About covid-19 lockdowns


Obviously these lockdowns could have all been avoided, it would however had increased the deathtoll unless other more effective measures had been put in place.

Lockdowns are an effective short-term solution but then eventually you need to open up again. What lockdowns do is simply buy you time until you can get other measures in place like providing everyone with FFP3 masks and extensive testing.



About Sweden
Sweden didn't do any significant legally mandated lockdowns but the population did follow a lot of voluntary measures including social distancing, Sweden did not do too well in terms of stopping the disease, currently we are #13 in the world in terms of deaths/1000000

For some reason Anders Tegnell doesn't really believe in masks and because of that most people are not using them even though there are masks that are effective at preventing infection, less effective masks may still provide limited protection against severe disease.


If we had been using FFP3 masks at large scale early on it's likely we would have done a lot better.

It's likely that the reason why some authorities have denied that masks are effective is because they initially lied in an attempt to make sure hospitals would not run out of masks and now they cannot admit they lied to they have to continue denying science to avoid losing face.

It does seem like swedish authorities underestimated the Infection Fatality Rate and overestimated the transmissiveness of the virus which may have contributed to them going for the herd immunity strategy



Why the herd immunity strategy is insanity
One strategy to deal with the virus is to just let it spread. One obvious problem with that strategy is that it would overwhelm the hospital system so the deathrate would be needlessly high (around 2%).

Another strategy is to just manage it enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed but then you have to do restrictions for a long period of time which will end up being more expensive than doing more aggressive measures to eradicate the virus.

Even if the same number of people do get infected a delay is beneficial for another reason, over time the healthcare system will become better at treating covid-19 which will lower the mortality rate.

Eventually a vaccine will be ready and this might allow us to immunize the population in a far safer manner than natural infections.


Well-known member
Pffft, lockdowns. Normies just put the masks on their chins only. They still party
And group.
Only incel tier scientists can solve corona, but why the fuck would they.
Even if they were paid milions for it, which they wont cause some becky will get that and the credit, also the chads tallfags at management. And the money cant buy them anything of value beyond what min wage can get them.


One argument against lockdowns is that "the same number of people would go on to die later anyway" this is clearly false. Over time the healthcare will improve and thus for the same number of infections later fewer will die. Now vaccinations have started and thus we can get to herd immunity without killing 0.5 to 2 percent of the population.



Why the mandatory masks failed
They told people to wear mask but authorities were were unwilling to recommend masks that actually protects people since they were afraid of hospitals running out of them. As a result most people ended up just wearing some cloth masks and the pandemic continued.

Nevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%),

The pandemic would have ended if they had pushed for FFP3/N99 masks instead, an UK study showed that they offered near 100% protection
The model also suggested that the introduction of FFP3 respirators provided 100% protection (confidence interval 31.3%, 100%) protection against direct, ward based covid infection.

Only FFP3 masks (roughly equivalent to international standards such as N99, EN149 and P3) effectively protect the wearer from droplet aerosols, protein molecules, viruses, bacteria, fungi and spores



The "hospitals need FFP3 masks" excuse obviously does not hold, if there is a bigger demand for masks more will be made and hospitals should have that stocked up. It's been almost 2 years since the pandemic started but still people are not told to wear masks that effectively protect them, why is that?

There are gas masks "P3" that do protect even better (99.997% filtration) but these are overkill for everyway use and also very unpractical.

FFP3 masks with exhaust valves still protect other people

People taking measures to protect themselves such that they never get in fected in the first place cannot pass in on to others. Furthermore even with an exhaust valve a lot of air still get filtrated so it should also offer some protecting against others even if you end up being infected yourself, other people can use FFP3 masks themselves for further protection.


Ted Noel vs masks and social distancing
Here he did an illustration on how limited protection various masks offers

It does seem like some were not properly fitted but this will also be the case a lot in the real life. One big issue in his reasoning is discarding a mask as useless for only protecting the wearer, if everyone would wear masks like that it would still have a big impact in stopping transmission. If you do not get infected in the first place you will probably not infect other people.

Here is a test done that includes an N95 mask:



Randomized Controlled trial: cloth masking reduced seroprevelant infection by 2.6%
This study showed no statistically significant benefit of cloth masks but surgical masks did show some benefit.


This does further illustrate how worthless clothmasks are, they offer so little protection they probably do more harm than good since if it wasn't for these masks many people would use masks that actually protects them.

The study found that masking actually resulted in people doing more social distancing rather than less and this may explain why a small reduction was found when 51% started wearing a mask (dropped down to 25% later on).
The first wave of surveillance took place between May 21-25, 2020 in 1,441 places in 52 districts. About 51% out of more than 152,000 individuals we observed were wearing a mask. The second wave of surveillance was conducted between June 19-22, 2020 in the same 1,441 locations, and we found
that mask-wearing dropped to 26%, with 20% wearing masks that covered their mouth and nose.

The masks did offer more protection against symptomatic infection:



Test: FFP3 mask offered complete protection against infection
Not even multiple layers of surgical masks and tape was enough to even reach the protection FFP2 masks offer they didn't find any leakage at all when they tested the FFP3 masks.

This means that we do not need any vaccines, we do not need any lockdowns, we do not need any social distancing. All we need is to just use one of these masks and we will get near 100% protection enough to crush the delta variant with zero vaccines or natural immunity.


Sweden never changed strategy
Sweden never imposed lockdowns and people were and the only scenario where masks was recommended was on public transsport during some over (this was only a recommendations and people didn't take it seriously). The main aspect that has been recognized as an error was the failure to protect very old people (nursing homes, etc) from the virus but the general strategy has never changed and Anders Tegnell is still in leading "Folkhälsomyndigheten" (Swedish CDC equivalent).

The main draconian thing Sweden did was to shortly limit the number of people in public gatherings to just 8 (down from 50) but this was later reversed to become more lax than it was originally (the limit used to always be 50 but that obviously didn't make sense so the rules now depend on the scenario.


For example current rules allow up to 3000 people to meet outside if there is at least 1 metre distance between the seats (has to be fixed seats).

It is worth nothing that authorities did not expect vaccines to come so early which is part of the reason why sweden opted for very limited government restrictions, then when the vaccine was on they way they may have realized that tightening it up a bit for a while until they can vaccinate people most at risk was worth the effort.


The Taiwanese no-lockdown strategy
Rather than locking down the entire society they just quarantined high-risk individuals (in terms of spread) and by executing this well they were mostly able to keep the virus under control without lockdowns or vaccines (they did slip up once but that was very much avoidable).



Why the Swedish strategy wasn't a great success
First we have to understand why people look towards Sweden in the first place, when your government implemented draconian policies destroying the economy while still failing to control the pandemic Sweden in comparison looks like a paradise, at least people there were able to keep most of their freedoms.

When your government is incompetent or mostly focused on virtue signaling to their voters you generally want to limit the power of government as much as possible since otherwise you just end up with the worst of both worlds.

What many people praising Sweden forget is that the voluntary restrictions Swedes followed had a lot of negative effects, arguably more negative effects than what a successful covid zero strategy would have had.

The big mistake in the reasoning behind the Swedish strategy was the notion that it wouldn't be too hard to maintain a covid zero strategy, while it would have been hard initially when we didn't have enough FFP3 masks or any vaccines over time you will be able to get more and more tools to limit the negative effects.

Very early in the pandemic the healthcare for covid patients wasn't particularly great since we didn't have any effective treatments, ventilators mostly resulted in people just dying a little bit later (some survived but they were a small minority, less than 20%). Later we got more and more effective treatments and better data regarding current treatments. There is actual value in having the same number of people get infected but having them be infected a year later.

Swedish authorities also expected it to take several years before vaccines were ready, instead the vaccines came very quickly allowing countries who had done covid zero successfully to let people of great risk for severe infection get vaccinated.

One common mistake a lot of people make is to only look at deaths (excess mortality) and while most of the killed by the virus are old/sick (who are generally a burden for society anyway) many younger people who survived still got severe complications from it "long covid" and this is another big issue with the herd immunity strategy.


The UK 'no lockdown' strategy
They instead developed an app that was supposed to prevent a national lock-down, as you could probably guess that didn't work out too well.



China is still pursuing covid-zero
Despite the omicron variant now being no worse than the flu (probably) they are still doing draconian lockdowns

These lockdowns might not even be needed for covid-zero given how effective FFP3 masks are. CCP screwed up by recommending "surgical masks or better" even though these surgical masks offer very limited protection


China has never actually been able to even come close to zero covid cases, sure they were able to heavily suppress it but they always ended up hitting a flor at around 20 cases per day.



Staff member
omicron variant now being no worse than the flu (probably)
Actually when you look at the actual data the reduction in severity is only around 25% after adjusting for confounding factors


Monoclonal antibodies is one example of effective new treatment greatly reducing the mortality. Vaccines and previous infections probably also offer significant protection.