Now: The following article from Björn Smedman was already published April 11th - now already almost a month ago. In contrast to the assumptions of Tegnell and Giesecke this article has aged well, what is factually very sad.
openias.org/swedens-covid1…
openias.org/swedens-covid1…
From this article its the first time I understand there the wrong assumptions from the Swedish CDC came from; I thought, that these had been pure speculation; but, I have to apologize, it's not. It was based on facts - but these there interpreted really wrong.
The basic wrong assumption was, that Wuhan had already reached herd-immunity in January and that the lock-down of Wuhan was just futile; the epidemic would have stoped anyhow there.
But why would you assume such a far-fetched premise? I can imagine: What many of the Western epidemiologists had in their minds, was, that you "just can not truts the Chinese"; they lie, or they are low-brow, or... well, you just cannot trust them.
Now, that assumption is wrong:
1) If you know anything about modern Chinese science, you know that these colleagues do reliable work, are diligent and accurate. They published their data peer-reviewed in @TheLancet and on @JAMA_current.
1) If you know anything about modern Chinese science, you know that these colleagues do reliable work, are diligent and accurate. They published their data peer-reviewed in @TheLancet and on @JAMA_current.
2) If you dont trust the Chinese gvt (or, what's mainly the same, the communist party), ... that's a whole other story. Now let as asume we do not trust CPC. So why should they lie in this case & what would you assume is the truth if they lied? ...
Realistic assumption: They could have lied to cover up for the severity of the outbreak. {They actually tried that until end of Dec; but, when they realized, that it was really severe, that they simply couldn't continue that path}. ...
But why should they have lied about the unprecedented and radical quarantine measure taken in Wuhan? Road-block a whole city? That wasn't possible to hide; also the very high death-toll (satellite fotos of graves!).
The only assumption you could make her, was, that they would still be playing down the severity. But they chose this dramatic lockdown - so it had to be very severe, see: the party might be lying, but they are not stupid...
...these people wouldn't have chosen the lockdown of an 11 Million megacity just for fun or for damaging their own economy, if there was a chance, that this was simply unnecessary.
Conclusion: It was transparent that the assumption of "herd immunity" in Wuhan was wrong. It was also proven wrong in March by the experience from the Diamond Princess and by the outbreak in Bergamo. You did not need the Chinese data for that.
Now,May 10th,especially the data from Stockholm prove, that this city still has no herd immunity &Sweden is far from herd immunity.We now KNOW from meticulously analysed data,that the IFR(for Sweden) is between 0,5 & 1,1%;far higher than the value of 0,02% claimed by Giesecke
It's a disaster. It's about time for colleagues Giesecke and Tegnell to wake up and start limiting the damage they have caused.
@threadreaderapp "unroll"
