Coronavirus Goes Fourth

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

oh, they changed the definition, but is understandable 'cause more than a few idjits were false reading "vaccination" and  "previous infection," as being equivalent approaches for reaching herd immunity 'cause such appeared in same sentence authored by WHO separated by nothing save a conjunction. only an a-hole or complete yutz would take the june 2020 definition and ignore lethality, transmissibility and projected body counts when out-of-context quoting o' the WHO definition, and yet...

am suspecting previous to 2020, the november revisions woulda' been deemed unnecessary by WHO as the additions woulda' been considered self evident. who knew?

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah they changed definition because they were often asked what they think about exposing people to virus in order to build herd immunity. Which lead them trying to make sure that their definition did not leave any room for idea to build 'herd immunity'  against disease doesn't include exposing people to the disease, because scientific support for it is questionable and it is seen ethically wrong. But change in definition doesn't mean that WHO thinks that immunity that people (may) get by having infection doesn't build population's 'herd immunity' against disease. I think one big reason why WHO decided to change their definition is how media often uses 'herd immunity' concept as alternative for vaccination, but I think their efforts in that front will be quite vain.

 

Quote

 

What is WHO’s position on ‘herd immunity’ as a way of fighting COVID-19?
Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.         

Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected.

Although older people and those with underlying conditions are most at risk of severe disease and death, they are not the only ones at risk.

Finally, while most infected people get mild or moderate forms of COVID-19 and some experience no disease, many become seriously ill and must be admitted into hospital. We are only beginning to understand the long-term health impacts among people who have had COVID-19, including what is being described as ‘Long COVID.’ WHO is working with clinicians and patient groups to better understand the long term effects of COVID-19.  

 

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19#:~:text='Herd immunity'%2C,exposing them to it.

Quote

 

Vismita: Is it the right way to think about herd immunity in the context of COVID to say the vaccine is far away, why don't we just let everyone get infected? 

Soumya: So, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a highly transmissible virus. We think it needs at least 60 to 70% of the population to have immunity to really break the chain of transmission. If you allow this to happen naturally, it will take a long time, of course, but more importantly, it's going to do a lot of collateral damage. So even if 1% of people who get infected are ultimately going to die, then this can add up to a huge number of people, if we look at the global population. And that is why we believe it's not a good idea to try to achieve herd immunity by just letting the infection run wild in the population and infect a lot of people and that we should talk about herd immunity in the context of a vaccine.

 

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1

 

[Skarpen]

8 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Is the lesson here that definitions change as more evidence becomes available? 

There is some more evidence about "herd immunity"? Something changed in the last couple of months? Was there a study? Did humankind lost the ability to gain immunity naturally all of a sudden? Please send links to the studies. Sounds important.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

There is some more evidence about "herd immunity"? Something changed in the last couple of months? Was there a study? Did humankind lost the ability to gain immunity naturally all of a sudden? Please send links to the studies. Sounds important.

No we dont lose the ability to create Corona anti-virus as a normal way of defense but without the vaccine you need people to get  sick to create the Corona anti-bodies and the problem with that approach is the percentage of people who will always die with Corona

So the vaccine is the best strategy as you dont have small percentage of people who will die through our normal immunity 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

No we dont lose the ability to create Corona anti-virus as a normal way of defense but without the vaccine you need people to get  sick to create the Corona anti-bodies and the problem with that approach is the percentage of people who will always die with Corona

So the vaccine is the best strategy as you dont have small percentage of people who will die through our normal immunity 

Hurlshot seem to believe we did. That's why I asked for the studies. It was a joke, I know there aren't any.
 

But to your point, there is always gonna be "percentage of people who will die" with any medical solution for any disease. Virus related or not. That's how medicine works. I'm positive that if one day scientists will come up with the perfect cure for all, there will be 0.01% chance or allergic reaction that will liquify your internal organs. That's how life works.
I'm also sceptical about the "best strategy" since there wasn't an effective vaccine for any other coronavirus before and due to nature of this type of viruses the needed level of vaccination  and scepticism around the vaccine it's doubtful we will reach the necessary level of immunity. And also we don't know the long term side effects, so it's also possible that "percentage of people who will die" because of the vaccine. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Skarpen

[Hurlshort]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

There is some more evidence about "herd immunity"? Something changed in the last couple of months? Was there a study? Did humankind lost the ability to gain immunity naturally all of a sudden? Please send links to the studies. Sounds important.

You really good into science. I am sorry for doubting you.

[213374U]

On 12/24/2020 at 10:55 AM, Skarpen said:

I'm also sceptical about the "best strategy" since there wasn't an effective vaccine for any other coronavirus before and due to nature of this type of viruses the needed level of vaccination  and scepticism around the vaccine it's doubtful we will reach the necessary level of immunity. And also we don't know the long term side effects, so it's also possible that "percentage of people who will die" because of the vaccine. 

It is a matter of numbers. It is exceedingly unlikely that unforeseen side effects could kill millions, even with an experimental vaccine. The latest estimate of rona IFR is 0.6-1.3%. If the required prevalence to reach herd immunity through exposure is ~70%, do the math on how many would kick the bucket. This rests on the premise that 100% of the population are susceptible to rona -- there are reasons to believe that's not the case, but assuming that a certain fraction of the population would present some sort of previous resistance and making decisions based on that is risky.

We may learn in time that it was not the "best strategy" full stop. But there seems to be a broad consensus among scientists that it's the best strategy now based on our limited understanding of what's going on. And we can't very well afford to keep restrictions up, literally.

I'd have to agree though, WHO amending definitions of scientific concepts to fit a narrative is dumb. But we live in a dumb world full of dumb people.

Edited December 26, 2020 by 213374U

[rjshae]

On 12/23/2020 at 9:25 PM, Skarpen said:

There is some more evidence about "herd immunity"? Something changed in the last couple of months? Was there a study? Did humankind lost the ability to gain immunity naturally all of a sudden? Please send links to the studies. Sounds important.

I think they're being cautious in their wording because they don't know exactly how long antibody protection lasts through natural immune response. It may be that (without a vaccine) as the pandemic cycles through the population over several years, immunity may start to wear off with the first infected and the cycle may start all over again. With vaccines, you can deliver immunity at a much more rapid rate, which gives you a chance to squelch the propagation of the current strains.

That doesn't mean it won't pop up again at some point.

[Skarpen]

5 hours ago, rjshae said:

I think they're being cautious in their wording because they don't know exactly how long antibody protection lasts through natural immune response

I think they're twisting words to further their agenda and achieve outcome they want. Even if what they want is good, which I'am doubtful of as we know WHO is a buyable entity, the method is amoral.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the natural immunity and vaccine immunity gain for the same lenght of time? Which early findings estimate to about 3 to 6 months. And some countries estimate reaching vaccination level of 70% in about 3 years. So the math doesn't look good for gaining immunity through vaccination. Unless the supply rises significally, which doesn't seem plausible right now.

[Elerond]

Natural immunity and immunity from vaccination is not usually same. Also level of immunity isn't necessary same. 

Immunity against SARS-CoV-2 last at least 8 months, but for some individuals antibodies created during infection disappear in weeks and they are able to get infection again.

SARS-CoV-2 is also slowly evolving virus and at least for now all new strains use same spike protein, which means that same vaccinate work against them at least with good efficiency

 SARS-CoV-2 also don't seem to spread fast enough in population that there would ever be natural immunity against it, as prediction scenarios estimate that it will take close to 50 years that 70 % of current world population has had infection, during which there will already be new generations of population that also needs to be infected. So without vaccinations it seems that SARS-CoV-2 would become another seasonal flu and as it deadlier than most flu trains it would most likely significantly increase yearly fatalities from the 'flu'

So in order to prevent SARS-CoV-2 and its future mutations become permanent fixture in our global disease we would need to do our best now to eradicate it from the earth through vaccinations. Full eradication at this point will probably decades of vaccinating children against it in order to keep 'herd immunity' level high enough long enough to ensure that it can't cause new epidemics or at least prevent new pandemic from it.

[Zoraptor]

A vaccine usually gives better immunity over natural exposure especially for respiratory tract diseases as the lungs/ airways give poor natural immune responses. In terms of antigens, if it's an attenuated (or dead) virus the antigen is the same as natural, in the case for SC2 all the approved or nearly so vaccines use  encoded pieces of the spike protein either via mRNA (Pfizer/ Moderna) or it being stuck into a different viral vector (A-ZOxford/ Sputnik) which is deliberately designed and won't (necessarily) be the specific antigen segment(s) targeted naturally.

SC2 is not a slow evolver, it's a fast one. It's a ssRNA virus, they all evolve rapidly because ssRNA is inherently the most unstable genetic option- single stranded gives no redundancy, RNA is less stable than DNA. It isn't as fast evolving as its relative ssRNA virus influenza, but flu is an extreme outlier there due to the way it is assembled in segments. Spike had no known mutations for months, but the new UK variant has (iirc) 8 substitutions from the original spike, which probably explains its extra infectiousness. Since all the vaccines target spike due to it previously being stable mutations there are a big deal as they potentially reduce the induced immunity.

'Natural' herd immunity is not a viable strategy, but not because it's a slow infector. It isn't as fast as measles but again, that's a big outlier in terms of infectivity. Bit simplistic but, herd immunity works when the virus cannot find enough non immune people to continue spreading, so the R number drops, eventually below 1. That's ~65 to 70% for standard SC2, and probably a bit more for the new strain. IIRC the immunity for common cold coronaviruses lasts a few years, so using that as an estimate if something like 25% of the population was infected per year you'd never actually reach herd immunity levels because you'd not reach 75% immunity- those infected in the first year would be losing immunity as those infected in the 3rd were gaining it. That makes sense, because most viruses don't 'die out' naturally due to herd immunity, even those with 'permanent' immunity like chicken pox or mumps. They percolate in the background, occasionally flaring up when immunity levels drop enough. Vaccine based immunity should last a bit longer than natural since the immune response is stronger, but how long and how consistently long is a very open question; but with vaccines you can at least theoretically get to (effectively) 100% immunity (in this case the highest possible seems to be 95%) per smallpox and nearly polio.

[Raithe]

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Vaccine based immunity should last a bit longer than natural since the immune response is stronger, but how long and how consistently long is a very open question; but with vaccines you can at least theoretically get to (effectively) 100% immunity (in this case the highest possible seems to be 95%) per smallpox and nearly polio.

I was under the impression that, from the way the Pfizer trial was designed, immunity isn't guaranteed (not what was tested). The 95% figure described the decreased chance of presenting symptoms -- i.e. "protection" as per their own wording rather than proper immunity that would effectively prevent infection and transmission. As far as I know, you cannot be a smallpox carrier if you've taken the shot.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, that's one of the things which is simplistic in the explanation. Epidemiological matters tend to be rather less exact/ precise than you'd like from scientific stuff. 'Herd immunity' itself being a prominent example, since its seldom actual immunity that is being talked about but rather protection against uncontrolled spread.

The weak immune response I mentioned for respiratory viruses in general is because it's fundamentally difficult for the immune system to get at a respiratory tract infection as compared to a more general infection- epithelial cells have the 'outside' on one side, after all. So you can have a beautiful immune response to a vaccine but still get a mild infection because the immune system has difficulty reaching the infection site (and for some people it will simply be ineffective for whatever reason).

There's also the dichotomy between SARS-CoV-2 as a virus, and covid19 as the effect of the virus. The most simple example would be a linear 95% reduction giving a death number around half that of annual flu, without taking into account any reduced spread due to reduced symptoms or outright immunity given. The virus itself would be present a lot more than that 95% reduction suggests, but you'd have reduced covid19 (the viruses effects) by a theoretical 95%. Practically it doesn't quite work that way of course, but the way it 'really' works is too complicated for an easy explanation- and would be well beyond my expertise level.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

On 12/27/2020 at 10:37 AM, Skarpen said:

I think they're twisting words to further their agenda and achieve outcome they want. Even if what they want is good, which I'am doubtful of as we know WHO is a buyable entity, the method is amoral.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the natural immunity and vaccine immunity gain for the same lenght of time? Which early findings estimate to about 3 to 6 months. And some countries estimate reaching vaccination level of 70% in about 3 years. So the math doesn't look good for gaining immunity through vaccination. Unless the supply rises significally, which doesn't seem plausible right now.

What you asking are similar questions to other people in other places, like SA talk shows , have raised about the virus and vaccine. Some people may think you trolling but I believe these are legitimate concerns and  I can provide you with answers to most of your points. I can provide these answers  because of what we have learnt from the virus and the terrible loss of lives of people from the 3 " original "  countries that the virus reached after China and SK. China obviously was never going to understand how it could have prepared the world better by being completely honest with all the initial information around how the new virus was killing people and how it was able to infect people and what its symptoms were. Basically the entire world learnt most of this only when we all watched  in horror and deep sympathy as thousands of people and hundreds of nurses doctors initially died in Italy, Spain and New York

But the absolutely real positive outcome as the year went on and we witnessed second waves in most countries is the world now knows enough about this new virus that we have vaccines that have been tested and are being deployed 

So going back to your questions, dont read that much into the role WHO plays in the creation of these vaccines. The vaccines are created and tested primarily  by independent, global pharmaceutical companies funded by governments to ensure that there is no resource problems....it has worked well. And of course other vaccines are created directly  by certain countries like China and Russia but they will still go through expected live human testing and once the results are verified by independent scientists I would also take these vaccines if they become available in SA first  

The anti-bodies you can gain from the normal way of getting the virus and then recovering wont last as long as the clever vaccine which ends up being scenically altered to make the anti-bodies more long lasting. So the vaccine is better but it wont initially be a permanent  solution so you should be prepared to get a new vaccine every year but that is not a unreasonable  

And more importantly I dont see why we should get too upset about people who refuse to take the virus, its going to be a personal choice for everyone and this decision should be a simple question , "do you want to have a normal life again like before the virus " People like me will take the vaccine and that means I wont get the virus and wont be able to spread it 

Its an easy choice 

On 12/27/2020 at 2:17 PM, Zoraptor said:

A vaccine usually gives better immunity over natural exposure especially for respiratory tract diseases as the lungs/ airways give poor natural immune responses. In terms of antigens, if it's an attenuated (or dead) virus the antigen is the same as natural, in the case for SC2 all the approved or nearly so vaccines use  encoded pieces of the spike protein either via mRNA (Pfizer/ Moderna) or it being stuck into a different viral vector (A-ZOxford/ Sputnik) which is deliberately designed and won't (necessarily) be the specific antigen segment(s) targeted naturally.

SC2 is not a slow evolver, it's a fast one. It's a ssRNA virus, they all evolve rapidly because ssRNA is inherently the most unstable genetic option- single stranded gives no redundancy, RNA is less stable than DNA. It isn't as fast evolving as its relative ssRNA virus influenza, but flu is an extreme outlier there due to the way it is assembled in segments. Spike had no known mutations for months, but the new UK variant has (iirc) 8 substitutions from the original spike, which probably explains its extra infectiousness. Since all the vaccines target spike due to it previously being stable mutations there are a big deal as they potentially reduce the induced immunity.

'Natural' herd immunity is not a viable strategy, but not because it's a slow infector. It isn't as fast as measles but again, that's a big outlier in terms of infectivity. Bit simplistic but, herd immunity works when the virus cannot find enough non immune people to continue spreading, so the R number drops, eventually below 1. That's ~65 to 70% for standard SC2, and probably a bit more for the new strain. IIRC the immunity for common cold coronaviruses lasts a few years, so using that as an estimate if something like 25% of the population was infected per year you'd never actually reach herd immunity levels because you'd not reach 75% immunity- those infected in the first year would be losing immunity as those infected in the 3rd were gaining it. That makes sense, because most viruses don't 'die out' naturally due to herd immunity, even those with 'permanent' immunity like chicken pox or mumps. They percolate in the background, occasionally flaring up when immunity levels drop enough. Vaccine based immunity should last a bit longer than natural since the immune response is stronger, but how long and how consistently long is a very open question; but with vaccines you can at least theoretically get to (effectively) 100% immunity (in this case the highest possible seems to be 95%) per smallpox and nearly polio.

I also watched a really good interview on CNN about one issue with the herd immunity objective without a vaccine , it actually will lead to people being systematically killed by the spread of the virus as the people are at high risk. ...its like a form of state sponsored killing of citizens because they are not  able to naturally survive

Its really cruel and unreasonable 

[Gorth]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 ...its like a form of state sponsored killing of citizens because they are not  able to naturally survive

Its really cruel and unreasonable 

I'm sure Dr. Mengele would disagree.

 

The Swedish government sort of tried the herd immunity approach. It failed miserably and they ended up becoming the pariahs of the Nordic countries with the highest infection rates and number of deaths (with nothing to show for it other than their neighbors closing their borders to them)

[Skarpen]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I can provide you with answers to most of your points

You didn't. Your response barely fits to my questions. It looks like you copy-pasted that from somewhere else and not made it yourself. Right?

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Skarpen said:

You didn't. Your response barely fits to my questions. It looks like you copy-pasted that from somewhere else and not made it yourself. Right?

No I answered your questions about WHO and how long the anti-bodies last and the difference between vaccine and natural immunity anti-bodies....I am not sure what other questions you have?

[BruceVC]

18 hours ago, Gorth said:

I'm sure Dr. Mengele would disagree.

 

The Swedish government sort of tried the herd immunity approach. It failed miserably and they ended up becoming the pariahs of the Nordic countries with the highest infection rates and number of deaths (with nothing to show for it other than their neighbors closing their borders to them)

I have been wondering how the Swedish herd immunity experiment went, so has it been deemed a failure and has Sweden acknowledged this? What were the outcomes that led to it being a failure if you know

The reason I am interested is I remember when they started the experiment and they were heavily criticized but to be fair to Sweden they are a very  reasonable and sensitive nation and I am sure they had  a real scientific reason it could work yet clearly it failed but I wonder what were the  metrics that defined it as failure

And then it is very relevant that you mentioned how the Nordic countries responded because as you know your countries really get on well with your " tree hugging, socialist....lets absorb all immigrant " common policies that no one else want to implement  

What do the other Nordic counties think about Swedens failed approach and what approach is Sweden now taking ?

 

[Zoraptor]

It seems unlikely they ever went for 'genuine' herd immunity, but more 'managed infection'. The theory was that you'd have a sort of ping pong situation with lock downs where you'd lock down, the rate would drop, and then rebound as soon as the lock down ended resulting in a perpetual up/down cycle- andor perpetual unsustainable restrictions- so they wanted to smooth out the cycle while exposing only those at least risk. That would result in similar overall infection numbers, increased immunity in the overall population and less economic damage with no spikes in infection numbers that would overwhelm the health system and cause a lot of excess deaths. They got aspects right and had some unusual circumstantial situations (very rapid vaccine development) that made them look more stupid than deserved, but overall you can't really argue that the approach was a success when the death rate is considerably higher than their neighbours, and they got no economic benefit either.

[rjshae]

On 12/27/2020 at 12:37 AM, Skarpen said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the natural immunity and vaccine immunity gain for the same lenght of time? Which early findings estimate to about 3 to 6 months. And some countries estimate reaching vaccination level of 70% in about 3 years. So the math doesn't look good for gaining immunity through vaccination. Unless the supply rises significally, which doesn't seem plausible right now.

I believe the early findings were a minimum, not an expiration date, so your math is wrong. We don't yet know which lasts longer, and we may not know for another year. It may depend on how you were infected and other factors. A shot in the arm is much more controllable than a random viral load though.

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

It seems unlikely they ever went for 'genuine' herd immunity, but more 'managed infection'. The theory was that you'd have a sort of ping pong situation with lock downs where you'd lock down, the rate would drop, and then rebound as soon as the lock down ended resulting in a perpetual up/down cycle- andor perpetual unsustainable restrictions- so they wanted to smooth out the cycle while exposing only those at least risk. That would result in similar overall infection numbers, increased immunity in the overall population and less economic damage with no spikes in infection numbers that would overwhelm the health system and cause a lot of excess deaths. They got aspects right and had some unusual circumstantial situations (very rapid vaccine development) that made them look more stupid than deserved, but overall you can't really argue that the approach was a success when the death rate is considerably higher than their neighbours, and they got no economic benefit either.

Great technical explanation, thanks for sharing 

I wonder how the average Swedish citizen feels about their governments perceived failures at stopping the virus? Because I can understand how the Swedish idea failed now but the average citizen still would have had valid reasons for supporting the initial strategy which means you wouldnt necessarily blame your government for this failure because citizens agreed and supported the same approach.

So you would accept everyone simply made a mistake around assessing the best way to reduce the virus spread and not just blame the elected government  

[Elerond]

15 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

It seems unlikely they ever went for 'genuine' herd immunity, but more 'managed infection'. The theory was that you'd have a sort of ping pong situation with lock downs where you'd lock down, the rate would drop, and then rebound as soon as the lock down ended resulting in a perpetual up/down cycle- andor perpetual unsustainable restrictions- so they wanted to smooth out the cycle while exposing only those at least risk. That would result in similar overall infection numbers, increased immunity in the overall population and less economic damage with no spikes in infection numbers that would overwhelm the health system and cause a lot of excess deaths. They got aspects right and had some unusual circumstantial situations (very rapid vaccine development) that made them look more stupid than deserved, but overall you can't really argue that the approach was a success when the death rate is considerably higher than their neighbours, and they got no economic benefit either.

They also didn't take account some important factors, like that keeping things open does not prevent big hit on economy when their main trade partners go in lock down and then close borders to them because their corona strategy don't work with strategies their trade partners chose. Also their strategy had big risk that those with least in risk would spread infection to vulnerable populations and that risk ended up to actualize, which is main reason that Sweden has so much higher death toll compared to its neighbors. 

Considering that first vaccine against corona was already working in lab in January, the rapid development and approval should not been surprising factor for experts creating the strategy. 

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

They also didn't take account some important factors, like that keeping things open does not prevent big hit on economy when their main trade partners go in lock down and then close borders to them because their corona strategy don't work with strategies their trade partners chose. Also their strategy had big risk that those with least in risk would spread infection to vulnerable populations and that risk ended up to actualize, which is main reason that Sweden has so much higher death toll compared to its neighbors. 

Considering that first vaccine against corona was already working in lab in January, the rapid development and approval should not been surprising factor for experts creating the strategy. 

Elerond how do the people of Finland feel about the Swedish experiment, what is the general view if any?

For example are Finnish people disappointed with Sweden, angry that they tried something controversial or maybe they feel bad it failed and Sweden suffered more deaths ?

[Elerond]

35 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond how do the people of Finland feel about the Swedish experiment, what is the general view if any?

For example are Finnish people disappointed with Sweden, angry that they tried something controversial or maybe they feel bad it failed and Sweden suffered more deaths ?

I don't think there is any general feeling towards it, it is seen as swedes doing swede things. Although majority of people think we should fully close borders for swedes and swedes tourist feel like they aren't welcome in Finland and make effectively this old meme as reality 

[Azdeus]

On 12/29/2020 at 10:48 PM, Zoraptor said:

It seems unlikely they ever went for 'genuine' herd immunity, but more 'managed infection'. The theory was that you'd have a sort of ping pong situation with lock downs where you'd lock down, the rate would drop, and then rebound as soon as the lock down ended resulting in a perpetual up/down cycle- andor perpetual unsustainable restrictions- so they wanted to smooth out the cycle while exposing only those at least risk. That would result in similar overall infection numbers, increased immunity in the overall population and less economic damage with no spikes in infection numbers that would overwhelm the health system and cause a lot of excess deaths. They got aspects right and had some unusual circumstantial situations (very rapid vaccine development) that made them look more stupid than deserved, but overall you can't really argue that the approach was a success when the death rate is considerably higher than their neighbours, and they got no economic benefit either.

Getting herd immunity never was part of the strategy, though you're correct about the other part. It was always about waiting for a vaccine, which could be years away, and people won't follow really strict measures for that long, so they chose the methods that people would follow along with for a really long time to keep the hospitals from overflowing, like they've started to do now again since people didn't give a **** about pandemic restrictions when there was shopping to be done. People really had been crowding each other alot for months in stores and such, but it just kept getting worse and worse. They just now started recommending people use masks if they're taking public transports.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-statistik-over-3000-doda-i-covid-19-fran-aldreboenden

It's about a month old, but 73% of the dead in covid were living in retirement homes or recieved care at home. The Health and Social care inspectors has been pretty damning in how retirement homes and nursing companies has handled the pandemic, about 20% of people that had some sort of symptom didn't even get an check from a doctor, and most other cases the staff spoke to a doctor on the phone.

Here are the official Covid numbers if anyone wants them;

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa/page/page_0/