diffusionx
Gold Member
So heretical it was already posted, in this thread, twice!
I watched the video then and he doesn't really even explain himself well.
Sweden also has 1765 deaths compared to 141 in Finland and 182 in Norway (Combine those two for a rough equal to Sweden's population). Even if you look at a country like Austria, which is close to Sweden in population, they only had 491 deaths.
They're over double the deaths of all the other countries in the same range of positive test count. I don't know if that's a great model to emulate all things considered.
Even lockdown maniacs like Cuomo and Murphy say that the vast majority of people (80%+) are going to end up infected with this. And those people, if they are fat, or old, or really sick, or any combination of the three, have a risk of dying. The question is do they get sick now or do they get sick later, because they will get sick, because this is a virus, and virii spread.. The justification for the lockdown was that we didn't want all these people sick at once and crush the hospital system. The justification was not "these people can never get sick", because if that was the justification, letting us go outside our home and into a grocery store would ruin that. If the standard for this was not one infection, then they should have the police roaming the street and arresting us if we left our homes.
If Sweden felt that their hospital system would not be crushed, then the lockdown just makes zero sense whatsoever.
Again, somehow over the course of this the justification has morphed as the media has turned hysterical and acted like everyone is going to die from it. I bet if you took a poll people would think this thing has a 50% fatality rate, not one significantly less than 1%.
Last edited: