Covid – en sammafattning

Som en kommentar på Henrik Jönssons video om “Andra vågen“.

Det är lätt att titta på utfall nu och peka finger bakåt. Den som fattar beslut gör det efter bästa förmåga med den då tillgängliga datan. Att prognostisera är bland det svåraste man kan ägna sig åt och att hitta exempel i historiken vi kan skratta åt idag är knappast svårfunna. Med den data som fanns – fanns det då anledning att fatta ett annat beslut?

  • Viruset har betett sig annorlunda än liknande virus och därmed har ett antal grundantaganden i kalkylerna faktiskt blivit fel. Ingen kan ifrågasätta Tom Brittons matematiska kompetens, och hans kalkyler bygger på tidigare tidigare erfarenheter och kunskap. Men han och alla andra som räknat har haft fel. Magnituder fel.

    Vi kan då fråga oss: kunde någon annan räkna bättre? Och då menar jag inte att man råkade gissa rätt – folk vinner på Lotto också – utan hade någon en kalkylmodell som på ett bättre sätt fångade verkligheten? Om inte så är det bara ohederligt att hänga den bäst lämpade även om resultatet inte verkade stämma.
  • Det offentliga Sverige har en förvaltningsmodell som bygger på självständiga myndigheter och ett delat ansvar mellan stat, regioner och kommuner. Det ÄR regionernas ansvar att sköta sjukvården. Det är ÄR regionernas ansvar att genomföra testning. Så när FoHM säger att vi skall sluta testa brett så var det BARA ett uttryck för att kapaciteten bara räckte till dom prioriterade grupperna. Vi hade inte till hela behovet – då pekar man ut det behovet som är viktigast.

    Den som är sjuk SKALL vara hemma och isolera sig. Ingen med en IQ över en fiskmås kan ha missat detta. När man ligger hemma är det bra att veta om man är sjuk i Covid eller något annat, men om antalet tester är begränsade så är det viktigare att den distinktionen görs mellan patienter på sjukhus än för folk som är tillräckligt friska för att kunna tillfriskna hemma. Den som är hemma får helt enkelt bete sig som om man hade Covid för att vara på den säkra sidan.

    Regionerna kan absolut inte skylla ifrån sig på att testkapaciteten inte steg snabbare tidigare. Men gjorde ett fantastiskt jobb med att skala upp IVA kapacitet. Men man gjorde ett bedrövligt jobb med att skala upp test-och smittspårningskapacitet.
  • Efter månader med god testkapacitet, minimal smittspridning och dödlighet som är nära noll så är det rimligt att börja lätta på restriktioner. Åtgärder har man haft för att soppa smittan, och har man ingen smitta så är ju vidhållande av restriktioner en besynnerlig ståndpunkt. Det kan tyckas parodiskt att detta sker i samband med att smittspridningen börjar ta fart igen, men så råkade det bli. Och man fick backa.

    Hur skulle man annars gjort? Inte någonsin ta bort restriktioner? Eller vidhålla att man skall lyfta restriktioner trots smittan accelererar.
  • Och att jämföra med Norge och Finland är “cherry picking”.
    – Det är två länder med exceptionellt låg befolkningstäthet. Två länder där viruset har som allra svårast att sprida sig.
    – En viktig väg för smittan att etablera sig var alpturismen – en sorts turism som inte alls är lika utbredd i Norge och i Finland som i Sverige. Norrmän spenderar en mycket större del av sin vintersemester inom Norge. På tur och i sin hytte. Finnas gör det samma fast i sin mökki.
  • Att svensk äldrevård är avskalad och bemannad av folk med låg utbildning, som utförarna knutit till sig i lösa anställningsformer, är ett känt faktum. Dödligheten här var alltså en konsekvens som inte några åtgärder alls skulle kunnat förhindra. Detta förklarar hela skillnaden mot Danmark.

Vad kunde gjorts bättre?

  • En äldrevård som hanterats på ett sätt som gjort den motståndskraftigare mot pandemin. (Hallengren är ansvarig NU, men någonstans måste man ändå i grunden skylla på Folkpartiets gamla hjärtefråga – ÄDEL reformen. Det var där det började gå fel). Detta hade sparat liv.
  • Lager av skyddsmateriel. Osannolikt att vi hade kunnat ha tillräckligt för att det skulle varit av en avgörande skillnad, men lite bättre kanske. Detta hade varit på marginalen.
  • En långt större testkapacitet tidigt och därtill ansluten smittspårningskapacitet.

=> Vi lagade efter läge

  • vi använde den testkapacitet vi hade där den behövdes som mest. Att säga att vi bara skall testa en viss grupp var för att det var detta vi kunde göra – inte för att någon ansåg att det vore dåligt att testa mer
  • vi använde den skyddsutrustning vi hade där den behövdes som mest. Ingen tyckte att det var onödigt att grupper med lägre risk skyddades – bara att det det inte räckte till alla som möjligen skulle vilja ha

Man får gärna visa vilka åtgärder man förordar hade utgjort en avgörande skillnad i spridingstakt och mortalitet som inte gjordes. Att bara jämföra med Finland och Norge, och dra slutsatsen att skillnaden beror på något dom gjort (eller inte gjort) utan att kunna peka på detta och helt bortse från alla miljövariabler är generande obegåvat.

Free speech and constitution

Let me first say that I AM a lawyer, but NOT specialised in constitutional law and not in US law either. But any graduate from any law school on the globe should have a reasonable understanding of constitutional law. That is one of the aspects included in every LL.m. out there.

It seems that amongst non-lawyers, there is a fundamental misconception of what free speech is, and then also what censorship is. So let’s start by nailing what free speech is. It is:

The right to say what you want without being stopped by the STATE.

Read that again – your right is a right in relation to the state (which is another word for the country). Not in relation to other citizens nor companies.

If the STATE prevents you from stating your opinion, that is censorship. The word censorship is also used in other contexts, but used in the context of constitutional law it only applied to the STATE preventing its citizens from saying things.

It’s quite important to then establish what it’s NOT;

  • It’s not a general right to be heard and listened to.
  • It’s not a right to access a megaphone to spread your opinions.

This means that, from a constitutional law point of view, any private player is in full control of who they lend their publishing capabilities to. Private players can deny anyone access to their platform, and can also kick people off it, at their own digression. Private players can prevent you from posting, moderate your posts and remove them. They are FULLY entitled to that.

This is what the law says. So please don’t lower yourself to the ignorant bunch that says denying “this and that person” access to “this or that platform” is unconstitutional or a limit of free speech. It’s really not. Really not. It’s a matter well outside the constitutional domain. It’s like a person not being allowed a certain club, and the clubs can decide that. Not the state.

We can have a debate over if certain platforms are so fundamental, that access to them should be in the bill of rights. Feel free to advocate that. That is another question. Poland has taken steps in this direction, so it’s indeed possible.

A small reflection on the current standings of this is that the same people who are adamant that the state should be small and who believes that any rights given to the public, is a step towards socialisation (which implicitly is a road to hell) are the very same ones that now voices that it’s unconstitutional to deny certain individuals access to certain platforms. Please understand that this line of argument is that you want to deny private companies the right to manage their own service. That is a quite severe stride into the world of government control over companies. THAT is the real stride in the path towards the bad incarnations of socialism.

Try stealing an election …

Can we just summarize the American election the way it really went down? There was NO voter fraud of ANY relevance or significance. Nothing that would have made any sort of difference. There was a general sense of urgency that pulled the voting to a new record high. Or as most other democracies would have put it; “Participation was not through the floor low”.

The elections weren’t rigged and no election was stolen. But there was a significant attempt to steal it. The sitting president lost fair and square and based on no factual evidence that would hold up in court, repeating lies over and over so that loyal supporters actually believed it and using all other means available to him, Trump tried to fraudulently steal the election he honestly lost. HE tried to steal it, but as the institutions on the country had the spine and did not yield under the pressure we associate with African dictators, the Trump presidency is soon ending.

Democracy prevailed. The attempt to steal it failed. Trump failed to steal it.

This means that there will be elections with the same frequency as there has been. Nothing will change in this aspect. Nothing at all.

Will the US become a socialist country? Well, what is even “a socialist country”? Americans in general have a disturbing ignorance on the matter.

The political scale has libertinisms and communism as the two political extremes. To simplify the matter a bit, libertinisms means “everyone for himself” – there is no society. Communism means abolishing the individual – it’s all for and by the society. No private ownership.

The US today is on the utter extreme – near libertinism. But there is a state, with most the aspects we normally associate with a state. That is socialism if you will, albeit a very light form. If the state took in a tad bit more tax and made society support the weakest of it’s population, that is not necessarily a bad thing. And it’s surely not introducing socialism.

When the gaps in society are too small, there is no incentive to rise to the occasion. No reward in fulfilling one’s dream. If people don’t even look for jobs, as they do just fine on welfare (or are even worse off with a job than on welfare), then the gaps are too small. When the gaps are too big, you will have people in the streets reverting to desperate measures as they have no other way to survive. If you need gated communities to feel safe, that is a sure sign the gaps have grown too wide.

It’s all in the shades of grey. The world is not, has never been and will never be totally black and white. And implementing a bit more caring for your fellow man on the federal level is not a slipper slope to communism. Really not.

People who believe in democracy also believe in a bill of rights. This is not under threat.

There will for sure be freedom of speech, but please understand what that means.

  • Freedom of speech means that the STATE cannot censor you. This puts NO obligations on platforms. A private platform can deny you access to expressing your opinion, by both denying you access, blocking your existing account and by deleting or hiding your posts. Just as a paper can deny you access to them as a vehicle for your opinions. You don’t have a right to be heard so tough luck if no one is interested in being the loudspeaker you want to scream through.
    Free speech doesn’t mean being granted a channel, nor the obligation for others to listen to you.
  • You are also legally liable for what you say – anyone saying something that is punishable by the law of the state (hate speech, incitement and others), can be punished for it. And quite frankly SHOULD be punished for it. This is not a limit for free speech – that is taking consequences for one’s actions. You were allowed to speak freely. People can use THEIR right to speak up against you and several things just cannot be said without risking legal intervention.
    Free speech doesn’t mean you can get away with saying anything you want.

The right to gather, the right to organise, the right to protest, the right to a religion. These are all profound parts of democracies. No one is coming for them. Let’s not discuss guns here, but let’s just say that the world is watching the arguments on why any citizen would need assault riffles to “defend their families”.

But let’s also talk about the other aspect of democracy; the distribution of power. Checks and balances. America will survive this crisis as it has these mechanisms in place, and a president that clearly disrespected the functions, in the end, didn’t manage to have his way.

The free press is an imperative integral part of a working society. Professional news outlets that share what happens. And that keep news reporting apart for opinion sharing. It’s the role of the free press to investigate and criticise the government. Put the limelight on the issues at hand. Ensuring the officials spend the money they get wisely. It’s not the role of the president to have an opinion of that structure, it’s not the luxury of the presidency to have the free press as his PR agents. It’s rather the opposite. If the free press spends too much time praising the president, they are likely not doing a very good job.

For four years, the US has been a global laughing stock. You might not like it, but it’s still a fact and facts can hurt. Doing what’s best for your country and citizens doesn’t means that international relations can be neglected. Selling out allies abroad is not a way to promote one’s own prosperity. The future can also not be in sticking to unhealthy habits. Pissing in the common pool is never a good thing. Going greener – moving away from fossil – is for sure the only way forward, even if this means a number of unsustainable jobs will not be required any longer. Ensuring your products and workforce is competitive is the way forward – not introducing barring customs. If you can’t compete in a free trade market, then you should look at what’s wrong with your products and how you can improve – not how you can defend your mediocrity with customs.

So in summary, for a second the democracy was at stake. Getting Donald Trump off the presidency was key to maintaining democracy. Getting Trump off that char was imperative for the trust in democracy as a system. People being worried that the new presidency will mean major changes can rest assure that this is likely not going to happen. A slight shift in course, understanding that you need to look a bit bigger than optimising your own outcome. It’s not a zero-sum game. If we grow the pie, we can all have a bigger slice, and it’s not going to be on someone else’s expense.