We've been through this before. Sweden is out on a limb has a small population, not swamped by tourists or used as a transit hub. It simply cannot be used as a comparison. Each country needs it's own response tailored to what goes on within its borders.
People think that the government don't want to open up and they in some way take pleasure in this. But it's the complete opposite. This government has been too keen. They knew back in March that crowds would cause problems but their initial strategy of herd immunity depended on people getting it. You could have been sat at Goodison in March while someone 3/4 rows back sneezed and then the droplets slammed back in your face via the wind.
It was only when it bit them on the arse did they realise it wasn't something that could work or be continued with. Hence the full lockdown.
OK, here goes. Discussing coronavirus is a difficult subject. Asking questions about things that the government or some health experts claim are facts means that you are sometimes called a pariah, yet there are many questions or shall we say inconsistencies that need to be explained.
Example 1, the science behind the stadium bans which I asked questions about on the other forum. Is there really a science/risk based evidence argument for banning stadiums yet leaving airports open and flights a free-for-all? I'm very doubtful of that personally.
Example 2 might be the argument behind facemasks. The Chief Medical Officer told us they were a waste of time initially. Then they became mandatory. However, they're not mandatory in shops in Wales - just England. Does that mean mask wearing is just a political decision in England and not actually a medical decision? Again I don't understand the reasons for the differences I just know that they exist and again nobody asks about it.
Example 3 Deaths. What proportion of the population that died were vulnerable anyway to any disease? The reports I read in the paper suggests that an overwhelming majority of healthy individuals don't die from covid. I even saw an Oxford professor, Heneghan, say the same thing. if you're under 60 and have no health problems the virus isn't a threat to you. Even Trump who's what - a 70 year old man- seems to have recovered quickly, in what 3 days? Even if it isn't a full recovery - although how he made it up all them steps to the white house if he hasn't fully recovered I don't know - it's clear it's not as bad as supposed (which is what justifies all these restrictions).
So here's what I'm getting at: fear. This is where Sweden comes in. I'm not talking about it's lack of restrictions. What Sweden is doing (and has got right in my opinion) is that it is not scaring its people. People are still spending, people are going to work, going to church, people are enjoying their lives meeting friends and family and all the rest. Yet all of this seems in mortal jeopardy in this country and that is what I oppose most of all. All we get is more doom predictions of hospitals meltingdown, christmas being cancelled, deaths, schools closing, jobs lost, claims of selfish people not obeying rules. Why can't we just discuss Covid (as a country I mean - not here on this board) without trying to scare the living daylights out of people? Let's not resort to calling people dangerous for asking questions when in many cases the reasoning is flawed or the science isn't clear one way of the other. Let's not report our neighbours to the police because there were 7 people in someone's garden and not 6. That's why Sweden appeals to me. It is a beacon of hope over fear.
