In Nicaragua, Latin America’s third poorest country, people who don’t work don’t eat. Three-quarters of jobs are in small businesses or the informal economy. So when its first Covid case was diagnosed on 18 March 2020, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega knew that shutting down the economy would be catastrophic.
He was under pressure from all sides to introduce strict restrictions. Among Nicaragua’s neighbours, El Salvador registered its first case on 18 March and imposed a lockdown two days later; Honduras did the same; Costa Rica imposed a lockdown on 16 March and three days later closed its borders completely. These neighbouring governments, all politically hostile towards Nicaragua, insisted that it join in closing the regional economy.
Within Nicaragua, vociferous opposition groups and media were also calling for the economy to be shut down. But the country had barely recovered from a violent confrontation in 2018 between these opposition groups and Ortega’s socialist Sandinista government, which had resulted in more than 200 deaths. A lockdown would only put further strain on the divided nation.
When Ortega declared publicly that there would be no lockdown, most Nicaraguans quietly accepted that while his decision might be risky, he had little choice. Inevitably, the Right-wing opposition accused him of being in denial about the pandemic. Worse still, they spread fear and suspicion with their predictions that the health service would collapse. An opposition thinktank projected 120,000 Covid cases by June; a local Right-wing media channel, 100% Noticias, topped that by saying that 23,000 Nicaraguans would be dead within a month. Once the government started producing Covid statistics, a rival “citizens’ observatory” was set up, which never declared its membership or source of funding. It began to produce weekly reports contesting the government’s figures (although the small print on its website reveals that its own statistics were based on social media reports and even “rumours”). Many Nicaraguans, including some I knew, were so scared of going to hospital when they developed Covid symptoms that they left it too late.
This dishonest narrative soon spread abroad, where Nicaragua’s opposition figures enjoy good contacts with the international media. On 4 April, BBC World claimed that the Ortega government had taken “no measures at all” against the virus threat. It invented a media trope: Ortega’s “long absence” from public view. Two days later, the New York Times asked “Where Is Daniel Ortega?,” saying that his government had been “widely criticised for its cavalier approach”. The Guardian joined the chorus, claiming that Ortega was “nowhere to be seen,” adding four days later that the “authoritarian” Ortega was one of four world leaders in denial about the virus. The Washington Post said that Ortega had “vanished,” leaving a government operating a “laissez-faire approach” to the pandemic. On 6 April, The Lancet published a letter calling Nicaragua’s Covid response “perhaps the most erratic of any country in the world to date”. By May, according to the New York Times, Nicaragua — “one of the last to reject the strict measures introduced globally” — had become a country of “midnight burials”.
The liberal media’s lies could not have been further from reality. Ortega’s government had prioritised health spending since he returned to power in 2007, raising it to 19% of the national budget by 2020, one of the highest levels in the world. Nicaragua was also one of the first nations in the region to set out its Covid strategy, issuing a joint protocol with the Pan-American Health Organisation (the Americas branch of the WHO) on 9 February. Its 36,000 health workers had received training on dealing with the virus before the first case arrived. One hospital was designated to deal solely with respiratory illnesses and 18 more were equipped with Covid isolation wards. Health “brigades” worked locally, eventually making five million house-to-house visits to educate people, identify possible Covid cases, and counteract misinformation. That’s about four visits per household on average.
So much for taking “no measures at all” against the virus. A “track and trace” system was in place and health checks were being made at border crossing points months before similar measures were taken in the UK or US. While tourism stopped and hotels and restaurants closed, many other businesses stayed open with precautions in place. Mask-wearing, never imposed by law, became almost universal. Private schools closed but public ones stayed open, with voluntary attendance, because many children rely on the free school meals served to every pupil.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThanks for this article. It reminded me of the scenes when India locked down and hundreds of thousands of day laborers lost the ability to work, many returning from the cities to their home villages with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. India’s Prime Minister understood, at the time, the effect on these people and apologized when he announced the lockdowns and closure of businesses, but I guess he thought he was doing the right thing based on advice from organizations such as the WHO.
What happened to all those day laborers? Were they, indeed, left to dire poverty until life returned to a semblance of normality? What was the long term effects on their lives? I don’t see that story reported either. And if (Heaven forbid) another covid-like virus appears, I fear there will be another global rush to lockdown, spurred on by the same laptop class safely ensconced in their homes.
Unfortunately the legacy media has been captured by ideologues who are more interested in pushing a particular line – usually one to blame a Tory government for anything adverse that happens. In the case of covid the hysteria was ramped up and pushed the government into a rigid lockdown without proper regard to the side effects. The result is scepticism about news reports that the media try to counteract by failing to report evidence that undermines the efficacy of the lockdown line they were hysterically pushing. Contempt for journalists who are now seen as propagandists has risen as a result.
What happened in India, was in a way very similar to the US / UK despite the vast gap in wealth and economic conditions.
An elite class working in government jobs, upper end service sector, finance etc protected themselves, and suffered little economically as they would usually “work from home”
The ones who paid the price were less well off people who were self employed or workers in the private sector.
Covid was probably the biggest wealth transfer from the poor to the upper middle class / rich we have seen in centuries, if not all of recent human history.
Unfortunately the legacy media has been captured by ideologues who are more interested in pushing a particular line – usually one to blame a Tory government for anything adverse that happens. In the case of covid the hysteria was ramped up and pushed the government into a rigid lockdown without proper regard to the side effects. The result is scepticism about news reports that the media try to counteract by failing to report evidence that undermines the efficacy of the lockdown line they were hysterically pushing. Contempt for journalists who are now seen as propagandists has risen as a result.
What happened in India, was in a way very similar to the US / UK despite the vast gap in wealth and economic conditions.
An elite class working in government jobs, upper end service sector, finance etc protected themselves, and suffered little economically as they would usually “work from home”
The ones who paid the price were less well off people who were self employed or workers in the private sector.
Covid was probably the biggest wealth transfer from the poor to the upper middle class / rich we have seen in centuries, if not all of recent human history.
Thanks for this article. It reminded me of the scenes when India locked down and hundreds of thousands of day laborers lost the ability to work, many returning from the cities to their home villages with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. India’s Prime Minister understood, at the time, the effect on these people and apologized when he announced the lockdowns and closure of businesses, but I guess he thought he was doing the right thing based on advice from organizations such as the WHO.
What happened to all those day laborers? Were they, indeed, left to dire poverty until life returned to a semblance of normality? What was the long term effects on their lives? I don’t see that story reported either. And if (Heaven forbid) another covid-like virus appears, I fear there will be another global rush to lockdown, spurred on by the same laptop class safely ensconced in their homes.
A very rosy picture of what happened in Nicaragua, whether the ‘reality’ on the ground matches the authors telling of it (although, in broad brush terms, I do not doubt him). In general terms though, it does seem, with hindsight (and those courageous countries, and leaders, at the time) to have been the CORRECT decision.
What interests me, from a UK perspective, is that, for all his faults and failings, Boris Johnson’s initial instincts (as far as I am aware), to resist locking down the country, were correct. Unlike Nicaragua, and Daniel Ortega though, or, closer to home, Sweden, he blinked, and succumbed to the ‘media driven’ panic. Although, to be fair, Daniel Ortega probably didn’t have to contend with the ‘professional’ catastrophizing of the British media, many journalists, academics, professional classes and NGO’s, who also, maybe, saw the opportunity to stick their knives in, in revenge for Johnson’s leading role on Brexit (regardless of what It might mean for the rest of the country).
You’ve described what happened at the outset, and continued to happen for the next two years until BJ was driven from office, perfectly. The constant media howl-round finally had an effect, and its consequences will continue to reverberate for a very long time – decades.
As far as Nicaragua is concerned, in many ways what happened might be compared to what would’ve happened during previous pandemics such as the post-WW1 Spanish Flu, i.e. an initial peak in mortality with less severe aftershocks but life going on with relative normality. The problem we’re now faced with is a media whose influence is out of all proportion to its credentials, either in terms of knowledge or accountability. Apart from national events such as the death and funeral of the Queen, i’ve switched off apart from the briefest scanning of headlines. The very sight of intemperate journos such as Robert Peston and Beth Rigby makes with shudder with disgust.
“… i’ve switched off apart from the briefest scanning of headlines.”
You are not alone, Sir! I stopped watching the BBC and ITV and other terrestrial channels several years ago. The BBC in particular is a hideously powerful organisation, with no real accountability, run by the Woking Class elites who use it relentlessly to brainwash us into absorbing their cultural marxist worldview.
Had Stalin been alive today he would have been impressed!
I still watch the tv news, but often record it so I can skip past the rubbish woke stuff which dominates and the anti-Tory items. Stopped the daily telegraph as I tired of its catastrophising and hyperbolic daily Mail style headlines full of questions – but missed seeing sane news so restarted. GBNews just keeps shouting stuff all the time.
I wish Spiked or Unherd had a daily news service.
The US based Daily Wire now has a daily news service. DW is right wing however they aim to keep their news reporting objective (as possible). I won’t be surprised if this rapidly expanding outlet establishes a London bureau one of these days.
The more the better – though GBNews has been a disappointment. Hardly any Unherd style analysis of the news.
The more the better – though GBNews has been a disappointment. Hardly any Unherd style analysis of the news.
The US based Daily Wire now has a daily news service. DW is right wing however they aim to keep their news reporting objective (as possible). I won’t be surprised if this rapidly expanding outlet establishes a London bureau one of these days.
“… i’ve switched off apart from the briefest scanning of headlines.”
You are not alone, Sir! I stopped watching the BBC and ITV and other terrestrial channels several years ago. The BBC in particular is a hideously powerful organisation, with no real accountability, run by the Woking Class elites who use it relentlessly to brainwash us into absorbing their cultural marxist worldview.
Had Stalin been alive today he would have been impressed!
I still watch the tv news, but often record it so I can skip past the rubbish woke stuff which dominates and the anti-Tory items. Stopped the daily telegraph as I tired of its catastrophising and hyperbolic daily Mail style headlines full of questions – but missed seeing sane news so restarted. GBNews just keeps shouting stuff all the time.
I wish Spiked or Unherd had a daily news service.
The fact that he ignored his own instincts and bowed to others is why Johnson was so weak. It’ll go down in history as a diabolical misjudgement. Why would a man be stupid enough to listen to an entire class that views him as an enemy?
Because that class included his wife?
He was also obese and therefore ‘unfit for battle’, plus besides his vacuous wife, he had that male hysteric, one Dominic Cummings ‘advising’ him.
Carrie Antoinette is the precise opposite of vacuous. She is as sharp as a razor, and shoved her agenda through. Much as I detest that agenda, I have to admire her skill at so doing.
Her greatest coup was getting Dom Cummings fired. If that hadn’t happened he just might by now have been well on the way to getting The Blob cleaned out.
Many thanks! My casual observations had her down as a Grade 1 Bimbo. I now stand corrected.
Incidentally wasn’t Cummings the “ lockdown freak”…….the typical Arts graduate in the thrall of (the) Science?
Yes, lockdown zealot.
Yes, lockdown zealot.
Many thanks! My casual observations had her down as a Grade 1 Bimbo. I now stand corrected.
Incidentally wasn’t Cummings the “ lockdown freak”…….the typical Arts graduate in the thrall of (the) Science?
Carrie Antoinette is the precise opposite of vacuous. She is as sharp as a razor, and shoved her agenda through. Much as I detest that agenda, I have to admire her skill at so doing.
Her greatest coup was getting Dom Cummings fired. If that hadn’t happened he just might by now have been well on the way to getting The Blob cleaned out.
Do you really want ot be goverened by a man who follows his instincts while completely ignoring every knowledgable person around him?
Was that the basis of Winston Churchill’s success?
Not as I understand it. WC was stubborn, opinionated, and full of ideas, some of them great. He was one of the fathers of the tank; he insisted on convoying in WWI where all admirals disagreed – and was proved right. *But* (at least after the disaster of Gallipoli) he would (if reluctantly) listen to expert opinion, when the experts were sufficiently insistent and unanimous. Contrast him with Hitler, who would follow his intuition regardless and disregard anyone who disagreed.
Oh, and while we are talking about it: WC had great self-control, a huge capacity for work, the capability for absorbing and understanding masses of detail. the ability to lead, also by example. It was not just his speechifying that made people listen to him and his proposals, and put him repeatedly in government. Does that remind you of any recent prime ministers?
No it certainly doesn’t!
However the catch phrase “ Experts should be on tap NOT on top” is usually attributed to Churchill.
No it certainly doesn’t!
However the catch phrase “ Experts should be on tap NOT on top” is usually attributed to Churchill.
Not as I understand it. WC was stubborn, opinionated, and full of ideas, some of them great. He was one of the fathers of the tank; he insisted on convoying in WWI where all admirals disagreed – and was proved right. *But* (at least after the disaster of Gallipoli) he would (if reluctantly) listen to expert opinion, when the experts were sufficiently insistent and unanimous. Contrast him with Hitler, who would follow his intuition regardless and disregard anyone who disagreed.
Oh, and while we are talking about it: WC had great self-control, a huge capacity for work, the capability for absorbing and understanding masses of detail. the ability to lead, also by example. It was not just his speechifying that made people listen to him and his proposals, and put him repeatedly in government. Does that remind you of any recent prime ministers?
Yes … if he is trustworthy and the ‘experts’ are not.
It is well known that the best possible government would be absolute monarchy – *provided* that the monarch was wise, well-informed and benevolent. The problem is that he never is, or if he is the son will be different – but still impossible to remove. In the real world people free to follow their instincts without external restraint tend to stop listening to inconvenient truths – and become like Xi, Putin, or Hitler.
The benevolent absolute monarchy will be established after the Second Coming.
The benevolent absolute monarchy will be established after the Second Coming.
It is well known that the best possible government would be absolute monarchy – *provided* that the monarch was wise, well-informed and benevolent. The problem is that he never is, or if he is the son will be different – but still impossible to remove. In the real world people free to follow their instincts without external restraint tend to stop listening to inconvenient truths – and become like Xi, Putin, or Hitler.
‘knowledgeable person’ doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Was that the basis of Winston Churchill’s success?
Yes … if he is trustworthy and the ‘experts’ are not.
‘knowledgeable person’ doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
And you of course would have withstood the hysterical media pressure?
I certainly couldn’t, and I don’t know anyone, except those who I consider to be social misfits, who could.
I’m glad I’ve always been a social misfit. It gives one great ability to resist the herd.
Not these days Betsy – they’re all claiming victimhood and mental health vulnerability when they transgress. Not like social misfits in the good old days!
Not these days Betsy – they’re all claiming victimhood and mental health vulnerability when they transgress. Not like social misfits in the good old days!
I’m glad I’ve always been a social misfit. It gives one great ability to resist the herd.
It may be true however I have not seen any comments recognizing that he almost died after getting it. He was never the same after it. I could tell that from over here in the USA
Because that class included his wife?
He was also obese and therefore ‘unfit for battle’, plus besides his vacuous wife, he had that male hysteric, one Dominic Cummings ‘advising’ him.
Do you really want ot be goverened by a man who follows his instincts while completely ignoring every knowledgable person around him?
And you of course would have withstood the hysterical media pressure?
I certainly couldn’t, and I don’t know anyone, except those who I consider to be social misfits, who could.
It may be true however I have not seen any comments recognizing that he almost died after getting it. He was never the same after it. I could tell that from over here in the USA
Very rosy indeed. Nicaragua would certainly be a case to study, but meanwhile it is a big question how far you want to trust the health statistics of a dictatorship – or its fans.
Another interesting point is what apparently made the difference. Near-universal mask-wearing and very high vaccine uptake, all without government mandates. Four home visits of the health service per household. None of this would be likely to happen in the UK. And still a reduction of social contanct to the point where people were afraid to go to hospital.
Finally, it is true that unlike Ortega, Boris Johnson was not in a position to take a decision based on his personal instincts and force it on the country. It is called democracy, I believe.
“It is called democracy, I believe”.
No, not on this particular occasion. In fact it is called Lack of Moral Fibre (LMF) and used to be the most shameful criticism one could ever receive!
I believe Sweden is a democracy and also managed to arrive at the right answer.
If you read the article you will see that the statistics for excess deaths came from the WHO, The Economist and Amnesty International, not the dictator.
Denmark had a lockdown – and half the death toll of Sweden. If that is the level we are talking at, that proves that Sweden got it wrong and Denmark got it right. Can we please stop picking a single country and saying ‘this proves we were right all along’?
You do not think that The Economist sent people into Nicaraguan hospitals to count, do you? The numbers came, ultimately, from the government. And from the way he writes, John Perry is an Ortega fan, which makes his word a little less trustworthy. Notice the way he automatially trusts the disctatorship’s figures while rubbishing those of the opposition – and blames the latter for people’s fear of the virus (‘Counterrevolutionary forces’ maybe?). I would be willing to believe that Nicaragua came through pretty well – but it would take an informed opinion and some rather deeper study to confirm what is being said here.
Denmark did not have “half the death toll” of Sweden. Please don’t repeat the untruths in which you appear to be trapped. If you believe I am factually wrong on this point, please show us your factual evidence.
1) COVID-19-attributed deaths per million for the UK, Denmark and Sweden until 1st July 2020:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9/tables/1
Denmark: 105.
Sweden: 546;
UK: 599
From the article abstract (which is what I remembered):
UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies.
2) Deaths per million as of 23 November 2022:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country
Denmark: 1274,
Sweden 1983
UK: 3130
What are your numbers, and where did you get them from?
I was quoting from memory, and thinking about the first link here – which did indeed talk about a factor of two difference. But I stand corrected, Denmark did not have half the death toll of Sweden. Denmark had two thirds of the death toll of Sweden, just as Sweden had two thirds of the death toll of the UK.
I think my argument stands: If you can give a quick look at Sweden and say they ‘arrived at the right answer’, you can equally well compare Sweden to Denmark and say that Denmark got it right and Sweden – obviously – got it wrong. The truth is that neither argument holds. We do not know who ‘got it right’, and it will take a long time to sort out. Meanwhile how about dropping those ‘Sweden got it right’ arguments?
For some reason I cannot edit this, but let me add:
According to that Nature article, Denmark – and the UK – would have had twice as large death tolls if they had followed Swedish policies. In the real world Denmark had two thirds of the Swedish death toll rather than half. Neither is an argument for saying that ‘Sweden got it right’.
I think you’ll find that most of the deaths in Sweden occurred in the first couple of months when they failed to implement adequate protection in nursing homes. They’ve admitted to that failure and their subsequent death toll was lower than either Denmark or UK.
But the argument is much wider than just the death toll “with Covid”. The knock-on effects of lockdowns on health services are only now beginning to show up in the excess death stats (not reported of course in the MSM) and the economic chickens have also come home to roost.
Lord Jonathan Sumption (ex UK Supreme Court justice) puts the above argument more elegantly than me:
“The UK’s public finances are in a worse state than at any time since the Second World War,” Sumption just wrote, but Official Opinion wants to blame interest rates, Ukraine, or “just about anything other than the main culprit lurking in the background: the lockdowns of the last two years.”
It’s not hard to prove what he’s saying, since “government expenditure associated with the pandemic has been by far the largest contributor to the current deficit.”
People lazily blame “the pandemic” for all the problems we’ve faced since, but of course the problems are instead the results of the lockdowns themselves.
“Less than a quarter of the NAO’s figure represents the extra cost of health and social care,” writes Sumption. “Most of the rest is the cost of supporting people prevented from working and businesses prevented from operating. At the height of the pandemic, the government was spending about twice as much per month on paying people to do nothing as the entire cost of the NHS.”
In Sweden, meanwhile, which Sumption reminds everyone did not succumb to the madness, the per-person pandemic expenditure was one-tenth as great as the UK’s. And “their results in terms of both cases and deaths were a lot better than ours.”
“Excess deaths,” he says, “are currently running at about 10 per cent above historic rates, almost all from conditions other than Covid. By far the biggest contributor is dementia, a condition aggravated by loneliness and lack of stimulation.
“The long-term impacts on education, inequality, relationship breakdown, sociability and the arts are harder to quantify but they are serious and will be felt for years to come.”
Meanwhile, a million people have left the workforce. Sumption says these are mostly older people who simply gave up during the lockdowns.
The costs are not in doubt – and they are very large. But you should remember that no one has any idea what the cost would have been – in avoidable deaths, crowded-out treatment form overloading the NHS, economic disruption from people staying at home etc. of letting the epidemic run its course with only some doomed attempts to protect the most vulnerable. Assuming that it would be much better if only people had followed your lead is pure guesswork. Assuming that the UK would have got Swedish death rates with Swedish policies (when Denmark got even better death rates with UK-like policies) would be truly heroic motivated reasoning.
Various US states, Belarus, Sweden had no lockdowns. Finland and Norway barely had lockdowns, only in name. None of those places stood out as having worse outcomes than comparable countries or States.
Various US states, Belarus, Sweden had no lockdowns. Finland and Norway barely had lockdowns, only in name. None of those places stood out as having worse outcomes than comparable countries or States.
The costs are not in doubt – and they are very large. But you should remember that no one has any idea what the cost would have been – in avoidable deaths, crowded-out treatment form overloading the NHS, economic disruption from people staying at home etc. of letting the epidemic run its course with only some doomed attempts to protect the most vulnerable. Assuming that it would be much better if only people had followed your lead is pure guesswork. Assuming that the UK would have got Swedish death rates with Swedish policies (when Denmark got even better death rates with UK-like policies) would be truly heroic motivated reasoning.
Lord Jonathan Sumption (ex UK Supreme Court justice) puts the above argument more elegantly than me:
“The UK’s public finances are in a worse state than at any time since the Second World War,” Sumption just wrote, but Official Opinion wants to blame interest rates, Ukraine, or “just about anything other than the main culprit lurking in the background: the lockdowns of the last two years.”
It’s not hard to prove what he’s saying, since “government expenditure associated with the pandemic has been by far the largest contributor to the current deficit.”
People lazily blame “the pandemic” for all the problems we’ve faced since, but of course the problems are instead the results of the lockdowns themselves.
“Less than a quarter of the NAO’s figure represents the extra cost of health and social care,” writes Sumption. “Most of the rest is the cost of supporting people prevented from working and businesses prevented from operating. At the height of the pandemic, the government was spending about twice as much per month on paying people to do nothing as the entire cost of the NHS.”
In Sweden, meanwhile, which Sumption reminds everyone did not succumb to the madness, the per-person pandemic expenditure was one-tenth as great as the UK’s. And “their results in terms of both cases and deaths were a lot better than ours.”
“Excess deaths,” he says, “are currently running at about 10 per cent above historic rates, almost all from conditions other than Covid. By far the biggest contributor is dementia, a condition aggravated by loneliness and lack of stimulation.
“The long-term impacts on education, inequality, relationship breakdown, sociability and the arts are harder to quantify but they are serious and will be felt for years to come.”
Meanwhile, a million people have left the workforce. Sumption says these are mostly older people who simply gave up during the lockdowns.
Article written by Neil Ferguson? Based on a modelling study?
I think you’ll find that most of the deaths in Sweden occurred in the first couple of months when they failed to implement adequate protection in nursing homes. They’ve admitted to that failure and their subsequent death toll was lower than either Denmark or UK.
But the argument is much wider than just the death toll “with Covid”. The knock-on effects of lockdowns on health services are only now beginning to show up in the excess death stats (not reported of course in the MSM) and the economic chickens have also come home to roost.
Article written by Neil Ferguson? Based on a modelling study?
OK. But you do realise, don’t you, that on those numbers Sweden has the 53rd Covid death rate in the world, much better than many countries with the viciously authoritarian “lockdown” policies that you seem to be so keen on. The argument in Nature is, like many things published in early to mid 2020, simply wrong.
The other thing that you need to do is to look at total excess deaths. On that basis, Sweden had more than Denmark in 2020, but it was the other way around in 2021. Yes, excess mortality over that whole period was greater in Sweden than in Denmark (not sure what adding 2022 is going to do), but that doesn’t account for the fact that it was historically very low in Sweden in 2019, meaning that there were more vulnerable elderly people likely to die of some cause or other anyway. The excess mortality in Sweden was largely amongst the over 75s in the care homes, where policymakers have expressed regret for their policy of not offering more targeted protection for those highly vulnerable people already near to the end of their brief sojourn in this mortal world of ours. That does not mean that their broader policy was wrong or caused deaths.
This article is quite illuminating and contains references to data published by the WHO
https://brownstone.org/articles/swedens-strategy-once-again-proven-correct/
Again I would appeal to you to try and step out of your prior assumptions about what and who to trust, to stop looking at single data series as the measure of all that is good and right, to try and step back from a narrow view of data analytics to see the bigger picture, and accept that we humans are not masters of our own fates – we will all live and die, and grand utopian schemes like lockdowns are ultimately doomed to fail.
There are lots of detailed arguments to be had. At the start of the pandemic, people were comparing Sweden to Denmark, and using the result to prove that Sweden had got it all wrong. Anti-lockdown voices, meanwhile were all over the place looking at Sweden’s different population structure, larger number of immigrants, different timing of holidays, …, to show that the higher death rate in Sweden was certainly not due to Swedish policies.
Now the anti-lockdown voices are praising Sweden to the skies, what happened in Sweden is once again only due to their policies. I am sure one could conjure up a lot of reasons why Sweden’s outbreak should be much milder than that of a lot of other countries (so that the death toll ought to have been even lower) – like the high proportion of single-person households and the large degree of compliance you get in Sweden from mere advice unsupported by mandates. But the death rate from the COVID pandemic is clearly too complicated for the reasons to show up in simplistic comparisons.
You need to do some careful what-if analysis to get anything useful. My article tries to do that, but obviously it is only one voice; we need to look at all the others and see how science slowly will converge on a sensible result. Now we do not have to take crucial decisions day-by-day, we can afford the time to do it properly. It might be found, eventually, that lockdowns were useless to prevent deaths (the social or economic costs are not in doubt). Or it might be found that they saved so many lives that it looks like a worthwhile move. What is certain is that it was a reasonable decision at the time, whatever the opponents would like to claim they ‘knew’ back then. Humans may not be masters of their own fate, but when a calamity threatens, my inclination would be to look for the best and most cost-effective way to mitigate it, not to sit back and wait for what God? Nature? Fate? intends for us. Would you disagree?
As for ‘stepping out of prior assumptions’, same to you – in spades. I am saying that this is a difficult question and needs much more analysis to understand the situation properly. You are saying that you know the answer – the Swedish policies were the right ones – and you prove it by ignoring half the voices and half the evidence and concentrating on those who happen to agree with you. Who is making assumptions here?
A quick look at the brownstone.org article shows clearly that the authors are absolutely certain that Sweden was right and that lockdowns were a terrible mistake. They then proceed to list the evidence that agrees with them. I am not going to trust their version, any more than I would trust a defence lawyer without listening to the prosecution – or vice versa. And I do not have time or expertise to go through all the available evidence and make what amounts to my own review article. That is what we have experts for. They will get there, eventually.
A more constructive and insightful response.
There are lots of detailed arguments to be had. At the start of the pandemic, people were comparing Sweden to Denmark, and using the result to prove that Sweden had got it all wrong. Anti-lockdown voices, meanwhile were all over the place looking at Sweden’s different population structure, larger number of immigrants, different timing of holidays, …, to show that the higher death rate in Sweden was certainly not due to Swedish policies.
Now the anti-lockdown voices are praising Sweden to the skies, what happened in Sweden is once again only due to their policies. I am sure one could conjure up a lot of reasons why Sweden’s outbreak should be much milder than that of a lot of other countries (so that the death toll ought to have been even lower) – like the high proportion of single-person households and the large degree of compliance you get in Sweden from mere advice unsupported by mandates. But the death rate from the COVID pandemic is clearly too complicated for the reasons to show up in simplistic comparisons.
You need to do some careful what-if analysis to get anything useful. My article tries to do that, but obviously it is only one voice; we need to look at all the others and see how science slowly will converge on a sensible result. Now we do not have to take crucial decisions day-by-day, we can afford the time to do it properly. It might be found, eventually, that lockdowns were useless to prevent deaths (the social or economic costs are not in doubt). Or it might be found that they saved so many lives that it looks like a worthwhile move. What is certain is that it was a reasonable decision at the time, whatever the opponents would like to claim they ‘knew’ back then. Humans may not be masters of their own fate, but when a calamity threatens, my inclination would be to look for the best and most cost-effective way to mitigate it, not to sit back and wait for what God? Nature? Fate? intends for us. Would you disagree?
As for ‘stepping out of prior assumptions’, same to you – in spades. I am saying that this is a difficult question and needs much more analysis to understand the situation properly. You are saying that you know the answer – the Swedish policies were the right ones – and you prove it by ignoring half the voices and half the evidence and concentrating on those who happen to agree with you. Who is making assumptions here?
A quick look at the brownstone.org article shows clearly that the authors are absolutely certain that Sweden was right and that lockdowns were a terrible mistake. They then proceed to list the evidence that agrees with them. I am not going to trust their version, any more than I would trust a defence lawyer without listening to the prosecution – or vice versa. And I do not have time or expertise to go through all the available evidence and make what amounts to my own review article. That is what we have experts for. They will get there, eventually.
A more constructive and insightful response.
For some reason I cannot edit this, but let me add:
According to that Nature article, Denmark – and the UK – would have had twice as large death tolls if they had followed Swedish policies. In the real world Denmark had two thirds of the Swedish death toll rather than half. Neither is an argument for saying that ‘Sweden got it right’.
OK. But you do realise, don’t you, that on those numbers Sweden has the 53rd Covid death rate in the world, much better than many countries with the viciously authoritarian “lockdown” policies that you seem to be so keen on. The argument in Nature is, like many things published in early to mid 2020, simply wrong.
The other thing that you need to do is to look at total excess deaths. On that basis, Sweden had more than Denmark in 2020, but it was the other way around in 2021. Yes, excess mortality over that whole period was greater in Sweden than in Denmark (not sure what adding 2022 is going to do), but that doesn’t account for the fact that it was historically very low in Sweden in 2019, meaning that there were more vulnerable elderly people likely to die of some cause or other anyway. The excess mortality in Sweden was largely amongst the over 75s in the care homes, where policymakers have expressed regret for their policy of not offering more targeted protection for those highly vulnerable people already near to the end of their brief sojourn in this mortal world of ours. That does not mean that their broader policy was wrong or caused deaths.
This article is quite illuminating and contains references to data published by the WHO
https://brownstone.org/articles/swedens-strategy-once-again-proven-correct/
Again I would appeal to you to try and step out of your prior assumptions about what and who to trust, to stop looking at single data series as the measure of all that is good and right, to try and step back from a narrow view of data analytics to see the bigger picture, and accept that we humans are not masters of our own fates – we will all live and die, and grand utopian schemes like lockdowns are ultimately doomed to fail.
1) COVID-19-attributed deaths per million for the UK, Denmark and Sweden until 1st July 2020:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9/tables/1
Denmark: 105.
Sweden: 546;
UK: 599
From the article abstract (which is what I remembered):
UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies.
2) Deaths per million as of 23 November 2022:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country
Denmark: 1274,
Sweden 1983
UK: 3130
What are your numbers, and where did you get them from?
I was quoting from memory, and thinking about the first link here – which did indeed talk about a factor of two difference. But I stand corrected, Denmark did not have half the death toll of Sweden. Denmark had two thirds of the death toll of Sweden, just as Sweden had two thirds of the death toll of the UK.
I think my argument stands: If you can give a quick look at Sweden and say they ‘arrived at the right answer’, you can equally well compare Sweden to Denmark and say that Denmark got it right and Sweden – obviously – got it wrong. The truth is that neither argument holds. We do not know who ‘got it right’, and it will take a long time to sort out. Meanwhile how about dropping those ‘Sweden got it right’ arguments?
You really are clutching at straws if the best you can do is point to a difference between Denmark and Sweden. You know fine well that Sweden fared far better than most European countries that locked down hard.
Denmark did not have “half the death toll” of Sweden. Please don’t repeat the untruths in which you appear to be trapped. If you believe I am factually wrong on this point, please show us your factual evidence.
You really are clutching at straws if the best you can do is point to a difference between Denmark and Sweden. You know fine well that Sweden fared far better than most European countries that locked down hard.
Denmark had a lockdown – and half the death toll of Sweden. If that is the level we are talking at, that proves that Sweden got it wrong and Denmark got it right. Can we please stop picking a single country and saying ‘this proves we were right all along’?
You do not think that The Economist sent people into Nicaraguan hospitals to count, do you? The numbers came, ultimately, from the government. And from the way he writes, John Perry is an Ortega fan, which makes his word a little less trustworthy. Notice the way he automatially trusts the disctatorship’s figures while rubbishing those of the opposition – and blames the latter for people’s fear of the virus (‘Counterrevolutionary forces’ maybe?). I would be willing to believe that Nicaragua came through pretty well – but it would take an informed opinion and some rather deeper study to confirm what is being said here.
Democracy was thrown in the bin for the duration. Parliament and the courts (and the d***ed media, most of it) abdicated their responsibilities to scrutinise and hold to account. We are now living through the consequences. A textbook case of the cure being worse than the disease.
You think the UK wasn’t in a dictatorship in Spring 2020?
Thanks! For a moment I was wondering whether I ought to answer the arguments in your other posts – thankless as the task may be. But with this post you have saved me the trouble.
Thanks! For a moment I was wondering whether I ought to answer the arguments in your other posts – thankless as the task may be. But with this post you have saved me the trouble.
“It is called democracy, I believe”.
No, not on this particular occasion. In fact it is called Lack of Moral Fibre (LMF) and used to be the most shameful criticism one could ever receive!
I believe Sweden is a democracy and also managed to arrive at the right answer.
If you read the article you will see that the statistics for excess deaths came from the WHO, The Economist and Amnesty International, not the dictator.
Democracy was thrown in the bin for the duration. Parliament and the courts (and the d***ed media, most of it) abdicated their responsibilities to scrutinise and hold to account. We are now living through the consequences. A textbook case of the cure being worse than the disease.
You think the UK wasn’t in a dictatorship in Spring 2020?
Spot on TL. Boris blinked because he wanted to be loved and it became a debacle for the economy which we are now paying for.
He got Covid
Did he really.
Did he really.
You’ve described what happened at the outset, and continued to happen for the next two years until BJ was driven from office, perfectly. The constant media howl-round finally had an effect, and its consequences will continue to reverberate for a very long time – decades.
As far as Nicaragua is concerned, in many ways what happened might be compared to what would’ve happened during previous pandemics such as the post-WW1 Spanish Flu, i.e. an initial peak in mortality with less severe aftershocks but life going on with relative normality. The problem we’re now faced with is a media whose influence is out of all proportion to its credentials, either in terms of knowledge or accountability. Apart from national events such as the death and funeral of the Queen, i’ve switched off apart from the briefest scanning of headlines. The very sight of intemperate journos such as Robert Peston and Beth Rigby makes with shudder with disgust.
The fact that he ignored his own instincts and bowed to others is why Johnson was so weak. It’ll go down in history as a diabolical misjudgement. Why would a man be stupid enough to listen to an entire class that views him as an enemy?
Very rosy indeed. Nicaragua would certainly be a case to study, but meanwhile it is a big question how far you want to trust the health statistics of a dictatorship – or its fans.
Another interesting point is what apparently made the difference. Near-universal mask-wearing and very high vaccine uptake, all without government mandates. Four home visits of the health service per household. None of this would be likely to happen in the UK. And still a reduction of social contanct to the point where people were afraid to go to hospital.
Finally, it is true that unlike Ortega, Boris Johnson was not in a position to take a decision based on his personal instincts and force it on the country. It is called democracy, I believe.
Spot on TL. Boris blinked because he wanted to be loved and it became a debacle for the economy which we are now paying for.
He got Covid
A very rosy picture of what happened in Nicaragua, whether the ‘reality’ on the ground matches the authors telling of it (although, in broad brush terms, I do not doubt him). In general terms though, it does seem, with hindsight (and those courageous countries, and leaders, at the time) to have been the CORRECT decision.
What interests me, from a UK perspective, is that, for all his faults and failings, Boris Johnson’s initial instincts (as far as I am aware), to resist locking down the country, were correct. Unlike Nicaragua, and Daniel Ortega though, or, closer to home, Sweden, he blinked, and succumbed to the ‘media driven’ panic. Although, to be fair, Daniel Ortega probably didn’t have to contend with the ‘professional’ catastrophizing of the British media, many journalists, academics, professional classes and NGO’s, who also, maybe, saw the opportunity to stick their knives in, in revenge for Johnson’s leading role on Brexit (regardless of what It might mean for the rest of the country).
Future Ortegas will need to choose between breaching international law and taking sensible steps in their national interest because the communist-controlled World Health Organisation is plotting a legally binding agreement ie treaty that would form a high level political commitment to a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society” approach that its communist leader has emphatically described as a “game-changing” “great historical stride forward” (links are below).
If that sounds far-fetched, just read the official documents for yourself before forming a judgement. It’s all there hiding in plain sight. A supposedly independent panel recommended in May 2021 that the World Health Assembly should “strengthen the authority and independence of the WHO Director General” and “empower the WHO to take a leading, convening, and co-ordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response to a pandemic”.
And that is exactly what they are doing – completely ignoring the fact that the WHO said in June 2022 that “the majority of [36,294] written contributions [to the WHO’s sham public consultation] proposed that no international instrument should be established”. A report of the WHO’s Working Group on Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR; which has since morphed into a Working Group on the Revision of the International Health Regulations, another pernicious power-grab), which was warmly received by the World Health Assembly, of 23 May 2022 said:
“The WGPR sees the need to promote consensus around equity, science and evidence-based measures to protect public health and ensure social protection and global solidarity. These actions are crucial to discourage misinformation, stigmatization and discrimination among and within countries”.
So there we have it. The promotion of consensus over scientific enquiry and challenge, an invasion of national sovereignty, and an attack on free speech, all couched in the language of social justice, all designed to give a vile communist politician enormous global power under the threadbare veil of “public health”. Just wonderful.
I don’t understand why people are not up in arms about this, and why more journalists are not writing about it. If you didn’t like the EU telling us what to do, just wait until the communists at WHO declare another pandemic. Our so-called leaders are nowhere near strong, bright, courageous or independent enough to stop them. The public needs to wake up, get wise, confront our fears, put aside our prior assumptions about the benignity of UN institutions and get out on the streets to demand an end to this. It’s literally global tyranny growing in in front of our noses and our children’s children will never forgive if don’t at least try and stop it while we have half a chance.
Independent Panel report of May 2021: https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf
Tedros’s “great historical stride forward” address of January 2022 https://www.who.int/about/governance/election/nominations-2022/presentation-by-dr-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-as-a-candidate-for-the-post-of-director-general-at-the-150th-session-of-the-executive-board/
Tedros’s “game changer” comments of April 2022 https://inb.who.int/home/public-hearings/first-round
WGPR report of May 2022 https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_17-en.pdf
WHO report on outcomes of first round of public hearings of June 2022 https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_10-en.pdf
Many thanks for that splendid piece of ‘intelligence work’.
We have been warned!
This is brilliantly stated. I too do not understand why reporters working for our pathetic legacy media do not write about this. Either they simply do not know the facts, or they are too cowed by the implications and too cowardly to raise them.
And speaking of the WHO declaring the next pandemic, when are they going to declare this one over? Or are we to be “in the middle of a global pandemic” forever?
Well, Tedros said in his opening address to the May 2022 World Health Assembly:
“The pandemic will not magically disappear. But we can end it. We have the knowledge. We have the tools. Science has given us the upper hand.”
Incredible how every other pandemic in history has ended without a wave of a magic pharmaceutical wand, isn’t it? He’s also previously described the next pandemic as “inevitable”; and they declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern over what they euphemistically call “monkey pox” so it is only a matter of time. Maybe they will just go on declaring them and never rescinding them – after all that would take away some of their power and people, especially corrupt communists, don’t like doing that, do they.
What I find utterly revolting is all those eminent, good doctors and scientists associated with the WHO, who are not interested in politics and just want to help people stay or get healthy, who also know full well that Tedros is a total charlatan inserted as puppet by the CCP in 2017, who know that the WHO is rotten to its globalist core, who know that the insane policies they continue to promulgate have caused gross harms all just take their pay cheques and stay quiet. They know who they are. A message for any of them reading this: if you act with courage now you will feel better about yourself and you will be able to hold your head up high. And consider this: the entire WHO edifice could so easily come crashing down if the general public start to twig what’s going on. You’ll want to be on the right side of that collapse.
Maybe that is hoping too much. The WHO is looking to massively increase its budget and take even more money from its big pharma paymasters and ostensibly sovereign governments (ie the poor folks who pay taxes to them) alike so there are plenty of sweeties to go around for all the good little boys and girls who clap and smile while they watch the world descend into tyranny. Until the monster they allowed to be created comes for them, too.
Perhaps we should ask that great UNHERD defender of the WHO and the Scamdemic in general one:
Mrs ELAINE GIEDRYS-LEEPER to answer your excellent polemic?
Perhaps we should ask that great UNHERD defender of the WHO and the Scamdemic in general one:
Mrs ELAINE GIEDRYS-LEEPER to answer your excellent polemic?
Well, Tedros said in his opening address to the May 2022 World Health Assembly:
“The pandemic will not magically disappear. But we can end it. We have the knowledge. We have the tools. Science has given us the upper hand.”
Incredible how every other pandemic in history has ended without a wave of a magic pharmaceutical wand, isn’t it? He’s also previously described the next pandemic as “inevitable”; and they declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern over what they euphemistically call “monkey pox” so it is only a matter of time. Maybe they will just go on declaring them and never rescinding them – after all that would take away some of their power and people, especially corrupt communists, don’t like doing that, do they.
What I find utterly revolting is all those eminent, good doctors and scientists associated with the WHO, who are not interested in politics and just want to help people stay or get healthy, who also know full well that Tedros is a total charlatan inserted as puppet by the CCP in 2017, who know that the WHO is rotten to its globalist core, who know that the insane policies they continue to promulgate have caused gross harms all just take their pay cheques and stay quiet. They know who they are. A message for any of them reading this: if you act with courage now you will feel better about yourself and you will be able to hold your head up high. And consider this: the entire WHO edifice could so easily come crashing down if the general public start to twig what’s going on. You’ll want to be on the right side of that collapse.
Maybe that is hoping too much. The WHO is looking to massively increase its budget and take even more money from its big pharma paymasters and ostensibly sovereign governments (ie the poor folks who pay taxes to them) alike so there are plenty of sweeties to go around for all the good little boys and girls who clap and smile while they watch the world descend into tyranny. Until the monster they allowed to be created comes for them, too.
Many thanks for that splendid piece of ‘intelligence work’.
We have been warned!
This is brilliantly stated. I too do not understand why reporters working for our pathetic legacy media do not write about this. Either they simply do not know the facts, or they are too cowed by the implications and too cowardly to raise them.
And speaking of the WHO declaring the next pandemic, when are they going to declare this one over? Or are we to be “in the middle of a global pandemic” forever?
Future Ortegas will need to choose between breaching international law and taking sensible steps in their national interest because the communist-controlled World Health Organisation is plotting a legally binding agreement ie treaty that would form a high level political commitment to a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society” approach that its communist leader has emphatically described as a “game-changing” “great historical stride forward” (links are below).
If that sounds far-fetched, just read the official documents for yourself before forming a judgement. It’s all there hiding in plain sight. A supposedly independent panel recommended in May 2021 that the World Health Assembly should “strengthen the authority and independence of the WHO Director General” and “empower the WHO to take a leading, convening, and co-ordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response to a pandemic”.
And that is exactly what they are doing – completely ignoring the fact that the WHO said in June 2022 that “the majority of [36,294] written contributions [to the WHO’s sham public consultation] proposed that no international instrument should be established”. A report of the WHO’s Working Group on Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR; which has since morphed into a Working Group on the Revision of the International Health Regulations, another pernicious power-grab), which was warmly received by the World Health Assembly, of 23 May 2022 said:
“The WGPR sees the need to promote consensus around equity, science and evidence-based measures to protect public health and ensure social protection and global solidarity. These actions are crucial to discourage misinformation, stigmatization and discrimination among and within countries”.
So there we have it. The promotion of consensus over scientific enquiry and challenge, an invasion of national sovereignty, and an attack on free speech, all couched in the language of social justice, all designed to give a vile communist politician enormous global power under the threadbare veil of “public health”. Just wonderful.
I don’t understand why people are not up in arms about this, and why more journalists are not writing about it. If you didn’t like the EU telling us what to do, just wait until the communists at WHO declare another pandemic. Our so-called leaders are nowhere near strong, bright, courageous or independent enough to stop them. The public needs to wake up, get wise, confront our fears, put aside our prior assumptions about the benignity of UN institutions and get out on the streets to demand an end to this. It’s literally global tyranny growing in in front of our noses and our children’s children will never forgive if don’t at least try and stop it while we have half a chance.
Independent Panel report of May 2021: https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf
Tedros’s “great historical stride forward” address of January 2022 https://www.who.int/about/governance/election/nominations-2022/presentation-by-dr-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-as-a-candidate-for-the-post-of-director-general-at-the-150th-session-of-the-executive-board/
Tedros’s “game changer” comments of April 2022 https://inb.who.int/home/public-hearings/first-round
WGPR report of May 2022 https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_17-en.pdf
WHO report on outcomes of first round of public hearings of June 2022 https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_10-en.pdf
I wonder why the public health authorities and mainstream media have been so relentlessly dishonest about Covid and vaccines. It has damaged their authority and credibility very dramatically. In my jurisdiction – despite a relentless public relations campaign with fawning media coverage – only 57% of kids 5 to 11 have had one vaccine shot. This means that parents simply don’t trust the advice they are getting from the health authorities and their lapdog media. This really doesn’t bode well for future public health campaigns.
“This doesn’t bode well for future public health campaigns” .
The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf …. ?
I think their complete authority is already cemented. Their credibility cannot, therefore, be dented.
“This doesn’t bode well for future public health campaigns” .
The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf …. ?
I think their complete authority is already cemented. Their credibility cannot, therefore, be dented.
I wonder why the public health authorities and mainstream media have been so relentlessly dishonest about Covid and vaccines. It has damaged their authority and credibility very dramatically. In my jurisdiction – despite a relentless public relations campaign with fawning media coverage – only 57% of kids 5 to 11 have had one vaccine shot. This means that parents simply don’t trust the advice they are getting from the health authorities and their lapdog media. This really doesn’t bode well for future public health campaigns.
Very interesting article – thank you. Attitudes to lockdown in the liberal media were alarming – not the fact that lockdown was promoted but that questioning its efficacy was (and to some extent still is) painted as an entirely illegitimate and conspiratorial position to hold.
Very interesting article – thank you. Attitudes to lockdown in the liberal media were alarming – not the fact that lockdown was promoted but that questioning its efficacy was (and to some extent still is) painted as an entirely illegitimate and conspiratorial position to hold.
Perhaps we should offer the Premiership of the UK to Mr Daniel Ortega?
He is obviously far superior to our own home grown cretins!
Perhaps we should offer the Premiership of the UK to Mr Daniel Ortega?
He is obviously far superior to our own home grown cretins!
Nicaragua is a tropical disease country already well-saturated with anti-malarial and anti-parasite drugs like HCL and ivermectin. Central African countries had similar conditions and also enjoyed minimal impact from Covid sans vaccines.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/preparing-international-travelers/yellow-fever-vaccine-and-malaria-prophylaxis-information-by-country/nicaragua
And its neighbours? Just the same I presume?
And its neighbours? Just the same I presume?
Nicaragua is a tropical disease country already well-saturated with anti-malarial and anti-parasite drugs like HCL and ivermectin. Central African countries had similar conditions and also enjoyed minimal impact from Covid sans vaccines.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/preparing-international-travelers/yellow-fever-vaccine-and-malaria-prophylaxis-information-by-country/nicaragua
Don’t expect any political scrutiny of the UK lockdown until such times as every current MP has long since gone. They are all complicit. None will have the integrity to admit to their failings. It will take a new generation to come into power, one that has experienced the disaster unleashed on the country.
Don’t expect any political scrutiny of the UK lockdown until such times as every current MP has long since gone. They are all complicit. None will have the integrity to admit to their failings. It will take a new generation to come into power, one that has experienced the disaster unleashed on the country.
Demographics probably played a role. 67% of the population of Nicaragua is under the age of 24, so outside the high risk zone for covid. You have the same youth preponderance in other developing countries, but those are often overpopulated, while Nicaragua is a small country. The community based health outreach system may well have been key, as the article suggests. However, based on what I have heard from friends who have an NGO supporting Nicaraguan clinics and hospitals, the level of equipment and supplies is very poor, so I can only hope that the article is accurate.
I have been in two public hospitals recently in Nicaragua and they are both well-equipped. I think the fact that the health service has mounted a successful community-based vaccination campaign, reaching all parts of the country, is evidence of its effectiveness. Of course, Nicaragua ia a poor country and nothing is perfect, but neither is it, of course, in the NHS.
Well, now that “vaccinations” are available and a campaign is being mounted, expect to see infections and deaths rise.
Well, now that “vaccinations” are available and a campaign is being mounted, expect to see infections and deaths rise.
I have been in two public hospitals recently in Nicaragua and they are both well-equipped. I think the fact that the health service has mounted a successful community-based vaccination campaign, reaching all parts of the country, is evidence of its effectiveness. Of course, Nicaragua ia a poor country and nothing is perfect, but neither is it, of course, in the NHS.
Demographics probably played a role. 67% of the population of Nicaragua is under the age of 24, so outside the high risk zone for covid. You have the same youth preponderance in other developing countries, but those are often overpopulated, while Nicaragua is a small country. The community based health outreach system may well have been key, as the article suggests. However, based on what I have heard from friends who have an NGO supporting Nicaraguan clinics and hospitals, the level of equipment and supplies is very poor, so I can only hope that the article is accurate.
Thank you for this. I have never heard about any of it. This is what makes publications like Unherd so invaluable.
Apologies, I’m posting as a reply, as I see no way to post a comment directly.
In the US, lockdowns were associated with the “expert class” and Democratic states, though Trump went along with them also. Resistance was identified as a right wing theme. But it appears that “experts” are well situated to survive a lockdown, as they can work from home, in contrast to restaurant workers, meat cutters, delivery drivers and the like. I have no fondness for Ortega, but but it seems I have to give him credit for genuine concern for the workers.
Apologies, I’m posting as a reply, as I see no way to post a comment directly.
In the US, lockdowns were associated with the “expert class” and Democratic states, though Trump went along with them also. Resistance was identified as a right wing theme. But it appears that “experts” are well situated to survive a lockdown, as they can work from home, in contrast to restaurant workers, meat cutters, delivery drivers and the like. I have no fondness for Ortega, but but it seems I have to give him credit for genuine concern for the workers.
Thank you for this. I have never heard about any of it. This is what makes publications like Unherd so invaluable.
Too bad Ortega hadnt turned his back on the vax as well. Wouldve been an even more important comparison.
Too bad Ortega hadnt turned his back on the vax as well. Wouldve been an even more important comparison.
Sorry, but when the cited examples of the “right-wing media” are the BBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, we’ve jumped right through the looking glass.
Had the writer then gonen on to praise the policies of the State of Florida or perhaps Brazil, I personally might give this piece a more sympathetic reading.
Please read carefully – the right-wing media I cite are local media, I refer to the BBC etc as international media.
I’m sorry John – and by the way, I am highly sceptical of any resident of Nicaragua who doesn’t mention the appalling conditions that exist in that country; the corruption, electoral manipulations, political prisoners and restrictions on freedom of expression – but I did read it. You cited these as sources of attacks from international media. My point is clear: these would give your boy a lenient reading if there was one to be had. There isn’t though.
Never mind a “lenient reading,” simply getting balanced reporting about Nicaragua would be a start…
Never mind a “lenient reading,” simply getting balanced reporting about Nicaragua would be a start…
I’m sorry John – and by the way, I am highly sceptical of any resident of Nicaragua who doesn’t mention the appalling conditions that exist in that country; the corruption, electoral manipulations, political prisoners and restrictions on freedom of expression – but I did read it. You cited these as sources of attacks from international media. My point is clear: these would give your boy a lenient reading if there was one to be had. There isn’t though.
Please read carefully – the right-wing media I cite are local media, I refer to the BBC etc as international media.
Sorry, but when the cited examples of the “right-wing media” are the BBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, we’ve jumped right through the looking glass.
Had the writer then gonen on to praise the policies of the State of Florida or perhaps Brazil, I personally might give this piece a more sympathetic reading.
Interesting, thank you
Interesting, thank you
If you want to celebrate a country’s performance, why not celebrate that of Burundi?
It did nothing and has suffered no COVID effects. Why? Because the median age is about 18 whereas in most of Europe it’s closer to 38.
Now, if you compare Nicaragua to other countries in terms of excess mortality, then guess what? It’s not obvious that Nicaragua has performed so well. Why? That would be a matter of further research. But, one can look up available numbers here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?tab=chart&country=PER~MEX~IRN~USA~ISR~BOL~ECU~NIC~AUS
Basically, case counts and COVID deaths are really useless numbers. Excess mortality tells a much more responsible story.
If you want to celebrate a country’s performance, why not celebrate that of Burundi?
It did nothing and has suffered no COVID effects. Why? Because the median age is about 18 whereas in most of Europe it’s closer to 38.
Now, if you compare Nicaragua to other countries in terms of excess mortality, then guess what? It’s not obvious that Nicaragua has performed so well. Why? That would be a matter of further research. But, one can look up available numbers here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?tab=chart&country=PER~MEX~IRN~USA~ISR~BOL~ECU~NIC~AUS
Basically, case counts and COVID deaths are really useless numbers. Excess mortality tells a much more responsible story.
My Nicaraguan family members and neighbors who died from Covid 19 send their greetings.
My Nicaraguan family members and neighbors who died from Covid 19 send their greetings.