Sweden Resists COVID Hysteria

a reply to: chr0naut

New Zealand has nothing to do with this, because New Zealand was one of the biggest over-reactors in the world and still basically has its island closed off to the world. You may think that sparing some deaths due to a virus (which is a natural occurrence every year all over the world) is worth the extreme suspension of liberties, but many do not.

This is your lovely New Zealand and how your country reacted to a single COVID case. See my Jefferson quote in my signature block if you want to know my thoughts on that ridiculousness.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put New Zealand under strict lockdown on Tuesday after the country's first coronavirus case in six months was reported in the largest city of Auckland.

Ardern's "go hard, go early" strategy has helped curb COVID-19 but her announcement left people struggling to stack up essentials, businesses shutting abruptly and schools and offices making last-minute changes to go online.

All New Zealand will be in the toughest, level-four lockdown for at least three days from Wednesday. Auckland and Coromandel, a coastal town where the infected person also spent time, will be in lockdown for seven days.

Insanity that they would do this and that the general population would be okay with it. Your Bill of Rights guarantees the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government, yet people are constantly arrested in your country protesting these lockdowns (a right that they supposedly have) for breaking lockdown rules.

Do you accept this as okay in exchange for keeping a virus at bay that has a more-than 99% survivability rate for the average person?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, since your dodging the point, then just take it from December 30th and before...Sweden still did better, and without the dramatic and often unconstitutional mitigation efforts of the US and many of its states.

And explain specifically what mitigation efforts that Sweden has taken this year, since you have mentioned that more than once. Do they compare to what many/most places in America have done? If not, then it's not really much of an apples-to-apples comparison, but I'm happy to consider it if you want to explain it.

Then directly address the dramatic rise in US cases these last few months where Sweden, with a much later and slower vaccination effort overall, is lacking such a dramatic rise in cases.

Yes, in a post as long as mine, it's easy to avoid addressing the real points and just cherry-picking the last sentence, but you are the one complaining about people not wanting to discuss things that matter, so take your own advice and start discussing, otherwise just admit that your implications that Sweden is so bad off are full of...rotten picked cherries.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, since your dodging the point, then just take it from December 30th and before...Sweden still did better, and without the dramatic and often unconstitutional mitigation efforts of the US and many of its states.

And explain specifically what mitigation efforts that Sweden has taken this year, since you have mentioned that more than once. Do they compare to what many/most places in America have done? If not, then it's not really much of an apples-to-apples comparison, but I'm happy to consider it if you want to explain it.

Then directly address the dramatic rise in US cases these last few months where Sweden, with a much later and slower vaccination effort overall, is lacking such a dramatic rise in cases.

Yes, in a post as long as mine, it's easy to avoid addressing the real points and just cherry-picking the last sentence, but you are the one complaining about people not wanting to discuss things that matter, so take your own advice and start discussing, otherwise just admit that your implications that Sweden is so bad off are full of...rotten picked cherries.

Apples and oranges indeed. I never mentioned US cases.

I posted the stats in Sweden, which is the topic of this thread.

PS. The world does not revolve around the US.

May come as a shock to you but there it is.

Rotten picked cherries? If you say so. Whatever that might mean.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ooh. I have no shame. Here, why don't you debunk this article that is not business insider.

"Did the country pay an awful price en route to the apparent herd immunity? Well, certainly the Swedish death rate is higher than its Nordic neighbors Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Those are the comparisons you’ll hear. But it’s well below the rates for larger-population European countries including Belgium, Italy, the U.K., Romania, Spain, France, and Portugal. The U.S., too."

Modelers desperately tried to scare Sweden into locking down. One predicted an incredible median of 96,000 deaths, with a maximum of 183,000. At Sweden’s Lund University an academic used the parameters in the now-infamous Neil Ferguson/Imperial College model to warn that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala University team also found the nation paying a terrible price with 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by May 1, 2020 and almost 100,000 by June. Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.

www.aier.org...

That article that I quoted and linked is from July 30th 2021. I guess a lot changed in the less than 1 month in between my article and your article.

Or why don't you go over and read my thread about Sweden that points out all the hysterical media propaganda vs. How its really going.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And try and debunk that.

That article was from nearly a year ago. They did have an upswing again like other countries did. I do believe Sweden's response was adequate though. Less deaths per capita than many other countries that locked down lots harder than they did.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I know that the world doesn't revolve around the US (what an ignorant thing to say), but since the argument was that Sweden did little-to-nothing compared to other countries, I figured that I would use the US (since I live here and am dealing with the BS mandates) as an example of over-reactive lockdowns and mandates and how it got us nowhere in comparison.

Here, I'll remind you that part of the OP since it seems to have escaped your memory and then seem fit to lecture others on the topic of this thread:

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I wonder how Sweden managed to steer clear of the Vaxx and Lock downs? It is what it is. Sweden did nothing. And they are way better off than any other country.

So, you see, the topic of this thread includes comparing Sweden's response to other countries and how they are better off than those that did a lot of mitigating actions. Hopefully that doesn't come as a shock to you and your unwillingness to address things that directly contradict your comments and implications in this thread.

If you can't follow along with that, that is not my fault, but I respectfully request that you stop being dismissive of relevant things and actually address points that counter yours. And if you're unwilling to do so, then at least please stop berating others for not discussing things.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My point was and is that the OP's post is misleading and it is not true that Sweden "managed to steer clear of the Vaxx".

A simple point that no amount of deflection can dispel.

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ooh. I have no shame. Here, why don't you debunk this article that is not business insider.

"Did the country pay an awful price en route to the apparent herd immunity? Well, certainly the Swedish death rate is higher than its Nordic neighbors Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Those are the comparisons you’ll hear. But it’s well below the rates for larger-population European countries including Belgium, Italy, the U.K., Romania, Spain, France, and Portugal. The U.S., too."

Modelers desperately tried to scare Sweden into locking down. One predicted an incredible median of 96,000 deaths, with a maximum of 183,000. At Sweden’s Lund University an academic used the parameters in the now-infamous Neil Ferguson/Imperial College model to warn that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala University team also found the nation paying a terrible price with 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by May 1, 2020 and almost 100,000 by June. Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.

www.aier.org...

That article that I quoted and linked is from July 30th 2021. I guess a lot changed in the less than 1 month in between my article and your article.

Or why don't you go over and read my thread about Sweden that points out all the hysterical media propaganda vs. How its really going.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And try and debunk that.

Why should I have to debunk sites that you have to subscribe to before you can actually read them?

My point was about the OP, by the way.

Check out his many posts in the LOL bin.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Okay, so, again, no discussion on the relevant points that I brought up that deal with his claims both in what I quoted from his OP and the point in the title of this thread, and yet you lecture me on deflection.

Well done. Be proud. Best regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Okay, so, again, no discussion on the relevant points that I brought up that deal with his claims both in what I quoted from his OP and the point in the title of this thread, and yet you lecture me on deflection.

Well done. Be proud. Best regards.

Yeah. No discussion from me about your sources that require me to subscribe to them.

And nothing from you about Sweden supposedly having managed to steer "clear of the Vaxx"?

Well done. Be proud. Best. Zzzzzz...

originally posted by: CircumstancialEvidence
One of the many things I appreciate about Sweden is the incredibly detailed and accurate statistics they keep. I suspect it has to do with the nature of their Socialist government ...

(Sweden is not a Socialist government)

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: chr0naut

New Zealand has nothing to do with this, because New Zealand was one of the biggest over-reactors in the world and still basically has its island closed off to the world. You may think that sparing some deaths due to a virus (which is a natural occurrence every year all over the world) is worth the extreme suspension of liberties, but many do not.

This is your lovely New Zealand and how your country reacted to a single COVID case. See my Jefferson quote in my signature block if you want to know my thoughts on that ridiculousness.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put New Zealand under strict lockdown on Tuesday after the country's first coronavirus case in six months was reported in the largest city of Auckland.

Ardern's "go hard, go early" strategy has helped curb COVID-19 but her announcement left people struggling to stack up essentials, businesses shutting abruptly and schools and offices making last-minute changes to go online.

All New Zealand will be in the toughest, level-four lockdown for at least three days from Wednesday. Auckland and Coromandel, a coastal town where the infected person also spent time, will be in lockdown for seven days.

Insanity that they would do this and that the general population would be okay with it. Your Bill of Rights guarantees the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government, yet people are constantly arrested in your country protesting these lockdowns (a right that they supposedly have) for breaking lockdown rules.

Do you accept this as okay in exchange for keeping a virus at bay that has a more-than 99% survivability rate for the average person?

In this outbreak, over the last 2 weeks in New Zealand, there are now 736 who have tested positive, 42 of them in hospital, 6 of them in intensive care, and 3 of them on ventilators.

Clearly, if that happens in 2 weeks, the actions of locking down were not an overreaction, by a long shot.

Fortunately, New Zealand have seen two days of a slight reduction in numbers of new daily cases, so it looks likely that they will, once again, eliminate COVID-19's spread in the community, and then the lockdown will once again be over.

The virus does not have a 99% survivability ratio. Nowhere in the world is the survivability rate that high. That figure is entirely false. It would also imply that 1 in 100 will die, which is not acceptable to me, or to anyone with an ounce of humanity.

The amount of ignorance you bring to this topic is breathtaking, and, if anyone believed you, and acted upon it, dangerous.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

What sources did I share that requires a subscription? You can't read a graph? You can't Google "Sweden Covid Cases" and get that exact graph to pop up? That's why I used it, because it's the easiest thing to access, and it's without "a subscription," as you claim.

As for arguing with the OP about his claims, that's your penchant; I'm focused on YOUR silliness, YOUR apparent love of telling people to source things and have a discussion, and YOUR unwillingness to discuss relevant issues to your implied stance on this subject (taken from this and other threads).

But I'll answer your question: The OP's claim that Sweden steered clear from the vaccine is wrong, but it certainly was much slower to roll out, and as I noted in the graphic, Sweden STILL doesn't have a big enough supply to even have given every single adult in the nation one shot. So, you're insinuation that 66% of Sweden is vaccinated is misleading, since "being vaccinated" means that you have received the full dose of a vaccine.

Now if you have a moment once you wake up from your nap, would you answer my question since I answered yours?:

Can you show how the much lower mitigation efforts by Sweden compared to the US (again, since that's where I live...not because the world revolves around us) has caused any negative effect in Sweden surrounding COVID-19 versus how it has affected the US with all of our mitigation efforts (lockdowns, social distancing, mask mandates, some forced vaccinations, etc.)? And why, with our vaccination rates being so similar but the US' mitigation efforts being higher, is the US experience a dramatic increase over the past few months when Sweden is not?

And just so that you have a reference, this is what happens when I Google "COVID infections United States"...magically a graph shows up without a pay wall, so that excuse to not discuss this doesn't work.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hello Mr. Carpy

I don't have any issue with you or your views. They are your own after all

I only want to ask this... if the Covid-19 vaccine is now known to not be as effective as expected, and that one can still contract, spread and be susceptible to mortal eventualities after getting the vaccine, what in your opinion would be the driving factor in urging all people to get it?

I understand the benefit of the vaccine for people who are at risk and may have underlaying conditions. My question above is related to everyone else.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

AIER? For a start?

If your just going to get all supercilious and insulting I will leave you to it.

You can troll your bait elsewhere. I'm not rising to it.

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hello Mr. Carpy

I don't have any issue with you or your views. They are your own after all

I only want to ask this... if the Covid-19 vaccine is now known to not be as effective as expected, and that one can still contract, spread and be susceptible to mortal eventualities after getting the vaccine, what in your opinion would be the driving factor in urging all people to get it?

I understand the benefit of the vaccine for people who are at risk and may have underlaying conditions. My question above is related to everyone else.

But, I am not "urging" anyone to be vaccinated so you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I just try to deny ignorance. Which the OP has a very full history of spreading all over these boards.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hello Mr. Carpy

I don't have any issue with you or your views. They are your own after all

I only want to ask this... if the Covid-19 vaccine is now known to not be as effective as expected, and that one can still contract, spread and be susceptible to mortal eventualities after getting the vaccine, what in your opinion would be the driving factor in urging all people to get it?

I understand the benefit of the vaccine for people who are at risk and may have underlaying conditions. My question above is related to everyone else.

But, I am not "urging" anyone to be vaccinated so you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I just try to deny ignorance. Which the OP has a very full history of spreading all over these boards.

I agree with you there.
The OP is known to spread all kinds of bollocks and anyone who falls for it probably deserves it.

Not saying that you specifically are urging the vax... just curious as to why the powers that be are pushing it, given the facts in my earlier statement. It makes me wonder. I'm curious by nature

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hello Mr. Carpy

I don't have any issue with you or your views. They are your own after all

I only want to ask this... if the Covid-19 vaccine is now known to not be as effective as expected, and that one can still contract, spread and be susceptible to mortal eventualities after getting the vaccine, what in your opinion would be the driving factor in urging all people to get it?

I understand the benefit of the vaccine for people who are at risk and may have underlaying conditions. My question above is related to everyone else.

But, I am not "urging" anyone to be vaccinated so you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I just try to deny ignorance. Which the OP has a very full history of spreading all over these boards.

I agree with you there.
The OP is known to spread all kinds of bollocks and anyone who falls for it probably deserves it.

Not saying that you specifically are urging the vax... just curious as to why the powers that be are pushing it, given the facts in my earlier statement. It makes me wonder. I'm curious by nature

Possibly because your chances of getting covid or spreading it are reduced after vaccination.

Your chances of being seriously ill or dying or reduced even more.

a reply to: Kreeate

Me too. But I don't fall for all the eugenics, depopulation, sterilisation, microchipping Moonbat Crazy yapping on here. It's just me.

Why are they pushing it? Probably because they are just career politicians that have no clue how to deal with any crisis.

I prefer to follow the science. As best I can.

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Hello Mr. Carpy

I don't have any issue with you or your views. They are your own after all

I only want to ask this... if the Covid-19 vaccine is now known to not be as effective as expected, and that one can still contract, spread and be susceptible to mortal eventualities after getting the vaccine, what in your opinion would be the driving factor in urging all people to get it?

I understand the benefit of the vaccine for people who are at risk and may have underlaying conditions. My question above is related to everyone else.

But, I am not "urging" anyone to be vaccinated so you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

I just try to deny ignorance. Which the OP has a very full history of spreading all over these boards.

I agree with you there.
The OP is known to spread all kinds of bollocks and anyone who falls for it probably deserves it.

Not saying that you specifically are urging the vax... just curious as to why the powers that be are pushing it, given the facts in my earlier statement. It makes me wonder. I'm curious by nature

I like you, by the way.