Sweden avoiding lockdown

Not for the first time I have no idea what you are on about. Other than just another of your vague ramblings opposing vaccines.

Nobody has ever claimed that vaccines were 100% guaranteed to prevent transmissions and thus eradicate Covid. But then you appear not to know the difference between eradication and herd immunity.

as far as I can remember when discussing any vaccinations, it was never declared from any reliable source that one vaccinated you are completely protected against Covid ,

it was always a very high protection against being infected but if you did the symptoms were not as damaging or life threatening as if non vaccinated.

also with regards to the booster; while it is definitely not what was thought, equally a booster is regularly in vaccinations. Think Hep, tapirs, tetanus,

this February 2021 article which was right at the start of the vaccine roll out clearly sets out the expectations of the vaccine, what it will do and what it won’t.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210203-why-vaccinated-people-may-still-be-able-to-spread-covid-19

But with all that talk of how the Swedes showed Tegnell in the end they never had a lockdown, never mandated masks, never closed restaurants & schools etc. And have the same deaths we have if you adjust for their older population.

(I know, Norway, yaddayadda, lets not do that again)

And adjusted for the largest population with IKEA furniture in their house they did amazingly well.

Like seriously? What tf are we getting into now? Anything else you wann bring up? Volvo drivers? Blondes?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Maybe I misunderstood your point but I'm not sure that's entirely my fault. No worries anyway.

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.

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.

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.

"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.