Mr Lindberg is criticising the actions to be taken in order to stop the spread of a deadly virus. The same as most other commentators over the past few days, according to him, the economic impacts of efforts to control the epidemic are devastating, and believes, moreover, that there is a clear danger to democracy: ”In democratic countries, such as Italy and France, the patrolling of police and military personnel, and the hearing of the people on the street about where to go, in a way that is reminiscent of the heavy-handed dictatorship”.
and His main thesis is this: ”Is it worth the risk to have to live under a dictatorship, in order to avoid a disease that probably kills fewer than 1 percent of the population? . ”
It is the policy of the system is not set out, nor is it the freedom of the press . It is unlikely that the united states and in other european countries would be dictatorships. Epidemiologists in different countries to have taken into account that the situation has improved in just over two months, in the month of may or June. This is, of course, is immensely stressful, and when all is over, the need for substantial measures of support, as well as a wide-ranging discussion not only of the health care organization.
If you do not take action will, in addition, all deaths that occur within a short period of time in which care did not have an opportunity to help the victims. Most people are going to die an agonising death, but the life support machine.
as a Picture to paint a near future apocalypse, is incompatible with a scientific approach, is becoming self-defeating, because it is contrary to democracy and the values of our civilization is based on. To claim that society refrain from protecting the people from a serious health condition, because of the ”supposed” affects less than 1% of the population is also quite helpful.
One per cent of the total population of the equivalent of 100.000 people, a half a percentage point represents more than 50.000. Now the report is that only old people suffer, and they will surely die." This is an obvious simplification.
Let us assume that 60 per cent of the population is infected, which is farmed out as an example of the immunity, and then assume that the mortality rate is set at approximately the levels of the epidemiologists would expect. With a mortality rate of 0.5 per cent, of the cases in the working age population (15 – 64 years) represents nearly 20,000 deaths ,which can then be compared with the 10,000 in the same age group who die every year from a premature death.
If you do not take action will, in addition, all deaths that occur within a short period of time in which care did not have an opportunity to help the victims. Most people are going to die an agonising death, but the life support machine. In particular, the health care system itself to the risk of an uncontrolled epidemic. The debate in Sweden has often, apart from the fact that the restrictions in the everyday life is intended for health care to function normally, that is to say, to be able to take care even of the most seriously ill patients who do not recover that, we are affected by the epidemic.
in the open or in veiled terms, to assert that there is a need for some to die, is not worthy of a society for the defence of democracy and human rights.
Link to a graphic