Main features incl. 'secrecy, cover-up and manipulation of data…revealed several structural problems in Swedish society' on all levels, incl. the administration of morphine to elderly people
This article is fraudulent in the extreme and I would not be surprised if one or two of the authors has ties to AstraZeneca. This especially is truth mixed with a great lie, and if the rest of it follows this the whole thing should be used for teaching how to dress up propaganda in academic rags:
"Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives."
1, Sweden had up until mid nineties about 5 000 respirators ranging from simple oxygen masks to fully mechanical lungs, half of these belonged to the armed forces and were mothballed but kept fully operational. Mid nineties the socialist democrats in concertwith all other parties decide that there will never ever be a crisis or a war again and scrapped 99% of the resources created during the Cold War, including throwing away or selling abroad the mothballed equipment even though many agencies clamoured for being allowed to buy it (the civil defense and the firefighters were f.e. example forbidden to buy tracked vehicles and helicopters). This was to ensure that the backers of the moderate party would get to sell newish stuff to the armed forces and other authorities. Any lack of equipment is fully due to this time and these decisions.
2, The remaining respirators were placed under regional hospital administration, including units used in nursing home and old age residences meaning they were put in storage unless in emergencies oron doctor's direct orders. So a bureaucratic SNAFU is the real reason respirators weren't used, as this would further expose the political mismanagment.
3, Giving the old morphine instead of food, water or medical treatment is standard practice in many state run nursing homes, due to being chronically understaffed. It's far easier to take care of 20 elders if they are doped up on morphine after all.
Sadly, this is the level of swedish academia. This is not an outlier or anything unusual but rather middle of the road and typical.
The only real lingering problems created - and that has been fully created by governement decisions not infections - is that many people who were sacked due to closing of venues during 2020/2021 moved on to other jobs creating problems for many restauranteurs and similar, though that has largely been rectified thanks to the governement doing nothing, and that dentists and hospitals now have a backlog of patients to cope with on top of 25 years of neoliberal idiocy and greed. (Swedish health care uses NPM, and we have as of now more administrators and bureaucrats in public health care than doctors - it's not far off to say that we spend the most per capita in the EU, for the fewest doctor/patient hours, and with the fewest beds and lowest accessibility. We pay the most and get the least so to say.)
As for the death toll, the swedish municipality of Sölvesborg had the best result, due to the local councilor in charge basically asking the head of relevant departments: "What do you need from me to do your jobs and keep people from getting so sick they die?" The Florida aproach if you like. This is not acknowledged in any way in swedish media, due to one fact:
The party in charge in Sölvesborg is the Sweden Democrats. And US/EU media's Trump Derangement Syndrome has nothing on swedish media's anti-SD bias and outright outspoken hate. So since the "wrong party" happened to do right - schhh!
And 85% of those who died were over age70, in poor health, with comorbidities and/or were negro migrants (vitamin D, wrong food, stays indoors all winter and so on).
Henrik Wallin puts it much more succinctly than I can, but hopefully this helps explain some of the idiocy in that passel of lies you quoted.
Ha, I hadn't thought about the AZ angle--thanks for bringing it up.
Well, same shit, different smell--if my experiences with this kind of shenanigans is any guide. Sadly, while the administration of sedatives to (at times quite certainly unwitting) elderly citizens should be something of interest to, say, the judiciary, the absence of any kind of (at least moral) outrage at this 'policy' is…telling. You know, back in school our history teacher told us that veneration of elders and burial culture are the hallmarks of civilisation. Way to go, Western Civ, way to go…
The follies of 'New Public Management' are well-known; perhaps one day I'll write about a famous example from--Germany whose Transporation Secretary, one Mr. Andreas Scheuer (served under Merkel), was found to manipulate the road pricing/toll scheme, which cost the taxpayers many billions of €; (un-) surprisingly, there were no consequences for waste and corruption at such scale while, at the same time, Mama Merkel claimed there was no money left to fix the problem of the many retired whose minimum pension benefits were 'eaten' up by inflation (which came at the price tag of 4.5b €). Now, after more than a decade of 'Energiewende' (state-subsidised move to 'green' energy), there will be 100b € spent on 'rearmament', which, together with the massive increase of debt due to 'Covid', will impoverish German society.
Interesting case about Sölvesborg. Seems like the SD will win elections soon (if only that would change anything…)
I'm a reader of Henrik's pieces, so, let's give him a shout-out here, too!
Basically, it's an opinion piece (and these people are entitled to their opinions, of course) - or even a set of moral commandments - cloaked in the language of science. Two years ago, Jacob Siegel wrote an interesting article about this hijacking of form:
And, sure, opinions are like buttholes (everyone has one), so, that's o.k. with me--what isn't o.k. is that these people cloak it in 'sciencey' lingo and outlets.
Thanks for the Siegel piece, which is a quite enlightening read!
I gave up reading the article shortly after reading that sentence since it clarified the authors were a bunch of political hacks.
Nature also published the retraction-worthy nonsense by the Imperial College gang that claimed lockdowns saved 0.5 mill lives in Europe. That paper also credited Sweden’s event ban with a instant reduction in Rt from 2.7 to 0.7, which makes you wonder who reviews this crap.
I kep going at least until the end of the 'introduction', but it was a tough one, I agree.
The key question about 'peer-review' is spot-on. Sadly, 'science' and 'scholarship' as an institution has decayed to such an extent that publishing in most 'refereed' journals ist little more than a (pseudo-) scholastic exercise in futility. These outlets are inherently 'reactionary' (no pub intended), by which is meant: averse to new insights that could upset the editors…
I suspect that the reviewers and the editors--it is the latter who, after all, select the former--are hacks.
I think there’s an extra layer of corruption in medical/scientific journals due to them acting as a marketing service for pharma. The most obvious example is The Lancet publishing the Sugisphere paper consisting of clearly fake data to besmirch an off-patent drug. But no matter, the journal maintains its authoritative reputation.
Summary: A bunch of useless eaters (Yes, I'm a big fan of Klaus Schwab, make people like the study authors read his books!) with no knowledge about how viruses work, spread or are diagnosed apply their non-existent skills at looking at manipulated data to look at manipulated data, propaganda and medical malpractice. Then they use their skills in writing bullshit to write about their imaginary findings in a way that only a printer manufacturer can love.
I could, but it's not my style. These people are also incompetent, which annoys me even more as they apparently think everybody else is too stupid to see through their cheap crap, and hence the framing of my post.
I am confused. For most of this article, you slam the study, which massively criticizes Sweden's C-Virus policies, quite harshly. Then in the final two chapters you quote from a blog by one Larry Romanoff who appears to subscribe 100 percent to that study. And you indicate that you are in agreement with him. So, what gives??
Hi Sombrero, this is a valid point. Once I've posted it, I thought about perhaps adding a paragraph highlighting the fact that Mr. Romanoff takes the study, well, seriously.
I think a concise answer would be: IF one takes the study at its face-value, Mr. Romanoff voices valid, if very harsh, criticism of Sweden's policy.
IF you'd follow my argumentation--I think the 'study' is bunk (junk), it should have been rejected by the reviewers, and the like--Mr. Romanoff's piece is an exercise in futility.
Fascinating data points: I specifically appreciate the income distribution/test positivity correlation--it sure looks like 'the unvaccinated' are less likely to be infected with Sars-Cov-2. Thanks for sharing!
Also, in the US--Walgreens appears to have more transparent data than, say, the 'health authorities', which is telling in and of itself.
Yep, why don't these people stay on the guano reservation, then, and leave us alone?
Hmmm, that price tag correlation seems despicable. It is also quite telling, isn't it: no 'lockdowns' would be less costly, sure, I'll buy that, but the issue isn't this--I maintain for months now that 'Covid is a political problem', hence there should be accountability.
Also, none of he govt's that closed down could afford anything; they're all running up the national debt hoping that no-one cares.
Re the organised crime issue: same shit, different smell, I think. I recall Mark Blyth (Pol. Econ., Brown U) pointing out some years ago that 'austerity' was the name of the game since the early 1990s, in part due to the insane policies inaugurated by the EU (which came into existence in 1992). Instead of 'spending like drunk sailors on shore leave', virtually all western governments cut back on, well, almost everything. Fast-forward to 2020, there you go.
Did you send this article of yours to them?
I remember the libs are always quick to ask: "Are you a medical doctor?"
Are they?
Good point. I suppose it's a free for all by now…
This article is fraudulent in the extreme and I would not be surprised if one or two of the authors has ties to AstraZeneca. This especially is truth mixed with a great lie, and if the rest of it follows this the whole thing should be used for teaching how to dress up propaganda in academic rags:
"Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives."
1, Sweden had up until mid nineties about 5 000 respirators ranging from simple oxygen masks to fully mechanical lungs, half of these belonged to the armed forces and were mothballed but kept fully operational. Mid nineties the socialist democrats in concertwith all other parties decide that there will never ever be a crisis or a war again and scrapped 99% of the resources created during the Cold War, including throwing away or selling abroad the mothballed equipment even though many agencies clamoured for being allowed to buy it (the civil defense and the firefighters were f.e. example forbidden to buy tracked vehicles and helicopters). This was to ensure that the backers of the moderate party would get to sell newish stuff to the armed forces and other authorities. Any lack of equipment is fully due to this time and these decisions.
2, The remaining respirators were placed under regional hospital administration, including units used in nursing home and old age residences meaning they were put in storage unless in emergencies oron doctor's direct orders. So a bureaucratic SNAFU is the real reason respirators weren't used, as this would further expose the political mismanagment.
3, Giving the old morphine instead of food, water or medical treatment is standard practice in many state run nursing homes, due to being chronically understaffed. It's far easier to take care of 20 elders if they are doped up on morphine after all.
Sadly, this is the level of swedish academia. This is not an outlier or anything unusual but rather middle of the road and typical.
The only real lingering problems created - and that has been fully created by governement decisions not infections - is that many people who were sacked due to closing of venues during 2020/2021 moved on to other jobs creating problems for many restauranteurs and similar, though that has largely been rectified thanks to the governement doing nothing, and that dentists and hospitals now have a backlog of patients to cope with on top of 25 years of neoliberal idiocy and greed. (Swedish health care uses NPM, and we have as of now more administrators and bureaucrats in public health care than doctors - it's not far off to say that we spend the most per capita in the EU, for the fewest doctor/patient hours, and with the fewest beds and lowest accessibility. We pay the most and get the least so to say.)
As for the death toll, the swedish municipality of Sölvesborg had the best result, due to the local councilor in charge basically asking the head of relevant departments: "What do you need from me to do your jobs and keep people from getting so sick they die?" The Florida aproach if you like. This is not acknowledged in any way in swedish media, due to one fact:
The party in charge in Sölvesborg is the Sweden Democrats. And US/EU media's Trump Derangement Syndrome has nothing on swedish media's anti-SD bias and outright outspoken hate. So since the "wrong party" happened to do right - schhh!
And 85% of those who died were over age70, in poor health, with comorbidities and/or were negro migrants (vitamin D, wrong food, stays indoors all winter and so on).
Henrik Wallin puts it much more succinctly than I can, but hopefully this helps explain some of the idiocy in that passel of lies you quoted.
Ha, I hadn't thought about the AZ angle--thanks for bringing it up.
Well, same shit, different smell--if my experiences with this kind of shenanigans is any guide. Sadly, while the administration of sedatives to (at times quite certainly unwitting) elderly citizens should be something of interest to, say, the judiciary, the absence of any kind of (at least moral) outrage at this 'policy' is…telling. You know, back in school our history teacher told us that veneration of elders and burial culture are the hallmarks of civilisation. Way to go, Western Civ, way to go…
The follies of 'New Public Management' are well-known; perhaps one day I'll write about a famous example from--Germany whose Transporation Secretary, one Mr. Andreas Scheuer (served under Merkel), was found to manipulate the road pricing/toll scheme, which cost the taxpayers many billions of €; (un-) surprisingly, there were no consequences for waste and corruption at such scale while, at the same time, Mama Merkel claimed there was no money left to fix the problem of the many retired whose minimum pension benefits were 'eaten' up by inflation (which came at the price tag of 4.5b €). Now, after more than a decade of 'Energiewende' (state-subsidised move to 'green' energy), there will be 100b € spent on 'rearmament', which, together with the massive increase of debt due to 'Covid', will impoverish German society.
Interesting case about Sölvesborg. Seems like the SD will win elections soon (if only that would change anything…)
I'm a reader of Henrik's pieces, so, let's give him a shout-out here, too!
Basically, it's an opinion piece (and these people are entitled to their opinions, of course) - or even a set of moral commandments - cloaked in the language of science. Two years ago, Jacob Siegel wrote an interesting article about this hijacking of form:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/new-truth-rationalism-religion
Yep, it's 'advocacy scholarship'.
And, sure, opinions are like buttholes (everyone has one), so, that's o.k. with me--what isn't o.k. is that these people cloak it in 'sciencey' lingo and outlets.
Thanks for the Siegel piece, which is a quite enlightening read!
"that face masks protect both the carrier and others"
lol, no quality evidence of that...this question wasn't even talked about seriously by physicists until Jan. 2022
When a physicist speaks in field, everyone except engineers shuts up.
I gave up reading the article shortly after reading that sentence since it clarified the authors were a bunch of political hacks.
Nature also published the retraction-worthy nonsense by the Imperial College gang that claimed lockdowns saved 0.5 mill lives in Europe. That paper also credited Sweden’s event ban with a instant reduction in Rt from 2.7 to 0.7, which makes you wonder who reviews this crap.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7
Hi Guy,
I kep going at least until the end of the 'introduction', but it was a tough one, I agree.
The key question about 'peer-review' is spot-on. Sadly, 'science' and 'scholarship' as an institution has decayed to such an extent that publishing in most 'refereed' journals ist little more than a (pseudo-) scholastic exercise in futility. These outlets are inherently 'reactionary' (no pub intended), by which is meant: averse to new insights that could upset the editors…
I suspect that the reviewers and the editors--it is the latter who, after all, select the former--are hacks.
I think there’s an extra layer of corruption in medical/scientific journals due to them acting as a marketing service for pharma. The most obvious example is The Lancet publishing the Sugisphere paper consisting of clearly fake data to besmirch an off-patent drug. But no matter, the journal maintains its authoritative reputation.
Amen, Tom.
Too bad no-one listens to anyone in these circles (other than to themselves).
Summary: A bunch of useless eaters (Yes, I'm a big fan of Klaus Schwab, make people like the study authors read his books!) with no knowledge about how viruses work, spread or are diagnosed apply their non-existent skills at looking at manipulated data to look at manipulated data, propaganda and medical malpractice. Then they use their skills in writing bullshit to write about their imaginary findings in a way that only a printer manufacturer can love.
That's about it.
Given that these pieces are quite well-placed--despite, or perhaps because of, their obvious flaws, they are also more than just 'irritating'.
You know, it's a sad testament to the intellectual decay of 'the West'.
Would be nice if you just came right out and called them liars...
I could, but it's not my style. These people are also incompetent, which annoys me even more as they apparently think everybody else is too stupid to see through their cheap crap, and hence the framing of my post.
Interesting read nonetheless I'll give you that.
I am confused. For most of this article, you slam the study, which massively criticizes Sweden's C-Virus policies, quite harshly. Then in the final two chapters you quote from a blog by one Larry Romanoff who appears to subscribe 100 percent to that study. And you indicate that you are in agreement with him. So, what gives??
Hi Sombrero, this is a valid point. Once I've posted it, I thought about perhaps adding a paragraph highlighting the fact that Mr. Romanoff takes the study, well, seriously.
I think a concise answer would be: IF one takes the study at its face-value, Mr. Romanoff voices valid, if very harsh, criticism of Sweden's policy.
IF you'd follow my argumentation--I think the 'study' is bunk (junk), it should have been rejected by the reviewers, and the like--Mr. Romanoff's piece is an exercise in futility.
Last week's Walgreens COVID-19 test data from the USA: https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp
https://i.redd.it/0h26yrziljt81.png
https://i.redd.it/baa8pwscint81.png
Fascinating data points: I specifically appreciate the income distribution/test positivity correlation--it sure looks like 'the unvaccinated' are less likely to be infected with Sars-Cov-2. Thanks for sharing!
Also, in the US--Walgreens appears to have more transparent data than, say, the 'health authorities', which is telling in and of itself.
Yep, why don't these people stay on the guano reservation, then, and leave us alone?
Hmmm, that price tag correlation seems despicable. It is also quite telling, isn't it: no 'lockdowns' would be less costly, sure, I'll buy that, but the issue isn't this--I maintain for months now that 'Covid is a political problem', hence there should be accountability.
Also, none of he govt's that closed down could afford anything; they're all running up the national debt hoping that no-one cares.
Re the organised crime issue: same shit, different smell, I think. I recall Mark Blyth (Pol. Econ., Brown U) pointing out some years ago that 'austerity' was the name of the game since the early 1990s, in part due to the insane policies inaugurated by the EU (which came into existence in 1992). Instead of 'spending like drunk sailors on shore leave', virtually all western governments cut back on, well, almost everything. Fast-forward to 2020, there you go.