Professor Johan Giesecke on Sweden's thinking...

[Titanic]

Sorry if this is already elsewhere... and I am agnostic on his opinions and comments on UK policy... I am not an expert just trying to learn a bit in these confused times.

This interview (from UnHerd) by Freddie Sayers of Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, who is an adviser to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Sweden’s strategy), is worth 35 minutes of your lockdown viewing time. He lays out Sweden’s thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bfN2JWifLCY

The flattening of the curve we are seeing is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
His Swedish blunt logic is not an eccentricity, he was the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO.


Source: https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/
but I have omitted the opinion/analysis that was added at the end of the article because again I just don't know.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sorry if this is already elsewhere... and I am agnostic on his opinions and comments on UK policy... I am not an expert just trying to learn a bit in these confused times.

This interview (from UnHerd) by Freddie Sayers of Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, who is an adviser to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Sweden’s strategy), is worth 35 minutes of your lockdown viewing time. He lays out Sweden’s thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bfN2JWifLCY

The flattening of the curve we are seeing is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
His Swedish blunt logic is not an eccentricity, he was the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO.


Source: https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/
but I have omitted the opinion/analysis that was added at the end of the article because again I just don't know.

I think our policy agrees with him, but we went into lockdown because the idea of just protecting the elderly and vulnerable while everyone else gets on with it was just unpalatable. The notion of herd immunity effectively became ‘euthanasia’ and so while the principles above remain the same, a collective shared lockdown seemed a more palatable solution than just locking the old folk up.

Sweden hasn’t had any worse curve in comparison, BUT I think a massive difference is culturally and behaviourally. Sweden is a very different demographic to the UK.

 

[RossyG]

My initial thoughts when this virus made itself known here was to go for the herd immunity strategy. Lock up the vulnerable for a couple of months and let the rest of us carry on. No dying at all was never an option, but I thought this would be the best way, would keep the fatalities at a minimum, and would protect the economy and thus protect more lives in the long run.

Then it was announced that 250,000 would die and I drastically changed my opinion.

All these weeks later, I’m starting to wonder. I do think we needed to have a breathing space to get the NHS prepared, but I look at Sweden and see their curve is the same as ours.

Experts have made wild claims about deaths in the past. Maybe this was just another example.

But as mentioned, Sweden is a very different country so we can never do a like for like comparison.

A difficult one, this.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sorry if this is already elsewhere... and I am agnostic on his opinions and comments on UK policy... I am not an expert just trying to learn a bit in these confused times.

This interview (from UnHerd) by Freddie Sayers of Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, who is an adviser to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Sweden’s strategy), is worth 35 minutes of your lockdown viewing time. He lays out Sweden’s thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bfN2JWifLCY

The flattening of the curve we are seeing is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
His Swedish blunt logic is not an eccentricity, he was the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO.


Source: https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/
but I have omitted the opinion/analysis that was added at the end of the article because again I just don't know.

Many thanks for posting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) his assessments don't add up.

1. My analysis of the daily cases and deaths stats from Johns Hopkins show that the rate of death per rate of cases is increasing which can either mean a fall in the rate of new cases or an increase in the rate of deaths. The latter is incompatible with the vulnerable having already been picked off. The number of vulnerable is massive. Millions will be dead in the UK before his prediction would come to pass. We have about ten million people in the UK aged over 70 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/)

2. His policy to protect only the vulnerable encourages spread of the disease. The only old and frail that would be protected by that are those locked in isolation (and I mean locked).

3. How does he expect fatality to 'turn out' to be 0.1%? This is a percent of what? Of the total UK population that's 650,000! If he means 0.1% of those infected, that is an absurdly different number from the 1 in 8 deaths (12.5%) currently steady in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium and the UK. If he expects half of us to have had the disease and final fatality to be 0.1% that is still 32,000. The direction of fatality worldwide is currently increasing not decreasing (see my spreadsheets) albeit I think this is due to a downturn in new cases rather than the virus becoming more lethal so it needs to turn down dramatically and soon for there to be any chance any of his predictions are correct. Let's hope he's correct.

4. If he thinks that at least 50% of the population has already had COVID, in the UK that is about 32 million people. The total reported cases so far is what, 150,000? (that's a slight overestimate but it makes the maths easier). That means the disease must be asymptomatic in 31,850,000 in our population. That gives a cases per deaths ration of 212. No country is reporting a ratio anywhere like that. The closest is Russia (120) and their data are derided. See the fourth column in data below.

6. If he expects half of us to eventually have had the disease, we can work out how many have had the disease already based on total deaths (13,759 in the UK yesterday) and a final death rate of 0.1%. That give 13,759,000 Brits who have already had the disease, 13,745,241 of whom were asymptomatic. Even if we say that 80% of deaths so far are in a special vulnerable population that will eventually all be killed off changing the death rate when the dust settles, this still means that roughly 2.5 million Brits have had the disease already and remained asymptomatic. It is possible, but.....really?

7. So, the man may be right, but his predictions are dependent on an assumption that between 2.5 and 13 million of us have had an asymptomatic version of COVID, for which there is no evidence. In key areas in a few countries lots of people who are as yet asymptomatic have been tested. If only 0.1% of them go on to get the disease this would already have become headline news. For it to not have been headline news, no country anywhere can yet be testing anyone apart from those expressing symptoms. That is, in effect, no meaningful testing at all, anywhere. Is this really the case?

 

[Silverhatch]

Sorry if this is already elsewhere... and I am agnostic on his opinions and comments on UK policy... I am not an expert just trying to learn a bit in these confused times.

This interview (from UnHerd) by Freddie Sayers of Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, who is an adviser to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Sweden’s strategy), is worth 35 minutes of your lockdown viewing time. He lays out Sweden’s thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bfN2JWifLCY

The flattening of the curve we are seeing is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
UK policy on lockdown and in other European countries is not evidence-based
The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper have so much policy impact
Is dismissive of the 510,000 figure that was predicted if mitigation measures were not implemented
The Imperial College paper was much too pessimistic and did not factor in the now much increased ICU capacity
Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway, taking no account of real world specifics
The results will eventually be similar for all countries
Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 will in all likelihood turn out to be in the region of 0.1%
At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will likely be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available
His Swedish blunt logic is not an eccentricity, he was the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO.


Source: https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/
but I have omitted the opinion/analysis that was added at the end of the article because again I just don't know.

Whatever the academic thinking or modelling or Facebook/twitter ****wittery - the thing that continues to get me is the look on the face of critical care health workers in big, dense population centers (London 9m people, 600 sq miles and New York 18m people, 320 sq miles) who say they have NEVER experienced anything like this.These are people who live and work through seasonal flu. The ghoulish part of me wants to see Trump bully a big state into opening up and seeing what really happens when a first-world economy/population centre and healthcare system is exposed to the unhindered spread of this virus. Then we'll all know, including professor Johan who is directing policy in a 10m population,174,000 sq mile country.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I can’t find it now but I read an article comparing Norway and Sweden who are naturally more similar, essentially contradicted some of the conclusions made in the YouTube video.

Basically Norway locked down and Sweden didn’t, Sweden now have over 1,000 more deaths and a far more ominous looking curve than Norway.

 

[The Wizard]

I can’t find it now but I read an article comparing Norway and Sweden who are naturally more similar, essentially contradicted some of the conclusions made in the YouTube video.

Basically Norway locked down and Sweden didn’t, Sweden now have over 1,000 more deaths and a far more ominous looking curve than Norway.

Yep, you cannot compare really any other countries aside from a couple of the Nordic countries to Sweden purely because of the size of Sweden for such a small population. We have a resident Swede who posts in the main thread and he said the other day they are predicted to be out of ICU beds by this weekend and it’s already been agreed that people will have to be prioritised and some will be ‘left to die’ in the least crude way possible, I get the feeling it could be about to massively backfire.

It will reduce their second wave of the virus though, providing that immunity after having it does actually exist.

 

[Swansman]

Many thanks for posting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) his assessments don't add up.

4. If he thinks that at least 50% of the population has already had COVID, in the UK that is about 32 million people. The total reported cases so far is what, 150,000? (that's a slight overestimate but it makes the maths easier). That means the disease must be asymptomatic in 31,850,000 in our population. That gives a cases per deaths ration of 212. No country is reporting a ratio anywhere like that. The closest is Russia (120) and their data are derided. See the fourth column in data below.

No it doesnt mean "the disease must be asymptomatic in 31,850,000" because several millions could have had mild or moderate symptoms without getting tested.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

If anyone uses the phrase 'similar to the flu' in their assessment, I'll dismiss the rest of their argument.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Many thanks for posting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) his assessments don't add up.

1. My analysis of the daily cases and deaths stats from Johns Hopkins show that the rate of death per rate of cases is increasing which can either mean a fall in the rate of new cases or an increase in the rate of deaths. The latter is incompatible with the vulnerable having already been picked off. The number of vulnerable is massive. Millions will be dead in the UK before his prediction would come to pass. We have about ten million people in the UK aged over 70 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/)

2. His policy to protect only the vulnerable encourages spread of the disease. The only old and frail that would be protected by that are those locked in isolation (and I mean locked).

3. How does he expect fatality to 'turn out' to be 0.1%? This is a percent of what? Of the total UK population that's 650,000! If he means 0.1% of those infected, that is an absurdly different number from the 1 in 8 deaths (12.5%) currently steady in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium and the UK. If he expects half of us to have had the disease and final fatality to be 0.1% that is still 32,000. The direction of fatality worldwide is currently increasing not decreasing (see my spreadsheets) albeit I think this is due to a downturn in new cases rather than the virus becoming more lethal so it needs to turn down dramatically and soon for there to be any chance any of his predictions are correct. Let's hope he's correct.

4. If he thinks that at least 50% of the population has already had COVID, in the UK that is about 32 million people. The total reported cases so far is what, 150,000? (that's a slight overestimate but it makes the maths easier). That means the disease must be asymptomatic in 31,850,000 in our population. That gives a cases per deaths ration of 212. No country is reporting a ratio anywhere like that. The closest is Russia (120) and their data are derided. See the fourth column in data below.

6. If he expects half of us to eventually have had the disease, we can work out how many have had the disease already based on total deaths (13,759 in the UK yesterday) and a final death rate of 0.1%. That give 13,759,000 Brits who have already had the disease, 13,745,241 of whom were asymptomatic. Even if we say that 80% of deaths so far are in a special vulnerable population that will eventually all be killed off changing the death rate when the dust settles, this still means that roughly 2.5 million Brits have had the disease already and remained asymptomatic. It is possible, but.....really?

7. So, the man may be right, but his predictions are dependent on an assumption that between 2.5 and 13 million of us have had an asymptomatic version of COVID, for which there is no evidence. In key areas in a few countries lots of people who are as yet asymptomatic have been tested. If only 0.1% of them go on to get the disease this would already have become headline news. For it to not have been headline news, no country anywhere can yet be testing anyone apart from those expressing symptoms. That is, in effect, no meaningful testing at all, anywhere. Is this really the case?

View attachment 122407

What is the explanation for Germany?

 

[Swansman]

I can’t find it now but I read an article comparing Norway and Sweden who are naturally more similar, essentially contradicted some of the conclusions made in the YouTube video.

Basically Norway locked down and Sweden didn’t, Sweden now have over 1,000 more deaths and a far more ominous looking curve than Norway.

Too bad "basically" takes you nowhere as its far more complicated and the big differences in how the elderly care i structured seem to make a significant difference. In Norway you have well-paid (meaning they stay within the job longer and gain a lot of experience), well-educated doing most of the elderly care, in Sweden its done with a lot of part-time working uneducated teenagers or young adults, which has lead to far more infections in our elderly. Counting only younger patients, Sweden and Norway are about the same level.

Our curve is not "ominous". Our number of new Covid-19 intensive care patients per day has been between 30 and 45 since March 23, as seen here:

 

[East Staffs Gull]

Many thanks for posting. Unfortunately (or fortunately) his assessments don't add up.

3. How does he expect fatality to 'turn out' to be 0.1%? This is a percent of what? Of the total UK population that's 650,000! If he means 0.1% of those infected, that is an absurdly different number from the 1 in 8 deaths (12.5%) currently steady in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium and the UK. If he expects half of us to have had the disease and final fatality to be 0.1% that is still 32,000. The direction of fatality worldwide is currently increasing not decreasing (see my spreadsheets) albeit I think this is due to a downturn in new cases rather than the virus becoming more lethal so it needs to turn down dramatically and soon for there to be any chance any of his predictions are correct. Let's hope he's correct.]

I think you mean 65,000, (not 650,000).

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Too bad "basically" takes you nowhere as its far more complicated and the big differences in how the elderly care i structured seem to make a significant difference. In Norway you have well-paid (meaning they stay within the job longer and gain a lot of experience), well-educated doing most of the elderly care, in Sweden its done with a lot of part-time working uneducated teenagers or young adults, which has lead to far more infections in our elderly. Counting only younger patients, Sweden and Norway are about the same level.

Our curve is not "ominous". Our number of new Covid-19 intensive care patients per day has been between 30 and 45 since March 23, as seen here:
View attachment 122409

I forgot we don’t count the deaths of older people, my mistake.

I also said more ominous in a comparative sense to Norway’s.

I appreciate your first hand experience but you haven’t really articulated why Sweden having over 1,000 more deaths than Norway shows their approach has been better. I’m happy to be proved wrong though.

 

[Swansman]

I forgot we don’t count the deaths of older people, my mistake.

I also said more ominous in a comparative sense to Norway’s.

I appreciate your first hand experience but you haven’t really articulated why Sweden having over 1,000 more deaths than Norway shows their approach has been better. I’m happy to be proved wrong though.

About older people, yeah if you want to be really scared you can put a lot of emphasis on the deaths of 90 year old, multi-sick individuals in nursing homes. Would these have a better chance of another year or two of laying in their own shit and not knowing their own name if we had a lockdown? Possible. We've chosen to see it as sad, but not a reason to crash our economy, lock everyone down for months. Coldhearted?

Maybe, lets see when we know the economical and mental health consequences of putting people out of work and locking them in.

I'm not saying having 1000 more deaths than Norway shows our approach is better, I'm saying the 1000 more deaths here very likely mainly depends on different factors than whether you go into lockdown or not. If you have say 400 people working 25%-part time the risk of getting this disease at care homes is significantly higher than if you have 100 people working full time, regardless of lockdown or not.

The (bad) way our elderly care is structured would have led to the transmission of this disease among our elderly even if we went into lockdown. At best the gains from it would have been very small.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

About older people, yeah if you want to be really scared you can put a lot of emphasis on the deaths of 90 year old, multi-sick individuals in nursing homes. Would these have a better chance of another year or two of laying in their own shit and not knowing their own name if we had a lockdown? Possible. We've chosen to see it as sad, but not a reason to crash our economy, lock everyone down for months. Coldhearted?

Maybe, lets see when we know the economical and mental health consequences of putting people out of work and locking them in.

I'm not saying having 1000 more deaths than Norway shows our approach is better, I'm saying the 1000 more deaths here very likely mainly depends on different factors than whether you go into lockdown or not. If you have say 400 people working 25%-part time the risk of getting this disease at care homes is significantly higher than if you have 100 people working full time, regardless of lockdown or not.

The (bad) way our elderly care is structured would have led to the transmission of this disease among our elderly even if we went into lockdown. At best the gains from it would have been very small.

Appreciated [emoji106]

 

[Weststander]

I can’t find it now but I read an article comparing Norway and Sweden who are naturally more similar, essentially contradicted some of the conclusions made in the YouTube video.

Basically Norway locked down and Sweden didn’t, Sweden now have over 1,000 more deaths and a far more ominous looking curve than Norway.

Per capita, Sweden has and is continuing to have, far more deaths than Denmark, Norway and Finland.

A direct consequence of their PM and 'lead' epidemiologist's strategy, to minimise damage to the economy and allow usual freedoms for the populace.

The nation seems to find it acceptable that a few thousand (when its finished) pensioners and vulnerable will die unnecessarily due to no lockdown. Over the entire course of covid19's grip, that would've been entirely unpalatable in France, the UK and Germany.

Interesting how that one European culture is so relaxed about that policy and outcome.

 

[Swansman]

Per capita, Sweden has and is continuing to have, far more deaths than Denmark, Norway and Finland.

A direct consequence of their PM and 'lead' epidemiologist's strategy, to minimise damage to the economy and allow usual freedoms for the populace.

Its four entirely different countries with different cultures, different health care systems, different elderly care systems, different. Its impossible to know if its a "direct consequence" when there are many, many factors involved.

Its like saying that UK numbers of 219.22 deaths per million are a direct consequence of going into lockdown because South Korea didnt go into lockdown and only got 4.49 deaths per million people.

 

[Guinness Boy]

As stated on this thread a number of times there are cultural and employment differences that can make the statistics almost meaningless. I once thought of Sweden as the canary in the mine but I'm not sure this is the case. The only real statistical case that exists without cultural or government interferance remains the Diamond Princess. Still the data from there shows 13 deaths and seven further critical cases still ongoing. Let's say the worst happens and none of those pull through, we are still looking at what I will call a "Harry Wilson Number" for the DP cases of 36 (one in 36 confirmed cases fatal) compared to our 8. Yes, many of those onboard may have been wealthy but they would also have been in a more elderly demographic. As for a fatality rate for the whole boat well that appears to be around half of one percent, which seems to be in line with the Swedish feller.

The Harry Wilson number for other places seems to be based largely on how many people were tested and where as much as how early lockdown was applied and how. So do we take the "number" as being essentially a ratio based on those hospitalised (those dying in the UK at the moment are presumably the ones who were diagnosed two to three weeks ago when we were only testing in hospital)?

It's the Diamond Princess that still lead me to agree with much of the below.

My initial thoughts when this virus made itself known here was to go for the herd immunity strategy. Lock up the vulnerable for a couple of months and let the rest of us carry on. No dying at all was never an option, but I thought this would be the best way, would keep the fatalities at a minimum, and would protect the economy and thus protect more lives in the long run.

Then it was announced that 250,000 would die and I drastically changed my opinion.

Yes, this is where I was and it was the 250k number that scared the shit out of me. Although we do seem to be heading for higher than the 20k they said they could bring it down to.

All these weeks later, I’m starting to wonder. I do think we needed to have a breathing space to get the NHS prepared, but I look at Sweden and see their curve is the same as ours.

Experts have made wild claims about deaths in the past. Maybe this was just another example.

But as mentioned, Sweden is a very different country so we can never do a like for like comparison.

A difficult one, this.

Yes, a lot of this too.

 

[Rugrat]

About older people, yeah if you want to be really scared you can put a lot of emphasis on the deaths of 90 year old, multi-sick individuals in nursing homes. Would these have a better chance of another year or two of laying in their own shit and not knowing their own name if we had a lockdown? Possible. We've chosen to see it as sad, but not a reason to crash our economy, lock everyone down for months. Coldhearted?

Maybe, lets see when we know the economical and mental health consequences of putting people out of work and locking them in.

I'm not saying having 1000 more deaths than Norway shows our approach is better, I'm saying the 1000 more deaths here very likely mainly depends on different factors than whether you go into lockdown or not. If you have say 400 people working 25%-part time the risk of getting this disease at care homes is significantly higher than if you have 100 people working full time, regardless of lockdown or not.

The (bad) way our elderly care is structured would have led to the transmission of this disease among our elderly even if we went into lockdown. At best the gains from it would have been very small.

Do you have the facts to back that up? I don't want to see them by the way but it does look largely assumptive (i.e the demographic is the same, they are all oldies in the care home system, it was the poor care that caused the infections etc). I'm not convinced, another bad day for cases and deaths and for a country with such a dispersed population you seem to be doing a good job in trying to hit the top of the charts.

I hope I am wrong but instinctively it looks like you followed the wrong path and the numbers (at least on the surface) back that up

 

[Bozza]

Although we do seem to be heading for higher than the 20k they said they could bring it down to.

Did they actually say that?

My only recollection of the 20k number (which I've just searched back for to verify) was that it was stated that if we kept deaths below 20k then we will have done well. I certainly don't recall a statement that deaths could/would be kept below that figure.

That aside, back to the main point, the problem with all these "it's not actually too bad" lines of reasoning from experts - and this is the most recent of many similar ones - is that they ignore the fact that in the short-term health services will be overwhelmed, and many people will die who might otherwise not, and these deaths will include young and otherwise fit individuals.

This viewpoint may prove to be correct once it has all played out, but that won't mean that the lockdown approach was a wrong one because it does provide protection to health services which does save lives.