic spread of the virus (concerningly, it has encouraged those in households with COVID-19 infected individuals to go to work and school) and still refuses to recommend masks in public, despite the overwhelming evidence of their effectiveness. In addition, the stated goal of the Swedish authorities was always not to minimize the epidemic, but rather slow it down, so that the health care system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Several authorities, including the World Health Organization, have condemned herd immunity as a strategy. "It can lead to a very brutal arithmetic that does not put people and life and suffering at the center of that equation,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO's Health Emergencies Program, said at a press conference in May. Regardless of whether herd immunity is a goal or a side effect of the Swedish strategy, how has it worked out? Not so well, according to the agency’s own test results. The proportion of Swedes carrying antibodies is estimated to be under 10%, thus nowhere near herd immunity. And yet, the Swedish death rate is unnerving. Sweden has a death toll greater than the United States: 556 deaths per million inhabitants, compared with 425, as of July 20. Sweden also has a death toll more than four and a half times greater than that of the other four Nordic countries combined — more than seven times greater per million inhabitants. For a number of weeks, Sweden has been among the top in the world when it comes to current reported deaths per capita. And despite this, the strategy in essence remains the same. Learn from Sweden's mistakes It is possible that the Public Health Authority actually believed that the Swedish approach was the most appropriate and sustainable one, and that the other countries, many of which went into lockdown, would do worse. Perhaps this, and not herd immunity, is the main reason the authorities are desperately clinging to their strategy. Or perhaps an unwillingness to admit early mistakes and take responsibility for thousands of unnecessary deaths plays into this resistance to change. Nevertheless, the result at this stage is unequivocal. We do believe Sweden can be used as a model, but not in the way it was thought of initially. It can instead serve as a control group and answer the question of how efficient the voluntary distancing and loose measures in Sweden are compared to lockdowns, aggressive testing, tracing and the use of masks. In Sweden, the strategy has led to death, grief and suffering and on top of that there are no indications that the Swedish economy has fared better than in many other countries. At the moment, we have set an example for the rest of the world on how not to deal with a deadly infectious disease. In the end, this too shall pass and life will eventually return to normal. New medical treatments will come and improve the prognosis. Hopefully there will be a vaccine. Stick it out until then. And don’t do it the Swedish way. Sigurd Bergmann, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Dr. Leif Bjermer. Ph.D., Professor, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University Barbara Caracciolo, Ph.D., in Epidemiology Marcus Carlsson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics, Lund University Dr. Lena Einhorn, Ph.D., in Virology Dr. Stefan Einhorn, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Oncology, Karolinska Institutet Andrew Ewing, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg Dr. Manuel Felices, Ph.D., Head of Endocrine Surgery, NÄL Hospital Dr. Jonas Frisén, Ph.D., Professor of Stem Cell Research, Karolinska Institutet Marie Gorwa, Ph.D., Professor of Microbiology, Lund University Dr. Åke Gustafsson, Ph.D., Clinical Microbiology, Uppsala University Hospital Dr. Olle Isacsson, Ph.D., Professor of Endocrinology, University of Gothenburg Dr. Claudia Hanson, Ph.D., Associate professor, Global public health, Karolinska Institutet Dr. Stefan Hanson, Ph.D., International Health, Karolinska Institutet. Dr. Jan Lötvall, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Allergy, University of Gothenburg Dr. Bo Lundbäck, Ph.D., Professor of Epidemiology of Respiratory Diseases, University of Gothenburg Åke Lundkvist, Ph.D., Professor of Virology, Uppsala University Dr. Cecilia Söderberg-Nauclér, Ph.D., Professor of Microbial Pathogenesis, Karolinska Institutet Finn Nilson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Risk Management, Karlstad University Andreas Nilsson, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, University of Gothenburg Dr. Björn Olsen, Ph.D., Professor of Infectious Diseases, Uppsala University Jens Stilhoff Sörensen, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg Jakob Svensson, Ph.D., Scientific Data Analysis, Max Planck Institute, Greifswald Dr. Anders Vahlne, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Virology, Karolinska Institutet Dr. Anders Wahlin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Hematology, University of Umeå
Looking for a good answer to this question----"Why are Sweden's new case and new death totals so low now?"
I dunno, looks pretty good to me. # 7 in deaths per mm, under countries that did the lock down as "recommended". #19 in total deaths. Looks to me that all those doctors that were saying "Don't do what we did in Sweden" were simply trying to garner support to the WHO. Sweden essentially made the WHO appear the incompetent organization it actually is. So I can understand the narrative. But the actual data shows a much better story. Remember, ignore the narrative, look at the data.
Actually, Q1 data shows a significant discrepancy in GDP data, with Sweden near the top and certainly near the top in performance vs. Western economies. Q2 will likely show a considerable disparity.