This Giesecke piece is astounding(ly bad). I'm surprised @TheLancet ran it, as it makes numerous assertions that are either un-evidenced or directly counter to available evidence:
I could believe that 20-25% of Stockholm has been infected, but I'd want more evidence than (very limited) PCR testing, unexplained "assumptions," and a single serology survey of frontline health workers. 
Far more dubious is the assertion that only 1-2% of infected people are aware they've had the disease.
The highest estimates of pre-symptomatic carriers top out around 50-60% - far lower than this.
And while estimates of true asymptomatics vary, the likely range is quite low.
The highest estimates of pre-symptomatic carriers top out around 50-60% - far lower than this.
And while estimates of true asymptomatics vary, the likely range is quite low.
Where asymptomatic cases have been tracked within a fixed population over time, we tend to see numerous cases transmitting PRE-symptomatically but most of these later develop symptoms.
In the S. Korean call center, 4% were truly asymptomatic. In Kirkland elder care home, 6%.
In the S. Korean call center, 4% were truly asymptomatic. In Kirkland elder care home, 6%.
He also argues that lockdowns do not protect people living in elder care facilities. But defends this by pointing to the UK, which was famously slow to lock down, and has not provided sufficient testing or PPE to protect these facilities (same story in US).
But the most astonishing claim is that there is little than can be done to stop spread of the disease. This is repeatedly stated and is core to his defense of Sweden's herd immunity strategy.
But it is totally contradicted by available evidence.
But it is totally contradicted by available evidence.
South Korea is containing spread.
Hong Kong is containing spread.
New Zealand is containing spread.
Taiwan is containing spread.
Mainland China is containing spread.
Germany is containing spread.
Israel is containing spread.
Norway (right next door) is containing spread.
Etc.
Hong Kong is containing spread.
New Zealand is containing spread.
Taiwan is containing spread.
Mainland China is containing spread.
Germany is containing spread.
Israel is containing spread.
Norway (right next door) is containing spread.
Etc.
Most of these places have far lower death rates than Swedend.
And most have avoided the kind of protracted lockdowns that the US and UK have had to resort to - because they acted early and took a holistic strategy of social distancing plus and test/trace/isolate.
And most have avoided the kind of protracted lockdowns that the US and UK have had to resort to - because they acted early and took a holistic strategy of social distancing plus and test/trace/isolate.
His assertion that containment will ultimately fail and death levels everywhere will look about the same is not totally unimaginable.
But it's also NOT what the available evidence and experience is telling us so far. And he provides no meaningful evidence to argue otherwise.
But it's also NOT what the available evidence and experience is telling us so far. And he provides no meaningful evidence to argue otherwise.
One last point. Many of the herd immunity arguments rest as well on the assumption that for people who don't die, COVID is mostly a passing inconvenience, like a case of flu.
That's not a sound assumption. Non-fatal cases can still be damaging.
That's not a sound assumption. Non-fatal cases can still be damaging.
We can't say a great deal yet about lasting effects of a 5-month-old virus. But non-fatal cases can still suffer serious effects to their lungs and other organs, and even "mild" cases can have a long recovery period. businessinsider.com/covid-19-recov…
So there's reason to be careful about assuming that most people who get it will be fine.
I for one would not want to roll the dice on a 1-in-5 chance of hospitalization and lung and organ damage, even if temporary.
I for one would not want to roll the dice on a 1-in-5 chance of hospitalization and lung and organ damage, even if temporary.
