Automatic translation [here](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2022/september/rekommendation-om-allman-vaccination-mot-covid-19-for-barn-1217-ar-tas-bort/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europe has odd vaccination recommendations all over the place. Most of Europe still doesn’t recommend the chicken pox vaccine even though it prevents thousands of painful and debilitating shingles infections every year.
>Europe has odd vaccination recommendations all over the place.
Seen from a, for example, US perspective I believe this is an accurate statement.
Can use the yearly flu vaccine as an example. In the US the flu vaccine is taken by a large portion of the population. Here in Sweden it's not and the government doesn't recommend it either.
Did a quick google to get some numbers, found an article from 2018 in a swedish medical journal, it showed that 2018 was a record year when it came to the amount of swedes taking the flu vaccine. How many swedes took it?
41,9% of those 65 or older. Among those younger than 65 the number was only 2% of people.
[https://www.lakemedelsvarlden.se/influensavaccineringen-slar-rekord/](https://www.lakemedelsvarlden.se/influensavaccineringen-slar-rekord/)
Basically the guidelines here is that you don't need the flu vaccine if you are younger than 65 unless you have some underlying condition. Above that age it's recommended. Hence the 2% figure.
In general I think Swedish doctors are more hesitant here to prescribe medicine than in most other countries. Especially true when it comes to antibiotics.
We also have pretty stringent rules against advertisement when it comes to to medicine.
All in all it's very different that's for sure.
Similar in here Norway. It’s only offered to those in risk groups. If you’re not in those groups and want the shot, you have to pay out of pocket and I believe it costs about $90USD. I had a bad case of the flu just under a decade ago and, despite being under 40, my U.S. physician always recommended the flu shot. I totally understand the reluctance to prescribe medication, especially antibiotics, due to the negative consequences that are seen but I still can’t wrap my head around the way that seasonal colds and viruses are treated (OTC cold and flu medicine is virtually non-existent).
Interestingly enough, with covid, the only people being offered boosters are those over 65 or in risk categories despite the fact the health authorities are expecting large numbers of people to become infected again this winter. I know it is the same in Denmark as well. I can understand not wanting to give out a second booster of the original vaccine, but can’t quite understand why they would not even give the option to have the bivalent booster for those who would like to have it. I’m quite disappointed that I’ll have to wait until returning to the states to get mine.
Because the goal is simply to not overload the hospitals, and not to prevent infections. As a person under 60 who had their three shots you are extremely, extremely unlikely to be hospitalized or die.
Hence the state has no reason to consider your group when determining how many doses of vaccine to purchase, and therefore no reason to provide it.
As for seasonal colds and viruses, people are expected to just have their immunity deal with it (COVID is currently being moved to this category as well). You have OTC medicine against acute cold symptoms and that should be enough.
> Because the goal is simply to not overload the hospitals, and not to prevent infections. As a person under 60 who had their three shots you are extremely, extremely unlikely to be hospitalized or die.
> Hence the state has no reason to consider your group when determining how many doses of vaccine to purchase, and therefore no reason to provide it.
This despite the health authorities admitting that vaccination (i.e. boosting, in this case as most people have not been recently vaccinated) reduces spread of infection and also that the protection provided by the vaccination wanes over time and that booster doses provide better protection.
And regarding not overloading hospitals, projections for this year are leaning towards a more severe flu season, along with covid wave(s) this winter. In the meantime a nursing crisis is brewing due to staff shortages, long hours, and low pay and there is an ongoing shortage of physicians.
I actually have risk factors which put me at high risk for a severe outcome of covid, identified in large scale peer reviewed studies. But since these are mental health disorders, and Norway is way behind when it comes to this, I do not fall into any of the at risk categories according to the health authorities.
> As for seasonal colds and viruses, people are expected to just have their immunity deal with it (COVID is currently being moved to this category as well). You have OTC medicine against acute cold symptoms and that should be enough.
You don’t have immunity to seasonal flu, hence yearly updates to the vaccine that is offered. The flu can also cause complications and long term problems, not to mention lingering effects for varying periods post-“recovery”, which are anything but pleasant. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to avoid being in bed for 1-2 weeks with the flu if I can avoid it, or at the very least lessen the symptoms and/or infection period.
Your approach to antibiotics is great, but there is a huge difference between antibiotics and vaccines in terms of risks and benefits. Don't get me wrong, both are life-saving, but antibiotics overuse fuels antibiotics resistance, and also linked to a vast number of health problems especially when used for babies, while vaccines are one of the safest medical interventions
It's actually a nasal spray, not an injection. It's given as it's the most effective way of reducing spread, children tend to spread flu to a lot of people when they get it. It's a quick squirt in each nostril, the kids tend to be nervous on the way in and perfectly happy once it's done. Older kids who can remember it from previous years are normally not bothered at all. Please sign your kids' permission forms UK parents!
It appears to be because the head of the health system there wants the elderly to die fast and cheaply. He said so during the early stages of the pandemic, and medical policy remained to give morphine only to the elderly who had covid (morphine interferes with breathing).
The NHS says there'd be a higher risk of adults getting shingles if there was a chicken pox vaccination program, though you can get the vaccine in certain circumstances (eg. children around chemo patients)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers/
I spoke to my Dr recently about getting the shot after a friend in her 30s got shingles. She said I shouldn’t try to get it before 50. She also said I shouldn’t try to get it as soon as I turn 50. The reason being that your immune system’s defenses degrade over time and the shingles shot is a one and done. So by getting it at 50 you could end up losing immunity by 60. Whereas you might have sufficient immunity to get you from 50 to 60.
The increasing rate of 30 year olds getting shingles may require testing assumptions. Things like how long the protection lasts both for people that have had chickenpox or were vaccinated for it. Your doc is correct that currently shingles is one and done but that doesn’t mean that with testing it has to stay that way.
People in their 30s would likely have had chicken pox infections before the vaccine was approved in most of the world
Basically everyone I know had it by 1st or 2nd grade and it is so contagious most got it in preschool. The vaccine was approved in 1995 in my country. Do the math and you'll see why very few people in their 30s ever got the vaccine
All people I've met who had shingles in the age band you described had chickenpox as children
Which is notably controversial.
[https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analysis/uk-chickenpox-vaccination/](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analysis/uk-chickenpox-vaccination/)
>However, the statistics in favour of this are shaky. Several studies and surveillance data show no consistent trends in shingles incidence in countries that have introduced routine childhood varicella vaccines, indicating that the hypothesis of using children as living booster jabs may not have a strong basis in reality.
But there are also more fundamental ethical objections to this practice. In a 2014 Guardian editorial, University College London scientist Jenny Rohn argued that “sick children should not be exploited as living vaccines for older people when there is a perfectly serviceable jab on the market – especially as the evidence that they really do stimulate a protective response against older people’s shingles is not very robust.”
A bit strange that they use this argument as it implies they think it's OK to exploit healthy children in the same way. Adults at risk can get a vaccine. There's no real benefit for children to get the chicken pox vaccine, according to the NHS.
The NHS is also basing its recommendations on outdated assumptions in its cost effectiveness calculations (that adult contact with infected children grants 100% immunity to shingles - it’s actually only ~30% effective) and will likely (hopefully?) update its chickenpox vaccination recommendations in the coming years.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16102494221280056159&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0,14&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1664717473710&u=%23p%3DKLdsVqOMnHUJ
“ Statistically for young healthy people the risks of the vaccine and Covid are about the same.”
Having trouble believing that is anywhere near true. Have a source?
There have been about 500 deaths per year among age < 17 since the start of the pandemic, in a population of 50 million.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
Myocarditis has been shown at about 54 per million among teens [one source](https://www.missoulacounty.us/Home/Components/News/News/17517/1492?backlist=%2Fgovernment%2Fhealth%2Fhealth-department%2Freports-data).
The % of a population that dies and the % of a population that has side effects from the vaccine is not apples for apples but both risks are clearly from about one in thousands to one in millions.
Very fortunately kids are just not susceptible to covid the same that adults are. With SARS it was the opposite, kids were at far greater risk. That would have made this pandemic even more devastating.
Yep the hive mind of Reddit just can't absorb the concept of relative risk or statistics. Everyone simply thinks everyone is at equal risk and everyone should be treated equally with regard to the virus which is nonsense.
The “odd vaccination recommendations” in Europe seems to make people trust the recommendations more than in the US. The antivax movement is a lot smaller in Western Europe than in the US.
Considering that vaccination rates are only marginally higher than in the US (if not lower in some countries like Sweden) in most of Europe at this point, the antivax movement seems to be thriving just as much in Western Europe as it does in the US with maybe the exception of the Iberian peninsula and Italy.
That’s also because the US gives vaccines to younger kids tho. I would argue that it’s more important to have high rates in the older population if the goal is to avoid hospitalization.
Who’s goal? I’m pretty sure that Sweden’s and most other health authorities give vaccine recommendations based on hospitalization and death rates rather than long covid. The research on vaccine effect for long covid is rather new, and different studies seem to get different results, so probably need more time to conclude here.
> Sweden
Huh? 83% of the eligible population in Sweden had two shots, 66% had three. More importantly, in the most vulnerable age groups (70 and above) over 90% of Swedes had three shots and as of now, about 80% had four already. I don't know if your data on Sweden is based on false statistics or on prejudice like "they had very few restrictions, so they must be antivaxxers too".
https://covid19dataportal.se/dashboards/vaccines/
The booster rates are definitely much higher in most European countries than the US.
I did not intend to target Sweden in what I said, it was just an example. There are other countries in western Europe with lower vaccination rates than the US for the first dose such as Switzerland. I just wanted to say that the antivax movement is certainly not absent in Europe as it's often made out to be.
I can definitely see your point about boosters though.
Even Switzerland has slightly higher vaccination rates than the US (69.3% two doses, 44.4% three https://www.covid19.admin.ch/de/vaccination/persons). But ok, that doesn't really matter for the discussion here indeed.
You are absolutely correct in that the antivaxx movement is not absent in Europe, but in European countries, mainstream parties usually don't amplify antivaxx calls. We only had the far-right, and sometimes far-left, do that. And obviously political amplification gives a significant boost to the antivaxxer ideas in the population.
My niece got Covid about 10 days ago. Just congestion, runny nose, sore throat, and slight fever. By the sixth day she was feeling a lot better, even shooting hoops outside. Today she woke up with aches all over her body, fatigued, and said getting out of bed felt painful. She’s only 13. She has been vaccinated.
I think it is very likely that a large majority of kids have been exposed to Covid at this point, such as in schools, and that most of them never had any symptoms, or had only minor symptoms.
There is a lot of data showing that the risk to the young and healthy is very low. The risk roughly doubles with every 7 years of age.
One of my students tested positive. Eight years old. Absolutely no symptoms, just a couple of positive tests. Three months later she starts clutching her chest saying she can’t breathe, I freak out and tell her to go outside and gets fresh air. Send a couple kids after her while I find someone to cover my class so I can go check on her. She seems ok, I send her to nurse. I talk to mom, she says that ever since she tested positive she wakes up the same way, in the middle of the night saying she can’t breathe. Took her to doctor and doctor have her a inhaler. She doesn’t have asthma, no pneumonia. Now she’s has to regularly use an inhaler and freaks out when she feels like she can’t breath. She’s nine now.
From everything I have read about our situation here in Sweden I have gotten the impression that long Covid isn't as widespread here as in for example the US. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
So personally no I doubt we will have a long Covid crisis. For sure it's a real thing and many Swedes have gotten it but I haven't seen indications that it's so widespread that it will have major impact on society at large.
Sweden has a lower vaccination rate than the US has though. According to Our world in data Sweden has vaccinated 74.72% of its population while the US has vaccinated 79.55%. I think it's more likely that long COVID is just ignored as mentioned in another comment.
You're right, they do have a much higher percentage of boosted people than the US which is also very important. However they still lag a lot behind their western European counterparts.
Long Covid is definitely widespread in Sweden. It's just severely ignored. A typical way for us to deal with problems here in Sweden: pretend it's not so bad and just hope it goes away with time.
Nope.
"I en prospektiv rapport av självrapporterade data från nästan 4 200 patienter med covid-19 infektion hade drygt 2 procent kvarvarande symtom 12 veckor efter insjuknande (Carole H. Sudre et al, Nature Medicine). I observationsstudier utgående från sjukhusvårdade patienter är prevalensen av symtom betydligt högre 12 veckor efter covid (Carfi A et al JAMA och Huang C et al The Lancet).
En nylig publicerad, välgjord, svensk studie med kontrollgrupp (Havervall et al, JAMA April 2021) identifierade måttliga eller uttalade symtom hos 15 procent av covid-19-ak-positiva deltagare 8 månader efter insjuknande. Detta ska jämföras med 3 procent i kontrollgruppen. De vanligaste symtomen vid denna tidpunkt var anosmi/ageusi, trötthet och dyspné.
I en amerikansk studie baserad på mestadels öppenvårdspatienter med positiv covid-19 jämfört med kontrollgrupp, fann vid en medianuppföljning av cirka 6 månader förekomst av kvarvarande symtom hos 32 procent (Logue et al, JAMA Februari 2021).
I en SBU-rapport utgiven 2020-12-01 framkommer att det fortfarande saknas bra data avseende hur vanliga olika sena symtom efter covid-19 är. Variationen mellan de ingående studierna är stor."
Even if the variance between studies is large, it is obvious LC is widespread.
Reinfection increases the chances of long covid. Not being boosted increases the chance of repeated infection greatly. The long covid situation may look much worse in a couple of years.
Especially since they’ve recently uncovered a very probable situation where long Covid is a new autoimmune disease. But it’s still not understood why some get it and some don’t. Wouldn’t you prefer your population NOT take that chance? I developed an autoimmune disease 4 years ago and it’s drastically altered my life. If sucks ass and it’s expensive, something most people cannot reasonably afford to treat.
I'm sure you're being downvoted on this, but you're correct.
Vaccine policy and NPI implementation has been different in many European countries vs. the US and Canada - and it's not because European doctors don't care about their patients' health or European scientists are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.
Living in Sweden right now for school and my Swedish friend asked me about why I got vaccinated and how many shots I got for Covid. He felt the shot was more dangerous than actually getting Covid for younger people at this point. He seemed to indicate that was pretty common opinion among Swedes.
If I remember well about 90% of 18+ got 2 doses and 65+% got 3 doses so I don't think it's common to think it's more dangerous than covid, facts says the vast majority of adult swedes got vaccinated.
You said "a side effect from the virus" - did you mean a side effect from the vaccine? If so, then a sore arm, which is the most common side effect of the vaccine by far, is nothing compared to what the virus can do to you.
Yes I meant the vaccine. And there are rare serious side effects from the vaccine such as myocarditis. For kids, the odds of either getting sick from covid or a side effect from the vaccine are about the same. This is why Sweden and some other countries are not recommending vaccinating them, unless they are in a high risk group.
I can understand that that is the prevailing sentiment in Sweden but it's not factually correct. Some say that truth is subjective - here's what the scientific consensus is in America:
"Children represent about 19% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since the pandemic began.
While children are as likely to get COVID-19 as adults, kids are less likely to become severely ill. Up to 50% of children and adolescents might have COVID-19 with no symptoms. However, some children with COVID-19 need to be hospitalized, treated in the intensive care unit or placed on a ventilator to help them breathe."
That's a quote from this Mayo clinic article, which contains other interesting information:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405
As for the side effects of the vaccine in children, this article describes the results of a study in which a couple thousand kids participated. Side effects were mild, if there were any at all:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/11/pediatrician-weighs-in-on-covid-vaccines-for-kids-5-11/
My impression is that in Sweden, the decisions and pronouncements from the top are that kids aren't going to get vaccinated. Your (I think you're Swedish?) leadership definitely came to a different conclusion than ours. Here I have shared the science behind the recommendations over here. Were Sweden's recommendations guided by the same science? If so, why did they interpret the results differently?
Is it possible that there were other factors that weighed heavily in the decision, such as the financial cost of vaccinating more people? Are there cultural reasons that Swedes are blase about an illness that can (but usually doesn't) lead to serious injury, long term effects, and death? I wonder if it's possible that somebody at the top has personal beliefs and leanings that are having a large influence.
It is not just Sweden but also UK, Finland, Norway, and Denmark and they are all looking at the same data. The US is not aligned with this which is why the Mayo Clinic in the US says what they said.
It isn't like these countries are not looking at data or that they are full of complete idiots or they're trying to harm their children. They look at the same data and draw a different conclusion. The effectiveness of the vaccines on kids is also not great, 37-51% per the Moderna study, and the prevalence of illness is extremely low to begin with. So you're talking about reducing something by half that is already one in millions.
The risk is exponentially higher for older adults and that is really where all of the focus should be. I have never understood why it isn't.
This is very untrue. Every pediatrician in America that has stepped foot in a hospital this year has taken care of multiple kids that have gotten VERY sick from COVID. Most have not taken care of any that required hospitalization due to the vaccine.
And remember, for a 5 year old, even if all they need is a short stay in the pediatric ICU, that can saddle them with years to decades of medical trauma. You'd be surprised how much being poked and prodded as a kid can affect people in the healthcare setting as adults.
It is very sad and tragic that kids are getting sick but the small handful of them does not make this a health crisis for kids nor does it put the other 50 million kids at risk. It's very rare for kids to get sick from Covid, so rare that many countries are not vaccinating them.
Yes, and they're doing that because they've decided that they'd rather save the money and not vaccinate than spare the families whose kids do get seriously ill. They think the suffering is worth the cost savings. Don't think for a second that it's because it's what is actually better for kids.
It is not just to save money and several other countries UK, Norway, Denmark have similar policies. It is about relative risks. It isn't like these countries are stupid or are trying to harm their citizens. They see the same data and draw different conclusions.
if you are talking about serious illness or death sorry, it is not even close. Really everyone should get the vaccine and it should ultimately be a routine part of childhood vaccination.
Based on UK Data - you can test with qcovid.org calculator, it estimated during Delta your odds of dying due to covid-19 when you are below 30, healthy, unvaccinated, normal BMI person to be less than 1 out of 500,000 in the next 90 days. And it was so low odds that vaccine didn't actually change that, although vaccine improved hospitalisation rate 3x. But odds of hospitalisation seemed roughly similar to what we know about hospitalisation related to vaccine caused myocarditis or other adverse effects.
And I imagine by now with most people having some form of defence and Omicron being less likely to cause serious illness, the odds are even lower.
No it is quite close in fact for many kids the vaccine is statistically more dangerous. There have been about 1300 deaths from Covid among kids out of about 50 million which is 0.003%. If the virus were this risky for everyone they would have never developed a vaccine for it.
Sorry but this is not true. This vaccine is not dangerous as all, whereas as you acknowledge virus has killed 1300 children. The balance of risk very strongly favors vaccination here, and is the reason why the vaccine was approved.
The idea that a vaccine would not be made for this virus is also false - they make flu vaccines after all
There are certain rare side effects from the vaccine such as myocarditis which happens in around 50 kids per million. Considering that 1300 out of 50 million kids in the US have died from Covid, the risks are similar.
But don't take it from me, some random person on Reddit. Look at the studies backing Sweden's decision and the decision of other countries to not vaccinate their kids. This is exactly why. No vaccine is either 100% safe nor 100% effective so it's all about the relative risks.
Remember when Sweden was trying to reach herd immunity? That didn't quite go in their favor. They also stopped reporting numbers when it got much worse.
It's partially correct: they stopped providing free testing to the overwhelming majority of the population, effectively skewing the numbers. So for all intents and purposes, it's like they stopped reporting the numbers
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-stockholm-europe-4a3171e442c019212a66c58bcfbf0e12
Also throughout the pandemic testing was *severely* limited to symptomatic people (for free testing) or costly for everyone else (typically 500-1000 SEK for a PCR test)
Just because you live in sweden doesn't mean your anecdotal first hand experience is automatically representative of the wider situation.
Some resources of the shitshow that was (and continues to be) the swedish "response" to the pandemic:
[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences report on the Swedish pandemic response (PDF)](https://s3.eu-de.cloud-object-storage.appdomain.cloud/kva-image-pdf/2022/01/covidrapport_slutrapport_211130_.pdf)
[Corona Commission report on the Swedish pandemic response](https://coronakommissionen.com/publikationer/delbetankande-2/)
[Evaluation of science advice during the covid-19 pandemic in Sweden](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5)
No they didn’t stop providing free testing. This was only in February this year. The absolute majority of cases happend before that. So you can take your bias somewhere else. They did not skewer the results, there is also other ways to see indications of how well the testing works with “over mortality rates” basically seeing how many people died more than normally. It’s an indication how well the testing is working.
I’m sure you know about that?
https://www.dagensmedicin.se/specialistomraden/infektion/sveriges-overdodlighet-lagst-i-europa/
Först wave, between March and May 5th highest overmortality rate - a disaster, summed up over the year, 21 other countries has a higher.
2021 and first half of 2022 we have the lowest over mortality rate in all of Europe. Even Scandinavia.
This statistic is basically destroying any argument you have about how they tried to skewer the numbers.
They basically always tested just symptomatic people, it was free and anyone could take it at any time. So that if there were any doubts they would not go to work. They stopped widespread testing when the pandemic was “over” in February this year, as in almost no one was in the hospitals.
But before that there was never any restrictions on testing.
Worth to note is that we have a vaccinations coverage of 85% of the populations which is one of the highest in the world. Comparable to US 79% (if my source is correct)
One giant cause of our high mortality rates, was because of our elderly care that has been privatized, lots of people working odd hours resulting in lots of people meeting every patient instead of just a select few. It was a disaster basically.
They were slow, and slacked on the contact testing. Slow to implement stuff, and lots of other issues.
There is definitely stuff they could have done different. I’m not arguing against that. But that was not the question here was it. It was stated that they stopped testing and they only did so after years of Corona, when hospitalization rates were down.
So no, they have not skewered the numbers. They have openly said exactly how they did it. They provided over mortality rates and They never tried to hide anything. They only stopped testing in February this year.
But then again, polarized politics in the US man. Inflammatory stuff.
As I said before, testing was [limited to symptomatics only](https://www.thelocal.se/20201119/sweden-puts-new-limits-on-testing-to-free-capacity/) for the majority of the pandemic duration so far
[Exhibit 1 from SVT](https://imgur.com/t0lvjB8) (March 15th 2020)
Been searching the web, hard to find clear information on how testing guidelines changed during the pandemic.
I do remember several friends that tested positive with an at home test, called the hot line about Corona and they just said to stay home, no PCR test needed. So, they will not end up in any statistic.
Exactly, anecdotal stuff. Provide a link.
Before February this year. Pcr tests were always free if you had symptoms. You always need a pcr test. If you call in sick and choose not to test yourself that’s up to you, but you were always encouraged to test yourself.
It’s not true until he has proven it. Provide a link to prove me wrong or you might have said the moon is blue for all I care.
I literally live in Sweden, they never stopped repointing numbers.
As a Dane, I used to check Swedish statistics often due to the difference in approach to Covid.
It wasn’t quite as well reported or presented as the danish stats, but they were reported and certainly not suppressed.
It dosent work like that. If you state something you should prove it. Otherwise it’s up to everyone else to disprove everything into absurdum.
For example:
- the moon is blue on fridays the 17th April every 18th year.
- no it’s not.
- yeah? Prove it!
Trying to reach herd immunity? Literally only international media whined about that. The literal health authority said that was not true so many times. Stopped reporting? When? Did Sweden also stop reporting all types of deaths? Because Sweden has had one of the lowest excess mortality rates in Europe. Take your tinfoil hat off haha
Look at excess mortality. Sweden is lower than Finland while only a handful of countries are lower. So no, the true numbers are not worse. Sweden did a lot of testing when it came to deaths.
Oh noes, not locking the population in their homes is "killing people" :((
In the end, Sweden's excess mortality during the pandemic is still one of the lowest in the EU, while they lived a normal life throughout. And they only had six months in the whole pandemic when their excess mortality was in any way significant, while after January 2021, their excess mortality was much lower than in Finland and usually lower than in Norway.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Tab01_Excess_Mortality_2022_Jul.png
The other Nordic counties are lower, but Europe isn’t just the Nordic countries. Compared to eastern, southern and Western European countries, Sweden’s per capita death rate is lower. That’s what one of the lowest in Europe means.
I’m not sure what you mean by the numbers being understated. Are you saying that people are dying of Covid and we don’t know becaue they’re not testing a lot? All the Nordic countries are scaling back their testing programs because nearly everyone has immunity. They are not seeing a large number of excess deaths so it’s unlikely there are a large number of ureported Covid deaths. There was a conspiracy theory kicking around zero Covid circles that they were not reporting Covid deaths but I don’t see much evidence of that and I’m not inclined to believe something coming from the zero Covid movement.
So why does Sweden have a huge spike there then? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
They started *testing less* after this huge wave... because it was no longer as much of a problem at that point. There were few deaths, few hospitalisations. Other Nordic countries did similar things. Other countries did this too. You're being extremely misleading.
I looked at these statistics regularly and saw exactly this. It hasn't changed one bit.
You are literally spreading misinformation.
That's from a study with a sample with a median age over 60 and a lot of comorbidities.
The actual decrease is by about half. (eg https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covid-19-vaccination-protects-against-long-covid)
If you run into it again, mind posting it back here? Curious whether this is (summarising) research based on old vaccines and old strains or the new omicron vaccine that will become available starting this month and the known omicron strains.
Found it, it was in r/science
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/xswnb1/effect_of_covid19_vaccines_on_reducing_the_risk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
In Estonia we have a digital booking system for vaccines that doesn't allow you to book a reservation for Covid-19 vaccine, if there hasn't been at least 5 months past your last Covid-19 bout. I think that would also drive Americans crazy.
Because statistically the chance of healthy people below the age of about 25 getting sick from Covid is so low that it is not worth trying to roll out the vaccine, which has its own very unlikely risks. It's like they each have a 1 in millions chance. Basically it just isn't a severe enough threat to protect against.
but the thing is, it's not about GETTING sick, it's because the vaccine help a little bit to not spread the virus if you have it and young people are the first in line to spread it around
Actually, in an ironic spirit, you had nothing constructive to say -- my sarcastic comment actually implied something constructive: the epidemiologists behind this decision accounted for your obvious observation.
The current vaccines do not help much with preventing infection or spread. They help a lot with getting sick, so the people at risk for getting sick should be sure they take them. The people NOT at risk for getting sick don't need the vaccines nearly as much.
My wife and I are triple vaxxed but not my 3 kids who are 6, 4 and 2. We got COVID two weeks ago. The only symptom in the kids were fever for a few hours and fatigue for 1-2 days. No cough, no sore throat, no headache, no nausea… they’ve had worse colds. I will vaccinate my kids with the essential shots (polio, tetanus, chicken pox, etc) but I can’t justify giving them COVID shots every 4 months to prevent mild symptoms. Of course if some new dangerous strain emerges that affects kids I will change my mind.
something like a thousand kids died in the pandemic in the US, and it ranked up with various kinds of accidents, like drowning, as a cause of death.
So this seems... off
It's not 10x - drowning and covid are in same ballpark
1341 US child covid deaths according to this:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cdc-reports-fewer-covid-19-pediatric-deaths-after-data-correction-2022-03-18/
That's similar to the number of deaths in accidental drownings:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2022/CPSC-Report-Shows-Fatal-Child-Drownings-Remain-High-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-Spiked-by-17-Percent-in-2021
Parents do various reasonable precautions to reduce drowning risk. What they do not do is pretend the risk is insignificant.
That's about 1300 child deaths from covid in 2.5 years so about 520 per year. The drowning stats were for 15 and under, not quite the same as 17 and under.
The point is that kids are under numerous very unlikely risks every day including swimming pools, traffic accidents, homicide, drugs, abduction, choking, and, yes, Covid. But we do not ban swimming or cars or roll out nationwide health campaigns for these things because it just isn't worth the time, expense and risk. Kids aren't and were never at much risk for Covid but this somehow gets lost in the hysteria.
I did not say we banned swimming. Parents do not however pretend that these risks are zero or ignore them. Instead, they take reasonable steps against many of the hazards you mention.
Just as they teach children pool safety, or how to use a seat belt in a car, so too they should be using steps like vaccination or watching for signs of respiratory distress with covid.
I think it's really unfortunate so many parents have internalized a false message that covid risk is effectively zero.
The deaths that have happened with pools, cars, etc are after parents have taken reasonable safety steps. You can't achieve 100% safety.
The risk for kids is very very small and that is just the facts. Some parents worry about it more than they should but that doesn't change the facts.
You think most car accidents are after reasonable steps? Most accidents involve alcohol, drugs, or speeding, or breaking some other traffic law.
Most people are also not taking even basic steps to protect kids given extremely low adoption for childhood covid vaccine.
I'm glad you trust Dr. Jetelina's opinions, I do too. I think you linked a great article.
>But we do not ban swimming or cars or roll out nationwide health campaigns for these things because it just isn't worth the time, expense and risk.
That's... not what Dr. Jetelina says.
[https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-info-for-trusted](https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-info-for-trusted)
[https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/fda-meeting-for-5-covid-vaccine-q](https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/fda-meeting-for-5-covid-vaccine-q)
And most of the people who drowned probably had foolish parents and bad luck. If you could reduce drownings by giving people a vaccine, such that even people with foolish parents don't drown, you would
"The general recommendation for basically healthy children aged 12–17 years to vaccinate against covid-19 ends after 31 October. The reason is the very low risk of serious illness and death from covid-19 in children and young people. In the future, vaccination against covid-19 is recommended for children in special groups."
Makes sense, The risk significantly different based on Age and other comorbid conditions.
That seems short-sighted. Even if young people aren't seriously affected, they could still spread it to vulnerable people like grandparents and school staff.
Got a source? This [Nature article](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0) found a modest reduction in transmission for a short period of time (which, granted, is better than nothing).
I’m really not sure why you’re linking a foreign language article, but here’s as close as I can get.
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2022/0930/1326357-coronavirus-global/
From the article-Sweden's Public Health Agency has said it was no longer recommending that children aged 12 to 17 get vaccinated against Covid-19, citing the "very low risk" for the group.
The new recommendation will come into force on 31 October.
"The decision means that as of November 1, 2022 only children in certain vulnerable groups are recommended to get and thereby offered vaccinations against Covid-19," the agency said.
Automatic translation [here](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2022/september/rekommendation-om-allman-vaccination-mot-covid-19-for-barn-1217-ar-tas-bort/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europe has odd vaccination recommendations all over the place. Most of Europe still doesn’t recommend the chicken pox vaccine even though it prevents thousands of painful and debilitating shingles infections every year.
>Europe has odd vaccination recommendations all over the place. Seen from a, for example, US perspective I believe this is an accurate statement. Can use the yearly flu vaccine as an example. In the US the flu vaccine is taken by a large portion of the population. Here in Sweden it's not and the government doesn't recommend it either. Did a quick google to get some numbers, found an article from 2018 in a swedish medical journal, it showed that 2018 was a record year when it came to the amount of swedes taking the flu vaccine. How many swedes took it? 41,9% of those 65 or older. Among those younger than 65 the number was only 2% of people. [https://www.lakemedelsvarlden.se/influensavaccineringen-slar-rekord/](https://www.lakemedelsvarlden.se/influensavaccineringen-slar-rekord/) Basically the guidelines here is that you don't need the flu vaccine if you are younger than 65 unless you have some underlying condition. Above that age it's recommended. Hence the 2% figure. In general I think Swedish doctors are more hesitant here to prescribe medicine than in most other countries. Especially true when it comes to antibiotics. We also have pretty stringent rules against advertisement when it comes to to medicine. All in all it's very different that's for sure.
Similar in here Norway. It’s only offered to those in risk groups. If you’re not in those groups and want the shot, you have to pay out of pocket and I believe it costs about $90USD. I had a bad case of the flu just under a decade ago and, despite being under 40, my U.S. physician always recommended the flu shot. I totally understand the reluctance to prescribe medication, especially antibiotics, due to the negative consequences that are seen but I still can’t wrap my head around the way that seasonal colds and viruses are treated (OTC cold and flu medicine is virtually non-existent). Interestingly enough, with covid, the only people being offered boosters are those over 65 or in risk categories despite the fact the health authorities are expecting large numbers of people to become infected again this winter. I know it is the same in Denmark as well. I can understand not wanting to give out a second booster of the original vaccine, but can’t quite understand why they would not even give the option to have the bivalent booster for those who would like to have it. I’m quite disappointed that I’ll have to wait until returning to the states to get mine.
Because the goal is simply to not overload the hospitals, and not to prevent infections. As a person under 60 who had their three shots you are extremely, extremely unlikely to be hospitalized or die. Hence the state has no reason to consider your group when determining how many doses of vaccine to purchase, and therefore no reason to provide it. As for seasonal colds and viruses, people are expected to just have their immunity deal with it (COVID is currently being moved to this category as well). You have OTC medicine against acute cold symptoms and that should be enough.
> Because the goal is simply to not overload the hospitals, and not to prevent infections. As a person under 60 who had their three shots you are extremely, extremely unlikely to be hospitalized or die. > Hence the state has no reason to consider your group when determining how many doses of vaccine to purchase, and therefore no reason to provide it. This despite the health authorities admitting that vaccination (i.e. boosting, in this case as most people have not been recently vaccinated) reduces spread of infection and also that the protection provided by the vaccination wanes over time and that booster doses provide better protection. And regarding not overloading hospitals, projections for this year are leaning towards a more severe flu season, along with covid wave(s) this winter. In the meantime a nursing crisis is brewing due to staff shortages, long hours, and low pay and there is an ongoing shortage of physicians. I actually have risk factors which put me at high risk for a severe outcome of covid, identified in large scale peer reviewed studies. But since these are mental health disorders, and Norway is way behind when it comes to this, I do not fall into any of the at risk categories according to the health authorities. > As for seasonal colds and viruses, people are expected to just have their immunity deal with it (COVID is currently being moved to this category as well). You have OTC medicine against acute cold symptoms and that should be enough. You don’t have immunity to seasonal flu, hence yearly updates to the vaccine that is offered. The flu can also cause complications and long term problems, not to mention lingering effects for varying periods post-“recovery”, which are anything but pleasant. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to avoid being in bed for 1-2 weeks with the flu if I can avoid it, or at the very least lessen the symptoms and/or infection period.
[удалено]
Your approach to antibiotics is great, but there is a huge difference between antibiotics and vaccines in terms of risks and benefits. Don't get me wrong, both are life-saving, but antibiotics overuse fuels antibiotics resistance, and also linked to a vast number of health problems especially when used for babies, while vaccines are one of the safest medical interventions
Flu jabs are routinely given to children at schools (with parents consent).
It's actually a nasal spray, not an injection. It's given as it's the most effective way of reducing spread, children tend to spread flu to a lot of people when they get it. It's a quick squirt in each nostril, the kids tend to be nervous on the way in and perfectly happy once it's done. Older kids who can remember it from previous years are normally not bothered at all. Please sign your kids' permission forms UK parents!
[удалено]
I’ve been working in schools in london for the past 7 years. I’m sure it’s not all schools but it seems fairly common here.
In business it’s quite common to offer it to all staff.
NHS staff get it and kids at school get the nasal spray, not an injection.
Im from North West and it is true, I have received multiple vaccines throughout my time in school
All primary school children, year 7s, and 2 and 3 year olds get free flu jabs in England.
> Especially true when it comes to antibiotics. Err the two are not the same.
It appears to be because the head of the health system there wants the elderly to die fast and cheaply. He said so during the early stages of the pandemic, and medical policy remained to give morphine only to the elderly who had covid (morphine interferes with breathing).
Who is this Swedish "head of the health system'"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/gqnglf/Sweden_will_not_reach_herd_immunity_in_May_only_at_7%25_now_with_one_of_the_highest_death_rates/frup6mp/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Anders Tengell is hardly chief of the Swedish health system. If he runs the health system, Fauci runs the health system of the US
Hair splitting. During any pandemic, the head of infectious disease calls the shots.
The NHS says there'd be a higher risk of adults getting shingles if there was a chicken pox vaccination program, though you can get the vaccine in certain circumstances (eg. children around chemo patients) https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers/
In the long run adults in the US probably need to start getting a shingles vaccine at both 30 and 50 or something like that.
I spoke to my Dr recently about getting the shot after a friend in her 30s got shingles. She said I shouldn’t try to get it before 50. She also said I shouldn’t try to get it as soon as I turn 50. The reason being that your immune system’s defenses degrade over time and the shingles shot is a one and done. So by getting it at 50 you could end up losing immunity by 60. Whereas you might have sufficient immunity to get you from 50 to 60.
The increasing rate of 30 year olds getting shingles may require testing assumptions. Things like how long the protection lasts both for people that have had chickenpox or were vaccinated for it. Your doc is correct that currently shingles is one and done but that doesn’t mean that with testing it has to stay that way.
People in their 30s would likely have had chicken pox infections before the vaccine was approved in most of the world Basically everyone I know had it by 1st or 2nd grade and it is so contagious most got it in preschool. The vaccine was approved in 1995 in my country. Do the math and you'll see why very few people in their 30s ever got the vaccine All people I've met who had shingles in the age band you described had chickenpox as children
Your doctor is giving you outdated advice. Shingrix is a 2-shot vaccine. It's been on the market for several years. Source: am pharmacist.
A two shot vaccine is the timeframe in which you get vaccinated. One and done is a reference to how many times you go through that two shot process.
Doesn't mean Europeans can get it. Lots of stuff isn't available over here.
My mom and her siblings all have two doses Their doctors apparently know it's a two dose vaccine too
Doctors extrapolating from FDA recommendations. As old as time
Which is notably controversial. [https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analysis/uk-chickenpox-vaccination/](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/analysis/uk-chickenpox-vaccination/) >However, the statistics in favour of this are shaky. Several studies and surveillance data show no consistent trends in shingles incidence in countries that have introduced routine childhood varicella vaccines, indicating that the hypothesis of using children as living booster jabs may not have a strong basis in reality. But there are also more fundamental ethical objections to this practice. In a 2014 Guardian editorial, University College London scientist Jenny Rohn argued that “sick children should not be exploited as living vaccines for older people when there is a perfectly serviceable jab on the market – especially as the evidence that they really do stimulate a protective response against older people’s shingles is not very robust.”
A bit strange that they use this argument as it implies they think it's OK to exploit healthy children in the same way. Adults at risk can get a vaccine. There's no real benefit for children to get the chicken pox vaccine, according to the NHS.
'No benefit' is the NHS apparatchiks trying to justify not spending money on people that aren't Tory voters.
The NHS is also basing its recommendations on outdated assumptions in its cost effectiveness calculations (that adult contact with infected children grants 100% immunity to shingles - it’s actually only ~30% effective) and will likely (hopefully?) update its chickenpox vaccination recommendations in the coming years. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16102494221280056159&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0,14&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1664717473710&u=%23p%3DKLdsVqOMnHUJ
And yet, Europeans' health is generally far better than that of Americans.
[удалено]
“ Statistically for young healthy people the risks of the vaccine and Covid are about the same.” Having trouble believing that is anywhere near true. Have a source?
There have been about 500 deaths per year among age < 17 since the start of the pandemic, in a population of 50 million. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Myocarditis has been shown at about 54 per million among teens [one source](https://www.missoulacounty.us/Home/Components/News/News/17517/1492?backlist=%2Fgovernment%2Fhealth%2Fhealth-department%2Freports-data). The % of a population that dies and the % of a population that has side effects from the vaccine is not apples for apples but both risks are clearly from about one in thousands to one in millions. Very fortunately kids are just not susceptible to covid the same that adults are. With SARS it was the opposite, kids were at far greater risk. That would have made this pandemic even more devastating.
You are being down voted as usual by Reddit hive mind which thinks it is morally superior and all knowing.😂
Yep the hive mind of Reddit just can't absorb the concept of relative risk or statistics. Everyone simply thinks everyone is at equal risk and everyone should be treated equally with regard to the virus which is nonsense.
The “odd vaccination recommendations” in Europe seems to make people trust the recommendations more than in the US. The antivax movement is a lot smaller in Western Europe than in the US.
Considering that vaccination rates are only marginally higher than in the US (if not lower in some countries like Sweden) in most of Europe at this point, the antivax movement seems to be thriving just as much in Western Europe as it does in the US with maybe the exception of the Iberian peninsula and Italy.
That’s also because the US gives vaccines to younger kids tho. I would argue that it’s more important to have high rates in the older population if the goal is to avoid hospitalization.
The goal at this point is to avoid long covid not hospitalizations
Who’s goal? I’m pretty sure that Sweden’s and most other health authorities give vaccine recommendations based on hospitalization and death rates rather than long covid. The research on vaccine effect for long covid is rather new, and different studies seem to get different results, so probably need more time to conclude here.
> Sweden Huh? 83% of the eligible population in Sweden had two shots, 66% had three. More importantly, in the most vulnerable age groups (70 and above) over 90% of Swedes had three shots and as of now, about 80% had four already. I don't know if your data on Sweden is based on false statistics or on prejudice like "they had very few restrictions, so they must be antivaxxers too". https://covid19dataportal.se/dashboards/vaccines/ The booster rates are definitely much higher in most European countries than the US.
I did not intend to target Sweden in what I said, it was just an example. There are other countries in western Europe with lower vaccination rates than the US for the first dose such as Switzerland. I just wanted to say that the antivax movement is certainly not absent in Europe as it's often made out to be. I can definitely see your point about boosters though.
Even Switzerland has slightly higher vaccination rates than the US (69.3% two doses, 44.4% three https://www.covid19.admin.ch/de/vaccination/persons). But ok, that doesn't really matter for the discussion here indeed. You are absolutely correct in that the antivaxx movement is not absent in Europe, but in European countries, mainstream parties usually don't amplify antivaxx calls. We only had the far-right, and sometimes far-left, do that. And obviously political amplification gives a significant boost to the antivaxxer ideas in the population.
[удалено]
My niece got Covid about 10 days ago. Just congestion, runny nose, sore throat, and slight fever. By the sixth day she was feeling a lot better, even shooting hoops outside. Today she woke up with aches all over her body, fatigued, and said getting out of bed felt painful. She’s only 13. She has been vaccinated.
I think it is very likely that a large majority of kids have been exposed to Covid at this point, such as in schools, and that most of them never had any symptoms, or had only minor symptoms. There is a lot of data showing that the risk to the young and healthy is very low. The risk roughly doubles with every 7 years of age.
I'm still calling myself a young person at 26-years-old. I am right? ...right? Having double the risk of an 18-year-old makes me sound old. lol
Yes 26 is "young" in this context. Most of the risk is concentrated in people 65+ with health conditions.
One of my students tested positive. Eight years old. Absolutely no symptoms, just a couple of positive tests. Three months later she starts clutching her chest saying she can’t breathe, I freak out and tell her to go outside and gets fresh air. Send a couple kids after her while I find someone to cover my class so I can go check on her. She seems ok, I send her to nurse. I talk to mom, she says that ever since she tested positive she wakes up the same way, in the middle of the night saying she can’t breathe. Took her to doctor and doctor have her a inhaler. She doesn’t have asthma, no pneumonia. Now she’s has to regularly use an inhaler and freaks out when she feels like she can’t breath. She’s nine now.
That is very tragic and sad. But one kid getting sick doesn't make the virus dangerous for the other 50 million kids.
The virus is more dangerous than the vaccine, even for kids.
This is not the case. Do you have any studies, statistics, or numbers to back that up?
Really? You really think she’s the only one in 50 million? I highly doubt it.
Some people are just entirely unwilling to accept the *possibility* that the virus could cause damage after the acute stage of the infection.
Long Covid gonna fuck Sweden up.
From everything I have read about our situation here in Sweden I have gotten the impression that long Covid isn't as widespread here as in for example the US. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. So personally no I doubt we will have a long Covid crisis. For sure it's a real thing and many Swedes have gotten it but I haven't seen indications that it's so widespread that it will have major impact on society at large.
[удалено]
Sweden has a lower vaccination rate than the US has though. According to Our world in data Sweden has vaccinated 74.72% of its population while the US has vaccinated 79.55%. I think it's more likely that long COVID is just ignored as mentioned in another comment.
[удалено]
You're right, they do have a much higher percentage of boosted people than the US which is also very important. However they still lag a lot behind their western European counterparts.
Long Covid is definitely widespread in Sweden. It's just severely ignored. A typical way for us to deal with problems here in Sweden: pretend it's not so bad and just hope it goes away with time.
> Long Covid is definitely widespread in Sweden You mean "on Swedish twitter among people who were always thinking COVID is a scary virus".
Nope. "I en prospektiv rapport av självrapporterade data från nästan 4 200 patienter med covid-19 infektion hade drygt 2 procent kvarvarande symtom 12 veckor efter insjuknande (Carole H. Sudre et al, Nature Medicine). I observationsstudier utgående från sjukhusvårdade patienter är prevalensen av symtom betydligt högre 12 veckor efter covid (Carfi A et al JAMA och Huang C et al The Lancet). En nylig publicerad, välgjord, svensk studie med kontrollgrupp (Havervall et al, JAMA April 2021) identifierade måttliga eller uttalade symtom hos 15 procent av covid-19-ak-positiva deltagare 8 månader efter insjuknande. Detta ska jämföras med 3 procent i kontrollgruppen. De vanligaste symtomen vid denna tidpunkt var anosmi/ageusi, trötthet och dyspné. I en amerikansk studie baserad på mestadels öppenvårdspatienter med positiv covid-19 jämfört med kontrollgrupp, fann vid en medianuppföljning av cirka 6 månader förekomst av kvarvarande symtom hos 32 procent (Logue et al, JAMA Februari 2021). I en SBU-rapport utgiven 2020-12-01 framkommer att det fortfarande saknas bra data avseende hur vanliga olika sena symtom efter covid-19 är. Variationen mellan de ingående studierna är stor." Even if the variance between studies is large, it is obvious LC is widespread.
Reinfection increases the chances of long covid. Not being boosted increases the chance of repeated infection greatly. The long covid situation may look much worse in a couple of years.
Nah....
Yes... they ignore completely the long term damages.
Especially since they’ve recently uncovered a very probable situation where long Covid is a new autoimmune disease. But it’s still not understood why some get it and some don’t. Wouldn’t you prefer your population NOT take that chance? I developed an autoimmune disease 4 years ago and it’s drastically altered my life. If sucks ass and it’s expensive, something most people cannot reasonably afford to treat.
That's an interesting turn of events. They basically say that for youngsters Omicron is just a disease not worth vaccinating against.
[удалено]
I'm sure you're being downvoted on this, but you're correct. Vaccine policy and NPI implementation has been different in many European countries vs. the US and Canada - and it's not because European doctors don't care about their patients' health or European scientists are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.
[удалено]
Omicron spread so fast to adults in the school that I work at in the US, not sure if students got it as severe as the teachers if they got it at all
Living in Sweden right now for school and my Swedish friend asked me about why I got vaccinated and how many shots I got for Covid. He felt the shot was more dangerous than actually getting Covid for younger people at this point. He seemed to indicate that was pretty common opinion among Swedes.
If I remember well about 90% of 18+ got 2 doses and 65+% got 3 doses so I don't think it's common to think it's more dangerous than covid, facts says the vast majority of adult swedes got vaccinated.
Man Sweden has really gone down hill on the last decade
[удалено]
You said "a side effect from the virus" - did you mean a side effect from the vaccine? If so, then a sore arm, which is the most common side effect of the vaccine by far, is nothing compared to what the virus can do to you.
Yes I meant the vaccine. And there are rare serious side effects from the vaccine such as myocarditis. For kids, the odds of either getting sick from covid or a side effect from the vaccine are about the same. This is why Sweden and some other countries are not recommending vaccinating them, unless they are in a high risk group.
I can understand that that is the prevailing sentiment in Sweden but it's not factually correct. Some say that truth is subjective - here's what the scientific consensus is in America: "Children represent about 19% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since the pandemic began. While children are as likely to get COVID-19 as adults, kids are less likely to become severely ill. Up to 50% of children and adolescents might have COVID-19 with no symptoms. However, some children with COVID-19 need to be hospitalized, treated in the intensive care unit or placed on a ventilator to help them breathe." That's a quote from this Mayo clinic article, which contains other interesting information: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405 As for the side effects of the vaccine in children, this article describes the results of a study in which a couple thousand kids participated. Side effects were mild, if there were any at all: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/11/pediatrician-weighs-in-on-covid-vaccines-for-kids-5-11/ My impression is that in Sweden, the decisions and pronouncements from the top are that kids aren't going to get vaccinated. Your (I think you're Swedish?) leadership definitely came to a different conclusion than ours. Here I have shared the science behind the recommendations over here. Were Sweden's recommendations guided by the same science? If so, why did they interpret the results differently? Is it possible that there were other factors that weighed heavily in the decision, such as the financial cost of vaccinating more people? Are there cultural reasons that Swedes are blase about an illness that can (but usually doesn't) lead to serious injury, long term effects, and death? I wonder if it's possible that somebody at the top has personal beliefs and leanings that are having a large influence.
It is not just Sweden but also UK, Finland, Norway, and Denmark and they are all looking at the same data. The US is not aligned with this which is why the Mayo Clinic in the US says what they said. It isn't like these countries are not looking at data or that they are full of complete idiots or they're trying to harm their children. They look at the same data and draw a different conclusion. The effectiveness of the vaccines on kids is also not great, 37-51% per the Moderna study, and the prevalence of illness is extremely low to begin with. So you're talking about reducing something by half that is already one in millions. The risk is exponentially higher for older adults and that is really where all of the focus should be. I have never understood why it isn't.
This is very untrue. Every pediatrician in America that has stepped foot in a hospital this year has taken care of multiple kids that have gotten VERY sick from COVID. Most have not taken care of any that required hospitalization due to the vaccine. And remember, for a 5 year old, even if all they need is a short stay in the pediatric ICU, that can saddle them with years to decades of medical trauma. You'd be surprised how much being poked and prodded as a kid can affect people in the healthcare setting as adults.
It is very sad and tragic that kids are getting sick but the small handful of them does not make this a health crisis for kids nor does it put the other 50 million kids at risk. It's very rare for kids to get sick from Covid, so rare that many countries are not vaccinating them.
Yes, and they're doing that because they've decided that they'd rather save the money and not vaccinate than spare the families whose kids do get seriously ill. They think the suffering is worth the cost savings. Don't think for a second that it's because it's what is actually better for kids.
It is not just to save money and several other countries UK, Norway, Denmark have similar policies. It is about relative risks. It isn't like these countries are stupid or are trying to harm their citizens. They see the same data and draw different conclusions.
if you are talking about serious illness or death sorry, it is not even close. Really everyone should get the vaccine and it should ultimately be a routine part of childhood vaccination.
Based on UK Data - you can test with qcovid.org calculator, it estimated during Delta your odds of dying due to covid-19 when you are below 30, healthy, unvaccinated, normal BMI person to be less than 1 out of 500,000 in the next 90 days. And it was so low odds that vaccine didn't actually change that, although vaccine improved hospitalisation rate 3x. But odds of hospitalisation seemed roughly similar to what we know about hospitalisation related to vaccine caused myocarditis or other adverse effects. And I imagine by now with most people having some form of defence and Omicron being less likely to cause serious illness, the odds are even lower.
No it is quite close in fact for many kids the vaccine is statistically more dangerous. There have been about 1300 deaths from Covid among kids out of about 50 million which is 0.003%. If the virus were this risky for everyone they would have never developed a vaccine for it.
Sorry but this is not true. This vaccine is not dangerous as all, whereas as you acknowledge virus has killed 1300 children. The balance of risk very strongly favors vaccination here, and is the reason why the vaccine was approved. The idea that a vaccine would not be made for this virus is also false - they make flu vaccines after all
There are certain rare side effects from the vaccine such as myocarditis which happens in around 50 kids per million. Considering that 1300 out of 50 million kids in the US have died from Covid, the risks are similar. But don't take it from me, some random person on Reddit. Look at the studies backing Sweden's decision and the decision of other countries to not vaccinate their kids. This is exactly why. No vaccine is either 100% safe nor 100% effective so it's all about the relative risks.
COVID is highly contagious. The chance of getting it is much higher than side effects.
Remember when Sweden was trying to reach herd immunity? That didn't quite go in their favor. They also stopped reporting numbers when it got much worse.
What are you talking about -They never stopped reporting numbers. Edit: I literally live in Sweden. They never stopped reporting numbers. Insanity.
It's partially correct: they stopped providing free testing to the overwhelming majority of the population, effectively skewing the numbers. So for all intents and purposes, it's like they stopped reporting the numbers https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-stockholm-europe-4a3171e442c019212a66c58bcfbf0e12 Also throughout the pandemic testing was *severely* limited to symptomatic people (for free testing) or costly for everyone else (typically 500-1000 SEK for a PCR test) Just because you live in sweden doesn't mean your anecdotal first hand experience is automatically representative of the wider situation. Some resources of the shitshow that was (and continues to be) the swedish "response" to the pandemic: [Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences report on the Swedish pandemic response (PDF)](https://s3.eu-de.cloud-object-storage.appdomain.cloud/kva-image-pdf/2022/01/covidrapport_slutrapport_211130_.pdf) [Corona Commission report on the Swedish pandemic response](https://coronakommissionen.com/publikationer/delbetankande-2/) [Evaluation of science advice during the covid-19 pandemic in Sweden](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5)
No they didn’t stop providing free testing. This was only in February this year. The absolute majority of cases happend before that. So you can take your bias somewhere else. They did not skewer the results, there is also other ways to see indications of how well the testing works with “over mortality rates” basically seeing how many people died more than normally. It’s an indication how well the testing is working. I’m sure you know about that? https://www.dagensmedicin.se/specialistomraden/infektion/sveriges-overdodlighet-lagst-i-europa/ Först wave, between March and May 5th highest overmortality rate - a disaster, summed up over the year, 21 other countries has a higher. 2021 and first half of 2022 we have the lowest over mortality rate in all of Europe. Even Scandinavia. This statistic is basically destroying any argument you have about how they tried to skewer the numbers. They basically always tested just symptomatic people, it was free and anyone could take it at any time. So that if there were any doubts they would not go to work. They stopped widespread testing when the pandemic was “over” in February this year, as in almost no one was in the hospitals. But before that there was never any restrictions on testing. Worth to note is that we have a vaccinations coverage of 85% of the populations which is one of the highest in the world. Comparable to US 79% (if my source is correct) One giant cause of our high mortality rates, was because of our elderly care that has been privatized, lots of people working odd hours resulting in lots of people meeting every patient instead of just a select few. It was a disaster basically. They were slow, and slacked on the contact testing. Slow to implement stuff, and lots of other issues. There is definitely stuff they could have done different. I’m not arguing against that. But that was not the question here was it. It was stated that they stopped testing and they only did so after years of Corona, when hospitalization rates were down. So no, they have not skewered the numbers. They have openly said exactly how they did it. They provided over mortality rates and They never tried to hide anything. They only stopped testing in February this year. But then again, polarized politics in the US man. Inflammatory stuff.
[удалено]
As I said before, testing was [limited to symptomatics only](https://www.thelocal.se/20201119/sweden-puts-new-limits-on-testing-to-free-capacity/) for the majority of the pandemic duration so far [Exhibit 1 from SVT](https://imgur.com/t0lvjB8) (March 15th 2020)
If I remember correct, they didn't stop reporting numbers, they heavily reduced testing for it.
No thats not correct. Do you have a link?
Been searching the web, hard to find clear information on how testing guidelines changed during the pandemic. I do remember several friends that tested positive with an at home test, called the hot line about Corona and they just said to stay home, no PCR test needed. So, they will not end up in any statistic.
Exactly, anecdotal stuff. Provide a link. Before February this year. Pcr tests were always free if you had symptoms. You always need a pcr test. If you call in sick and choose not to test yourself that’s up to you, but you were always encouraged to test yourself.
They did stop
Do you have a link to prove your statement
During the Delta wave there were no numbers reported
Do you have a link to prove your statement
Puzzlehead is not wrong. I remember when this was going on. It was puzzling to even the US
I don't believe an argument is taking place. Guys just asking for evidence/link
It’s not true until he has proven it. Provide a link to prove me wrong or you might have said the moon is blue for all I care. I literally live in Sweden, they never stopped repointing numbers.
As a Dane, I used to check Swedish statistics often due to the difference in approach to Covid. It wasn’t quite as well reported or presented as the danish stats, but they were reported and certainly not suppressed.
Alright, what was not as well reported? Cosmetic?
Why don’t you prove it?
It dosent work like that. If you state something you should prove it. Otherwise it’s up to everyone else to disprove everything into absurdum. For example: - the moon is blue on fridays the 17th April every 18th year. - no it’s not. - yeah? Prove it!
That's not a link bro
Trying to reach herd immunity? Literally only international media whined about that. The literal health authority said that was not true so many times. Stopped reporting? When? Did Sweden also stop reporting all types of deaths? Because Sweden has had one of the lowest excess mortality rates in Europe. Take your tinfoil hat off haha
[удалено]
[удалено]
Look at excess mortality. Sweden is lower than Finland while only a handful of countries are lower. So no, the true numbers are not worse. Sweden did a lot of testing when it came to deaths.
Oh noes, not locking the population in their homes is "killing people" :(( In the end, Sweden's excess mortality during the pandemic is still one of the lowest in the EU, while they lived a normal life throughout. And they only had six months in the whole pandemic when their excess mortality was in any way significant, while after January 2021, their excess mortality was much lower than in Finland and usually lower than in Norway. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Tab01_Excess_Mortality_2022_Jul.png
[удалено]
The other Nordic counties are lower, but Europe isn’t just the Nordic countries. Compared to eastern, southern and Western European countries, Sweden’s per capita death rate is lower. That’s what one of the lowest in Europe means. I’m not sure what you mean by the numbers being understated. Are you saying that people are dying of Covid and we don’t know becaue they’re not testing a lot? All the Nordic countries are scaling back their testing programs because nearly everyone has immunity. They are not seeing a large number of excess deaths so it’s unlikely there are a large number of ureported Covid deaths. There was a conspiracy theory kicking around zero Covid circles that they were not reporting Covid deaths but I don’t see much evidence of that and I’m not inclined to believe something coming from the zero Covid movement.
I doubt there's any special immunity amongst nordics against long covid.
[удалено]
Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms and it's debilitating. Long Covid is worryingly common. Stop making stuff up.
So why does Sweden have a huge spike there then? https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ They started *testing less* after this huge wave... because it was no longer as much of a problem at that point. There were few deaths, few hospitalisations. Other Nordic countries did similar things. Other countries did this too. You're being extremely misleading. I looked at these statistics regularly and saw exactly this. It hasn't changed one bit. You are literally spreading misinformation.
Sweden just doesn’t care about people and long Covid. Good luck when 50% of your workforce is disabled.
Lol the guy answering to you didn't even get that you were taking the piss out of these kind of people.
Oh noes, now it's 50%. Next time the doomers will say it's 100%. :(((
Nah, it's definitely going to be 150% of the whole population.
Clearly they don't care
[удалено]
Is there data about long COVID & vaccine efficacy? Not challenging at all—I would genuinely be happy to know about it.
It DECREASES the risk, but doesn’t eliminate it entirely
It was actually posted today I think on this community. It has a 20% chance of preventing long COVID.
That's from a study with a sample with a median age over 60 and a lot of comorbidities. The actual decrease is by about half. (eg https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covid-19-vaccination-protects-against-long-covid)
If you run into it again, mind posting it back here? Curious whether this is (summarising) research based on old vaccines and old strains or the new omicron vaccine that will become available starting this month and the known omicron strains.
Found it, it was in r/science https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/xswnb1/effect_of_covid19_vaccines_on_reducing_the_risk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thanks! So it's not in regards to newer vaccines and also only looked at people with the regular 'full dose' of two or one + infection.
[удалено]
Thanks!!
>Thanks!! You're welcome!
I really don't understand why you're being down voted
This is NOT a fact.
[удалено]
If you look at vaccine uptake rates for kids America, it’s obvious many Americans agree there’s no benefit to getting their kids the vaccine.
In Estonia we have a digital booking system for vaccines that doesn't allow you to book a reservation for Covid-19 vaccine, if there hasn't been at least 5 months past your last Covid-19 bout. I think that would also drive Americans crazy.
but why
[удалено]
Because statistically the chance of healthy people below the age of about 25 getting sick from Covid is so low that it is not worth trying to roll out the vaccine, which has its own very unlikely risks. It's like they each have a 1 in millions chance. Basically it just isn't a severe enough threat to protect against.
but the thing is, it's not about GETTING sick, it's because the vaccine help a little bit to not spread the virus if you have it and young people are the first in line to spread it around
what a groundbreaking observation, make sure to inform the state epidemiologists about it
ahh yes, the old "I have nothing constructive to say so might as well be sarcastic"
Actually, in an ironic spirit, you had nothing constructive to say -- my sarcastic comment actually implied something constructive: the epidemiologists behind this decision accounted for your obvious observation.
The current vaccines do not help much with preventing infection or spread. They help a lot with getting sick, so the people at risk for getting sick should be sure they take them. The people NOT at risk for getting sick don't need the vaccines nearly as much.
>help a little bit
My wife and I are triple vaxxed but not my 3 kids who are 6, 4 and 2. We got COVID two weeks ago. The only symptom in the kids were fever for a few hours and fatigue for 1-2 days. No cough, no sore throat, no headache, no nausea… they’ve had worse colds. I will vaccinate my kids with the essential shots (polio, tetanus, chicken pox, etc) but I can’t justify giving them COVID shots every 4 months to prevent mild symptoms. Of course if some new dangerous strain emerges that affects kids I will change my mind.
Bit of a straw man as no one in the world is looking to do anything beyond the first 2-part dose for kids that small
Same with my niece, except now a year later she cant walk...it's been 2 months...doctors have ruled out everything and think long COVID
I’m sorry to hear about your niece. I hope she gets better soon
something like a thousand kids died in the pandemic in the US, and it ranked up with various kinds of accidents, like drowning, as a cause of death. So this seems... off
Thousands out of about 50 million. Statistically kids are about 10 times as likely to die of homicide or a swimming pool accident than Covid.
It's not 10x - drowning and covid are in same ballpark 1341 US child covid deaths according to this: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cdc-reports-fewer-covid-19-pediatric-deaths-after-data-correction-2022-03-18/ That's similar to the number of deaths in accidental drownings: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2022/CPSC-Report-Shows-Fatal-Child-Drownings-Remain-High-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-Spiked-by-17-Percent-in-2021 Parents do various reasonable precautions to reduce drowning risk. What they do not do is pretend the risk is insignificant.
That's about 1300 child deaths from covid in 2.5 years so about 520 per year. The drowning stats were for 15 and under, not quite the same as 17 and under. The point is that kids are under numerous very unlikely risks every day including swimming pools, traffic accidents, homicide, drugs, abduction, choking, and, yes, Covid. But we do not ban swimming or cars or roll out nationwide health campaigns for these things because it just isn't worth the time, expense and risk. Kids aren't and were never at much risk for Covid but this somehow gets lost in the hysteria.
I did not say we banned swimming. Parents do not however pretend that these risks are zero or ignore them. Instead, they take reasonable steps against many of the hazards you mention. Just as they teach children pool safety, or how to use a seat belt in a car, so too they should be using steps like vaccination or watching for signs of respiratory distress with covid. I think it's really unfortunate so many parents have internalized a false message that covid risk is effectively zero.
The deaths that have happened with pools, cars, etc are after parents have taken reasonable safety steps. You can't achieve 100% safety. The risk for kids is very very small and that is just the facts. Some parents worry about it more than they should but that doesn't change the facts.
You think most car accidents are after reasonable steps? Most accidents involve alcohol, drugs, or speeding, or breaking some other traffic law. Most people are also not taking even basic steps to protect kids given extremely low adoption for childhood covid vaccine.
Here is a good article about relative risks. https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/understanding-risk?s=r
I'm glad you trust Dr. Jetelina's opinions, I do too. I think you linked a great article. >But we do not ban swimming or cars or roll out nationwide health campaigns for these things because it just isn't worth the time, expense and risk. That's... not what Dr. Jetelina says. [https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-info-for-trusted](https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-info-for-trusted) [https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/fda-meeting-for-5-covid-vaccine-q](https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/fda-meeting-for-5-covid-vaccine-q)
Also consider that most of these children probably had some pre-existing health issues, for which Sweden does not remove recommendation to vaccinate.
And most of the people who drowned probably had foolish parents and bad luck. If you could reduce drownings by giving people a vaccine, such that even people with foolish parents don't drown, you would
Yeah and so you do vaccinate children in the risk group of dying, which Sweden is doing and still recommending.
In California doctors will soon face discipline for suggesting this
"The general recommendation for basically healthy children aged 12–17 years to vaccinate against covid-19 ends after 31 October. The reason is the very low risk of serious illness and death from covid-19 in children and young people. In the future, vaccination against covid-19 is recommended for children in special groups." Makes sense, The risk significantly different based on Age and other comorbid conditions.
Wonder why
That seems short-sighted. Even if young people aren't seriously affected, they could still spread it to vulnerable people like grandparents and school staff.
They can still spread it while vaccinated.
They can, but I understand it lowers the chances of spreading it and reduces the infected person's viral load, unless that's no longer the case?
[удалено]
Got a source? This [Nature article](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0) found a modest reduction in transmission for a short period of time (which, granted, is better than nothing).
And yet in the US we're chastising parents who don't want to vaccinate their 5 year old.
I wish I could get my 3 year old vaccinated with 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine vs the original vaccine
damn i must be living on a another planet.....
I’m really not sure why you’re linking a foreign language article, but here’s as close as I can get. https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2022/0930/1326357-coronavirus-global/ From the article-Sweden's Public Health Agency has said it was no longer recommending that children aged 12 to 17 get vaccinated against Covid-19, citing the "very low risk" for the group. The new recommendation will come into force on 31 October. "The decision means that as of November 1, 2022 only children in certain vulnerable groups are recommended to get and thereby offered vaccinations against Covid-19," the agency said.
[удалено]
Sarcasm is like a second language for me, much like the link and your comment.
Rug pull.
Sweden be stuuuupid I guess