Let’s see how the second quarter is there, is my point. (And I didn’t mention lockdown. Christy is right.)
Isn’t that the main difference in the Swedish approach? Personal responsibility vs. mandated lockdown?
Or is there some other difference you want to discuss?
And if we are so much closer now to herd immunity, why didn’t Dr. Birx even mention it, I wonder. Maybe because it’s a long way off, if ever.
We may not be done with surprises, either. Now it’s being considered that COVID-19 is a blood vessel disease and not primarily a respiratory one, because of the extent of microclots and tissue damage to organs and everything else. So maybe it behooves us to make the ultimate personal sacrifice and wear a mask. For others’ sakes, and potentially our own.
2 Likes
That wouldn’t be polite. 
1 Like
This does seem to be the approach that CNN is taking — present the outlier effect as standard and terrifying.
And it’s the antimaskers (along with antivaxxers) that are making the accusations, sowing distrust and buying into conspiracist thinking. I don’t feel mongered nor terrified.
2 Likes
And if our wearing masks could potentially prevent my neighbor’s little girl from getting MIS-C, what do think we should do? “Oh, she’s an outlier, sorry about that.” My freedumb to not wear a mask was more important.
1 Like
I prefer the Bible’s definition of prudence:
The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty. [Proverbs 22:3]
We are paying the penalty. But in New Zealand they have been prudent. They have reached zero new cases – that’s right, ZERO – without a vaccine.
New Zealand has shown us what prudence looks like. They are able to resume economic activities without inhibition. That is a goal of public health policy, don’t you think? Isn’t the New Zealand solution – zero cases, complete economic recovery – worth exploring?
Chris
3 Likes
Chris,
There are more dangers than just Covid-19.
Perhaps some people see dangers that you do not see, and their responses may help you avoid future penalties.
By the way, New Zealand is not quite down to zero new cases.
What, all those killed by this policy chose to be did they?
Like what? . . .
Like what?
Food insecurity, economic hardship, depression and suicide, starvation, domestic abuse, children’s education stunted, loss of freedoms…
OXFAM said this week that more people may die from the disruption in the food supply than from the disease.
A report I posted some weeks ago predicted increased suicides.
There is more to life than avoiding a naturally occurring disease. Avoiding the disease is important, but it is not the only danger.
Not in the developed world they won’t.
1 Like
That would be an accusation of fearmongering, right?
@03Cobra, the encourager.
If we were at the New Zealand level of cases, we could run the economy at full capacity and avoid all of these problems.
Chris
And how much of all 03’s list could be prevented by everyone making the oh-so-severe sacrifice of wearing a mask.
1 Like
Shocking.
…masks are the best protection we can give them.
1 Like
Yes. The ones who are likely to die, those who have relatives likely to die, and those who have friends likely to die.
3 Likes
But it’s not exactly zero Chris! 
I am glad this thread is back though, I think we all missed it dearly as we were in the “hey we opened up and see it wasn’t so bad” phase.
Including the guy who designed that approach, I guess:
Sweden should have handled its coronavirus response differently, the country’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell told broadcaster Sveriges Radio in an interview Wednesday.
Tegnell, who had long championed Sweden’s liberal lockdown policies, said too many people had died from COVID-19 to justify the country’s looser pandemic approach.
5 Likes