You posted an article you felt had some relevance. I wasn`t arguing with you, or even implying that I knew more than anyone else.
Just remarking out that I felt there was some very woolly thinking and contradictions as reported in that article as having been said by that epidemiologist. Seems the epidemiologist feels the same as I see from another post here he now says he was misquoted.
What do I know? I only quoted a news article. Not looking for an argument, tired of it. You apparently know more than anyone else.
"The epidemiologist believes that it is now necessary to try to achieve herd immunity to the coronary virus by letting it continue, but to try to prevent serious illness by protecting vulnerable groups"
A very awkward sentence in that it is practically word for word what Tegnell claimed he was attempting but finally had to admit it was immoral.The reason why it is immoral is now even more obvious than when Tegnell conceded it.
This epidemiologist appears to be unaware that the herd immunity level he is talking about is the same percentage for the total population either through vaccination or infection. Vaccination greatly reduces the risk of serious illness or death should you become infected. Now that we know this, to do what he is proposing, when Iceland has not vaccinated all who are willing to avail of the vaccines, would be immoral as it would be in violation of the medical principle to do no harm by knowingly allowing people to become infected to a higher risk of serious illness or death.
Tbh, other than him just seeking a bit of publicity or him being all over the place, I cannot see what his point is. He talks about herd immunity, which Iceland looks highly likely of achieving through vaccination anyway, and then "the goal cannot be to eradicate the virus from society" . From that it appears he either does not know what the principle of herd immunity is, or he is proposing a hybrid system of vaccination and natural infection to achieve zero Covid when he has said zero Covid is not achievable.
While Icelandic epidemiologist may be saying the way to achieve herd immunity is to allow the virus to spread throughout the community, I'm sure he'd also agree that that is only an option once vaccinations have reached a certain level which will avoid over-running hospitals and huge numbers of unnecessary deaths which would happen without the vaccines. Vaccines work with the herd immunity through community spread strategy, not against it.
Because he said literally :
"Þórólfur Guðnason said in Sprengisandur in Bylgjan this morning that it is disappointing that herd immunity has not been achieved with vaccination. He says that only one other way is able to achieve herd immunity, to allow the virus to spread throughout the community"
And
"It is not a priority now to vaccinate everyone with the third dose, as we also need to think: Maybe we should get a new variant? Do we need to be vaccinated with another vaccine? ”He says. Þórólfur says that the fight against the virus will be characterized by such uncertainty.
Will not propose hard action "We need to somehow navigate this way, and we are now in this, not to get too many serious illnesses so that the hospital system does not collapse, but still try to achieve this herd immunity by letting the virus somehow run."
I already said - I should have said "not solely vaccinations" but my point still stands. I didn't lie.. However, just let that one thing you can pick on invalidate the guys whole statement why don't you..
Edit: ps been here for more than 10 years, just waiting for my "anti vaxx" moment, woo-hoo! (despite being a fully vaxxed person and my kid too)
You characterised what he said as "Icelands chief epidemiologist has said the way to herd immunity is through infections, not vaccinations."
You added "not vaccinations" yourself when it was clear that vaccinations and even boosters are a major part of the strategy proposed.
The poster who called you out on it was very clear about what you were lying about so I don't understand why you would claim that it was about something else now.
Regarding children, where is the evidence for this? Going by the UK who seem to be coming out of their Delta wave, this isn't the case at all. I mean there was always a very (very) small chance that children could become seriously ill with any strain, but it seems like they are saying it is worse with delta. Any actual data to support this?
No, I was told on another thread I was lying and spreading misinformation for posting that
"The epidemiologist believes that it is now necessary to try to achieve herd immunity to the coronary virus by letting it continue, but to try to prevent serious illness by protecting vulnerable groups. He says the goal at this point cannot be to eradicate the virus from society."
Awkward sentence due to google translate I imagine.
And yes I concede he says they have the majority vaccinated not everyone but the gist of the message remains the same.
Well, actually, they're neither fully vaccinated nor letting the virus run its course
https://www.icelandreview.com/society/icelands-chief-epidemiologist-curbing-infections-remains-the-goal/
Iceland does not have everyone vaccinated. They have 71.5% of the population fully vaccinated. He also failed to point out the percentage required for herd immunity is the same for vaccinated or naturally acquired.
The difference is that being vaccinated greatly reduces your chances of severe illness or death. Something that is apparent with their latest surge where there have been no deaths, 97% of thees new cases have experienced either mild or no symptoms, and just 18 have been hospialised.
Something I thought especially remiss of him not mentioning, as the article goes on to say children can become seriously ill if they become infected with the Delta variant, is that they account for over 20% of the population and that few if any of the 12 - 16 age group have yet been vaccinated.
So Island are saying we have everyone vaccinated and yet we have record infection numbers. But we have broken the link between infection and severe illness so there is nothing more we can do and now we need to just step back and let it go through.
https://www.visir.is/g/20212140884d/na-thurfi-hjardonaemi-med-thvi-ad-lata-veiruna-ganga
Sóttvarnalæknir telur að nú verði að reyna að ná fram hjarðónæmi gegn kórónuveirunni með því að láta hana ganga áfram, en reyna að koma í veg fyrir alvarleg veikindi með því að hlífa viðkvæmum hópum. Hann segir markmiðið á þessum tímapunkti ekki geta verið að útrýma veirunni úr samfélaginu.
use google translate...
(Jehova!)
Proxy I have always understood as acting on behave of others with their full knowledge. I do not see how the strategy by Tegnell & Co of naturally acquired herd immunity could be classified as such.
Terribly depressing all the energy wasted on this proxy agenda "discussion"
If Tegnell was "hopeful" that his strategy would lead to infection rates for 70% -80% as a secondary result for the total population of Sweden, then what was his primary hope when he already knew the possible death rates for the elderly and vulnerable of his strategy from such infection rates ?
Like the other Nordic countries Sweden had a choice on closing it`s borders but rejected the idea. Even so, it`s naive imo to ignore all the other means it`s neighbours used to tackle this pandemic, (that Sweden also rejected), as factors in their vastly different numbers of deaths.
As has been discussed here in the past, when you include those employees in Sweden who were classified as on furlough (and as such not included in their unemployed figures) then their was no discernible difference between Sweden and others.
What Tegnell has said in public and what he has said when putting his herd immunity strategy into effect are two separate worlds.You are determined to ignore what he said in the e-mails he didn`t delete, but that does not change the facts.
When it came to considering public health as a whole and school children, the elderly and vulnerable didn`t get much consideration. In discussion with his Finnish counterpart Mika Salminen he said " One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity". In reply Salminen said Finland had rejected this as "over time, the children are still going to spread the infection" and that closing schools would reduce the spread of infections amongst the elderly by around 10%. Tegnell`s reply " 10% might be worth it"
Not only did Sweden keep schools open for those under 16, it insisted on full attendance with non-compliance resulting in reports to social services and fines, even for families in high risk groups.
Maybe I misunderstood your point but I'm not sure that's entirely my fault. No worries anyway.
Their other natural advantage being bordered by low density countries who attempted to tackle the virus.
I don't see their approach as being scaleable, they took a free ride on the backs of their neighbours plus also had what seems to be significant voluntary changes in behaviour by Swedes.
Ah but I didn't. Of course I didn't.
I'm saying Sweden squandered a very real natural advantage. Especially, as a huge number of elderly people in Sweden live alone.
It's very closely related to your argument.
You however equated my entirely valid point with Volvo drivers and Ikea furniture, for some reason.
I wouldnt say its irrelevant altogether. But the main factor above everything by a gazillion miles is age especially old age. To put single home occupancy anywhere near 'old age' to invalidate my argument is something I cant follow.
Clearly Ireland could not have closed its land border with Northern Ireland.
Tegnell theorised herd immunity and was hopeful it would be a byproduct of Swedish approach but has acknowledged it would not occur as a result of their approach.
I don’t ignore the difference in Covid positive deaths in the Nordic countries - I posted a study that proposed a main factor in that difference was border closure early on, or lack thereof.
Sweden may not gain financially, but is better buffered than countries that borrowed billions to pay employees to stay home.
Do you think that that there is more to life than merely existing? I have seen posts by a few posters on here who live abroad who say they dread going to Ireland when they have to go there. I feel the same way. It's depressing going there. Draconian restrictions, everything micromanaged, no fun, can't do anything without a mask, can't even have a cup of tea indoors unless you have some app on your phone. Sweden is the complete opposite. I spent some time in Sweden and it was wonderful. People appeared to be happy, could pop into a café or a restaurant on your way home, people were relaxed.
Anders Tegnell has said, in numerous interviews, that he considered public health as a whole when deciding how to approach covid. He said it was very important for children to go to school and to keep society as open as possible.
You may be perhaps wishing to ignore the e-mails obtained under freedom of information and the statement of Tegnell`s predecessor that the strategy was acquired herd immunity from the outset and was publicly lied about.
If you think that was a bit unhinged then that description belongs more to Tegnell than too me. He was still attempting to pursue it until the regional authorities put a stop to it in October when he was in denial of a second wave, and then bizarrely stated the chasing of naturally acquired herd immunity was immoral.
If you continually wish to ignore the cost in lives lost in Sweden due to that strategy compared to it`s Nordic neighbours, then that is up to you. As to the cost, Sweden is not going to gain anything financially from that strategy compared to its neighbours or anywhere else. If your cost is the, how long is a piece of string arguement on mental health issues, with over 10% of their population infected with this virus the alternative arguement is long Covid where substantial numbers are still unable to return to work months after becoming infected.
I have no idea where you are from in Ireland, but if you somehow believe we could have closed our borders then you know very little about our land border with Northern Ireland
Fairly impressive results with their pretty benign restrictions over the last few months.
They live alone because Sweden developed a policy towards providing care at home for the elderly if possible, rather than collecting them together in one facility. Which is the weird country?
Unfortunately because home carers that visited elderly at home to provide care were providing care at home to many, and on rotation, the virus spread still among the elderly being cared for at home as well as those in a residential facility.
More elderly swedes live alone than anywhere else in Europe.
One third of them live alone.
Lads, it's a weird country
Very true. In fact they're well below mid-table by EU standards. As @CalamariFritti pointed out, about par with Ireland when adjusted for age profile.
Over 50% of gafs in Sweden have just one occupant.
Can someone remind me, did household transmission play a large role in Ireland's case?
Ok
So you don't see the fact that an incredible number of swedes living alone as relevant to a debate about a highly infectious disease.
Can I ask why?
You may perhaps be venturing into conspiracy theory territory here.
‘Actively promoted the immoral experiment of infecting the citizens of his own country with a deadly virus without their knowledge’
This is a bit unhinged tbh.
I get that you’ve an aversion to any solution that doesn’t maximise immediate saving of lives at any cost, but though Sweden, like most countries, got some things wrong, I can’t fathom why a mid-table performing country re deaths is such a target. Could they have saved lives by closing their borders, especially early on? - yes, of course. As we could have.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5d62a35d50b8dba45150b8451b6cb1b3.svg)
