4 ms·

> They most certainly did try to pursue herd immunity, but didn't message it publically. The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly d

by brmgb 6y ago

> They most certainly did try to pursue herd immunity, but didn't message it publically. The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly discussing the impact of keeping school open balancing the potential death in the elderly population against the immunity boost. The official message from Sweden has always been they were trying to keep the virus manageable while minimizing the impact on society. This seems to have resulted in more deaths that their direct neighbors (but less than other countries in Europe). History will be able to judge with the full data. As an aside, The Guardian coverage on coronavirus is generally awful. They usually deeply misrepresent/misunderstand what's happening in France for example.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
> The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly discussing the impact of keeping school open balancing the potential death in the elderly population against the immunity boost. What is this "immunity boost" you speak of? It sounds like a less intellectually brave version of herd immunity to me. Tegnell, unlike some, did not mince words when he said “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster”. He obviously had that as an object in mind when making decisions. Herd immunity (or 'immunity boosting') was a disastrous policy and the link below goes into some detail as to the basic conceit of the position. > This is especially clear in Sweden, where the authorities publicly predicted 40% seroconversion in Stockholm by May 2020; the actual IgG seroprevalence was around 15% https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076820945282 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768209452...
- tjoff 6y ago
  Ever heard the term flatten the curve? That is the same as the "herd immunity strategy". There are only two ways of getting herd immunity, either through a vaccine or "naturally". In march it became apparent that stopping covid would not be possible (at least in Sweden) and the time frame of a potential vaccine was unknown - possibly that it would arrive too late to be useful. At that point in time there is only one strategy left, herd immunity. The ONLY choice you have is how you want to approach it. Full lock-down and wait for vaccine? - not practically enforceable nor desirable. No restrictions? - Would overrun the hospitals and lead to massive suffering even outside of corona victims (at least in countries with an old population, for countries with a very young population that could very well be the best hing you could do). Flatten the curve is about curbing the spread so that the hospitals can keep up. Not about stopping the disease. Navigating that road is full of compromises. Taking more risk with children in schools - that have a lot to loose on a lock-down but has low chance of getting seriously ill shouldn't be that of a controversial statement. Even if it turns out that the assumptions made when making that decision was wrong. There are of course infinite considerations to make but yes, of course he had that in mind when making decisions! As he should have.

by brmgb 6y ago

scoopertrooper 6y ago

> The email published by The Guardian don't support this. He is mainly discussing the impact of keeping school open balancing the potential death in the elderly population against the immunity boost. What is this "immunity boost" you speak of? It sounds like a less intellectually brave version of herd immunity to me. Tegnell, unlike some, did not mince words when he said “One point would be to keep schools open to reach herd immunity faster”. He obviously had that as an object in mind when making decisions. Herd immunity (or 'immunity boosting') was a disastrous policy and the link below goes into some detail as to the basic conceit of the position. > This is especially clear in Sweden, where the authorities publicly predicted 40% seroconversion in Stockholm by May 2020; the actual IgG seroprevalence was around 15% https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076820945282 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768209452...

tjoff 6y ago
Ever heard the term flatten the curve? That is the same as the "herd immunity strategy". There are only two ways of getting herd immunity, either through a vaccine or "naturally". In march it became apparent that stopping covid would not be possible (at least in Sweden) and the time frame of a potential vaccine was unknown - possibly that it would arrive too late to be useful. At that point in time there is only one strategy left, herd immunity. The ONLY choice you have is how you want to approach it. Full lock-down and wait for vaccine? - not practically enforceable nor desirable. No restrictions? - Would overrun the hospitals and lead to massive suffering even outside of corona victims (at least in countries with an old population, for countries with a very young population that could very well be the best hing you could do). Flatten the curve is about curbing the spread so that the hospitals can keep up. Not about stopping the disease. Navigating that road is full of compromises. Taking more risk with children in schools - that have a lot to loose on a lock-down but has low chance of getting seriously ill shouldn't be that of a controversial statement. Even if it turns out that the assumptions made when making that decision was wrong. There are of course infinite considerations to make but yes, of course he had that in mind when making decisions! As he should have.