https://youtu.be/hyOEwQXCU7E?si=XDUdq3sb7c4e73I3

hough the responses of different countries to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been diverse, certain measures have been generally applied. The template is summed up in a strategy that has contributed greatly to containing the virus, albeit at the cost of severely disrupting the economic and social order: lockdown. But in the cascade of empty streets and closed shops, there is one country that, like the famous Gaulish village of Asterix, has resisted and continues to resist this interference in the freedom of its citizens: Sweden. This Scandinavian nation of 10.3 million inhabitants has never imposed a lockdown, something that has been both commented on and criticised. When seen in the light of the months that have now passed, has the Swedish model failed or can anything be learned from it?

At the beginning of March, with the coronavirus spreading across the globe, extraordinary measures began to be imposed in Europe. According to a study conducted by Imperial College London (ICL) and published in Nature in June, Sweden recommended the voluntary isolation of those infected and joined other countries in advocating social distancing, with only high schools and universities being closed and public events banned at a later date. Of the 11 countries studied, it was the only one that never imposed a mandatory lockdown, keeping its borders open, as well as its bars and restaurants.

The Swedish constitution prevents the declaration of a state of emergency that restricts the free movement of citizens in times of peace. Unlike in other countries, the adoption of measures has been controlled by the experts of the Public Health Agency, which in practice has left decisions in the hands of its main epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell. He is the mastermind of the dissonant Swedish strategy based on the idea that the pandemic was a marathon and not a sprint, so the measures had to be sustainable in the long term. Tegnell’s plan did not explicitly defend the objectives of achieving herd immunity and protecting the economy, although these two ideas were surreptitiously present.

TRUST AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

While Sweden’s response to the pandemic was beginning to attract criticism in international forums, the domestic reaction was more favourable. In April, 63% of the population was confident in the country’s ability to contain the outbreak, with 73% supporting the Public Health Agency. In an interview in Nature, Tegnell justified his voluntary measures to flatten the contagion curve, based on trust and individual responsibility: “Closedown, lockdown, closing borders — nothing has a historical scientific basis, in my view,” he said. “Nowhere in Europe has been able to slow down the spread considerably.”

However, there was no lack of internal reproaches for Tegnell’s strategy. In Sweden’s leading newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, 22 scientists signed a letter censuring what they called a failure, particularly because of the high mortality rate in nursing homes, a problem acknowledged by the chief epidemiologist himself. On April 22nd, according to the genetic epidemiologist Paul Franks at the University of Lund, Sweden ranked tenth in the world in terms of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, with 17.3, a very high rate compared to its neighbours Denmark (6.4), Norway (3.4) and Finland (2.6).

At the time, Franks predicted that if the simulations were correct, the number of infections and deaths in Stockholm —which has borne the brunt of the Swedish outbreak— should start to decline. Until effective treatments or vaccines are available, “the ultimate burden of deaths may be the same in countries who opt for lockdown as in those who adopted more liberal containment strategies,” he wrote.

INFECTION AND MORTALITY RATES

The ICL study revealed that as of May 4 and despite Sweden’s lax approach, this Nordic country maintained a population infection rate of 3.7%, lower than those of countries that imposed strict lockdowns such as Italy (4.6%), United Kingdom (5.1%), Spain (5.5%) and Belgium (8%), and its mortality rate among those infected was in eighth place. However, while the measures taken in Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain had saved 630,000, 470,000 and 450,000 lives, respectively, the Swedish strategy had only prevented 26,000 deaths. With data from May 26, a report from the University of Oxford placed Sweden in eighth place in the world in terms of mortality among the sick, above Spain. According to Johns Hopkins University, Sweden currently has the seventh highest number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the world, with almost 56, but remains below Italy (58), Spain (61), the United Kingdom (69) and Belgium (86).

Thus, despite the fact that Sweden’s data are notoriously worse than those of its Nordic neighbours, freedom of movement has not raised its infection or mortality rates above those of the most affected European countries. But the debate goes on. The Public Health Agency has warned that the number of deaths could double from the current 5,600-plus. On July 21, in the USA Today, 25 Swedish doctors and scientists wrote: “Don’t do what we did. It’s not working.” If that weren’t enough, some analysts say that keeping the country open has not had as positive an economic effect as might be expected.

For his part, Tegnell continues to defend his strategy at every turn, claiming that the rate of contagion is dropping in Sweden and that the country’s healthcare system and intensive care units (ICU) have not been overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases. However, a recent study conducted by the University of Uppsala and published in Clinical Infectious Diseases reveals that a large proportion of deaths have occurred outside ICUs because patients with poor prognoses were not admitted, thereby avoiding healthcare system overload at the expense of increasing the number of deaths.

AN AWARENESS IN SWEDEN OF THE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Given all this, even accepting that the results of the Swedish model so far have not been as catastrophic as might be expected, would the strategy work in the same way in other countries? Some experts have stressed that there is an awareness in Sweden of the collective responsibility for the defence of the country that dates back to the Second World War. According to the Uppsala University study, almost a third of the population voluntary isolated themselves, a figure that might have been difficult to achieve in other countries.

But above all, perhaps the final answer to the Swedish question lies in the possibility of achieving the much sought-after herd immunity. On this point, the current consensus is clear; with approximately 6% of the population infected, Sweden is still a long way from the 60% required. But perhaps the consensus could change. Recent studies that take into account the heterogeneity of the population in terms of susceptibility to the virus —the most susceptible become infected earlier, increasing the resistance of the remaining population— suggest that in the best case scenario the herd immunity threshold could be lowered to just 10% of the population. As to whether Sweden will go down in COVID-19 history as a mistake or a valid alternative, the jury, in this case a Viking one, is still out.

UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2021

THE SWEDISH EXPERIMENT IN RETROSPECT

The Swedish strategy, based on voluntary measures, has remained largely unchanged over the past year, although in autumn 2020 the use of face masks was temporarily recommended during peak traffic hours on public transport and certain non-essential spaces were closed. In September 2021, the Swedish government announced the removal of most of the remaining restrictions, citing the 70% vaccination rate for those aged 16 and above. However, the country maintains higher COVID death rates than its Nordic neighbours, with around 145 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants—nearly ten times more than Norway, eight times more than Finland and three times more than Denmark—but its overall 11% infection rate also puts it above other countries hard hit by COVID-19, such as Italy and the UK.

For all these reasons, the Swedish case has continued to be the subject of analysis and debate, without there being a unanimous conclusion. In August 2021, a modelling study in Scientific Reports showed that the UK would have doubled its pandemic mortality if the Swedish model had been adopted, while Sweden could have reduced it by less than half had it followed the UK strategy. Meanwhile, the Swedish approach has continued to garner criticism from experts, both at home and abroad, in the media and in specialist journals such as The Lancet. Despite this, a recent Ipsos global survey ranks Sweden seventh in the world in health crisis management, below countries such as Australia and New Zealand that have adopted the most forceful strategies against the pandemic, but ahead of some of its Nordic neighbours and more than 50 nations.

The progression of the pandemic in Sweden is also being used to explore the influence of factors other than restrictions on the dynamics of successive waves. For example, a preprint (preliminary study, not yet published) by two Swedish researchers proposed that a low level of seroprevalence, well below the commonly accepted threshold of herd immunity, could actually have a greater protective effect on the population than restrictive measures, an effect that breaks down when new variants of the virus appear.

In any case, and regardless of the final verdict of history on Sweden’s risky strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic, one thing that certain experts have highlighted is that, if the Nordic country has managed to maintain comparatively contained infection and death figures, it has been thanks to its demographics, as it is a country with a low population density. source

Sweden’s no-lockdown COVID strategy was broadly correct, commission suggests

Sweden should have adopted tougher early measures and the government assumed clearer leadership as COVID-19 hit, though the mostly voluntary no-lockdown strategy was broadly correct, a commission reviewing the country’s pandemic response said on Friday.

Sweden polarized opinion at home and abroad with its handling of the pandemic, opting against the lockdowns implemented by many countries and adopting a largely voluntary approach of promoting social distancing and good hygiene.

The commission — set up by the government under pressure from parliament — said Sweden’s broad policy was “fundamentally correct.”

“It meant that citizens retained more of their personal freedom than in many other countries,” the report says.

But the panel of eight experts, including professors of economics and political science, said the government should have taken clearer leadership and acted sooner when it comes to measures such as capacity limits and masks.

“The Government should have assumed leadership of all aspects of crisis management from the outset,” the commission said in the report. It found the government had too one-sided a dependence on assessments made by the Public Health Agency.

“In February-March 2020, Sweden should have opted for more rigorous and intrusive disease prevention and control measures.”

‘Remarkable’ delay in indoor caps cited

The findings could become a liability for the ruling Social Democrats with a general election due in September. More than 17,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 in Sweden, far more per capita than among Nordic neighbours but less than in most European countries that opted for lockdowns.

Figures from statistics agency Eurostat showed the country had 7.7 per cent more deaths in 2020 than its average for the preceding four years, among the lowest excess mortality rates in Europe.

“In the light of current knowledge … the Commission is not convinced that extended or recurring mandatory lockdowns, as introduced in other countries, are a necessary element in the response to a new, serious epidemic outbreak.”

Moreover, the report argues the “right balance” was struck in terms of the education sector. Preschool and elementary schools were kept open, with universities and the equivalent of high schools switched to remote learning.

But a number of criticisms were levelled at the central government and its main public health agency, including in areas concerning preparedness and unclear jurisdictional lines.

“In a crisis, there must be no uncertainty about who is in charge,” the experts wrote.

Read the commission report summary:

 

Faults were found particularly in the early weeks of the pandemic. Unlike many developed and Western nations, Sweden did not order temporary closures of many indoor spaces in early or mid-March 2020, dogged in part by questions whether there was a legal or legislative basis to do so.

The commission said it was “remarkable that it took until 29 March 2020 for the limit on public gatherings and events to be lowered to 50 people.”

In April, the country’s daily pandemic reports were regularly advising of triple-digit COVID death totals.

Recently shed Omicron-related restrictions

In January 2021, Sweden experienced another very significant coronavirus wave. The commission said more could have been done in the fall of 2020 to prepare for that possibility, which scientific experts had warned about for countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

“The Public Health Agency should not have dismissed the use of masks as a disease prevention and control measure in indoor settings and on public transport,” the commission said.

Sweden made some adjustments in early January to its approach in light of the Omicron variant’s sweep across much of the world, but earlier this month said they were no longer needed. Restaurants and bars are now open, with no time or capacity limits.

The country’s health agency said it was scrapping large-scale testing, as it was deemed too expensive in relation to the benefits. Sweden spent the equivalent of about $67 million Cdn per week on testing for the first five weeks of this year and around $3 billion since the start of the pandemic. source

A Federal Court Blocks California’s New Medical Misinformation Law

California’s law sought to punish doctors who give patients false information about Covid-19.

The case is one of two legal challenges facing the law.Credit…Jamie Kelter Davis for The New

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked enforcement of a new state law allowing regulators to punish doctors for spreading false or misleading information about Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments to their patients.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, had been intended to address the waves of misinformation that have churned through the course of the pandemic.

Though the wording of the law had been narrowly tailored, the judge, William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled on Wednesday that its definitions of misinformation and the uncertainty about its enforcement were “unconstitutionally vague.”

The case is one of two legal challenges facing the law, the first of its kind in the nation to try to address a problem that the U.S. Surgeon General, the American Medical Association and others have said has cost unnecessary illnesses and lives.

In December, another judge in the Central District of California denied an injunction in a similar case. The split verdicts raise the likelihood that the law’s fate could ultimately be decided at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

“I think the judge saw the law for what it was: an attempt to silence doctors who disagree” with recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or other regulatory bodies, said Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Washington who represented five doctors who brought the lawsuit.

Judge Shubb, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, wrote in his ruling that he did not consider the question of whether the law violates First Amendment protections of free speech. Instead, he found that the law’s provisions violated the plaintiffs’ rights of due process under the 14th Amendment.

The law expanded the authority of the Medical Board of California, which licenses doctors, to designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct.” That could lead to a suspension or revocation of a doctor’s license to practice in the state.

Judge Shubb ruled that the definition of misinformation — “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care” — could have a chilling effect on doctors’ interactions with their patients. He granted a preliminary injunction to block the law, pending a full hearing of the complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist who has challenged many government policies that emerged during the pandemic, said in an interview on Thursday that the law was too rigid, especially given the evolving understanding of how best to address a pandemic like this one.

“Today’s quote-unquote misinformation is tomorrow’s standard of care,” he said.

Governor Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. source

Everyhting about – The COVID Vaccination read here

House Republicans state that the virus ‘spilled over’ to the human population

FIRST ON FOX: Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee are alleging in a newly released report that there are “indications” that COVID-19 could be tied to China’s biological weapons research program and “spilled over” to the general human population during an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The information was released in a minority staff report by members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday night.

“Contrary to the implication of the [Intelligence Community’s] declassified report, based on our investigation involving a variety of public and non-public information, we conclude that there are indications that SARS-CoV-2 may have been tied to China’s biological weapons research program and spilled over to the human population during a lab-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” a summary of the report states. “The IC failed to adequately address this information in its classified Updated Assessment. When we attempted to raise the issues with the IC, it failed to respond.”

In a declassified assessment on the origins of COVID-19 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in October 2021, the report states that SARS-CoV-2 was “probably not a biological weapon,” adding, “We remain skeptical of allegations that SARS-CoV-2 was a biological weapon because they are supported by scientifically invalid claims.”

Members of the World Health Organization team tasked with investigating the origins of the coronavirus disease are seen. (Reuters/Thomas Peter)

Wednesday’s report released by House Republicans also alleges that its investigation “revealed serious shortcomings with both the classified and declassified versions of the Intelligence Community’s,” and states that the omissions “likely skewed the public’s understanding of key issues and deepened mistrust.”

“The Committee believes the IC downplayed important information relating to the possible links between COVID-19 and China’s bioweapons research based in part on input from outside experts,” the report states, adding that the intelligence community “refuses to be transparent with the Committee regarding which experts it relied on.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital that Americans deserve answers regarding the origins of COVID-19

“The American people are owed answers about the origins of COVID-19. Our report states that COVID-19 may have been tied to China’s bioweapons research program and that the Intelligence Community (IC) withheld key information from the American public’s authorized elected officials, deepening public mistrust,” Wenstrup said. “Our findings also show that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bears more responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic than what has been publicly known or transparently communicated to the American people.”

“As a physician and Army veteran, I believe it is vitally important that we understand the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and strive to do everything within our power to pursue policies that will help prevent our country from being vulnerable like this in the future.”

A security person moves journalists away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

While alleging that COVID’s origins were likely tied to China’s biological weapons research program, the report states, “We have not seen any credible indication that the virus was intentionally, rather than accidentally, released.” Security personnel gather near the entrance of the Wuhan Institute of Virology during a visit by the World Health Organization team in Wuhan in China’s Hubei province on Feb. 3, 2021. (AP) 

“Nor do we claim the information we have found is a smoking gun that definitively resolves the question of the origins of COVID-19 beyond all doubt. However, the information is important to furthering the public’s understanding, and we will seek to declassify the classified version of our report in the next Congress to further the conversation,” the report states.

cited https://www.foxnews.com/politics/covid-origins-may-have-been-tied-chinas-bioweapons-program-gop-report

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

• Received February 4, 2022.
• Accepted in final form June 8, 2022.

• © 2022 American Academy of Neurology

Maria-Ioanna Stefanou, Lina Palaiodimou,  View ORCID ProfileDiana Aguiar de Sousa, Aikaterini Theodorou, Eleni Bakola,  View ORCID ProfileDimitrios Eleftherios Katsaros, Panagiotis Halvatsiotis, Elias Tzavellas, Androniki Naska,  View ORCID ProfileJonathan M. Coutinho, Else Charlotte Sandset, Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Georgios Tsivgoulis source

Everyhting about – The COVID Vaccination read here