Matte wrote: ↑
Thu 28 Oct 2021, 10:54
Nationalism? Finns det någon sedan trådstarten som hävdat att den svenska "strategin" är föredömlig? Jag har då aldrig gjort det och om någon annan skrivit något slikt så har det undgått mig.
Nationalism has appeared several times in this thread, mostly as a repetition of the dogma of the Swedish strategy for no other apparent reason than it being Swedish and as a defense of Tegnell for no other reason than his being a Swede.
I think I had to document three or four times that Tegnell said masking up was dangerous. Maybe you can tell me why you continued to believe it if it weren't because Tegnell happens to be one of your compatriots. Tokig tant has continued to rave about stupid Danes, and pwm found it relevant to this thread to talk about Dansk avlyssning av politiker i nära allierade länder.
If you think that it had anything at all to do with the question vilka nationella eller regionala åtgärder mot coronavirus är evidensbaserade?,
I hope that you can tell us how.
Beträffande Giesecke och Tegnell m fl. .. Visst, deras prognoser har visats felaktiga, men där är dom ju inte på något sätt unika. Det har framträtt drösvis med experter vars prediktioner har var varit käpprätt fel.
Not only were their predictions wrong, again and again and again. So were their recommendations and their excuses when it became obvious to everybody else how wrong they were. Sure, you can find so-called experts in the GBD group who have been just as wrong and still are, but doesn't it occur to yourself as odd that your only excuse for these guys and their consistently wrong predictions is that other people may be wrong, too? Do you remember Tegnell's arrogant dismissal of the people who turned out to be right as hobbyepidemiologer
? Or did you forget Giesecke's ""Alla andra länder gore felt!
? Some countries did right, and no other Nordic country was as wrong as Sweden.
Now you defend these bullshitters with the perspective, 'Well, we all make mistakes. Errare humanum est.'
Beträffande dina återkommande hänvisningar till vetenskaplig konsensus: tror du att det där finns ett facit att hämta i form av vad som är den korrekta "strategin" för ett land?
Och vad gäller tillämpning av vetenskapliga rön: hur snabbt kan man räkna med att forskningsresultat omsätts i klinisk praktik?
Den sista frågan bör lämpligtvis någon med medicinsk kompetens svara på.
You don't need a medical doctor to answer that question. I am completely incompetent in the field, and yet I know that studies now and then lead to immediate results, clinically applicable, even before the studies have been finished. When you conduct a study, you sometimes discover that a drug is highly efficient very early on. In that case, you immediately start giving the drug to the placebo group. It would be unethical to let them continue when you have found out that the drug saves health and lives. Sometimes it's the other way round: You discover very early on that the drug has unforeseen side effects, so you stop the test immediately. For instance, they stopped giving beta-caroten to smokers and asbestos workers when it was discovered that what was believed to be beneficial actually increased their risk of getting lung cancer.
Investigators conducting the Beta Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) in the United States, a large study of the combination of beta carotene and vitamin A as preventive agents for lung cancer among high-risk men and women, terminated the intervention in January 1996 after an average of four years of treatment and told the 18 314 participants to stop taking their vitamins. Interim study results had indicated that the supplements provided no benefit and may be causing harm.
Beta carotene and cancer: risk or protection?
(Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 1996)
If the idea of interrupting a study seems alien to you, it is probably because Tegnell and an awful lot of other fervent believers in Swedish exceptionalism insisted that the Swedish experiment should be allowed to continue even after it had become obvious to the rest of the world that the experiment had already failed: There is no such thing as herd immunity by infection: It didn't work for polio, tuberculosis, it didn't work for smallpox, it didn't work for measles or chickenpox or all the other children's diseases, but for some inexplicable reason Sweden's state epidemiologists were convinced that it would work for SARS-CoV-2. And they were so zealous about proving themselves right that they completely misinterpreted the Swedish data from the summer of 2020 when their own wishful-thinking made them persuade the rest of Sweden that a sufficient level of herd immunity had already been reached for Sweden to lean back in the fall of 2020, pitying all the other countries (Denmark in particular
) when they would be impacted by the wave that was sure to come everywhere else, but not in Sweden!
Now, what you are about to read may appear to you as nationalism, but it isn't. I just happen to know about this because I'm a Dane and follow the news in Denmark (and Arne Astrup is on Dansk Skeptica's Presselisten
), and it is a good example of saving lives by implementing good science as soon as the results are available and confirmed 100%. I didn't know anything about Swedish trans-fat policies before I looked it up on Wikipedia right now:
Fat: "Cis fat" vs. "trans fat"
--> Cardiovascular disease
Trans fat regulation
In March 2003
, Denmark became the first country to effectively ban artificial trans fat It limited the trans share to 2% of fats and oils destined for human consumption, a standard that partially hydrogenated oil fails. This restriction is on the ingredients rather than the final products. This regulatory approach thus made Denmark the first country in which it was possible to eat "far less" than 1 g of industrially produced trans fats daily, even with a diet including processed foods. One public health study concluded that Danish government's efforts to decrease trans fat intake from 6 g to 1 g per day over 20 years is related to a 50% decrease in deaths from ischemic heart disease
Trans fat regulation: Denmark
The parliament gave the government a mandate in 2011
to submit without delay
a law prohibiting the use of industrially produced trans fats in foods, as of 2017 the law has not yet been implemented
Trans fat regulation: Sweden
In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority produced a scientific opinion on trans fatty acids, surmising that "higher intakes of TFA may increase risk for coronary heart disease".
From 2 April 2021
foods in the EU intended for consumers are required to contain less than 2g of industrial trans fat per 100g of fat.
Trans fat regulation: European Union
I think it is a good idea to look at research abroad. It saves lives, and early implementation saves more lives, so why procrastinate?
If anybody is interested in this issue, I would like to hear why it took Sweden so long to abandon trans fats, but it would obviously have to be in another thread.