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?
How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?
Coronavirus
General Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
Hmmm. 55, mostly back reported deaths. The peak death total day is still 11/10/2020 at 34, now 15 days out. In addition tot new 55 today (which gets spread out over the past week) is much less than the new #s that were being reported a week ago. Right now it seems like the Sweden might just have converted the big 2nd wave into a mild bump. 2-3 more weeks and we will know for sure, but even case reporting seems to be in the decline. What will it take for people to admit that maybe the European/Blue state approach to pandemic response might have been a failed experimental deviation from long time precedent.
You are getting better at this Lead Foil! Good.
I mostly agree.
I don't know about the much less part though.
Tuesday-wednesday last week they reported what 155-160 or something? (Going by memory, can't be bothered to look up actual numbers)
Tuesday - wednesday this week they've reported what? 147?
Slightly down, yes, much less is a rather optimistic take on it.
If I remember correctly, they only reported 19 last thursday. Good chance tomorrow will come out higher than last thursday and that this week will come out with slightly higher number than last week.
The increase in hospitalizations is significantly down on previous week, so that's definately a positive and the first sign you look for.
It's still an signifant increase over last week though, so that also leads me to believe that the death numbers haven't peaked just yet.
As previously mentioned: The number of positives in Sweden is currently to be taken with some caution, so deducing trends from them is also by definition somewhat risky/ potentially flawed. (The same can be said of quite a few european countries though).
The reason being several areas of Sweden (and countries in Europe) have reached testing capacity and for that reason stopped testing everybody (that want testing) and rather gone back to testing suspected positives and health personel only for capacity reasons.
That said, yes, this week shows that the trend looks to be slowing down at the very least, probably/hopefully peaking this week.
I am even more comfortable than before in projecting that they will peak below Belgium and Czechia. By some margin now even (more like 1/3 in daily per capita death toll numbers, quite possibly even better..), and yes, I totally agree that condemning Sweden's strategy is premature and probably will not hold up to scrutiny when this is all done.
It needs to be said though that they're not out of the woods yet, any relaxation creeping in might change things quickly, so better wait a week or two before bursting into celebration laps (if that's your thing).
And also worth mentioning: Stopping this 2nd wave looks to have taken stronger measures than first time around (with likely better results than in first wave too?)
On surface of things the measures are more comparable to their neighbors this time around, significantly stricter than any measures you could implement nationwide in the US. -
Budda wrote:
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
Hmmm. 55, mostly back reported deaths. The peak death total day is still 11/10/2020 at 34, now 15 days out. In addition tot new 55 today (which gets spread out over the past week) is much less than the new #s that were being reported a week ago. Right now it seems like the Sweden might just have converted the big 2nd wave into a mild bump. 2-3 more weeks and we will know for sure, but even case reporting seems to be in the decline. What will it take for people to admit that maybe the European/Blue state approach to pandemic response might have been a failed experimental deviation from long time precedent.
You are getting better at this Lead Foil! Good.
I mostly agree.
I don't know about the much less part though.
Tuesday-wednesday last week they reported what 155-160 or something? (Going by memory, can't be bothered to look up actual numbers)
Tuesday - wednesday this week they've reported what? 147?
Slightly down, yes, much less is a rather optimistic take on it.
If I remember correctly, they only reported 19 last thursday. Good chance tomorrow will come out higher than last thursday and that this week will come out with slightly higher number than last week.
The increase in hospitalizations is significantly down on previous week, so that's definately a positive and the first sign you look for.
It's still an signifant increase over last week though, so that also leads me to believe that the death numbers haven't peaked just yet.
As previously mentioned: The number of positives in Sweden is currently to be taken with some caution, so deducing trends from them is also by definition somewhat risky/ potentially flawed. (The same can be said of quite a few european countries though).
The reason being several areas of Sweden (and countries in Europe) have reached testing capacity and for that reason stopped testing everybody (that want testing) and rather gone back to testing suspected positives and health personel only for capacity reasons.
That said, yes, this week shows that the trend looks to be slowing down at the very least, probably/hopefully peaking this week.
I am even more comfortable than before in projecting that they will peak below Belgium and Czechia. By some margin now even (more like 1/3 in daily per capita death toll numbers, quite possibly even better..), and yes, I totally agree that condemning Sweden's strategy is premature and probably will not hold up to scrutiny when this is all done.
It needs to be said though that they're not out of the woods yet, any relaxation creeping in might change things quickly, so better wait a week or two before bursting into celebration laps (if that's your thing).
And also worth mentioning: Stopping this 2nd wave looks to have taken stronger measures than first time around (with likely better results than in first wave too?)
On surface of things the measures are more comparable to their neighbors this time around, significantly stricter than any measures you could implement nationwide in the US.
I agree on still being cautious. Just, the governments never should have been putting new rules and restrictions in place to control the masses, and we never should have shut anything down. I think the lessons learned here is the the norm, the precedent, of governments warning their citizens about the dangers and then leaving it up to people to figure out how to deal with the danger and still live healthy and stable lives should never been deviated from.
The failure of rich elitists and governments to stop themselves from using their power to control people, will show has lead to more death, a prolonging of the pandemic, and massive financial destruction for the middle to lower classes worldwide. When all of this is over no single person should consider any leader whom has perpetuated this crime as a hero but rather a criminal scheduled for a life in prison.
2020 has been both the greatest heist committed against the common people and the most disgusting tragedy carried out by the wealthy in many decades. It should not be allowed to continue nor should it ever be allowed to happen again.
A tragedy of governance is the only way to describe 2020, and it is not because governments did not do enough, it is because they did too much. -
KaareV wrote:
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. :)
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?[/quote]
Really Kaare?
You are coming off a tad desperate here...
FHI is not political organ. Helsedirektoratet PARTLY is.
Any opinions coming out of Helsedirektoratet is to be taken with a significant pinch of salt as Helsedirektoratet exists to both provide expert opinions AND (this is important) implement governemt policy, even those policies are not based in science..
(I could write a lengthy essay on the propaganda coming out of Helsedirektoratet on the dangers of narcotics that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny)
In the case of Covid, Mr Guldvåg (Head of Helsedirektoratet) has pretty much admitted to the information givern on masks to be false (or incorrect to use a nicer word) as to help the government secure PPE equipment in march/april.
A proper science based expert organ would never have done that, Helsedirektoratet did.
When it comes to lockdown measures:
In march there were restrictions of no more than 6 people from 2 families meeting OUTSIDE.
You could not travel to your cabin.
Now a family of 5 in Alver (with hardly any infection to speak of) can't invite their old neighbor over to a cup of coffee.
Sure, this is not as severe as measures taken some other places, that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that said measures could be justified from an epidemoloigist point of view (there is a reason the head epidemologist in Bergen resigned recently), but rather it was politicians in panic mode needing to show resolve to the somewhat panicking part of the population.
As for GDP and deaths..
Come on now, you know as well as me that Norway are in a special position as to avoid GDP hits as it can only tap into the trillion $ slush fund.
And what about doing what Tegnell said in March: wait on analysing handling of this until this is all over.
Might be significant costs hidden in these lockdown measures yet to be discovered.
What was the number of kids that have stopped playing football in Norway during the pandemic?
Other sports? What's the long term consequence on public health if it turns out alot more norwegian kids stopped training than in Sweden?
And to really complicate things from an economic point of view, but for me this is VERY important: What is the cost to our freedom on accepting politicians limiting our freedom beyond what is reasonable. What if we end up with a cashless society because of this? That will not be good to the people on the bottom of society or from a surveillance point of view.
Taking away liberties comes at a cost, not always easily measured in GDP...
And the thing with "shut up, be loyal and do what your government tell you"
Yes, it's anecdotal. What do you expect? Evidence of a government billboard campaign with that slogan?
(although, Helsedirektoratet has had some pretty dubious campaigns on narcotics before, also on billboards, so who knows what the future will bring! ;) )
I've never said Norway is North Korea.
But that incident with Fredrik Solvang and Bent Høie is pretty much the most respected tv journalist in Norway daring to question the government on scientific basis on policy and the minister of health, live on tv, answering that journalist "shut up, be loyal and do what your government tell you" (in politicians frases).
If it helps you, I'll take away ANY from original sentence. -
Lead Foil Hat. Let's hope. but we don't know that is has peaked. Not a single indication. Probably not. It might rise for several weeks.
Week 45 (2. nov - 8. nov): 153 deaths, that number we might conclude.
Week 46 (9.nov - 15.nov): 187 - 10 more added to day, 6 of them to 13. nov i.e. 12 days back.
Week 47 (16.nov- 22.nov): 157 - 21 more to day, 2 of them to 16. nov and many more this and next week.
The numbers reported yesterday and to day, 55, give us no indication. The only thing we know for sure is that has been a steady rise. And that the Swedish Reporting System gives us few clues of the future. But the numbers of infections gives some clues, bot nothing more. But it would be very astonhising if some of the daily numbers in Week 47 don't climb to over 40. So the 34 on 9.nov and 10. nov is definitely not the peak. -
KaareV wrote:
Lead Foil Hat. Let's hope. but we don't know that is has peaked. Not a single indication. Probably not. It might rise for several weeks.
Week 45 (2. nov - 8. nov): 153 deaths, that number we might conclude.
Week 46 (9.nov - 15.nov): 187 - 10 more added to day, 6 of them to 13. nov i.e. 12 days back.
Week 47 (16.nov- 22.nov): 157 - 21 more to day, 2 of them to 16. nov and many more this and next week.
The numbers reported yesterday and to day, 55, give us no indication. The only thing we know for sure is that has been a steady rise. And that the Swedish Reporting System gives us few clues of the future. But the numbers of infections gives some clues, bot nothing more. But it would be very astonhising if some of the daily numbers in Week 47 don't climb to over 40. So the 34 on 9.nov and 10. nov is definitely not the peak.
I am going to disagree. Everything indicates the worst is over. That said, your Norwegian pride is showing now, and you did know of Skaala and speak of Bergen, so I do believe it is possible you are Norwegian. Although, I stand firm on my belief that you are a Redskins fan which is a tragedy at best. -
KaareV wrote:
OK, Budda, this post first. Yes, I misread you on some points. Sorry for that. You dig deep about the families in the counties. No need for that, very quickly I saw very that I was falsified. Though, I repeat that your "analyzis" of Norway is a bit biased.
You use this one example from Vestlandet You wrote in another posting " ANY CRITICISM of those rules,(which you excluded above and go on and say that I don't understand why you said, following), are being met with: "Shut up and , be loyal and do what your government say". I repeat, that is a big, big, exaggeration. You are trying to back that up with TWO examples, none of them can qualify as "evidence", only anecdotical. And, actually and those you pick (cherrypick?) arn't quite correct. It was strictly about the situation in Oslo and maskwearing. And the repeated answers he got from the minister of Health, Høie, was: You are creating uncertainty about what they do in Oslo", and not that "This is not the time to question your government". Though, I didn't like the way Høie answered. But to answer in that way isn't common at all.
And by your next example, when you rhetorically ("If that does'nt help your memory") makes a reference to a local doctor (In Norways number two city, population; Bergen) who by the way got nationwide attention , when he criticised the level of restrictions. He was answered by other doctors. Just common in an open society.
And since we speak about Bergen, strong political disagreement about the restriction of only five. In the open. Any criticism ? A professor of law critized the authorities of violating human rights. Strange example from you side, doesn't even qualify as anecdotical evidence. ANY CRITICISM?
All in all, Budda, you seem like a very reasonable guy, with some scientific training, I suppose. I have learned from you, but not when it comes to your somewhat biased interpretation of Norway. And excuse me for my, at some times, rusty English. I will answer your next post later on.
Sorry to the rest of you guys for having to read this..
Kåre:
Biased? How am I biased? By pointing out Norway's (and Denmarks's) politicians have both in the spring and recently reacted in a over the top way, setting aside human rights, dismissing rightful criticism and then this fall repeating violations of human rights without it being neccecary?
I think it's much much more biased to portray Norway (and Denmark) as countries that have handled this almost perfectly when there is lots of evidence (many more than I have mentioned) that laws and human rights have been set aside, often without justification and sometimes even without jurisdication.
That doesn't mean I don't think that above mentioned countries (and Denmark, and Sweden, and Germany, and+++) haven't done a lot of things correctly too. I've previously said I think the way to handle this is probably somewhere in between what Sweden on one hand has done and Norway/Denmark/Finland have done.
But in this thread so far you have pretty much pictured Norway as exemplary in all ways. I just point out that even though they've coped well, it doesn't mean that everything has been fair and measured responses. Actually we're quite a bit off that mark.
(I could make a much much longer list than those examples mentioned previously)
So who is the biased one?
As for criticism: Yes. There is freedom of speech (mostly) in Norway. So people criticize.
That doesn't mean that said criticism is met appropriately by governing authorities.
Like Høie when Solvang dared raise questions.
"This is not the time to ask questions".. Really? When is the time? When it's over? What happens in the mean time to those that have had their civil liberties taken away without proper justification?
Or Valhammer when BT has raised questions as to justification of measures.. (to the point there seems to be a version of reality bordering on lies by Valhammer).
And probably hundreds of other instances this year.
Thank god for journalists that dare raise questions..
By the way, that 5 person restriction in Bergen applies for almost 10% of the population in Norway by the way, so as local restrictions go it is a pretty big one.
I repeat, from the (now previous) head epidemologist point of view it was unneccecary (as were closing gyms). Neighboring municipalities have just adopted Bergen's policy, without actually making an assesment if said measures are reasonable.
I'm sorry to have a some what less idyllic view of the norwegian government than you do, it does not mean I'm any more biased than you are.
People lose their jobs because of this. People lose basic human rights because of this.
The least I expect is that there is a reason for measures based in science and data beyond knee jerk reactions of panic. -
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
I agree on still being cautious. Just, the governments never should have been putting new rules and restrictions in place to control the masses, and we never should have shut anything down. I think the lessons learned here is the the norm, the precedent, of governments warning their citizens about the dangers and then leaving it up to people to figure out how to deal with the danger and still live healthy and stable lives should never been deviated from.
The failure of rich elitists and governments to stop themselves from using their power to control people, will show has lead to more death, a prolonging of the pandemic, and massive financial destruction for the middle to lower classes worldwide. When all of this is over no single person should consider any leader whom has perpetuated this crime as a hero but rather a criminal scheduled for a life in prison.
2020 has been both the greatest heist committed against the common people and the most disgusting tragedy carried out by the wealthy in many decades. It should not be allowed to continue nor should it ever be allowed to happen again.
A tragedy of governance is the only way to describe 2020, and it is not because governments did not do enough, it is because they did too much.
Haha. I understand why you call it a heist. The stock markets are way up through this (so the richest of the rich have made a killing), at the same time most nations are in unprecedented levels of debt...
Not surprised that your average joe is further indebted and struggling because of this, but the rich some how mostly come out of this richer than ever..
(To be fair this is what mostly happens when right leaning governments lower taxes too, but the Trumpsters (and their eqvivalents in other countries) don't seem to notice.
I agree to the bold part. The last part, well, I disagree. Some governments didn't do enough. (Yeah, Trump could have saved many lives by taking this seriously, stressing social distancing and not telling lies), some did too much... Some did too little, then too much..
It's complicated. ^^
I hole heartededly agree on too many people don't caring enough about rights being taken away though. -
Budda wrote:
KaareV wrote:
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. :)
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?
Really Kaare?
You are coming off a tad desperate here...
FHI is not political organ. Helsedirektoratet PARTLY is.
Any opinions coming out of Helsedirektoratet is to be taken with a significant pinch of salt as Helsedirektoratet exists to both provide expert opinions AND (this is important) implement governemt policy, even those policies are not based in science..
(I could write a lengthy essay on the propaganda coming out of Helsedirektoratet on the dangers of narcotics that doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny)
In the case of Covid, Mr Guldvåg (Head of Helsedirektoratet) has pretty much admitted to the information givern on masks to be false (or incorrect to use a nicer word) as to help the government secure PPE equipment in march/april.
A proper science based expert organ would never have done that, Helsedirektoratet did.
When it comes to lockdown measures:
In march there were restrictions of no more than 6 people from 2 families meeting OUTSIDE.
You could not travel to your cabin.
Now a family of 5 in Alver (with hardly any infection to speak of) can't invite their old neighbor over to a cup of coffee.
Sure, this is not as severe as measures taken some other places, that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that said measures could be justified from an epidemoloigist point of view (there is a reason the head epidemologist in Bergen resigned recently), but rather it was politicians in panic mode needing to show resolve to the somewhat panicking part of the population.
As for GDP and deaths..
Come on now, you know as well as me that Norway are in a special position as to avoid GDP hits as it can only tap into the trillion $ slush fund.
And what about doing what Tegnell said in March: wait on analysing handling of this until this is all over.
Might be significant costs hidden in these lockdown measures yet to be discovered.
What was the number of kids that have stopped playing football in Norway during the pandemic?
Other sports? What's the long term consequence on public health if it turns out alot more norwegian kids stopped training than in Sweden?
And to really complicate things from an economic point of view, but for me this is VERY important: What is the cost to our freedom on accepting politicians limiting our freedom beyond what is reasonable. What if we end up with a cashless society because of this? That will not be good to the people on the bottom of society or from a surveillance point of view.
Taking away liberties comes at a cost, not always easily measured in GDP...
And the thing with "shut up, be loyal and do what your government tell you"
Yes, it's anecdotal. What do you expect? Evidence of a government billboard campaign with that slogan?
(although, Helsedirektoratet has had some pretty dubious campaigns on narcotics before, also on billboards, so who knows what the future will bring! ;) )
I've never said Norway is North Korea.
But that incident with Fredrik Solvang and Bent Høie is pretty much the most respected tv journalist in Norway daring to question the government on scientific basis on policy and the minister of health, live on tv, answering that journalist "shut up, be loyal and do what your government tell you" (in politicians frases).
If it helps you, I'll take away ANY from original sentence.[/quote]
No, if you take away ANY it will just help you. Being more and more polemical now, and characterizing. A little desperate? Out of the closet now. OK, by me.
Sure, we can cowrite the essay about the dubious campaign. But no polemics, because there are others that don't agree with us. But it is not relevant to our discussion or rather now "discussion".
The opinons from about the lockdown was more or less sciencebased, both from FHI and Helsedirektoratet. At that time it was tentative. But the Government did not instruct Helsedirektoratet as far as both you and I know.
I don't agree about GDP. It is a lengthy discussion. Even Finland and also Denmark came out so far in approx. the same way. Comparative analysis, you know.
The Swedish head epidemiologist is the man who told us not to analyze this before it was over. At that time I listened to him. Was not sure who was right.
But when he stated, he has made a lot of strange statements about herd immunity (wrong all the time), 21th of July: Sweden will come better out off in the autumn than Norway, I was pretty sure. Because he explained it with the difference in level of immunity. We can go on and on about Tegnell. Some days ago he explained, to FT, that Sweden has more deaths in November than Norway under the whole pandemic because the spread of the virus was much lower in Norway. Just now more like Comical Ali.
And then; Freedom. I register your views, somewhat dramatical, in my opinion. Yes, we lost some freedom for the greater good. And for a very short span of time. Predictions are dangerous. Always. Mine is that we will have more freedom in Norway than in Sweden some months from now.
Cashless society? ???
And since it is hypothetical, but you insist, both in mental health and that of the youth. Not playing fotball a month ot two. What do you think these kids are made of? You blow it out of porportion. This isn't a war, I know. And even after the German occupation the kids went along. Grew up and became good citizens. Football or not. Longterm consequences on public health? Not very much at all. But for some, yes, people who ahs lost their jobs, some poor people, yes. To the same degree in both Sweden and Norway.
Daring to ask the Government? Give me a break. Your characterization of a "Shut up and be loyal"-culture in Norway? It fits Sweden better and by all means not Denmark. The grip that the Swedish Political Correctness-culture has on its people is in my opinion scary. SVT calls the Norwegian rightpopulist party (Fremskrittspartiet) every time the mention them for xenophobic (fremmedfiendtlig) because of their strict immigration policy. BTW, I don't agree with that party. But in Sweden you are a racist before you open your mouth, and that is all over in the political establishment. That is their big gift to a much more rightwing populist party (SD).
All for to day. And I became polimical, too. That's how it goes. -
Well, now it is official. Tegnell says no evidence of herd immunity slowing infection in Sweden. All of the suffering and death during the spring outbreak was for nothing. Turns out that the scientists were right all along. No magical T-cell immunity with no detectable antibodies. Letting the virus spread does nothing other than cause pain and suffering and death. A strategy of complete containment and zero cases is the only proven strategy. Everyone else is on a roller coaster of fear and death with significantly worse economic outcomes than the countries that have done the hard work and crushed the curve.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/527478-top-epidemiologist-says-sweden-has-no-signs-of-herd-immunity-curbing-coronavirus -
KaareV wrote:
No, if you take away ANY it will just help you. Being more and more polemical now, and characterizing. A little desperate? Out of the closet now. OK, by me.
Sure, we can cowrite the essay about the dubious campaign. But no polemics, because there are others that don't agree with us. But it is not relevant to our discussion or rather now "discussion".
The opinons from about the lockdown was more or less sciencebased, both from FHI and Helsedirektoratet. At that time it was tentative. But the Government did not instruct Helsedirektoratet as far as both you and I know.
I don't agree about GDP. It is a lengthy discussion. Even Finland and also Denmark came out so far in approx. the same way. Comparative analysis, you know.
The Swedish head epidemiologist is the man who told us not to analyze this before it was over. At that time I listened to him. Was not sure who was right.
But when he stated, he has made a lot of strange statements about herd immunity (wrong all the time), 21th of July: Sweden will come better out off in the autumn than Norway, I was pretty sure. Because he explained it with the difference in level of immunity. We can go on and on about Tegnell. Some days ago he explained, to FT, that Sweden has more deaths in November than Norway under the whole pandemic because the spread of the virus was much lower in Norway. Just now more like Comical Ali.
And then; Freedom. I register your views, somewhat dramatical, in my opinion. Yes, we lost some freedom for the greater good. And for a very short span of time. Predictions are dangerous. Always. Mine is that we will have more freedom in Norway than in Sweden some months from now.
Cashless society? ???
And since it is hypothetical, but you insist, both in mental health and that of the youth. Not playing fotball a month ot two. What do you think these kids are made of? You blow it out of porportion. This isn't a war, I know. And even after the German occupation the kids went along. Grew up and became good citizens. Football or not. Longterm consequences on public health? Not very much at all. But for some, yes, people who ahs lost their jobs, some poor people, yes. To the same degree in both Sweden and Norway.
Daring to ask the Government? Give me a break. Your characterization of a "Shut up and be loyal"-culture in Norway? It fits Sweden better and by all means not Denmark. The grip that the Swedish Political Correctness-culture has on its people is in my opinion scary. SVT calls the Norwegian rightpopulist party (Fremskrittspartiet) every time the mention them for xenophobic (fremmedfiendtlig) because of their strict immigration policy. BTW, I don't agree with that party. But in Sweden you are a racist before you open your mouth, and that is all over in the political establishment. That is their big gift to a much more rightwing populist party (SD).
All for to day. And I became polimical, too. That's how it goes.
Haha!
Are you OK mate?
Listen: I didn't define that helsedirektoratet somewhat messy role.
Their own words:
"Helsedirektoratet skal styrke hele befolkningens helse gjennom helhetlig og målrettet arbeid på tvers av tjenester, sektorer og forvaltningsnivå. Dette skal vi gjøre med utgangspunkt i rollen som fag- og myndighetsorgan. Det betyr blant annet at vi skal være en faglig rådgiver, iverksette vedtatt politikk og forvalte lov og regelverk innenfor helsesektoren. I tillegg har Helsedirektoratet et helhetlig ansvar for den nasjonale helseberedskapen. Vi er underlagt Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. "
So.. according to their own words they are supposed to give the government advice AND implement policy AND govern the health sector.
Question: Do you seriously look to Helsedirektoratet for unbiased information on drugs?
If you cannot see that they are not your go to entity for unbiased health information I don't know what to say.
Helsedirektoratet is a government vessel that supports the current government when in conflict with science.. It's part of their role. Always has been.
I have no doubt that both Helsedirektoratet and FHI mostly give advice based in science (FHI more so than helsedirektoratet given Helsedirektoratets other roles obviously).
Please advice me on what FHI's advice was on closing schools and closing borders?
Could the facts of the matter be that FHI adviced against closing the schools and that they didn't play any part (including advice) in closing of the borders?
Are you seriously suggesting that we can deduce the economic impact of different approaches from Q2-20 GDP numbers alone? Seriously?
Shouldn't we at the very least wait on full 2020 numbers? Or even better, ad the year after too when assesing effects? No? Ok, I hear you but I'm not convinced.
Never mind how a pandemic affects different economies different?
Never mind how rich your national state is, never mind how much said government are willing to cough up and CAN cough up? These things don't matter?
The loss of freedom might not be worth much to you. For many of us it's quite valuable.
When someone can't go for a walk in the woods with their neigbors because the total number would exceed 6, or if someone can't invite their neighbor over for a cup of coffee because 5 people already live in the house I argue that is a significant loss of freedom.
Laugh of it all you want, I think it says more about you than me.
Cashless society doesn't seem like much. It was mentioned as a cost it is difficult to quantify. Might I suggest reading up on studies that show how it hurts the poor?
The mentioning of people that stop training was done in the same vein.
If you don't think short term policy and crisis can have long term effects: Might I suggest you research the weight of dutch people born in 1944-45?
Even if you don't like it, It HAS an effect on the public health (ask Tegnell, he has mentioned it), and loss of public health has a cost to society.
But again in anticipation that you misread me again: The purpose of that part of the post was to illustrate that lockdown measures has costs that's difficult to quantify in money or number of dead people. That does not mean that there is no cost there..
I don't know if you're an economist or not (I am):
If you are, then you should know:
Some cost take way longer than 1 quarter to be materialize and become measurable, some costs we know are there but we have difficulty quantifying it, some costs might reverse given time..
But sure: Let's take number of dead after 9 months and temporary numbers of GDP loss in Q2-2020 as proof of what worked or not.
The world is so black and white that the situation can be summed up by those 2 numbers... -
KaareV wrote:
Daring to ask the Government? Give me a break. Your characterization of a "Shut up and be loyal"-culture in Norway? It fits Sweden better and by all means not Denmark. The grip that the Swedish Political Correctness-culture has on its people is in my opinion scary. SVT calls the Norwegian rightpopulist party (Fremskrittspartiet) every time the mention them for xenophobic (fremmedfiendtlig) because of their strict immigration policy. BTW, I don't agree with that party. But in Sweden you are a racist before you open your mouth, and that is all over in the political establishment. That is their big gift to a much more rightwing populist party (SD).
All for to day. And I became polimical, too. That's how it goes.
This part of your answer seemed quite unhinged and some what lacking in purpose when I first wrote it. It still does.
(Daring to question is different in meaning than daring to ask by the way)
I don't know why you chose to bring Sweden and Denmark into it, I didn't.
I am pretty sure ministers answering the way Høie did Solvang would be frowned upon in Sweden and Denmark too (especially Sweden actually), which would leave Høie's attempt at quashing legitimate questioning uncalled for in all 3 scandinavian countries.
Why? because all 3 states are supposedly open and free democracies.
When you have a minister suddenly imposing a mask mandate hiding behind government experts that just a few months earlier had the opposite view, he is bound to be questioned. He should welcome it even, because that way he can explain how and why the government has changed it's position.
(Might I ad that the expertise in Norway's FHI still question the validity of mask usage in much the same way as the swedish FHM experts, but I digress..)
What did the norwegian minister do? He basically said (here it comes again):
"Shut up, be loyal and do what your governments tell you to!"
I mean, one day you say one thing, the next day you say another and when questioned you make sure to blame the journalist for asking why... --->Confidence building!!!
I am glad you had that little blow out though, as I found it quite revealing.
I've now received the information needed to deduce what party you support and you've revealed a blatant anti-swedish bias. ^^
It certainly helps to understand where you're coming from in praising Norway's respond to this pandemic and slaughtering Sweden's response.
I'm afraid it doesn't help your credibility. -
Haha!
Are you OK mate?
Listen: I didn't define that helsedirektoratet somewhat messy role.
Their own words:
"Helsedirektoratet skal styrke hele befolkningens helse gjennom helhetlig og målrettet arbeid på tvers av tjenester, sektorer og forvaltningsnivå. Dette skal vi gjøre med utgangspunkt i rollen som fag- og myndighetsorgan. Det betyr blant annet at vi skal være en faglig rådgiver, iverksette vedtatt politikk og forvalte lov og regelverk innenfor helsesektoren. I tillegg har Helsedirektoratet et helhetlig ansvar for den nasjonale helseberedskapen. Vi er underlagt Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. "
So.. according to their own words they are supposed to give the government advice AND implement policy AND govern the health sector.
Question: Do you seriously look to Helsedirektoratet for unbiased information on drugs?
If you cannot see that they are not your go to entity for unbiased health information I don't know what to say.
Helsedirektoratet is a government vessel that supports the current government when in conflict with science.. It's part of their role. Always has been.
I have no doubt that both Helsedirektoratet and FHI mostly give advice based in science (FHI more so than helsedirektoratet given Helsedirektoratets other roles obviously).
Please advice me on what FHI's advice was on closing schools and closing borders?
Could the facts of the matter be that FHI adviced against closing the schools and that they didn't play any part (including advice) in closing of the borders?
Are you seriously suggesting that we can deduce the economic impact of different approaches from Q2-20 GDP numbers alone? Seriously?
Shouldn't we at the very least wait on full 2020 numbers? Or even better, ad the year after too when assesing effects? No? Ok, I hear you but I'm not convinced.
Never mind how a pandemic affects different economies different?
Never mind how rich your national state is, never mind how much said government are willing to cough up and CAN cough up? These things don't matter?
The loss of freedom might not be worth much to you. For many of us it's quite valuable.
When someone can't go for a walk in the woods with their neigbors because the total number would exceed 6, or if someone can't invite their neighbor over for a cup of coffee because 5 people already live in the house I argue that is a significant loss of freedom.
Laugh of it all you want, I think it says more about you than me.
Cashless society doesn't seem like much. It was mentioned as a cost it is difficult to quantify. Might I suggest reading up on studies that show how it hurts the poor?
The mentioning of people that stop training was done in the same vein.
If you don't think short term policy and crisis can have long term effects: Might I suggest you research the weight of dutch people born in 1944-45?
Even if you don't like it, It HAS an effect on the public health (ask Tegnell, he has mentioned it), and loss of public health has a cost to society.
But again in anticipation that you misread me again: The purpose of that part of the post was to illustrate that lockdown measures has costs that's difficult to quantify in money or number of dead people. That does not mean that there is no cost there..
I don't know if you're an economist or not (I am):
If you are, then you should know:
Some cost take way longer than 1 quarter to be materialize and become measurable, some costs we know are there but we have difficulty quantifying it, some costs might reverse given time..
But sure: Let's take number of dead after 9 months and temporary numbers of GDP loss in Q2-2020 as proof of what worked or not.
The world is so black and white that the situation can be summed up by those 2 numbers...[/quote]
Whether I am OK or not? Well, you never know, you know. A certain cognitive downfall comes with the years.
Since you are asking me a lot of questions I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.
1. I know perfectly well what the role of Helsedirektoratet is. But it is not "somewhat messy". And in this context you are trying to undermind their credibility. And again you are using their "information about drugs" to back your own view. As I wrote earlier "not relevant" in this context. And actually very close to a False Analogy Fallacy.
2. You ask me directly in spite of what i said about it: "Do you seriously look to Helsedirektoratet for unbiased information on drugs?". Answer: I look everywhere for information. As you know this is a field where the normative mixes with the descriptive. And as I wrote between the lines, I totally disagrees with Helsedirektoratets position. Have had this very liberal view for decades. But it is not relevant, they are not more or less biased than other sources. Complicated stuff.
3. About GDP, not a single forecast, perdicts that Norway will do worse than Sweden. Q2 or not. And this has nothing to do with how much money the Norwegian Government spends. Actually, all those money into public sector, slows growth. But as always, it isn't over before it is over. But "the Nordic model" seems quite strong. That applies for all four Nordic countries.
4. You are rhetorical and sarcastic when it comes to freedom: "The loss of freedom might not mean much to you". No question mark. And you again and again tells me that I misread you. Now we are on serious ground. This has to do with all my public life, whatever it is worth. So, please don't try this one once more. You are, as far as can see, a proponent of negative freedom. So am I. But in times of emergency we have to limit ourselves. The goal is to regain freedom as soon as possible. ( One interesting referce is the famous German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, now one would ever dare to aks him the same question as you asked me) .And both you and I are worried about the poor. I wrote about that to. And here is where the money comes in. But be carefull now; through the years many has thrived on borrowing poor peoples misery for their own gain. Mostly marxist intellectuals.
When you mention the Dutch hard Winter you blow it out of proportions. And this time it is a False Analogy Fallacy (informal logic). May be you have looked misery straight into the eyes, even in War Zones? If so, then you ought to reconsider this example.
I will also answer your next post, about your "deduction" of my political position,. Strange way of reasoning, by the way. And after I have answered you I will be very short and brief next time. Hope you are OK mate!!! -
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
KaareV wrote:
Lead Foil Hat. Let's hope. but we don't know that is has peaked. Not a single indication. Probably not. It might rise for several weeks.
Week 45 (2. nov - 8. nov): 153 deaths, that number we might conclude.
Week 46 (9.nov - 15.nov): 187 - 10 more added to day, 6 of them to 13. nov i.e. 12 days back.
Week 47 (16.nov- 22.nov): 157 - 21 more to day, 2 of them to 16. nov and many more this and next week.
The numbers reported yesterday and to day, 55, give us no indication. The only thing we know for sure is that has been a steady rise. And that the Swedish Reporting System gives us few clues of the future. But the numbers of infections gives some clues, bot nothing more. But it would be very astonhising if some of the daily numbers in Week 47 don't climb to over 40. So the 34 on 9.nov and 10. nov is definitely not the peak.
I am going to disagree. Everything indicates the worst is over. That said, your Norwegian pride is showing now, and you did know of Skaala and speak of Bergen, so I do believe it is possible you are Norwegian. Although, I stand firm on my belief that you are a Redskins fan which is a tragedy at best.
Yes, sure you disagree. "Everything indicates that the worst is over". Remember two weeks from now exactly what you wrote. And then? Between me and you and a Lamp Post, it is sad to say the worst is still to come. Both you and Budda are living in a world of hope, and that is not all bad. But then the times come to face reality. Though, at least you have some sense of humor. And from now on I will be a Redskin fan, whatever the cost may be. I will even find out who they are and stay with them shoulder to shoulder for the rest of my life. -
Now I see. Redskins. Washington. They might change their name. Was in Washington the Election Night 2008. Remember John McCains marvellous speech. 12 years ago. And now a president that thrieves on Chaos. What an American Tragedy.
-
Budda wrote:
KaareV wrote:
Daring to ask the Government? Give me a break. Your characterization of a "Shut up and be loyal"-culture in Norway? It fits Sweden better and by all means not Denmark. The grip that the Swedish Political Correctness-culture has on its people is in my opinion scary. SVT calls the Norwegian rightpopulist party (Fremskrittspartiet) every time the mention them for xenophobic (fremmedfiendtlig) because of their strict immigration policy. BTW, I don't agree with that party. But in Sweden you are a racist before you open your mouth, and that is all over in the political establishment. That is their big gift to a much more rightwing populist party (SD).
All for to day. And I became polimical, too. That's how it goes.
This part of your answer seemed quite unhinged and some what lacking in purpose when I first wrote it. It still does.
(Daring to question is different in meaning than daring to ask by the way)
I don't know why you chose to bring Sweden and Denmark into it, I didn't.
I am pretty sure ministers answering the way Høie did Solvang would be frowned upon in Sweden and Denmark too (especially Sweden actually), which would leave Høie's attempt at quashing legitimate questioning uncalled for in all 3 scandinavian countries.
Why? because all 3 states are supposedly open and free democracies.
When you have a minister suddenly imposing a mask mandate hiding behind government experts that just a few months earlier had the opposite view, he is bound to be questioned. He should welcome it even, because that way he can explain how and why the government has changed it's position.
(Might I ad that the expertise in Norway's FHI still question the validity of mask usage in much the same way as the swedish FHM experts, but I digress..)
What did the norwegian minister do? He basically said (here it comes again):
"Shut up, be loyal and do what your governments tell you to!"
I mean, one day you say one thing, the next day you say another and when questioned you make sure to blame the journalist for asking why... --->Confidence building!!!
I am glad you had that little blow out though, as I found it quite revealing.
I've now received the information needed to deduce what party you support and you've revealed a blatant anti-swedish bias. ^^
It certainly helps to understand where you're coming from in praising Norway's respond to this pandemic and slaughtering Sweden's response.
I'm afraid it doesn't help your credibility.
Dear Budda,
The two last sentences; Ad Hominem Fallacy. Not what I write, but where I come from. Classical marxist jargon, by the way.
Oh yes. You brought Denmark and Sweden into the debate. Denmark more or less the same as Norway; the politicians intervened. You are still using the Høie-response. In no way it tells anything about your Billboard slogan "Shut up, be loyal .....". That is how you characterized the mood in Norway. As a collective.
Your claim: One day I say one thing, the next day I say another, and when questioned I make sure blame the journalist i.e. Christian for asking why.... Budda come on. Documentation!!! This is not true. I have never blamed him for asking why.
You have "now received enough evidence to deduce what party" I "support". Is that how logic functions where ever you come from? This is absolutely, no I want say it ...
Also, blantant anti-Swedish bias..... ????? My Swedish friends, with whom I have had a lot of discussions about Swedish culture, some of them journalists and editor BTW, wouldn't believe their ears. But I will ask them again what they think. This is baseless allegations. Be better than that, Budda. You have deduced that I am a Nationalist also??? Are you out of ........? -
SWEDEN TODAY:
67 new deaths reported, 5841 new infections.
15 on this day. New updates for 52 backwards as far as to November 9th. Reported the last 3 days 216, new report tomorrow. The Swedish Health Authorities only reporting 4 days a week, tuesday to friday.
A scenario from Folkhälsomyndigheten. The peak will be reached two weeks from now.
Next we will get a pretty clear picture of the numbers of deaths in Week 46 ( Nov 9-15). So far this week 202 deaths. It will rise again tomorrow. Week 47 (Nov 16-22) 177 deaths, up 20 since yesterday, and we are now in Week 48, we will know approx. 10-12 days from now. -
Next week will will get a pretty clear picture of the numbers week 46.
-
KaareV wrote:
Whether I am OK or not? Well, you never know, you know. A certain cognitive downfall comes with the years.
Since you are asking me a lot of questions I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.
1. I know perfectly well what the role of Helsedirektoratet is. But it is not "somewhat messy". And in this context you are trying to undermind their credibility. And again you are using their "information about drugs" to back your own view. As I wrote earlier "not relevant" in this context. And actually very close to a False Analogy Fallacy.
2. You ask me directly in spite of what i said about it: "Do you seriously look to Helsedirektoratet for unbiased information on drugs?". Answer: I look everywhere for information. As you know this is a field where the normative mixes with the descriptive. And as I wrote between the lines, I totally disagrees with Helsedirektoratets position. Have had this very liberal view for decades. But it is not relevant, they are not more or less biased than other sources. Complicated stuff.
3. About GDP, not a single forecast, perdicts that Norway will do worse than Sweden. Q2 or not. And this has nothing to do with how much money the Norwegian Government spends. Actually, all those money into public sector, slows growth. But as always, it isn't over before it is over. But "the Nordic model" seems quite strong. That applies for all four Nordic countries.
4. You are rhetorical and sarcastic when it comes to freedom: "The loss of freedom might not mean much to you". No question mark. And you again and again tells me that I misread you. Now we are on serious ground. This has to do with all my public life, whatever it is worth. So, please don't try this one once more. You are, as far as can see, a proponent of negative freedom. So am I. But in times of emergency we have to limit ourselves. The goal is to regain freedom as soon as possible. ( One interesting referce is the famous German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, now one would ever dare to aks him the same question as you asked me) .And both you and I are worried about the poor. I wrote about that to. And here is where the money comes in. But be carefull now; through the years many has thrived on borrowing poor peoples misery for their own gain. Mostly marxist intellectuals.
When you mention the Dutch hard Winter you blow it out of proportions. And this time it is a False Analogy Fallacy (informal logic). May be you have looked misery straight into the eyes, even in War Zones? If so, then you ought to reconsider this example.
I will also answer your next post, about your "deduction" of my political position,. Strange way of reasoning, by the way. And after I have answered you I will be very short and brief next time. Hope you are OK mate!!!
I certainly hope, for your sake, that you disagree with Helsedirektoratet's information on drugs, because it's not information, it's biased propaganda. Maybe less biased now than it used to be (they have been found out after all), but still biased.
And of course they are more biased than an entity that doesn't have a political role.
Helsedirektoratet describe their multiple roles themselves, if you can't see that their basic structure undermines their credibility when they give their so called expert opinions on public health, I can't help you..
Not really interested in talking about Helsedirektoratet by the way, but the whole point of this is when you defend the norwgian governments policies and justify that by saying it was based on advice given by experts (Helsedirektoratet and FHI),
I say that is a simplification of reality at best and to some extent not true.
Why?
Because several of the most intrusive measures taken were infact not based on advice given by the pure expert organ FHI, but rather something the politicians decided together with their "experts"/buerocrats/enforcers in Helsedirektoratet.
Again: I am not saying, and never have, that Helsedirektoratet doesn't for the most part base their advice on science and even inform the public based on science. But that for the most part is key. Whenever science diverges from the current goverment opinions, Helsedirektoratet will transform from an organ that gives information to a government propaganda tool.
Whether it's drugs.. Or masks against Covid.
They are designed that way.
Disagree or not, I really don't care. The earth is also round by the way.
On GDP..
First.. you realize that Sweden is amongst the countries that have actually handled this situation decent in terms of economic impact GDP wise?
Second: Are you seriously saying taking money from Norway $ trillion dollar slush fund that is NOT INVESTED IN NORWAY and taking that money and spend inside Norway doesn't boost Norway's GDP?
Might I suggest you read up on what GDP is and how it's calculated?
The long term effect of NOK 240 billion extra taken from the oil fund (so far this year) might be negative on Norway's future growth (even if that too is way to simplistic a view as it very much depends on how that money is used), but I can promise you that it has been a huge boost to Norway's GDP in Q220
I've never disagreed with all nordic countries managing fine, it's actually my whole point. Sweden too is doing fine. Relative to other and relative to what they set out to do.
It's your exaltation of Norway compared to Sweden that is both way to simplistic and premature that I react to.
The dutch example was just that, an example. A blatant one I might ad, to show that what you do to a population in a crisis can have long term effect on public health, even if on the surface of things people can handle it. (Those kids didn't starve to death did they, In many ways they're fine, albeith fat now...)
You don't seem to have picked up on this, but I took out the bazooka to underline a point since you seemed to discount that lockdown measures might have long term public health effects, I don't believe children in Norway will suffer as badly as those dutch children, obviously not, not being able to eat is obviously more serious than not being able to train, but when maybe 20% have quit organized football, it is likely that it has a long term negative effect on the health of some of those children.
The swedish expert authorities are very aware that lockdowns have long term public health ramifications , in Norway (possibly based on the advice of the "experts" in Helsedirektoratet? ;) ), they are more willing to ignore that, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't come with a cost.
On 4.
You discount the seriousness of basic liberties disproportionally being taken away from us.
Excuse me for being just a little sarcastic when you react that way.
It's not just me Kåre. I am just your strange average joe (well, sort of) on an internet message board.
But plenty of health experts from elite universities such as Harvard, Oxford and Stanford have serious doubts of how Corona is being handled.
You seem to have missed that some of the best experts in the world have some rahter important counter arguments to policies being adapted in most of the western world
Their main argument: The general approach in many countries is an overreaction that might cost more than it helps when it comes to public health.
These are not random people, they are very among THE elite of the elite as experts go...
They say, not only I, that many of the measures taken have no foundation in science or knowledge and we have no idea how well they work or if they work at all in some cases.
What we know is that if we tighten the rope enough we can curb corona, but the cost on other areas of public health are huge, but largely unknown so far, they might quite plausably be larger even in the long run than the cost of covid deaths, and at any rate the economic cost of current policies are just staggering/mindblowing/insert any crazy word you want.
And when on top of that you consider that basic human rights are taken away from us, in many instances for no other reason than that we are afraid.
Yup, you bet, I most certainly react, because as you say: This is serious! I 100% agree.
There are families that haven't seen each other for the better part of a year and can't see each other for christmas because the government has implemented some arbitrary quarantine rules that Guldvåg in Helsedirektoratet have admitted to having nothing to do with being fair, but rather just strict!
There are lonely elderly people that can't invite their family over for dinner, because suddenly they are too many people in the house even if they are just 6 people and even if no one in that municipality have tested positive for days.
Several percent of the population have lost their jobs even though in many cases there have hardly been any infections to talk of in that industry, even if it goes against the local head epidimiolgist's advice, but the politicians close it down anyways,.. Just in case...
People living in institutions are being denied visitors by over cautious local authorities desperate to"protect" even if it goes against basic law that applies even in a pandemic..
And that's just a few examples. Many, many more could be mentioned. They're overreactions.
I know you think I'm being overly dramatic,feel free to think so, but what we are talking about is limiting people's basic human rights across the board often with no or very little logic behind it but often with serious consequences. I actually think that is very dramatic.
So yes, You bet: I like the foundation of Sweden's approach better than Norway's.
Perfect?
No. Far from it in fact.
They obviously have structural issues in their nursing homes that caused too many people to die.
They should have put more effort into testing and tracing.
They should by all accounts at leat have encouraged people taking public transport to use masks.
But at the very least they are systematic in that they take decicions based on expert advice rather than some politicians following expert advice on this and randomly making up rules on that.
They are not overreacting, but stuck to the same approach: Not to overwhelm the health system is the goal.
And on the surface of things they've been as respectful of human rights as they can be without implementing arbitrary rules just to be strict.
Slaughtering Sweden's approach based on number of dead per capita and GDP is not only premature, it's also wrong (because Sweden haven't actually done that badly even by those metrics) and at any rate those two metrics alone are and will always be just two out of many factors you should consider before passing judgement.
And that Kaare is the last I have to say to you on this subject.
Feel free to both disagree and have the last word on this. -
KaareV wrote:
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
KaareV wrote:
Lead Foil Hat. Let's hope. but we don't know that is has peaked. Not a single indication. Probably not. It might rise for several weeks.
Week 45 (2. nov - 8. nov): 153 deaths, that number we might conclude.
Week 46 (9.nov - 15.nov): 187 - 10 more added to day, 6 of them to 13. nov i.e. 12 days back.
Week 47 (16.nov- 22.nov): 157 - 21 more to day, 2 of them to 16. nov and many more this and next week.
The numbers reported yesterday and to day, 55, give us no indication. The only thing we know for sure is that has been a steady rise. And that the Swedish Reporting System gives us few clues of the future. But the numbers of infections gives some clues, bot nothing more. But it would be very astonhising if some of the daily numbers in Week 47 don't climb to over 40. So the 34 on 9.nov and 10. nov is definitely not the peak.
I am going to disagree. Everything indicates the worst is over. That said, your Norwegian pride is showing now, and you did know of Skaala and speak of Bergen, so I do believe it is possible you are Norwegian. Although, I stand firm on my belief that you are a Redskins fan which is a tragedy at best.
Yes, sure you disagree. "Everything indicates that the worst is over". Remember two weeks from now exactly what you wrote. And then? Between me and you and a Lamp Post, it is sad to say the worst is still to come. Both you and Budda are living in a world of hope, and that is not all bad. But then the times come to face reality. Though, at least you have some sense of humor. And from now on I will be a Redskin fan, whatever the cost may be. I will even find out who they are and stay with them shoulder to shoulder for the rest of my life.
Are you dragging me into this now?
I've obviously noticed you like to misread what I say, and we obviously disagree significantly when evaluating both Sweden and Norway's strategy, but at the very least I thought we shared common ground on reading the numbers in Sweden?
When have I underestimated the numbers in Sweden?
I have time and time again said that Lead Foil is too optimistic in his interpretation of the numbers, (though getting better as he is starting to understand the backlog system).
Credit when credit is due no?
I've pointed out more than once that you can't trust number of infected in Sweden, so we could very well be in a situation where infection is rising but they can't pick that up because testing is limited.
I've even stressed that hospitalizations continue to rise (albeit that trend is flattening significantly which is encouraging), but rise in hospitalizations would indicate that the we should expect rising death numbers still for at least another week.
Is it optimistic of me to predict that Sweden will max out at less than half of Czechia and Belgium peak numbersi daily deaths per capita? Maybe. It's just a prediction. Sweden numbers can double from today's estimated levels (this is obviously speculation given the swedish back log system) of lets say 40-50 per day and that prediction will still hold true.
I wouldn't say that's an optimistic estimate.
If you are into nitpicking I'll give you this: I've estimated, with a high degree of uncertainty as mentioned time and time again given infection rates, hospitalizations, the swedish reporting system etc that the death numbers will most likely peak next week. On second thought THAT might be a tad optimistic actually as I hadn't quite factored in that people that die from Corona tend to be hospitalized for a week before they die, so more likely it's the week after, or even two for all I know, but given all the rest I've said, it's seriously pushing things to say I am optimistic.
I'll happily admit to being optimistic on Sweden's behalf compared to what we've seen this fall in Czechia and Belgium of course. Let me just reiterate that as long as Sweden's hospitalizations contiune to rise I expect deaths to rise and since all the indicators continue to rise still, there is an obvious risk that Sweden will continue to rise for a long time and that such a prediction might be wrong.
Lol. People rarely call me optimistic Kåre..
(NB! What you failed to mention regarding the scenario FHM presented yesterday is that the model hasn't taken into consideration any effect of the max 8 persons rule)
