Sweden avoiding lockdown

The whole point of the lockdowns and restrictions were to prevent

-collapse of the health services

-mass graves struggling to contain the inflow of dead bodies.

Turns out Sweden had a similar death rate of over 65's as Ireland had, and Ireland collapsed its health service all by itself (cancer screening etc) to stop it collapsing. 🙄

We got it wrong, but those who couldn't understand that back in March 2020, won't understand now either.

How did ireland do compared to Norway?

It's the Swedish thread. How did Sweden do compared to Norway? Finland? Denmark?

You know, the countries any intellectually honest person would be comparing them to if asked to compare Sweden's performance.

Come on, answer up, given you have already demonstrated your ignorance of what actually happened in Sweden by trotting our lines about cancer screening.

You do now that not only are we not a Nordic country, we are not even geographically close to one ?

Do you even know the history and interconnection of Norway, Denmark and Sweden up to and after the 1814 Peace Treaty of Kiel ?

That's some running away you're doing :)

But to answer the question, Covid effects different humans and different countries differently hence why we usually categorise humans and also categorise countries. The effects of Covid are seen at both the human level where they get sick and at the country level where lockdowns get enforced, health systems come under pressure and has impacts on the economy.

Based on data it effected some areas of the world more severely than other. Even for Europe where it was more severe travelling from Northern Europe eastwards. What was so notable about the excess deaths in Sweden compared to the other Nordic countries that Sweden historically has so much in common with, as per my last post is, as the Economist report put, it how much "an exception" Sweden was when compared to those countries

All Sweden showed was that had any country followed their strategy of chasing herd immunity they would have had more excess deaths than they did.

The percentages for Sweden`s elderly is no different than that of their Nordic neighbours.

The reality is that Sweden had limited restrictions and their Covid deaths are much greater per capita than their Nordic neighhbours that used lockdown.

"So I am asking people to give meaning to our freedom and liberty by agreeing to these restrictions. Restricting how we live our lives so that so that others may live.

Well I guess that fell on deaf ears. Some people just don't give a fig about other people.

2nd post on thread.

And then from the article above.

Pretty clear who is was/is at higher risk from the start.

You obviously care jac, although what you care about I have no idea, nor do I care.

Sweden`s strategy was unethical. Something that even Tegnell finally had to admit. Why he didn`t realise that when he put the strategy in place, and especially when all their own test results were showing it wasn`t achievable and was just adding to the death toll is anybody`s guess.

Mine would be that the deaths didn`t matter to him and he was determined to push on with the madness hoping against hope that by some miracle it would work until the decision making was taken from him and he was sidelined with the rest of his motley crew.

A bit like some here that defended the strategy and were so adamant that natural acquired immunity would work when even now despite all the evidence they can still not bring themselves to admit they got it so so wrong.

I have explained this already. I only originally posted on this thread because I believed that what Sweden was doing, chasing herd immunity was unethical and would cause needless deaths, as a counter to the idiots that were advocating we should be doing the same. That Tegnell and his pals, along with said idiots, were so disingenuous that they would not admit it was a strategy of chasing naturally acquired herd immunity until it could now longer be denied, I found even more dangerous.

To summarise, I`m not a believer that people should be allowed to attempt to influence others with their own baseless science and lies without being challenged on it. Especially when doing it in my country.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Just because someone expresses an opinion other than your own doesn't mean they are outraged.

I really do not mind, (even though it is nowadays with the internet so easy to check) where someone will post in good faith some hearsay, but when shown it is incorrect they will except that. What I do mind is poster deliberately continuing to post such rubbish when it has been on numerous occasions shown to them with sources provided that they are incorrect. Even to the level where some attempt to rewrite history.

I just find it disingenuous and dangerous. Especially when the only science to back up their claims are their own made up "science"