Speaking of anti-vaxxers, I wonder what that group will do when a Covid-19 vaccine is available. Probably bypass it.
In The Netherlands an anti- vaccination rally was canceled due to Covid.
Now that’s humor
| Pinkpop 1992 *BEST EVER* | Rotterdam 1993 | Amsterdam 1996 | Pinkpop 2000 | Arnhem 2006 | Nijmegen 2007 | Rotterdam 2009 | Nijmegen 2010 | Amsterdam I + II 2012 ** | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2012 First European Concert *EPIC*| Amsterdam I + II 2014 | Amsterdam Eddie Vedder Solo 2016 night I | Amsterdam I + II 2018 | Amsterdam I -> Canceled + II 2022 *EPIC
Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:
UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only (and riskgroups)
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
The paper was very much too pessimistic
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:
UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
The paper was very much too pessimistic
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
SC, I have some questions for you. Not sure if you're able to answer these, but was curious and I think you'd probably be the most aware of the answers if anyone is.
1) Does Giesecke hold an opinion on why he and Sweden stand in stark contrast to what other nations and their scientists are advising? 2) While a lockdown is not evidence-based, high transmissibility, a high portion of a population needing the disease typically in order to attain herd immunity, the high risk to those vulnerable (vulnerabilities being both visible and invisible in adolescents and above through heart conditions, etc.) are with evidence. Why does Giesecke feel that the 'squash the curve' concept, where we eradicate this illness to outright avoid illness (rather than develop immunity), is so unrealistic that it should be considered second behind the approach involving the certain cost of human lives? I don't understand the risk/cost/benefit math that Sweden is proposing. 3) When we drive cars, fatalities and accident rates don't justify us driving with our eyes closed - they inform us of risks, and caution us to act accordingly - to look both ways, check blind spots, assume the rest of the drivers don't know what they're doing, etc. On a similar token, this feels analogous to going outside in the midst of a global pandemic. Given that any of us could have an unknown vulnerability, why do you feel it is or isn't reckless to be out in public right now when discretionary?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
SC, I have some questions for you. Not sure if you're able to answer these, but was curious and I think you'd probably be the most aware of the answers if anyone is.
1) Does Giesecke hold an opinion on why he and Sweden stand in stark contrast to what other nations and their scientists are advising? 2) While a lockdown is not evidence-based, high transmissibility, a high portion of a population needing the disease typically in order to attain herd immunity, the high risk to those vulnerable (vulnerabilities being both visible and invisible in adolescents and above through heart conditions, etc.) are with evidence. Why does Giesecke feel that the 'squash the curve' concept, where we eradicate this illness to outright avoid illness (rather than develop immunity), is so unrealistic that it should be considered second behind the approach involving the certain cost of human lives? I don't understand the risk/cost/benefit math that Sweden is proposing. 3) When we drive cars, fatalities and accident rates don't justify us driving with our eyes closed - they inform us of risks, and caution us to act accordingly - to look both ways, check blind spots, assume the rest of the drivers don't know what they're doing, etc. On a similar token, this feels analogous to going outside in the midst of a global pandemic. Given that any of us could have an unknown vulnerability, why do you feel it is or isn't reckless to be out in public right now when discretionary?
Not perfect answers but:
1) In Sweden Public Authorities are given a lot of power (like the Public Health Agency in this case), and we don't have a culture of solely politically led decisions. As he has stated before - Norwegian and Danish Public Health Agencies were overruled by politicians regarding closing schools and borders. I remembering him also saying (or someone else) that most of the world fell like dominoes against science to "not to the wrong thing in the end" when pressure from other countries restrictive policies affected public opinion. As he says in the interview - in Sweden it is decided during the crisis to make evidence based decisions and not have politically colored non-evidence decisions. Also covered in Vanity Fair:
Neighboring Norway and Denmark, countries that, for all their criticisms of Sweden, share deep bonds and core values with it, have been flabbergasted by Stockholm’s policies. But, says Stockholm University political scientist Drude Dahlerup, a Dane who has worked in Sweden for a couple of decades now, the explanation for Sweden’s uniqueness may have less to do with culture and more to do with constitutional arrangements. For centuries, Sweden’s political structure has granted a level of power and independence to its public agencies that isn’t the case in other countries. Denmark’s politicians, like those in most countries, have more power to make immediate changes and also feel more pressure to act. You can see that even in the public face of authorities managing the effort. “In Denmark, it’s the young prime minister who’s running the press conferences,” says Dahlerup. “In Sweden the press conferences are run by the public health authority, the Folkhälsomyndigheten.”
2) He doesn't believe you can erridact the illness. It is to much spread in the countries and in the world. It was to late to do lockdowns when they were put in place, in most of the western countries. As Anders Tegnell puts it: We are not in the containment phase,” said Sweden’s chief state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, last month. “We are in the mitigation phase.”
Also, the strict lockdowns like in China doesn't work in a democracy - people will not abide to them for too long. And you can't lockdown for long enough to kill the disease, and in the end whether you lockdown or not - the same amount of people pretty much will lose their lives to the disease. And you have to have a holistic approach to Public Health. The negative aspects of a lockdown has to be taken into account. You only push the curve forward. He doesn't say though - that Sweden couldn't have had a lower death toll. As mentioned in the interview.
3) Swedish Public Health Agency asks people to be cautious and look for blind spots and act accordingly. The only difference is kids still go to school, and we can still (with restrictions) go to the restaurant and go shop for a new pair of jeans. This is also mentioned in the interview. And in Vanity Fair:
To start with, it’s a myth that Sweden is doing nothing about the virus. Most Swedes have changed their habits a lot. Schools for older kids are closed, as are universities. People are working from home, when they can, and the elderly are being urged to keep to themselves. Gatherings of over 50 people are prohibited, and ski resorts are closed. Restaurants and bars are allowing table service only, and grocery stores are installing glass dividers between customers and cashiers. People who go to Stockholm may be stunned to see bars and cafés with customers, but they’re seeing only the Swedes who choose to run higher risks. They’re not seeing all the Swedes who are staying home.
And no Country put their speed limits at 5 mph to save every life? Why aren't Canada doing that? People are dying every day on the roads in Canada I assume? I'd say the difference in measures of other countries and Sweden are smaller, than other countries to saving every life. As put, once again, in Vanity Fair:
An imperfect but useful analogy is to the highway speed limit. Set it to 10 miles per hour, and you might save a lot of lives, but at a huge cost to efficiency and sanity. Set it to something a bit higher, like 40 miles per hour, and you could still save three quarters of those lives but still allow a semblance of normal transit to continue. In this analogy, most of the world has lowered the speed limit to 10 miles per hour. It saves lives, but people won’t tolerate it for long. Sweden has lowered its limit to 40 miles per hour. That saves fewer lives, but people can live with it for a long time. It prevents carnage on one side and madness on the other. And you might save more lives overall.
I think that covers Gieseckes thoughts.
Basically: This disease is to spread to stop by lockdowns. You are risking to only push the curve forward. And Sweden has put in place restrictions that work for a long time ahead, based on science, and because in a democracy a total shutdown doesn't work. It's all about making health care cope and flatten the curve.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
SC, I have some questions for you. Not sure if you're able to answer these, but was curious and I think you'd probably be the most aware of the answers if anyone is.
1) Does Giesecke hold an opinion on why he and Sweden stand in stark contrast to what other nations and their scientists are advising? 2) While a lockdown is not evidence-based, high transmissibility, a high portion of a population needing the disease typically in order to attain herd immunity, the high risk to those vulnerable (vulnerabilities being both visible and invisible in adolescents and above through heart conditions, etc.) are with evidence. Why does Giesecke feel that the 'squash the curve' concept, where we eradicate this illness to outright avoid illness (rather than develop immunity), is so unrealistic that it should be considered second behind the approach involving the certain cost of human lives? I don't understand the risk/cost/benefit math that Sweden is proposing. 3) When we drive cars, fatalities and accident rates don't justify us driving with our eyes closed - they inform us of risks, and caution us to act accordingly - to look both ways, check blind spots, assume the rest of the drivers don't know what they're doing, etc. On a similar token, this feels analogous to going outside in the midst of a global pandemic. Given that any of us could have an unknown vulnerability, why do you feel it is or isn't reckless to be out in public right now when discretionary?
Not perfect answers but:
1) In Sweden Public Authorities are given a lot of power (like the Public Health Agency in this case), and we don't have a culture of solely politically led decisions. As he has stated before - Norwegian and Danish Public Health Agencies were overruled by politicians regarding closing schools and borders. I remembering him also saying (or someone else) that most of the world fell like dominoes against science to "not to the wrong thing in the end" when pressure from other countries restrictive policies affected public opinion. As he says in the interview - in Sweden it is decided during the crisis to make evidence based decisions and not have politically colored non-evidence decisions. Also covered in Vanity Fair:
Neighboring Norway and Denmark, countries that, for all their criticisms of Sweden, share deep bonds and core values with it, have been flabbergasted by Stockholm’s policies. But, says Stockholm University political scientist Drude Dahlerup, a Dane who has worked in Sweden for a couple of decades now, the explanation for Sweden’s uniqueness may have less to do with culture and more to do with constitutional arrangements. For centuries, Sweden’s political structure has granted a level of power and independence to its public agencies that isn’t the case in other countries. Denmark’s politicians, like those in most countries, have more power to make immediate changes and also feel more pressure to act. You can see that even in the public face of authorities managing the effort. “In Denmark, it’s the young prime minister who’s running the press conferences,” says Dahlerup. “In Sweden the press conferences are run by the public health authority, the Folkhälsomyndigheten.”
2) He doesn't believe you can erridact the illness. It is to much spread in the countries and in the world. It was to late to do lockdowns when they were put in place, in most of the western countries. As Anders Tegnell puts it: We are not in the containment phase,” said Sweden’s chief state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, last month. “We are in the mitigation phase.”
Also, the strict lockdowns like in China doesn't work in a democracy - people will not abide to them for too long. And you can't lockdown for long enough to kill the disease, and in the end whether you lockdown or not - the same amount of people pretty much will lose their lives to the disease. And you have to have a holistic approach to Public Health. The negative aspects of a lockdown has to be taken into account. You only push the curve forward. He doesn't say though - that Sweden couldn't have had a lower death toll. As mentioned in the interview.
3) Swedish Public Health Agency asks people to be cautious and look for blind spots and act accordingly. The only difference is kids still go to school, and we can still (with restrictions) go to the restaurant and go shop for a new pair of jeans. This is also mentioned in the interview. And in Vanity Fair:
To start with, it’s a myth that Sweden is doing nothing about the virus. Most Swedes have changed their habits a lot. Schools for older kids are closed, as are universities. People are working from home, when they can, and the elderly are being urged to keep to themselves. Gatherings of over 50 people are prohibited, and ski resorts are closed. Restaurants and bars are allowing table service only, and grocery stores are installing glass dividers between customers and cashiers. People who go to Stockholm may be stunned to see bars and cafés with customers, but they’re seeing only the Swedes who choose to run higher risks. They’re not seeing all the Swedes who are staying home.
And no Country put their speed limits at 5 mph to save every life? Why aren't Canada doing that? People are dying every day on the roads in Canada I assume? I'd say the difference in measures of other countries and Sweden are smaller, than other countries to saving every life. As put, once again, in Vanity Fair:
An imperfect but useful analogy is to the highway speed limit. Set it to 10 miles per hour, and you might save a lot of lives, but at a huge cost to efficiency and sanity. Set it to something a bit higher, like 40 miles per hour, and you could still save three quarters of those lives but still allow a semblance of normal transit to continue. In this analogy, most of the world has lowered the speed limit to 10 miles per hour. It saves lives, but people won’t tolerate it for long. Sweden has lowered its limit to 40 miles per hour. That saves fewer lives, but people can live with it for a long time. It prevents carnage on one side and madness on the other. And you might save more lives overall.
I think that covers Gieseckes thoughts.
Basically: This disease is to spread to stop by lockdowns. You are risking to only push the curve forward. And Sweden has put in place restrictions that work for a long time ahead, based on science, and because in a democracy a total shutdown doesn't work. It's all about making health care cope and flatten the curve.
The question was not "why does Sweden's government listen to the health experts" The question was "why are the health experts of Sweden so far out of step with the health experts of the rest of the world"...
SC, I have some questions for you. Not sure if you're able to answer these, but was curious and I think you'd probably be the most aware of the answers if anyone is.
1) Does Giesecke hold an opinion on why he and Sweden stand in stark contrast to what other nations and their scientists are advising? 2) While a lockdown is not evidence-based, high transmissibility, a high portion of a population needing the disease typically in order to attain herd immunity, the high risk to those vulnerable (vulnerabilities being both visible and invisible in adolescents and above through heart conditions, etc.) are with evidence. Why does Giesecke feel that the 'squash the curve' concept, where we eradicate this illness to outright avoid illness (rather than develop immunity), is so unrealistic that it should be considered second behind the approach involving the certain cost of human lives? I don't understand the risk/cost/benefit math that Sweden is proposing. 3) When we drive cars, fatalities and accident rates don't justify us driving with our eyes closed - they inform us of risks, and caution us to act accordingly - to look both ways, check blind spots, assume the rest of the drivers don't know what they're doing, etc. On a similar token, this feels analogous to going outside in the midst of a global pandemic. Given that any of us could have an unknown vulnerability, why do you feel it is or isn't reckless to be out in public right now when discretionary?
Not perfect answers but:
1) In Sweden Public Authorities are given a lot of power (like the Public Health Agency in this case), and we don't have a culture of solely politically led decisions. As he has stated before - Norwegian and Danish Public Health Agencies were overruled by politicians regarding closing schools and borders. I remembering him also saying (or someone else) that most of the world fell like dominoes against science to "not to the wrong thing in the end" when pressure from other countries restrictive policies affected public opinion. As he says in the interview - in Sweden it is decided during the crisis to make evidence based decisions and not have politically colored non-evidence decisions. Also covered in Vanity Fair:
Neighboring Norway and Denmark, countries that, for all their criticisms of Sweden, share deep bonds and core values with it, have been flabbergasted by Stockholm’s policies. But, says Stockholm University political scientist Drude Dahlerup, a Dane who has worked in Sweden for a couple of decades now, the explanation for Sweden’s uniqueness may have less to do with culture and more to do with constitutional arrangements. For centuries, Sweden’s political structure has granted a level of power and independence to its public agencies that isn’t the case in other countries. Denmark’s politicians, like those in most countries, have more power to make immediate changes and also feel more pressure to act. You can see that even in the public face of authorities managing the effort. “In Denmark, it’s the young prime minister who’s running the press conferences,” says Dahlerup. “In Sweden the press conferences are run by the public health authority, the Folkhälsomyndigheten.”
2) He doesn't believe you can erridact the illness. It is to much spread in the countries and in the world. It was to late to do lockdowns when they were put in place, in most of the western countries. As Anders Tegnell puts it: We are not in the containment phase,” said Sweden’s chief state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, last month. “We are in the mitigation phase.”
Also, the strict lockdowns like in China doesn't work in a democracy - people will not abide to them for too long. And you can't lockdown for long enough to kill the disease, and in the end whether you lockdown or not - the same amount of people pretty much will lose their lives to the disease. And you have to have a holistic approach to Public Health. The negative aspects of a lockdown has to be taken into account. You only push the curve forward. He doesn't say though - that Sweden couldn't have had a lower death toll. As mentioned in the interview.
3) Swedish Public Health Agency asks people to be cautious and look for blind spots and act accordingly. The only difference is kids still go to school, and we can still (with restrictions) go to the restaurant and go shop for a new pair of jeans. This is also mentioned in the interview. And in Vanity Fair:
To start with, it’s a myth that Sweden is doing nothing about the virus. Most Swedes have changed their habits a lot. Schools for older kids are closed, as are universities. People are working from home, when they can, and the elderly are being urged to keep to themselves. Gatherings of over 50 people are prohibited, and ski resorts are closed. Restaurants and bars are allowing table service only, and grocery stores are installing glass dividers between customers and cashiers. People who go to Stockholm may be stunned to see bars and cafés with customers, but they’re seeing only the Swedes who choose to run higher risks. They’re not seeing all the Swedes who are staying home.
And no Country put their speed limits at 5 mph to save every life? Why aren't Canada doing that? People are dying every day on the roads in Canada I assume? I'd say the difference in measures of other countries and Sweden are smaller, than other countries to saving every life. As put, once again, in Vanity Fair:
An imperfect but useful analogy is to the highway speed limit. Set it to 10 miles per hour, and you might save a lot of lives, but at a huge cost to efficiency and sanity. Set it to something a bit higher, like 40 miles per hour, and you could still save three quarters of those lives but still allow a semblance of normal transit to continue. In this analogy, most of the world has lowered the speed limit to 10 miles per hour. It saves lives, but people won’t tolerate it for long. Sweden has lowered its limit to 40 miles per hour. That saves fewer lives, but people can live with it for a long time. It prevents carnage on one side and madness on the other. And you might save more lives overall.
I think that covers Gieseckes thoughts.
Basically: This disease is to spread to stop by lockdowns. You are risking to only push the curve forward. And Sweden has put in place restrictions that work for a long time ahead, based on science, and because in a democracy a total shutdown doesn't work. It's all about making health care cope and flatten the curve.
The question was not "why does Sweden's government listen to the health experts" The question was "why are the health experts of Sweden so far out of step with the health experts of the rest of the world"...
I don't think Giesecke things that these health experts would be "out of step" with Sweden if they sat in the same room discussing it and without political pressure and overruling. I don't think he thinks would hear a lot "YOU ARE CRAZY!!" thrown at him.
They could come to other decisions I would think he would agree on - if they do not see the same pro/con scenario regarding the holistic approach to public health, and let's say would focus more on this in a vacuum and disregard other aspects.
He brings up e.g. Orban becoming dictator in Hungary and other countries moving towards those kind of measures - how will that affect democracy and public health? How does it affect children to keep them out of school etc.
But I don't think he thinks all of these "health experts" would disagree with him on a scientific level.
But the best would be to ask him directly.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
During the past week, the average number of deceased per day has been 60 people.
In an interview with TV4, state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell emphasizes the importance of not staring blindly at the reported figures.
- It reflects both weekends and other things - one should look at the number of deaths per day. There we find around 60 cases a day in recent time, says Anders Tegnell.
He adds that it is clear that a "plateau situation" has been achieved in most parts of the country. Not just in Stockholm. ”
- The pressure on IVA is starting to ease, you are now hearing in Stockholm and the pressure on health care is also decreasing. This is a trend we hope will continue, says Tegnell and continues:
- There are constant examples in Västra Götaland, and many other regions have been up and running. We do not see the development in other parts of the country that we have seen in Stockholm.
During the day, Tom Britton, professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University, released a new report with a forecast for the infection situation in Greater Stockholm. The report is published in medRxiv and has not yet been reviewed, but gives a suggestion of what the situation may look like now and in the future.
Tom Britton's conclusion is that about a third of Stockholmers were infected and that the peak was reached a few days ago. Most of the spread of infection is reported to be over in a month, in May, when Greater Stockholm is close to herd immunity.
Anders Tegnell comments on Britton's report in the interview with TV4.
- It is in line with other information that we have and probably also corresponds fairly well with the measurement points we have received from other groups, he says, adding:
- It may very well be true. But there are uncertainties, and so does Tim Britton explain in his study. Who is very good at this.
Anders Tegnell says that the Public Health Authority has "collaborated very much with Tom Britton and is roughly on the same assessments as he does".
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
37 days later my old neighbor has been charged to rehab!!! Oh yeah!!!!! Thank you to everyone for your kind words through all this. I am teary eyed as I type this.
That's really great news. Good luck to him in rehab. I hope he is sent to a decent facility. Some of them can be really dicey even without the pandemic. I had to pull my mom out of one after two days because of the horror show.
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
You realize that none of this would have happened if the world didn’t turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in China at the cost of getting cheap TVs and smart phones. Anyone that’s out there buying cheap consumer goods is as responsible as anyone. Not China’s fault that the corporations of the west decided to do away with jobs in their own countries so they could make a higher profit off of Chinese labor. Want to be mad at someone try the hundreds of corporations that move production offshore so they can report higher profits at the expense of labor both foreign and domestically.
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
I don't hate Joe Rogan, but he is definitely the moron's smart man. The dumbest people I know think he's just so smart lol
He has interesting interests and doesn’t really alienate anybody with his views. Well rounded enough to let smarter people do the work.
This is the point about Rogan that everyone who fills a diaper over him misses. His fans don't like him because they think he's smart. He tells you ten times in every podcast that he isn't. He has two areas of expertise: comedy and MMA. For everything else, he seeks out experts on certain topics and peppers them with questions from the average person's perspective. People appreciate humility which is why he has so much more of a following than those who shriek about him.
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
Yes but that doesn't change my overall ask....get outta here with that trash calling the virus a scam! The new thread would likely burn to the ground quickly, again, but at least it wouldn't be here.
Hundreds of people died in NJ and NY again yesterday. I feel pretty sure I survived having it but so many around us are not that fortunate. Only a fool calls it a scam.
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
Yes but that doesn't change my overall ask....get outta here with that trash calling the virus a scam! The new thread would likely burn to the ground quickly, again, but at least it wouldn't be here.
Hundreds of people died in NJ and NY again yesterday. I feel pretty sure I survived having it but so many around us are not that fortunate. Only a fool calls it a scam.
You realize that none of this would have happened if the world didn’t turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in China at the cost of getting cheap TVs and smart phones. Anyone that’s out there buying cheap consumer goods is as responsible as anyone. Not China’s fault that the corporations of the west decided to do away with jobs in their own countries so they could make a higher profit off of Chinese labor. Want to be mad at someone try the hundreds of corporations that move production offshore so they can report higher profits at the expense of labor both foreign and domestically.
Don't you worry. I'm just as mad at my country for that reason.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
I'm here. You can ask me directly yet you don't.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
I'm here. You can ask me directly yet you don't.
Didn’t you start a thread? And it got shut down? I’m sorry I was scared to ask you directly. I was half defending you. Now I regret it.
Those fools. You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
Didn’t he start a thread? And then it got shut down lol
I'm here. You can ask me directly yet you don't.
Didn’t you start a thread? And it got shut down? I’m sorry I was scared to ask you directly. I was half defending you. Now I regret it.
How was that "defending me"?
Why the regret?
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Comments
Over 43,000 US millionaires will get ‘stimulus’ averaging $1.6 million each
the no BS calmness of it too
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
Interview with Johan Giesecke in english.
Swedish expert: why lockdowns are the wrong policy
1) Does Giesecke hold an opinion on why he and Sweden stand in stark contrast to what other nations and their scientists are advising?
2) While a lockdown is not evidence-based, high transmissibility, a high portion of a population needing the disease typically in order to attain herd immunity, the high risk to those vulnerable (vulnerabilities being both visible and invisible in adolescents and above through heart conditions, etc.) are with evidence. Why does Giesecke feel that the 'squash the curve' concept, where we eradicate this illness to outright avoid illness (rather than develop immunity), is so unrealistic that it should be considered second behind the approach involving the certain cost of human lives? I don't understand the risk/cost/benefit math that Sweden is proposing.
3) When we drive cars, fatalities and accident rates don't justify us driving with our eyes closed - they inform us of risks, and caution us to act accordingly - to look both ways, check blind spots, assume the rest of the drivers don't know what they're doing, etc. On a similar token, this feels analogous to going outside in the midst of a global pandemic. Given that any of us could have an unknown vulnerability, why do you feel it is or isn't reckless to be out in public right now when discretionary?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
1) In Sweden Public Authorities are given a lot of power (like the Public Health Agency in this case), and we don't have a culture of solely politically led decisions. As he has stated before - Norwegian and Danish Public Health Agencies were overruled by politicians regarding closing schools and borders. I remembering him also saying (or someone else) that most of the world fell like dominoes against science to "not to the wrong thing in the end" when pressure from other countries restrictive policies affected public opinion. As he says in the interview - in Sweden it is decided during the crisis to make evidence based decisions and not have politically colored non-evidence decisions. Also covered in Vanity Fair:
Neighboring Norway and Denmark, countries that, for all their criticisms of Sweden, share deep bonds and core values with it, have been flabbergasted by Stockholm’s policies. But, says Stockholm University political scientist Drude Dahlerup, a Dane who has worked in Sweden for a couple of decades now, the explanation for Sweden’s uniqueness may have less to do with culture and more to do with constitutional arrangements. For centuries, Sweden’s political structure has granted a level of power and independence to its public agencies that isn’t the case in other countries. Denmark’s politicians, like those in most countries, have more power to make immediate changes and also feel more pressure to act. You can see that even in the public face of authorities managing the effort. “In Denmark, it’s the young prime minister who’s running the press conferences,” says Dahlerup. “In Sweden the press conferences are run by the public health authority, the Folkhälsomyndigheten.”
2) He doesn't believe you can erridact the illness. It is to much spread in the countries and in the world. It was to late to do lockdowns when they were put in place, in most of the western countries. As Anders Tegnell puts it: We are not in the containment phase,” said Sweden’s chief state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, last month. “We are in the mitigation phase.”
Also, the strict lockdowns like in China doesn't work in a democracy - people will not abide to them for too long. And you can't lockdown for long enough to kill the disease, and in the end whether you lockdown or not - the same amount of people pretty much will lose their lives to the disease. And you have to have a holistic approach to Public Health. The negative aspects of a lockdown has to be taken into account. You only push the curve forward. He doesn't say though - that Sweden couldn't have had a lower death toll. As mentioned in the interview.
3) Swedish Public Health Agency asks people to be cautious and look for blind spots and act accordingly. The only difference is kids still go to school, and we can still (with restrictions) go to the restaurant and go shop for a new pair of jeans. This is also mentioned in the interview. And in Vanity Fair:
To start with, it’s a myth that Sweden is doing nothing about the virus. Most Swedes have changed their habits a lot. Schools for older kids are closed, as are universities. People are working from home, when they can, and the elderly are being urged to keep to themselves. Gatherings of over 50 people are prohibited, and ski resorts are closed. Restaurants and bars are allowing table service only, and grocery stores are installing glass dividers between customers and cashiers. People who go to Stockholm may be stunned to see bars and cafés with customers, but they’re seeing only the Swedes who choose to run higher risks. They’re not seeing all the Swedes who are staying home.
And no Country put their speed limits at 5 mph to save every life? Why aren't Canada doing that? People are dying every day on the roads in Canada I assume? I'd say the difference in measures of other countries and Sweden are smaller, than other countries to saving every life. As put, once again, in Vanity Fair:
An imperfect but useful analogy is to the highway speed limit. Set it to 10 miles per hour, and you might save a lot of lives, but at a huge cost to efficiency and sanity. Set it to something a bit higher, like 40 miles per hour, and you could still save three quarters of those lives but still allow a semblance of normal transit to continue. In this analogy, most of the world has lowered the speed limit to 10 miles per hour. It saves lives, but people won’t tolerate it for long. Sweden has lowered its limit to 40 miles per hour. That saves fewer lives, but people can live with it for a long time. It prevents carnage on one side and madness on the other. And you might save more lives overall.
I think that covers Gieseckes thoughts.
Basically: This disease is to spread to stop by lockdowns. You are risking to only push the curve forward. And Sweden has put in place restrictions that work for a long time ahead, based on science, and because in a democracy a total shutdown doesn't work. It's all about making health care cope and flatten the curve.
The question was "why are the health experts of Sweden so far out of step with the health experts of the rest of the world"...
They could come to other decisions I would think he would agree on - if they do not see the same pro/con scenario regarding the holistic approach to public health, and let's say would focus more on this in a vacuum and disregard other aspects.
He brings up e.g. Orban becoming dictator in Hungary and other countries moving towards those kind of measures - how will that affect democracy and public health? How does it affect children to keep them out of school etc.
But I don't think he thinks all of these "health experts" would disagree with him on a scientific level.
But the best would be to ask him directly.
or are they all busy disinfecting streets?
You are excited about a video that begins by calling out the covid scam?
Conspiracy theories deserve their own thread, where anyone who believe this is a scam can discuss . You have been asked before - please take your posts there. This is for people who believe in facts and are sharing about what everyone is going through.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
The new thread would likely burn to the ground quickly, again, but at least it wouldn't be here.
Hundreds of people died in NJ and NY again yesterday. I feel pretty sure I survived having it but so many around us are not that fortunate. Only a fool calls it a scam.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."