In a pandemic, there is no substitute
for immunity, because immunity provides the best protection against
reinfection. That’s why Sweden set its sights on immunity from the very
beginning. They crafted a policy that was designed to protect the old and
vulnerable, prevent the public health system from being overwhelmed, and, most
important, allow younger, low-risk people to interact freely so they’d contract
the virus and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight future infections.
That was the plan and it worked like a charm. Now Sweden is just weeks away
from achieving herd immunity (which means that future outbreaks will not be
nearly as severe) while the lockdown nations– that are just now easing
restrictions– face an excruciating uphill slog that may or may not succeed.
Bottom line: Sweden analyzed the problem, figured out what to do, and did it. That’s
why they are closing in on the finish line while most of the lockdown states
are still stuck at Square 1.
As
of this writing, none of the other nations have identified immunity as their
primary objective which is why their orientation has been wrong from the
get-go. You cannot achieve a goal that you have not identified. The current US
strategy focuses on stringent containment procedures (shelter-in-place,
self-isolation) most of which have little historical or scientific basis. The
truth is, the Trump administration responded precipitously when the number of
Covid-positive cases began to increase exponentially in the US. That paved the
way for a lockdown policy that’s more the result of groupthink and flawed
computer models than data-based analysis and nimble strategic planning. And the
results speak for themselves. The 8-week lockdown is probably the biggest
policy disaster in US history. Millions of jobs have been lost, thousands of
small and mid-sized businesses will now face bankruptcy, and the future
prospects for an entire generation of young people have been obliterated. The
administration could have detonated multiple nuclear bombs in the country and
done less damage than they have with their lunatic lockdown policy.
At
present, 24 states have begun the process of reopening their economies. There
is no uniform criteria for lifting restrictions, no standardized approach to
opening one sector over the other, and no plan for dealing with the inevitable
surge of new cases and deaths. It all looks like another disaster in the making
but we’ll reserve judgement until the results are in. What we know for certain
is that no one in the Trump administration gave the slightest thought to the
problems that might arise from eventually lifting the restrictions. We know
that because we know that there was no “exit strategy”, just
make-it-up-on-the-fly and hope for the best.
In
contrast, Sweden won’t need an exit strategy because it never shut down its
economy or quarantined its people to begin with. So the transition to normal
life and stepped-up economic activity is not going to be as difficult. That’s
the benefit of strategic planning, it anticipates the problems one might
encounter on the path one’s goal. Here’s a clip from an interview with Swedish
an infectious disease clinician, Johan Giesecke, , who served as state
epidemiologist of Sweden as well as Chief Scientist at the European Centre for
Disease Prevention and Control. Giesecke helps explain why the Swedish approach
is different. It’s a matter of perception as well as analysis:
“What
we are seeing is a rather mild infection spreading around the globe. I think there is relatively
little chance of stopping this whatever measures we take. Most
people will become infected by this and most people won’t even notice. We have data now from
Sweden that between 98 and 99% of the cases have had a very mild infection or
didn’t even realize they were infected. So we have the spread of
this mild disease around the globe and most of it is happening where we don’t
see it because it happens among people who don’t get very sick and , spread it
to someone else who doesn’t get very sick… What we looking at (with the
official number of cases and deaths) is a thin layer at the top of people who
do develop the disease and an even thinner layer of people who go into
intensive care and an even thinner layer of people who die. But the real
outbreak is happening where we don’t see it.” (“Swedish scientist Johan
Giesecke asks Australia how it plans to lift its lockdown without deaths”, you
tube…52 second mark to 1:48)
Giesecke’s analysis veers from
the conventional view of the virus which explains why the Swedish response has
been so different. For example, he says: “I think there is relatively little
chance of stopping this whatever measures we take.”
This
gets to the root of the Swedish approach. Sweden is not trying to suppress the
infection which they see as a force of nature (like a tsunami) that cannot be
contained but only mitigated. From the beginning, the Swedish approach has been
to “control the spread of the virus”, not to suppress it through containment
strategies. There’s a fundamental difference here, and that difference is
expressed in the policy.
Second,
“We have data now from Sweden that between 98 and 99% of the cases have had a
very mild infection or didn’t even realize they were infected.” In other words,
this is highly-contagious infection that poses little or no threat to most
people. That suggests the economy can be kept open without endangering the
lives of low-risk groups. The added benefit of allowing certain businesses to remain
open, is that it creates a controlled environment in which the infection can
spread rapidly through the healthy population who, in turn, develop the
antibodies they need for future outbreaks. This all fits within Sweden’s plan
for managing, rather than avoiding, the virus.
Finally,
“What we looking at is a thin layer at the top of people who do develop the
disease and an even thinner layer of people who go into intensive care and an
even thinner layer of people who die.” The vast majority of people who die from
Covid are over 65 with multiple underlying conditions. It’s a terrible tragedy
that they should die, but destroying the lives and livelihoods of
millions of working people in a futile attempt to stop an unstoppable force
like Covid, is foolish and unforgivable. The appropriate response
is to protect the old and infirm as much as possible, carefully monitor the
rise in cases to prevent the public health system from cratering, and keep the
economy operating at a lower level. And that’s exactly what Sweden has done.
FAUCI vs. PAUL: Operation
“Obfuscate Immunity”
Not
surprisingly, the issue of immunity came up during Dr Anthony Fauci’s testimony
on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. There was a heated exchange between Fauci and
Senator Rand Paul who challenged the infectious disease expert on the
misleading information that the WHO has been spreading in the media. Here’s an
excerpt from the transcript:
Senator Rand Paul: “Dr. Fauci, Studies show that the recovering
COVID-19 patients from the asymptomatic to the very sick are showing
significant antibody response. Studies show that SARS and MERS, also
coronaviruses, induce immunity for at least 2 to 3 years, and yet the media
continues to report that we have no evidence that patients who survive
coronavirus have immunity. I think actually the truth is the opposite. We have
no evidence that survivors of coronavirus don’t have immunity and a great deal
of evidence to suggest that they do….
You’ve stated publicly that you’d bet it at all that survivors of
coronavirus have some form of immunity. Can you help set the record straight
that the scientific record, as it is being accumulated, is supportive that
infection with coronavirus likely leads to some form of immunity, Dr. Fauci?”
Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Thank you for the question, Senator Paul. Yes,
you’re correct that I have said that, given what we know about the recovery
from viruses such as coronaviruses in general, or even any infectious disease
with very few exceptions, that when you have antibody present it very likely
indicates a degree of protection.
I think it’s in the semantics of how this is expressed. When you
say has it been formally proven by long-term natural history studies, which is
the only way that you can prove, one, is it protective, which I said and will
repeat, it’s likely that it is, but also what is the degree or titer of
antibody that gives you that critical level of protection and what is the
durability. As I’ve often said and again repeat, you can make a reasonable
assumption that it would be protective, but natural history studies over a
period of months to years will then tell you definitively if that’s the case.”
(Real Clear Politics)
This
is a critical exchange that helps to underscore what an elusive and calculating
political character Fauci really is. You will notice that his answer is
completely scripted, completely circuitous and carefully avoids any mention of
the word “immunity”.
Rand
Paul’s question couldn’t be more straightforward: Do Covid survivors have
immunity or not? Yes or no?
And,
the answer is: “Yes, they do. Covid survivors do have immunity.”
But
Fauci doesn’t deliver that answer, after a long-winded rumination, Fauci
finally offers the most opaque response he can conjure up, he says, “you can
make a reasonable assumption that it would be protective.” In other words, he
carefully avoids a definitive answer. But, of course, that’s understandable
since the WHO has been spreading false rumors about herd immunity trying to
muddy the science since it doesn’t jibe with their pro-vaccine agenda. That’s
what this is all about, bashing natural immunity to clear the way for a
vaccine. Check out this clip from an article at Business Insider:
“…leaders at the World Health Organization Monday expressed
outrage at the idea that some people might have to die in pursuit of a
far-fetched virus-fighting strategy called herd immunity.
“This idea that, ‘well, maybe countries who had lax measures and
haven’t done anything will all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity,
and so what if we lose a few old people along the way?’ This is a really
dangerous, dangerous calculation,” the WHO’s Executive Director of Health
Emergencies Mike Ryan said on a call with reporters.
Ryan didn’t mention any specific countries by name, but it was
hard not to think about the high death rate in Swedish nursing homes as he
mentioned that “in some countries, over half of the cases have occurred in
longterm care facilities,” where people haven’t been “properly shielded.”…
“Humans are not herds,” Ryan said. “I think we need to be really
careful when we use terms in this way around natural infections in humans,
because it can lead to a very brutal arithmetic which does not put people, and
life, and suffering at the center of that equation.”
Ryan was audibly troubled by the idea that the world would accept
an infection spreading through a population, and even killing some people, to
provide a kind of herd protection, especially one which scientists don’t even
know exists. He said that’s not a calculus that any “responsible” country
should be willing to take.” (“Humans are not Herds”,
Business Insider)
As
you can see, the Gates Vaccine Gestapo has launched a propaganda campaign aimed
at discrediting, obfuscating and ridiculing other methods for achieving
immunity that don’t coincide with their grandiose ambitions to use vaccines as
an entry-point for enhanced global tracking, surveillance and social control.
Is anyone surprised by this?
But
the fact remains that–as Paul says, “recovering COVID-19 patients
…show significant antibody response (and will likely have) immunity for at
least 2 to 3 years.” Here’s more from Sweden’s
chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell who made this comment in an interview last
week:
“It
is quite certain that immunity does exist…. For all the cases we have had in
Sweden, there has not been one single person who had this disease twice. And we
have a very strict identification system. So there is no way we would miss a
person who had it twice. I haven’t heard any reports
from any countries where there has been a certified case who has actually had
this twice. There’s been rumors about it. But in the end, they have been
disclaimed.” (“Key quotes: Sweden’s top
epidemiologist challenges conventional wisdom on COVID-19” ijnet)
Repeat: “there has not been one
single person who had this disease twice.”
The science is clear, immunity is real
and Sweden is on its way to achieving herd immunity within the month.
Sweden’s public health experts have
loosened the grip of a vicious pandemic and delivered the Swedish people to a
place of safety and security where they can get on with their lives without
fear of contracting a lethal infection.
Hurrah for Sweden!
