MedEwok wrote:
I disagree, the scientific data is out there to back this up. “Long Covid” is real, although I cannot say how common exactly it is (there are several tens of thousands of reported cases though, so it is not just a handful of unlucky people) and most importantly it does affect the otherwise young and healthy.
From what I have read these are people that were rather badly affected by the “short” corona. This is a statistical thing anyway, and the curve is bell shaped (normally 
) I have not seen any in the age 0-20 being affected by this. Besides, ages 20-60 (or until you are too sick/old) are perfectly capable of managing their own risk. Here I agree with Silvaire. Everyone is free to behave as much “scared old lady” as they want, and I don’t really see what “society” has to do with it.
Silvaire wrote:
My concern is that life won’t be back to normal regardless, as a result of reluctance to release all the authoritarian power grabs that have occurred.
Well, if you want some beacon of hope, the Manx government removed every single last restriction that was brought in during the lockdown here – despite everyone saying “they are only trying to get X in through the back door”. At every press conference they said that all the emergency legislation was temporary (including speed limits, which made for an unreasonable amount of whingeing) stressing any changes can only come about through Tynwald (parliament) and the democratic process. They said the emergency legislation wouldn’t exist for more than one moment longer than necessary, and they were 100% true to their word.
During lockdown they supported businesses. I know several business owners, all of them were supported and all of them are running back as normal.
The only COVID legislation that remains is over the borders, understandably, as we don’t want COVID back in the community. The government have repeatedly stressed that they do not wish to keep these restrictions for more than one moment longer than necessary. Based on their record, I can trust this statement.
I think it is fair to say we can all agreed that the “Sweden model” is a failed mdel. It was a very interesting and worthwhile approach to explore, but it seems to me even with Sweden’s unique circumstances, some measures are justified, and today Sweden is even beginning to talk about a lock down.
It seems to me the response to any pandamic virus with this degree of infection and mortality will be measures of social distancing, lockdowns and economic impact in the future, except that perhaps a virus that displays symtpoms sooner, and with more effective track and trace, will avoid the most extreme of this time around with Covid-19.
LeSving wrote:
From what I have read these are people that were rather badly affected by the “short” corona.
Not really. E.g. the JCM paper I linked (the mdpi link) is purely on patients that have not been hospitalized at all in the acute phase of the disease.
As said, we are still in the very early phase for such long term symptoms and for patients where the acute phase has been mild it is actually even herder to create a “prove” that their current symptoms are connected to corona and not some other kind of condition that coincidentally started around the time they got infected with corona.
Lot’s of research to be done still and lots of time needed for that but initial signals are quite alarming"!
LeSving wrote:
I have not seen any in the age 0-20 being affected by this.
In which “control group” have you not seen any of this happening? For adolescent it is even harder to show any causation relationship at this early stage in time. Periods of joint pain, nausea, etc. are quite normal for adolescent and therefore can not be immediately attributed to Covid. Therefore we will need even more time to figure out and prove these cases.
Saying it’s safe because we haven’t seen that yet is like pretending that flying is without any risks at all as long as you are more than 5 inch above ground.
LeSving wrote:
Besides, ages 20-60 (or until you are too sick/old) are perfectly capable of managing their own risk
Not at all! You can only manage risks you know of. The knowledge of these risk is (see this dicusion) extremely weak in the general population. Therefore it can’t be managed. Plus humans are in general extremely bad in managing risks of infrequent events.
Finally and most importantly: The majority of the measures against Covid are not about managing your own risk but managing the risks of others by your behavior. You can do whatever you want as long as you not put others at risk (therefore influencing their risk management).
alioth wrote:
Silvaire wrote: My concern is that life won’t be back to normal regardless, as a result of reluctance to release all the authoritarian power grabs that have occurred.Well, if you want some beacon of hope, the Manx government removed every single last restriction that was brought in during the lockdown here – despite everyone saying “they are only trying to get X in through the back door”. At every press conference they said that all the emergency legislation was temporary (including speed limits, which made for an unreasonable amount of whingeing) stressing any changes can only come about through Tynwald (parliament) and the democratic process. They said the emergency legislation wouldn’t exist for more than one moment longer than necessary, and they were 100% true to their word.
During lockdown they supported businesses. I know several business owners, all of them were supported and all of them are running back as normal.
The only COVID legislation that remains is over the borders, understandably, as we don’t want COVID back in the community. The government have repeatedly stressed that they do not wish to keep these restrictions for more than one moment longer than necessary. Based on their record, I can trust this statement.
It does seem to me that a lesson learnt is small communities with a strong response can avoid the worst reprecussions of this type of pandemic.
The success stories so far are places like the IofM, WA, NZ and, interestingly, most of the WIs. The last is especially interesting to me, and I think also much to do with the climate and life style. It seems to indicate that without jumping on any pandamic virus very early with strict measures, and even more so in non small island nations with wide open borders, the horse will bolt the stable before you know, and then it becomes almost impossible to put it back. Today, I still believe that had we in the UK lockeddown several weeks earlier and if we had had a a sound track and trace (which we did not), then we might have controlled Covid-19. As it was I now suspect we would never have been able to eliminate the virus in the way of the above BUT we would have put ourselves under much less pressure by reacting to a rise in the number of people infected much sooner than allowing the rate to climb to a level where we had no other alternative.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I think it is fair to say we can all agreed that the “Sweden model” is a failed mdel.
Far from it. As long as the stated aim was clear, and there was clear support beyond say 52% 
of the population for the both the aim and method, and then the performance achieved the aim and the method was followed then yes it was a success.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Finally and most importantly: The majority of the measures against Covid are not about managing your own risk but managing the risks of others by your behavior. You can do whatever you want as long as you not put others at risk (therefore influencing their risk management).
A key point which many libertarian minded people seem to either dismiss, deliberately ignore or simply be unaware of.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I think it is fair to say we can all agreed that the “Sweden model” is a failed mdel.
That is, frankly, still too early to say. Looking at statistics, the countries with lockdowns that fared worse than Sweden the past spring still fare worse. As do some countries that fared better.
It was a very interesting and worthwhile approach to explore, but it seems to me even with Sweden’s unique circumstances, some measures are justified, and today Sweden is even beginning to talk about a lock down.
A lockdown in Sweden is constitutionally impossible. Today I read a post in my Facebook feed which well explains why. (Translated into English)
About lockdowns again. There is no possibility for the government to implement a general shutdown of society. This is not a mistake or a shortcoming in the constitution. It is a legal regulation based on well-thought out considerations.
The constitution has been written precisely to be able to tackle times of unrest and crisis. The absence of the possibility of declaring a state of emergency is not an oversight. It was not something that was forgotten.
The current regulation is based on a solid analysis and the view that fundamental freedoms and rights need strong protection even in a crisis.
This may seem wrong – many people seem to think that arguments for freedom and rights are inappropriate in the current situation – but it is not correct to describe it as a product of carelessness by the legislator when she wrote the Instrument of Government
(The Instrument of Government is the most important part of the Swedish constitution. The current version was adopted in 1974.)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Not at all! You can only manage risks you know of. The knowledge of these risk is (see this dicusion) extremely weak in the general population. Therefore it can’t be managed. Plus humans are in general extremely bad in managing risks of infrequent events.
So? As I said, the role of the government (society) is first and foremost to feed the population with information, science, facts. Where no information or facts exist, this is equally bad for everyone, but I don’t see how this is an excuse for not managing your own risk. Humans may very well be poor at managing risk, but so are politicians, they are also humans.
What is more difficult is for one individual to change behavior to mitigate the risk of another individual. Even more difficult still is if that changed behavior causes increased risk of another group (kids being put in “jail” at home for instance).
There has to be some balance. That balance has to be built on facts, nor scare mongery. If it turns out that long term effects are much worse than initially thought, then this is a new fact. That fact (if it is a real fact) will for sure make people more vary of their behavior, because getting Covid may be much worse than initially thought. It does not however change basic facts we already do know, that this disease is much worse for the old and sick, and irrelevant for kids.
Ted wrote:
Ted
17-Nov-20 10:26
235Fuji_Abound wrote:
I think it is fair to say we can all agreed that the “Sweden model” is a failed mdel.Far from it. As long as the stated aim was clear, and there was clear support beyond say 52% of the population for the both the aim and method, and then the performance achieved the aim and the method was followed then yes it was a success.
Ah yes, as ever it does of course depend on how you measure success.
What I meant is that it is failure judged on the basis that the Government feels stricter measures are now necessary and are discussing a lock down. To the extent that if the policy was considered to be working, then it wouldnt need changing? The fact that by not having had earlier lockdowns or as much economic pain is evident and overall by those measures it may be judged a success, but as an overall strategy of avoiding tighter measures (on groups meeting etc), and full lockdowns, it is a failure. (and of course I dont mean this to fuel national fervour, just a commentary on what appears to be the evidence), and fully understanding the population have supported a lighter approach).
