Pandemic: The Latest Evidence Suggests Sweden Was Right All Along

Picture: 21st Century Wire

As the COVID — 19 pandemic rolls on with the mathematical modellers, the masked snivellers and the vax maniacs still unable to offer any logical prognosis of why measures taken have not worked as well as was hoped (or in some cases not at all,) we need to look at the news from Sweden. Not long ago, when the government of Sweden decided on a limited lockdown in order to protect people in the groups most vulnerable to the virus, while preserving the national economy and the jobs of the majority, establishment pundits and mainstream media scaremongers were falling over each other in the rush to tell Sweden it was totally irresponsible ot to completely lockdown the entire population, that COVID — 19 was far worse than anyone understood and that “you watch, if you don’t do what the globalists at the United Nations and the WHO tell you karma will come and bite you on the arse.

What Sweden had done to upset the scaremonger was to settle on a policy that they believied was both sustainable and would save many lives as possible, based on the knowledge that COVID — 19 posed very little risk to people under 50 who had no pre — existing health problems. They weren’t putting profit before people as lefties in Europe and the USA claimed, nor were they trying to discredit “The Science” as The Church Of Scienceology Cult claimed, or to deny the vaccine manufacturers an opportunity to make vast profits as the free markets right said. They simply took a more traditionalist approach to dealing with a strain on seasonal ‘flu that actually had a lower kill rate than most previously known strains, and that when the numers are analysed did not, in the UK at least, meet the criteria for being declared an epidemic. The Swedish government hoped that by avoiding a full-scale lockdown they would avoid the very deep economic recession that would inevitably follow.

The problem that gave the UN and WHO wankers , and academics who earn big fat fees for promoting globalist policies was that they refused to follow the herd. As punishment for breaking ranks Sweden had to be punished economically and pilloried in the media. They refused to do what suited the interests of globalism. They refused to adopt a policy that the power and money elites universally support, they ignored the propaganda designed to generate fear and panic at such levels it would reduce about half of the populations in the developed nations to a state of snivelling submission.

The Swedish model is a threat to the elite’s agenda that approach because it allowed people to retain personal freedom even in the midst of a global pandemic, to decide for themselves whether it was necessary to wear masks outdoors (it isn’t — even the WHO had admitted there is very little chance of the infection being passed on while we are outdoors, of developing OCD about hand washing and bleaching all surfaces, and of isolating ourselves to avoid low risk contact with friends and family.

Ruling class elites don’t want that, that is not in their interests. The whole agenda behind the pandemic rests on isolating us in order that the information we have access to can be strictly controlled. To implement their global governance plan, people have to meekly accept the rules and conditions imposed for their own good that can only lead to their eventual enslavement. That’s the real objective, the end of even the pretence of democracy, complete dominance by an authoritarian, centralised government whose members are appointees from corporate business, the political establishment and the academic world. Saving lives has nothing to do with it, controlling the minutiae of our lives is what it’s all about. Sweden opposed that approach which is why Sweden has to be destroyed.

None of this is any connection with Sweden’s fatality rate, which is higher than some and lower than others. (Sweden has 543 deaths per million, which means roughly 1 death in every 2,000 people.) But like every other country, the vast majority of Swedish fatalities are among people 70 years and older with underlying health conditions. (“90% of the country’s deaths have been among those over 70.”)

In spite of the widespread and vitriolic criticism of its strategy, and one of the highest fatalitity rates per head in the world — only 70 people under 49 years old have died of Covid-19, out of 5,482 total virus deaths (1.3%) so far. For context, average annual deaths in Sweden over the last 5 years for under-49-year-olds have been 3,417. ]

Most of the criticism of Sweden’s handling of the pandemic, and the harshest attacks have focused on the fact that the government failed to protect the old, frail and chronically ill and they’ve admitted they failed. But are those criticisms fair? The failure to temporarily protect the most vulnerable does not imply that the policy was wrong. Nobody knew the pandemic was coming, (in spite of what Bill Gates might try to claim; “the next pandemic” he warned of in hos notorious ED talk back in 2014 was in fact a pandemic of ebola, although the pandemic he claimed the world had just experienced was a localised outbreak on the disease in West Africa,) and as medical science can now keep people alive almost indefinitely, the ultimate cost of being prepared for every possible eventuality and of preserving the lives of people who cannot survive without constant and intense medical support is not sustainable.

Would there have been any logic in throwing unlimited resources at prolonging the lives of Sweden’s old and chronically sick for a few months? On the contrary, that course of action, in nations that adopted it, has not only caused economic chaos, but has hasrened the deaths of people whose treatment for various cancers, heart disease, diabetes and many other problems.Initial estimates for the UK are put at 35,000 premature, non COVID deaths by the end of the year.

Sweden adopted a sustainable policy that kept the economy in working order, protected small businesses, preserved an atmosphere of normality instead of imposing unbearable stresses on millions of people, maintained education for its children and preserved the jobs and living standards of middle and working class families. That policy may have exposed its young, low-risk people to the infection, (thus, moving the population closer to the Holy Grail of “herd immunity”) but at least it was led by logic rather than sentimentality.

RELATED POSTS:
Coronavirus: Fear and Panic and a Globalist Power Grab
Scientist who convinced Boris lockdown was the only way to beat coronavirus criticised many times for flawed research
Stanford University Doc: COVID Fatality Rate For People Under 45 Is “Almost 0%”
COVID19 - Statistics, Lies and the Corruption of Science

Opted for comfortable retirement before I was fifty due to health problems and burn out. Now spend my time writing and goofing around. Home: northern England..