(03-12-2021, 11:14 PM)flyboy77 link Wrote:Wrong, wrong and wrong. And no, those statements are a direct result of internal political pressures.....on Tegnell.
Gee David, get up to speed before you launch with that sort of stuff.
Read some of Gabriela Gomes' work.
The Brit Nic Lewis is onto it too.
https://www.nicholaslewis.org/why-herd-i...ht-update/
It's all about the heterogeneity of populations.
15% to 20% might even get the job done.....
As for the claim that Sweden has been an appalling failure, again rubbish.
The only ones saying Sweden is a failure is the MSM - the data does not reflect that at all.
And of course we couldn't acknowledge that the time tested methods, universally deployed, up to the end of 2019, are the optimum path.
Even with Ebola, lockdowns were never recommended., let alone mandated.
Why compare only to small Nordic nations? Strawman stuff.
Against the bigger Euro nations, they have done very well indeed.
I've already put up data on age adjusted excess deaths.....and if you want more on the Nordic comparison.....
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...id=3674138
It's all out there, most just don't do their homework but still feel happy to espouse vacuous claims.
One thing about Dr Tegnell is that he doesn't let others put words in his mouth. His admissions of underestimating herd immunity and taking Sweden down the wrong path are just that, admissions that he was wrong.
It's easy to find one or two folk with dissenting views but I prefer to rely on research published in highly regarded journals. For example:
Quote:Given an R0 value before lockdowns in most countries of between 2·5 to 3·5, we estimate the herd immunity required is about 60–72%. If the proportional vaccine efficacy, ε, is considered, the simple expression for pc becomes [1 – 1 / R0] / ε. If we assume ε is 0·8 (80%), then the herd immunity required becomes 75–90% for the defined range of R0 values. For lower efficacies, the entire population would have to be immunised. These overall estimates ignore heterogeneities that can make these figures lower or higher in specific locations.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...7/fulltext
Why compare Sweden with Norway and Denmark? I would have thought that was obvious :
Norway, Denmark and Sweden are culturally and geographically Scandinavian, have common borders, the same socioeconomics, shared history, similar social welfare and health systems, and Norway and Sweden have the same climatic constraints. Fortuitously, Norway and Denmark's combined population is almost equal to Sweden's. All three countries have strong social contracts and civil obedience is the norm. Norwegians and Swedes are used to long periods of isolation during long, harsh winters. Sweden is a little different in that its constitution only permits the declaration of a state of emergency in war time. In other words, it is comparing apples with apples and far more meaningful than comparing Sweden with Lithuania (204K cases and 3,363 deaths), or the other "herd mentality" countries like England (3.7M cases and 110K deaths) and the USA under Aurangzeb (29M cases and 545K deaths). Of course, Belgium (798K cases and 22.3K deaths) has a similar population to Sweden but its appalling COVID record reflects Belgian holiday destinations, an inadequate first response, an overwhelmed and compromised health system, freedom of movement across borders, and assumed causes of death, as well as a stratified society and infections spreading rapidly through ethic enclaves.
Similarly, there's no point in comparing Sweden with Australia and New Zealand with their natural advantages of ocean barriers to aid border control and, in Australia's case, State borders that can be closed as required.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?” Oddball