Johan Giesecke, an advisor to the Director General of the WHO, former Chief Scientist of the EU Centre for Disease Control, and former state epidemiologist of Sweden, returned to UnHerd yesterday to resume his discussion with editor Freddie Sayers, adjourned a year ago. He was one of the first major figures to come out against lockdowns last spring, saying they are not evidence-based, the correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only, and the Imperial College modelling was “not very good”.
While he admits he made some mistakes, he believes that history will judge him kindly, and says: “I think I got most of the things right, actually.”
He gives a solid defence of the outcome in Sweden, ably batting away the “neighbour argument” that says Sweden failed because Norway and Finland did better.
The differences between Sweden and its neighbours are much bigger than people realise from the outside – different systems, different cultural traditions…If you compare Sweden to other European countries [such as the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium] it’s the other way round. On the ranking of excess mortality, Sweden is somewhere in the middle or below the middle of European countries. So I think it’s really Norway and Finland that are the outliers more than Sweden. … They’re more sparsely populated. There are less people per square kilometre in these two countries. There are also much fewer people who were born outside Europe living in these two countries.
He is also rightly dismissive of the charge that Sweden is currently the worst for infections in Europe. While positive cases are up, so is testing, and besides on the most important metric, excess deaths, Sweden has been far below average since the start of February.
Giesecke is direct in his unflattering comparison of the UK’s outcome with Sweden’s:
They’re very similar. And yet one of the countries has had three severe lockdowns and the other has only had voluntary or mostly voluntary measures. That tells us something I think. That lockdowns may not be a very useful tool in the long run.
He admits that he misjudged how quickly vaccines would become available, and is now quite the enthusiast. He has had the AstraZeneca jab and wants everyone to have it: “If we really want to get down to small numbers – we won’t eradicate it, but to small numbers – then I think even children should be vaccinated… I can’t see why not.” He sees vaccines as providing a way out:
If you are vaccinated with two doses and wait the right number of weeks, then… you should be able to live like you did before the pandemic. This disease is sometimes seen as something supernatural, mystical, mythical – but it’s a viral disease like all other diseases. More dangerous than some of them, but it’s not unique, Covid. So a proper vaccine used correctly protects you and means that you don’t infect other people as well…. No vaccine is 100% effective, but we don’t have this discussion about any other vaccine.
He is full of praise for the Swedish approach, and in that his liberal motivations are clear.
Look at the good things with the Swedish system…. One is the schools: we are not destroying the future for classes of children. Another is that Sweden kept to its international agreements — for example in the EU you are not supposed to close your borders with other countries, but that has happened in several countries in Europe. We have made it possible for small businesses like cafes or bicycle shops to survive the pandemic. We have kept democracy. We have trusted people. I think there are a number of benefits from not having a severe lockdown and more of them will come as we do research on this in the future.
He is dismayed by how readily people surrendered their liberty – even in Sweden. A new law has recently been passed giving the Government the power to lock down in the future if it deems it necessary.
People were willing to give up more freedom than I thought they would. It worries me — there are many democratic rules and freedoms that have been curtailed. I think that may be one of the dangerous results of this pandemic.
There is a new law — a pandemic law — which gives the Government more power than it had before, and curtails part of the freedom of the Swedish population… It’s shifted power away from parliament to some extent, which is a new thing in Sweden at least in peacetime.
During the interview Giesecke makes a number of concessions, some of which are more understandable than others. He accepts his predictions about population antibody prevalence were too high, which is fair enough. But he still appears to regard antibodies as the definitive indicator of spread, despite the considerable evidence that a significant proportion of people are exposed or infected but do not develop antibodies because they fight it off with other parts of their immune system, such as T cells. He also seems oddly unfamiliar with the scientific literature on the ineffectiveness of lockdowns, appearing to accept that they may make a difference.
One of the things I got wrong a year ago is the rate of spread of this disease. I thought it would spread quicker. And I also thought it would be more similar in different countries. We can see now that there are big differences in the rates of spread in between countries. It may have to do with lockdown, it may have to do with cultural things in these countries. But there is a big difference between countries.
He also argues that Sweden effectively did lock down, just voluntarily, saying the country had “severe restrictions”.
Sweden has had rather severe restrictions, but we based them on voluntary participation by the inhabitants instead of using laws and police. A lot of people in the world seem to think that Sweden did nothing about the Covid pandemic. That’s wrong. The entire population changed their way of living and it had profound effects on daily life for millions of Swedes, even though you weren’t fined if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So I would still advocate the Swedish model, even knowing all that.
The problem with this argument is that it essentially accepts the lockdowner position, that “severe” lockdowns are necessary and effective, and that the only reason Sweden could get away without one is because they did it without being forced to. It also suggests going back to normal will be fraught with risk of resurgence. These ideas are not supported by evidence, such as the evidence from US states that reopened last year and stayed open throughout the winter.
Giesecke also seems to concede Sayers’s bizarre claim that Neil Ferguson’s forecasts – of up to 510,000 deaths in the UK from an unmitigated epidemic, 250,000 from a mitigated epidemic and 20,000 with a suppression strategy – were accurate. “You may be right,” he says. “There is quite a difference between half a million and 130,000 – but, yep.”
There certainly is a difference between between 510,000 and 130,000 – a multiple of four in fact – and it’s mathematically illiterate for Sayers to suggest otherwise. Unless, of course, you assume that the lockdowns have prevented hundreds of thousands more deaths. Which lockdowners do believe, naturally, as a fundamental article of faith, despite the clear evidence from places like South Dakota and Florida that did not lock down that they are mistaken. Indeed, Ferguson’s modelling was applied to Sweden by a team at Uppsala University and the predictions were laughably wrong – they predicted 96,000 deaths by the end of June if Sweden stuck with its current policy; the actual figure was 5,333. Sayers makes no mention of this modelling embarrassment, and Giesecke does not draw his attention to it.
But perhaps Giesecke was just being polite to an interviewer who, for all his admirable open-mindedness in who he is willing to interview, does not seem to have developed antibodies to the evidence-free lockdowner ideology. Sayers even claims at one point that the Infection Fatality Rate for the UK and Sweden is as high as 0.9%. A recent meta-analysis by Professor John Ioannidis concluded that the IFR in Europe is more like 0.3%-0.4% (0.15% globally). Sayers doesn’t say where he gets the 0.9% figure from.
The interview is well worth watching in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Imagine calling a multibillionaire “courageous”. Get some sense. Musk is a shyster, and so is Marc Benioff, his fellow billionaire who owns Time.
Courageous downvoters – here’s an explainer for you about the world of the Daily Mail, including Mail Plus etc.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
You know what they say, if you’re getting flak, you’re over the target. Musk is a grifter, clearly some people want to emulate the twat, drooling over his money.
A grifter? You mean like so many politicians who earn their money with backhanders all day long? I think Mr.Musk is a tad brighter and grifter is not a word I would use to describe him.
Billionaire. Bad ? There are bad one’s of course. There’s some bad people in my local estate so I hear.
Sorry I gave up all msm for Lent
I would highly recommend everyone do the same. Msm serves no purpose.
I gave up TV completely as well in May 2021 ……and cancelled my TV licence. Uplifting!
I don’t have a problem with Musk’s selection; I just have to wonder why billionaires all have such weird hair.
Maybe there’s something of the Peaky Blinders about them.
He certainly comes across as a somewhat eccentric person.
There it is again. So people who have been baying for pay back for the last two years now get a global billionaire on the books so to speak and do I hear a round of applause ? No we get “he’s eccentric”. Face palm.
Looks like good old Ellen has been throwing his money at troll service. Personally, I just think he’s a dickhead, nothing to do with his money.
Musk says he will allow his son to choose his own gender.
Where are social services when we need them? They should make his son a ward of court, foster him, and require Musk to take re-education classes if he wishes to apply to get him back.
Musk is a bit of a touchstone. Some people realise what’s happening when a drug-addled billionaire talks up garbage such as self-driving cars, is allowed by the real rulers (who aren’t in the limelight) to become what in most people’s terms is extremely rich, pulls a few cryptocurrency scams because he’s bought a section of the “cool youth” market, and ostentiously masturbates with large vehicles into space. Others fall for him because they’re too stupid to realise any of the above for what it is, even when it’s right in front of their faces. Seriously your life has to be very sad if you think it’s exciting to watch a billionaire disgrace himself and have a J Arthur.
“talks up garbage such as self-driving cars”
You know those already exist? Bloody handy too when you need to take a slurp of coffee on the motorway….I know it’s against the grain on here but I love my Tesla.
As for Musk, he’s the least offensive of the elite i can think of, but i’m no fan of any of them.
It is hard to find role models these days, Boris, Biden, Fauci, whitty, Gove, Hancock,harris. So many to choose from. You know what I mean.
I am a big fan of Mr Musk and very grateful for his presence.
Yes you are right. I would rather sit and watch the current UK and USA gov’ts make fools of themselves. Mr. musk just gets on with his ideas and work. He fights for his and his employees rights. Don’t you just hate when people do that.
Déjà vu.
Personally, I can’t get sycophantic over a billionaire. There should be no billionaires, it gives them to much power & privilege, ironically whether musk is a lockdown sceptic or not, he clearly has no influence on this matter, so I can’t see we’ve suffered 2 articles about him.
Because he gave Toby a tiny scrap of fleeting attention, is why. There’s no other reason needed.
So he must just be a “victim” just baying for attention ? Derogatory to say the least.
But this has been the issue all along. An “elite” of billionaires, medical experts and pharma bods clearly gained too much power and influence. That does not translate to “everything bad”. I do not live in the Manichean world that seems to exist exclusively in the comment sections of this site but almost never in the actual articles.
The introductory paragraph to this article is cringemakingly embarrassing.
The title is too.
If I ever write anything so bad, please can everyone (especially friends) line up and shout “Stop embarrassing yourself, you fucking wally!” at me. Thanks!
Maybe not so anti-socialist after all then
I don’t understand your logic?
It’s not the wealth I object to, it’s the power over fawning idiots like you that directly affects my freedom that I object to.
Perhaps you have ambitions? Mine is to be free, not rule others.
Why is he “eccentric” ? That used to describe moth eaten millionaires in old stately homes who go around wearing deer antlers on the head all day, lol.
Well, when someone points out that he can’t use your mini submarine to rescue some cavers who’ve been trapped underground by water and your response is to call that person a ‘paedo’, that qualifies as a bit eccentric, surely?
Where did he say this ?
https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-apologises-for-calling-british-cave-diver-a-paedo-11440370
The facts weren’t disputed in court. Musk claimed in court that it had been a “JDart”, where an intended jokey tweet had been misinterpreted by the recipient, and he had immediately deleted it. The US jury took the view that that Musk’s Tweet had been a spontaneous response to the previous Twitter exchanges, and that its immediate deletion had limited the reputational damage that it had done.
Oh he qualifies alright. As a Tesla owner I’ve followed his Twitter feed for a while and he’s a proper nut job.
Yeah – fuck that shit.
https://elonmuskneuralink.com/the-neuralink-brain-chip-elon-musk-neuralink/
So this automatically makes Elon “bad” ? In fact is this tech inherently bad ? Like any tech it depends on whose using it. I’ve seen all the Technocracy and “reset” conspiracy theories. They do a good job in their own way but they are so inherently DARK. Sometimes I wonder if they’re Luddites. They never posit a world where this tech is in the hands of the good guys.
Why are you exerting so much energy defending him?
Elon is unstable. Much like Oswald Mosley. He could flip in any direction and any time. As such he is a potentially dangerous buffoon.
“rare”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10321397/Christian-Eriksens-Inter-Milan-contract-terminated-mutual-consent.html
I might be more inclined to agree if his opposition to lockdowns had actually had some sort of noticeable effect in changing policy.
As it stands, unless I’m missing something, he has accomplished nothing of substance and so I’m not quite sure whether his “courage” is any greater, any more consequential or any more inspiring to others than the courage of, say, the lady who was convicted this week for protesting in London.
I think going against the law/rules in your country as a business is a little brave. He took a risk that his business would suffer through his personal exploits. He kept his staff in work whilst others risked closing their businesses not knowing if there would be a business to come back to. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a big fan or anything, but anyone with his worldwide image making a stand is better than no one doing it, regardless as to his reasons.
He accomplished nothing. He did nothing significant to protest or lobby the state of California, where he was based, against lockdowns and mandates. Instead he packed up his company and buggered off to Texas, purely out of his business’ interest and bottom line. He’s not wrong to want to do so, but don’t sugar coat it as “standing up to tyranny” like another previous article did.
Isn’t this one of those WGAS articles?
Too many people think these characters and these magazines are important. They’re not outside the Bubble.
Over on YouTube, Thunderf00t (with 1M Subscribers) has utterly debunked Musk’s crazy projects – https://www.youtube.com/c/Thunderf00t/search?query=musk
While he might have been against lockdowns, I feel he is still a potentially dangerous buffoon, who would make men into robots.
The same Musk who pushes Universal Basic Income?
The same Musk who wants to send millions of satellites into space for the global surveillance grid? (In co operation with Bill Gates)
The same Musk who is developing brain implants to connect people’s physical bodies (and minds?) to IoT?
The same Musk whose cars and tunnel boring company is building the “smart cities”?
His lockdown skepticism is just theatre. At his core he is one of the oligarchs building the totalitarian hell in this world.
We desperately needed Mr Musk’s support. He recently was interviewed by a WSJ jounalist and his responses to her questions were a breath of fresh air. Musk is highly intelligent, but wisely knows his limits and admits that.
A Musk/DeSantis ticket in 2024 would be amazing. We can hope.