5 ms·
Yeah, I'm watching closely. There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns, despite everyone talking about them as if they're proven to be the only sol
by _-___________-_ 7y ago
Yeah, I'm watching closely. There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns, despite everyone talking about them as if they're proven to be the only solution. So far, Sweden is showing that perhaps a balanced approach that doesn't destroy your economy can work equally well. Hopefully soon there will be some evidence one way or another.
- raducu 7y agoSweden is quite different as a society and societal habits than the rest of the world, I don't think we can apply much of what they are doing to India or Iran, perhaps it's applicable to Norway or Finland.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoI think Stockholm / Copenhagen would be a pretty good comparison.
- cpach 7y agoGood point. Sweden is a small country and not very densely populated, even in the metro areas.
- cpach 7y agoJust to be clear, even here in Sweden the economy has taken a big hit. People lose their jobs, companies go bankrupt. So the situation is still dire.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoUnderstood - one would hopefully expect the impact to be somewhat lesser, but if people choose to impose the lockdown on themselves without the government enforcing it, I guess it could end up being much the same.
- computerex 7y ago> There is no actual evidence supporting strict lockdowns That's false. Aside from common sense, that restricting contact would decrease transmission, China and Italy both reduced their infections by employing a strict lockdown. These policies are being borrowed straight from China and Italy. They both had it really bad, and they managed to get on the other side of the peak.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoNo, it is not false. "Common sense" is not evidence, and neither is the experience of China and Italy, because both imposed strict lockdowns. In order to say that these measures were supported by evidence, you would need a country that did not impose strict lockdowns in an otherwise-similar situation, but which had a worse outcome. Sweden may end up being that country, given time, or it may not. As a third possibility, Sweden may impose a strict lockdown, causing us to remain without evidence for the efficacy of strict lockdowns vs. softer measures.
- computerex 7y agoBoth China and Italy had major outbreaks, which were controlled by imposing lockdowns. That's sufficient evidence.
- odshoifsdhfs 7y agoThe problem is you can't be 100% if it was because of the lockdown or how the virus plays out. We in HN and other science based forums always want double-blinded trials of just about anything, but for this lockdown, we just assume it is 100% right and nothing else. I believe a lockdown/travel restrictions would have been effective on case number 1. When you do it on case 1000 it is just ... well... useless I guess?
- mr_toad 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent