But if I dont feel like it, how would I know?  (basically what your saying maybe be true, but no-one acts that way)

I dont run to get tested for a flu, everytime I feel bad.
Basically Im just talking from my own experiance.

If it doesn't feel like a flu, I dont call it one, because I assume its not.
I have had a bad flu like 2-3 times in my life, and to me their very differnt from haveing a cold.

Covid19 is something very differnt.
However I assume theres plenty of people that have had it, gotten over it, and are now like "whats the big deal?".
While on the other end of the spectrum, theres people that survived near death to it, that are like "its the most horrible thing ever!".

Now back to cold vs flu.
You dont call it a flu, unless its hit you very seriously.
(not as a common person, anyways, while it technically could be a flu, only doctors would call it such, if there was basically symptoms equal to a common cold)

Basically the normal person, calls it a cold (if your just caughing/sneezeing) ,
(reguardless of what virus it actually was that made you have those symptoms).
It needs to be much more serious before you even consider calling it a flu, imo.

We (Sweden) are doing a long-term play, our goal is to build immunity while protecting the vulnerable, this will shield us against future waves and should lead to less dead/million. You guys are doing Trace/Quarantine/self-isolate, we shall see which one is better. As you guys start opening up, you might start to catch up with us in dead/million.

As for face masks, you do understand a vaccine can take 2-5 years before it's develop, are you gonna walk around with a face mask all that time?

The only reason you guys have less active cases then us is because we are expanding testing, in beginning in april we did 20k test a week now we doing 30k test a week. This is why more testing is bad, it makes your numbers look worse.

I hope you and Vivster are gonna protest mandating face masks, the most your government should do is recommend.

Then tell me why numbers in Germany go down even when testing capacity has been increased.

Week 16 - 330,000 tests, 22,000 positive (6.7%)
Week 17 - 360,000 tests, 18,000 positive (5.0%)

testing increased by 10% but the number of positive cases fell.

Week 18 - 325,000 tests, 12,600 positive (3.9%)
Week 19 - 382,000 tests, 10,200 positive (2.7%)

testing increased by over 15% but the number of positive cases fell. Also week 16 and week 18 are very comparable when you look at the amount of tests but positive cases fell from 22k to less than 13k.

Source: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-05-13-de.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (page 9)

What's true is that the ratio of tests to positives cases will decrease the more tests you do. That's because you're testing those people first that show symptoms or had close contact to infected people. If you have the capacity and decide to do more tests you will eventually end up testing people that coughed once a week ago, making it extremely unlikely for them to be infected.

Like almost everything else in this blighted age, the question of Sweden's response to Covid has become politicized to the point of meaninglessness. So maybe this is dumb/naive to ask -- and I may be misremembering -- but going back a bit, wasn't the original goal of our sundry and various measures to "flatten the curve"?

Meaning that we wanted to slow the rate of infections such that they did not overwhelm medical infrastructure at any given point, not to somehow stop Covid from spreading altogether (which has long been acknowledged as impossible, so far as I can recall). Well, maybe it's yet too early to tell, but is there any way we can evaluate Sweden's approach from that perspective? Have their capacities been overwhelmed? Is it approaching that point?

Theres places that have had coronavirus, that now no longer have any active cases.
This does infact prove, that its actually possible to completely rid your country of it.
(ofc you'll always be at risk of a new outbreak, but the same is true for other places)

Slightly Bad News!

54-årige Philip Soubry, was "paitent 0" in belgium (the first person there confirmed to have the virus).
However he had a "mild" case (ei. infecting others, while he himself barely had any symptoms).

He resently got case of the flu, and went to get tested for it (and they also tested for corona/anitbodies).
Turns out he does NOT carry any anti bodies for the virus (corona).

This might mean, that your body doesnt develope anti bodies to fight off the virus, unless you get a serious case of it.

https://www.bt.dk/samfund/blev-smittet-med-corona-har-ikke-antistoffer


Herd immunity isn't going to be easy to reach.
If a certain % of people that get covid19, and recover dont even build up anti bodies,
it'll increase the amount of the population you'll need infected to slow spread.

It would be interesting to see charts from muslim countries. Whether it is a consequence of Ramadan or of "We can't hide the numbers anymore", I got the impression that numbers have skyrocketed in all those countries in the past days/weeks.

Or maybe the body doesn't carry around the antibodies for long, similar like you have to redo some vaccines every couple years

Mid week Europe update

Russia now represents nearly half of the daily reported cases in Europe, 3 day avg of 10861 of 22637 (48%)
The UK is down to 15%, Sweden moved up another spot passing France.


Not much change in the reported deaths graph, the regular up and down, weekend counting effect.
Mostly downward trends, going good.

The week over week graphs look good as well

Spain, Belgium and Sweden are still above the 100% week over week yet are also turning around.
Russia is slowing again, but still unclear whether they're reaching a growth or testing peak.

A country not currently having "active cases" does not mean that that country is "completely rid" of the disease. It can still exist in the community, especially given the contagious nature of this particular disease and that people can carry it asymptomatically.

Besides which, the experience of a place like Greenland versus a Brazil or the UK are not easily comparable. Ridding Greenland of active cases does not prove that the same can be done in Russia, for instance, because the challenges and circumstances are vastly different. It's like, if you'll forgive a baseball analogy, because a child can knock a t-ball off it's tee, we don't say that proves the kid is ready for the Majors. Yes, they're both hitting ball with bat, but no, they aren't the same.

Anyway, so far as I know, no one reputable has claimed that this disease can be stopped or eradicated outright. Trump has made noise about the disease simply disappearing, like a miracle, but the closest we'll get to that, imho, is an effective vaccine -- and who knows when that will be available. So I think that means that we must instead decide how best to live in the world, given that this virus persists in the population, and will for the foreseeable future.

I've supported and continue to support various lockdown measures in view of "flattening the curve," so that additional people don't succumb to Covid (or other things) due to overtaxing health resources with a deluge of new infections. But I don't think it's sensible, for instance, to insist on more severe measures so that a country like the United States can completely clear itself of the disease, when I don't think that's a feasible or realistic goal at all. Not even supposing a "total" lockdown, which cannot, after all, truly be total; even Wuhan, it seems, has not completely cleared itself.

If we're going to shift the goalposts -- if we're going to insist on continuing measures that we'd originally instituted to "flatten the curve" for something else -- let's at least do so openly, ensure our new goals are actually attainable, and determine whether the diminishing returns of stopping further spread are worth the necessarily greater price we'd have to pay, not just in coin, but also in peoples' lives and well-being.