Remember when the New York Times tried to tell us a vaccine could take much longer than expected? Scroll down to "Assume We Already Understand the Coronavirus" and check "Start trials early" and "Don't wait for academic research" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coron...
Moderna finalized the "code" for the vaccine on January 13th, 2020, had synthesized the first clinical batch on February 7th, shipped it to the NIH on the 24th, and it was first administered to a human (in phase 1 trial) on March 16th.
On November 22, the New York Times published a fascinating account of the race to produce a coronavirus vaccine. The Times report included a number of interesting facts, but one really grabbed my attention: It turns out that the Moderna vaccine, which was just shown to be 95 percent effective, was actually developed by the company in just two days in January 2020.
That’s right, they developed the vaccine in two days in January, but then needed to spend the following ten months performing tests in order to meet the FDA’s standards for vaccine safety and efficacy.
During those ten months, 1.3 million people, including a quarter million Americans, have died from the coronavirus.
I've already seen people treat the vaccine as the end of the pandemic but I agree with Gates here, the next months are going to be brutal.
50% of Americans are apparently not willing to be vaccinated to begin with and rollout to significant parts of the population is going to take months.
While I'm obviously glad that vaccine development happened quickly, I really wish rather than being so focussed on vaccinations exclusively we paid more attention to the fact that some countries, Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia have managed to quell the disease through correct social policy and appropriate levels of social coordination.
If every disaster will rely on us conjuring up a panacea we'll be screwed sooner or later.
You can add Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos to the list, none of which are surrounded by ocean.
As for China, I don't think anybody trusts their figures, but it's also quite clear that they do have the outbreak well under control. If their ICUs were full, we'd know about it.
Vietnam got it under control quite well despite a land border with China. Key to success likely were:
- a population that had experience with prior pandemics and was thus willing to play along
- a strong centralized government (this is a guess, and I'm not just talking about the power, but specifically the centralization - other nations that have states/provinces each implementing their own policies showed the dangers of that approach, e.g. USA, Switzerland, Germany)
- extremely aggressive contact tracing and enforced quarantine (for high risk cases, they were put in hotels or barracks, not told "please stay home"). Not just contacts but also contacts-of-contacts (the latter were only ordered to home quarantine).
AFAIK they didn't even have much of a shutdown, because the quarantining was so effective.
So is the UK, last time I checked they're not doing so hot either. You can add this kind of argumentation to the list of ailments. Geographic or some other sort of fatalism as an excuse for what is social failure.
Where you're located when a disease hits gives you either an advantage or a disadvantage, fair enough. But it doesn't explain away repeated and continuous inability to act. If NZ had acted like the UK, they'd look just the same. Once you've got community spread the virus doesn't care if you're on an island.
>So is the UK, last time I checked they're not doing so hot either. You can add this kind of argumentation to the list of ailments. Geographic or some other sort of fatalism as an excuse for what is social failure.
not taking health precautions. Not following guidelines. Politicizing the response to the virus, putting individual interests above the interests of society, not listening to health experts, politicians not following their own rules, the list of dysfunction goes on.
If there was actual compliance with relatively modest rules, that just demand that everyone acts with some sense and makes some small concessions, life could have gone on normally, with a lot of people still alive.
This sounds like the thoughts of someone recently born.
This was inevitable in atomized western societies with relatively high rates of health issues like obesity and diabetes. And how were you to muster people in these fractured societies to "comply"? There is no national identity or Philia. Consumerism only brings us so close. Diversity is our strength, remember?
>If there was actual compliance with relatively modest rules, that just demand that everyone acts with some sense and makes some small concessions, life could have gone on normally, with a lot of people still alive.
> So is the UK, last time I checked they're not doing so hot either. You can add this kind of argumentation to the list of ailments. Geographic or some other sort of fatalism as an excuse for what is social failure.
Exactly. If the US population (for instance) had the community spirit to voluntarily comply with virus control measures, and the social cohesion to support those who couldn't work during that time, we probably would have gotten it under control and life would be something close to normal.
The people who make lockdowns necessary (and the subsequent economic damage) are the ones that fight them tooth and nail.
Also worth noting that many "first world" countries are providing a lot of stimulus for workers - many countries covering 75%-100% of an out of work person's pay.
In the US we've had a single $1200 check. American families don't have the option to stop going to work and have to do anything they can.
It's no wonder this breeds resentment to anything the government says, including to wear masks.
I wish that misinformation would stop spreading. The United States had a very generous unemployment benefit of $600/week. A huge number of people came out of the pandemic financially much better off in July (when the stimulus ended) than before.
It was indeed generous if you qualified and were able to access it (a lot of systems were down / not functioning super well early on - especially in states like Florida). That said, it ended in July and there were many people who slipped through the cracks.
The pandemic doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not as if we can ignore everything else and just mitigate for the pandemic at all costs. The economy and social infrastructure/interaction is extremely important to the physical and mental health of everyone on the planet.
To take you literally, all of life lives in a vacuum. Your argument is nonsensical in the worst of times. In the best of times, yes we make do and we ignore the plight of man. But I would hope that in war or in pandemics maybe we would in fact help each other out as these times remind of us our humanity where we all suffer for the common good. And when we get back to the the best of times, I would urge you to read up on Keynesian economics; if you want to float all the boats.
I've done plenty of reading on keynesian economics. I understand that it's not always a zero-sum game, etc. etc. Also, I never advocated for ignoring the plight of humans. We should always strive to help and lift each other. But there are always costs. We can all agree that I, for example, probably shouldn't give away my resources to the point that my children go hungry. But I certainly can make sacrifices to help others. I was never arguing that. Just saying that we can't evaluate the benefits we get without taking into account the costs. And just because the costs might be difficult to measure and don't feel as immediately sharp doesn't mean it is wise to be dismissive about them.
>50% of Americans are apparently not willing to be vaccinated to begin with and rollout to significant parts of the population is going to take months.
COVID-19, which is now endemic, will be here for the remainder of my lifetime. The vaccines have unknowns. I see less risk for both myself and family with avoiding the vaccines until there is strong data about their efficacy and safety.
>While I'm obviously glad that vaccine development happened quickly, I really wish rather than being so focussed on vaccinations exclusively we paid more attention to the fact that some countries, Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia have managed to quell the disease through correct social policy and appropriate levels of social coordination.
They're either islands, took authoritarian measures, or both. And again, an endemic virus that will only come back as soon as international travel comes back and lockdowns go away.
We don't know how long the immunity from the vaccines will last.
The flu is a very different virus, so it's not really a useful comparison (mutates faster, etc).
I guess there will be plenty of proof in the coming months (in either direction really, it will be reasonably clear if it works as well as has been stated).
The lockdowns will not end, period, until the war is over. There’s already probably a new COVID[0] ready to be hyped, even if we get population immunity to COVID-19.
I'll try hard to keep the discussion nuanced. Governments are basically institutions that we allow to restrict our freedoms for some benefits - safety, various common-good things, etc. We all have our preference for where we draw this line personally on the liberty/convenience <--> safety spectrum. A lot of people (including myself) feel like these lockdowns, pandemic mitigations, etc. have far crossed the acceptable line in this spectrum. In my opinion, I'm not fighting a virus any more. I'm fighting people trying to steamroll my rights and lifestyle. Others may feel differently - they may feel like for the sake of global/community safety, I should have fewer rights. I don't feel that way. This isn't binary. Nobody is right or wrong - we are all fighting for our line on the spectrum.
Your rights end where mine begin. You don't have the right to infect me. You give up your right not to wear a mask when you go into a grocery store. But no matter how foolish you are, if you get sick, you still get to go to the ER, where you're contributing to the maxing out of capacity. And you can infect those on the street.
In some perfect libertarian society, where I could tell that I got sick from you, I'd settle things by suing the pants off you. But that's not the real world. Your choices affect me, and society's restrictions are how we set that balance.
But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you not have the right to have me not have the right to infect you? The point is. How much do we want to limit _individual_ freedom in order to achieve community/global safety. This is not a black/white question with a right/wrong answer. As much as you want it to be a cut-and-dried issue - "you're rights end where mine begin", etc. - it is not. It is trivial to disassemble any argument along those lines. At the end of the day - it's all about freedom vs safety. It's fine if you don't draw your line in the same place. But trying to imply/suggest that your position is somehow objectively more right/true is ridiculous.
You're choosing to die on a hill of not wanting to wear a face covering for a short period of your life.
IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.
These specific changes won't be permanent - I agree. But the precedent they set for the future will be. And, in the mean time - these mitigations have and are having a huge personal impact on me, my wife, and my children - among others. Just because a lot of these things might not be a big deal to you, doesn't mean they're not a big deal to others. And I'm tired of people telling me that these things aren't a "big deal" to me. How the hell can they know how big of a deal they are to me? That's up to me to decide.
You know the irony of refusing to take precautions for concern about the future is it makes the future worse. More people get sick when we are not careful.
If you were in a region with Ebola you would wash hands, wear a mask and more. And for 300k dead Americans, this essentially was Ebola. Right now is a once in a hundred year event where the whole world has to endure this pandemic. These are temporary steps that no one takes lightly to make the future better.
What makes you think I'm refusing to take precautions? I take precautions consistent with how I perceive the risk to myself and others - just like I always have my entire life. Just like you have your entire life. Ebola is a completely different risk/tradeoff profile than covid. Consider how many quality of life years have been lost due to things "saving" us from the pandemic. I'd wager we've had at least a ~10% reduction in quality of life for everyone in the U.S. (that's where I live so I'll use the example). That's 300+ million people for about a year. That's 30 million quality of life years lost. How many people will we have saved? Maybe 500,000? On average they had maybe 3 years left to live each. Also, people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway) - but just to keep the estimate conservative we won't discount/reduce the worth of their final years. So we saved 1.5 million quality of life years. What kind of moronic tradeoff is that?
> people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway)
Who are you to say a grandparent is not enjoying the best years of their life seeing their children raise children, or a great grandparent for that matter? And, children may well enjoy sharing the experience of parenthood with their parents, so the premature loss of one life can hurt many people.
Your whole take is based on a bunch of assumptions that everyone is miserable towards the end of their lives, that children and community feel no loss when elders die, and that just is not true. Life takes on a different meaning as we grow, and no age is of less worth.
My entire take was explicitly _not_ based on discounting the value of older people's years. Also, the loss from death is felt by loved ones regardless and is approximately the same whether someone dies this month, next month or next year. Generally, w.r.t. the pandemic we are very rarely talking about someone that is losing more than a couple years. I explicitly said I was not discounting the value of older people's years - for the sake of conservative argument. You aren't arguing against my point. You just found a way to turn it into an emotional issue. I care about old people. I have 3 grandparents in their mid 80s who I love very much. Although it might be easy to allow yourself to dismiss my argument because you can convince yourself that I just don't care about my fellow man and the aging population - that is simply not the case. I was saying that a reasonable argument could be made for discounting those years, but I didn't for my numbers arg. My point still stands.
In the absence of evidence either way, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Without some level of assumptions, we would be paralyzed and useless - never able to make decisions. Use the data we have - make reasonable assumptions, revise assumptions as new information is available. I can speak from the experience of myself and those I know - which is that death hurts - period. It's also inevitable. Make your peace with it. Don't let your fear of death ruin your life (and the lives of others). Who are you to assume that these mitigations are less bad for society than the alternative? Because you also make assumptions. I'm just saying some people feel and assume differently than you. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean that they aren't reasonable, well-read, thoughtful, people that have good reason to feel/think differently than you.
What's circular? You're free to not wear a mask on your own property. On somebody else's property you follow the other person's rules. On public property you follow public rules.
There are all kinds of rights that have nothing to do with what people can do on their own property. Read almost every amendment - many have to do with rights we have places outside our own personal property. The entire point of this discussion is about what we are allowed to do in places nobody "owns" - i.e. places the govt owns - because the govt's purpose is to serve the people after all. Your argument is hopelessly broken here. What if the government told you you didn't have the right to leave your property - even to get food for yourself. Too bad for you - you are only free to get food on your own property. You probably wouldn't like that I suspect.
Here's a more nuanced example: in Singapore, you will soon be required by law to carry a device that registers your checkins to all public locations (stores, schools, stations etc) and also uses Bluetooth to register your contacts: https://www.tracetogether.gov.sg/
Despite some notional safeguards, this is clearly a massive invasion of privacy. With an active pandemic, you can argue that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but as the pandemic wanes, at what point does the harm start to outweigh the good?
I wear a P100 respirator everywhere I go in public. According to every government on the planet, I am 100% kosher, but if I am infected, the exit valves on my mask will spread my virus far and wide.
Governments also routinely permit balaclavas, shemaghs, and other completely ineffective face coverings as valid for their poorly-considered statutes.
You worship the State, but your God will not save you. It never has, and it never will.
The CDC explicitly says not to use masks with exit valves [1] for that very reason. Some cities and counties have banned them [2]. American Airlines, and probably others, do not permit them on airplanes.
However, my point isn't that governments are successfully implementing effective mask mandates. They're not. My point is that I don't think people have a right to endanger others in public spaces. I think not wearing a mask is morally wrong. You should show more consideration for your fellow residents and get some proper, tight-fitting masks without valves, even if they're not as comfortable.
And while the "State" is slacking on enforcement, the grocery stores here have been good at tossing out people who aren't masked up. The social pressure has led to a lot of mask use. The 300-person wedding here that led to dozens of infections and several deaths has been named and shamed by the media, which should hopefully deter others. Society is much larger and more powerful than your "State," don't forget that.
I always heard that using that kind of language is more palpable to our right leaning citizens, used as trick to get them to fall in line for the greater good.
On a related side note I think Bill is right, so long as people are anti mask and anti vax these people will place a heavy burden on our economy and the death count of our fellow Americans.
And to the downvoters. Not wearing a mask or taking the shot isnt an attempt to take away freedom, civilization has agreed that its murder, and so long as people are willing to put others at risk over a minor inconvenience the economy will stunted and some of our more fragile Americans will die. If you dont like how things are right now its on you to change, deflecting or claiming some inalienable right doesnt work, it hasnt worked. You're hurting your country.
People are trying so hard with lockdowns to save the one demographic that is quite opposed to the lockdowns. Kind of ironic. Pretty sure those people would rather die than live in the sort of world liberals and politicians are making for them. How many old people died alone (regardless of whether it was from covid or not) because of lockdowns purported to save them... had the last months of their lives ruined because people were trying to save them.
Can the US spend money to speed this along? With a vaccine or two in hand, I don't see why we wouldn't do it if it is possible. We'd easily make back $50 billion or whatever, it's not even an economic question.
So I don't know if he is saying that lockdowns will "generally" continue on a global stage remain until 2022, or if he saying that there will be lockdowns "somewhere" in the world into 2022. Initially I take this to mean the former because of this statement in the article: "BILL Gates predicts global Covid-19 restrictions could last until 2022".
If this is the case could someone explain the reasoning here? The UK is expected to complete its vaccination program by April 2021 [1]. I can't imagine other Western countries will be very far behind them. I imagine the isolated nations such as AUS and NZ will allow travel with the necessary vaccination certificates [2].
I feel like I'm missing the link as to why lockdowns dragging on to 2022 is likely?
His main point seems to have been that the upcoming period will likely be worse than we've seen and that preventative measures like wearing masks, washing hands, and distancing will save lives.
I didn't see the context of the 2022 comment quoted in the article.
Using government force to limit freedom of people for “safety” - as if government existed to be served, rather than to serve and protect the rights of free citizens.
In Sweden where we have no lockdown or similar there are no more deaths this year than other years, clearly showing that forcing people to lock down is not only immoral, but also inefficient.
Article in English but statistics from the public statistics bureau (SCB).
I'm predicting a bit longer until laws start passing that mandate a legal requirement for all to get vaccinated for covid-19. I'm still unsure how long that will take, for it to come into law but I assume the vaccine will be pointless for stopping the virus spread and until everyone is being vaccinated. Basically, the ones that firstly get vaccinated will have to continue doing so until everyone if forced to follow. I could be wrong but I assume people not getting vaccinated will keep the virus going host to host and until the vaccination wears off; requiring another one and repeat.
87 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 194 ms ] threadhttps://www.modernatx.com/modernas-work-potential-vaccine-ag...
On November 22, the New York Times published a fascinating account of the race to produce a coronavirus vaccine. The Times report included a number of interesting facts, but one really grabbed my attention: It turns out that the Moderna vaccine, which was just shown to be 95 percent effective, was actually developed by the company in just two days in January 2020.
That’s right, they developed the vaccine in two days in January, but then needed to spend the following ten months performing tests in order to meet the FDA’s standards for vaccine safety and efficacy.
During those ten months, 1.3 million people, including a quarter million Americans, have died from the coronavirus.
From https://news.yahoo.com/release-vaccine-113037217.html
50% of Americans are apparently not willing to be vaccinated to begin with and rollout to significant parts of the population is going to take months.
While I'm obviously glad that vaccine development happened quickly, I really wish rather than being so focussed on vaccinations exclusively we paid more attention to the fact that some countries, Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia have managed to quell the disease through correct social policy and appropriate levels of social coordination.
If every disaster will rely on us conjuring up a panacea we'll be screwed sooner or later.
As for China, I don't think anybody trusts their figures, but it's also quite clear that they do have the outbreak well under control. If their ICUs were full, we'd know about it.
- a population that had experience with prior pandemics and was thus willing to play along
- a strong centralized government (this is a guess, and I'm not just talking about the power, but specifically the centralization - other nations that have states/provinces each implementing their own policies showed the dangers of that approach, e.g. USA, Switzerland, Germany)
- extremely aggressive contact tracing and enforced quarantine (for high risk cases, they were put in hotels or barracks, not told "please stay home"). Not just contacts but also contacts-of-contacts (the latter were only ordered to home quarantine).
AFAIK they didn't even have much of a shutdown, because the quarantining was so effective.
So is the UK, last time I checked they're not doing so hot either. You can add this kind of argumentation to the list of ailments. Geographic or some other sort of fatalism as an excuse for what is social failure.
Where you're located when a disease hits gives you either an advantage or a disadvantage, fair enough. But it doesn't explain away repeated and continuous inability to act. If NZ had acted like the UK, they'd look just the same. Once you've got community spread the virus doesn't care if you're on an island.
What exactly is social failure?
If there was actual compliance with relatively modest rules, that just demand that everyone acts with some sense and makes some small concessions, life could have gone on normally, with a lot of people still alive.
This was inevitable in atomized western societies with relatively high rates of health issues like obesity and diabetes. And how were you to muster people in these fractured societies to "comply"? There is no national identity or Philia. Consumerism only brings us so close. Diversity is our strength, remember?
>If there was actual compliance with relatively modest rules, that just demand that everyone acts with some sense and makes some small concessions, life could have gone on normally, with a lot of people still alive.
Citation needed.
Exactly. If the US population (for instance) had the community spirit to voluntarily comply with virus control measures, and the social cohesion to support those who couldn't work during that time, we probably would have gotten it under control and life would be something close to normal.
The people who make lockdowns necessary (and the subsequent economic damage) are the ones that fight them tooth and nail.
In the US we've had a single $1200 check. American families don't have the option to stop going to work and have to do anything they can.
It's no wonder this breeds resentment to anything the government says, including to wear masks.
COVID-19, which is now endemic, will be here for the remainder of my lifetime. The vaccines have unknowns. I see less risk for both myself and family with avoiding the vaccines until there is strong data about their efficacy and safety.
>While I'm obviously glad that vaccine development happened quickly, I really wish rather than being so focussed on vaccinations exclusively we paid more attention to the fact that some countries, Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia have managed to quell the disease through correct social policy and appropriate levels of social coordination.
They're either islands, took authoritarian measures, or both. And again, an endemic virus that will only come back as soon as international travel comes back and lockdowns go away.
We don't have long term data on either of course, but the data that has been collected so far paints a clear picture of safe, effective vaccines.
No.
Polio. And these COVID-19 vaccines do not grant indefinite immunity.
95% efficacy is not realistic. We struggle to hit 60% with influenza vaccines.
The flu is a very different virus, so it's not really a useful comparison (mutates faster, etc).
I guess there will be plenty of proof in the coming months (in either direction really, it will be reasonably clear if it works as well as has been stated).
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/...
In some perfect libertarian society, where I could tell that I got sick from you, I'd settle things by suing the pants off you. But that's not the real world. Your choices affect me, and society's restrictions are how we set that balance.
Funny how similar it sounds to the argument for “restricting carbon emissions”, another thing that people naturally exhale.
IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.
If you were in a region with Ebola you would wash hands, wear a mask and more. And for 300k dead Americans, this essentially was Ebola. Right now is a once in a hundred year event where the whole world has to endure this pandemic. These are temporary steps that no one takes lightly to make the future better.
Who are you to say a grandparent is not enjoying the best years of their life seeing their children raise children, or a great grandparent for that matter? And, children may well enjoy sharing the experience of parenthood with their parents, so the premature loss of one life can hurt many people.
Your whole take is based on a bunch of assumptions that everyone is miserable towards the end of their lives, that children and community feel no loss when elders die, and that just is not true. Life takes on a different meaning as we grow, and no age is of less worth.
Again, who are you to make such assumptions? You don't know the ongoings of other peoples' lives or how they feel.
Despite some notional safeguards, this is clearly a massive invasion of privacy. With an active pandemic, you can argue that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but as the pandemic wanes, at what point does the harm start to outweigh the good?
Governments also routinely permit balaclavas, shemaghs, and other completely ineffective face coverings as valid for their poorly-considered statutes.
You worship the State, but your God will not save you. It never has, and it never will.
However, my point isn't that governments are successfully implementing effective mask mandates. They're not. My point is that I don't think people have a right to endanger others in public spaces. I think not wearing a mask is morally wrong. You should show more consideration for your fellow residents and get some proper, tight-fitting masks without valves, even if they're not as comfortable.
And while the "State" is slacking on enforcement, the grocery stores here have been good at tossing out people who aren't masked up. The social pressure has led to a lot of mask use. The 300-person wedding here that led to dozens of infections and several deaths has been named and shamed by the media, which should hopefully deter others. Society is much larger and more powerful than your "State," don't forget that.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2020/05/26...
On a related side note I think Bill is right, so long as people are anti mask and anti vax these people will place a heavy burden on our economy and the death count of our fellow Americans.
And to the downvoters. Not wearing a mask or taking the shot isnt an attempt to take away freedom, civilization has agreed that its murder, and so long as people are willing to put others at risk over a minor inconvenience the economy will stunted and some of our more fragile Americans will die. If you dont like how things are right now its on you to change, deflecting or claiming some inalienable right doesnt work, it hasnt worked. You're hurting your country.
TL;DR: Large parts of the world won't have vaccines available to the general population until 2023.
If this is the case could someone explain the reasoning here? The UK is expected to complete its vaccination program by April 2021 [1]. I can't imagine other Western countries will be very far behind them. I imagine the isolated nations such as AUS and NZ will allow travel with the necessary vaccination certificates [2].
I feel like I'm missing the link as to why lockdowns dragging on to 2022 is likely?
1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccin...
2: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/qantas-coronavirus-va...
I didn't see the context of the 2022 comment quoted in the article.
In Sweden where we have no lockdown or similar there are no more deaths this year than other years, clearly showing that forcing people to lock down is not only immoral, but also inefficient.
Article in English but statistics from the public statistics bureau (SCB).
https://emanuelkarlsten.se/number-of-deaths-in-sweden-during...
It can also not be moral to use force to stop free people from meeting, as my government now intends to do