I suppose so, if you look at the exacerbation of economic inequality, starvation (+15 million worldwide), and deaths of despair caused by the lockdowns and associated interventions. Seemingly no one minds that.

In the US, pandemic mitigation dropped poverty numbers drastically.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/business/economy/income-p...

Going back up now.

Sweden never locked down and has one of the lowest covid death rates overall now.

They just had a very sparse population and the highest rate of single-occupancy housing...

And socialized medicine.

Really, what a fine example for e.g. New York to follow!

Sweden has twice the death rate as its closest neighbors (both geographically and culturally), Norway and Denmark. Note that the differences in policy between Sweden and other European countries were largest early on in the pandemic, and the differences in Sweden's death rate then were even more extreme.

In a broader international comparison, Sweden (and Europe generally) did not fare well. Countries that took a zero-CoVID approach, such as China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Singapore ended up with much lower death rates, because most of them vaccinated their populations before allowing the virus to spread.

I think you've made this point at least 50 times in as many COVID threads and you've been refuted at least as many times, why do you keep doing this?

I highly recommend everyone who wonders why people do this to read the 'Conspiracy Theory Handbook'. Unlike what the title suggests, it is a very brief primer into the psychological research done by Cook and others on conspiracy thinking, mostly from the perspective of climate science denial: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/handbook/the-cons...

One of the key traits of conspiracy thinking is immunity-to-evidence:

"Conspiracy theories are inherently self-healing, evidence that counters a theory is re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy. This reflects the belief that the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy (e.g., the FBI exonerating a politician from allegations of misusing a personal email server), the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (e.g., the FBI was part of the conspiracy to protect that politician)"

Most discussions around depopulation get bogged down in emotional or ethical arguments. To clarify, ethical considerations aren't distractions; they drive the pragmatic actions of all parties involved. It's even feasible to consider the most ethical—perhaps fully democratic—means of implementing such plans. However, it's worth noting there's a historical tolerance limit beyond which future generations may not be kind to the architects of such initiatives.

The real crux isn't whether some advocate for lower populations—clearly, many do—but the operational aspect: who executes, under what authority, and how? For instance, if a group of biologists and engineers aim to reduce Earth's population to 4 billion by 2400, the implications—like fewer children and potential space colonization—are vastly different than a group of anthropological philosophers striving for the same population count by 2033, which could necessitate more drastic measures.

These logistical issues, whether it's stealth tactics versus open methods or the necessity of opportunistic partnerships, remain conspicuously underexplored.