Comments by "ub2bn" (@ub2bn) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spacew3909 0.03% of Swedes have died... 3,000 / 10,000,000... Alarmists predicted a minimum of 350,000 / 10,000,000... 347,000 more deaths, or 11,600 % more. ... At Sweden's current death toll, of less than 50 per day, it would take more than 7,000 days to reach the predicted numbers, or over 19 years... Of course, by that time, hundreds of millions would be dead, worldwide, in comparison.
At 8%, that's 800,000 Swedes dead. vs. 3000... An overage of 797,000 deaths predicted. Doh!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamfrbs9259 wow, a personal insult, shocking.
Sweden implemented moderate measures in terms of public behaviour, but so did those claiming to be in lock down. Day cares and schools were still operating, caring for children of thousands of "essential workers". Grocery clerks were not wearing masks. Much of the Construction Industry was running. Etc..
So both strategies failed to actually eliminate the virus, meaning it's still around, just in varyiing concentrations. And the demographics regarding the vulnerable have not changed, nor has the virus in this regard, leaving the elderly still at risk.
My point is, half assed lock downs, coupled with a campaign of conflicting reports, hyteria, and a lack of certain data, resulted in the same outcome Sweden had... Lots of dead seniors in long term care, and nearly no school children, teens, or young adults. And under 60, the death rate drops significantly. So, basically anyone of school and/or working age were safe to go about their business.
But the media made it out to be the case that since the virus was spreading rapidly among most age groups, it was therefore equally as virulent among most age groups, and hyped up the few younger deaths that did occur, early on.
It is too early to discount herd immunity. Case data and serology testing show a wider spread among a large populace. Maybe not as wide spread as is required for herd immunity, but this does not mean herd immunity is impossibe; only that we're not there yet. And why would this be?
While the media was shoving case numbers down our throats, the reality was, positive test results were always in the single digits, even though the majority of the tests were being done on folks with some sort of symptom of something or other. And as testing was increased, and expanded to include more of the general public who had no symptoms of anything, the positive test numbers dropped significantly. This all points to a much lower r0 value, which would explain why herd immunity is taking longer than expected. And this would be good news from an evolutionary perspective, seeing as it would indicate the virus has not perfected it's ability to spread, and still needs to be of a significant "load" to be infectious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1