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.