Sweden avoiding lockdown

Ginger n Lemon

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Enjoy the break.

1) No country has successfully shielded the vulnerable, when allowing the virus to circulate. It hasnt happened.

2) Tegell is looking for many reasons to downplay the death toll. 2,000 we saved last year and 4,000 we sarcrificed this year? Well, suddenly its all ok now.

3) Apparently they're not all immune in Stockholm yet. Why not?

4) Removal of 30000 test results, 30 day limit to have covid on the death cert, arguing elderly vulnerable populations, all seem to be desperate ploys to justify an unfortunate gamble that didnt pay off.

Japan has an elderly population, how did they manage to protect them?

Honestly, i wish it had worked. But it didnt. Though i hope i am proved wrong and this winter wont be as bad.

If Sweden report less deaths in 2020 than in 2019 or 2018, will you think their model is good?

Also - that in bold, are you talking about Ireland? Will Irish winter bring many covid deaths?

is_that_so

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

If Sweden report less deaths in 2020 than in 2019 or 2018, will you think their model is good?

Also - that in bold, are you talking about Ireland? Will Irish winter bring many covid deaths?

With our continuing strategy probably not. It'll be a variation of what we have now and you'd expect care homes to be properly managed.

AlmightyCushion

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The problem here is that the vista you are claiming to be undesirable (i.e. at risk people having to lock themselves away until there is a vaccine) is more or less not far off what the current Covid strategy involves. Ultimately as well, half of Covid deaths were in care homes, where residents don’t tend to be out and about anyway.

The idea that we can get Covid “low enough” to go back to somewhat of a normality does not appear to be a strategy that is workable in the long term. It took a full and complete lockdown to merely flatten the curve — it now appears that it would take a very sustained and draconian lockdown over a long period of time to actually eliminate the virus and we would need pretty much at least all of Europe then eventually all of the world to do likewise. All it seems to take is a sliver of the virus to survive and then, once again as is happening now, a whole bunch of people who have been in lockdown with no exposure to the virus are suddenly out and about spreading it again.

The fact remains — it is much easier from an ethical perspective to advocate the lockdown approach because it is simply much easier to identify the moral benefit of saving [mostly] elderly people from death. But the longer the lockdown strategy goes on, and it is almost unavoidably a very long road, then other ethical concerns start to pile up. They pile and pile, then snowball to the point where things which might have originally seemed trivial versus the death caused by Covid, like teenagers not being able to go party and socialise, become ethical questions about teenagers missing out on important self-development and their liberty to enjoy their youth as we all did. Even in times of war, this level of deprivation of human and social contact for young people is unprecedented. And that’s only one issue in the entire myriad of socioeconomic consequences which are inherent in the lockdown strategy.

The frustrating thing is that people are still adopting this moral Puritanism towards the Covid question — that the only ethical question worth asking is how to stop mainly old people from dying, which invariably leads to the view that the current approach in Ireland is the only ethical solution. And so, right now, the entire governance of our State is geared utterly and solely to that one ethical question, at the expense of all others.

It ravaged the care homes because it was so widespread in the community that staff got it and brought it in. While it took a lockdown to get the virus to a low level, it stayed at a relatively low level while reopening some areas. The problem is we re-opened more or less everything at the end of June and a lot of people got more relaxed and complacent about the whole thing. Places where people gather indoors for periods of time should have had a strict limit on the amount of people based on the size of the premises. The government buckled on the 2m limit and look where we are now. Indoor dining has closed again in Dublin. They should have stuck to the 2m limit (if not going with an even higher limit) and actually enforced it with random spot checks. If you're found in breach of the rules, then you get a hefty fine (hefty enough that the cost of the fine is far more than you would gain from breaking the rules).

We can live with this virus and find a middle ground between lockdown and free for all where we get some levels of normality back but it requires some rules that have to be actually enforced.

Ginger n Lemon

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It ravaged the care homes because it was so widespread in the community that staff got it and brought it in. While it took a lockdown to get the virus to a low level, it stayed at a relatively low level while reopening some areas. The problem is we re-opened more or less everything at the end of June and a lot of people got more relaxed and complacent about the whole thing. Places where people gather indoors for periods of time should have had a strict limit on the amount of people based on the size of the premises. The government buckled on the 2m limit and look where we are now. Indoor dining has closed again in Dublin. They should have stuck to the 2m limit (if not going with an even higher limit) and actually enforced it with random spot checks. If you're found in breach of the rules, then you get a hefty fine (hefty enough that the cost of the fine is far more than you would gain from breaking the rules).

We can live with this virus and find a middle ground between lockdown and free for all where we get some levels of normality back but it requires some rules that have to be actually enforced.

But even government themselves have no idea where virus is transmitted..

"Health experts have insufficient information to establish where people are getting infected with Covid-19, an Oireachtas committee heard on Wednesday.

Prof Kirsten Schaffer, president of the Irish Society of Clinical Microbiology, said she rang public health officials to be told that they only asked what close contacts people had in the last 48 hours.

They do not ask people where they have been or where they might have acquired the infection so it was not clear if somebody acquired it at a house party or at a restaurant or any other social setting."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-experts-have-insufficient-information-to-establish-where-people-get-covid-19-committee-hears-1.4362340

Thats the problem with whole lockdown concept - you think you know, but you actually dont know and you end up doing random "close this, close that" and hope infections go down while announcing on national TV that you are "very concerned" and that people need to "double the efforts".

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

Most, if not all, of your posts I have read consist of nothing much more than rambling assertions and made up "facts" that when challenged on result in nothing other than evasion, often with a snarky undertone.

In the last 24 hours alone we have had Giesecke was 100% correct, Sweden had less deaths in the 6 weeks prior to 14th September than the previous year, and Sweden`s strategy had nothing to do with herd immunity.

Your latest appears to be some attempt, (although admittedly it is difficult to tell from your ramblings), to explain away the large disparity in Covid-19 deaths between Sweden and Norway based on a flu season that was mild throughout Europe, while totally ignoring that Covid-19 deaths in Sweden per 100,000 are 57.33 compared to Norway`s 5.01.

Charles, for the final time btw, Swedish strategy did not have a goal of herd immunity. Herd immunity is something that happens - anyways.

"Dr Giesecke said his country never had a herd immunity strategy but herd immunity was a “by-product” of allowing a controlled spread of the disease.

Sweden’s “soft lockdown” worked because the country trusted its people, he said, adding “people are not stupid” and would respond if told how to protect themselves.

Giving his opening address, Dr Giesecke reiterated his view that there should be a “controlled spread” among the under 60s and allow a “tolerable spread” of the virus in the over-60s.

He said schools must remain open and he pointed out that there was no difference between infections among schoolchildren in Sweden, where schools were kept open, and in neighbouring Finland which closed its schools."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-experts-have-insufficient-information-to-establish-where-people-get-covid-19-committee-hears-1.4362340

PS we should all feel very ashamed for forcing our children to "remote learning" for the 3 months from March, per that in last bold. I wont talk about predicted grades shambles.

mcsean2163

patnor1011 wrote: »

2000 less out of 91000 isnt huge.

What??? 2,000 seems very significant to me, I wouldn't undermine it.

Is 6,000 out of 91,000 huge? Maybe the covid19 death toll in Sweden is not huge then?

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

Smallpox. Eradicated 40 year ago.

Through vaccination

mcsean2163

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2020/07/24/why-are-so-many-young-people-dying-of-covid-19-in-mexico-city/#50c3109d2792

47% of deaths were under 60 in Mexico city! 10.7% of population of Mexico over 60.

We think it's over in Sweden/ Ireland but it hasn't stopped in Mexico.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Charles, for the final time btw, Swedish strategy did not have a goal of herd immunity. Herd immunity is something that happens - anyways.

"Dr Giesecke said his country never had a herd immunity strategy but herd immunity was a “by-product” of allowing a controlled spread of the disease.

Sweden’s “soft lockdown” worked because the country trusted its people, he said, adding “people are not stupid” and would respond if told how to protect themselves.

Giving his opening address, Dr Giesecke reiterated his view that there should be a “controlled spread” among the under 60s and allow a “tolerable spread” of the virus in the over-60s.

He said schools must remain open and he pointed out that there was no difference between infections among schoolchildren in Sweden, where schools were kept open, and in neighbouring Finland which closed its schools."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-experts-have-insufficient-information-to-establish-where-people-get-covid-19-committee-hears-1.4362340

PS we should all feel very ashamed for forcing our children to "remote learning" for the 3 months from March, per that in last bold. I wont talk about predicted grades shambles.

Seriously, you still believe in that fairy tale.
Rather than spending your time fanboy watching Giesecke videos, if you did even a little research you would be better informed.
Taking a look at the Tegnell emails uncovered by Swedish journalist Emanuel Karlsten under freedom of information will show you just how misinformed you are on Sweden and herd immunity.

13th. March, a month before your video, Giesecke, then employed as a consultant by a Swedish pension fund AP3, sent them an email.
"I believe the virus is going to sweep like a storm over Sweden and basically infect everyone in one or two months. It will all come to an end when so many have been infected and become therefore immune that the virus has nowhere to go (so called herd immunity)"
You could also take a look at emails from the same time between Giesecke and Tegnell on Ro numbers and Re numbers (where rather bizarrely Tegnell appears not sure what they mean) as a means of selling their herd immunity strategy to the Swedish public.

Tegnell during this time was also in discussion with his Finnish counterpart Mika Salminen by email on herd immunity. In one exchange he wrote.
"One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster."
Salminen replied that Finnish modelling suggested that closing schools would reduce the spread of Covid-19 among elderly by around 10%.
Tegnell`s reply, "10% might be worth it"
Tegnell, (such a great believer of modelling on antibodies), kept schools open and there was insistence on full compliance.

There were around 20 emails deleted from the same period, so we will never know what they contained it seem.
Probably Tegnell just ordering groceries.:rolleyes:

A quick look at what Annika Linde, Tegnell`s precursor as Sweden`s state epidemiologist, had to say on herd immunity when the first antibody results became known should also help to clear up the misconception you have of Sweden`s strategy on herd immunity.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

Through vaccination

Of course it was.

Rinderpest, a disease in ruminants has also been eradicated by means of vaccination.
Diseases on the verge of eradication through vaccination include, polio, malaria, Guinea worn disease and yams.
So what point are you making ?

charlie14

mcsean2163 wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2020/07/24/why-are-so-many-young-people-dying-of-covid-19-in-mexico-city/#50c3109d2792

47% of deaths were under 60 in Mexico city! 10.7% of population of Mexico over 60.

We think it's over in Sweden/ Ireland but it hasn't stopped in Mexico.

Good post.
I see from your link 29% were in the 35-55 age group. Many with no underlying condition.
So much for this virus only being lethal for the elderly.

GT89

charlie14 wrote: »

Good post.
I see from your link 29% were in the 35-55 age group. Many with no underlying condition.
So much for this virus only being lethal for the elderly.

Mexico has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world

ArthurDayne

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It ravaged the care homes because it was so widespread in the community that staff got it and brought it in. While it took a lockdown to get the virus to a low level, it stayed at a relatively low level while reopening some areas. The problem is we re-opened more or less everything at the end of June and a lot of people got more relaxed and complacent about the whole thing. Places where people gather indoors for periods of time should have had a strict limit on the amount of people based on the size of the premises. The government buckled on the 2m limit and look where we are now. Indoor dining has closed again in Dublin. They should have stuck to the 2m limit (if not going with an even higher limit) and actually enforced it with random spot checks. If you're found in breach of the rules, then you get a hefty fine (hefty enough that the cost of the fine is far more than you would gain from breaking the rules).

We can live with this virus and find a middle ground between lockdown and free for all where we get some levels of normality back but it requires some rules that have to be actually enforced.

To your first point, yes, but it doesn’t change the fact that whether you have lockdown or no lockdown the residents of care homes are by and large still very limited in their ability to be out and about. The post I was responding to claimed that an environment with less restriction would effectively amount to a social imprisonment of the elderly — but the fatality count outside of care homes in Ireland (at a time where personal Covid protocol around older people was not as embedded as it is now) does not suggest that there is no leeway to avoid old people just being shut away indefinitely.

And yes, we got the curve flattened, we kept the numbers low in the early stage of reopening, and the numbers grew again. How does that strategy work in the long term though? Sure, we could have continued to hold off and done the things you speak of in your post....but then what? Eventually things have to reopen and we end up in the exact same place — people stay in a relative form of lockdown with little to no exposure to the virus and then as things reopen they start to pick the virus up and spread it. Enforce the 2 metre rule with hefty fines, great, keep the case numbers down, great, then relax the rules and the virus starts to pick up again. Even if we managed to get to zero cases, we would then need to operate extraordinarily tight border controls which may be so impractical and difficult to make airtight that closing the border completely would be the only way of being somewhat sure. And then we would need the rest of the world to also get to zero cases. All the while, the socioeconomic repercussions of uncertainty and on/off lockdown are bubbling away and not waiting politely for us to be done with Covid before they strike.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you I have the answers, but not all healthcare professionals around the world are in agreement on how we deal with this — the health experts whose advice matches the politics will become the “official line”. There was an Oxford epidemiologist (Sunetra Gupta I think ?) saying yesterday that a dramatic rise in cases among young people before the winter would actually be a very desirable outcome before the winter months. I just get the feeling that the popular narrative so far has stayed static, whereby we are still stuck in a narrative where those who propose less restriction are still unfairly being widely typecast as cold hearted monsters seeking a genocide of Irish grannies. That translates up the political ladder, where nobody wants to be remembered as Mr Senicide if death rates go up.

Ginger n Lemon

GT89 wrote: »

Mexico has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world

Yeah but Charlie believes what he reads from an article written by

I am a Latin America focused political analyst and writer. I split my time between New York City and Mexico City. My book, Searching For Modern Mexico, was published in 2019.

And loves to dodge the question whether Swedish strategy is better than yoyo lockdowns we have.

charlie14

GT89 wrote: »

Mexico has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world

Did you read the article linked by the poster ?
1,171 of the 2,450 in the 35-55 aged group (over 47%) did not did not suffer from obesity.
Neither did the suffer from asthma or diabetes

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

Did you read the article linked by the poster ?
1,171 of the 2,450 in the 35-55 aged group (over 47%) did not did not suffer from obesity.
Neither did the suffer from asthma or diabetes

Your determination to believe whats written is astounding. (given that 70% + of deaths in every EU country come from nursing homes. But I am sure you think Mexico is this unicorn land where youth without underlying conditions die off covid and elderly live forever, the Aztecs lol)

I have some magic beans for you :rolleyes:

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Yeah but Charlie believes what he reads from an article written by

I am a Latin America focused political analyst and writer. I split my time between New York City and Mexico City. My book, Searching For Modern Mexico, was published in 2019.

And loves to dodge the question whether Swedish strategy is better than yoyo lockdowns we have.

If you have a problem with a post of mine then at least have the good manners to address me directly.
Far as I recall posting like this is not just bad manners, it`s also against the rules here.

You have a very strange way of looking at published information.
A self promoting video from Giesecke you regard as gospel, yet an article published in Forbes is dismissed out of hand.


I`m afraid I am not the one that has the problem recognising Sweden`s strategy for what it was. But then true to form for you emails discovered through freedom of information should probably be also dismissed out of hand.
You are living in the wrong age. In the early 70`s you would have made an ideal White House press secretary during Nixon`s presidency.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Your determination to believe whats written is astounding. (given that 70% + of deaths in every EU country come from nursing homes. But I am sure you think Mexico is this unicorn land where youth without underlying conditions die off covid and elderly live forever, the Aztecs lol)

I have some magic beans for you :rolleyes:

You really do post the most inane waffle when attempting to deflect.


If you have a problem with the facts in that article, take it up with Forbes.

Ginger n Lemon

charlie14 wrote: »

If you have a problem with a post of mine then at least have the good manners to address me directly.
Far as I recall posting like this is not just bad manners, it`s also against the rules here.

You have a very strange way of looking at published information.
A self promoting video from Giesecke you regard as gospel, yet an article published in Forbes is dismissed out of hand.


I`m afraid I am not the one that has the problem recognising Sweden`s strategy for what it was. But then true to form for you emails discovered through freedom of information should probably be also dismissed out of hand.
You are living in the wrong age. In the early 70`s you would have made an ideal White House press secretary during Nixon`s presidency.

Charlie (see i am addressing you directly) You have failed to answer a simple basic

whether Swedish strategy is better than yoyo lockdowns we have?

For 10th time now. I just dont I give up. You wont give an answer, you think some FOI emails are more important than conclusions of actual strategies (that you can draw now, seeing how shambolic things are with the yoyo lockdowns and how Swedish deaths for a week are in single digits for weeks now)

Just tell me, why cant you say "lockdowns are better strategy than Swedish no lockdown" ? Or "Swedish strategy is better as its for the long term and will be more viable than the yoyo lockdowns lets lockdown all restaurants in our capital city in case new cases are from there (guess)" ?

As to good manners - flick back 2 pages, replying to my post you've said "Most, if not all, of your posts I have read consist of nothing much more than rambling assertions" and now you are the one who demands good manners?

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

Of course it was.

Rinderpest, a disease in ruminants has also been eradicated by means of vaccination.
Diseases on the verge of eradication through vaccination include, polio, malaria, Guinea worn disease and yams.
So what point are you making ?

In the origjnal point.

Zero covid lockdown was advocated. I said this was delusional and no disease has ever been erradicated like this.

We've tried that kind of thing with the plague 500 years ago and it never works.

Zero covid lockdown is delusional. Only vaccination or acquired immunity has ever got anywhere near that.

We still have, measels mumps and chicken pox outbreaks even with vaccination.

Zero covid lockdown is a sure fire approach to cause the most damage of all


Managing the case load and expanding bed capacity are the actual tools we have

Even at 1,000 cases a day it would take circa 15 years for the whole population to be exposed. You will find when hospital numbers steady, case numbers will be allowed to rise until we only get estimates like 10,000 new cases today, at that point it will be over.

charlie14

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Charlie (see i am addressing you directly) You have failed to answer a simple basic

whether Swedish strategy is better than yoyo lockdowns we have?

For 10th time now. I just dont I give up. You wont give an answer, you think some FOI emails are more important than conclusions of actual strategies (that you can draw now, seeing how shambolic things are with the yoyo lockdowns and how Swedish deaths for a week are in single digits for weeks now)

Just tell me, why cant you say "lockdowns are better strategy than Swedish no lockdown" ? Or "Swedish strategy is better as its for the long term and will be more viable than the yoyo lockdowns lets lockdown all restaurants in our capital city in case new cases are from there (guess)" ?

As to good manners - flick back 2 pages, replying to my post you've said "Most, if not all, of your posts I have read consist of nothing much more than rambling assertions" and now you are the one who demands good manners?

You really should know better by now than hoping I am not going to go chasing down your rabbit holes following your attempts at deflection.



You haven`t asked me 10 times about the FOI emails obtained by Emanuel Karlsten I posted just a few hours ago in answer to your post to me on Sweden`s herd immunity strategy.
Maybe you somehow missed my post. Post#5293



In fact all you have done since is your usual, (and by now all too familiar and sooo transparent), tactic of avoiding uncomfortable truths with attempts to distract and deflect from them.

dubrov

I'm fairness, no one cares why Sweden went down the road they did.

The question is whether it is the best way to go given what we know now

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

In the origjnal point.

Zero covid lockdown was advocated. I said this was delusional and no disease has ever been erradicated like this.

We've tried that kind of thing with the plague 500 years ago and it never works.

Zero covid lockdown is delusional. Only vaccination or acquired immunity has ever got anywhere near that.

We still have, measels mumps and chicken pox outbreaks even with vaccination.

Zero covid lockdown is a sure fire approach to cause the most damage of all


Managing the case load and expanding bed capacity are the actual tools we have

Even at 1,000 cases a day it would take circa 15 years for the whole population to be exposed. You will find when hospital numbers steady, case numbers will be allowed to rise until we only get estimates like 10,000 new cases today, at that point it will be over.

Lockdown to achieve zero Covid was never advocated here.
Where did you get the idea it was ?


Finally after many attempts it is at least good to know where you stand.
You really are not a great believer in vaccines are you ?

From your post you appear to be more a Giesecke believer of letting it sweep like a storm over us and it will all be over in a month or two with us all having achieve immunity then by magic.

charlie14

dubrov wrote: »

I'm fairness, no one cares why Sweden went down the road they did.

The question is whether it is the best way to go given what we know now

Well I for one am glad we didn`t.
From the outset some were arguing that it was the only way to go as it would take years to develop a vaccine. Personally I thought it an experiment gambling with peoples lives.



Now we have Sweden recently announcing they are first in line to buy 6 million vaccine doses with an option on 2 million more from one company, with the hoping for a further 10 million from others with the intention of starting vaccinating early next year.
It doesn`t sound as if even they have any hopes of controlling this virus without a vaccine at this stage.

dubrov

charlie14 wrote:

Well I for one am glad we didn`t. From the outset some were arguing that it was the only way to go as it would take years to develop a vaccine. Personally I thought it an experiment gambling with peoples lives.

It's a gamble either way.

Ginger n Lemon

dubrov wrote: »

It's a gamble either way.

Yep, just that our children got substantially left behind in terms of education and social development and every 6th person is unemployed now.

Now Donegal goes into lockdown tonight.

Whos next? Yoyo lockdowns are coming to the county near you.

road_high

charlie14 wrote: »

Well I for one am glad we didn`t.
From the outset some were arguing that it was the only way to go as it would take years to develop a vaccine. Personally I thought it an experiment gambling with peoples lives.



Now we have Sweden recently announcing they are first in line to buy 6 million vaccine doses with an option on 2 million more from one company, with the hoping for a further 10 million from others with the intention of starting vaccinating early next year.
It doesn`t sound as if even they have any hopes of controlling this virus without a vaccine at this stage.

lol well not one of us have a vaccine ffs. We may never have one.

Sweden’s strategy will ultimately be found to be the correct one. It’s just the general public in a very panicky hysteria driven country like ireland cannot rationalise that yet/ever as many of us like to put virtue signalling above all else

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

Lockdown to achieve zero Covid was never advocated here.
Where did you get the idea it was ?


Finally after many attempts it is at least good to know where you stand.
You really are not a great believer in vaccines are you ?

From your post you appear to be more a Giesecke believer of letting it sweep like a storm over us and it will all be over in a month or two with us all having achieve immunity then by magic.

The clue might be in the first sentence of my post

My point has been consistent from the start, if you haven't read them then double back and inform yourself correctly.

I believe in vaccines and I am vaccinated against a significant amount of diseases as my worrk has brought me to dangerous parts of the world.

I am also very aware there are some things we don't have a vaccine for despite egregious amounts of research and investment. These things could kill me and my colleagues but the risk is balanced against other everyday hazards.

Covid will come to all of us, we just have to do it in a gradual way. My point has always been the area under the curve is always the same. Only the time period varies.



Lastly you seem more invested in responding to posts than their content. This achieves nothing in debate.

mcsean2163

charlie14 wrote: »

Good post.
I see from your link 29% were in the 35-55 age group. Many with no underlying condition.
So much for this virus only being lethal for the elderly.

Slovakia 7 deaths per million. Mexico a horror show.

My colleague and I have spent a lot of time researching these variations with a particular angle and posted our work on researchgate and to various university professors, TDs, doctors, pharmacists etc.

Despite our campaigning nobody with access to patient data has looked sufficiently into our hypothesis. I hope very much that we are wrong.

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

Seriously, you still believe in that fairy tale.
Rather than spending your time fanboy watching Giesecke videos, if you did even a little research you would be better informed.
Taking a look at the Tegnell emails uncovered by Swedish journalist Emanuel Karlsten under freedom of information will show you just how misinformed you are on Sweden and herd immunity.

13th. March, a month before your video, Giesecke, then employed as a consultant by a Swedish pension fund AP3, sent them an email.
"I believe the virus is going to sweep like a storm over Sweden and basically infect everyone in one or two months. It will all come to an end when so many have been infected and become therefore immune that the virus has nowhere to go (so called herd immunity)"
You could also take a look at emails from the same time between Giesecke and Tegnell on Ro numbers and Re numbers (where rather bizarrely Tegnell appears not sure what they mean) as a means of selling their herd immunity strategy to the Swedish public.

Tegnell during this time was also in discussion with his Finnish counterpart Mika Salminen by email on herd immunity. In one exchange he wrote.
"One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster."
Salminen replied that Finnish modelling suggested that closing schools would reduce the spread of Covid-19 among elderly by around 10%.
Tegnell`s reply, "10% might be worth it"
Tegnell, (such a great believer of modelling on antibodies), kept schools open and there was insistence on full compliance.

There were around 20 emails deleted from the same period, so we will never know what they contained it seem.
Probably Tegnell just ordering groceries.:rolleyes:

A quick look at what Annika Linde, Tegnell`s precursor as Sweden`s state epidemiologist, had to say on herd immunity when the first antibody results became known should also help to clear up the misconception you have of Sweden`s strategy on herd immunity.

In fairness the term “herd immunity” has been outrageously politicised and hyperbolised in the whole Covid debate. In our modern world of extremifying everything and rushing to quickly categorise the views of others as evil and extreme, the term herd immunity has seemingly become a by-word for joyously and deliberately killing the vulnerable so that the strong may survive. The less dramatic fact is that herd immunity has been used as a term for a long time, a mere shorthand way of describing one method via which disease can be contained. I’m not all surprised that scientists or other analysts might have used the term before and are reluctant to use it now — because it has now become a highly charged term in a world which craves outrage and puts great currency in moral self-righteousness.

Sadly, like many other things in this world, it seemed to quickly be tossed into the “Is it Left Wing or Right Wing?” political opinion crunch machine so that people could decide whether or not they were outraged by it. In Ireland, once a few Tories mentioned it then automatically anyone else here who mentioned it was, invariably, a Tory fan and therefore a lowlife despiser of the old and vulnerable.

People are more or less scared to even utter the term herd immunity now because, with the help of the media and the seemingly irrepressible fetish in today’s world to polarise everything into absolute extremes, it has gone from a commonly used shorthand term in epidemiology to a new definition of “f**k it let’s just wipe out the old people because corporations and Thatcher”.