Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonsaidit | Hacker News Reader

“not experiencing the massive hospital overloads that they 'should' be according to the projections that drove the lockdowns.”

And yet very sick patients are already being placed in field hospitals with no running water, laying too close, poor air circulation and on old ventilators which have received criticism from the doctors there.

View on HN

From what I read 13 less serious cases were placed in a field hospital at Sahlgrenska as a "trial run" to test the facilities, but since there is available room at in the actual hospital (and people complained) this has now stopped.

There is still available intensive care space at ordinary hospitals and it looks like the number of people needing intensive care has stabilized [1]. The latest numbers are 1072 total intensive care units (not counting field hospitals) and 528 people treated for covid-19 in intensive care [2].

[0] https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/MRrGxK/patientstopp-pa-...

[1] https://portal.icuregswe.org/siri/report/corona.covid-daglig...

[2] https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/coronavirus-covid-19/socialst...

I don't really see why this suggests Sweden's approach should be emulated though. The reality is that we don't understand the conditions where COVID-19 thrives well enough yet to understand why some areas are hit so much harder than others.

We've seen hints that blood type, climate, average social distance, average obesity, average age, etc. But nothing definitive yet.

The costs to the economy from these lockdowns are trivial compared to the cost of a runaway and persistent viral hotspot like New York or Seattle, even if we pretend (as some folks here seem to insist we do) that the loss of life is not worth discussing.

What works in a given area population is great; but until you have some idea what your local R factors and hospitalization rates are, you really should play it safe.

I was not saying that. I was just disagreeing with the statement that Sweden is over its intensive care capacity.

On the other hand, as a Swede I feel that we ARE playing it pretty safe. Some of the measures other countries are taking seems extreme to me.

And yet that's not - even remotely - the kind of problem that was being projected and which justifies pushing the world towards a global depression of the sort that is known to kill lots of the poorest and most vulnerable.

You can find isolated reports of sub-optimal care in any hospital system in the world, at any time. Especially now when so many people are incentivised to paint Sweden in the most negative light possible.

Just a couple of weeks ago world leaders were fighting over every ventilator that existed. Now the biggest problem is that someone, somewhere was given an old one? When many doctors are already starting to argue that forced ventilation is the wrong therapy and switching to simple CPAP anyway? That is not a sign of a system in crisis.

You think it pushes the world towards a global recession. I think a hard lockdown and a co trolled opening is what gets it out of one faster. At least that is what we can see studying history in 1918. Eg Denver vs Philadelphia. Scared people are bad consumers. In reality we don’t really know which strategy is the best.

"Scared people are bad consumers"

People in Sweden are not scared compared to what they are in the UK for example. It's the rest of the world that is scared for the Swedes.

Depends on who you ask. I’ve yet to see a study on this. I work as a consultant in a Swedish company and several of my colleagues stopped traveling to clients and insisted on working from home even before most countries shut down. This is now the policy for the entire company. Even if you don’t have an official lockdown many take their own precautions. Personally I’m not worried myself right now because of the precautions people take, but with more people relaxing and risk of more spread i do worry about the future and will probably have to do less of what I do now to reduce risk to people around me.

I understand that perspective but I'm not sure the experience from over a century ago has much relevance to today. Would the Spanish Flu have killed so many today, with such advanced hospitals and healthcare, and no massive troop movements? We see flu pretty regularly and no lockdown is even proposed, as it's obvious the costs would be stagggeringly out of proportion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com