The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 135 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15191307
boomerintown wrote:Anyway, I think Swedens strategy will prove to be very good in the long run when we can start to evaluate the impact on small business owners (coffee shops, bars, restaurants, etc), mental health, violence in the home, the effect on the cohorts of children currently in school (especially in very young age) and so on.

Also, for me, freedom is a value in itself which we should be very carefull in letting politicians compromise.


Coffee shops, bars and restaurants have taken a devastating hit here in Sweden. Mass unemployment and shutdowns.

Yeah, I wouldn't preach Sweden as a great example to follow in terms of pandemic handling. We would have been better prepared 20 years ago when we still were somewhat socialist leaning and not tried a massive privatization bonanza of healthcare and public education that has been in fashion nowadays. We spent decades stockpiling medical supplies like masks only to dismantle everything and burn it down in 2014.

Greed is not a god worth worshiping.
#15191327
MadMonk wrote:Coffee shops, bars and restaurants have taken a devastating hit here in Sweden. Mass unemployment and shutdowns.

Yeah, I wouldn't preach Sweden as a great example to follow in terms of pandemic handling. We would have been better prepared 20 years ago when we still were somewhat socialist leaning and not tried a massive privatization bonanza of healthcare and public education that has been in fashion nowadays. We spent decades stockpiling medical supplies like masks only to dismantle everything and burn it down in 2014.

Greed is not a god worth worshiping.


I somewhat agree with the first part, what you say is obviously true everywhere. But it is a matter of damage controll, and the more you restrict peoples movement (in worst case with lockdowns), the worse it will be for these entreprises. Therefore I think we will come out better than most countries in this area.

With the second part I agree fully. In this sense covid showed many of the structural flaws in Sweden. Privatization is one part, but there are also other aspects. Just generally the number of precarious jobs in elder care (people payed by hour and so on) which probably caused a lot higher spread among older people.

But in addition to that the completly irrational organization of healthcare in general, with regions running their own internal healthcare systems instead of doing this on a national level and laws against municipalities of hiring doctors which could have been usefull exacly in this situation since they are responsible for the elder care. And as you mention, the general preparation of the unexpected.

My take is that the strategy itself was good, and that our institutions handled it well once it started. But that covid also showed that our preparations for crisis is subpar, that there are big flaws in how healthcare and elder care is organized. But I felt like going into these details would be to hijack the thread too much with Sweden, so I tried to keep it on a more general level. :)
#15191328
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9

    Comparing the responses of the UK, Sweden and Denmark to COVID-19 using counterfactual modelling

    Abstract
    The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country, using a counterfactual assessment: what would the impact have been, had each country adopted the others’ policies? Using a Bayesian semi-mechanistic model without prior assumptions on the mechanism or effectiveness of interventions, we estimate the time-varying reproduction number for the UK, Sweden and Denmark from daily mortality data. We use two approaches to evaluate counterfactuals which transpose the transmission profile from one country onto another, in each country’s first wave from 13th March (when stringent interventions began) until 1st July 2020. UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies. Danish policies were most effective, although differences between the UK and Denmark were significant for one counterfactual approach only. Our analysis shows that small changes in the timing or effectiveness of interventions have disproportionately large effects on total mortality within a rapidly growing epidemic.

    …..

Once again, science answers the speculations.


I dont know why I respond to this, but first of all this is an extremly speculative study. Second of all it seems to rely on data from march 2020 to july 2020 which is completly irrelevant today. We know now that Sweden does not stand out from other european countries. So since the hypotheis of this study failed to predict the future it can probably be dimissed, just like all other studies of this sort (studies trying to understand how covid spreads through mathematical models) have been.
#15191335
boomerintown wrote:I dont know why I respond to this, but first of all this is an extremly speculative study.


Yes, that is what counter-factual means.

It is a speculation about how much better Sweden would have been if it had followed smarter policies. It makes some clear, transparent, and logical assumptions and then extrapolates.

Second of all it seems to rely on data from march 2020 to july 2020 which is completly irrelevant today.


No, this data is still relevant. It is not as if the rules of epidemiology change from year to year.

We know now that Sweden does not stand out from other european countries.


No, we do not know that.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

So since the hypotheis of this study failed to predict the future it can probably be dimissed, just like all other studies of this sort (studies trying to understand how covid spreads through mathematical models) have been.


No, you cannot simply dismiss the study because of this. It did not make any incorrect predictions.
#15191340
boomerintown wrote:https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/


What is the number for Sweden?

What is the average for European countries?
#15191342
boomerintown wrote: I am not claiming Sweden did better than Canada or Denmark. Sweden have a death count of around 1400 per million. USA and UK got 2000, Spain 1800, Belgium 2200, France 1700, Switzerland 1300, NL 1000. Denmark did extremly well with 450, but Sweden got a pretty normal score if you take west as a whole.


But you should be carefull with this statistics too. Its likely that the difference between NL and Belgium has more to do with how they count, with NL only counting people who die at hospitals while Belgium includes people who die in elder care homes.

As Ive said earlier, Sweden counts everyone who have been diagnosed with covid (regardless if they die in a hospital or in a car crash) while UK and Italy only count people who dies in hospitals.

So my position is that we need to be carefull with conclusions, and that the excess deaths of a 5 period will be more interesting to look at a year or two from now.
#15191344
@boomerintown

Is that supposed to be a reply to my request for numbers?

Please provide the two numbers I asked for, and show how the website you cited supports those numbers.

Thank you.
#15191354
And @boomerintown I would maintain that comparisons of bad results = bad results. Duh.

Please show where anyone held the other countries you mentioned up as paragons of epidemiological virtue except Denmark, which you advanced.

Why are you so invested in this? I would sincerely like to know what comfort you get from alibiing the deaths of so many of your fellow human beings. Which of those (even you admit) avoidable deaths is a good sacrifice on the altar of profit taking?

I fear the biggest casualty of this pandemic is the death of compassion and care for our fellow man. I mean, grandma may die an agonizing death at the young age of 59 but at least I can still get a Starbucks without wearing a mask. Sounds worth it to me. :roll:
#15191364
boomerintown wrote:I got no idea what the avarege number in Europe is or where to find that number, but Ive provided the source and gave you the number for some countries.


If you do not know the average for European countries, then you cannot make the claim that Sweden is doing just as well as most European countries.

Your claim, therefore, can now be dismissed because you are admitting that you do not know if it is actually true.
#15191367
Here are the countries that handled Covid-19 the best. Warning: Not Sweden.

Which EU Countries Handled the Coronavirus Pandemic Best
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/w ... emic-best/

Sweden is middle of the pack as far as deaths per million go. Greece, Austria, Germany, Norway, Finland, Ireleand, Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus and Iceland all did better.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/111 ... y-country/

It's neighbours, Norway and Finland are near the top of the list, and did far better. If you want to make comparisons, the easiest is right there!

How did Sweden Fail the Pandemic?
Sweden has since the start of the pandemic a COVID-19 mortality rate that is 4 to 10 times higher than in the other Nordic countries. Also, measured as age-standardized all-cause excess mortality in the first half of 2020 compared to previous years Sweden failed in comparison with the other Nordic countries, but only among the elderly. Sweden has large socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 mortality. Geographical, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequalities in mortality can be due to differential exposure to the virus, differential immunity, and differential survival. Most of the country differences are due to differential exposure, but the socioeconomic disparities are mainly driven by differential survival due to an unequal burden of comorbidity. Sweden suffered from an unfortunate timing of tourists returning from virus hotspots in the Alps and Sweden's government response came later and was much more limited than elsewhere. The government had an explicit priority to protect the elderly in nursing and care homes but failed to do so. The staff in elderly care are less qualified and have harder working conditions in Sweden, and they lacked adequate care for the clients. Sweden has in recent years diverged from the Scandinavian welfare model by strong commercialization of primary care and elderly care.

In summary, Sweden had during the first wave of the pandemic an excess mortality among the elderly. Higher levels of exposure to the virus due to an unfortunate timing of ski holidays, more relaxed control measures, and an elderly care system unprepared to protect the fragile elderly played a major role. Difference in susceptibility or comorbidity may not be important for understanding the country’s differences, but they are relevant for the sociodemographic inequalities within each country. Survival rates have improved, but the excess mortality in Sweden and in an increasing number of other European countries has continued into the second wave in November-December 2020.2 Denmark, Norway, and Finland now look increasingly as the outliers.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... jor%20role.
#15191387
Image
Image
Image

At least I'm not as late this week. So, last week's numbers:

Image
Image
Image
Image

annatar1914 wrote:[usermention=26636]So again, it comes back to two rather different views of what constitutes the ''common good'', social responsibility, and the role of government in the lives of individuals.

I suspect most of our disagreement isn't over what constitutes the "common good" but whether it should be mandated by the government.

Even noting ''variations from city to city'' and ''state to state'', you are as much affirming that entire swaths of the ''United States of America'' are not particularly very ''United'' at all. And yet, you and I are of the sort that believe in universal doctrines that apply to all men everywhere without question, right? But where is this universality?

There's a difference between recognizing universal principles and requiring that those principles be applied the same way in all cases. Murder is always the unjustified deliberate ending of a human life, but the circumstances can cause what is considered murder to vary wildly.

But what if people have the wrong idea at the heart of the wild chaos that is the notion of ''Liberty''? What if people have perverted the idea of Liberty in dealing with it as a philosophical concept. Am I somehow a obnoxious renegade if I want to reduce this insanity of vaccine refusal to ''thou shalt not kill''? Or ''you shall love your neighbor as yourself''?

No, in insisting on that, on bringing the discussion down to that (or HIM, I should say...) that would probably expose the other tremendous fraud of American political ideology, that somehow It comes from Monotheism, has Christian roots. They say Communism of modern times is a Christian Heresy. I would say that American political philosophy is not even that.

SO we come back to a simple question: if someone can avoid serious risk of dying by being vaccinated and chooses not to, why am I obligated to alter my own behavior in order to protect them? Why am I morally required to be more concerned about their health than they are?

XogGyux wrote:So you are cool if the surgeon doing your hip, or your coronary artery bypass graft skips the mask right? I mean, the surgeon already has to deal with having to be standing up, if the mask don't do shit why inconvenience him/her? What about gloves, can we skip those as well? Perhaps we can have some snacks in the OR as well, that would make sure their energies are topped off. :lol:
This is what happens when you politize stupidity, you are forced into defending quite stupid positions.

You do understand the difference between droplet- and aerosol-spread disease, right? The difference is why all those plastic shields businesses have put up might be worse than useless--while they protect against droplets just fine, they also interfere with air circulation and so can cause exposure to the aerosol-carried virus to be increased. And guess what is the the primary means of spread for the Wuhan virus is?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Argument from authority.

Unless you can show that natural immunity has a lasting and useful immunity, this is speculation.

I'll remember that the next time you quote one of the government "scientists"--authority means nothing. Of course, it helps if you actually read the article to find out why this prominent immunologist regrets voting for Biden:



If you scroll through his Twitter feed, you'll see how he points out over and over that those that have already come down with the Wuhan virus are at least as well protected as those that have been vaccinated, if not better.

Godstud wrote:They [Sweden] have suffered for it, suffering rates of infection and death almost as high as that of the USA. 15,000+ deaths in 10 million people is nothing to brag about.

Actually, Sweden's deaths per million is only 69.8% that of the US, and 81.7% that of France--and 84.1% that of California. So yes, for number of deaths, Sweden isn't doing badly.

boomerintown wrote:I got no idea what the avarege number in Europe is or where to find that number, but Ive provided the source and gave you the number for some countries.

Using the numbers reported (as you point out, there's variation in how they are counted), the European Union has a death total of 1,714.2 per million, 120% of Sweden's. Mind, that includes the Eastern European countries, some of which have gotten hammered--at 3,127.9, Hungary currently has the highest total deaths per million count of all EU countries and US states.

And for just how seriously we should take the mask mandates pushed by Biden and the CDC, our elites have shown us the way! Of course, they believe that masks or for the peons, not them, but this is America where equality rules! Right?

The Masking of the Servant Class: Ugly COVID Images From the Met Gala Are Now Commonplace
From the start of the pandemic, political elites have been repeatedly caught exempting themselves from the restrictive rules they impose on the lives of those over whom they rule. Governors, mayors, ministers and Speakers of the House have been filmed violating their own COVID protocols in order to dine with their closest lobbyist-friends, enjoy a coddled hair styling in chic salons, or unwind after signing new lockdown and quarantine orders by sneaking away for a weekend getaway with the family. The trend became so widespread that ABC News gathered all the examples under the headline “Elected officials slammed for hypocrisy for not following own COVID-19 advice,” while Business Insider in May updated the reporting with this: “14 prominent Democrats stand accused of hypocrisy for ignoring COVID-19 restrictions they're urging their constituents to obey."

Most of those transgressions were too flagrant to ignore and thus produced some degree of scandal and resentment for the political officials granting themselves such license. Dominant liberal culture is, if nothing else, fiercely rule-abiding: they get very upset when they see anyone defying decrees from authorities, even if the rule-breaker is the official who promulgated the directives for everyone else. Photos released last November of California Governor Gavin Newsom giggling maskless as he sat with other maskless state health officials celebrating the birthday of a powerful lobbyist — just one month after he told the public to “to keep your mask on in between bites” and while severe state-imposed restrictions were in place regarding leaving one's home — caused a drop in popularity and helped fueled a recall initiative against him. Newsom and these other officials broke their own rules, and even among liberals who venerate their leaders as celebrities, rule-breaking is frowned upon.

But as is so often the case, the most disturbing aspects of elite behavior are found not in what they have prohibited but rather in what they have decided is permissible. When it comes to mask mandates, it is now commonplace to see two distinct classes of people: those who remain maskless as they are served, and those they employ as their servants who must have their faces covered at all times. Prior to the COVID pandemic, it was difficult to imagine how the enormous chasm between the lives of cultural and political elites and everyone else could be made any larger, yet the pandemic generated a new form of crude cultural segregation: a series of protocols which ensure that maskless elites need not ever cast eyes upon the faces of their servant class.

Last month, a delightful event was hosted by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for wealthy Democratic donors in Napa — the same wine region of choice for Gov. Newsom's notorious dinner party — at which the cheapest tickets were $100 each and a "chair” designation was available for $29,000. Video of the outdoor festivities showed an overwhelmingly white crowd of rich Democratic donors sitting maskless virtually on top of one another — not an iota of social distancing to be found — as Pelosi imparted her deep wisdom about public policy.

Pelosi's donor gala took place as millions face eviction, ongoing joblessness, and ever-emerging mandates of various types. It was also held just five days after the liberal county government of Los Angeles, in the name of Delta, imposed a countywide mask requirement for "major outdoor events.” In nearby San Francisco, where Pelosi's mansion is found, the liberal-run city government has maintained a more restrictive outdoor mask policy than the CDC: though masks were not required for outdoor exercising (such as jogging) or while consuming food, the city's rules for outdoor events required “that at any gathering where there are more than 300 people, masks are still required for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.” Though Pelosi's fundraising lunch fell below the 10,000-person threshold for LA County's outdoor mask mandate, it may have fallen within San Francisco's mask mandate. Either way, it appears arbitrary at best: how would The Science™ of COVID risk have drastically changed for those sitting with no distancing, at densely packed tables, if there had been a few more tables of Pelosi donors? The CDC's latest guidelines for outdoor events urge people to “consider wearing a mask…for activities with close contact with others who are not fully vaccinated.”

Trying to find a cogent scientific rationale for any of this is, by design, virtually impossible. The rules are sufficiently convoluted and often arbitrary that one can easily mount arguments to legally justify the Versailles-like conduct of one's favorite liberal political leaders. Beyond the legalities, everything one does can be simultaneously declared to be responsible or reckless, depending on the political needs of the moment. But what was most striking about Pelosi's donor event was not the possibility of legal infractions but rather the two-tiered system that was so viscerally and uncomfortably obvious.

Even though many of the wealthy white donors had no food in front of them and were not yet eating, there was not a mask in sight — except on the faces of the overwhelmingly non-white people hired as servants, all of whom had their gratuitous faces covered. Servants, apparently, are much more pleasant when they are dehumanized. There is no need for noses or mouths or other identifiable facial features for those who are converted into servile robots.

Similar scenes were visible at the even more opulent birthday bash which former President Barack Obama threw for himself to commemorate his 60 years on the planet. Held at his sprawling $12 million weekend estate on Martha's Vineyard, Obama and 400 of his closest maskless friends spent hours in indoor tents dancing, chatting in close circles, and yelling in each other's ears over the live music. While custom-made masks engraved with Obama's renowned humility were provided to the guests (“44×60”), only the servants were reported to have worn masks. Who can throw a Hawaiian luau-themed party at one of the country's wealthiest retreats in the middle of a pandemic and joblessness crisis while wearing disfiguring masks, however chic and carefully hand-crafted they might be?

Discussing the controversy over Obama's lavish party on CNN, New York Times reporter Annie Karni explained that while some of the former president's neighbors found the party objectionable on the grounds of health and/or optics, many adamantly argued that such concerns were applicable only to ordinary people, not the more advanced and evolved species likely to be invited to such an extravagant and exclusive liberal party. Karni described this prevailing mentality with vivid accuracy:

    [The controversy] is really being overblown. They’re following all the safety requirements. People are going to sporting events that are bigger than this. This is going to be safe. This is a sophisticated, vaccinated crowd and this is just about optics. It’s not about safety.

An avalanche of similarly repugnant imagery poured forth on Monday night at the most gluttonous and opulent royal court spectacle of them all: the annual Met Gala held by long-time Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. Town and Country has lamented that the once-elevated-and-dignified event has become quite gauche ever since it became overrun by cultural celebrities and nouveau riche tycoons -- “these days, the gala is a highly commercialized, celebrity-driven media circus that celebrates sensationalist preening by individuals who couldn’t be less interested in the museum.” Yet despite this degradation, the magazine nonetheless still regards the affair as “the fashion and society event of the year.” In 2014, Wintour complained that the event was insufficiently exclusive and raised the ticket prices to $25,000 per person in order to keep out the riff-raff who had been able to get in the prior year for the middling price of $15,000 per ticket. Tickets this year cost as much as $35,000 per person. It is, pronounced Wintour's Vogue this week, “the fashion world equivalent of the Oscars.”

While event organizers, in an act of noble self-sacrifice and social duty, sadly cancelled the gala in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic, Wintour was determined this year not to let unpleasant matters like overflowing ICU wards, ongoing school closures, looming mass evictions, and pervasive mask mandates ruin the immense enjoyment bequeathed to the world's serfs as they watch their beloved bejeweled class pose in designer gowns. Following Pelosi and Obama's examples, a long list of America's most glittering stars bravely risked exposure to a deadly virus by appearing without masks, all to ensure that Americans would never again be deprived of such a richly gratifying moment for them. Co-chaired by Timothée Chalamet, Billie Eilish, Amanda Gorman, and Naomi Osaka, honorary chairs included Tom Ford, Instagram’s Adam Mosseri, and Wintour herself.

[Greenwald goes on at length about AOC's appearance.]

Worse, Monday night's traumatic bullying of AOC obscured the far more important fact that, yet again, we saw elites prancing around in the middle of a pandemic maskless, while those paid hourly wages to serve them or desperately try to snap a photo of them were required to keep their pointless faces covered with cloth at all times.

COVID rules are now so convoluted that liberals are able to defend their leaders’ actions while not even pretending to make sense from a scientific or rational perspective. Many defended Newsom and Obama's maskless partying on the ground that it was all “outdoors,” even though both were actually inside tents and people had been shamed for months for taking their kids to deserted beaches rather than keeping them locked away at home. Liberals argue that it is fine for elites at Obama's party and the Met Gala to remain maskless since they are vaccinated, even as they defend the CDC's new mask directives for vaccinated people based on the view that vaccinated people still dangerously transmit the Delta variant to both vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. They will claim that it is fine for rich Democratic donors at Pelosi's party to sit on top of one other maskless because they are eating even though the video shows they have no food in front of them (they are waiting for the masked servants of color to bring their food) and even though shoveling food into one's open mouth does not actually create a wall of immunity against transmission of the virus from one's open-mouthed table neighbors. The Met Gala's red carpet is said to be “outdoors” even though it is surrounded by tent walls and other structures, and still leaving the question of why workers need to be masked in the same area.

But all of this stopped being about The Science™ long ago — ever since months of relentless messaging that it is our moral duty to Stay At Home unless we want to sociopathically kill Grandma was replaced overnight by dictates that we had a moral duty to leave our homes to attend densely packed street protests since the racism being protested was a more severe threat to the public health than the global COVID pandemic. One can locate in all of this jumbled and always-shifting rationale various forms of control, shaming, stigma and hierarchy, while The Science™ is nowhere to be found.

Even with all of this deceit and manipulation, there is something uniquely disturbing — creepy even — about becoming accustomed to seeing political and cultural elites wallowing in luxury without masks, while those paid small wages to serve them in various ways are forced to keep cloth over their faces. It is a powerful symbol of the growing rot at the core of America's cultural and social balkanization: a maskless elite attended to by a permanently faceless servant class. The country's workers have long been faceless in a figurative sense, and now, thanks to extremely selective application of decisively unscientific COVID restrictions, that condition has become literal.


And then there's this from the Emmys:



But of course, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the Emmys was exempted from county's restrictions because "exceptions are made for film, television, and music productions, as additional safety modifications are made for these controlled interactions." All those guests weren't actually guests, they were performers! Though that status didn't apply to the servants, of course:



And then there's San Francisco's mayor, caught dancing maskless. Her defense of her violation of her city's rules? “We don’t need the fun police to come in and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn’t be doing.”
#15191388
Doug64 wrote:Actually, Sweden's deaths per million is only 69.8% that of the US, and 81.7% that of France--and 84.1% that of California. So yes, for number of deaths, Sweden isn't doing badly.
Unless you compare it to it's direct neighbours, Norway and Finland, who did spectacularly, by comparison.

I can see why you, and others wanted, to compare Sweden to USA, but you're all idiots for doing so. It's like you comping in 20th in a race and comparing yourself to the guy who came in 12th. This is just an attempt to console your feelings. If you were logical and reasonable, you'd be comparing yourself to the guys who came in the first 3 places.

So yes, Sweden DID do badly. Very badly.

Sweden #43 for most deaths per million out of 223 countries. Norway #132 Finland #142. I don't think you'd want to know the percentages, as it'll make you look a bigger fool. 1,448/M for Sweden, vs 189 for Norway and 154 for Finland. What is that... 776% higher than Norway?

USA came in at #21, so in guess looking up to Sweden is better than admitting you shit the bed.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
#15191456
Doug64 wrote:I'll remember that the next time you quote one of the government "scientists"--authority means nothing.


Sure.

Now show evidence that natural contagion creates a long lasting immunity.

Of course, it helps if you actually read the article to find out why this prominent immunologist regrets voting for Biden:



If you scroll through his Twitter feed, you'll see how he points out over and over that those that have already come down with the Wuhan virus are at least as well protected as those that have been vaccinated, if not better.


Then read the Twitter article, and quote the actual evidence.

Actually, Sweden's deaths per million is only 69.8% that of the US, and 81.7% that of France--and 84.1% that of California. So yes, for number of deaths, Sweden isn't doing badly.

Using the numbers reported (as you point out, there's variation in how they are counted), the European Union has a death total of 1,714.2 per million, 120% of Sweden's. Mind, that includes the Eastern European countries, some of which have gotten hammered--at 3,127.9, Hungary currently has the highest total deaths per million count of all EU countries and US states.


Sweden could have done a lot better. Considering it did about average, there would be no good reason to follow the Swedish model.

Edit:

@Doug64

Your doctor is wrong. Natural immunity form contagion does not protect against reinfection as well as a vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021 ... ction.html


    In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.

    “If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

    The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

    …..
#15191463
Godstud wrote:Sweden is middle of the pack as far as deaths per million go. Greece, Austria, Germany, Norway, Finland, Ireleand, Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus and Iceland all did better.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/111 ... y-country/

It's neighbours, Norway and Finland are near the top of the list, and did far better. If you want to make comparisons, the easiest is right there!


Thank you, a very nuanced post and I think the study brings roughly the same points Ive made previously about how Sweden differed from its neighbours and shouldnt be compared to them.
#15191470
Godstud wrote:They have suffered for it, suffering rates of infection and death almost as high as that of the USA. 15,000+ deaths in 10 million people is nothing to brag about.

Canada has done significantly better than Sweden. 27,000 deaths in a population of 37 million. You can do the math, right?

I guess you don't like the facts when they don't support your bullshit.

I read your post twice, and I'm still not scared. Even though you tried to scare me (and all readers).

Maybe you can incorporate scary images and end-of-days quotes from the usual suspects next time?
#15191495
@Doug64 SO we come back to a simple question: if someone can avoid serious risk of dying by being vaccinated and chooses not to, why am I obligated to alter my own behavior in order to protect them? Why am I morally required to be more concerned about their health than they are?


Because my dangerously selfish friend, you are also protecting the few people and most children who cannot be vaccinated and the few who have breakthrough infections and die or are seriously disabled.

But your "convenience" seems to be more important to you than those people.

You will not know this but since the beginning of time it has fallen to smart, compassionate and kind people to make sacrifices to help those who are not so smart, lack compassion and kindness.

Welcome to the grown up world.

But no. Like a typical republican your "convenience" is far more important than that. :roll:

Fucking special snowflakes.
  • 1
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 153
Even our shoes are racist.

The definition you posted yourself makes no menti[…]

Self-employed and business owners are "emplo[…]

If large numbers of people committed suicide out […]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

You guys realize you're discussing the flu? Never […]