• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Swedish experiment of doing remarkably little about Covid-19

Of course everyone doesn't die from covid. Covid is largely similar to a bad cold, for most people. It's a danger for the elderly, infirm and obese, generally speaking.

LOL - flattening the curve can certainly help to not overwhelm the hospitals. That's not to say that most everyone is not going to get Covid. Most everyone did.

The numbers would have been a ton better had authorities protected the elderly and infirm, instead of locking everyone down, and the ventillator craze was ridiculous. They snaked tubes down people's throats and many of those would otherwise have survived, because the practice for a while was to ventillate early, and those things are not great - they are sometimes necessary, but once that tube goes in, every doc will tell you it needs to come out as quickly as possibly..
It is amazing how nearly every debate I have with you, you invariably move the goalpost. The goalpost was "Does isolation reduce DEATHS in a pandemic", the answer is obviously YES in the context of not overwhelming the medical system.

You as per usual cannot argue this point and instead distract away to CASES OF INFECTION.
 
The independent Swedish Corona Commission, formed by the government after pressure from parliament, was critical of many aspects of how authorities acted during the pandemic, but the overall conclusion was positive:

The choice of path in terms of disease prevention and control, focusing on advice and recommendations which people were expected to follow voluntarily, was fundamentally correct. It meant that citizens retained more of their personal freedom than in many other countries … [and] many countries that have pursued [another] approach have experienced significantly worse outcomes than Sweden, indicating at present, at least, that it is highly uncertain what effect lockdowns have in fact had.49

When choices were made about pandemic strategies, the end result could not be known, and yet many politicians and journalists in countries including the United States, Britain, and Norway attacked Sweden fiercely for choosing an unusual and more liberal path. Why was that? Preben Aavitsland, Norway’s state epidemiologist, has recently come up with an explanation:
Click link above for full Article.
According to the article, “It seems likely that Sweden did much better than other countries in terms of the economy, education, mental health, and domestic abuse, and still came away from the pandemic with fewer excess deaths than in almost any other European country, and less than half that of the United States”.
 
Back
Top Bottom