5 ms·

To Swedes, it's the rest of the world engaging in a reckless experiment

40 points by notlukesky 7y ago

drcode 7y ago
I think it's pretty great that the Swedes are willing to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us for a science experiment. They're going to function as a "control group" for thousands of scientific papers to come. ...and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  There are other nations and states doing something akin to Sweden, including within the US. We shall see which states grievously misgambled.
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    There is no gamble here. Education.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      Texas and many other states shall look to NY and CA and contrast and see, especially if aid for massive unemployment turns out to be a partisan issue. Imagine President Trump wins again. He will note that many GOP states went a different way and ask which states truly deserves his favor. It’s the White House that will lead national recovery and distribution of aid, likely with zero real oversight. Will NY and CA be left on their own? That is an interesting possibility to explore. Jared Kushner: "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile," he said. "It's not supposed to be states' stockpiles that they then use." Is that a signal for NY and their request for ventilators? How will recovery political aid look like from the same administration? Affectionate?
    - drcode 7y ago
      I think the data has now proven Sweden right.
- majkinetor 7y ago
  Its quite the opposite IMO. The only normal country, entire planet is experiment.
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    We'll see… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepare...
bobosha 7y ago
It's a dangerous experiment with human life, and while one can only say "time will tell", let's hope this doesn't turn into a plague-like catastrophe. But the pay-off - in case it works - would perhaps be Sweden's greatest contribution to humanity since the Nobel Prize.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- klingonopera 7y ago
  No, it's not, it would be if the cities were still crowded and no one would be working from home, but that's not the case. Most of us skepticals aren't arguing that we shouldn't do anything, but that we should gracefully allow citizens to adapt, and if necessary, then allow the government to adjust. This is what Sweden is doing, whereas most of the other countries were so convinced that what they were doing was right, they just outright declared it the law, not giving their citizens any chance to handle it by themselves. And I believe this "nannying" is something that a whole fucking bunch of us, especially in the Western hemisphere, are pissed about, and we're looking and hoping for Sweden to get through this just how we believe would be correct course of action.
  - jjgreen 7y ago
    Hallelujah
samizdis 7y ago
I wish Sweden the best of luck. Whatever happens, at least the data being collected should prove helpful the world over.
dt3ft 7y ago
Live stats mentioned can be seen here: https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ The numbers shown represent those admitted in ICU.
Grue3 7y ago
I wonder why chicken pox party style solution is not considered. 1. Gather application from low-risk people to be voluntarily infected. Needs to be a significant proportion of population. 2. Schedule them to be infected and isolate until they are virus-free and immune. 3. Immune people are released with no restrictions. 4. Eventually herd immunity is achieved.
- drcode 7y ago
  Robin Hanson has talked a lot about this. (https://twitter.com/robinhanson https://twitter.com/robinhanson) It seems to me to be the obviously correct thing to do (at least insofar as having immediate testing of the hypothesis at large scale with volunteers) but it treads on multiple cultural taboos and will therefore never be part of the gated institutional narrative.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    > "multiple cultural taboos" Honestly asking, are Chicken Pox parties also considered taboo? I don't have kids, but it sounds sensible to me, and I've heard people talk about it like it's normal. But if that's ok, I don't see where the difference would be to doing the same with the Coronavirus? It's just young adults instead of kids. Is that the crucial difference? Or is it because the lethality is considered higher? If yes, where does one draw the line then? I'd consider myself a Utilitarian, so... everything is just a calculation of good and bad. Or, to reference pop culture, you could approach me with the same level of disgust as Androids are generally approached in Alien IV. But I truly have difficulty understanding how most people appear to tick, so pardon me, if I look at the numbers of the Coronavirus and just am generally confused as to why it's such a big fuss. To me, this sounds like a great idea. Battling it with immunity and also paying the price of taking a few more additional losses outweigh grinding the world to a halt and attempting to contain it, at least, if you ask me. And since a vaccine will take too long (no one appears to deny that), there's no way around trying to get immunity, and once you've "accepted" that, the earlier we start, the better. In fact, the later we start, the more lives are at stake and the more economic damage we'll sustain. In light of that... such a Chicken Pox party is a legitimate method as part of the immunity-strategy.
reustle 7y ago
I feel Japan will be another interesting place to study. We've had corona spreading since late January and as recent as last weekend, a majority of people were out living life like normal.
jpab 7y ago
From my perspective here in the UK, where the health secretary is making threats to ban all outdoor exercise [1] because some people aren't following the social distancing rules, the Swedish approach sounds far better. At least in Sweden the citizens are being treated as adults, given the data and allowed to use some personal judgement. Note that I haven't seen any claim from the UK government that the existing rules aren't sufficient as long as they're being followed - a claim which I might find hard to believe but at least would be consistent with threatening a broader ban on outdoor activity. The quote from Matt Hancock is: "If you don't want us to have to take the step to ban exercise of all forms outside of your own home, then you've got to follow the rules." As though we're all school children being told that we'll all get detention if the trouble makers in the class keep acting up. It feels like the purpose of the lockdown - to reduce transmission rate of the virus - is being forgotten and there is increasing focus on having a list of Allowed Activities and Forbidden Activities, rather than trying to make a consistent trade-off between cost (risk of transmission) vs benefit (health - including, very importantly, mental health effects of retaining or losing freedom, not to mention the more ideological desire to keep some semblance of civil liberties). [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035
- bmn__ 7y ago
  > allowed to use some personal judgement I don't think that works. It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors. Human society has enacted laws for about four millenia and enforces them with threats and violence. That works to keep those who would otherwise only act in their own interests in check. There was no group of humans at the size of Sweden's population in existence where toothless rules like "be excellent to each other" and "use your best personal judgement" were enough to be workable.
  - Grue3 7y ago
    >It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors. Do you have math to back that up? Clearly R_0 would be lower in the first case than in the second. I think significantly lower due to both less infectors and less opportunities to infect.
s9w 7y ago
This is somewhat similar to the European vs American (highly simplified) view on insurances.
stareatgoats 7y ago
Too early to say for certain, but the trajectory for Sweden so far doesn't look good, compared to neighboring countries that are more under lockdown [0]: Current deaths per 1 million in covid-19 Sweden: 37 Denmark: 28 Norway: 11 All countries have a similar 'start' date with the Denmark lagging a few days. None of the countries are recommending homemade masks, which is disturbing. [0] https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries (deaths per 1 mln checked)
- klingonopera 7y ago
  Well, yes. More, but shorter. That's why people are calling it a "gamble". According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster. Insisting on minimizing that number at all costs is insane. First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. Second, if you apply that logic consistently across every aspect of life, you'd have to ban cars too, they're far too dangerous and deadly. And smoking. And drinking. And the list just goes on. There are some who'd say yes to all three, but... oh boy, you must be fun at parties. Look at the numbers in the US. No matter how it develops or has developed (we don't know the true infection ratio of the population, which is undoubtedly higher), there's no more containing it on a global scale. Our globalized and, at least for the privileged, largely open world with open borders would cease to exist, for there would be countries that insist on containing it, thus quarantining anyone entering, and therefore killing off all non-essential travel, like e.g. tourism. So, to keep that, you need to be immune... or a vaccine has to exist. But, it's also a gamble to be counting on a vaccine.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    > First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die. 100% of those that do get ICU care live. ICU care takes a week. You can have everyone need ICU care all at once: everyone beyond the number of ICU beds will die, so 2% of the population dies. Or you can spread it out so that the number of people needing care at once is below the number of ICU beds, and no one dies. And since your second point depends on your (flawed) first, it's invalid too.
mnm1 7y ago
38000 tests in a country of 10 million. [1] Yeah, they have a handle on it alright. Seems pretty dumb to claim this at this point or to write this article and leave out that crucial figure. They have no fucking idea what's happening in their own country but are judging the rest of the world who is, at least, trying to learn from China and other places, if imperfectly and super late. [1] https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/bekraftade-fall-i-sverige https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb...
samizdis 7y ago
It seems that Sweden is about to change policy, as it said that it would should the picture change: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepare...
JeanMarcS 7y ago
They might have change their mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409

40 points by notlukesky 7y ago

I think it's pretty great that the Swedes are willing to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us for a science experiment. They're going to function as a "control group" for thousands of scientific papers to come. ...and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

threatofrain 7y ago
There are other nations and states doing something akin to Sweden, including within the US. We shall see which states grievously misgambled.
- majkinetor 7y ago
  There is no gamble here. Education.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Texas and many other states shall look to NY and CA and contrast and see, especially if aid for massive unemployment turns out to be a partisan issue. Imagine President Trump wins again. He will note that many GOP states went a different way and ask which states truly deserves his favor. It’s the White House that will lead national recovery and distribution of aid, likely with zero real oversight. Will NY and CA be left on their own? That is an interesting possibility to explore. Jared Kushner: "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile," he said. "It's not supposed to be states' stockpiles that they then use." Is that a signal for NY and their request for ventilators? How will recovery political aid look like from the same administration? Affectionate?
  - drcode 7y ago
    I think the data has now proven Sweden right.
majkinetor 7y ago
Its quite the opposite IMO. The only normal country, entire planet is experiment.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  We'll see… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepare...

bobosha 7y ago

It's a dangerous experiment with human life, and while one can only say "time will tell", let's hope this doesn't turn into a plague-like catastrophe. But the pay-off - in case it works - would perhaps be Sweden's greatest contribution to humanity since the Nobel Prize.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
klingonopera 7y ago
No, it's not, it would be if the cities were still crowded and no one would be working from home, but that's not the case. Most of us skepticals aren't arguing that we shouldn't do anything, but that we should gracefully allow citizens to adapt, and if necessary, then allow the government to adjust. This is what Sweden is doing, whereas most of the other countries were so convinced that what they were doing was right, they just outright declared it the law, not giving their citizens any chance to handle it by themselves. And I believe this "nannying" is something that a whole fucking bunch of us, especially in the Western hemisphere, are pissed about, and we're looking and hoping for Sweden to get through this just how we believe would be correct course of action.
- jjgreen 7y ago
  Hallelujah

samizdis 7y ago

I wish Sweden the best of luck. Whatever happens, at least the data being collected should prove helpful the world over.

dt3ft 7y ago

Live stats mentioned can be seen here: https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/ The numbers shown represent those admitted in ICU.

Grue3 7y ago

I wonder why chicken pox party style solution is not considered. 1. Gather application from low-risk people to be voluntarily infected. Needs to be a significant proportion of population. 2. Schedule them to be infected and isolate until they are virus-free and immune. 3. Immune people are released with no restrictions. 4. Eventually herd immunity is achieved.

drcode 7y ago
Robin Hanson has talked a lot about this. (https://twitter.com/robinhanson https://twitter.com/robinhanson) It seems to me to be the obviously correct thing to do (at least insofar as having immediate testing of the hypothesis at large scale with volunteers) but it treads on multiple cultural taboos and will therefore never be part of the gated institutional narrative.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  > "multiple cultural taboos" Honestly asking, are Chicken Pox parties also considered taboo? I don't have kids, but it sounds sensible to me, and I've heard people talk about it like it's normal. But if that's ok, I don't see where the difference would be to doing the same with the Coronavirus? It's just young adults instead of kids. Is that the crucial difference? Or is it because the lethality is considered higher? If yes, where does one draw the line then? I'd consider myself a Utilitarian, so... everything is just a calculation of good and bad. Or, to reference pop culture, you could approach me with the same level of disgust as Androids are generally approached in Alien IV. But I truly have difficulty understanding how most people appear to tick, so pardon me, if I look at the numbers of the Coronavirus and just am generally confused as to why it's such a big fuss. To me, this sounds like a great idea. Battling it with immunity and also paying the price of taking a few more additional losses outweigh grinding the world to a halt and attempting to contain it, at least, if you ask me. And since a vaccine will take too long (no one appears to deny that), there's no way around trying to get immunity, and once you've "accepted" that, the earlier we start, the better. In fact, the later we start, the more lives are at stake and the more economic damage we'll sustain. In light of that... such a Chicken Pox party is a legitimate method as part of the immunity-strategy.

reustle 7y ago

I feel Japan will be another interesting place to study. We've had corona spreading since late January and as recent as last weekend, a majority of people were out living life like normal.

jpab 7y ago

From my perspective here in the UK, where the health secretary is making threats to ban all outdoor exercise [1] because some people aren't following the social distancing rules, the Swedish approach sounds far better. At least in Sweden the citizens are being treated as adults, given the data and allowed to use some personal judgement. Note that I haven't seen any claim from the UK government that the existing rules aren't sufficient as long as they're being followed - a claim which I might find hard to believe but at least would be consistent with threatening a broader ban on outdoor activity. The quote from Matt Hancock is: "If you don't want us to have to take the step to ban exercise of all forms outside of your own home, then you've got to follow the rules." As though we're all school children being told that we'll all get detention if the trouble makers in the class keep acting up. It feels like the purpose of the lockdown - to reduce transmission rate of the virus - is being forgotten and there is increasing focus on having a list of Allowed Activities and Forbidden Activities, rather than trying to make a consistent trade-off between cost (risk of transmission) vs benefit (health - including, very importantly, mental health effects of retaining or losing freedom, not to mention the more ideological desire to keep some semblance of civil liberties). [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035

bmn__ 7y ago
> allowed to use some personal judgement I don't think that works. It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors. Human society has enacted laws for about four millenia and enforces them with threats and violence. That works to keep those who would otherwise only act in their own interests in check. There was no group of humans at the size of Sweden's population in existence where toothless rules like "be excellent to each other" and "use your best personal judgement" were enough to be workable.
- Grue3 7y ago
  >It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors. Do you have math to back that up? Clearly R_0 would be lower in the first case than in the second. I think significantly lower due to both less infectors and less opportunities to infect.

s9w 7y ago

This is somewhat similar to the European vs American (highly simplified) view on insurances.

stareatgoats 7y ago

Too early to say for certain, but the trajectory for Sweden so far doesn't look good, compared to neighboring countries that are more under lockdown [0]: Current deaths per 1 million in covid-19 Sweden: 37 Denmark: 28 Norway: 11 All countries have a similar 'start' date with the Denmark lagging a few days. None of the countries are recommending homemade masks, which is disturbing. [0] https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries (deaths per 1 mln checked)

klingonopera 7y ago
Well, yes. More, but shorter. That's why people are calling it a "gamble". According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster. Insisting on minimizing that number at all costs is insane. First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. Second, if you apply that logic consistently across every aspect of life, you'd have to ban cars too, they're far too dangerous and deadly. And smoking. And drinking. And the list just goes on. There are some who'd say yes to all three, but... oh boy, you must be fun at parties. Look at the numbers in the US. No matter how it develops or has developed (we don't know the true infection ratio of the population, which is undoubtedly higher), there's no more containing it on a global scale. Our globalized and, at least for the privileged, largely open world with open borders would cease to exist, for there would be countries that insist on containing it, thus quarantining anyone entering, and therefore killing off all non-essential travel, like e.g. tourism. So, to keep that, you need to be immune... or a vaccine has to exist. But, it's also a gamble to be counting on a vaccine.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  > First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die. 100% of those that do get ICU care live. ICU care takes a week. You can have everyone need ICU care all at once: everyone beyond the number of ICU beds will die, so 2% of the population dies. Or you can spread it out so that the number of people needing care at once is below the number of ICU beds, and no one dies. And since your second point depends on your (flawed) first, it's invalid too.

mnm1 7y ago

38000 tests in a country of 10 million. [1] Yeah, they have a handle on it alright. Seems pretty dumb to claim this at this point or to write this article and leave out that crucial figure. They have no fucking idea what's happening in their own country but are judging the rest of the world who is, at least, trying to learn from China and other places, if imperfectly and super late. [1] https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/bekraftade-fall-i-sverige https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utb...

samizdis 7y ago

It seems that Sweden is about to change policy, as it said that it would should the picture change: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepare...

JeanMarcS 7y ago

They might have change their mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409