Airborne_Again wrote:
One of the reasons for the “Swedish approach” is that it would be constitutionally impossible for the Swedish government – or indeed the parliament – to order a lockdown of the whole country or even regions.
The “price” for that is that Sweden – despite having one of the best health systems of the world – faces deaths/100k population at a level of Italy (at half the case fatality…).
But that is not criticizing at all the Swedish approach: As long as people understand what the consequences of certain decisions are (including the death toll), it is perfectly fine to go that way.
What I hate about German politics esp. in the context of Covid is, that politician tend to present their views as being without alternatives. That is bullshit! There is always an alternative! We might not like it or might believe that it is outside of our social contract but there is an alternative.
Therefore I don’t have a problem with Anti-Vaxxers (didn’t know the term) as long as we go the whole way of giving these people their freedom of choice and responsibility! It should be perfectly clear that in case someone who would have been suitable for vaccination and had access to one (i.e. someone who freely choose not to get a vaccination) would not receive any kind of medical services at all if they acquire the disease. In that case they should be interned in their home without any physical contact to someone else until they have either died or can proof that they are no longer infective.
Providing any kind of (medical) services to such people would put the staff providing it at risk and therefore is not only unacceptable but would fundamentally contradict the philosophical freedom of choice and responsibility concept.
kwlf wrote:
(and others) not see any place for the government to restrict individual liberties in this situation?
Yes always but with a time limit and with many restrictions and checks and balances. Maybe just more dirty politics but it is still an important function. FWIW US federal government certainly sticks in noses in many “domestic” areas it should not…
Malibuflyer wrote:
therefore can consciously decide
Except your not deciding anything, even in normal times you don’t really decide anything but at least there is a system of accountability.
Yes always but with a time limit and with many restrictions and checks and balances.
I agree with that, with the caveat that sometimes people need to move more quickly than the political process allows. In that case, decisions should be reviewed and potentially revoked.
Anti-Vaxxers
You guys are lucky you are posting on EuroGA and not just about anywhere else on the internet where such a term would get you hung drawn and quartered 
I suppose we have the benefit of more or less everybody here having received a reasonable level of scientific or engineering education…
I sometimes wonder if the same could be done on a county by county basis.
To do it effectively you would lock down smaller areas, primarily of high population density, but it would be controversial as hell. There was a radio discussion here on this recently; the govt rep said they need to avoid appearing to be locking down a specific ethnic area so they lock down a larger area so the real target (where the stuff is really spreading) is not too obvious.
In the case of NZ and other islands this was easy – just do the whole island – but within a country it isn’t possible without creating an incendiary situation… particularly in light of recent events (BLM) which occurred at the same time.
They did lock down Leicester but really it is very much smaller specific areas there which are an issue.
in the UK many people actually took measures far further than required. i.e. no flying
I am quite certain that this would have to be done anyway even just to avoid people on the ground starting a civil war when they see little planes flying freely overhead It’s just that nobody in the govt could say that openly i.e. politics of envy was the only determining factor.
dublinpilot wrote:
There was a newspaper article here recently which looked at the Swedish economy as a result of their less restrictive approach. The conclusion was that initially the Swedish economy held up but as the pandemic moved on, the population stopped buying and as a result the Swedish economy has been just as badly hit as the rest of Europe has been.
If you’re referring to the recent New York Times article, it has several factual errors. For the consumption figures they had looked at statistics on card purchases by Danske Bank, a bank with a very small presence in Sweden. SE-banken, which is one of the largest banks in Scandinavia had completely different figures.
Also the New York Times article contradicted itself by simultaneously claiming that life in Sweden was “largely unhindered” and at the same time claimed that consumption had dropped as much as in other Nordic countries.
I wouldn’t give much weight to anything the New York Times says, it is a nonsense newspaper.
It’s interesting to read that following the law, as intended and as written, is considered by some a dangerous position. Quarantine is legal, as written in law, but it has no bearing on people who are not sick.
I’m happy to say the FAA has never taken the position that GA should be shut down for no rational reason, their objective has been to maintain it, and keep it operating… which is their job. I prefer it when people (and especially bureaucrats) do not make up the rules of their job as they go along, especially when it affects my life and/or livelihood.
Moderna is of course a US company led predominantly by people from elsewhere who doubtless moved to the US for a reason… it’s a pattern with innovation
If you’re referring to the recent New York Times article
It was in the Irish Times, but it could well have been a story reprinted from the NYT. They sometimes do that and I might have forgotten the credit by now.
Peter wrote:
Good news on a possible vaccine.
Good news indeed. Without being a told you so (and lets not speak too soon) I think there have been some indications of this for a while. A number of the pharmas are well into phase three trials, and by phase three they will always have a pretty good idea how its going – after all essentially after P3 it is only regulatory approval that is required. Also you get the impression that the boys in politics have been told dont worry too much chaps we have your back on this one, but dont say anything yet!
Of course, we all hope!!
Will the next queues be for the vaccine and will it be rolled out by surname? Will we be fighting over private and NHS services running in parallel, and how will other countries go about mass ditribution?
PS So Peter are you a regular Mail reader? 
The other point of ineterest from this news is I do wonder how the political class everywhere will deal with an early vaccine. The argument will inevitably be the Government has (had) a duty to protect its citizens and had they done so through to an early vaccine, then lives would have been saved; the same argument someone in the UK is already having a crowd funded go at with the Government shipping people off to Rest Homes and Nursing Homes. I know the counter will be we didnt know an early vaccine was possible, but clearly countries like NZ that have instigated a harsh lock down and border control will be compared with countries where the more people have died during the wait for a vaccine.
