4 ms·

> The reports of “business as usual in Sweden” are exaggerated. The end results are pretty similar across Scandinavia despite approaches being officially differ

> The reports of “business as usual in Sweden” are exaggerated. The end results are pretty similar across Scandinavia despite approaches being officially different. In France, we have a stricter lockdown (e.g. we're not allowed to wander to more than 1km from our home - which is BS in my opinion). I'm wondering if the bulk of the measures is enough: closing school, restaurants, preventing gathering and so on... If this is the case, I don't expect different outcome in Sweden compared to other western countries.

alkonaut 7y ago
I think only time will tell, and it will be hard to tell even in hindsight. I think the most important ones are the ones you can't really enforce. Like "wash your hands". Most importantly "stay at home if you are sick even if just slightly". That one is hard to enforce but easy to encourage: ensure everyone has good paid sick leave from day one and has zero risk of losing their jobs even if they are sick a long time.
renox 7y ago
Why do you think its BS? You know that the hospitals are saturated and that they have to choose who they give respirators and who they 'let die'..
- alkonaut 7y ago
  I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself. If there is a positive effect it’s due to something secondary, such as people that are allowed further than 1km might get on a bus, or might go to a different shop with too many people. But still: it’s a ban of going out in nature, at a time when basically everything else is banned but going out in nature is safe and healthy. It should be encouraged! ICUs being overfilled isn’t an argument for why millions of people can’t walk in the forest.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    In other words, it's not "outside" that is risky right now, it's "others".
  - jmalicki 7y ago
    "I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself." Californian here. The problem with driving to a forest to take a walk is that everyone is doing it, and thus the forests get pretty crowded, so they've clamped down on that too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-california-arizona-social-distancing-a9423056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...
    - yencabulator 7y ago
      That's highly dependent on the area, though. Near a 10+ million population city? Sure, it would get crowded. I have something like a 100 square miles of public lands right next to my house, and see another person there perhaps once a week. Such restrictions might make perfect sense near you, but not near the person you are responding to.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  covid-19 is not airborne, going out for a run or just enjoying nature is perfectly fine and should probably be encouraged given that people are going stir-crazy in their apartments.
- yodsanklai 7y ago
  I'm not saying that confinement is BS. Social distancing will make a difference. Forbidding people to walk more than 1km from their home won't. I understand that this situation has to be taken very seriously, but my point is that we shouldn't accept all lockdown measures blindly. Some make sense, but others are more debatable. All other countries face the same issue, and most didn't go as far as us (France). (BTW, french hospitals aren't saturated, except in a few places in the country. For instance, there are very few cases in my area, and this is after two weeks of lockdown, so we don't expect a significant rise at that stage. hopefully)
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    Social distancing reduce spread among local community, movement restrictions reduce spread between communities.
- Legogris 7y ago
  While I am quite concerned with people who take unnecessary risk and ignore restrictions, there're quite a few people who take this to mind-boggling extremes. The biggest "Expats in Paris" FB group had the admin do a long rant-sticky about being sick of people flaunting restrictions, resulting in overloading hospitals, specifically naming "solitary bicycle rides" as unacceptable, which I think is just across the line of hysteria. (Yes, it's forbidden, which does not mean it increases the risk of spread)

alkonaut 7y ago

I think only time will tell, and it will be hard to tell even in hindsight. I think the most important ones are the ones you can't really enforce. Like "wash your hands". Most importantly "stay at home if you are sick even if just slightly". That one is hard to enforce but easy to encourage: ensure everyone has good paid sick leave from day one and has zero risk of losing their jobs even if they are sick a long time.

renox 7y ago

Why do you think its BS? You know that the hospitals are saturated and that they have to choose who they give respirators and who they 'let die'..

alkonaut 7y ago
I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself. If there is a positive effect it’s due to something secondary, such as people that are allowed further than 1km might get on a bus, or might go to a different shop with too many people. But still: it’s a ban of going out in nature, at a time when basically everything else is banned but going out in nature is safe and healthy. It should be encouraged! ICUs being overfilled isn’t an argument for why millions of people can’t walk in the forest.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  In other words, it's not "outside" that is risky right now, it's "others".
- jmalicki 7y ago
  "I assume he thinks it’s BS because there is no way someone driving away to a forest to take a walk is a higher risk of spread than someone walking within 1km from their home. So banning walks in nature can’t have much effect in itself." Californian here. The problem with driving to a forest to take a walk is that everyone is doing it, and thus the forests get pretty crowded, so they've clamped down on that too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-california-arizona-social-distancing-a9423056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronaviru...
  - yencabulator 7y ago
    That's highly dependent on the area, though. Near a 10+ million population city? Sure, it would get crowded. I have something like a 100 square miles of public lands right next to my house, and see another person there perhaps once a week. Such restrictions might make perfect sense near you, but not near the person you are responding to.
Barrin92 7y ago
covid-19 is not airborne, going out for a run or just enjoying nature is perfectly fine and should probably be encouraged given that people are going stir-crazy in their apartments.
yodsanklai 7y ago
I'm not saying that confinement is BS. Social distancing will make a difference. Forbidding people to walk more than 1km from their home won't. I understand that this situation has to be taken very seriously, but my point is that we shouldn't accept all lockdown measures blindly. Some make sense, but others are more debatable. All other countries face the same issue, and most didn't go as far as us (France). (BTW, french hospitals aren't saturated, except in a few places in the country. For instance, there are very few cases in my area, and this is after two weeks of lockdown, so we don't expect a significant rise at that stage. hopefully)
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Social distancing reduce spread among local community, movement restrictions reduce spread between communities.
Legogris 7y ago
While I am quite concerned with people who take unnecessary risk and ignore restrictions, there're quite a few people who take this to mind-boggling extremes. The biggest "Expats in Paris" FB group had the admin do a long rant-sticky about being sick of people flaunting restrictions, resulting in overloading hospitals, specifically naming "solitary bicycle rides" as unacceptable, which I think is just across the line of hysteria. (Yes, it's forbidden, which does not mean it increases the risk of spread)