The first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:
UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based.
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only.
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product."
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better.
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact.
The paper was very much too pessimistic.
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway.
The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown.
The results will eventually be similar for all countries.
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%.
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available.
Read the transcript retard > At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available. Is antibody testing available? No? Then shut the fuck up mutt
Hunter Perez
have and had are different things back to elementary school
Zachary Davis
Can't trust people who willingly give their land to nigges. Disgusting.
Anthony Davis
America is the only country that didn’t send shitty shipments of chink kits back. Spain, Netherlands, and Czech Republic all sent back 10s of millions of tests because 80% were defective, being only 33% accurate
Juan Murphy
When Sweden is the 8th highest large country in terms of per capita deaths, then they don’t get to tell the world their approach is the right one
Julian Robinson
What the actual fuck, how did they get Bane to do this?
Jayden Peterson
>At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available.
Sweden tested 74,600 people, 13,822 of them positive, that's approximately 20 % test hit rate. How is this possible if 50 % of the population is already infected? Do they specifically test the people they think *aren't* infected?
When ha random sampling tests been carried out? The only place has been Iceland & they found 50% of ppl had the virus, easy to isolate ppl in a country that has the population of a small city.
>Is antibody testing available? No? Yes. Abbott Labs has shipped 1 million new gen antibody tests this week (not China tier shit, but 99% reliable US made tests), and will ship 3 million until April 30, and 20 million in May
Dude, if at any point in time 20% of the population has the virus, and the infection lasts two weeks, you can sure as hell estimate that in 5-6 weeks time the amount of people who have or had the virus is around 50%.
William Evans
>Sweden tested 74,600 people, 13,822 of them positive, that's approximately 20 % test hit rate. How is this possible if 50 % of the population is already infected?
Corona has been around for months. The virus is - on average - detectable in 2-3 week timeframe.
Do the math, blacky.
In Germany we do a shitload of testing, but only for people with symptoms. Austria did a random virus sample test and concluded at any given time 5-10 times of the population more than being tested positive have the virus. And Austria has low deaths compared to Sweden, meaning, if they are at 5% overall population with antobodies, then Sweden is closer to 25%.
It's just a bullshit that many """experts""" nowaday spread under the presure of politics and businessmen.
When they did a randon sample tests in Austria two weeks ago the result was that the share of infected in total population was definitely less than 1%. The hotspots usually have 15-20 %.
And then there are schizo conspirators that tell you in the media that 50% had already had it, even though it is not even physically possible. That would just mean that the virus has absolutely amazing and never ever seen before speed of spreading.
You know what is even more funny? You hear these opinions in official media, but when you try to find sone cure or medicine, they try to ban you if your cure is not 100% big-pharma "scientificaly" proven to be working. And if you place on youtube some videos about some medicines having a possible positive effect in curing the disease, they ban you for spreading fake news.
And in reality the real media spread the "nothingburger propaganda" or the "we already catched it" propaganda, event though it is total bullshit without any scientific background.
They just want us back in factories, dying like cattle, that is it.
Cameron Sanchez
>Dude, if at any point in time 20% of the population has the virus No, 20 % of the people tested had the virus. You know, they people they presumably tested specifically because they showed symptoms or were in contact with people who were infected? If, at any point, 20 % of the population was infected, then this testing was a colossal failure, no better then random sampling. How is that possible?
William Kelly
how do you expect herd immunity with lockdown?
Xavier Garcia
And not just Austria.
Stanford did an antibody test random sample. Iceland has done PRC random sampling. Early on, Italy did one do.
Germany did antibody testing for a whole town.
And around 2 dozen more sampling studies are ongoing or beginning next week.
Alexander Ross
>Austria did a random virus sample test and concluded at any given time 5-10 times of the population more than being tested positive have the virus.
Which means less than 1% of Austrian population. Keep in mind that Austria had a quick start of the disease and was close to Italian hotspot with lots of mountain resorts open. They could have been another Lombardy yet they acted quickly and stop the spread. Now imagine if they really had the "dude in reality 30% of people had it"...
Liam Fisher
bump
Nolan Evans
Stop being rational. You want to be cautious? Go fuck yourself
Levi Foster
>Wouldn’t it be a good idea to verify that getting infected actually leads to long term immunity first? You can only do that afterwards.
Scientists did it for SARS-1 though, which is (despite all the naysayers) very similar to SARS-2. It showed an average 3yr immunity due to persistent antibodies.
>if at any point in time 20% of the population has the virus
You haven't tested 20%. 20% of The tested are positive and most of those are symptomatic.
Samuel Gray
>we already catched it The past tense for catch is caught. When adjusting the model for the amount of old fucks present the cruise ships and navy vessels that were infected suggests that close to 50% of urban populations are infected.
Adrian Butler
They send you away and don't test you if you aren't symptomatic.
