| (Edit: I agree with some of these, just not all - I come across as dismissive below just because I responded to only those I disagree with...) > Claimed that there won't be any risk for widespread spread in Sweden. This is incorrect. That was a momentary assessment "right now we don't see that risk". That obviously never meant "We can't see that this will ever happen". > Over and over again made claims that "the peak of transmission has been reached" once it started in Sweden during March/April - every time incorrect. When was the first time this happened? I think what people found weird was that cases and deaths kept going up afterwards. But that doesn't mean the peak of transmission hasn't happened. The peak of hospitalizations/deaths etc was Apr 24 or thereabout, that means peak of transmission was a couple of weeks before that. When did he first say it? > (Ironically) denied the existence/significance of asymptomatic/presymptomatic transmission (he's still not admitting that it plays a significant role). He's arguing that there is still no clear evidence it is. I'm going to give him a pass on that. You might argue that one should act as though it might be because we don't know so better safe than sorry - and I'd agree with that too. > Made multiple, way too optimistic claims about when Stockholm might have reached herd immunity (May, June) - in reality, it's far far away. I also found these confusing. But perhaps he looks at different numbers such as the bend in various curves rather than serological numbers (in that case he's very bad att communicating clearly what he means). I'm still optimistic that actual immunity can be much higher than serological tests show, because people turn out to have innate immunity /immunity that isn't IgG/IgA. But yes - he shouldn't be so optimistic in public I think. > - Claimed that children don't spread the virus in significant ways (as far as I know, there is no consensus about that). Again, if you look at it as "Don't take any action based on anything that isn't scientifically clear" rather than "Assume worst case and act accordingly".
What's becoming clear is that the FHM is extremely afraid of the consequences of mitigations (lockdowns, school closing) on public health. Example: if you count a semester lost at school as 6 months life lost - then you can start to make the numbers add up. I don't know exactly how they value things - but I trust they know what they are doing. Essentially I think that the FHM assign a high value to parameters such as personal freedom, domestic abuse, mental health, future healthcare budget... and a rather low value, to the value of a year of life for people 75 and over. This sounds ethically cynical (especially in e.g. a Catholic worldview). To me it's absolutely natural to set up these equations and balance deaths vs. other things (Not just "the economy" but "public health" in general, including the wellbeing of school children etc). |
"You might argue that one should act as though it might be because we don't know so better safe than sorry - and I'd agree with that too." Indeed. I remember taking a flight on March 1 and being on high alert and pretty nervous, because already at that point, I had been reading in non-Swedish media about indications regarding asymptomatic transmission, and I was assuming that local transmission in Europe already was ongoing in various countries. While I didn't catch the virus, in hindsight, it clearly was a correct assumption. I early on internalized that instead of relying on advice from Tegnell and his health agency, I had to rely on my own understanding/sense-making, information consumption, on foreign experts and common sense.
"I don't know exactly how they value things - but I trust they know what they are doing. " For me, it's the opposite: Absolutely zero trust. And I had not even an opinion about him and his agency before Corona (I didn't even know of him). So this is not the result of a long-standing mistrust of Swedish authorities. This is the first time I am so strongly feeling a total lack of trust.