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.
It’d be great if all those doctors, hospitals and experts worst fears aren’t realized but it’s morally right to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Cathoholic said:
Your statement has the built-in presupposition that a sort of genetic entropy (the virus loses some potency over time) does NOT occur.
Click to expand...
In Denmark they have just experienced the opposite ie a stronger strain of the virus due to it crossing to minks and then back to humans.

Cathoholic said:
It assumes all cases are going to be in the same age group.
It assumes focused protection for the vulnerable will be the same as it was earlier
(do you think Andrew Cuomo is going to
import INFECTED corona virus patients
INTO nursing homes AGAIN ?).
Click to expand...
Only 6 percent of elderly people live in aged care or assisted living arrangements. That means 94% have to manage just like the rest of us. It’s impossible for them to completely isolate themselves.
Cathoholic said:
It assumes physicians are not going to get better at treating a given new illness as they have more experience dealing with it.
Click to expand...
Until the vaccine is here it’s a case of catch up medicine.
Cathoholic said:
It ignores cross-immunity with non-COVID corona viruses and T-Cell functions in society.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard about that so I don’t think the medical community is hanging great hopes on it.
 
Motherwit said:
Only 6 percent of elderly people live in aged care or assisted living arrangements. That means 94% have to manage just like the rest of us. It’s impossible for them to completely isolate themselves.
Click to expand...
Then WHY quarantine them if it is “impossible”?

WHY do that against the elerly?
 
Cathoholic said:
48.png
Motherwit:
Only 6 percent of elderly people live in aged care or assisted living arrangements. That means 94% have to manage just like the rest of us. It’s impossible for them to completely isolate themselves.
Click to expand...
Then WHY quarantine them if it is “impossible”?

WHY do that against the elerly?
Click to expand...
The wisdom behind reducing the virus spread through the general population as much as possible gives the vulnerable the best chance.
 
Last edited:
Motherwit said:
The wisdom behind reducing the virus spread . . .
Click to expand...
Where do you think there is evidence of your first premise in your argument?

How did you conclude (and thus argue upon) that maks “reduce viral spread” presumably among people??

I agree they slow spread down (masks are mitigators), but I know of nothing that says they “reduce” it in the long term.
 
Last edited:
Motherwit said:
Only 6 percent of elderly people live in aged care or assisted living arrangements. That means 94% have to manage just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You say that like it’s a bad thing!! That means 94% have the freedom of choice to practice social distancing and mask wearing. An older person living in their own home is far safer than someone crowded in a care facility. It’s much easy for them to isolate more than the rest of the population.
 
Last edited:
Motherwit . . .
The wisdom behind reducing the virus spread through the general population as much as possible gives the vulnerable the best chance.
Click to expand...
You are circular arguing again.

Your whole argument is predicated on benefits and no risks.

That is false.
 
Kobayashi-Maru said:
Put new deaths per week on a separate scale from new cases per week. Definitely not the worst in Europe, that still goes to the bigger, more population dense countries (UK, France, Italy, etc). However Sweden still underperforms its three adjacent neighbors.
Click to expand...
my graph was normalized by population, but here it is with deaths on another scale. Mortality rate is markedly different/lower with the latest surge in cases. Far more were dying when the virus first spread.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
That graph you just posted uses fatality rate (deaths per infection) which thankfully has been declining over time for most countries. Likely due to younger people making up a larger share of infected and better treatment methods.

The metric I referred to earlier was deaths per day (7 day avg). I limited to most recent 12 weeks to clean up some of the legibility.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That’s a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. The difference is including time into the equation with mitigation.

Mitigation buys you time. It does not decrease infections over the long-term.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
No, they both involve time.
Click to expand...
No they don’t.

If you are pretending masks protect you in the sense of not getting infections, then masks forever would be no infections forever.

With mitigation, you are admitting the spread will still occur anyway . . . but over a longer period of time.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
No, they both involve time.
Click to expand...
No they don’t.

If you are pretending masks protect you in the sense of not getting infections, then masks forever would be no infections forever .

With mitigation, you are admitting the spread will still occur anyway . . . but over a longer period of time .
Click to expand...
OK, I see what you meant when you said “but I know of nothing that says they “reduce” it in the long term.” You meant we will end up with the same number of infected eventually.

This also is false, especially in light of the fact that vaccines seem to be on the horizon in a few months. That means infections that are delayed may become infections that never happen. Even without a vaccine, the virus needs to have a certain reproduction rate ( > 1.00 ) to stay alive. If the reproduction rate falls below 1.00, the virus will being declining and eventually die out.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This also is false, especially in light of the fact that vaccines seem to be on the horizon in a few months.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle. OK. You explain to me how a blood-mediated-vaccine is effective in stopping an airborne-mediated infection.

I will be waiting for that.
 
Cathoholic said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
This also is false, especially in light of the fact that vaccines seem to be on the horizon in a few months.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle. OK. You explain to me how a blood-mediated-vaccine is effective in stopping an airborne-mediated infection.

I will be waiting for that.
Click to expand...
The scientists developing the vaccine have very specific higher education and medical experience. Why would you think they got it all wrong?
 
Motherwit said:
The scientists developing the vaccine have very specific higher education and medical experience. Why would you think they got it all wrong?
Click to expand...
“Got it wrong” concerning what?

I never said the VACCINE makers got it “wrong”. At least here on this situation. The jury is still out on that.

What I said is people thinking a blood-antibody is somehow going to stop a mucosal surface disease infection are wrong. At least in expectations that think it will make corona virus disappear.

What physiologic mechanism do you think occurs
to make these facts otherwise Motherwit?

We have all heard Dr. Fauci say a vaccine won’t change a lot. If you want you can search and post it.

I am the one who posted it just several weeks ago so just put in “Cathoholic” and “Fauci” and you can probably find it easily.

If ANYONE is questioning the experts it is people who have unfounded expectations.

Society can’t make a virus go away with their feelings and emotions.

.
 
Last edited:
Sweden’s failed coronavirus herd immunity gamble came at a high cost of lives and the country could still have to implement a lockdown to tackle the spread, experts say.

From the start, Sweden’s approach to dealing with coronavirus was flawed, according to Professor David Goldsmith, the lead author of a paper published by the UK’s Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

In it, Professor Goldsmith examined what went wrong with Sweden’s policy and why its case mortality rate is about triple that of its Scandinavian neighbours.

And with a severe second wave presently moving through the country, he believes drastic measures need to be undertaken to control the spread.

“Sweden, unfortunately, have done the wrong thing in the wrong way,” Professor Goldsmith told the ABC.

“They thought they were going to get this herd immunity nonsense.”

While herd immunity has never been confirmed as official policy, Professor Goldsmith was adamant Sweden was hoping enough of its population would develop antibodies that infection rates would start to drop after six to 12 months.

“Honestly, there was never a chance of that being a sensible approach,” he said.

"Nobody has ever tried to control a pandemic or an epidemic by inducing herd immunity.

“They deny it now, I know they do, but the evidence is abundantly clear.”

Sweden’s coronavirus plan failed to stop the virus, and a vaccine may not be enough to ‘rescue’ them, experts warn
 
Motherwit said:
Sweden’s failed coronavirus herd immunity gamble came at a high cost of lives and the country
Click to expand...
This assumes the paradigm is over and no benefit will occur in the future or has occurred in the past.

Did Denmark’s policies (who also did not mask-up) “came at a high cost of lives” too?

Or just Sweden?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top