3 ms·

It’s really not about “evidence-based approach” per se, it’s more because of the notion of “expert authority”. The notion is that the government are heavily rel

by he0001 7y ago

It’s really not about “evidence-based approach” per se, it’s more because of the notion of “expert authority”. The notion is that the government are heavily relying on the “expert authority” related to the current situation, in this case, FHM. This means that they follow what the experts are saying, which is by design not as mere information or guidance. This happens pretty much in any government body, like Swedish prison and probation services. The prime minister have very little to say about details of what they do (“minister rule”). The decisions are based on science rather than pure politics because they rely on that current government body for that. That does mean that they are late, which to I agree isn’t optimal but a trade off. The other reason is because the government have been slowed down due to the fact that they have to follow the current law. There’s no way for them to circumvent that as it is.

imartin2k 7y ago
This has nothing to do with the government. FHM could have made suggestions/recommendations earlier than when they did it, when it comes to physical distancing, maximum group size, behavior in restaurants, public transport, care homes, or even the usage of masks in public (which still isn't even close to be encouraged). I've been following the situation in various countries, and it became strikingly evident how FHM was late with pretty much every single eventually recommended counter-measure - presumably because they didn't see evidence yet (or, alternative explanation: On purpose, as part of the high-risk herd immunity strategy, which does obviously require many people to get infected). It's a beautiful thing that recommendations (instead of law enforcement on the streets threatening with fines) work good enough for large parts of the Swedish population. But then everything still comes down to the quality and effects of the recommendations.

by he0001 7y ago

imartin2k 7y ago

This has nothing to do with the government. FHM could have made suggestions/recommendations earlier than when they did it, when it comes to physical distancing, maximum group size, behavior in restaurants, public transport, care homes, or even the usage of masks in public (which still isn't even close to be encouraged). I've been following the situation in various countries, and it became strikingly evident how FHM was late with pretty much every single eventually recommended counter-measure - presumably because they didn't see evidence yet (or, alternative explanation: On purpose, as part of the high-risk herd immunity strategy, which does obviously require many people to get infected). It's a beautiful thing that recommendations (instead of law enforcement on the streets threatening with fines) work good enough for large parts of the Swedish population. But then everything still comes down to the quality and effects of the recommendations.