bbiggs said:

Speaking of anti-vaxxers, I wonder what that group will do when a Covid-19 vaccine is available.  Probably bypass it.

Now that’s humor

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Interview with Johan Giesecke in english.

Swedish expert: why lockdowns are the wrong policy

https://youtu.be/bfN2JWifLCY

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The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact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

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

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.

Thoughts_Arrive said:

The CCP must be made to pay for this.