Sorry can’t paste the link for some reason.
Yet still no data 🤔
2020 with no restrictions pursuing herd immunity (being generous by not including Jan '21):
2021 onwards with vaccine rollout and restrictions, notice how it starts matching Denmark later on, after being much worse earlier):
2020 GDP change also worse than all their neighbours:
GDP growth (annual %) | Data (worldbank.org) (Ireland did awesome here).
Now you can begin to argue the data.
Em the relevant dataset is *The World* because it affected everybody not just Sweden and Denmark
If this is the retort it just weakens the opposing case further again
What data do you mean ?
Sweden`s own test results that show herd immunity was a failure, their own FHM Covid deaths data for the period they were chasing it, The Economist report data on the same, the Eurostat monthly excess deaths data for the same period, Tegrell`s own admission that the strategy was immoral, or Sweden`s own Covid inquiry report ?
They have all been posted here as well as economic reports that show Sweden did not do any better economically than their neighbours, or indeed the rest of Europe afair from their strategy.
Running away from the data, how utterly predictable ;)
This pandemic was due to a virus. It wasn`t one of the biblical plague of Egypt that killed just the first born.
It was more virulent in some areas of "The World" than others. If you have read The Economist report you will see that regionally in Europe alone that was the case going west to east, and as the report points out when it came to excess deaths for 2020 for the Northwestern region of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, Sweden was the exception having per capita multiple deaths compared to the others.
It is not just The Economist report that shows that. So do the reported Covid deaths for each of those countries during that period, the excess deaths for the year, plus the Eurostat monthly excess deaths for the period that shows again multiple deaths in Sweden during the peak periods of the two Covid waves during 2020 when compared to the others in the region.
That is not a retort, it`s factual data from multiple sources that include all four countries own data and that of Eurostat, the official E.U. statistics agency.
This will likely be my last post on this thread, because clearly I am broadcasting to unreachable channels and my time is finite, but valuable.
The defenders of lockdown consistently miss the point: There is more to life than not dying (news for you, it comes for us all), and most certainly more to life than GDP.
We can argue about data forever, and yes - the data can be argued for any point of view - as sky news stated - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-coronavirus-vaccine-pandemic-latest-skynews-12579367?postid=3844326#liveblog-body:
"Sweden's liberal [as opposed to the illiberal measures in IE] approach to COVID, and its refusal to impose strict lockdowns, appear to have been vindicated by new World Health Organisation figures."
"Sweden took some flak for its approach but in 2020 and 2021, the country had an average excess death rate of 56 per 100,000 people - compared to 109 in the UK, 111 in Spain, 116 in Germany and 133 in Italy."
"The country did fare worse than some of its Nordic neighbours where lockdowns were introduced [though they were much shorter/less severe than the lockdowns in IE], however - so, as always, you could use the data to argue any point you like." [though according to the Lancet we see a different picture where Sweden was less bad off. I will not be reposting this as I've done so several times already].
If any of the resident experts here have a differing view to the quote above - take it up with sky news.
Voluntary measures, personal responsibility and personal choice was previously the middle ground between liberty and safety. Sweden can hold it's head higher than many other EU nations in that the measures it introduced were not in the same league as the illiberal measures elsewhere (particularly in IE). Yes, you can mention the schools and so forth, and protection of the vulnerable (a mistake most nations also made) but the bottom line is that Sweden didn't treat it's population like children, no I would go further - like collective drones of national policy - to the extent that other nations did, and has a lower death rate than many European nations. I, and I hope for your sake that you concur, do not believe that I was put on this earth to simply serve whichever country I happen to reside in.
I do recognise that we are now in an era, in certain nations, where those things are not valued as much as in previous generations (much the pity) and citizens demanded coercive measures to be applied to their fellow citizens during covid, which, whilst I agree was serious, I'd question if it was serious enough for two years of lost living for many people (though, I despairingly concede that some [nobody that I know] people seemed to enjoy being told what to do, where to go etc under lockdown), and for some - the final years of their living (and I am not referring to covid deaths, by the way). As an older person, who knows many older (vulnerable) people - I'd have preferred to live with freedom united with risk as opposed to restrictions with safety. I'd (and they) prefer to spend my last days with people of my choosing, in areas of my choosing - not the states, and not other citizens' choosing. If someone else wanted safety, they could have shielded themselves voluntarily. What actually happened was that the choice was eliminated (I said this before). Who should decide that? Government officials, or the individual? To me, the answer is abundantly obvious - the individual. This is the big difference between lockdown defenders and lockdown sceptics/liberty defenders. In my mind, it is folly to attempt to control the behaviour of others to high degrees for long periods of time, two years is not trivial.
As I said before, let's see how the next crises pan out, but my feeling is that once that threshold has been crossed (i.e. the scale of coercion, which was unknown in living memory, perhaps in the history of many EU nations) - it's very tempting for government's to resort to such levels of coercion to assist with other crises.
Attack this post all you like :), I wanted to voice a different point of view. I have done so, and may or may not engage further (my choice).
I would note that constitutions and human rights acts all have reference to restrictions on rights being applicable for public health reasons, which a pandemic falls into. This is universal almost like those who wrote the acts realised that more than voluntary measures would be needed.
Not once did I reference anything related to the constitution. I agree there are times where liberty and civil liberties need to be curtailed but this needs to be reserved for extreme cases. If we were talking about smallpox (30% risk of death - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox), or something as transmissible as covid but far deadlier - I could understand the reaction. But we were talking about a disease with a median age of death approximately equating to national life expectancy, and to which at least 99% of people survive. This was not a danger that lay vastly outside of the range of risks that humans have had to live with since we walked the earth. What is new is the reaction to the risk.
Again, you miss the point entirely, thus proving mine (that it is not worthy of my time to convince certain others that other view points exist and are also valid). Thanks for the confirmation.
The problem with Covid is not solely or primarily "people who might die" and your personal liberty.
That my problem with your "opinion". It too simplistic.
We ought to stop driving then. And lockdown every flu season. All liberty carries risk. Question is, how much do you want liberty? I think we have seen the answer.
Driving or flu aren't going to cause the wider issues that Covid could. Its not a valid comparison.
exactly, people dont understand it was as much about easing strain on health services as it was about stopping people dying from it
But places where there were no lockdowns (or short ones) did not have health services that collapsed. US states, Sweden for example.
US states, Sweden... let me guess, all low population density areas buttressed by other states \ countries which did lock down?
Is this the list of US states: Arkansas (40), Iowa (42), Nebraska (49), North Dakota (53), South Dakota (52), Utah (46), and Wyoming (55). The number is their rank in US states/territories by population density.
And England tried to avoid lockdown, the only other country to try something like Sweden's herd immunity strategy and had to when the NHS was about to collapse.
That's simply not true. The UK ordered it's national lockdown before Ireland did. UK: 23 March 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom#First_wave). Ireland: on the 27 March 2020, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced a national stay-at-home order with a series of measures which he summed up as: "Stay at Home", which was a similar level of restrictions already in place in the UK (though of course, harsher) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland).
In addition the NHS was only under threat (note: under threat, not actually) of being overwhelmed once during the pandemic - Jan 2021 (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions?time=earliest..latest&country=England~Wales~Scotland~Northern+Ireland).
In addition, Florida only had a short lockdown as did Texas. Their health services did not collapse. Florida is the eighth most densely populated state in the US. (https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/florida-population)
our health system collapsed a long time ago (different discussion). the last thing we needed was further unnecessary strain
Then instead of the citizens flagellating themselves, perhaps the politicians ought to fix the health service? And you are quite right - the pandemic was not required to burden the health system in this country:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/things-are-getting-worse-hospitals-brace-for-major-surge-in-numbers-1.4128372 (2019)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/trolley-crisis-record-numbers-awaiting-hospital-bed-1.3344315 (2018)
https://www.newstalk.com/news/irish-hospitals-continue-to-face-record-overcrowding-526759 (2017)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospitals-overwhelmed-by-overcrowding-admits-varadkar-1.2505516 (2016)
'flagellating themselves' - get a grip. yes the health service needs fixing but thats a different discussion, the measures were put in places to minimise potential extra strain on the system, perfectly logical and fair
Then, by this logic - every time the health care system is under threat (every winter), we ought to lockdown. Sound good?
Ireland has very significant restrictions in place well before 27th March. But you know this, you have just conveniently forgotten it.
From the same Wikipedia page you linked to:
On 12 March, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced the closure of all schools, colleges and childcare facilities ... On 15 March, the Government ordered bars and public houses to close.
In the UK Cheltenham was still going ahead. This is why UK locked down:
A key factor was the UK's four chief medical officers who... drafted a joint statement saying that the NHS was under "immense pressure" and that they were not confident it could handle a further sustained rise in cases... Without further action there is a material risk of the NHS in several areas being overwhelmed over the next 21 days
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55551180
So your jig is up now if you are resorting to these tactics.
All my earlier point still stands.
But we are talking about lockdown, not just levels of restrictions. The stay at home order (which is usually the definition of lockdown) was not until 27th. Your US points do not stand because I pointed out Florida - the 8th most densely populated US state.
And, as I said - the UK health service was only under threat of collapse once - jan 2021.
By the way, your posts (I said this before) are very patronising. You should respect others more. "your jig is up".
Complete revisionism, Ireland had initiated the WFH orders ahead of complete lockdown before the UK did, the UK jumped immediately to lockdown after seeing the disaster of pursuing herd immunity.
No, a pandemic doesn't occur every Winter.
However, restrictions do come in on things like elective surgeries when the system is under stress.
In the absence of vaccines and effective treatment, no health system was able to handle the stress of SARS-COV2 without incurring a lot of excess deaths (and funnily enough, those seeking healthcare are often the most vulnerable to SARS-COV2).
But good to see the whatabouting on display.
Your sole issue is that a once in a century pandemic wasn't extreme enough for lockdowns. Luckily the experts in charge disagreed with your assessment.
Yep and let's see how the experts in future curtail liberty or revoke civil liberties/luxuries when there is a new crisis. I am watching and waiting. Perhaps you'll care more if it's an aspect of liberty/luxury that you value? For instance, your internet connection (due to power outages, hypothetically speaking of course). Maybe then you will understand why there are many people, who still might be a minority, that found the lockdown in this country appalling and disproportionate. That's the beauty about liberty, it has a way of making you care.
And on that note, I am out.
Spent far too much time talking to you guys, and I've enjoyed some of it but you are strangers to me and the real world demands my attention :).
im not aware that there is a worldwide pandemic every winter......
no pandemic these years either (I already posted these):
The UK chief medical officers signed a statement that there was a material risk of NHS being overwhelmed in 21 says. The UK were not going into lockdown until that happened. What you 'say' carries no weight in comparison.
They were still partying in the pubs and at Cheltenham while in Ireland we already had very significant restrictions. Whether the UK locked down in full just before is neither here nor there to the salient point.
Florida had closed all bars and also had stay at home orders.
On March 30, DeSantis issued a stay-at-home order for the South Florida counties of Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Monroe, where over 58% of the state's COVID-19 cases were concentrated. He stated that the order would remain in effect at least until the middle of May.[126] On April 1, DeSantis issued a stay-at-home order for the entire state, effective for 30 days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Florida#State_government
I said they had a short lockdown.
Some of you are clearly NOT reading my posts.
So, as I said - I'm out. Can't converse with those that don't read.
For the slippery slope analogy, you need to start defining the next step of the slope and show when and where it will happen (and accept you're wrong when it doesn't occur).
The rest of it belongs on the CT forum, unless you want to show a realistic story about the internet being taken away as a public health measure.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d12271f20adb3471f9d99d9ad9c9b210.svg)
