4 ms·

All decisions are gambles, if you understand that risks are on all sides. Sweden evaluated the risks of not locking down vs. the risks of shutting down an econ

by JPKab 7y ago

All decisions are gambles, if you understand that risks are on all sides. Sweden evaluated the risks of not locking down vs. the risks of shutting down an economy, and made a gamble. We took the same exact game, but bet on the opposite side. As I said in my comment, none of us knew. It's just becoming increasingly apparent, based on data, that we didn't need to lock down as much as we did. The places that didn't lock down and were prophesied to be screwed, well, they just aren't. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone. Just pointing out, we DID gamble. All of us did. HN readers are in a bubble. Most tech workers had college educated parents, or are recent immigrants to the USA. They don't understand the bulk of the nation they live in, let alone what it's like to be suddenly unemployed or have your small business shut down. Therefore, they only saw the one side of the gamble, and are blinded and insensitive to the economic destruction we have incurred by "playing it safe" on the medical front. I'm not disagreeing with the decision that was made. I'm disagreeing with doubling down on it out of pride and not wanting to admit we were wrong. We were wrong by the way. Keep that in your head, because it's true. The data is in. We were wrong. The rednecks holding "Don't Tread on me" flags, without any data, HAPPENED to be right on this one, because reality is messy and doesn't give a rats ass about your pride, or my pride. I WAS WRONG. I THOUGHT THE LOCKDOWNS WERE THE RIGHT MOVE AT THE TIME. The data says otherwise. I'm willing to admit this, but not many on here are. That's what happens when you live in a bubble. California's horrible wealth inequality (top in the US) makes this even worse. I have neighbors that drive pick-up trucks and run small businesses that have been shut down. If you live in Silicon Valley, you probably don't.

phreeza 7y ago
I really wouldn't phrase this as 'you were wrong'. It may well have been the choice best supported by the evidence and the potential outcomes at the time (I certainly believe so). It's just that the current evidence maybe now supports loosening the measures to a degree in most places (I also agree with that). I believe this is a much more useful way to think about it, because it avoids tribal thinking.
mantap 7y ago
If you play Russian roulette and survive, was the decision to play Russian roulette a good one? If you make a bad decision but it works out OK, then it's still a bad decision. If you make a good decision and it doesn't work out, you still made a good decision. Sweden made the wrong decision, it doesn't matter that they didn't actually become the next Italy or Spain, it was wrong to risk becoming so.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I think it remains to be seen if it was the wrong decision and will require the Benefit of time and distance. They fully expect more deaths up front but break even in the long run
  - mantap 7y ago
    By what mechanism? Increased pressure on healthcare systems increases mortality not decreases it. It doesn't make sense to me that Sweden could get lower absolute mortality by avoiding lockdowns.
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      Break-even != lower absolute mortality. The same X% of the community will need to contract the virus to have herd immunity. If the healthcare system is not overloaded, then the mortality rate is the same, just sooner. We should look back after this has occurred, either through community spread or a vaccine has been invented and successfully deployed
orange_fritter 7y ago
I completely agree that the response may have been overblown, but I don't think it's right to look at Sweden for evidence. Just as we may have overreacted, it may be another overcorrection to say that we were completely wrong. In fact, in some ways their response may have been more drastic when you look at the numbers below. There are some opportunistic pictures of Swedes basking in a park, but I don't think that tells the whole story. Swedish representatives have repeatedly called it a "myth" that there were not drastic changes in their lifestyle. The truth is, the Swedish population was extremely compliant and conscientious of recommendations, so that mandatory lockdowns were never fully 'mandatory' but the change in behavior was voluntarily taken. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S... -50% of Swedish employment is now remote -Overall, travel from the Stockholm region had decreased by 80-90% -85% of ferry bookings for a popular ferry had been rescheduled or canceled -Popular holiday destinations reported a 90% reduction in patronage -50% drop in public transportation usage in urban areas -Stockholm streets have 30% less vehicle traffic and 70% less pedestrians -All travel abroad recommended against until June 15 Laws enacted: -Gatherings of 50 people or more were banned, with threat of imprisonment -Expansion of sick leave protection -Reduced access to bars and restaurants(although table service allowed) -Banned visits to nursing homes

by JPKab 7y ago

phreeza 7y ago

I really wouldn't phrase this as 'you were wrong'. It may well have been the choice best supported by the evidence and the potential outcomes at the time (I certainly believe so). It's just that the current evidence maybe now supports loosening the measures to a degree in most places (I also agree with that). I believe this is a much more useful way to think about it, because it avoids tribal thinking.

mantap 7y ago

If you play Russian roulette and survive, was the decision to play Russian roulette a good one? If you make a bad decision but it works out OK, then it's still a bad decision. If you make a good decision and it doesn't work out, you still made a good decision. Sweden made the wrong decision, it doesn't matter that they didn't actually become the next Italy or Spain, it was wrong to risk becoming so.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
I think it remains to be seen if it was the wrong decision and will require the Benefit of time and distance. They fully expect more deaths up front but break even in the long run
- mantap 7y ago
  By what mechanism? Increased pressure on healthcare systems increases mortality not decreases it. It doesn't make sense to me that Sweden could get lower absolute mortality by avoiding lockdowns.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Break-even != lower absolute mortality. The same X% of the community will need to contract the virus to have herd immunity. If the healthcare system is not overloaded, then the mortality rate is the same, just sooner. We should look back after this has occurred, either through community spread or a vaccine has been invented and successfully deployed

orange_fritter 7y ago

I completely agree that the response may have been overblown, but I don't think it's right to look at Sweden for evidence. Just as we may have overreacted, it may be another overcorrection to say that we were completely wrong. In fact, in some ways their response may have been more drastic when you look at the numbers below. There are some opportunistic pictures of Swedes basking in a park, but I don't think that tells the whole story. Swedish representatives have repeatedly called it a "myth" that there were not drastic changes in their lifestyle. The truth is, the Swedish population was extremely compliant and conscientious of recommendations, so that mandatory lockdowns were never fully 'mandatory' but the change in behavior was voluntarily taken. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S... -50% of Swedish employment is now remote -Overall, travel from the Stockholm region had decreased by 80-90% -85% of ferry bookings for a popular ferry had been rescheduled or canceled -Popular holiday destinations reported a 90% reduction in patronage -50% drop in public transportation usage in urban areas -Stockholm streets have 30% less vehicle traffic and 70% less pedestrians -All travel abroad recommended against until June 15 Laws enacted: -Gatherings of 50 people or more were banned, with threat of imprisonment -Expansion of sick leave protection -Reduced access to bars and restaurants(although table service allowed) -Banned visits to nursing homes