Yeah. It's too late to talk about it now. Most people are just glad it's all over, and they don't want to know. When it was happening was the time to do something. Being wise after the event is a waste of time.

The tyrants were allowed to get away with what they did, and they will do it again at the the first opportunity that arises. All because people are sheep.

Murray Hunter has penned a skewed and misleading interpretation of the report he cites, while completely ignoring the broader context of it, to support the conspiratorial anti-intervention stance.

Hunter has cherry-picked the reports findings to make it sound like the vaccines were responsible for excess deaths. He does this by:

-assuming correlation equals causation;
-ignoring complexities in the context of a pandemic;
-misinterpreting and misrepresenting vaccine roll-out and mortality data;
-overlooking the stated limitations of the report.

The pandemic response in Australia was evidence-based and overwhelmingly successful. Only ignorant hillbillies, who think their so-called freedoms allow them to endanger the lives of others, think otherwise.

Covid being novel, how can anybody be called an expert on the, how to handle situation. The blame lies with China and associates. No vaccine was available, a very quick effort to put one together untested was the requirement. To blame anyone now is past. So what would change to handle a future outbreak of x. when nobody can predict it's makeup. It's pulling legs off flies.

There were a lot of lessons learned during COVID that were nothing to do with COVID and everything to do about the evils of humanity.

diver dan,
yes, particularly on the conspiracy saturated Academic Left & those who are hood-winked by these "experts" !!

If only there'd been some warning... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9129&page=0

mhaze,

In hindsight, comparing Covid to the flu and dismissing the pandemic's severity turned out to be embarrassingly inaccurate, did it not? Covid was far more contagious and deadly than the flu. It overwhelmed healthcare systems and caused millions of deaths.

Better treatments and vaccines reduced the predicted death toll, so the suggestion that Covid's mortality rate would be "well below 1%" was premature. Regardless, the impact on healthcare systems, economies, and societies was devastating.

The lockdowns, social distancing, and mask mandates turned out to be very effective in preventing the spread. The countries that implemented strict measures generally fared better and managed to control the virus's spread more effectively. There was nothing overblown about the responses.

Suggesting that only the vulnerable be isolated while allowing the virus to rip through the rest of the population was both dangerous and laughable. It would have led to far more deaths given the speed at which the virus spread and the lack of immunity in the population. I bet you held chicken pox parties for your kids, too.

Questioning the actions of the government is healthy, but to be so paranoid and conspiratorially minded as to believe that governments around the world were using the pandemic to seize power is downright unhinged. I bet your eyes twitch, too.

The "truth twitch," I think you lot call it?

As we've seen on several occasions now, JD is long on assertion and short on supporting facts.

If you're going to assert that "comparing Covid to the flu and dismissing the pandemic's severity turned out to be embarrassingly inaccurate", to my mind it might help your reputation to set about trying to add a few facts. But that's not JD's style. In FACT, in Australia the Covid death toll was quite similar to the yearly 'flu death toll and fully justified my original predictions.

Equally if you're going to claim that "[t]he countries that implemented strict measures generally fared better" some evidence might be proffered. But that's not JD's style. Again the evidence is that heavy lockdowns did nothing to reduce overall deaths but was highly detrimental to the economy and caused increases in deaths from other causes. As I always said, the proof of the pudding here would be overall excess deaths and in places like Australia, the results there have been less than encouraging for the lockdown supporters. Its always difficult to compare jurisdictions but looking at groups within countries would help. The Australian experience is instructive. Victoria locked down much more heavily than any other state yet ended up with greater deaths than NSW despite a smaller population.

But the funniest part of JD'd analysis (for want of a better word) is that he thinks the virus had an impact on economies. Even the most clueless observer knows that economies suffered, and suffered badly, not due to the virus but due to the reactions to the virus. This seems to have gone over JD's head just as the fact that the virus primarily affected the aged and that vast swaths of society were all but immune. The average age at death was over 80 and people under 40, unless suffering other ailments, rarely got anything but a mild dose. Again this seems to have eluded JD.

Still when you live in a world that shows absolute obeisance to all authority, as JD appears to do, then the lockdowns must be defended.

mhaze,

I’ve supported most of what I’ve said on this forum with scholarly links at some point or another. So, to claim that I’m “long on assertion and short on supporting facts” is obviously untrue.

With that out of the way, let's examine the numbers. The flu typically causes around 1,500 to 3,000 deaths per year in Australia, depending on the season . In contrast, Covid-19 caused over 14,000 deaths in Australia as of August 2024 . Globally, Covid has caused over 6.9 million deaths, compared to an estimated 290,000 to 650,000 annual deaths from influenza. The stark difference in these figures underscores the much greater impact of Covid-19 compared to the flu.

But, hey, that’s not my style, is it?

The lockdowns undoubtedly reduced the transmission and death rates significantly (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7). Victoria's higher death toll compared with NSW This was due to several factors, such as outbreaks in aged care facilities, to name one. If we consider excess deaths as a measure, then consequentially, countries that did have more stringent measures in place generally had lower excess mortality.

You're cherry-picking your data.

The economic impact of Covid was due to both the real effects of the virus and the public health responses that were necessary. In this regard, nations that imposed drastic and timely measures had better control over the virus and were therefore not experiencing an economic contraction as long and less in magnitude. For example, New Zealand's GDP contracted by 2.1 percent in 2020 but rebounded to post a 5.3 percent growth in 2021, compared to countries like the United States, which saw a 3.4 percent contraction of GDP in 2020 with a slower recovery.

Moreover, the notion that Covid-19 primarily affected the elderly neglects the long-term impacts on younger populations. Approximately 65 million people worldwide have been affected by long Covid, leading to significant lost productivity and increased healthcare costs. Long Covid has been estimated to cost the US economy up to $3.7 trillion in lost wages and medical expenses . (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00491-6/fulltext)

Yes we need to hold those responsible for the COVID response responsible. It's not too late to send a message to others that might think that they can avoid responsibility for similar behavior.

Canem Malum,

I agree. But I would urge you to bear in mind the fact that the pandemic was unprecedented; poor response times, poor communication, and the uneven distribution of vaccines should therefore be viewed in context of this when assessing government responses.

I suggest we focus on learning from these mistakes rather than seeking to blame and punish.

JD,

Covid v 'flu... your numbers aren't right but let's go with them for the moment just to demonstrate my point. You say there were 14000 covid deaths to 8/24. Since covid started in 2/20 that works out as an average of 3100/year. You say flu kills 3000/year in a bad season. My point made for me....thanks.

There's obviously much more to it given issues around dying OF or dying WITH the virus and myriad other issues. But the end result is that, in Australia, the virus was in the realms of a bad flu season. I get that you don't want that to be true, but some of us were able to see the facts on that several years ago. BTW... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/cdc-downgrades-covid-same-severity-as-flu-says/

As to the lockdowns you link to an article written a mere two months after the lockdowns began and even before they were finished. I'm sure it was sufficient to convince you but calling the result halfway through the first quarter doesn't really make sense. Claims that the lockdowns produced anything other than economic misery are now falsified. Any number of comparisons have been made between jurisdictions that locked down heavily and those with a lighter touch to show that lockdowns don't and didn't work... eg http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecaf.12611 or
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/sweden-has-the-lowest-excess-mortality-rate-after-the-pandemic-despite-refusing-to-lock-down/news-story/df50001366bb09b6a20421520cbfbf53

"If we consider excess deaths as a measure, then consequentially, countries that did have more stringent measures in place generally had lower excess mortality."

That's laughably wrong... places like Sweden ended up with significantly lower excess deaths despite not locking down at all. Places like Victoria, which had extreme lockdowns, fared worse than the rest of the country. Places like New York, which had the most stringent lockdowns in the US suffered among the highest death rates in the US. And so on.

/cont

/cont

Those who opposed the lockdowns pointed out that it would result in other issues to the detriment of the population and the economy. And this has come to pass.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-20/mortality-rates-australia-covid-excess/103241640

As we struggle with inflation, we need to remember that it was primarily caused by the profligate spending by governments in the lockdown period. We'll be paying a penalty for that error for at least a generation to come.

Covid was a disease that primarily affected the elderly and already infirm. Had that been acted upon in the early stages of the panic, then the economic and societal effects of the lockdown errors would have been avoided. But governments were entranced by the lockdowns and those that differ to authority went along with it.

Your claims about long Covid, even if it exists (and there's severe doubt about that) are beside the point. The lockdowns didn't stop the transmission of the virus. They weren't even designed to do that. Remember that they, the lockdowns, were sold as a means to flatten the curve ie spread the contagion over a longer period to take the pressure of the hospital system. Equally, the so-called vaccines didn't stop the spread and weren't designed to do that. The mask mandate didn't stop the spread.

The vast majority of the population got infected. Many (most?) didn't even know it. Some of the elderly and already infirm died from it. the lockdowns didn't stop that.

But the authorities will be pleased to know that some continue to fall for the propaganda around their policies.

No the elements of the so called "pandemic" weren't unprecedented, it's just those that were responsible didn't look at the precedents.

Woke Marxists aren't productive people because they don't understand and aren't interested in production.

The call to "focus on learning from these mistakes rather than seeking to blame and punish"- is the plea of the irresponsible that don't recognize the principle of cause and effect. Standard seagull management.

Sounds like John Daysh wants to avoid being punished.

mhaze,

There’s a lot out-of-date data in your attempts to cherry-pick there. Seems that “truth twitch” is in full swing.

Firstly, you draw a false equivalence between Covid and the flu by deliberately manipulating the numbers. Averaging the death tolls out of several years is misleading, because Covid deaths occurred in a much shorter timeframe. In Australia:

http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics

The "dying OF" versus "dying WITH" argument has been thoroughly debunked. The vast majority of Covid deaths were directly attributable to the virus. Multiple studies confirmed this:

http://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2859

To make it appear as though the lockdowns were ineffective, you’ve cited old data out of context and ignored the wealth of research that has emerged since. Sweden actually had higher excess mortality compared to its Scandinavian neighbours who implemented stricter measures:

http://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/34/4/737/7675929?login=false

In Victoria, the situation was more complicated than your simple narrative. Victoria might have had thousands more deaths without the interventions, despite big challenges brought along with aged-care outbreaks.:

http://grattan.edu.au/report/lessons-from-victorias-covid-19-failures

A meta-analysis published in The Lancet Public Health further confirmed that countries with stringent lockdowns had significantly lower Covid death rates than those that did not implement such measures:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00089-6/fulltext.

Your attempts to dismiss long Covid as insignificant are baseless. The Brookings Institution's report found that lost wages, medical expenses, and reduced economic output as a result of long Covid cost the US $3.7 trillion:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid-is-keeping-as-many-as-4-million-people-out-of-work

Ten percent of those infected with Covid develop long Covid:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00941-X/fulltext

Gateway Pundit is infamous for its spreading of misinformation and referring to it only damages credibility. The CDC and other credible health organisations and journals have consistently found/reported that Covid is far more dangerous than the flu.

Lastly, your simplistic take on inflation and the economic impact of government spending is either naive or dishonest. Without the interventions, the global economy could have fared far worse. Inflation was driven by multiple factors (e.g. supply chain disruptions, increased post-lockdown demand) not just government spending.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects
http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO

JD,

"There’s a lot out-of-date data in your attempts to cherry-pick there. Seems that “truth twitch” is in full swing."

Well you're the one who was using data from the very early part of the lockdown that purported to show it worked even though it hadn't even finished. My links OTOH were from 2023-24. I think we can all see who's picking the cherries.
But I've noted that you try to use the 'cherry-pick' assertion when the data doesn't fit your prejudices but can't be disputed. I guess that works in some circles.

As to "truth twitch" - never heard the term and I don't know what it's supposed to mean. I suspect that makes two of us.

" you draw a false equivalence between Covid and the flu by deliberately manipulating the numbers. "

That's laughable. I pointed out that your numbers were wrong but used them anyway to make my point. And then you complain that the numbers are wrong. Pretty funny.

"The "dying OF" versus "dying WITH" argument has been thoroughly debunked. "

Well if you say so. But your link is again from the very early part of the panic and from one country. I can see it doesn't take much to convince you!! But there are plenty of examples where the data is differentiated between with and of. Our own ABS does it. Studies in Italy showed that 80% of the reported covid deaths there were people who died with not of.
It probably eludes your understanding but that is why most researchers now use excess data figures because it avoids the of/with problem

"you’ve cited old data out of context and ignored the wealth of research that has emerged since"

Again this is fall about funny. You say my data is old and out of date and then support your claim with oldER and more out-of-date data. Again the data I used was for the whole of Europe but you chose a report covering just four countries. Explain cherry-picking again!

Your Lancet link doesn't work so I can't explain to you how that is irrelevant.

As to long Covid, the point seems too complex for you. Whether it exists is immaterial. People were going to get the WuFlu irrespective of lockdowns. Thus they were going to get long covid if it exists. This simplistic assertion that long covid exists therefore lockdowns work is baffling in its idiocy.

As to the economy, your links have zero relevance. The facts are that governments around the world went into enormous debt to pay for the lockdowns and the world is currently paying the price for that.

mhaze,

In your attempts to make it look like I had made an embarrassing blunder - by focusing only on the dates - you failed to realise that the data your links relied on have now been superseded. Whereas, everything I had linked to is still valid - regardless of the dates.

Now THAT is funny!

See what happens when you cherry-pick and sift through your opponent’s comments with the sole intent of supporting a narrative rather than actually engaging with the data and arguments?

Textbook intellectually dishonesty.

Again, your arguments rely on outdated and misleading claims. You criticise early studies I cited while leaning on sources that have been debunked. Sweden’s approach, which you praise, resulted in higher excess mortality compared to its Scandinavian neighbours with stricter lockdowns:

The false equivalence between Covid and the flu continues to be a fundamental flaw in your argument. Even averaging deaths across years, Covid caused healthcare crises globally - something the flu has never done. Calling this a “bad flu season” is dumb.

Dismissing long Covid because “everyone would have caught Covid anyway” ignores how public health measures reduced overall infections and, by extension, long Covid cases. Long Covid has severe public health and economic impacts, affecting millions worldwide and costing trillions.

Your claim of government overreach is conspiratorial paranoia and downright unhinged (hence that presumed “truth twitch” of yours), yet these measures were implemented to save lives, based on the best available evidence at the time. The idea that this was about seizing power is unfounded and distracts from the real issues.

Here are some alternative links in place of the lancet articles:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7
http://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abd9338
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8

Regarding John Daysh's comment against the Lancet.

I don't have a great deal of respect for the integrity of contemporary academic authorities but surely "The Lancet" and "The New England Journal of Medicine" have to be considered more respected "medical journals" in a sense than generalist journals such as Nature or Science. At least they are actually in the field of medicine.

The Lancet has a fairly good reputation of conservative research, compared to other journals, even though I'd agree that it was compromised on some occasions during the contentious crisis of Covid.

I'm much more concerned about John Daysh's reputation than the Lancet

And I trust mhaze more than both. Especially on this issue.

As for my last two URLs yesterday, allow me to link you to the precise data to which I was referring:

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/10/12/world-economic-outlook-october-2021#Chapter1

See Chapter 1, "Global Prospects and Policies," which discusses the global economic recovery, inflation trends, and policy actions needed to strengthen the recovery.

This report contains a detailed analysis on pages 19-23 which discusses the varied economic recoveries across countries, and how the countries that put in place the most stringent measures to slow infection rates, and/or provided financial support, experienced less severe economic downturns and faster recoveries.

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/10/12/world-economic-outlook-october-2021#Chapter2

The IMF’s October 2021 World Economic Outlook report (Chapter 2, in particular) discusses in-depth the economic effects of Covid and the role of government interventions. Despite the the short-term costs of the lockdowns, coordinated health and economic policies mitigated the pandemic’s adverse effects on economies.

I look forward to your next attempts to discredit the links I've provided after having only scanned the content for something to pick on so you can pretend what you find is funny.

Here's some information on Long Covid from the Lancet...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01136-X/abstract

Long COVID: a clinical update

Prof Trisha Greenhalgh, MD
Prof Manoj Sivan, MD
Alice Perlowski, MD
Prof Janko Ž Nikolich, MD

Published:July 31, 2024DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01136-X
Long COVID: a clinical update
Previous ArticleChronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Summary
References
Article info
Linked Articles

Advertisement
Summary
Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is generally defined as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more after acute COVID-19. Long COVID can affect multiple organ systems and lead to severe and protracted impairment of function as a result of organ damage. The burden of this disease, both on the individual and on health systems and national economies, is high. In this interdisciplinary Review, with a coauthor with lived experience of severe long COVID, we sought to bring together multiple streams of literature on the epidemiology, pathophysiology (including the hypothesised mechanisms of organ damage), lived experience and clinical manifestations, and clinical investigation and management of long COVID. Although current approaches to long COVID care are largely symptomatic and supportive, recent advances in clinical phenotyping, deep molecular profiling, and biomarker identification might herald a more mechanism-informed and personally tailored approach to clinical care. We also cover the organisation of services for long COVID, approaches to preventing long COVID, and suggestions for future research.

Canem Malum,

I didn’t say anything “against” The Lancet! I simply linked mhaze to some articles that said the same thing as the Lancet articles I linked to because he couldn’t access them.

You do realise, too, that the article you just cited supports and reinforces everything I’ve said about long Covid, don’t you?

Incidentally, do you realise many of the articles that appear in The Lancet are cited and referenced in the articles and reports from the institutions and bodies that I linked to? These organisations don’t go off and do all of the research all over again. Nor are they non-medical organisations trying to do medical stuff. So, telling us that you trust The Lancet (because they’re a medical journal) contradicts your conspiratorial position.

You believe only who you want to believe - even if it’s xXx_PussyDestroyer69 on YouTube shouting some bizarre alt-right conspiracy theory. So long as you want to believe it. Your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Perhaps I slightly misread John Daysh's comments about the Lancet before.

The above was the only Lancet article I could see in reference to long Covid when I did a search (perhaps the original article that John Daysh referred to was "vapourware")

"current approaches to long COVID care are largely symptomatic and supportive" ie potentially aren't managed by vaccination but by treating symptoms.

Doesn't say much about long Covid being 10% of Covid cases.

Some of the information in the report was qualitative rather than quantitative (it refers to long term rather than percentage of cases remaining after a year, etc).

Also mentions
"recent advances" ie. potentially unreliable.

"future research" suggests there is much still unknown.

I didn't read John Daysh's comments closely, but on a superficial read, I can't agree with his comment "You do realise, too, that the article you just cited supports and reinforces everything I’ve said about long Covid, don’t you?".

JD,

I get that you have long ago fallen for all the propaganda around covid and that admitting that was wrong is really beyond your capabilities and would be too damaging to your self-esteem. But some of us long ago realised that the reaction of most governments around the world was wrong and have long since moved on.

As with my original post o this, I didn't blame governments for their initial reaction since they were as much in the dark as anyone, although those who saw a different path such as Sweden ought to be lauded. But I did criticise governments for their inability to change course when new and better data was available.

There have been several long and bruising threads on covid in these pages and I don't intend to rehash it all again just to bring you up to speed.

But these are the highlights:

Sweden's policy and experience has been an example to future policy. I note that, in your desperation to find something detrimental to the Swedish outcomes you've trowelled through the Lancet files. Yet somehow you missed this one (http://tinyurl.com/23pzbyaw) which shows Sweden 'winning' on any number of parameters ((http://tinyurl.com/223rem7p). similar data abounds if only you'd stop looking for data that supports your pre-judged opinions.

In places like Australia and many other jurisdictions, the death's from/with covid was not dissimilar to that of a bad flu season.
(I note that you've elected to ignore the CDC saying they've now downgraded WuFlu to being just another flu because the link I provided to show that was from people you prefer to ignore. Dismissing the message based upon the messenger is never a sign that you're looking for the truth. BTW the GatewayPundit link had further links to the CDC but if you don't want it to be true.....

/cont

/cont

Most people in Australia have been exposed to the WuFlu. There have been 12 million confirmed cases and who knows how many have had a mild dose without bothering to get it confirmed. Several in my family at least. Whatismore, the asymptomatic rate is anywhere from 51% to 80% ie people who've had it and never knew. So, yes, despite all the lockdowns, social distancing, police shooting protestors and the like, most Australians have been exposed.

Economics- you rely on an IMF report from 2021 which basically says things are GOING to improve and that proves we did the right thing in the pandemic. Logically, it would make sense to see if they DID improve - at least if you were interested in the facts. Well the facts are the IMF got it badly wrong. They predicted a 2022 growth rate of 4.9%. Their own numbers show it turned out to be 3.5%. That's enormous. Then they predicted a further fall in 2023 which turned out to be overstated and a further fall in 2024. Things are good according to you!! But we've seen you do this before where you rely on reports that say thing WILL improve to assert they DID improve. Not a good idea. You really need to check what actually happened.

Just a general note. During the height of the panic, it was considered racist and an conspiracy theory to suggest the virus originated in a Chinese lab. Now that is the most likely source according to a range of 'experts' and relevant institutions. Again those saying the vaccine wouldn't stop the spread were shouted down. Now even people like Fauci confirm that view. Those who argued against masks were censored. Now we know masks had no positive and probably negative effects.

As we get further from the event and those with a vested interest in protecting the original narrative move on, the truth will come out. Continually referring back to reports from the middle of the panic, as you do, isn't the way to find the truth here.

BTW, I'm still trying to find figures as to how many lives were saved by taping arrows on the floors of supermarkets.

mhaze,

Propaganda? Have you bothered to read any of the articles or reports I’ve linked to, beyond scanning them for reasons to dismiss them entirely? Or is it that truth twitch again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpMriuzvTDA&t=31s

It appears you’re not always reading your own links very well, either. The Lancet article you linked to supports what I’ve said on Sweden and demonstrates the surgical precision with which you are able to select data to fit your narrative.

Sweden's overall excess mortality was lower than other European countries by the end of the pandemic, but not because they avoided strict lockdowns. That Lancet article showed that Sweden's robust healthcare system, socioeconomic factors, the eventual development of natural immunity, and vaccinations were responsible for this outcome. Sweden faced a higher mortality early in the pandemic due to its lighter restrictions:

http://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/34/4/737/7675929?login=false

You’re misrepresenting the CDC’s stance. Covid has not been downgraded to "just another flu":

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

Incidentally, I see crank websites like the infamous Gateway Pundit link to credible sources all the time. As is probably the case with you and your link to The Lancet, though, they probably count on people not reading or understanding them.

The purpose of the interventions here in Australia wasn’t to prevent all exposure. It was to slow the infection rate and avoid overwhelming the healthcare system. Our strict measures helped keep the death toll lower and allowed time for vaccines to be distributed.

The 4.9% growth for 2022 turned out to be optimistic. But 3.5% is still a recovery, even if it was slower. The economic forecasts were influenced by numerous factors beyond the initial projections (new Covid variants, geopolitical tensions, and supply chain disruptions.) The point is that these interventions helped prevent a much worse economic outcome. Comparing the predicted and actual growth rates doesn't negate the benefits of the pandemic response measures.

The framing of idea that Covid was created in a Chinese lab was mostly why it was seen as racist, not the actual claim itself. This doesn’t invalidate the early caution, either. It shows that science is refined as new data emerges.

JD,

You fundamentally fail to understand the Swedish experience and fundamentally fail to understand the logic of why lockdowns are now seen as a failed policy.

The Swedish policy was to take the hit of the new virus early so as to rapidly develop herd immunity and thereby reduce the overall death rate while at the same time avoiding the economic disaster that was caused by closing down most of the productive sectors of the economy. The lockdown policy as practiced in places like Australia was to 'flatten the curve' ie not save lives but spread the death rate out over time to protect the hospital system. To do that they had to close down most of the productive sector of economy.


Yet we have people such as yourself who fundamentally misunderstand this policy saying, 'oh look Sweden's death rate was initially higher'. Yes it was higher. They knew it was going to be higher. They expected it to be higher. That was the policy. But overall, over the timeframe we and they were talking about, the death rate was lower AND the economy that provides the wherewithal for the first world hospital system. So their policy worked exactly as designed and exactly as expected and you try to portrait that as a bad thing. Somehow in the jaundiced thinking, a lower death rate in 2023 is bad while a lower death rate in 2020 in to be lauded!!

I get it. You desperately want to believe that the government made the right call here and will torture any data to protect that claim. But the numbers are clear that the lockdowns didn't reduce deaths and did do significant damage to economies world-wide and continues to do significant damage to economies world-wide. To try to hide the impacts of those hits to the economy, they came up with monumentally optimistic claims about how the economy was bouncing back only to have to walk that back later. Yet some (no names mind you) still want to pretend the claims were more viable than the actual data.

mhaze,

No, I haven't fundamentally failed to understand anything. You, however, have failed to understand the data on both a micro level and a macro level - an inevitability when one is focused on cherry-picking data to support a narrative.

And, no, you don’t “get it.” In fact, given that you are now just repeating yourself, it seems you are the only one here “desperately” wanting to believe something. I feel no desperation and all. On the contrary, and am looking on at this discussion with a smirk of condescending amusement as yet another conspiracy theorist squirms (and twitches).

Your argument about Sweden’s approach relies on the idea that their early higher death rates were an acceptable and expected outcome of their policy to achieve herd immunity quickly and for the economy (and so-called fReEdOmS, too, I’m presuming). I’m afraid your interpretation oversimplifies Sweden’s actual strategy and motives, though.

There was some talk of herd immunity in the early days, but it wasn’t the main goal. The Swedes set out to balance protecting the health of the public with minimising societal disruption and long-term sustainability.

Australia's ‘flattening the curve’ wasn’t about spreading the out deaths for the hell of it; it was about enabling hospitals to manage the caseload without collapsing, which would have led to an even higher mortality rate. It was also about buying us time while a vaccine was being developed. And, yes, as some of the articles I linked to (and many more) showed, it saved lives.

Your twisting of Sweden’s strategy as a success oversimplifies just how complex managing a pandemic is. It’s not just about comparing death rates at different points in time; it’s about understanding the full impact of each of the various strategies on multiple areas.

Dismissing all opposing views as the result of "torturing data" is a side-step. It’s also mere projection in your case, and is obviously wrong when applied to what I've presented.

JD

"There was some talk of herd immunity in the early days, but it wasn’t the main goal. "

That's just revisionist rubbish. In Sweden it was primarily about herd immunity. “They did not want to put it bluntly, but seeking herd immunity was always inherent in the Swedish strategy,” says Anders Bjorkman, a professor of infectious diseases at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm." (http://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2376 - from June 2020!!)

"Australia's ‘flattening the curve’ wasn’t about spreading the out deaths for the hell of it; it was about enabling hospitals to manage the caseload without collapsing,"

You're becoming increasingly desperate. I say Australia's policy was to "spread the death rate out over time to protect the hospital system" and you say I'm wrong because Australia's policy was to help hospitals manage the caseloads. So I'm wrong even though what I say is the same thing you say. Sad and funny at the same time.

Nowhere did I say that Sweden thought the death rates were acceptable, just inevitable. People were going to die. The aim was to reduce the OVERALL deaths and protect the fabric of society while doing so. Sweden's overall death rate is the best in Europe due to their policy. They did it without uprooting their economy and school system. Lockdown policies failed on both counts.

There are now any number of analyses of the policies which come down against lockdowns.....

http://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-lockdowns-government-policy-analysis

http://tiny.cc/dgsizz ("The researchers say lockdowns had no noticeable effect on reducing COVID-related deaths and a "devastating effect" on economies and social ills.")

And so and so and so on...

But clearly some are going to take a little longer than others to catch up.

"The framing of idea that Covid was created in a Chinese lab was mostly why it was seen as racist, not the actual claim itself."

So it was OK to say it was created in a Chinese lab so long as we didn't mention the Chinese? Struth.

The Chinese played a disreputable role in all of this, amply helped by the WHO. They knew from the outset it was created in a lab AND most importantly that it was transferrable between humans via aerosols. Both were hidden for as long as possible while the virus spread. Knowing this they allowed flights to leave Wuhan for all parts of the world, thus spreading the misery.

But the Chinese apologists leapt to their defence to try to muddy the water and the left fell for it as usual. It didn't help that Trump was also early to blame the Chinese and we all know that anything Trump says is, by definition, wrong...at least in certain circles.

Voices were raised from the outset saying the genome of the virus proved it was lab grown. They were suppressed, ruthlessly. People lost jobs. People's reputations were ruined. But they were right. Only after the heat had died down was the truth allowed to escape although the full story still waits to be told, Were US entities seeking to circumvent US laws by funding Wuhan labs? Probably. but the US deep state will continue to protect its own for as long as necessary.

As I said, as the heat goes out of the issue, the truth will emerge. As those who made all these monumental errors move on or are moved on, the actual facts will be allowed to surface. People who weren't involved in these errors will relook at the data and produce reports showing just how bad the lockdown policies were (see above,as well as the article that started this thread).

I'm pleased that I was early to recognise the failures of the lockdown methods and little of what I wrote in April 2020 needs to be revised four years later.

mhaze,

You need to learn the difference between a contradiction and a clarification. I have not yet contradicted myself. So, your claim that I am becoming “increasingly desperate” just makes you look, ironically, desperate.

Thanks for linking me to the BMJ article. It supports precisely what I said about Sweden and the extent to which herd immunity was a factor in their approach. Apparently you don’t read your own links, either. This is probably the case for the idiots at Gateway Pundit, too.

Again, spreading out the infection rate is done to reduce the overall death rate by:

1. buying time while a vaccine is being developed;
2. spreading the cases out so that each one can be triaged more effectively and tended to more closely.

To frame the spreading out of the infection rate as indistinguishable to spreading out the “death rate” is dishonest.

It seems you’re the only desperate one here.

Sweden’s overall death rate was due to their robust “Marxist” healthcare system, socioeconomic factors, vaccines, and herd immunity. I’ve already explained this. Their death rate was higher before the vaccines were available and the virus evolved to become weaker. The public also started to exercise more caution because of the initial death rate caused by lax intervention policies.

//Nowhere did I say that Sweden thought the death rates were acceptable, just inevitable.//

I know. Go back and read what I said again.

The conclusions of articles you linked to, as examples of articles arguing more in favour of your position, are widely rejected. More importantly, they rely on certain assumptions and methodologies that are open to debate.

The claim that China knowingly allowed the virus to spread globally as part of some malicious plan is not supported by credible evidence at this point. Their early mishandling of the outbreak is well-documented, but attributing deliberate malfeasance to China without concrete proof veers into conspiracy territory.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board on this one for you, my friend. I suggest you find some new material. The Sweden angle is well and truly dead in the water.

"...the BMJ article...supports precisely what I said about Sweden and the extent to which herd immunity was a factor in their approach. Apparently you don’t read your own links, either."

The BMJ article specifically said that "Sweden has stood out in the global pandemic by eschewing lockdown and seemingly aiming for herd immunity" and contains the remark I quoted before that "seeking herd immunity was always inherent in the Swedish strategy".

Yet you claim it says the opposite and that therefore I mustn't have read it.

I've noticed you've done this a few times now, claiming a link says the opposite of what it actually says but don't bother to show evidence of that but instead make the assertion as though the assertion is fact.

It's rather disconcerting in that I can't tell whether the problem is that you are simply dishonest in these things or incapable of understanding the logic of a complex report.

In the same vain you now claim not to have said I thought that Sweden treated the death rate as acceptable when you'd in fact written "Your argument about Sweden’s approach relies on the idea that their early higher death rates were an acceptable and expected outcome". Note "acceptable".

Again rather disconcerting since I don't know the cause of your error.

As to other things you've gotten wrong... I never said China's actions were part of a "malicious plan". Just that they were horrendously cavalier in their attempts to containing their lab failures.

I think its rather cute that you think your mere assertion to the contrary proves the Swedish results are "dead in the water" when evidence abounds as to the success of the Swedish approach and that of other jurisdictions that didn't go full lockdown.

Ever since the pandemic subsided the evidence and overall appraisal has been moving in the direction of those who opposed the lockdowns, opposed social distancing, opposed mandatory vaccinations and supported the lab leak theory. I get that many won't admit, even to themselves, that they were on the wrong side of the issue, but they'll eventually come around

mhaze,

Did you notice the word “seemingly” in “Sweden has stood out in the global pandemic by eschewing lockdown and seemingly aiming for herd immunity,” or the word “inherent” in “They did not want to put it bluntly, but seeking herd immunity was always inherent in the Swedish strategy,”?

Clearly the context in which these statements were made was lost on you, too.

Sweden’s officials (including Anders Tegnell) later clarified that their approach was not aimed at achieving herd immunity but rather at implementing measures that were sustainable over the long term while protecting vulnerable populations:

The BMJ article illustrates the complexity of Sweden’s approach, which was more about balancing public health with minimising societal disruption. The fact that herd immunity was a possible outcome does not mean it was the primary goal.

I haven’t claimed the opposite of any of this. It aligns perfectly with what I’ve said.

//I've noticed you've done this a few times now…//

Try another example then, because that last one failed.

//In the same vain you now claim not to have said I thought that Sweden treated the death rate as acceptable when you'd in fact written "Your argument about Sweden’s approach relies on the idea that their early higher death rates were an acceptable and expected outcome". Note "acceptable".//

Note “relies on the idea”, which means that it was implicit whether or not you meant it to be.

Still no dice.

As for China, your words suggested something more intentional than being merely cavalier:

“The Chinese played a disreputable role in all of this... Knowing this they allowed flights to leave Wuhan for all parts of the world, thus spreading the misery.” - mhaze

No, don’t think “mere assertion” to the contrary “proves” the Swedish results are dead in the water. That fact that I have shot down every one of your arguments relating to Sweden’s approach thus far is what shows that.

When you have someone prepared to parse an entire article to look for a word like "seemingly" to then claim that it alters the entire meaning of the article, you know you've reached the end of the line.
They now realise they've lost the argument and are looking for a way out.

BTW, JD. You might need to look up the meaning of the word "inherent".

I didn't buy into, or buy, the whole JD=SteeleRedux claims. But this tactic of reducing an argument to a dispute over a single word or phrase once its clear the argument has been lost, is very much a SR tactic.

And getting the numbers all wrong as JD did above, was also a well known SR trait.

Just saying.

mhaze,

It’s not about "parsing" a word like "seemingly" or "inherent" to change the meaning of the article; it’s about understanding the nuance and the context of what’s being said in the article.

It's laughable, too, that you think my entire argument has been reduced to that this when every other one of my arguments remains intact. We can revisit any one of then you like, if you don't believe me.

It seems it's a tactic of yours to ignore nuance when it's convenient to you, then accuse others of "parsing" when they point it out. It also appears that when you're defeated, you focus only on your opponent's last point, forget every other point of theirs (all of which still stand, in this case), and then act as if they've been reduced to nitpicking over that one point that you've chosen to focus on.

Then declare yourself the winner, of course.

The BMJ article doesn’t provide the support for your interpretation that you think it does, and that’s why the details matter.

//And getting the numbers all wrong as JD did above, was also a well known SR trait.//

Where are my numbers wrong? (Obviously I won't be holding my breath for an answer on that one.)

" In contrast, Covid-19 caused over 14,000 deaths in Australia as of August 2024 ." ..... JD

"In Australia since the start of the pandemic to the end of 2023, 22,315 people have died from or with COVID-19" http://tiny.cc/3g9jzz

Predicted excuse:

1. Typo
2. 22K is greater than 14K

mhaze,

My apologies there. It appears I downplayed the difference in the flu and covid death rates with my figure of 14,000. You’re right: the difference in death rates between the flu and covid was indeed 22,315 by the end of 2023.

Of course, that doesn’t exactly help your case, does it?

Not even where Sweden is concerned. Sweden has less than half our population and still had a higher number of deaths (approximately 24,000).

Given you were willing to shoot yourself in the foot just to provide me with an incorrect figure, I’m guessing you don’t have any others to cite.

//Predicted excuse: … 2. 22K is greater than 14K//

Well, it’s not exactly an “excuse” when there’s nothing that needs excusing now, is it?

Somewhere in there there's an acceptance that he got the figures wrong.

"Not even where Sweden is concerned. Sweden has less than half our population and still had a higher number of deaths (approximately 24,000)."

You still don't understand why countries should be compared on excess deaths rates rather than declared covid deaths. Little wonder you misunderstood my original post and so many of the links I provide.

If you're interested, go back to some of the previous threads on this where I explained the issue to people like SR.

Mhaze,

Yes, I got the figure wrong, and since the error didn’t help my case, I take it your point in highlighting it isn’t to paint me as dishonest. I can therefore only assume that your goal is to make me look unreliable. But not even that’s going to get you far given you had to shoot yourself in the foot just to do it.

I suppose it’s a case of “Well, if I’m going down, then you’re at least coming with me.” Is that it?

//You still don't understand why countries should be compared on excess deaths rates rather than declared covid deaths.//

What do you mean by still? I’ve mentioned excess deaths here. (It appears your tactic now is to make it look like I haven’t been understanding you.)

More to the point, excess deaths STILL don’t help your cause. In fact, they again make it even worse for you (again):

Australia: 337 excess deaths per million people.
Sweden: 1,500 excess deaths per million people.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths

There goes the other foot!

"Australia: 337 excess deaths per million people.
Sweden: 1,500 excess deaths per million people."

Your link doesn't mention any such numbers. Doesn't even mention excess deaths.

"1,500 excess deaths per million people"

Exactly 1500? What are the chances? Or just fabricated?

Kudos mhaze.

mhaze,

That was the wrong link. The figures I found actually said between 1500-2000 up until the end of 2022. I opted to show only the lower amount because if we found that it was actually 1501, you would have portrayed the 1500-2000 as a reason to not trust the data or to cast doubt over everything else I’ve said.

Sad, isn’t it?

It looks like you may get to keep that other foot for now, though.

This is irrelevant, anyway. To show you why, I'm happy to go with whatever dodgy figures you find on some right-wing crank website. Why? because what I said earlier still stands:

"Sweden’s overall death rate [and overall excess death rate] was due to their robust “Marxist” healthcare system, socioeconomic factors, vaccines, and herd immunity. I’ve already explained this. Their death rate was higher before the vaccines were available and the virus evolved to become weaker. The public also started to exercise more caution because of the initial death rate caused by lax intervention policies."

Excess deaths per 100,000 of population for period for period 2/2020 - 3/2023 as compared to average of period 2015-2019:

Sweden 72.7
Australia 134.6

As to "“Marxist” healthcare system,"

I don't think Sweden has a Marxist health system. It works and nothing Marxist ever works.

Thanks mhaze. Also I don't see Sweden as the utopian Marxist socialist paradise that the Woke Marxist Labor Party seemingly superficially proclaims. Sweden until recently was apparently an ethnically homogeneous state similar to Britain seemingly based on the localist "cottage industry" model. Marxists are globalists that believe in ideological control of the economy and the people based on Dialectic Materialism.

The dual method being-
1. the destruction of the claimed "false consciousness" of cultural traditions under the auspices of giving power to the people (but in fact taking the power away by constantly reframing authorised reality).
2. taking the economic power away from the 'capitalists' and giving it to the people (which in reality means giving the economic power to the academic universities in the form of red tape and government spending based on proscribed authority. Note- Elon Musk in his recent "once and future"-Pres Trump interview talked about "red tape and government spending").

Swedes seem to be very impatient with people that don't pull their own weight within the community, whereas Woke Marxists prefer that the mass of the electorate isn't engaged.

Libertarian's such as Ayn Rand say that everything is about money, that is why they are easily manipulated by Marxist's. But most people don't read Ayn Rand properly, and she gets some things wrong.

mhaze,

Thanks for the figures. Like I said, though, they don’t help your argument.

Sweden’s excess death rate was terrible in the first year, and dropped after that for many reasons other than herd immunity - some of which I’ve already mentioned (e.g. different population structures, healthcare systems, and social dynamics).

In Sweden’s defence, you could argue that the pandemic was unprecedented. However, there are still many reasons as to why lockdowns were the more sensible route:

1. They minimise the potential dangers of an unknown virus with uncertain transmission and mortality rates.

2. They help prevent healthcare systems from becoming overwhelmed

3. They buy time for the development of a safer path to herd immunity (i.e. vaccines).

4. They provide better protection for vulnerable populations.

5. They reduce the likelihood of widespread disruption and panic.

6. They provide a framework for economic and social stability, supported by government aid, despite the short-term disruptions.

7. They lowered the chances of new and potentially dangerous mutations emerging.

Given all the reasons to opt for strict measures to reduce infection rates, your baseless conspiracy theory about governments taking advantage of the pandemic to seize power looks downright paranoid and delusional.

Never mind my “Marxist” Jibe. It’s directed at some here who don’t know what Marxism is and take the more American view that a public healthcare system is “socialised medicine!”

Never mind my “Marxist” Jibe. It’s directed at some here who don’t know what Marxism is and take the more American view that a public healthcare system is “socialised medicine!”
Posted by John Daysh

Answer- In America public healthcase probably is Marxist "socialised medicine" because there is a culture that accuses any cooperation with the White system of being an Uncle Tom. To support public healthcare in the US would be much more expensive for the taxpayers than just getting health insurance. All the advantage of group behavior is lost by the freeloaders. Personally I think that the best thing to do would be to gift the Afro-American's San Francisco and half of California and put a wall around it. Maybe they'll make a successful territory out of it- maybe not- but it's up to them. Africa is a pretty large land area 4x the size of the US, how can they scream that they are being marginalized, it is the Whites being marginalized by slumification, rather than gentrification. If things are so bad in the US why not go to Africa as Candice Owens suggests. Maybe they can get a genetic essay and find out where their ancestors originated.

There's a fair bit of freeloading of immigrant cultures on Anglo-cultures in the UK and Australia too. At this point it's pointless to spend our taxes on infrastructure, because the capacity is just used to bring in more immigrants, our taxes are supporting our enemies. What about user pays. I go to the movies and buy a ticket, and the usher tells me my ticket is for the desperate person who can't afford one- what! Everyone is desperate some are just more willing to plan. We can't solve everyones problems. For some people and cultures poverty is a choice.

In 13 years there will be 9 billion people- hopefully we'll address some of these sustainability issues rather than kicking them down the road.

“There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

Well we've come full circle from all the data shows the lockdowns were a raging success to I don't care what the data says, the government is always right.

I've had quite enough of that malarkey.

Given what most of the research is showing these days, its good to know that governments won't make that mistake again - even if we could afford it, which due to the last lockdowns, we can't.

mhaze,

No, the lockdowns were still very effective. The total figures never mattered; I warned you this would be the case and explained why that was before you even gave them by quoting what I had said earlier.

My central points have remained consistent throughout.

//Given what most of the research is showing these days, its good to know that governments won't make that mistake again ...//

We've just gone through much of the research and none of it supports your case.

If you have more research to cite, then cite it by all means. But I would find it rather odd that you didn't lead with it.