Just so you folks don't wonder if you missed something that helped, the summary FTA: "Writing about the COVID-19 response in their country, molecular biologist Andrew Ewing and activist Kelly Bjorkland wrote in their article for Time, âthe Swedish way has yielded little but death and miseryâ"
The introduction is sobering: "At the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Swedenâs public health agency, Folkhälsomyndigheten (FHM), opted for a âde-facto herd immunity approach, allowing community transmission to occur relatively uncheckedâ <5. While the agency did recommend limiting gatherings to 50 people or less on March 29, 2020, there were no mandatory measures taken to limit crowds on transport, in malls, schools, and other crowded places <5. The government acknowledged the fatal risk of such a strategy; on April 3, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said, â will have to count the dead in thousands. It is just as well that we prepare for itâ <4. In early May, the FHM predicted that 40% of Stockholmâs population would have gotten the disease, recovered, and have protective antibodies; but, according to the antibody studies published on Sept. 3 by the agency, based on samples collected through June, that number was only 11.4% <4. In August, a study by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine stated that herd immunity was still ânowhere in sightâ <7. However, even as the death toll in the country climbed, the government reaffirmed its faith in the strategy, despite the fact that herd immunity against an infectious disease has never been achieved without the aid of a vaccine <4."
-
More similar thoughtful, measured, scientific articles about this topic are extremely easy to find.
Quick update by folks that have a broad, fact-based understanding of the problem (instead of internet disinformation). Now, slaves do what they're forced to do - but wise (wo)men are guided by the rightness of their actions.
Quick update by folks that have a broad, fact-based understanding of the problem (instead of internet disinformation). Now, slaves do what they're forced to do - but wise (wo)men are guided by the rightness of their actions.
Is science fact based? Are probability distributions "facts"? Are confidence intervals "facts"? Are the results of massive simulations (think climate and weather models) "facts"?
Modern risk management relies on science but does it rely on scientific facts? Which ones?
In terms of individual responses to the pandemic, the real divide is socio-economic, not left, centre or right. That is hard to talk about in respectful, helpful terms.
Must admit that over the course of the pandemic, I have often wondered what is wrong with the US public education system.
Kinda swinging wildly there. I'd start with the most important beginning - differentiating facts from opinions, which is the primary mess. Once you leave that behind, and stick to things that are, in the case of immunizations and health care, measurable and quantifiable, then you live in the world of facts.
From those data that are collected, specialists can create imaginary futures/treatments/outcomes based on probabilities. But, inasmuch as these are imagined futures, I think you're leaving the realm of facts.
Risk management, preventative health care, even most "western" treatment is tied to the idea of double blind, peer reviewed studies to prove that the base ideas - the facts - are legitimate ones. A lot of things are holdovers from the days of superstition (don't go outside; you'll catch cold) and they have cultural tenacity because they seem to pan out even though they're just superstition - so you don't want to lump them in with real facts accidentally.
Lastly, what's wrong with the US public education system? A combination of money (teachers aren't paid anything, and yet you want good ones to watch/educate your children?) and politics (you're teaching something contradictory to the Bible? Heresy and we need laws against it!) and now, culture (family culture has fragmented so education isn't valued and grades mean little to a lot of people. Ignorant? I'll just look it up on Google in between Only Fans shoots.)
Yeah, there's Science which - ideally - is fact based, not opinionated (but can be speculated), and is objective and cold-hearted. Science just is, and anyone thinking otherwise is just holding their breath in a temper tantrum. And, sometimes Science isn't what we thought it was, not because Science changes, but because we weren't seeing the whole picture. And, as we get a more complete understanding of Science, we have to amend, or even strike through, the suppositions that were misunderstandings. But Science doesn't change because we want it to, ever.
And then there's politics, which is ephemeral, arbitrary, negotiable, and man-made. It has absolutely nothing to do with Science. So mixing those together is the folly of hubris, and should never be done. Science should always trump politics.
Is science fact based? Are probability distributions "facts"? Are confidence intervals "facts"? Are the results of massive simulations (think climate and weather models) "facts"?
Modern risk management relies on science but does it rely on scientific facts? Which ones?
In terms of individual responses to the pandemic, the real divide is socio-economic, not left, centre or right. That is hard to talk about in respectful, helpful terms.
Must admit that over the course of the pandemic, I have often wondered what is wrong with the US public education system.
