Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[damianham]

Well.... I can't swing by this convo without adding my 2 sheckels.

The world is hoping that a vaccine will arrive and we can all get back to our normal lives. A vaccine is a small dose of the virus so that the body builds up immunity. There is another way to build immunity.... contract the real virus and survive it. 80% of those infected will notice no symptoms. only 1% of those infected will need hospital treatment and a small percentage of those will not survive.

Who are the 80% and who are the 1% ? The 80% is everyone under 50 apart from a few people with serious underlying illness. The 1% are the elderly and vulnerable and people with underlying health problems. Herd immunity is the best defence against the virus, is the policy being followed by Sweden and was the original aim of the British government until they lost their backbone and caved in to media pressure for a lockdown. The UK lockdown has relieved the pressure on the NHS but it has also extended the time for the herd to acquire immunity. To lockdown 80% of the population that were at minimal risk and stop them acquiring herd immunity leaves the door open for future waves to attack the vulnerable population. It is the first time in history the healthy have been placed in quarantine and it is counter productive.

The whole world is living in fear of something that will not affect the vast majority and there is a reason for that. Fear creates opportunity. People who are scared will gladly give up their rights and freedoms in order to be saved from a nasty virus that MSM is telling them is deadly. Is anyone going to profit from this pandemic? Like maybe someone who has a vaccine to sell to the world? Like someone who is not a doctor nor an epidemiologist but has come up with a vaccine that hasn't been tested and BTW needs indemnification against any adverse reactions? Asking for a friend....

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by tp12

There are plenty of people making the argument that locking down is too costly to both the economy and people. Recent posters have short memories of making that exact argument and alluding to the cost to the economy of depression and suicides as a result of locking down. But that appears standard. The article puts a lot of that nonsense to bed, anyway.



Additionally, if a government doesn't know what the long term prospects look like in terms of deaths then they should be taking measures to limit deaths now. That should be obvious.

The government (or anyone else) doesn't know bull spit; that is a big part of the problem.

I get my health care from the VA. I had my scheduled dental cleaning and checkup postponed a couple of months ago. While I try and take care of my teeth this delay could result in dental problems that will wind up costing in the long run. More of concern to me is I have had melanoma in the past and had the check up with the dermatologist postponed as well. In the past she would look at something and break out the liquid nitrogen to freeze it off, or maybe shave off a sample and send it in for testing if she thought it was needed. I have noticed something I was going to point out to her, but I will have to wait a while longer to do that.

Truth be told these are minor problems but there have been well documented reports of folks missing chemo needed for their cancer treatment; same goes for lots of other non COVID-19 medical needs. No question hospitals are suffering from only being able to treat COVID-19 and emergency care. By some estimates half the doctors/nurses/health care support peeps have been laid off or had pay cuts. Hospitals have lost billions in revenue. Not to mention even more billions being lost in the general economy due to the shutdown.

Like I posted no one really knows bull spit about the true numbers of the lives lost due to COVID-19 verses lives lost due to what the shutdown has done to medical care. I am not trying to make an argument pro or con about a shutdown verses letting things opening up. Rather I am saying no one knows enough to make any arguments one way or another.

What we do know is there are real hot spots like NY, NJ, Conn, and a few other localized areas that have more COVID-19 deaths than the rest of the US combined. This seems to be true of other countries as well. Yet the effects of the shutdown have hamstrung the entire country and hurt lots of folks who have little or no exposure to the virus.

Maybe more to the point we do know the huge majority of the deaths from COVID-19 have been folks over 60, most of those over 80, with underlying health issues.

There have also been some obvious mistakes. Once NY stopped the silly policy of sending COVID-19 vics back to the old folks home where the came from when they were released from the hospital deaths in NY dropped dramatically. Any Monday morning QB would say Cuomo would have been better off sending the old folks to the massive number of empty hospital beds in NYC set aside for COVID-19 patients.

Trying to come up with a one size fits all solution is a big part of the problem. There need to be multiple solutions based on the geographical reality on the ground.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by damianham

Well.... I can't swing by this convo without adding my 2 sheckels.

The world is hoping that a vaccine will arrive and we can all get back to our normal lives. A vaccine is a small dose of the virus so that the body builds up immunity. There is another way to build immunity.... contract the real virus and survive it. 80% of those infected will notice no symptoms. only 1% of those infected will need hospital treatment and a small percentage of those will not survive.

Who are the 80% and who are the 1% ? The 80% is everyone under 50 apart from a few people with serious underlying illness. The 1% are the elderly and vulnerable and people with underlying health problems. Herd immunity is the best defence against the virus, is the policy being followed by Sweden and was the original aim of the British government until they lost their backbone and caved in to media pressure for a lockdown. The UK lockdown has relieved the pressure on the NHS but it has also extended the time for the herd to acquire immunity. To lockdown 80% of the population that were at minimal risk and stop them acquiring herd immunity leaves the door open for future waves to attack the vulnerable population. It is the first time in history the healthy have been placed in quarantine and it is counter productive.

The whole world is living in fear of something that will not affect the vast majority and there is a reason for that. Fear creates opportunity. People who are scared will gladly give up their rights and freedoms in order to be saved from a nasty virus that MSM is telling them is deadly. Is anyone going to profit from this pandemic? Like maybe someone who has a vaccine to sell to the world? Like someone who is not a doctor nor an epidemiologist but has come up with a vaccine that hasn't been tested and BTW needs indemnification against any adverse reactions? Asking for a friend....

I think this is a really intelligent comment. Thanks for weighing in


I would only just like to comment on the herd immunity idea. Don't confuse herd immunity with natural immunity. Herd immunity is when enough of the population has immunity, either natural or vaccinations, to stop the paths of infection so that the disease can't spread. It's like putting the graphite rods into a nuclear reactor. Immune people are the graphite rods -- infections can't spread through them, like neutrons can't spread through graphite rods.


I think all the experts agree that this disease is nasty enough that if we just took no measures and just let it spread in an uncontrolled fashion, that an unecessarily large number of people would die before we ever get to herd immunity. So just ignoring the disease and letting it spread in an uncontrolled fashion is not a policy which any country is following, and right they are. It is not the policy the Swedes are following, which even their critics say. We will not achieve herd immunity anywhere, in any country, this year, with or without any lockdown.



But where you are definitely right is in that there are huge corrupt influences on policy through fear or political desire to appear to be taking bold action. Whether these influences have totally perverted policy or not -- we don't know yet. We don't know whether lockdowns are completely useless or not, but they could be. Your arguments have merit.



You have to love the Swedes in all of this. What an awesome political culture; makes me as an American feel positively ashamed. They have taken a view on the science, and their view on the science may be right or it may be wrong, but they made this decision based on science and they have the utter balls to stick with it without wavering despite the intense fear-driven political pressure to just do like what everyone else is doing, which is always the politically safe choice. At one point even the Prime Minister disagreed with the policy! But they are so institutionally committed to science over politics, that even the Prime Minister's disapproval, didn't change the line. The Prime Minister has come around since then, by the way

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tomfl

The government (or anyone else) doesn't know bull spit; that is a big part of the problem. . . .

Like I posted no one really knows bull spit about the true numbers of the lives lost due to COVID-19 verses lives lost due to what the shutdown has done to medical care. I am not trying to make an argument pro or con about a shutdown verses letting things opening up. Rather I am saying no one knows enough to make any arguments one way or another. . ..

Trying to come up with a one size fits all solution is a big part of the problem. There need to be multiple solutions based on the geographical reality on the ground.

You are 100%, no 1000% correct, sir We know very little -- as you say! -- but what you say, are some of the few things we do know for sure

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Many of those people who signed that much talked-about petition have since changed their mind .

The podcast was from recent interviews and data, did you even listen to it? . Still your bias is strong as ever which you fail to admit. They thrust of the podcast was that swedes did *not* listen to the available science.
If they get off lightly it wasn't from listening to science, likely the fact that the public behaved beyond the measures requested by the gov will have a factor. Portugal has similar population, went hard early and has 1263 deaths so far,Sweden 3831. Sweden no. 6 in Europe for deaths/population. Not going that well for them.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

The podcast was from recent interviews and data, did you even listen to it? . Still your bias is strong as ever which you fail to admit. They thrust of the podcast was that swedes did *not* listen to the available science.
If they get off lightly it wasn't from listening to science, likely the fact that the public behaved beyond the measures requested by the gov will have a factor. Portugal has similar population, went hard early and has 1263 deaths so far,Sweden 3831. Sweden no. 6 in Europe for deaths/population. Not going that well for them.

It's too early to make the final talley. Whether this crisis has "gone well" for this or that country will not be judged by how many people died as of today, but how many people die by the end of the whole thing, and what it cost to get there. Whether or not all countries will end up the same in terms of total deaths, as many scientists say -- we don't know. But what we do know for damned sure is that the dying has only just begun. The Swedes are not loosening anything and there is no reason for an increase in the infection rate. But others are already forced to loosen -- what's next? Read the Harvard study which describes in vast detail, what the implications of that loosening after hard lockdown may be. They say it may be worse than an uncontrolled epidemic. Did you read it? No one deserves to have an opinion, who is too lazy to read the basic materials, like the two biggest and most important studies on the dynamics of the epidemic, the Imperial College one from March, and the Harvard one from a couple of weeks ago. We shall see how it all turns out. Way too soon to say "not going well" for this or that country.



I did listen to the podcast and I disagree with it. Whether the Swedes have got the right science or the wrong science is one thing, but for damned sure they have made a call based on science and not based on politics. The absence of politics is the striking thing about the Swedish response. For sure the courageous thing is to do that thing which is not what others have done, which does not pander to fear. That does not mean it is necessarily the right thing -- we can't know that yet -- but it is definitely the courageous thing which definitely goes counter to self-interest and politics. No wonder they tattoo Tegnell's face on their biceps. This crisis is a great test of political culture, and many countries will be found wanting. As an American, I am blushing.

[barnakiel]

I was born in Central Europe but I lived and worked in a Nordic country (Sweden) before we elected to live in an African/Med/EU country (Spain).


From this mixed experience I can give you one, hopefully helpful to somebody, insight.


When a Nordic country says they will do this or that, they make a clear and understandable regulation, publish it, and that's that. They oblige by it, and you (the guest) are expected to oblige alike.


When a Med country says they will do X, they promise, you never see that regulation and when something is finally published, you soon discover it is full of loopholes and nobody seems to care much. As long as you do not disturb their lunch break.


Why do I say all this. To point our attention to the fact that when in fact countries up there arrive at a conclusion as to how much tourism they need in summer 2020, they will simply publish the information in relevant media.


Bad news? Nordic countries do not need tourism as much as the Southern states.



This is in fact a most comfortable situation to a cruiser. Wait, read, apply.


We will know in advance which country has what rules and requirements, and we are fine to cruise, or not, as they see it fit.


Not quite bliss and freedom, but at least the discomfort is quantified, and our decision making is simplified.



b.

[Montanan]

"Swedish antibody study shows long road to immunity as COVID-19 toll mounts. A Swedish study found that just 7.3 percent of Stockholmers developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, which could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.
The strategy was championed by Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, whose recommendation for voluntary measures against the virus, rather than a mandatory lockdown like those imposed by many other countries, has divided opinion at home and abroad.
Sweden's strategy of keeping most schools, restaurants, bars and businesses open even as much of Europe hunkered down behind closed doors exposed it to criticism with death rates running far higher than in Nordic neighbours, even if much lower than in countries such as Britain, Italy and France that shut down.
The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care in Sweden has fallen by a third from the peak in late April and health authorities say the outbreak is slowing. However, Sweden has recorded the highest number of COVID-19 deaths per capita in Europe over the last seven days.
The antibody study sought to look into the potential for herd immunity, a situation where enough people in a population have developed immunity to an infection to be able to effectively stop that disease from spreading."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedish-a...192817245.html

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by damianham

Well.... I can't swing by this convo without adding my 2 sheckels.

The world is hoping that a vaccine will arrive and we can all get back to our normal lives. A vaccine is a small dose of the virus so that the body builds up immunity. There is another way to build immunity.... contract the real virus and survive it. 80% of those infected will notice no symptoms. only 1% of those infected will need hospital treatment and a small percentage of those will not survive.

Who are the 80% and who are the 1% ? The 80% is everyone under 50 apart from a few people with serious underlying illness. The 1% are the elderly and vulnerable and people with underlying health problems. Herd immunity is the best defence against the virus, is the policy being followed by Sweden and was the original aim of the British government until they lost their backbone and caved in to media pressure for a lockdown. The UK lockdown has relieved the pressure on the NHS but it has also extended the time for the herd to acquire immunity. To lockdown 80% of the population that were at minimal risk and stop them acquiring herd immunity leaves the door open for future waves to attack the vulnerable population. It is the first time in history the healthy have been placed in quarantine and it is counter productive.

Early on in the outbreak, many people dismissed COVID-19 as a mostly harmless virus. Most people believed if they got it, it would be pretty mild and easy to recover from — “only” the eldery and those with pre-existing conditions were at risk. https://themighty.com/2020/03/covid-...n=in-text-link

However, COVID-19 can affect anyone:

COVID-19 seems to cause a severe multi-system immune response in some children and teenagers that can be fatal in rare cases
https://themighty.com/2020/05/covid-...n=in-text-link

A CDC report from late March found that nearly 40% of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in the U.S. were under age 55
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...n=in-text-link

CDC case counts suggest approximately 74% of confirmed COVID-10 cases in the U.S. are among people between age 18 and 64.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...n=in-text-link

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

"Swedish antibody study shows long road to immunity as COVID-19 toll mounts. A Swedish study found that just 7.3 percent of Stockholmers developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, which could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.
The strategy was championed by Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, whose recommendation for voluntary measures against the virus, rather than a mandatory lockdown like those imposed by many other countries, has divided opinion at home and abroad.
Sweden's strategy of keeping most schools, restaurants, bars and businesses open even as much of Europe hunkered down behind closed doors exposed it to criticism with death rates running far higher than in Nordic neighbours, even if much lower than in countries such as Britain, Italy and France that shut down.
The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care in Sweden has fallen by a third from the peak in late April and health authorities say the outbreak is slowing. However, Sweden has recorded the highest number of COVID-19 deaths per capita in Europe over the last seven days.
The antibody study sought to look into the potential for herd immunity, a situation where enough people in a population have developed immunity to an infection to be able to effectively stop that disease from spreading."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedish-a...192817245.html

One of the biggest questions about this disease, one of the things we don't know "bull spit" about, and need to know, is how many people have been infected. Without knowing this, we don't understand a lot of things, we don't understand how dangerous the disease is, we don't understand how quickly immunity is being built up in populations. The fundamental problem is that we don't test enough people to have good enough data.


There have been different studies to try to figure this out, and results are all over the map. Some studies were showing a much higher rate of undetected infections than anyone thought (the Danish blood donor tests for example), which would have been really good news -- would mean that the disease is less fatal than we thought and would mean that we are further along in acquiring immunity.



But a bunch of other studies have thrown cold water on that hopeful picture, showing that not that many people have been infected, which means we are less far along in this epidemic and that the disease itself is more dangerous.


We still don't know for sure, but there is no reason to hope that it will be over soon. Not a single expert I've read lately -- and I've read a lot -- thinks it will be over anywhere, this year. The Harvard study is really interesting but rather frightening -- shows that there will likely be successive waves of the disease, not just a second wave, and we may be in for a long haul.


Note that if it's really true that such a small number of people has had the disease, and there is really such a low level of immunity in all populations, this is really bad news for the whole world. It means that second waves will be vicious, it means that Europe, and those places like New York, which have suffered the highest death rates, will not have gained much immunity yet, it means that costly initial lockdowns in other parts of the world, may not have accomplished much.



Journalists are almost always confused about what is "herd immunity" and what role it plays in policy. No one since March has believed that we will easily reach herd immunity or that we can get there by doing nothing. The article above totally mischaracterizes the Swedish policy, which is not indeed to do nothing and just let the epidemic proceed and immunize the population that way and has never been that. Read what the authorities in Sweden were saying back in March, and listen to the interview with Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, a critic of Swedish policy, says about it. The Swedish policy, which is very similar to policies in neighboring countries, has been to slow down the epidemic by different social distancing measures, but not to do it with a too heavy hand, because (a) the science shows, in the view of the scientists in the Swedish health authorities, that it is futile to slow it down too much; and (b) the means used to slow down the epidemic must be sustainable, so that they can be maintained over a long period of time, even years, if necessary.


I recommend to everyone to read less journalism, and more scientific literature. The quality of the journalism is mostly appalling. You cannot gain a meaningful understanding of what is going on, by reading Yahoo.



In fact the measures taken in Sweden have resulted in a great deal of social distancing has occurred in Sweden, behavior has been profoundly changed, and there has been a dramatic slowing of the epidemic in Sweden. Whether it's enough slowing, or not enough, or too much -- the science is not yet clear. We shall see. For possible trajectories of the epidemic, see the Harvard study. The Harvard study clearly shows that too slow progress of the epidemic COULD be disastrously dangerous in some countries. By the end of this year, Sweden COULD be much better off than other countries -- if it avoids by the sustainability of its measures the vicious second wave which MAY be waiting for other countries in the autumn. Or not. We don't know yet.


The risk Sweden has, together with a long list of European countries in which the epidemic has progressed relatively far, is that TOO MANY people are infected, for contact tracing to work well -- IF that turns out to be the main means we use in the next phase. This is the main point which Neil Ferguson, a critic of Swedish policy, makes. In any case, there is no way Sweden or any other country will be finished with the epidemic this year -- we are all too far from a sufficient level of population immunity to completely stop the disease. So the big question for all these countries is whether the rate of new infection can be kept to an acceptable level, using means which are practically possible.



Countries which went through hard and costly lockdowns before the disease progressed very far have a different risk -- they cannot afford to continue hard measures, but there is no immunity in the population, which remains very vulnerable. If no more sustainable method like contact tracing is implemented quickly enough to stop the next wave of the epidemic, then the next wave can be overwhelming (according to Harvard, can even be worse than the uncontrolled epidemic), and the country will be helpless to stop it, because hard lockdown can no longer be implemented.



The optimistic scenario for Sweden is that their methods continue to work, their methods stay in place so there is no second wave (this is tricky, because the methods are mostly voluntary, so the population might just stop doing it), r0 stays around 1 or below as it has been for some weeks now, deaths fall off (we already see a sharp reduction in hospitalizations, so we should see a fall in deaths soon), and eventually we will have a vaccine. Or the virus eventually mutates and becomes endemic and we learn to live with it. Or contact tracing or some other second phase method of supressing the disease can be added to the existing methods to suppress the epidemic further. The pessimistic scenario for Sweden is that their methods don't work as well as they seem to be working now, or people start refusing to comply with them, and the disease continues to spread or accelerates, and cannot be suppressed because there are too many vectors of transmission already.


The optimistic scenario for countries (or states) now coming out of hard lockdown is that there is a fast transition to a better method of suppressing the disease, and it works. If we believe Ferguson, who I must say makes a convincing case, then those countries which kept the rate of infections low, will have a better chance with this than countries like Spain, Italy, UK, New York which had BOTH hard lockdown AND a high rate of infections. But we don't know whether Ferguson is right about this. Others would say that those countries or states have more vulnerable populations, and will have more vicious second and third waves. Harvard is really explicit about how this might work. What we do know is that hard lockdown is unsustainable, and one way or another, those countries which have been in hard lockdown will have to transition to other methods.



I guess a real test of the quality of policy will be how well countries used the time bought with hard lockdown, to prepare for the next phase. It seems to me that all roads forward lead through testing, testing, and more testing, without which we neither understand the disease, nor can we make much of a dent with contact tracing. As we come out of hard lockdown, are we ready to test a significant portion of the population every week? Some countries are getting there, but others are not.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Early on in the outbreak, many people dismissed COVID-19 as a mostly harmless virus. Most people believed if they got it, it would be pretty mild and easy to recover from — “only” the eldery and those with pre-existing conditions were at risk. https://themighty.com/2020/03/covid-...n=in-text-link

However, COVID-19 can affect anyone:

COVID-19 seems to cause a severe multi-system immune response in some children and teenagers that can be fatal in rare cases
https://themighty.com/2020/05/covid-...n=in-text-link

A CDC report from late March found that nearly 40% of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in the U.S. were under age 55
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...n=in-text-link

CDC case counts suggest approximately 74% of confirmed COVID-10 cases in the U.S. are among people between age 18 and 64.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...n=in-text-link

Well, it is true that the disease is not "mostly harmless", and is not "just like the flu". I had COVID-19 in January, and I can tell you it's like no flu you ever had. It was the sickest I've ever been in my life, and the longest lasting sickness I ever had, and if I did not have generally robust health it would have been lights out. You wouldn't wish this disease on your worst enemy.


But at the same time, it is also true that this disease is not like the Spanish Flu, which killed large numbers of young and healthy people. This disease kills some people of all ages and all states of health, but kills strikingly few people who are young and healthy. Not just "young", but under 65. The mean age of killed people in Northern Europe is 85.


The key words here, however are "and healthy", not just "young". The disease is extremely dangerous for obese and diabetic people. So in countries with prevalance of these conditions -- like the U.S. -- young people will not be spared to the same degree as they are in Europe.

[barnakiel]

Expected slow down split by state. I do not think the general public understands the meaning of the figures.


That's why the general public will be hit worst.


https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/...mal/16934.jpeg


run ...



Cheers,
b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Expected slow down split by state. I do not think the general public understands the meaning of the figures.

That's why the general public will be hit worst.

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/...mal/16934.jpeg

run ...

Cheers,
b.

This is a shocking, dreadful picture. This is the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, sharper than the Great Depression. God help us.


Someone in one of these threads argued something like -- if we don't know how dangerous the disease is, we should just take the stronger measures to be sure. Well, it can't be that simple. What if the stronger measures are causing these economic consequences? You could say the same thing about the economy -- if we don't know how much economic devastation there will be, then we need to err on the side of caution and use the least destructive measures.



You can't do policy either this way or that way, because you can't ignore either the health danger or the economic danger. The two things are inseparable, because if you destroy the livings of a big proportion of the population, if you destroy the jobs of 1/4 of the whole population, you can destroy the health care system and even food security of an even bigger part of the population. You can kill millions of people, maybe even kill them directly through hunger or disease.



There has to be a balance. This is a policy Skylla and Charybis, which mankind has to navigate on a dark moonless night, with no radar. There are no easy answers.

[Exile]

No easy answers indeed. Here's a recently published letter from 600 physicians urging the lifting of lockdowns.

https://www.ibtimes.com/coronavirus-...ckdown-2979938

This particular article lists 3 key points which, when taken together, are emblematic of the pros & cons of the lockdowns, and as Dockhead has repeatedly pointed out so articulately, reflect the terrible dilemma facing policymakers:

* A letter signed by 600 doctors was sent to President Donald Trump asking him to end the nationwide lockdowns

* There are "exponentially growing health consequences" if patients can't leave their homes, the letter mentioned

* But Dr. Anthony Fauci testified that more "suffering and death" could happen if the U.S. reopens

[barnakiel]

Yes.


A deep and prolonged slow down very likely for EU economy. I guess not much better outlook elsewhere. It is all linked now.



There is always hope for the Nordic parts that have relatively high 'work and save' culture still somewhat present. But cases like Greece, Italy or Spain, I fear to think. I can only think that perhaps the forecasts are blacker that the reality will be.


What I fear most is that this 'stay home and get paid for that' situation will further demoralize already not at all too high morale here (in the EU South).


It hurts me to say this, as we live here because we do love the benevolent attitude, the openness of local people. Still, if I were to bet money on economies, I see the North pulling thru, much as it will take a big effort and plenty of social tensions. But not the South. Not this time.



My worries are not made any less when I read that the Nordic states have already opposed the Franco-German proposal to issue EU debt to be given (non-return basis) to the Southern economies. In fact at least one Northern country voiced this along the lines of "not helping AGAIN countries that did not care to get prepared for bad times". A brutal statement that exposes (for the n'th time) the gaping and widening chasm between North and South of the EU.


I am truly sad because of this situation and I do feel for the Southern states. Even as I mentally understand and share the hard worded Northern concerns.


I would say this is the end of the EU as we know it. And I do not feel fine.


b.