8 ms·

I'm an American, so the usual caveats apply, but I think more should be made of this statement from the interview: "The Swedish laws on communicable diseases a

I'm an American, so the usual caveats apply, but I think more should be made of this statement from the interview: "The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility. It clearly states that the citizen has the responsibility not to spread a disease. This is the core we started from, because there is not much legal possibility to close down cities in Sweden using the present laws. Quarantine can be contemplated for people or small areas, such as a school or a hotel. But [legally] we cannot lock down a geographical area." If we take that as a given then the approach used in, say, Italy isn't doable. Why not put that out there and let there be a public debate about the issue? Is there a sense that this isn't the time? Maybe there is a debate. I'm not exactly in touch with Swedish politics, so if someone knows, I'd love to hear about it.

tomcooks 7y ago
> I'm an American, so the usual caveats apply What do you mean with usual caveats?
- etrevino 7y ago
  Just that since I don't live there and know the society/culture I may be asking a dumb question. I probably should have said something like "I don't know much about Sweden, so I'm asking from a position of genuine ignorance."
  - tomcooks 7y ago
    Ah thanks, I assumed it was an HN inside joke and I was a bit lost Cheers
ilamont 7y ago
That quote stood out to me, too. It's hard to lock down an area in the U.S., too, but some states and cities have enacted nonessential business, school, and transportation closures that have been quite effective at flattening the curve without a geographic quarantine. Maybe another question to ask: Can Sweden enact emergency facility and public transportation closures for other reasons? For instance, for a flood or some other disaster?
matwood 7y ago
> The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility. I don't know much about Sweden, but this would have a hard time working in the US. There is a large percentage of the population that would do nothing because the government suggested it. I think it's pretty clear that many states are opening too fast too early, but instead there are protests about people wanting to be free.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > I think it's pretty clear that many states are opening too fast too early Not at all.. I think it's clear we locked down way too fast (and I was supportive of the initial lockdowns). At the time, we thought that -- even with the lockdown -- we would overwhelm the hospital systems in many parts of the country. Guess what... that didn't really happen. We didn't run out of ventilators at all. That means we over reacted. Now it's time to lower the restrictions with the new constants in mind, so that any subsequent peak more completely uses excess capacity, and more people can get back to work.
  - matwood 6y ago
    I'm a little confused. You think because the system was not overwhelmed, the US locked down too early? The point of the lockdown was to prevent getting overwhelmed, which appears to have mostly worked. I guess I'm having hard time understanding the logic where since the system wasn't overwhelmed with a lockdown in place, there was no need for a lockdown.
    - tathougies 6y ago
      I agree the point of lockdown was to prevent getting overwhelmed and without it we would have had some regions with overwhelmed systems. However, we more than met that. Not only were hospitals not overwhelmed, many hospitals had such little work that they ceased operations. That means we clearly overreacted, at least in those areas. Now, it's time to loosen up, and let all those hospitals that literally had so few patients they were closing down to have a reason to exist. For example, California locked down early -- good for them! But their ICUs were not anywhere near capacity. They've now had a month to expand capacity, which they've done. That means they can handle more sick people. California should think about opening up a little, and then, as some get sick with COVID and need ICU care, we can be assured there will be ICU space. We have better numbers now and can run a model that ensures ICUs run at or near capacity so that more people can be at work while everyone can be assured there is an ICU bed should they need it. What I don't understand is your perspective. It is clear we had excess ICU capacity during the lockdown. Doesn't that mean we wasted resources in getting to herd immunity. The point of a lockdown is to 'flatten the curve', not make the virus go extinct (which is all but a pipe dream at this point). We cannot get herd immunity unless more people get it. The danger in letting everyone get it at once is that we run out of ICU beds. The danger in locking down too hard is that we have excess ICU beds that could have been used to get us to herd immunity faster. We had a lot of excess ICU beds in the country. That means we wasted time. That's okay -- we had information at the time we now know was not 100% correct. Let's adjust the models and continue on.
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
The government actually did give themself increased authority to enact short term measures as needed. Parliament only demanded that any such measures are passed through parliament for approval within two days of execution, and I think maximum extent of such measure are three months. But wrt to debate I think the general sentiment is that current measures are working fine. People are getting a bit restless with the spring coming, but besides that most internal debates right now is why there is not more action taken against restaurant owners and such. The municipal authorities are allowed to close down any such business that don’t take suitable measures to limit infection. And a apparently there’s some places that people aren’t too happy with.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? I don't know where we get if we walk down this train of thought, probably nowhere good, but when a not inconsiderable portion of the population has been directly targeted to cause them to believe the whole thing is just Bill Gates fault, who magically caused the Coronavirus and is holding back a cure, does debate have value? This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  The key bit is "not inconsiderable portion of the population". That is a very human perception failure and one that all politics and tribal psychology use. "Others are more dangerous than they are because they are other.and we say they are" not because they have an actual threat. The reality is that these are incredibly small numbers but the hype about them is real.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Based upon this survey, more than a quarter of people don't want the United States shut down. That's a considerable proportion. That's the amount of people who vote in a president. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-than-70-percent-of-americans-support-stay-at-home-orders https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-th...
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supposedly legitimate leadership. * Masks don't work, and you're too stupid to wear one anyways (WHO and US Surgeon General) * There is no human to human transmission (WHO) * The fact that there is a biolab in the exact area where the virus started spreading from is just a wild coincidence you racist (media Cathedral) I have a hard time blaming people for going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes about Gates when all the people who should be setting us straight have no credibility.
drtillberg 7y ago
The balance, nuance, respect for law-- this is absent from the public discussion in the U.S.
- etrevino 7y ago
  That may be, but I'm wondering what the reasoning is in Sweden, not the US.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Swede here - I get the feeling we trust our citizen and government response enough to not generally call for a hard lockdown. Some wanted elementary schools closed. Almost nobody is happy about how the elderly care works - but almost everyone were unhappy about the elderly care in general even BEFORE this.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Well, that's not an excuse, laws can and should change as needed.
- etrevino 7y ago
  There may be a constitutional or-- as it's often put in Europe-- a basic law issue. But, I'm wondering why it is that we haven't heard about a debate to change these laws.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    They might not even be changeable. For Germany for instance: "Article 79 states the Basic Law may be amended by an absolute two-thirds majority of both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Such a vote may not remove any of the principles underlying articles 1 and 20 as defined by the eternity clause, or remove or otherwise affect the essence of, any of the fundamental rights originally specified in articles 1 to 19; [32] but may clarify, extend or refine those original principles and fundamental rights. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...) So any coronavirus-fighting law that could be seen as "removing" one of those fundamental rights simply could not be made. Making these laws hard to change is deliberate, as allowing for changes in "emergencies" allows potential dictators to use emergencies as an excuse for broadening their own power, as Hitler did (and Hungary is doing now, under pretense of fighting the virus).
  - viceroyalbean 7y ago
    The simplest reason is probably because that type of internal political debate is unlikely to be reported by foreign media, assuming you aren't consuming any Swedish news. That's not to say that too much discussion of these types of laws have been brought up, but a law was recently (quarantine throws off my sense of time, but I think last week) passed which gave the government significantly more power in terms of ability to close down businesses, airports, harbors, and more without needing to seek parliamentary approval first. This was after a bit of debate regarding the unprecedented nature of such a law and some modifications which were mostly aimed at not giving the government too much power.
standardUser 7y ago
The legal argument is weak, and the disingenuous way he discusses it makes me question the veracity of his other points. The national government could 'strongly suggest' a lockdown and most people would comply willingly.
- jacobush 7y ago
  The reason for not doing that has been stated time and again earlier - they worry about endurance. We will have to keep up with modified behaviour for a long time, and overdoing it may compromise endurance.
ACS_Solver 7y ago
The statement omits the fact that mandatory measures can be imposed when it comes to diseases classified as dangerous for the public, which covid-19 is. So while it's the citizen's responsibility not to spread diseases, the law also provides for mandatory isolation of people who are unable or unwilling to follow precautions. The outbreak has absolutely dominated the news and public discourse for nearly two months now. There's lots of coverage of Sweden's strategy, including opposition to it, and its coverage in foreign press. Politics has been likewise dominated by the government's response and he opposition's reaction to it. I really don't get the feeling that there's a lack of debate on anything covid-related, although the nature of the event means that the usual Swedish process of taking decisions by slowly building up to a consensus cannot apply.
- etrevino 7y ago
  This is helpful to know, thanks!

tomcooks 7y ago

> I'm an American, so the usual caveats apply What do you mean with usual caveats?

etrevino 7y ago
Just that since I don't live there and know the society/culture I may be asking a dumb question. I probably should have said something like "I don't know much about Sweden, so I'm asking from a position of genuine ignorance."
- tomcooks 7y ago
  Ah thanks, I assumed it was an HN inside joke and I was a bit lost Cheers

ilamont 7y ago

That quote stood out to me, too. It's hard to lock down an area in the U.S., too, but some states and cities have enacted nonessential business, school, and transportation closures that have been quite effective at flattening the curve without a geographic quarantine. Maybe another question to ask: Can Sweden enact emergency facility and public transportation closures for other reasons? For instance, for a flood or some other disaster?

matwood 7y ago

> The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility. I don't know much about Sweden, but this would have a hard time working in the US. There is a large percentage of the population that would do nothing because the government suggested it. I think it's pretty clear that many states are opening too fast too early, but instead there are protests about people wanting to be free.

tathougies 6y ago
> I think it's pretty clear that many states are opening too fast too early Not at all.. I think it's clear we locked down way too fast (and I was supportive of the initial lockdowns). At the time, we thought that -- even with the lockdown -- we would overwhelm the hospital systems in many parts of the country. Guess what... that didn't really happen. We didn't run out of ventilators at all. That means we over reacted. Now it's time to lower the restrictions with the new constants in mind, so that any subsequent peak more completely uses excess capacity, and more people can get back to work.
- matwood 6y ago
  I'm a little confused. You think because the system was not overwhelmed, the US locked down too early? The point of the lockdown was to prevent getting overwhelmed, which appears to have mostly worked. I guess I'm having hard time understanding the logic where since the system wasn't overwhelmed with a lockdown in place, there was no need for a lockdown.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    I agree the point of lockdown was to prevent getting overwhelmed and without it we would have had some regions with overwhelmed systems. However, we more than met that. Not only were hospitals not overwhelmed, many hospitals had such little work that they ceased operations. That means we clearly overreacted, at least in those areas. Now, it's time to loosen up, and let all those hospitals that literally had so few patients they were closing down to have a reason to exist. For example, California locked down early -- good for them! But their ICUs were not anywhere near capacity. They've now had a month to expand capacity, which they've done. That means they can handle more sick people. California should think about opening up a little, and then, as some get sick with COVID and need ICU care, we can be assured there will be ICU space. We have better numbers now and can run a model that ensures ICUs run at or near capacity so that more people can be at work while everyone can be assured there is an ICU bed should they need it. What I don't understand is your perspective. It is clear we had excess ICU capacity during the lockdown. Doesn't that mean we wasted resources in getting to herd immunity. The point of a lockdown is to 'flatten the curve', not make the virus go extinct (which is all but a pipe dream at this point). We cannot get herd immunity unless more people get it. The danger in letting everyone get it at once is that we run out of ICU beds. The danger in locking down too hard is that we have excess ICU beds that could have been used to get us to herd immunity faster. We had a lot of excess ICU beds in the country. That means we wasted time. That's okay -- we had information at the time we now know was not 100% correct. Let's adjust the models and continue on.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

The government actually did give themself increased authority to enact short term measures as needed. Parliament only demanded that any such measures are passed through parliament for approval within two days of execution, and I think maximum extent of such measure are three months. But wrt to debate I think the general sentiment is that current measures are working fine. People are getting a bit restless with the spring coming, but besides that most internal debates right now is why there is not more action taken against restaurant owners and such. The municipal authorities are allowed to close down any such business that don’t take suitable measures to limit infection. And a apparently there’s some places that people aren’t too happy with.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Isn't this whole process of debate and individual responsibility basically irrevocably tainted in the age of mass misinformation? I don't know where we get if we walk down this train of thought, probably nowhere good, but when a not inconsiderable portion of the population has been directly targeted to cause them to believe the whole thing is just Bill Gates fault, who magically caused the Coronavirus and is holding back a cure, does debate have value? This might be a good time when a representative democracy, composed of people who are willing to listen to experts and make the hard, unpopular, decisions, would be the best choice.

thinkingemote 7y ago
The key bit is "not inconsiderable portion of the population". That is a very human perception failure and one that all politics and tribal psychology use. "Others are more dangerous than they are because they are other.and we say they are" not because they have an actual threat. The reality is that these are incredibly small numbers but the hype about them is real.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Based upon this survey, more than a quarter of people don't want the United States shut down. That's a considerable proportion. That's the amount of people who vote in a president. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-than-70-percent-of-americans-support-stay-at-home-orders https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494028-poll-more-th...
Consultant32452 7y ago
We needn't go to the margins of Bill Gates somehow creating corona virus. Here's some of the blatant lies and misinformation that came straight out of the supposedly legitimate leadership. * Masks don't work, and you're too stupid to wear one anyways (WHO and US Surgeon General) * There is no human to human transmission (WHO) * The fact that there is a biolab in the exact area where the virus started spreading from is just a wild coincidence you racist (media Cathedral) I have a hard time blaming people for going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes about Gates when all the people who should be setting us straight have no credibility.

drtillberg 7y ago

The balance, nuance, respect for law-- this is absent from the public discussion in the U.S.

etrevino 7y ago
That may be, but I'm wondering what the reasoning is in Sweden, not the US.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Swede here - I get the feeling we trust our citizen and government response enough to not generally call for a hard lockdown. Some wanted elementary schools closed. Almost nobody is happy about how the elderly care works - but almost everyone were unhappy about the elderly care in general even BEFORE this.

onetimemanytime 7y ago

Well, that's not an excuse, laws can and should change as needed.

etrevino 7y ago
There may be a constitutional or-- as it's often put in Europe-- a basic law issue. But, I'm wondering why it is that we haven't heard about a debate to change these laws.
- logicchains 7y ago
  They might not even be changeable. For Germany for instance: "Article 79 states the Basic Law may be amended by an absolute two-thirds majority of both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Such a vote may not remove any of the principles underlying articles 1 and 20 as defined by the eternity clause, or remove or otherwise affect the essence of, any of the fundamental rights originally specified in articles 1 to 19; [32] but may clarify, extend or refine those original principles and fundamental rights. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Repu...) So any coronavirus-fighting law that could be seen as "removing" one of those fundamental rights simply could not be made. Making these laws hard to change is deliberate, as allowing for changes in "emergencies" allows potential dictators to use emergencies as an excuse for broadening their own power, as Hitler did (and Hungary is doing now, under pretense of fighting the virus).
- viceroyalbean 7y ago
  The simplest reason is probably because that type of internal political debate is unlikely to be reported by foreign media, assuming you aren't consuming any Swedish news. That's not to say that too much discussion of these types of laws have been brought up, but a law was recently (quarantine throws off my sense of time, but I think last week) passed which gave the government significantly more power in terms of ability to close down businesses, airports, harbors, and more without needing to seek parliamentary approval first. This was after a bit of debate regarding the unprecedented nature of such a law and some modifications which were mostly aimed at not giving the government too much power.

standardUser 7y ago

The legal argument is weak, and the disingenuous way he discusses it makes me question the veracity of his other points. The national government could 'strongly suggest' a lockdown and most people would comply willingly.

jacobush 7y ago
The reason for not doing that has been stated time and again earlier - they worry about endurance. We will have to keep up with modified behaviour for a long time, and overdoing it may compromise endurance.

ACS_Solver 7y ago

The statement omits the fact that mandatory measures can be imposed when it comes to diseases classified as dangerous for the public, which covid-19 is. So while it's the citizen's responsibility not to spread diseases, the law also provides for mandatory isolation of people who are unable or unwilling to follow precautions. The outbreak has absolutely dominated the news and public discourse for nearly two months now. There's lots of coverage of Sweden's strategy, including opposition to it, and its coverage in foreign press. Politics has been likewise dominated by the government's response and he opposition's reaction to it. I really don't get the feeling that there's a lack of debate on anything covid-related, although the nature of the event means that the usual Swedish process of taking decisions by slowly building up to a consensus cannot apply.

etrevino 7y ago
This is helpful to know, thanks!