We really do need to talk about Sweden
Two years on. Tegnell was right. Giesecke was right. Even I was right and I'm not an epidemiologist! Oh, and Ferguson was wrong.
Two years ago (before I was deplatformed by LinkedIn), I was sharing what I thought was insightful and helpful information from world-renown epidemiologists like Johan Giesecke who were criticizing the rest-of-the-world response to the COVID plandemic and inevitably supporting the much more reasonable Swedish approach.
Of course, this was met with harsh criticism from those self-important leftie media pawns like Nick Cohen of The Guardian accusing Sweden of “deadly folly”.
Sweden’s chief pandemic epidemiologist cautioned that it would be two years before anyone could really know what responses worked and which ones didn’t.
Personally, I thought it was conclusive after four weeks. But, hey, what do I know? I’m not an epidemiologist!!
But just for the record, on the two-year anniversary of the deadly plague, let’s see if there is any substance to Tegnell’s claim and any evidence of Sweden’s “deadly folly”.
No deadly folly that I can see. Can you?
In fact, apart from their admitted failure in not protecting the care homes, in the words of a rather less respected epidemiologist, you would have to concede that Sweden got it “mostly right”?
No, Neil, you were completely wrong. Proven wrong in July 20201 and even more wrong now.
Ferguson's computer model was utterly, completely, and totally way off. What does this say about all the other computer model predictions that are used daily to frighten us into compliance ?
Spot on. I was with you on this from the start.