Neither of the text links you posted support what you say, rather the opposite. Do either Tom Britton or Johan Giesecke speak for FHM? I didn’t care to watch the 35 minute YouTube video to figure out what it says.
A lot of people have been talking about herd immunity, but FHM has been quite clear from the start that they don’t think herd immunity will make Corona go away.
A lot of people have been talking about herd immunity, but
FHM has been quite clear from the start that they don’t
think herd immunity will make Corona go away.
You are quite simply wrong.
Here is an interview with Anders Tegnell from 16. march:
Flockimmunitet skulle därmed även kunna bli aktuellt i Sverige.
– Vi har varit lite försiktiga med att använda det ordet för det andas ju lite att man har gett upp och det är ju inte alls det som det är frågan om, säger Anders Tegnell.
– Men grundtanken börjar nog bli mer och mer relevant ju mer vi ser av det här viruset, att det är dit vi behöver komma. Vi kommer inte att få kontroll på det på något annat sätt.
Translation:
Herd immunity could therefore also be relevant for Sweden
- We have been a little careful using that word [herd immunity], as it sounds a little like we have given up, and that's not true at all, says Tegnell.
- But the basic idea becomes more and more relevant the more we see of this virus. We need to reach herd immunity. We are not going to be able to control this virus in any other way.
Tom Britton's research is used to base the policy of the Swedish health organization on, but he doesn't speak for them. In Johan Giesecke's case it's more difficult since he charges them for some of his interviews, so I lean more towards yes.
You don't have to watch the entire video, you can just read the summary below the video.
In Sweden the policy is to mostly let people do what they want (at least when compared to other countries), unless they're in a risk group then they should take some additional measures. You expose people that don't have a big risk of getting seriously ill to a disease, they become immune and the risk group can reduce their additional measures. I would say that's pretty similar to herd immunity even without it being explicitly called that. Right now I think that's an acceptable strategy[0], when this started there maybe were too many unknowns to go down this route?
[0] There are some unstated assumptions here such as how long people would be immune against it, how many people have serious complications afterwards but don't die and so on, so it's definitely debatable.
My understanding is that the objective is to suppress the spread enough so that the healthcare system doesn’t get overwhelmed while at the same time not have harder restrictions than that people can live with them for a long time, many months and most likely a couple of years. The virus ain’t going anywhere, at least until we have a vaccine. Considering it’s a relative to some viruses that causes common colds, it’s not a given there will be any vaccines.
A lot of people have been talking about herd immunity, but FHM has been quite clear from the start that they don’t think herd immunity will make Corona go away.