Lockdowns never again: Sweden was right, and we were wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why can’t people just be happy that the corona virus deaths are finally approaching zero? At least about THAT aspect.

You would think we could all be gratified by that.
 
Cathoholic said:
Why can’t people just be happy that the corona virus deaths are finally approaching zero? At least about THAT aspect.

You would think we could all be gratified by that.
Click to expand...
Our frustration is with the ensuing selfishness that puts everyone especially the vulnerable at risk. When the happy low number is exploited by those who say no more justification for restrictions, lockdowns, masks and before we no it, another wave hits.
 
Motherwit . . .

Our frustration is with the ensuing selfishness that puts everyone especially the vulnerable at risk.

Yeah. Like the selfishness of shutting down businesses and all the nuclear fallout that occurs with that including starvation.

Or as ABC News said, starvation of Biblical proportions.

.

Motherwit . . .
When the happy low number is exploited by those who say no more justification for restrictions, lockdowns, masks and before we no it, another wave hits.
Click to expand...
Another wave (of corona virus cases) HAS hit (in Sweden)

Why not just look at the graphs I included and see that?

But despite “another wave” of cases hitting, Sweden has NOT experienced a proportionate wave of deaths.

Their death rate continues to approach zero.

When the happy low number is ignored by those who say more widespread justification for restrictions, lockdowns, masks is in order,
despite another wave already hitting,
and in the face of declining deaths in spite of that wave,
you have to wonder “WHY”??

“WHY” more widespread use of restrictions, lockdowns, and masks?
 
Last edited:
Things are not so pleasant in Pleasantville.

“It’s time for partying in nightclubs to stop”: Sweden limits clubs to 50 people​

From Amy Cassidy in Glasgow

Nightclubs where dancing is permitted will be limited to a capacity of 50 people in Sweden, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced Thursday.
“It’s time for partying in nightclubs to stop,” said Lofven, adding: “It is disrespectful to health care staff, who have worked hard, day and night, when they open a newspaper and see photos from packed nightclubs and dance floors.”
Click to expand...
The tightening of nightclub restrictions – still lenient compared with other European countries where nightlife has all but ceased – comes as the country sees a spike in coronavirus infections.

Sweden reported 1,614 new cases in the past 24 hours. The record was set on Tuesday with 3,180 new cases, according to Johns Hopkins University data.

Venues that don’t allow for dancing but serve food and beverages for seated customers at a safe distance do not have to limit numbers.

Meanwhile rules on sporting and other events have been relaxed to allow up to 300 spectators where they can be seated at a safe distance. Currently, 50 spectators are allowed.

The changes will come into effect on November 1.
Click to expand...
 
Additional proof that actual deaths CAUSED BY COVID-19 are grossly overstated:


The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone’s life.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.

“There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney problem,” she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. "Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.

“The intent is … if someone dies WITH COVID-19 we are counting that,” she added.

and:

According to ABC 15 News in Arizona, (https://www.abc15.com/news/region-p...re-thousands-of-unaccounted-deaths-in-arizona ) Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine, with the Maricopa County Public Health Department, stated:
“I want to reassure everyone that every single person who has COVID-19 listed anywhere on their death certificate is in fact counted. Even if it’s not listed on their death certificate, anyone who has a COVID-19 positive test within a certain period of when they died, is also counted as a COVID-19 positive death.” Maricopa County officials told ABC 15 that it counts anyone who tests positive for COVID in 60 days and dies is counted as a COVID death.

ABC15 asked Maricopa County health officials about a hypothetical question — if a person dies in a car crash, and tested positive for COVID-19 within the 60 days, would they be counted as a COVID-19 death? The response: "Yes, the death would be added to the total because for Public Health, it is important to understand who died WITH the disease even if the disease was not the CAUSE of death.

According to Dr. Sunenshine, this is standard practice in public health, to count it as a death from COVID. – Obviously this will indicate numbers that are higher and difficult to discern how deadly the disease actual is.
 
RidgeSprinter on Sweden . . .
Things are not so pleasant in Pleasantville.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile the death rate there in relatively unregulated Sweden continues to approach ZERO.

.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


.

@Motherwit (from here 11 days ago) . . .
As I say lets meet back here in a couple of weeks. The trajectory of spikes in cases and the subsequent spike in deaths is well documented. . . . it’s inevitable.
Click to expand...
We’ll be talking again in three days.
 
Last edited:
Getting exposed to low amounts of virus will be beneficial to some. It gives them a chance to be exposed to, and form antibody, with a low viral load.

Then they can walk away from it immune at least to some degree in the future.

Of course, this will not be true for everybody. (This is part of the reason why treatment, especially early treatment is so important.)

Some people exposed even to small viral loads will get sick and have permanent complications and/or die.

So common sense is important and self-protection of those most at risk continues to be important too.

.

Falling COVID-19 viral loads may explain lower rates of ICU use, deaths​

Filed Under:

COVID-19

Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News

Sep 24, 2020

nasal_swabbing-us_pacific_fleet.jpg​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

US Navy, Dartañon D. De La Garza / Flickr cc

The findings of two studies presented at this week’s virtual European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Conference on Coronavirus Disease suggest that patients’ loads of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, declined as the pandemic progressed, which may help explain falling rates of coronavirus-related intensive care unit (ICU) use and deaths.

Both unpublished studies were observational, however, so they cannot determine cause and effect, only highlight the association. . . .
Click to expand...
 
Cathoholic said:
Meanwhile the death rate there in relatively unregulated Sweden continues to approach ZERO.
Sweden Worldometers Oct. 23, 2020|679x499

@Motherwit (from here 11 days ago) . . .
As I say lets meet back here in a couple of weeks. The trajectory of spikes in cases and the subsequent spike in deaths is well documented. . . . it’s inevitable.
Click to expand...
At which time I’ll be questioning your worldometer stats.

11 days ago #539, the deceased count for Sweden was 5894. Todays worldometer count for Sweden was 5933. That is 39 deaths in11 days. I have no idea whats going on with the worldometer stats but the death counts don’t suggest anything approaching zero. It has jumped dramatically.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Motherwit . . .
At which time I’ll be questioning your worldometer stats.
Click to expand...
There ya have it.

To the readers. Here again so far is your “spike” . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
It’s about four deaths a day.

It is a bad thing. Hopefully nobody wants any deaths.

It just is not a “spike”, at least yet.

I’m going to give your timeline the three more days, you have got coming.

Then I will see if there is that “spike” that you said was on the way. (Today it was seven, so maybe you will be right.)
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
Getting exposed to low amounts of virus will be beneficial to some.
Click to expand...
Please, people, do not take this nonsense seriously.
Click to expand...
As though we have any ability to assure we only get a low load! Well, there is masking but according to some people, masks don’t work.
 
PattyIt . . . .
As though we have any ability to assure we only get a low load!
Click to expand...
Who said ANYTHING about ASSURING the ability to get a low load??

This is not an appropriate way to argue (changing what I said).
 
Don’t they also come by higher numbers one is exposed to? That’s why time is as much of a factor in contracting the virus as well as it’s virulence.

This is why masks, even though not completely efficient are helpful. They keep the number of virus particles lower even though the virulence is the same per particle.
Cathoholic said:
Getting exposed to low amounts of virus will be beneficial to some.
Click to expand...
This comment is meaningless if we have no ability to control the numbers we are exposed to. It’s a game of chance on how many particles you are exposed to . Why you stated this is beyond my comprehension if we can’t assure ourselves to low exposure.
 
PattyIt . . .
This is why masks, even though not completely efficient are helpful. They keep the number of virus particles lower even though the virulence is the same per particle.
Click to expand...
Not shown to be true in a societal setting.

Almost certainly true in a controlled lab setting with CERTAIN masks under controlled circumstances, with frequent fresh masking of those certain kinds of masks.

We are not talking about a lab setting.

We are talking about masks in society that are wet, have been sneezed in, and continue to be breathed through.

We don’t even have a definition of what a “mask” is.

You know that. So does every reader here (so HOW COULD there be any controlled studies??).

You are applying soup to nuts.

Only PARTS of these ideas are scientific. Other aspects are just not applicable here in a societal setting.

I get the feelings and emotions argument.

But feelings and emotions are not necessarily good enough reasons here.

So far at least, these measures have not been scientifically shown to benefit society. At least in terms of stopping anything.

Mitigation yes,
but as the virus becomes more endemic, even mitigation (drawing out infections over a longer period of time) becomes less and less relevant.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Getting exposed to low amounts of virus will be beneficial to some.
Click to expand...
PattyIt . . .
This comment is meaningless if we have no ability to control the numbers we are exposed to.
Click to expand...
The comment is NOT meaningless.

You used it in a different context than I did (which made it meaningless).

I was talking about the physiology. The same physiology I might add, you later repeated.

You criticized it, by equivocating that I meant applied epidemiology.

By the way. Assuming there is no genetic variation, there is no variation in virulence per particle (“virulence is the same per particle.”). At least in a given individual.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top