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.