The lockdown policies implemented during the covid “pandemic” were disastrous. These policies should have been examined for their effectiveness. Yet, little interest has been shown in doing so.
In the following, Ian Miller highlights a study to compare Sweden’s light-touch approach to the heavy-handed approach taken by other European governments.
“[It] is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model,” he writes. “Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today.”
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The Lockdown Disaster Must Not Be Forgiven: Massive European Study Vindicates Sweden’s Common-Sense Pandemic Response
By Ian Miller, as published by Brownstone Institute
We’re now rapidly approaching the six-year anniversary of “15 Days to Slow the Spread.”
That policy has to have been one of the most disastrous in world history, created by “experts” who took all established pre-pandemic planning documents and tossed them out the window at the first opportunity.
It was a policy based on inaccurate reports out of China, which claimed that their lockdowns effectively stamped out transmission of covid-19 within a matter of days.
It was a policy that ignored solid research – from established epidemiologists like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – which found that the coronavirus had already spread much more widely than previously realised.
It must be noted forever that lockdowns and the associated mask mandates, vaccine passports and school closures continued in some places for several years. The ramifications of those wretched policies will be quite literally endless. It’s not an exaggeration to say that lockdowns, our policies and responses have quite literally changed the course of world history.
One would think that there would definitely be a concerted effort to understand whether such policies were effective or not. Whether approaching respiratory viruses with authoritarian crackdowns on businesses and schools was necessary to save lives.
Yet six years later, there’s unfortunately very little interest in examining those questions. And when you understand the data from Sweden, you will see exactly why.
Study on Swedish Approach to Covid Shows Lockdowns Didn’t Work
A study published in PubMed examined the Swedish approach to covid policy, relative to its European counterparts, primarily because Sweden did not rely on lockdowns in response to the pandemic, but instead used “voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations,” the study says.
Despite a “majority of Swedes” supporting those policies, “this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism.”
That criticism came primarily from public health figures such as, surprise, surprise, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who criticised Sweden repeatedly for going against the herd.
“You’ve compared us to Sweden, and there are a lot of differences,” he said during a Senate Committee hearing in September 2020. “But compare Sweden’s death rate to other comparable Scandinavian countries. It’s worse. So, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare Sweden with us.”
“If you look at Sweden, they are in some trouble,” Fauci claimed on Good Morning America in late 2020. “They are starting to see that their death rate is much higher than the surrounding countries of Norway, Denmark, and Finland … They’re starting to see now that they’re having to rethink some of the things they did.”
This was, of course, not true. They did not “rethink” their strategy of light-touch recommendations over lockdowns. And comparing Sweden exclusively to its neighbours is an absurd misdirection that no other country was subjected to. But Fauci, obviously never one for honesty or intellectual integrity, represented many public health figures who were anxious to see Sweden fail.
Yet as this research shows, reality was precisely the opposite.
The study explains that Sweden received criticism for “not legally enforcing mask-wearing in public spaces,” as well as keeping schools open and “being too permissive” with its policies. All the things that we were told were necessary to stop covid and save lives. The researchers tested these statements using excess mortality data and stringency indices to compare Sweden across the whole of Europe, not just its neighbours.
They chose excess mortality because, unlike covid-specific measurements, it’s less subject to bias, differences in testing, and counting, and individual definitions of covid-caused outcomes. It also accounts for deaths that “could potentially be indirectly attributed to the negative effects of strict lockdown measures and the overall strain on healthcare systems, leading to reduced access to healthcare for other diseases, among other factors.”
Turns out that what they discovered was that Sweden vastly outperformed the rest of Europe from 2020-2022, with outcomes that were remarkably similar to the other Nordic countries.
“Among 42 European countries, the cumulative excess all-cause mortality from January 2020 to December 2022 ranged from 46 (Luxembourg) to 1,080 (Bulgaria) deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, with a median of 351/100,000,” they write. “In Sweden, the excess mortality rate of 158/100,000 was among the lowest, ranked 37th among 42 countries, and not very different from other Nordic countries: Norway (129), Denmark (97), and Finland (228).”
Björkman A, Gisslén M, Gullberg M, Ludvigsson J. The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies. Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 20;11:1206732. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1206732. PMID: 37546333; PMCID: PMC10399217.
So why did Sweden underperform in 2020 relative to its neighbours? Likely due, as the study explains, to “mortality displacement due to low all-cause mortality in 2019,” as well as “poorly organised older adult care structures.”
What does this mean? Essentially, there were significantly fewer deaths from all causes in Sweden in 2019, meaning there were more extremely elderly people alive in 2020 who were susceptible to severe outcomes from covid. This is reflected in the massive age gradient with covid-associated deaths. In Sweden, “~40% of the covid-19-associated deaths were among patients in nursing homes,” the study says, “and 67% of all covid-19 deaths were among individuals above 80 years of age, representing 10% of all deaths in that age group.”
For younger age groups, covid was mostly a non-issue. “covid-19 deaths below 50 years of age represented only 1.2% of all covid deaths, including 21 individuals below 20 years of age, mostly with underlying co-morbidities, representing 1% of all deaths in that age group.”
Effectively, covid ravaged extremely elderly people, while those under 50, despite the lack of mask mandates and lockdowns, saw very limited impact.
Sweden’s Lack of Lockdowns Led to Better Outcomes
Equally important, they examined the “stringency index” for countries across Europe, then made a data table comparing that stringency to excess mortality from 2020-2022. Effectively, how strict were a country’s policies, and how much did that matter to reducing excess mortality?
Turns out, there’s a definitive, resounding answer which this chart demonstrates perfectly. Countries are plotted based on their stringency index, the x-axis, and excess mortality, the y-axis. The line demonstrates the trend in mortality rates, and there’s virtually no relationship between the severity of policy and preventing excess mortality.
The R-squared, effectively the relationship between stringency index and excess mortality, is just 0.14. The closer to 1, the more related stringency is to outcomes. This is 0.14.
Countries like Italy and Spain were some of the strictest when it came to lockdowns and mandates, yet ranked near the top in excess mortality rates. The UK, Portugal, the Netherlands and others were significantly more stringent and also had demonstrably worse outcomes. Denmark was the second least strict country and had the best outcomes, at least in this examination.
What does this tell us? Well, put simply, Fauci was wrong. Sweden did not underperform relative to its neighbours. It did significantly better than the rest of Europe and, of course, the United States. Lockdowns and stringency were not related, whatsoever, to reducing excess mortality. They never mandated masks, one of his chief policy recommendations, and outperformed other countries like Germany, which imposed N95-level mandates for months on end.
This is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model. Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today. Because learning the actual results of these historically bad policies requires humility, accountability and honesty, all qualities that many in public health are truly incapable of possessing.
About the Author
Ian Miller is the author of ‘Unmasked: The Global Failure of covid Mask Mandates’. His work has been featured on national television broadcasts, national and international news publications and referenced in multiple best-selling books covering the pandemic. He writes a Substack page titled ‘Unmasked’.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, Latest News, World News
I am not a good little citizen of the world, I defied their mask mandates and their lockdowns. Now for all the good little citizens of the world, covid was the testing ground to see how well citizens would comply to their demands, and about 90 percent of the world population passed the governments test, so, the next pandemic will lead to another lockdown and all the good little citizen will comply to the governments orders to depopulate the human race with bioweapons called vaccines.
Hi Isabel,
I could not have put that better myself, well done.
Having been in hospital myself at the time, at one point I was having an argument with 5 doctors and specialists.
I just kept asking where Flu had gone ?
I refused the PCR test, and later, at a check up, i was refused entry to the same hospital, because I refused again.
It got to a point when nurses were asking me for advice.
I was the same, I am UK 85, for the first 3 months in Jan 2020 my wife and I had friends do our shopping, during that time I was also doing my research, after that first 3 months we lived as normal, NO social distancing, NO masks, in fact we are both vaccine free. Now, the reason for the majority of Covid deaths in the UK was there was NOT covid but no early treatment available or allowed, that does not mean there was no valid treatment, far from it, my wife and I both used HCQ with zinc and the antibiotic Doxycycline, ( NHS state Doxy does not treat a viral infection), NO it was used as a prophylactic to stop bacterial pneumonia. We both had flu like symptoms in early Jan 2020, my wife became bedridden on the second day with a temp of 102f, we did not wait for testing we treated immediately, 24 hrs later all symptoms were gone and her temp was back to normal. Covid was no worse than a bad flu year, no early treatment killed the majority of those that obeyed. The NHS did not allow any form of early treatment especially Hydroxychloroquine, they were trying to discredit the action of Chloroquine against influenza as early as 2017 in their Mers treatment guide. The only study ever done in an animal to test the effect of CQ against a lethal Influenza strain showed a Therapeutic 70% to zero survival but also showed a Zero prophylactic survival. The NHS stated Chloroquine was unreliable in animal models. http://web.archive.org/web/20220127021837/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638628/mers_cov_guidance_for_clinicians.pdf.
Go to page 16. and the only study EVER to test Chloroquine against a lethal influenza strain was in 2012. NHS quote: “Inhibitory in vitro for multiple viruses including influenza ref D1,2. No consistent activity in animal models of influenza D2,3 and negative results in one influenza RCT of seasonal prophylaxis D4”. ???
Apples and oranges, NO constant activity for 2 types of treatment, but the most widely used influenza antiviral treatment IN THE WORLD IS THERAPEUTIC not PROPHYLACTIC AND THAT SAW A 70% SURVIVAL
3. Yan Y, Zou Z, Sun Y, et al. Anti-malaria drug chloroquine is highly effective in treating avian
influenza A H5N1 virus infection in an animal model. Cell Res 2013; 23(2):300–302. 70% SURVIVAL.
Download the PDF from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567830/pdf/cr2012165a.pdf
It is time to stand up and fight. We older folks remember the 20th century very well, and it is nothing like the 21st century. I can do without all this so called progress.
Covid was and is not viral infection, not only because there are no viruses but because the symptoms were 100% match with acute irradiation. If you think that you can be irradiated only by ionizing radiation, you are wrong.
This is why the recovery time for some was so slow, the ‘long-covid’, it took the body for a long time to rebuild this or that organ damage.
Let me quote a little text from an electromagnetic shielding clots, because it is a good summary of the effects, also notice the WHO part in it!
‘What is electromagnetic radiation?
Electromagnetic radiation is “non-ionizing radiation,” including microwaves and electromagnetic fields (EMF). Any type of electrical appliance produces non-ionizing radiation, including cell phones, computers, televisions, wires, and ultrasound.
The influence of electromagnetic radiation on human health:
Electromagnetic wave radiation has been listed by WHO as the fourth largest source of environmental pollution after water, atmosphere and noise. It has become an invisible “killer” that harms human health. Electromagnetic radiation can generate a lot of free radicals, interfere with communication between cells, hinder hormones and the release of (such as melatonin). Causes cancer, leukemia, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, miscarriage, menstrual disorders, sexual decline, insomnia and neurological disorders. People who work, study, and live in a concentrated environment of radiation sources are prone to insomnia and dreams, memory loss, physical weakness, and low immunity. The growth rate of cancer cells is 24 times faster than that of normal people.’
Apart from the protection of shielding and getting rid of as much wireless stuff as possible – notice the FREE RADIACALS – part. The antidote for free radicals is antoxidant, means electron donors; ionizers, vitamin C in a good and high form and so on.
It was obvious from the outset that NO ONE CAN MAKE A VACCINE IN 3 or 4 MONTHS AND THE NEW VACCINE FOR EBOLA IS RUBBISH! FAUCI FOUND IVERMECTIN WAS THE DRUG TO USE WITH SUCCESS AFTER USING RIMDESIVIR WHICH KILLED PATIENTS SO!!! There is a long list of evildoers over the whole caboosh from start to finish of ?covid and it’s consequences as we have a HALOCAUST OF DRATHS AND WILL BE ONGOING BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO TOOK THE VIAL WILL HAVE LOST COMPLETE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM!
You don’t have an immune system, it was invented only for the germ-theory which is false. You have a terrain, your health depends on the condition of your terrain (body).
Trusting in one of their drug is a mistake in my opinion, Ivermectin was debunked several times by many as causing infertility. Meaning, if you were on the alternative side, resisting to accept a vax, they still could cause you harm with offering treatments like Ivermection or overdosed vit D, or the cell-killer methylene blue.
What in reality happened that they were injected with plenty of poisonous atoms and with graphene oxide which fortifies the radiation caused harm.
For the germ-theory debunked read about the smallest organized living brick of life which are microzymas. Read Bechamp. Watch recordings of Gaston Naessens’ somatoscope where you can see them in action, still there are some on YouT.
I would remind those who would be people of the Book that Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 carry the same weight of inspiration as John 3:16.
I think it was part of Agenda 21, and I did hear something about Agenda 30 being in the works, and it might be from the Globalists who are trying to wreak havoc on the world because the muslims were exempted from the vaccines.
Share and rule, is it?
No they were not. They were just a bit less pushed but still, if you can recall the Queen herself encouraged them to go and vaccinate themselves back then.
The ‘group’ with the highest level of resistance consisted of Eastern and Middle Europeans and Russians. Because they had their experiences with socialist and communist regimes knowing the golden rule: you can never trust in your goverment.
Hi James, my understanding is that Agenda 21 (published in 1992) is the overarching overview of the agenda for the 21st century, i.e. the 100 year plan covering the years from 2000 to 2099.
Then, based on Agenda 21, there is a more detailed plan for each decade in the century.
Agenda 2030, which was published in 2015 and is the one they are attempting to roll out now, covers the years 2020-2029, Agenda 2040 covers 2030-2039, Agenda 2050 covers 2040-2049 and so on until the final one is Agenda 2100 that covers the decade 2090-2099. So Agenda 2030 is a more detailed agenda for this decade, but is part of the overall Agenda 21.