YouTube: Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke

One of the more remarkable things (to American ears, at any rate) Dr. Giesecke says in the video is that social distancing has not been the cause of observed declines in case mortality rates. Instead, he claims that “flattening the curve” has been caused by the dying off of the most vulnerable members of society.

That is a somewhat gruesome observation, but it makes sense. I continue to expect that as the true scientific picture of Covid-19 emerges, it will turn out to be a very different disease than the one we have been imagining.

14 thoughts on “YouTube: Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke

  1. At first blush and relying on your summation, this appears to be utter nonsense. As bad as 40,905 deaths so far is, it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the tens of millions of vulnerable people in this country. At least, based on who science says is most vulnerable – the old, the obese, cancer survivors, people with transplants, those suffering from other diseases.

    Just one example, we have approximately 500,000 people kept alive by dialysis. This is a particularly vulnerable group since their bodies are weakened and they must frequently come in contact with other people.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “The problem with the ‘loss of the vulnerable’ theory is that there’s still plenty of vulnerable still around.”

      Could be, but it isn’t a strong counterargument. Remember that the frame of reference we are all using is the case mortality rate. That being the case it matters very much who is presenting for diagnosis and in what numbers.

      It is logical to assume that the cohort of “vulnerables” is over-represented among the population of those presenting for diagnosis, such that any downturn in their numbers (whether natural or causative), would produce effects on the total death rate that are ambiguous with respect to other factors, such as social distancing effects.

      In other words, it could be true that “loss of the vulnerable” isn’t the proximate cause of a downturn in the case mortality rate, but unless you can rule it out it also could be the cause.

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        Re: “In other words, it could be true that “loss of the vulnerable” isn’t the proximate cause of a downturn in the case mortality rate, but unless you can rule it out it also could be the cause.”

        There is that “math thingy” again. You always seem to struggle with it.

        The number of deaths in relation to the number of the vulnerable is such a tiny fraction that mathematically it cannot be the cause of the curve flattening. To have that effect the number of the vulnerable would have to have been severely eroded by the deaths. It hasn’t been.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The number of deaths in relation to the number of the vulnerable is such a tiny fraction that mathematically it cannot be the cause of the curve flattening.”

          The Swedish doctor would disagree, but since you claim to have superior knowledge, what specific numbers are you using?

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            What numbers?

            40,000 deaths versus 100 million or more in the various vulnerable categories.

            Aged over 65 = 50 million
            Obese = 70 million
            Chronic lung disease = 37 million

            You can do the math from here right? Maybe not.

            Lets assume that there is enough overlap that the vulnerable population is 100.0 million.

            If EVERY death so far is from that group (they aren’t) that still leaves 99.96 million vulnerable people. It is self evident that flattening of the curve cannot come from such a small difference in the number of those vulnerable.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Sweden has a higher deaths per million than we do: 156 v 126.

    They have 5 times as much as Norway, 3 times as much as Germany and 2 1/2 times Denmark.

    They just had 40 more deaths yesterday, that would be like us having about 1500 more. We had 1200.

    So the jury is out.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Ooooh, ya know what would be cool? If COV2 goes latent. Imagine surviving an infection, and 5 years later BAM you’re dead! Kinda like chicken pox and shingles, only worse.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s