Sweden - is the rest of the world dumb, blind or worse ?

[johnnybangkok]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:50 PM, Peter Denis said:

I will read the article, but did a quick check and Sweden's death rate does not seem to spike...

A great article on Sweden https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-lockdown-sceptics-get-wrong-about-sweden

[scubascuba3]

6 hours ago, kingdong said:

A higher pro rata body count.

A higher covid death per million yes, but how about the neighbouring countries deaths caused by lock downs and economic consequences

[farang51]

29 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

A higher covid death per million yes, but how about the neighbouring countries deaths caused by lock downs and economic consequences

I do not believe we have many deaths caused by lock down in Denmark - if any. And our economy is doing better as you can read in the article that johnnybangkok linked to:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-lockdown-sceptics-get-wrong-about-sweden

 

[tlock]

On 10/31/2020 at 10:20 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

This is very true. In fact I would say that, unless there's something I've missed in my reading on this, there's never been any highly infectious disease that has been brought under control by naturally-acquired herd immunity. The only way this has ever been achieved is by vaccination, as far as I'm aware. If I'm mistaken and anyone knows any different, perhaps they could enlighten me.

 

So it's always puzzled me that so many people seem to set such great store by the idea of herd immunity from CoVid-19 through natural infection, when it's normally only achieved by vaccination.

 

Maybe herd immunity is the wrong word.  "Letting nature run it's course" seems more appropriate.  Obviously the body count was incredible, but I believe the Spanish Flu eventually burned out without a vaccine? 

 

I just can't see my grandfather's generation cowering in their homes, letting the world come to a stop and main street dying over something with the IFR of covid-19.  They would have sent out the young to keep the world running and protected the at-risk.  

 

This is not the first pandemic to strike humanity, I am unaware of any other pandemic where the top minds decided the solution was for everyone to just stay in their homes and wait for a vaccine.  That position is the odd one IMO, not the people who think the lockdown approach is causing more damage than the disease.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

35 minutes ago, tlock said:

 

Maybe herd immunity is the wrong word.  "Letting nature run it's course" seems more appropriate.  Obviously the body count was incredible, but I believe the Spanish Flu eventually burned out without a vaccine? 

 

I just can't see my grandfather's generation cowering in their homes, letting the world come to a stop and main street dying over something with the IFR of covid-19.  They would have sent out the young to keep the world running and protected the at-risk.  

 

This is not the first pandemic to strike humanity, I am unaware of any other pandemic where the top minds decided the solution was for everyone to just stay in their homes and wait for a vaccine.  That position is the odd one IMO, not the people who think the lockdown approach is causing more damage than the disease.

 

 

The Spanish Flu

'Now as then, public health interventions are the first line of defense against an epidemic in the absence of a vaccine. These measures include closing schools, shops, and restaurants; placing restrictions on transportation; mandating social distancing, and banning public gatherings. In Arizona, police handed out $10 fines for those caught without the protective gear. But eventually, the most drastic and sweeping measures paid off. After implementing a multitude of strict closures and controls on public gatherings, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Kansas City responded fastest and most effectively: Interventions there were credited with cutting transmission rates by 30 to 50 percent. New York City, which reacted earliest to the crisis with mandatory quarantines and staggered business hours, experienced the lowest death rate on the Eastern seaboard'.  https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

 

Sound familar?

[tlock]

 

Quote

In fact I would say that, unless there's something I've missed in my reading on this, there's never been any highly infectious disease that has been brought under control by naturally-acquired herd immunity. The only way this has ever been achieved is by vaccination, as far as I'm aware. If I'm mistaken and anyone knows any different, perhaps they could enlighten me.

 

I was specifically referring to the above question, that sometimes highly infections diseases go away without a vaccine.  The Spanish Flu virus spread and eventually weakened to the point that is still with us today but nowhere close to being as deadly as it once was.  Nature has other ways of lessening the mortality of viruses than vaccines.

 

[tlock]

I've already posted this, but I know people love sources.  Regarding the Spanish Flu second wave:

 

The severity of the second wave has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War.^[82] In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials look for deadlier strains of a virus when it reaches places with social upheaval.^[83] The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu. This was most dramatically illustrated in Copenhagen, which escaped with a combined mortality rate of just 0.29% (0.02% in the first wave and 0.27% in the second wave) because of exposure to the less-lethal first wave.^[84] For the rest of the population, the second wave was far more deadly; the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit.^[85]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu