Sweden avoiding lockdown

I don't know what point you are trying to make here but it's certainly not landing.

Sweden with no lockdown for 2 years have 18k deaths with a population of 10.5m.

Ireland with one of Europe's strictest lockdowns and half the population have 7k deaths.

We also have a considerably younger population.

Based on the data, you obviously agree that Sweden haven't done badly then?

Exactly, no restrictions will lead to more deaths. But not the huge numbers you saw in the media. A very marginal amount.

Every country in the world could bring down COVID deaths if we all issued stay at home orders for the rest of the year.

But of course society can't function if our only goal is to reduce deaths.

You think it's not possible for a democracy to behave as if it was a totalitarian state? Or in a despotic manner? Well, 2020 proved that it can.

Ireland in 2020/21 was an oppressive state that allowed almost zero individual liberty/autonomy. I have friends abroad who say now that Ireland is the land of the lockdown, not the land of the welcome atmosphere. (Recall that I'm not Irish)

That's fact, not fantasy.

It might not have been oppressive to you personally, or even the majority, but then we have tyranny of the majority. If you were not affected then lucky you.

If you think being confined to 5km for months on end, being told who we could meet, where we could go, who was allowed to work, coupled with checkpoints is not totalitarian, then frankly I'm surprised, and concerned.

Do you think that lockdown (of healthy/uninfected people) is a libertarian strategy? Is that where lockdown comes from, a country that prides itself on individual liberty? Nope, it comes from a totalitarian state.

Limited, temporary, sure - we know that now.

But, remember - we didn't know at the time how long they would be in place for. They are over, for now at least.

I am not optimistic about how this state (or certain other EU states) are going to react to future crises.

Government's have now learnt the enormous power that public fear gives to them. Let's hope that fact is not taken advantage of.

My first and ultimate major complaint with this was the closure of/denial of access to outdoor areas and zero risk activities. It was unscientific. It was as scientific as the street spraying in China. Denying access to outdoor areas and forcing urban communities together was wrong.

Didn't say it was, said it acted in that manner. There is a distinction there. Lockdown (of healthy/uninfected people) is a totalitarian strategy copied from a totalitarian state. It's such a pity that I have to point that out.

I actually think it wasn't obvious that the restrictions (all of them) would be temporary, because Covid will be with us for decades, maybe forever now.

"If you don't like it, get out?" Is that what you are saying?

What you are also saying is that each individual is nothing more than a building block for a given society. That's an incredibly inhumane way to treat humans. Humans are not simply tools for collective national policy, I've said this numerous times.

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).