[Info-vax] COVID-19

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2020-12-13 kl. 23:20, skrev MG:
> On 13-Dec-2020 21:44, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> And "straight times"? Some Singapore newspaper?
> 
> It clearly says: "Strait".
> 

OK, sorry. Maybe that means differnt things. It was never my
intention to miss-spell something.

> 
>> What does they know about anything?
> 
> Okay, if you distrust a Singaporean news outlet.  Here are articles
> from Bloomberg, Fortune, BGR (featured in news applications on
> Samsung smartphones), Yahoo! News and the NY Post.  I hope you
> approve of these?
> 

I will not read them since they are based on misinterpretations
of the actual facts behind, one can tell that from the titel lines.

Note also that I think around 80% of the deaths so far has been in eldery
homes amongts multi- (what is it called, when you have multiple illneses
that already kept you "on the edge"). And that is to a lage degree due to
how the eldery care has been run the last 20-30 years with a large part
"outsourced" to privat entities driven by the next quarter "bottom line".

No "face mask" in the world had done any differnce to that.

Yes, one can simplify the situation and find some "single points of
failure", but it is not that simple when you look at the whole picture.

> 
>> I do not understand you fascination about Sweden... 
> 
> The 'fascination' grew because of Sweden's attitude and
> assumptions, dating back to a time when relatively little
> was still known about the virus (and before any vaccines
> were developed).

Such as? The strategy has always been that the spread of the infection
should be kept on a level where the hospital resoursed could take care
of it. And that has in large succeed. And second, that the infection
hould be kept oyt of the "risk groups" such as the elderer care homes.
That has to a large degree failed, due to the organisation of the care.

And Sweden has never had any "attitude" against anyone else.

Ad if you look at it more closely, most coutries have very similar
strategies. Yes, some coutries has tried to lock out the infection
completely, and failed. That simply doesn't work, in todays world.
Well, if you are not a naturally isolated part of the workd such as NZ.

> 
> If Sweden is right and the whole world is wrong,

No one is claiming that. It simply doesn't work in that way.

> then why has Sweden gradually changed its strategy: Are they right
> and bending to pressure, or is it an admission of poor
> judgement and mismanagement...?

The strategy has not changed, it is still exactly the same as from the
start. "Flatten the curve" and protect those in risk categories.

> 
> Another thing that should be noted about Sweden, in terms
> of spread and the infection rate: From what I read, in
> sociology studies and also casual observations, Swedes as
> a people are naturally rather distanced.

We are rellatively few spread over a rellatively large country, yes.
But apart from that, and in particular in the larger cities, there is
no "natural" distancing.