sheepysheep wrote: » So, all these business are still open. Thanks for clearing that up. Sweden has always had restrictions. No evidence of Government enforced lockdown submitted in that waffle. A nation cannot be both in Lockdown and contemplating one. Unless its schrodinger's lockdown you're presenting a case for.
sheepysheep wrote: » Nope. Wrong again. Another of your many logical fallacy's. Plagiarism would most certainly be a violation of academic integrity. However a violation of academic integrity is not necessarily Plagiarism. It could be any one of a whole host of offences. You're just BS'ing again.
sheepysheep wrote: » Fake news is just another expression for misinformation, spin, lies and deceit. Which is what you do in almost every post. Feel free to post some of my lies.
charlie14 wrote: » A violation of academic integrity is one of those "things" recognised as plagiarism. I have already posted how you attempted to do just that with The Economist data.
99nsr125 wrote: » Yeah the cafe restaurants et al can't open before 5am And have to close by 8:30pm Being open for circa 14 hours a day is completely lockdowned right !
99nsr125 wrote: » Oh please Charlie Citing references ie *good* academic practice You just don't like it because it doesn't suit you
charlie14 wrote: » Fair enough. I`ll except you attempted to violated academic integrity
charlie14 wrote: » When publishing your own report referencing your sources is definitely good. Violation of academic integrity isn`t Not to be putting pressure on you, but it has been awhile now. How is that figure for the Infection Fatality Rate for the country of your choice coming on. You come up with anything more definitive than "about" yet ? If you let me know the country I can let you know the Case Fatality Rate if that will help. It will be no problem, it`s a simple mathematical equation.
charlie14 wrote: » From Monday morning anyone eating in a cafe or restaurant that has a shared entrance will have to eat alone at a table. Why cafes and restaurants that do not have separate entrances, I have no idea what the logic is. But then the same can be said for the various edicts on face masks. Again, this thread is Sweden avoiding lockdown. It`s not what level of lockdown in Sweden.
sheepysheep wrote: » Sweden has always had restriction right from the off.
biko wrote: » What restrictions? They didn't implement facemasks until recently. They didn't shut down restaurants early until recently.
sheepysheep wrote: » So, is this an admission that you made a baseless accusation of Plagiarism against me? I'll take that as a yes. As I said before 'violation of academic integrity' could be anything (e.g. cheating on an exam). Please specify what this 'violation of academic integrity' was that I committed so that I can debunk that accusation too.
sheepysheep wrote: » Sweden has always had restriction right from the off. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. They closed universities and limited lectures to distance learning, gatherings to 50 people, for instance. They did not simply 'let it rip' as you often claim. The Lockdown they're avoiding is the government mandated lockdown of society which we and other countries have adopted.
charlie14 wrote: » No really. I was just so fed up listening to your whinging when it was apparent you were plagiarising that Economist report I was prepared to let you off with violation of academic integrity. Seeing as you are still whinging then I`ll leave it at Plagiarism.
charlie14 wrote: » What you are desperately attempting to avoid is from the 19th Oct the regional authorities have the right to recommend their own measures. 20th. October Uppsala did just that describing them as "They are rather far-reaching this time. It`s more of a lockdown situation, but a local lockdown" This local lockdown was adopted nationally when shortly after Uppsala, all regional followed. Since then there have been further measures regionally that are at variance with those of the government. The wearing of face masks being one. Public gathering have been limited to 8 not 50 since November, shops have to allow 10 sq. meters of floor space, excluding fixtures and fittings per customer and as of today cafes and restaurants without separate entrances can only serve one customer per table. I don`t know if I ever used the term "let it rip" but during the first wave they did little or nothing of relevance to stop the spread. The changes since, with you being a supporter of their far right anti science policies on herd immunity and face mask must be a disappointment to you, but that doesn`t change the facts that Sweden now is a long way from their original strategy where Tegnell and The Public Health Authority reigned supreme.
sheepysheep wrote: » Ah, 'whinging' is it now. Just like it's 'nit-picking' when you're caught telling lies. Again. feel free to quote the original article and my act of plagiarism.
charlie14 wrote: » Unlike your lies, avoidance and attempts at distraction I have engaged in none of those. I already have. Your using the Economist report attempting to portray findings on Sweden`s excess Covid deaths that the report did make, by making comparisons the report, not only did not make, but were crystal clear on the comparisons they made and why.
sheepysheep wrote: » Public gatherings were limited to 50 people. Universities only utilised distance learning. Competitive sports etc. from my previous post. They closed universities and limited lectures to distance learning, gatherings to 50 people, for instance.
biko wrote: » That didn't happen "right from the off" nor was it 50. First they did 500 from 12th March and two weeks later they went to 50. While neighbouring Denmark was one of the first European countries after Italy to announce it would close all public schools and daycare centres, Sweden's institutions remained open. The country also didn't follow its Scandinavian neighbours' lead in shutting down bars, restaurants, sports practices or national borders. They even held their national final to the Eurovision Song Contest on 7th March after other countries had already said they would not run the contest. On 3 March, four days before the Melodifestivalen final, Swedish state radio (SR) reported over 200 confirmed cases within Sweden. Between 27 and 30 thousand people attended the indoor venue...
biko wrote: » That's not it, but maybe for you from the off means "after some time" or "weeks later". I don't know. Is there anything else I can correct you on and you can try to claim you meant all along?
biko wrote: » On 3 March, four days before the Melodifestivalen final, Swedish state radio (SR) reported over 200 confirmed cases within Sweden. .
sheepysheep wrote: » In a statement provided to TIME, however, a spokesperson for the Public Health Agency of Sweden rejected that characterization. “It is not a lockdown but some extra recommendations that could be communicated locally when a need from the regional authorities is communicated and the Public Health Agency so decides,” the spokesperson said. You really need to explain how there is a public discussion on entering lockdown if Sweden is already in one.
sheepysheep wrote: » What lies? What avoidance? What attempts at distraction? Here is a snapshot from the article. It clearly shows a comparison with Norway, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, and Iceland. Why are Estonia and Iceland compared with Sweden? Please provide a quote where they exclude a European wide comparison. Otherwise, as usual, it's just you making accusations.
charlie14 wrote: » Will you ever get a bit of sense ? The above is the only comparisons the report made to Sweden. It is from their analysis of Northern Europe where in their coverage of the four regions of Europe contains the only mention of Sweden. Why they compared countries regionally is a no-brainer ,and they made it clear they did it regionally due to the virus becoming more lethal when moving eastwards in Europe. You totally ignored that and went picking out countries all over that suited your narrative to make comparisons attempting to give it credibility by linking it to The Economist post while purposely ignoring the parameters The Economist used.
charlie14 wrote: » You really do have a terrible problem with comprehension. I have already told you on numerous occasions that from the 19th.October what the Public Health Authority had to say on Uppsala`s local lockdown on the 20th October which the other regions quickly followed doesn`t make a blind bit of difference. They no longer had the power to do anything about it. Have you not noticed that the PHA`s current advice on face masks are totally different from a number of the regional authorities ? Has the Public Health Authority made a statement like the one you keep posting? The week before Uppsala went their own way Tegnell was telling the press that all the regional authorities were fully behind the PHA strategy. That strategy at the time was lifting restrictions on care homes, raising public gathering to 500 and telling the aged and vulnerable it was fine to again mingle with the general population. The simple facts are the regional authorities were not fully behind the PHA strategy and as soon as they had the power to do so on the 19th Oct. they showed clearly they were not. The result was the government being forced to back them and sideline the PHA. That PHA statement you keep posting was nothing more than a face saving attempt. The public discussion is now on what further level of lockdown they may or may not now go to. That decision will be made primarily by the regional authorities, not by the PHA.
the incredible pudding wrote: » This is factually false? The official figures show there had been only 19 cases by the 3rd? By the 8th there was ~140 reported cases?
