Sweden avoiding lockdown

You can try to cherry pick and dress things up whatever way you want but people on here said that death tolls would be huge with no lockdowns.

After 2 years we are down to trying to prove that Sweden had some more deaths than other countries .

I personally don't care about Sweden at all. With no lockdown at all, they are around mid table in terms of deaths. Hardly worth getting bothered about

At the end of the day, people on here would be better off spending their time questioning how a country like Ireland ends up with over 7000 deaths. Over 10000 if we include the north.

We have a young population. A great geographical advantage. And we had the strictest lockdown in all of Europe.

As I said already, i don't care about Sweden. But they didn't lockdown and their death rate is nowhere even close to what people predicted the death rate for a country not locking down would be.

I said the rules were despotic (and they were). Despotism (Greek: Δεσποτισμός, despotismós) is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Normally, that entity is an individual, the despot; but (as in an autocracy) societies which limit respect and power to specific groups have also been called despotic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism#:~:text=Despotism%20(Greek%3A%20%CE%94%CE%B5%CF%83%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82%2C%20despotism%C3%B3s,have%20also%20been%20called%20despotic.)

Suggested reading 'Leviathan' Thomas Hobbes. Throughout the pandemic, we essentially adopted his model of government where citizens offer up all of their rights and freedoms to the state, in return for safety. (whether or not the safety part is fulfilled). One thing that governments have learnt throughout this pandemic is the enormous power that public fear can give to them, they won't forget this.

I wonder how much correlation there is regarding those supportive of the measures and not really being affected by it (i.e. only inconvenienced in a minor way) and those unsupportive and perhaps having massive problems because of it (missed career opportunities, financial issues, mental health problems etc). 

I seem to be going in circles a bit with you, self-lockdown would have been a choice. If you were dependent on others then they could have taken extra precautions too (as would be morally correct). Covid is a selective disease (in who it harms the most) but we dealt with it in entirely unselective ways (blanket restrictions on all, banning of zero risk activities) - this is part of what makes the rules and response so despotic.

Again, I have to quote myself because it seems that you don't read thoroughly Covid is a selective disease (in who it harms the most)

I think I am wasting my time conversing with you. Of course I understand that, don't try to patronise me. I also understand that you are not reading my posts and instead going round in circles with arguments that are not related to my points. Replying to you is optional, as far as I am concerned.

You are free to think what you like, and there is no more impregnable fortress than a closed mind. How could a person who locks themselves down be at more risk than if we all are locked down? Food/medicine can be delivered without human interaction. This is, after all, how the virus spreads.

I won't be replying further because, frankly, it's pointless and a waste of my time.

I'll bite one last time (though I am sure I will regret it).

Virus will spread under lockdown. You need something like a third of the (workforce) population to carry on going to work (supply chain/food stores etc). Therefore, some degree of human interaction is always going to occur, and therefore, some level of spread. It is not me that doesn't understand viral transmission, it is you.

If those in charge, who created the rules, broke them - what does that tell you about the rules? HINT: It tells you everything you need to know about them.

And don't comment on my life experience, you know nothing about me. You are free to speculate, but it's purely an academic exercise for you.

Not at all, I appreciate that there are degrees of mitigation, it's not on/off or yes/no - there is nuance. A lack of nuance is one of the great problems in modern society.

I never said lockdown didn't work, or that I don't value lives (a false assumption on your part) - I've always argued for choice and personal responsibility (a dirty phrase these days, I appreciate). The point I was making was that it was a value judgement. But this idea that lockdown completely stops transmission is wrong, and it appears, as jacdaniel (or Fintan) said - lockdowns are not needed to exit waves of transmission (in real time cases are falling in UK/IE without lockdown). The only way lockdown could entirely stop transmission is if it is permanent and total.

I suspect there will be more waves in future (as does the Scottish Health minister). So, we need to prepare a response to those future waves that is proportionate and takes civil liberties into account.