I never said the initial lockdown was to prevent elderly dying (damned be the costs), that would merely be your interpretation of what I said.
I said that sometime in March norway changed their strategy to prevent all people from dying at almost any cost.
How is that incorrect?
Norway's initial response was: "Brems!"
In operational terms (from FHI) that meant keeping the R below 1,3 as to not overwhelm the health system.
This was the same initial response as the swedish and danish expert auhtorities had, because initially all 3 countries had the same approach as Sweden--> Listen to the experts and the experts said this can't be stopped.
In Norway it changed officially on March 24 to: "Slå ned!"
Basically from this time on the goal was to keep the famous R below 0,9.
WIth this strategy there is little or no stress on Health System.
Again according to FHI.
Mrs. Solberg held a press conference and everything..
"Fram til tirsdag var Norges offisielle strategi å forsøke å bremse coronavirus-epidemien i Norge. Tirsdag endret regjeringen strategi. Nå skal Norge forsøke å undertrykke og slå ned epidemien."
Nice effort in catching me with making up stuff, didn't quite work this time, but maybe next time. :)[/quote]
It wasn' t a nice try. Though, as you write it was a misinterpretation,
In thread about Sweden we are discussing, now, mostly Norway. Sweden and Norway had two different apporaches. Budda and I - two different narratives. At least, slightly different.
I never wrote damned the costs. But you are still writing that the Norwegian strategy was to prevent all people (I misread you when I wrote the elderly, but that just makes your claim about the strategy look even "worse") people from dying "at almost any cost". This "at almost any cost" doesn't hold water No curfew imposed, I could walk to the grocery store and a lot of other stores. It was tough restrictions, but it had nothing to do with human rights. Andthere were no "at almost any cost".
I am well aware of what happened at the 24 of March. Slå ned. But still you don't present the whole picture. Though as you say nice try. FHI is one of the two expert institutions under The Ministry of Health. The other is Helsedirektoratet. The two disagreed. Helsedirektorat, in their risk assessement, adviced the toughest strategy, FHI not so. The government chose Helsedirektoratets advice. FHI critized the Goverment again at 24th of August. And Erna Solberg is the Norwegian prime minister, if other people are interested.
You write: "Initially all 3 countries had the same approach as Sweden --> listen to the experts and the experts says it can't be stopped". Right and wrong. It is well known in Political Science that the experts in Sweden has another and much stronger role than in Norway and Denmark.
And it was never part, even among the experts in Norway and Denmark. of the approach to let the virus spread. Early on, the disagreements between the Swedish approach "Platta kurven" and their underlying implication with herd immunity, was very strong. Sweden let their experts rule alone, that is "unheared" of both in Denmark and Norway. There was never a clear cut consensus among the experts. A big divide opened up.
Some 6-7 weeks later both Norway and Denmark opened up, carefully, and at that point in time there were a lot of deaths in Sweden. Not so in the other Nordic countries. And Sweden didn't do better in terms of GDP, not in unemployment - now we are discussing what really matters - not on single parameter - and worse in a lot. One reference is the last report on this matter from OECD.
You have stressed, that the Norwegian Government was panicking. Yes, to a certain degree. Mostly because of weak emergency prepairdness. Sweden should have done the same, panicking. But Swedens experts kept their heads cool. The result, once again, you can look at the OECD-report.
It wasn't fear of using too much money on the old and sick that motivated the Swedish experts. No, they believed strongly in a consequence; herd immunity. Never happened. And now, again. compared with their Nordic neighbors many more deaths. For what reason?