It’s Interesting that Denmark, Norway and Sweden have extremely similar infection numbers up until now. Beginning next week, Denmark and Norway start taking stronger action, whereas Sweden take no such action and are limiting testing to severe cases. (Not testing for instance family to known corona victims if they start showing symptoms of their own. Thus clearly underreporting the number of confirmed cases.)Denmark is shut down with all schools and daycare centers closed preliminarily for two weeks. Emergency law will be enacted tomorrow to ban public gatherings of more than 100 people. Sports tournaments are cancelled (as is the DEL i Germany).
Cheers
It’s Interesting that Denmark, Norway and Sweden have extremely similar infection numbers up until now. Beginning next week, Denmark and Norway start taking stronger action, whereas Sweden take no such action and are limiting testing to severe cases. (Not testing for instance family to known corona victims if they start showing symptoms of their own. Thus clearly underreporting the number of confirmed cases.)
Sweden and Norwegians don't need to go abroad to enjoy winter sports.
The lack of (good) snow this ’winter’ is a problem though. Atleast for most of the country, Åre has snow but many small ski resorts have had no snow for the whole of winter.
As far as I can see the scandinavian countries are less than a day apart in diagnosed cases. Although, as you point out, Sweden has a somewhat larger total population. And they may differ significantly in the future as to how (or if) they diagnose cases. As I wrote, Sweden no longer spends resources on testing anyone unless they are severely sick meaning that the majority who has moderate symptoms are never diagnosed or counted at all.We have had a sudden rise in infection numbers because lots of people returned from skiing in Italy (and Tirol i Austria). Sweden and Norwegians don't need to go abroad to enjoy winter sports. We have roughly twice the number of infected vs Sweden, per capita it is closer to 3x
My oldest daughter (1st grade) has to do math puzzles online, has to read at least half an hour a day and must keep a handwritten diary.
Cheers
They do the same in Denmark, I expect it works the same. Instead of testing and waiting for a test result, anyone with even mild symptons are considered infected and quarantined. It's to lower response time and to lower the pressure on caring resources.As I wrote, Sweden no longer spends resources on testing anyone unless they are severely sick (whatever that will turn out to mean).
Yup. So it’s not as if the motivation is the governments covering things up, but the consequence is still that you give up on trying to track total cases.They do the same in Denmark, I expect it works the same. Instead of testing and waiting for a test result, anyone with even mild symptons are considered infected and quarantined. It's to lower response time and to lower the pressure on caring resources.
Cheers
It has been a shitty winter indeed.
But how many swedes and norwegians spontaneously go to the alps to ski if they can't do it at home? It's already a pretty long drive from DK.
Cheers
If one person can infect tens or hundreds, closing large gatherings makes sense. But if one person will realistically only infect a couple depending on conditions, lots of smaller gatherings could be more damaging. The concern with big events is spreading the virus wider, as someone catching it could come from any geographical location relative to the infector, whereas local meet-ups would keep the infection in a more local territory.Meanwhile, Susan Michie, professor of health psychology at University College London, said "nobody has the right answer" when it comes to tackling the virus. However, she said having sports events played behind closed doors could be counterproductive as it might instead lead people to gathering in pubs "in the warmth, where viruses love it".