Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A report from Capital Economics published on Tuesday found that the Swedish economy was the least harmed in Europe
probably because they didn't shut their economy down like we did.
Only reason they suffered , was from supply chains no longer running because of ridiculous and very damaging shutdowns in other countries.
I think Sweden did the correct thing and lockdowns did nothing but delay the virus. In the last 30 years, they actually had flu deaths higher than covid. It still amazes me how many countries just locked down, and then were shocked when they opened up the virus spread. Like they hoped it would disappear (trust me we all do, but lets be realistic).
Over the next 4 to 6 months, I think Sweden is going to look better and better with their numbers, but yet most countries are still continuing to lock down once cases go up slightly. And that isn't even counting deaths. This has completely gone political has in the USA it was about not overwhelming the hospitals and when we didn't we have still continued with lock downs and still destroyed businesses. Or selected which businesses are "essential" and those that aren't. Are they not all essential if they employ someone. The death rate of those not from covid from these lock downs will be worse than the virus itself, and that part should go down as the biggest disaster in the last 100 years or so.
I think Sweden did the correct thing and lockdowns did nothing but delay the virus. In the last 30 years, they actually had flu deaths higher than covid.
Huh?
According to WHO in the 2018-2019 flu season Sweden had 2,701 deaths.
In the six months since covid-19 has impacted Sweden there have been 5,835 deaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeavingMA
The death rate of those not from covid from these lock downs will be worse than the virus itself, and that part should go down as the biggest disaster in the last 100 years or so.
I think Sweden did the correct thing and lockdowns did nothing but delay the virus. In the last 30 years, they actually had flu deaths higher than covid. It still amazes me how many countries just locked down, and then were shocked when they opened up the virus spread. Like they hoped it would disappear (trust me we all do, but lets be realistic).
Of course the virus spread when things opened back up. The purpose of locking down was to ration the number of patients needing hospitalization, so that hospitals would get overwhelmed, as they had in Italy. That effort was successful. But Sweden also was euthanizing the elderly who showed Covid symptoms, rather than sending them to the hospital; especially the rural and small-town elderly. That's one way they kept their hospitals from getting overwhelmed. They also have been successfully treating ICU patients with Vitamin C and something similar to hydroxycholoquine, since last May.
You know all those folks walking around with masks on? That's because of COVID.
I remember that part well. Everyone -- well, 95% of folks -- wore surgical masks from March till May until the virus died out from having nowhere to go but hardly anyone wears masks here anymore unless they're on public transportation.
According to WHO in the 2018-2019 flu season Sweden had 2,701 deaths.
In the six months since covid-19 has impacted Sweden there have been 5,835 deaths.
I don't understand what you mean here.
You picked one flu season. Sweden had two flu seasons in the last 30 years that were worse than covid. I think it was 2008 and 1993.
My main point is locking people down causes tons of issues that we won't see for years. In the United States, suicides, drug use, child abuse is all up substantially due to lock down. And this is with relatively healthy people when the average age of death of covid is 78 and they have at least one to two underlying conditions. So we are basically trying to sacrifice those with very little life left for those who could live for 40 to 50 years longer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say someone who is 80 isn't important, just saying we are making non rational decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
