This is the same Danske Bank which claimed that Sweden's Q2 GDP would outperform it's neighbors -- and turned out to be totally incorrect when Sweden's Q2 GDP dived 8.3%. Yeah their track record sucks. Maybe their lack of understanding about banking or the economy is why they are now laying off an additional 16,000 employees.
In the Coronavirus Fight in Scandinavia, Sweden Stands Apart
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
This is the same Danske Bank which claimed that Sweden's Q2 GDP would outperform it's neighbors -- and turned out to be totally incorrect when Sweden's Q2 GDP dived 8.3%. Yeah their track record sucks. Maybe their lack of understanding about banking or the economy is why they are now laying off an additional 16,000 employees.
Hey Mr Stolen Valor, please stop. You are a coward. I see no reason to destroy the economy because you are scared.
Think about the logic, gwb-turding is scared, so the rest of us have to lock down. Its crazy.
Actually, I'm not concern about right or wrong. Simply, if I'm right...I'm not going to pat myself on the back for something involving people that have lost their lives or will lose their lives...losing their livelihood.
As for the United States...I thought they had two objectives via their lockdown...
To flatten the curve and to buy more time until a vaccine / FDA approved therapeutic drug was found.
By the way, the Canadian government reviewed the "cost / benefits " scenario prior to the decision to do the full lockdown. Whatever models they used...there was a heated debate in Parliament in which all parties demanded the Prime Minister to focus on the NOW and deal with the LATER via having programs (new programs) in place.
I think in late September they model to repair / rebuild the damage from the economic lockdown plus restrictions that may follow from Covid-19 was going to cost via a sum around $343 billion in comparison to the link you posted a cost was $226 billion @ https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/06/the-costs-and-benefits-of-canadas-pandemic-response/
- Simply, Canada made a decision via the initial lockdown to protect their citizens from disease and saving the lives of those hospitalized as in the now.
Also, as noted in the article...it did not calculate the cost of providing financial assistance which could be a reason why the author had $226 billion to contrast Canada's calculation of $343 billion.
- In contrast, I think (could be wrong) that the costs in United States is in the trillions.
I can't speak for other Canadians. Personally, myself and my family have not suffered financially from Covid-19 and I have private disability insurance to protect my income (taken out in 2012) that came in handy in 2017 when I was recovering from an illness fall of 2016.
Emotionally, the family is good and I see the same in most of my friends. In contrast, there seem to be a few that's worried about their businesses but they had enough "rainy day savings" to get by a few years without any income although I don't know the financial stability of their employees.
I own a business in France that only re-open a few weeks ago. I supported my employees out of my own pocket since March. I too have a "rainy day savings" but didn't think I would need to dip into it so soon let alone for a Pandemic but my employees are like family to me and its the minimum I could do to support them during this Pandemic.
Regardless, I don't know how governments in countries calculate these types of economic costs / benefits in Pandemics or Epidemics. Yet, if they say they can recover, I need to trust them that such will occur and its not just jawing from a smooth talking politician.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
Thank you for that information... it appears to me that Canada's govt took a much more responsible approach. Perhaps that is why they/you had more buy in from their people...
Had we a parliamentary style debate in California and in all the other states around the country... I think many of us would been far more accepting and therefore compliant with govt mandates.
1. That state governors alone were creating these lockdowns seemed far more dictatorial. We know a State Supreme Court said a governor overstepped here authority and I agreed.
To me... Governors got to destroy businesses and people's physical health and mental health. One person should not have that much power. At the very least the state legislatures should have been the ones passing these very consequential mandates. They should have been laws not mandates after the first week or 2.
2. Both sides did not get to hear all the arguments against the lockdowns.
For instance... you said Canada debated the downsides, not just financial but emotional and medical. None of that was really ever rigorously discussed and considered by our politicians..
===
3. I don't recall the US shutdown being justified (in the beginning) by anything other than the need to shift the virus in time for hospital space. Had they attempted to justify based on te speculation of future theraputics... then there would have been an even stronger argument to let the low risk out...since it was already apparently to doctors from day 1 this virus was going after the obese an the old and unhealthy... statistically speaking.
So we would have immediately been arguing for a more limited lockdown. (which goes back to point one... there should have been a debate and there should have been votes by the legislatures. I remember a court in Wisconsin telling the governor she over stepped her authority.)
Summary
That was useful information you gave us about the process in Canada.
I think that difference explains some of the reason we had very limited public buy in to those mandates in the US. It may even explain why we had riots. You can keep people locked down in tight quarters as long as we did.
Basically many of our states exercised bad leftist govt.
Which makes sense to me... because I believe we get the worst of the left and the worst of the right here.
Both parties give us the worst govt, crony money can buy.
Had we a parliamentary style debate in California and in all the other states around the country... I think many of us would been far more accepting and therefore compliant with govt mandates.
1. That state governors alone were creating these lockdowns seemed far more dictatorial. We know a State Supreme Court said a governor overstepped here authority and I agreed.
To me... Governors got to destroy businesses and people's physical health and mental health. One person should not have that much power. At the very least the state legislatures should have been the ones passing these very consequential mandates. They should have been laws not mandates after the first week or 2.
2. Both sides did not get to hear all the arguments against the lockdowns.
For instance... you said Canada debated the downsides, not just financial but emotional and medical. None of that was really ever rigorously discussed and considered by our politicians..
===
3. I don't recall the US shutdown being justified (in the beginning) by anything other than the need to shift the virus in time for hospital space. Had they attempted to justify based on te speculation of future theraputics... then there would have been an even stronger argument to let the low risk out...since it was already apparently to doctors from day 1 this virus was going after the obese an the old and unhealthy... statistically speaking.
So we would have immediately been arguing for a more limited lockdown. (which goes back to point one... there should have been a debate and there should have been votes by the legislatures. I remember a court in Wisconsin telling the governor she over stepped her authority.)
Summary
That was useful information you gave us about the process in Canada.
I think that difference explains some of the reason we had very limited public buy in to those mandates in the US. It may even explain why we had riots. You can keep people locked down in tight quarters as long as we did.
Basically many of our states exercised bad leftist govt.
Which makes sense to me... because I believe we get the worst of the left and the worst of the right here.
Both parties give us the worst govt, crony money can buy.
Last edited:
Stop using lockdowns to fight virus, says World Health Organisation
A flag bearing the World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini
David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, said lockdowns “just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle — and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted — but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” he said.
Dr Nabarro, who made the comments in an interview with Britain’s The Spectator, said it was preferable to have tracing and hospital plans in place to deal with the coronavirus.
“And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other,” he said.
“It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year,” he said
A flag bearing the World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini
- EMILY RITCHIE
- 8:18PM OCTOBER 11, 2020
David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, said lockdowns “just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle — and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted — but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” he said.
Dr Nabarro, who made the comments in an interview with Britain’s The Spectator, said it was preferable to have tracing and hospital plans in place to deal with the coronavirus.
“And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other,” he said.
“It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year,” he said
Stop using lockdowns to fight virus, says World Health Organisation
A flag bearing the World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini
A special adviser to the World Health Organisation has urged governments not to use lockdowns as their primary method of controlling the spread of COVID-19, saying strict restrictions had a dramatic negative effect on lives.
- EMILY RITCHIE
- 8:18PM OCTOBER 11, 2020
David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, said lockdowns “just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle — and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted — but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” he said.
Dr Nabarro, who made the comments in an interview with Britain’s The Spectator, said it was preferable to have tracing and hospital plans in place to deal with the coronavirus.
“And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other,” he said.
“It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year,” he said
Wow. And Joe Biden wants to lock down everything in site if wins the election.
Wow... all we needed to do is frame lock downs as white privilege... and we could have ended this in March. If only I had thought like a lefty puppet master.
On serious point... we were telling the lockdown morons exactly this.
Lockdowns of the low risk cause tremendous harm... and there is no data or science showing they save lives or even infections in the long run.
(there only point was to keep the hospitals beds available.)
On serious point... we were telling the lockdown morons exactly this.
Lockdowns of the low risk cause tremendous harm... and there is no data or science showing they save lives or even infections in the long run.
(there only point was to keep the hospitals beds available.)
Stop using lockdowns to fight virus, says World Health Organisation
A flag bearing the World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini
A special adviser to the World Health Organisation has urged governments not to use lockdowns as their primary method of controlling the spread of COVID-19, saying strict restrictions had a dramatic negative effect on lives.
- EMILY RITCHIE
- 8:18PM OCTOBER 11, 2020
David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, said lockdowns “just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle — and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted — but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” he said.
Dr Nabarro, who made the comments in an interview with Britain’s The Spectator, said it was preferable to have tracing and hospital plans in place to deal with the coronavirus.
“And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other,” he said.
“It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year,” he said
Last edited:
Stop using lockdowns to fight virus, says World Health Organisation
A flag bearing the World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini
A special adviser to the World Health Organisation has urged governments not to use lockdowns as their primary method of controlling the spread of COVID-19, saying strict restrictions had a dramatic negative effect on lives.
- EMILY RITCHIE
- 8:18PM OCTOBER 11, 2020
David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, said lockdowns “just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle — and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer”.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted — but by and large, we’d rather not do it,” he said.
Dr Nabarro, who made the comments in an interview with Britain’s The Spectator, said it was preferable to have tracing and hospital plans in place to deal with the coronavirus.
“And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other,” he said.
“It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year,” he said
Anyone want to bet on the number of hours before WHO comes out and says David Nabarro, the WHO’s coronavirus special envoy, is totally incorrect and mispoke.
Just like the scientist / spokesman at the WHO had to walk back her statements back in June...
Although I linked to the circular that said exactly what she was saying..
Millions of infections later and I suspect hundreds of thousands of of traces (if not millions) there is still no statistically significant evidence of asymptomatic transmission.
So yeah... there is a good chance this will get walked back... but the walkback will be bullshit.
You have never had any data on your side showing that the lockdown of the low risk saves more harm than it does... In fact as time goes on the data is showing it does much more harm than it saves. The only reason for a lockdown is if hospitals resources are threatened... and then you only lockdown the low risk temporarily.
Just like I told you back in march or April before and after the the De Prado paper came out.
Although I linked to the circular that said exactly what she was saying..
Millions of infections later and I suspect hundreds of thousands of of traces (if not millions) there is still no statistically significant evidence of asymptomatic transmission.
So yeah... there is a good chance this will get walked back... but the walkback will be bullshit.
You have never had any data on your side showing that the lockdown of the low risk saves more harm than it does... In fact as time goes on the data is showing it does much more harm than it saves. The only reason for a lockdown is if hospitals resources are threatened... and then you only lockdown the low risk temporarily.
Just like I told you back in march or April before and after the the De Prado paper came out.
Last edited: