In #Sweden the lax herd immunity strategy was based on a series of loose ”brain storming” e-mails between officials and un-official advisors. Most of these e-mails are available to the public by law, some have been deleted before they could be released for public access.

In this particular e-mail, some of these un-official advisors theorize about the possibility of deploying controlled infection. If the ”low-risk” populations would be intentionally infected, a 25% immunity rate is thought to be yieled within 4 months.

They theorize that a ”very small fraction of this population will have serious outcomes” if infected. The idea is to allow an infection rate that is just on par with health care capacity, and if capacity is increased, so can can the spread.

There are at least 20 or so e-mails that have been made public in #Sweden that provide the basis of the Cheif Epidemiologist’s strategy that aim for a ”slower, steady spread of community infection rate”

Lax, predominantly voluntary measures have been applied to facilitate this original plan. The result so far has been one of the highest covid death tolls in the world.

In the afore-mentioned e-mails, the subject of MORBIDITY is never mentioned. Even though serious long-term illness was a distinct outcome from the 2003 SARS epidemic.

The small clique of people collaborating on the theoretical calculations of herd immunity in #sweden completely fail to take the possibility of long-term morbidity for a very large percent of the population.

This may be the underlying reason as to why the swedish government and authorities have yet not recognized #LongCovid and that they still, 11 months into the pandemic, does not provide any information what so ever re: long-term effects of the coronavirus to the swedish public.

Since #LongCovid is not officially recognized in #Sweden, it is not part of the basis for measures, there is no action taken to facilitate care and treatments for the many thousands affected, and there is absolutely no attempt to measure prevalence or to collect any data on this

Health outcomes of coronavirus infection is still described in binary terms by the swedish authorities and by most of the media as well.

The public has been kindly asked to adhere to voluntary restrictions but still led to believe that infection in the younger and previously healthy population is as good as risk-free, obviously negatively influencing compliance.

The core question is- what type of ”collateral damage” were the strategists counting on? As far as I can see, they weren’t really counting on any?

If so, I find that unbelieveably astonishing, given the knowledge available (even to ”non-experts”) in Feb/March, both from Wuhan but also from SARS 2003, and even other comparable viral epidemics.

Some claim that these types of strategies are callous routes to clear out the weakest and to come out with a strong economical vantage point when the giant band-aid has been ripped off, not to fast, not too slow.

However, what if a significant percentage of the infected didn’t die, but instead continued to be sick, for months and even years, and thereby placing a continuing burden on the society as a whole?

If this is the case, surely the obvious strategy would have been to adopt strict supression, reducing infection rates to a minimum while science, vaccine development and roll-outs, and treatment protocols were advanced to a certain point?

Is #Sweden still paying the price for the grave miscalculations done by a few key individuals at the beginning of the pandemic? According to these; The proof was certainly in the pudding, as they say.

They made quick assumptions, and they acted accordingly, but most encumbering - they held on to their original assumptions undismayed by growing evidence of its inaccuracy.