In comparing the UK response to another state that has not it could be useful in seeing how it could have panned out for us. If the UK hadn’t been furloughed en masse with the almost inevitable recession (the worst for 300 years according to the Governor of The Bank Of England in a recent ITV News interview, but apparently barely mentioned now)
Sweden has not enforced any strict mass quarantine measures to contain COVID-19, nor has it closed any of its borders. Instead, Swedish health authorities issued a series of guidelines on social distancing and other measures, areas like strict hygiene, travel, public gatherings, and protecting the elderly were covered in these guidelines. Quite civilized really.
They have kept all nursery schools, primary and senior (ages 11-16) schools open, but closed college and universities ,who now do their work and lectures online. Many bars and restaurants remained open, and shoppers do not have to perform the ritual of queuing around outside, sometimes onto the street, standing 2 meters apart as has become usual at UK supermarkets.
According to the Sweden’s top scientists, they are well on the way to achieving a natural herd immunity, like the one Boris Johnson alluded prior to the lock down. here It seems this particular Scandinavian model has already won the debate.
Because Sweden decided to follow real epidemiological science, as opposed to Ferguson’s 13 year old computer model it seems, and pursue a strategy of herd immunity, (just like we normally do for seasonal flu,) it doesn’t need to “flatten of the curve” because its strategic approach has the added benefit of achieving a much more gradual and wider spread, based on human immune response.
Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s government advisor for epidemiology has stated “We are all trying to keep the spread of this disease as low as possible, mainly to prevent our healthcare system from being overstretched (same objective as UK), but we have not gone for the complete lockdown. We have managed to keep the number of cases low enough so the intensive care units have kept working and there has always been 20 per cent beds empty and enough protective equipment, even in Stockholm, where there has been a huge stress on healthcare. So in that way the strategy has worked.”
It doesn’t have the deal with the next “crisis” which lockdown advocates seem to be using as an excuse not to reopen society and the economy, which the fear of a “second peak here ” which our government is telling the public will wreak havoc on the country by “infecting the vulnerable” and will “overwhelm the NHS” if everything is reopened and social isolation and distancing is relaxed.
This catch-22 which countries like the UK are caught in, is based on the belief that the corona virus might suddenly unleash itself again on the populace.
Certainly, there could be a second surge, but it should be noted that this is also a direct result of the decision to impose lockdown in the first place. No one has had the opportunity to develop an immunity.
It should have become obvious after it was revealed by the Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director for Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that the peak of the UK’s coronavirus “crisis” actually came a full week before Boris Johnson initiated lockdown on March 23rd.
In fact, if you use Sweden’s actual data into Neil Ferguson’s own infamous computer model which sent the UK government into quarantine mode, here’s what you would get this
Dr. Micheal Ryan, WHO head of emergency management said, “What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of its citizens to implement self-distancing and self-regulate.” This is surely haow any developed nation would treat its citizens. Certainly one that is home to the orinal parliament and that drafted the Magna Carta?
More than anything, this speaks to the relationship between people and their governments. Indeed, it is the social contract between government and its people which forms the core of the country’s policy formation.
The idea that the choice of lockdown policy is a straight trade-off between lives and livelihoods is a false, simplistic one which ignores many other factors which need to be considered.
The state does not have to threaten and abuse its citizens for things like not observing social distancing and buying ‘non essential items’ when out shopping, or meeting in small groups – as the UK are doing. Swedes know the risks and observe government guidelines accordingly. In lock down countries like the UK, the bad blood between the public and government will not evaporate after the ‘crisis’ is over.
Recent figures for Sweden, which has a population of roughly 10.5 million, show it has recorded 21,092 cases and 2,586 fatalities from COVID-19, that’s roughly 256 deaths per million people.
By contrast, its southern neighbor Denmark which has a population of 5.8 million has recorded 9,1058 cases and 452 fatalities, roughly 78 deaths per million persons. Norway is similar population at 5.4 million, and has recorded 7,738 cases and 210 deaths, that’s 39 deaths per million. Finland has a population of 5.5 million confirmed just 4,995 cases and 211 deaths, with 38 deaths per million.
To put things in even more perspective, while Sweden suffered 2,586 COVID19 deaths in 2020, back in 2018 there were approximately 6,997 total respiratory disease deaths in Sweden, the country’s healthcare capacity was not overrun, nor were any of their public systems stretched to breaking point.
The best approach would have been to protect those most directly effected by Covid19 which is overwhelmingly the elderly and those in palliative care – a policy which would eventually bring a population herd immunity as a natural by-product of that policy.
In a recent interview with Radio 5, leading Swedish epidemiologist, Dr. Johan Gieseck, remarked how the UK had initially proposed the same plan as Sweden, but then Boris Johnson came under intense pressure from the MSM and opposition after the arrival of Imperial College’s notorious “500,000 dead” paper presented to the government by Ferguson.As reported by the Mail here
As a result, UK officials quickly changed course in a “180 degree U-turn,” said Gieseck, who was also shocked how an unpublished paper relying on computer models and with no peer review – could have played such a crucial role in altering such an important policy decision.
How did that happen? One only has to look at the obvious link of funding between the UK government, Imperial College and the Gates Foundation (as I outlined in part 2) to get an answer to that question.
Again, who and what is driving western governments’ disastrous lockdown policy?
After looking at the evidence, we can rule out one possibility: it’s certainly not science.
If you appreciated this article and would like to support us, would you consider a one off small donation?
(any currency can be selected)