I maintain that the Swedish way is more about the sensibility of the individual than it is the top-down approach (or lack of it). You apply the same measures in other cultures and geographies and you would have starkly different outcomes, as evidenced in many places (unless you posit that lockdowns or government measures CAUSE widespread infections). So where the individual approach is compromised (people in care facilities like the elderly who can't take care of themselves) you saw the higher death rate in those areas when compared to the other Nordic countries. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts, Sweden should have had spot-approaches for these situations, but overrode those concerns too long in favor of this almost cult-like obeisance to the "father of the nation" Tegnell. I'm not saying they didn't learn from mistakes or that the government approach was a total failure. I think it went the way it went in Sweden due to the personal responsibility individuals took among other factors. And people in various countries did the same. So of course there is limited efficacy of government mandates and policies, but then again that also doesn't mean there shouldn't be a government policy beyond reminding people to be responsible. So again I say the results in certain countries are to great degree culturally, geographically, population density, lifestyle, etc., defined. And perhaps a stronger government response in a similar country (like another Nordic country) was less effective than the same response in a country culturally and geographically dissimilar. So I do not see the Swedish way as one universally applicable. And I can't see anyone making that claim based on consideration of all the aforementioned. Take for instance the incessant eating out at restaurants which is such an integral part of American society. It is so in cities as well as in the smallest towns in the countryside. And it did not stop during COVID. Fast food galore. You can't underestimate the difference cultural factors like this can make in spread. Just imagine Sweden having the tourism influx of a country such as Italy, of which 1/4th of the economy is tourism. Likewise, New York with its travel influx and its gigantic infection rates and death tolls (1000 people a day at one point). Imagine these had adopted "The Swedish Way". The spread is due to specific conditions like these, not assuaged by any approach of the Swedish government. They were able to adopt their measures due to the general condition of that country. So again it cannot be a general recommendation of other conditions/countries. Imagine travel wouldn't have been suspended in NYC or Italy at those crucial points. There is just no justification for generalization here.
No, Yen, you are absolutely wrong about the Swedish way! I already explained this to you, earlier in the thread (not that you responded, since you simply ignore that which does not fit your guru's prejudices and dogma) - not once - but you are just Teutonicaly pig-headed about it! Even the chief architect of the "Swedish way" stated that they would do it differently now, having learnt a few things about it in the meantime, i.e. admitting gross errors in judgement, akin to 'your' "thinking". Despite all that, they continued unabated, more-or-less, with huge amounts of dead people in the wake (at least 4 - 5 times greater number than their 3 Scandiland neighbours COMBINED!!!). I know why that is, I lived there for 3 1/2 years. They are even worse when it comes to superiority complex than the proverbial Teutons... "The jewel in the crown of the Teutons". The rose of the Teutons. They are now paying a huge price! A while back somebody came up with this: "If all the countries of the world were as 'successful' as Sweden, the world would have had 4,5 million people dead, instead of 1 million". But it doesn't make you think... Case-Sensitive actively routes for it (the "culling of Humanity"). You are on the same page - but Buddhistically so... Suffering is "good"... I beg to differ!
Do you think the appearance of SARS-COV-2 is mere coincidence? And the way psycholeaders responded with a clockwork agenda? Rhetorical questions, of course.
Coincidence meaning two incidents occurring in tandem/together. So yes, it's coincidence if that. They didn't all occur together in time and in the same way though. Not all leaders responded in clockwork agenda at all (nor do I think it's even a fair thing to say in the first place) because some like Trump felt that the stock market was more important so they suppressed the seriousness of the virus for months. Your questions are already saturated with the indictment. And therefore you're right to say they are rhetorical, but I doubt you understood what you just admitted to. Namely that you're not truly asking these questions. Which is probably why you will never find certainty regarding the answers, because you're not looking for truth, you're looking for what fits your narrative.
I wonder: Is the appearance of SARS-COV-2 a mere coincidence? And the way psycholeaders responded with a clockwork agenda to lock their people up, a mere coincidence too? I don't think so.
What you do is you keep bringing up different scenarios to feed your broad suspicion of (by this point) everything. But you don't change your approach in any significant way to include more rigor and more intellectual accountability. So if you set the mental machine up this way, whatever you throw into it,the result that keeps coming out will have the same shape and characteristic. To me you don't seem to let the data change you. You keep looking for the data that fits your views. I think we all do that to an extent. But at least to me your approach seems to have a low likelihood of producing different results *even* when significantly different data gets introduced to it. Why the blanket, all-out suspicion of the entire world's governments? There is no reason to go there at all. That interpretation is just way beyond reasonable and also not congruent with one's previous world view I would think. You can better be the judge of that, but I am saying it comes across to me that way. I know we're just riffing, but it does make me wonder if this entertainment for you or something like that. Does it make you feel special to have this kind of off-beat view of everything? You know, some people try to establish themselves by trying to exist outside the mainstream as a way to affirm their identity. I notice it's mostly males doing this. Women don't usually seem to go that conspiratorial and maintain their common sense and emotional and societal accountability intact more (generally speaking).
So, a guy says "Last night we saw Contagion (2011). Well, you morons, the whole C-19 scenario is right there in the tiniest of details, you idiots, keep believing it occurred "naturally", yeah, right, dumb-asses..." And the other guy answers: "M8, you should check out "Dumbo"! Elephants flying and all - it's way out there, for real...."
Just in case... "It's dry up here - it's a lie we're sinking! "I won't get hypothermia if I drink chlorine dioxide!" "Nobody can make me put on a lifesaving jacket!! "Only the elderly and non-swimmers will die!" "My neighbour had diabetes, she did not die of drowning!" "1500 dead? Meh, more people die each year of strokes!" "This was financed by the lifeboat industry!"
Russian roulette is harmless! As 5 out of 6 participants can vouch! It was used in Florida, thanx to its gov'ner...
Dictatorship, mmhhyeaaahhh... Corruption, mmmmyaaahhh... Unemployment, baaaahhhhh.... WHAT, MASKS?!?!?!?!? AARARRGHGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. X should really get banned from MDL. Not because of his views -- he has a right to his views and so does everyone else. But it is another matter when he starts abusing other members through PM, where he says what he won't allow himself to say publicly, but is a confirmation of his low character and intelligence. This is what he sent me in PM: This is what it means, translated: So now you know what kind of characters we're dealing with here.
Well written text is tolerant He didn't come to your house with a gun and didn't stand near the door? Then everything is fine ……… .this is life (Another question? How did you get the person so bad, what is the attitude? Maybe you are an NSA agent provocateur) You are lucky to be writing this! People come to us and speak aloud right in the face - you can hear enough of this in a day! People are different - this does not mean that they are bad.
Vlad, this is as ridiculous as you can get... This is worthy of a sanction, if a temporary one, provided there is an apology. No one should abuse anyone like that, full stop. But I hope it's a temporary aberration, rather than a full fallback to this kind of behaviour I hoped he left behind, as he professed and promised not to continue with...
Surely, the principle must be this: "Being locked down as a single person is bloody awful. What makes it worse is tedious libertarians trying to shame people like me who stick to the rules because we understand our obligations to one another." On the other hand, we certainly must think strategically on the issues: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/resources/horrible-history-big-pharma#.X-f840RU5bA.twitter As I mentioned earlier, the Goethe Institute in Frankfurt led by prof. Đikić, in collaboration with some local specialists, made a very quick discovery of how the virus proliferates and they passed the knowledge on IMMEDIATELY, in the spirit of Open Source, publishing it straight away!!!! Capitalism has failed us and it keeps failing us on oh so many levels, when it comes to any of this stuff, especially the neo-liberal variant!!! "The horrible history of Big Pharma December 2020 Why we can’t leave pharmaceutical corporations in the driving seat of the Covid-19 response Any long-term solution to the deadly Covid-19 pandemic involves the discovery and equitable distribution of an effective vaccine and treatment options. Yet, across the world, governments are handing responsibility for Covid-19 solutions over to big pharmaceutical firms, who have a long track record of prioritising corporate profit over people’s health. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the biggest and most profitable in the world. Many of the individual corporations that constitute ‘Big Pharma’ enjoy annual revenues well in excess of the majority of countries on the planet. Judged by revenue, Johnson & Johnson is wealthier than even rich countries like New Zealand and Hungary. Pfizer’s revenues are bigger than oil-rich Kuwait or Malaysia. Leaving Moderna aside, which currently has no products on the market, the six other giant corporations covered in this report made combined revenues of $266 billion last year, with profits of $46 billion. Consider these figures in comparison with the US’s unprecedented programme of public spending on vaccine development, which could reach $18 billion,1 but is currently at around £11 billion, most of which has been handed over to the same rich corporations detailed in this report. Many commentators look at the work of some of these corporations in 2020 – developing vaccines at breakneck speed – and conclude that, whatever the problems with ‘Big Pharma’, they have nearly delivered the goods. But this is to miss many important elements of the story which, when taken together, show that the current pharmaceutical model is actually deeply flawed, with its drive to make sky-high returns to shareholders, not a healthier population. The pursuit for very high returns incentivises the most appalling behaviour. Everyone wants to end this pandemic as quickly as possible. Most of us are excited by the positive vaccine trial results and amazed by the ingenuity of the scientists who have got us to this stage so quickly. And yet, we could do better and help end the pandemic in a fair and equitable way. Imagine if the drive of the pharmaceutical corporations for ever greater profit was removed from the equation. Imagine if we could replace cutthroat competition and secrecy with collaboration and openness. Imagine if our research was driven solely by the desire to rid the world of disease and suffering, starting with the most serious and deadly conditions. When combined with our technological knowhow, the dedication of our brilliant researchers and the trust which such a model could inspire in the population at large, imagine what we could achieve. Coronavirus gives us the opportunity to reset the way we produce medicines. If we seize the opportunity, the health of people across the world could look very different. If we achieve that, this awful pandemic could give way to a better, fairer world."
Capitalism turned out to be the biggest modern utopia. Its reality is poverty, hard work, oppression and exploitation of people. "Karl Marx" I can only say that this will never happen! Pharmaceutical companies, and influential people, will not do this - This is contrary to the nature of the oppressor of the people. ---------------- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposes new rules. Do they want to have control everywhere? https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28437.pdf