Gunk Appreciator
gunkappreciator.bsky.social
Gunk Appreciator
@gunkappreciator.bsky.social
What was communicated by FHM and SVT was exactly what Cochrane stated in its peer-reviewed, published review. If a claim is printed, published, and still stands years later, on what basis can it possibly be described as ‘misinformation’?
January 24, 2026 at 12:33 PM
Bhattcharya is right about doing like Sweden next pandemic, but he is dishonest about the reasons. The reason Sweden had the best outcome with the lowest amount of unnecessary deaths on the EU continent were the social policies. Never once does he mentions that. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
November 15, 2025 at 2:03 PM
I think the description of Sweden's restrictions as light because they were voluntary is false. If you educate the population so they understand the logic behind the measures, compliance becomes more effective and sustainable. I think this is well indicated by mobility data.
March 23, 2025 at 8:33 PM
March 23, 2025 at 3:56 PM
March 23, 2025 at 3:54 PM
March 23, 2025 at 3:54 PM
March 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Nicht nur die Übersterblichkeit, sondern auch die verlorenen Lebensjahre waren auf dem ganzen Kontinent am niedrigsten. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...
March 23, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Verlorene Lebensjahre in Europa 2020–2022 – die niedrigsten auf dem Kontinent. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...
March 22, 2025 at 11:49 AM
Übersterblichkeitsdaten aus The Lancet – die niedrigste auf dem Kontinent. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
March 22, 2025 at 11:49 AM
Thank you. Espen Nakstad, the public face of Norway’s COVID-19 response, said something interesting yesterday on Norway’s BBC equivalent, NRK. Norway likely has more generous sick pay benefits than southern European countries, but it’s still a bold statement. www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnm...
March 13, 2025 at 12:29 AM
The only two European countries that chose mitigation over suppression/lockdowns ended up with the lowest mortality on the continent. Isn’t that valuable information worth investigating? We should always follow the data, no matter where it leads. From The Lancet: www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
March 12, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Just following the data. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
March 11, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Samtidigt säger Espen Nakstad, som tidigare var en stor anhängare av suppression och att "piska ner viruset", att de nu vet att det enda som spelade roll var att människor med symtom stannade hemma. www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnm...
March 11, 2025 at 1:38 PM
I don't know if you saw this from Norway's BBC equivalent, NRK. Nakstad, who was their version of Fauci, now says the only thing that really mattered was for people with symptoms to stay home. He had been a hawk throughout the pandemic, so this is quite a U-turn. www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnm...
March 11, 2025 at 1:36 AM
I'm saying measures aren’t necessarily more effective just because they’re coerced. Voluntary measures are also far more sustainable. Look at this mobility chart showing how much people limited their contacts. When measures are perceived sensible, they become more effective.
March 10, 2025 at 9:49 PM
I think most people grasped the key points—reducing contacts, keeping distance, being cautious around the elderly, and staying home when symptomatic. That had the greatest impact on community spread. It reminds me of this clip from the UK inquiry.
March 10, 2025 at 9:01 PM
The problem is that the data contradicts the article's narrative. If a hypothesis conflicts with the data, it's wrong. Why did the country that did the least of what 'had' to be done have the fewest deaths? That said, the claim that Sweden did nothing is also false. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
March 10, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Wie wäre es mit der niedrigsten Übersterblichkeit in Kombination mit den geringsten Kollateralschäden durch unverhältnismäßige Einschränkungen? Damit ist die Behauptung, dass Schweden überhaupt nichts unternommen hat, falsch. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
March 7, 2025 at 4:50 PM
How is it a complex picture? How could all that collateral damage be justifiable if it doesn’t actually save lives or results in a net cost? And are we pretending this isn’t exactly what former 🇸🇪 state epidemiologist Johan Giesecke predicted back in March 2020?
March 6, 2025 at 7:54 PM
In der Tat.
February 25, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Sicherlich sind wir uns einig, dass es am besten ist, wenn weniger Menschen sterben? Die Daten sprechen für sich – alles über Schwedens Ansatz hinaus war unverhältnismäßig und verursachte unnötige Kollateralschäden. Gegen objektive Daten zu argumentieren ist nur ein Bewältigungsmechanismus.
February 25, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Schwedens transparente Patientenregister ermöglichen eine einfache Überprüfung. Die Suizidrate unter jungen Menschen ist niedriger als 2019, während Studien in Deutschland zeigen, dass jedes dritte Kind unter pandemiebedingter Angst, Depression oder psychosomatischen Symptomen leidet.
February 25, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Es beweist, dass Schweden die niedrigste pandemiebedingte Sterblichkeit auf dem Kontinent hatte. Es zeigt auch, dass alles über Schwedens Ansatz hinaus unverhältnismäßig war und langfristig zu mehr unnötigen Todesfällen führte. Von der WHO: www.who.int/news-room/qu...
February 25, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Die Gesundheitsbehörden in den meisten Ländern sagten dasselbe, aber ihnen fehlten die verfassungsmäßigen Schutzmechanismen, um zu verhindern, dass Politiker in die Gesundheitspolitik eingreifen. Deshalb konnte Schweden strikt daten- und evidenzbasiert bleiben. unherd.com/2023/12/ande...
February 25, 2025 at 1:51 PM