Sweden`s excess deaths for 2020 compared to the previous year show an increase of 9,358 deaths. An increase of 10.58%. Unless there was as yet some unknown reason for those deaths unique to just Sweden in northern Europe, from the Economist report above its very clear what the reason was.
I never predicted a "bloodbath" but at 10.58% excess deaths your term is not that far off. From their mid year figures I said if Sweden did not get to grips with the virus and change their strategy then their excess deaths could go as high as 8,000 as far as I recall. Some poster here as late as October 2020 were, like a previous poster here, prepared to bet their houses that Sweden would have no excess deaths for the year. Perhaps they actually did and that is the reason they stopped posting after the real figure became known.
"Ireland and most of the world is now following the Swedish approach" It seems you are not just attempting to rewrite history on Sweden`s excess deaths you are now attempting to rewrite Sweden`s approach. It is now, and has been for a long time, incontrovertible that Sweden`s approach was naturally acquired herd immunity. Nobody is following Sweden`s approach for the very simple reason that Sweden who attempted it, and the likes of the Brazilian state of Amazonas and India who believed they had achieved it, showed it was not possible. Ireland and the rest of the world is not now following Sweden`s approach, Sweden is following the rest of the worlds approach having found at a great cost of lives their approach was unethical and reckless. As Annika Linde, Tegnell`s predecessor as Sweden`s state epidemiologist stated "It was like a dream with very little basis in reality"
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-pandemic-strategy-correct-early-response-flawed-commission-2022-02-25/
'Sweden's broad policy was "fundamentally correct".' According to the commission.
"It meant that citizens retained more of their personal freedom than in many other countries,"
From the day that this virus hit our shores - the response to the crisis was a value judgement. Safety vs liberty. Ireland chose safety, a high intolerance for risk and therefore pursued a path that allowed very little liberty. Sweden chose liberty and personal responsibility at the cost of a little less safety. It also treated it's citizens like adults - now I will likely get flak for some of these comments (guess what? Don't care) - whereas in Ireland, citizens were treated like children and with a decent helping of contempt from authorities which drafted authoritarian rules that we all had to obey.
Personally, I'd have preferred a voluntary system that allowed individual liberty but that is my opinion and one which won't be shared by all. This is why people will never agree on the response and it's proportionality because we all value those two (apparently dichotomous) values differently. Do remember, people are still dying daily with a positive test for COVID (7-day average for Ireland is ~10 at time of writing), so the threat has not vanished - reduced yes, but not vanished (thanks Omicron and vaccines).
The chief difference between voluntary measures and lockdown measures is that the element of choice is not removed from either side of that debate under a voluntary system.
Their broad policy was to realize it wasn't working and copy everyone else.
What do you mean by this? Please elaborate... To approximate the very 'light touch' restrictions that Sweden had at various stages of the pandemic to the absolute oppression of individual liberty in this country is a stretch, and a large one at that .....
In what ways did they “copy everyone else”?
Light and late. All you're arguing is the level of restrictions.
Well, that is hardly 'copying everyone else' now is it?
They certainly didn't copy the death rate of their peers anyway.
They also didn't copy the despotism of the restrictions in other parts of the EU (looking at Ireland).
People in Ireland are not great at following rules, then complaining when they don't work and wondering why they need more rules extended for longer.
It`s undeniable that their strategy was chasing herd immunity. At the beginning of their second wave while Tegnell was hving a hissy fit with Italy over Sweden not facing a second wave and aiming to plow on by increasing numbers for public events, lifting restriction on care homes and telling the vulnerable it was safe to mingle in the general population, the local authorities stepped in and forced the government to sideline him and the strategy. From that on they pretty much followed the the strategy of everyone else putting their faith in vaccines.
No comment on that, but that's besides the point that I made originally (not sure how to link but: post #9367).
The severity of their restrictions were never comparable to that of ours, or other EU nations.
That may be so, but their excess deaths are not comparable to their Nordic neighbours who had more severe restrictions. If you believe that is just coincidental then that is up to you.
Nowhere did I say that restrictions didn't work - you are countering the wrong argument. I said it was a value judgement - refer to my original post (#9367)
Man did some people pay that price.
You just don't seem to get it Charlie, they don't care. I doubt they've cherry picked countries and compared themselves. They likely compare themselves to countries worldwide.
Their death rate is really not bad at all compared to many countries and their people were much happier overall.
They've proved beyond all doubt that severe lockdowns didn't have any great deal of impact on death rates.
well, under a voluntary system, they wouldn't have had to if they chose not to... It's their decision to take risks...
People have always been free to lock themselves down if they so desire.
precisely, and it'd be no worse than what government had done to them anyway (under mandatory lockdown).
What you're saying is the society you prefer is one that is less caring, less empathetic and more reckless with the lives of the sick and vulnerable.
It is what it is I guess.
Human mortality is not a new phenomena, and neither are pandemics. The basic question is this : what is the level of risk that society is prepared to accept for the sake of liberty and allowing people to go about their daily lives? As I said before, people are still dying with a COVID diagnosis (though less than previously).
Dying seems a lot worse than not dying.
No I am perfectly happy with the way society has always been, there is risk everyday and we accept a certain level.
What you are saying is that you prefer a society that removes the personal freedoms from all of its citizens for the benefit of a small number of people. I couldn't live in such a selfish world.
It's difficult to know what people like you think now that we've dropped all restrictions and people still die with COVID.
Of course, that goes without saying. In that case, you could have chosen to not take the risk and locked yourself down. Other's could have made their own decisions about it - again this goes back to what I said previously - I dislike quoting myself but I shall do so for the sake of clarity : "The chief difference between voluntary measures and lockdown measures is that the element of choice is not removed from either side of that debate under a voluntary system."
Well you have a choice, you can move to the country with the society you want. Or you can prove its BS by not doing that.
Should we make drink driving measures voluntary? Was it a choice for a victim to be out and about when knocked down? And why would that even matter?
There is an element of choice removed from people who are exposed to the virus because of the choices other people have made. People still had to access essential services. Do you have a freedom \ choice if there's no ICU bed for you because so many people are infected?
This is why multiple democratic - not despotic, although some of them did also - governments implemented such measures.
The difference is one is doing something for others. The other is doing something solely for themselves.
If you freely circulate your removing the choice from others.
And while you reschedule going for a pint another time. Kind of hard to reschedule dying after you've died.
What you are at pains to avoid getting is the Swedish strategy of chasing herd immunity has proven beyond doubt that when compared to their northern European neighbours who used lockdown, there is a large disparity in deaths as I have already shown you.
I really could care less how the Swedish view it. My problem has been with the idiots who believe we should have followed the same strategy.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d12271f20adb3471f9d99d9ad9c9b210.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b02137c72155734a0d6608f88d445229.svg)
