3 ms·
1) Sweden has significantly higher deaths per capita. 2) Even if this works out for Sweden, they took a massive gamble with their citizens lives going for herd
by Gustomaximus 7y ago
1) Sweden has significantly higher deaths per capita.
2) Even if this works out for Sweden, they took a massive gamble with their citizens lives going for herd immunity with so many unknown.
An extreme example but its like that guy that sold everything bet it on red/black at Vegas. He doubled his wealth in a day but it still doesn't make him a model of financial management.
- bjourne 7y agoThat's not an apt analogy since Sweden's strategy is guided by epidemiologists and not gamblers. In other countries politicians have taken more extreme measures than recommended by the experts. For example, the UK planned to apply the same strategy but the death tolls became too high and political pressure forced them to change course. I'm not an epidemiologist so I cannot say (yet) who is wrong and who is right. But I can for sure say that they are doing their best and they are not gambling with citizens lives.
- Gustomaximus 7y agoI would position they gambled. We're still not sure if people become immune and if so how long. We have an idea of better statistics but there is much unknown, especially in the early days of these decisions. Gambling at an analytical level is playing the odds as much as these guys are playing odds from a position of expertise from their field. Maybe we dont call it game ling because it's "analysis" but the difference is language but the fundamentals are the same. They are both taking bets based on incomplete information and what they feel is the best option. If the knew more and weren't modeling off big assumed variables I'd agree with you. But when you make decisions off big unknown variables I say it's gambling regardless of your education or level of expertise.