4 ms·
I only see one of these three options: 1. He's aiming for herd immunity, using the people who are the less likely to have severe cases to protect the most vuln
by ewidar 6y ago
I only see one of these three options:
1. He's aiming for herd immunity, using the people who are the less likely to have severe cases to protect the most vulnerable
2. He believes the death toll will really not be that high to justify the actions that we are taking to prevent the virus from spreading
3. He does not care about the deaths, and the faster they die, the faster we can go back to normal
Of course I don't think he believes in number 3, which is quite horrible in my opinion.
Regarding 2, the numbers emerging of the population that has actually contracted the virus seem to be much smaller than what Giesecke was assuming. So it would seem correct to assume that the death toll is going to be much higher than he was anticipating based on a wrong hypothesis.
To me it only leaves number 1 as a potentially valid approach that does not rely on quarantine.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoThanks for clarifying that your attribution of this strategy to Giesecke is entirely your own invention.
- tapland 6y agoIt wouldn't make much sense to use population who have antibodies as the main goal, and view the peak as desired but reached without further restrictions because of increased resistance in thebpopulation as an argument otherwise. He isn't arguing for lowering infection rates as long as healthcare holds, but for increased immunity. That's not something to be mad about.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoFolkhälsomyndigheten has now spent over a month outright denying that the strategy is aiming for herd immunity: the strategy is purely dedicated to keeping the pressure on the health services manageable. This isn't really an issue about where you personally think it's the correct strategy, rather it's a about whether you believe what the authorities tell you. The most credible connection to FHM this strategy has is that a former employee wrote a mail explaining the reasoning of not closing the schools to a friend who is a politician working on local school issues, the friend then (with permission) shared the text further on FB. > Den tidigare statsepidemiologen Annika Linde hade inte tänkt ge sig in i diskussionen om Folkhälsomyndighetens strategi för att bekämpa det nya coronaviruset. > > – Jag halkade in på ett bananskal, säger hon. > > Bananskalet var en fråga den 12 mars från en lokal skolpolitiker som ville ha hjälp att förklara varför det är rätt av Sverige att inte stänga skolorna. > > Varför säger inte Folkhälsomyndigheten bara att flockimmunitet är planen, undrar folk i sociala medier upprört efter Lindes inlägg. Andra tycker att planen låter rimlig. > > – Sedan förnekade Folkhälsomyndigheten att det var tänkt så, säger Annika Linde. > [...] > > Den tidigare statsepidemiologen Annika Linde tänker inte så mycket på att hennes budskap om den svenska strategin tog sig hela vägen till Vita huset, säger hon. Däremot tänker hon fortfarande att flockimmunitet är målet för Sverige, i väntan på ett vaccin. Men hon försöker låta bli att kommentera sina efterträdares arbete. > > – Det finns något som kallas ”lösa kanoner på däck”. De skjuter lite hit och dit och kan träffa skeppet och sänka det helt och hållet och sedan inte ha något ansvarstagande. Så jag nöjer mig numera med att svara på enstaka frågor, som nu från dig om att jag inte höll tyst där i början. https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverigebilden-under-coronakrisen/ https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverigebilden-under-coronakrisen/