We don't find conclusive evidence in one selected statistic. We find it in the whole body of available evidence. Then we conclude.

You conclude on a bias. That's not common sense. It's bs.

We all lost. Nobody wins in a pandemic. Some lost more than others. Some died. Some are still impacted. Some tried to cooperate and protect others in any way they could. Some thought only of themselves.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Nevertheless don't the figures quoted vindicate the Swedes for the approach they took? Especially since the excess death gap is likely to widen with the continued effect of missed hospital appointments.
They didn't damage their economy as much either.

You are so full of BS and selfishness it is astounding. I played your game and provided you with a study. But oh no it does not fit your narrative so you dismiss it.

There is so much evidence and studies on both sides. I at least looked at all the information out there (or lack there of in terms of the vaccine at the time) and made an informed decision about my body and my health. A decision that does not affect anyone.

No it doesn't vindicate them. It provides some useful information. Another piece of a huge puzzle for which, as yet, far from all the pieces are available. I am not sure really firm conclusions will be drawn by the enquiry as some outcomes may take many years to be clear.

Whilst Sweden's response wasn't the same as ours, it still did many of the things we did. It also got criticised in Sweden for being too relaxed. Most importantly though it is so different to us in so many ways that comparisons are liable to add more confusion than clarity.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

There is an old piece of advice that you would do well to heed. Which is, if you are in a hole it's best to stop digging.

What you provided is a summary from the John Hopkins University of Medicine. Which is a completely trustworthy source of unbiased information. Unfortunately you decided to pick just one statistic from it, ignore the rest, and then build a mountain of conclusions upon it.

I won't repeat why that approach is bs. Just read my previous posts.

There is certainly a great deal of information available now, but it's still growing. It wasn't though to begin with. The vaccines have been proved as safe as was expected they would be, but most importantly far safer than not having them.

So you made a misinformed decision, not an informed one. Nothing new there. From all you write here it seems most of your decisions are based on misinformation.

That you continue to say that your decision affected no-one else, when I have patiently explained how it did, and does, just goes to prove, beyond a shred of doubt, how blindly selfish you are.

Throw that shovel away!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Theirs is a much wider spread, more rural, population than ours. We were pretty relaxed down here too and never felt isolated. As soon as the strict restrictions were relaxed, and small groups could meet, we started playing bowls again, maintaining hygiene and social distancing. Our pub opened for take away food, and served a pint or two whilst it was prepared. It was different in the big cities.

I don't think too many actually got fined did they! More a way to encourage compliance than anything else.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.