[ad_1]
VYou let him go. “This is how Johan Giesecke responded when Expressen tried to get an answer as to why he gave such different messages in the crown question. On April 17, he believed that at least 50 percent of Sweden and the UK they had the corona virus. Four days later, between 500,000 and 600,000 people in Stockholm could have had covid-19, which corresponds to 30 percent of the city’s population. Fast forward two weeks. So it sounded like that on SR Good Morning, the world !: “A quarter of the population in the Stockholm municipality is immune.” But in the same interview, he said that most people in Stockholm already had it. How can you come to such different conclusions in your different statements?
Swedish strategy it is based on the fact that it is possible to obtain herd immunity. Flattening the curve and helping the health system cope with the pressure is undoubtedly the official strategy of the Public Health Authority. Time and time again in the past few months, Tegnell and the others have denied that batch immunity is part of the strategy, not a goal, but a consequence. But these are just hair clippers. Without the promise of a collective immunity, or a vaccine soon enough, the Swedish strategy seems cruel. If those who have been ill do not become immune, or if the proportion that becomes immune under current management is too low, it does little to our benefit to have kept the country more open than others.
