5 ms·

They have more deaths because they're paying up front. The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not. Considering that we're far of

They have more deaths because they're paying up front. The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not. Considering that we're far off from a vaccine and world economy can't be left on life support for years, I'm inclined to believe them.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It may work out that way. But I don't think that was Sweden's intent. Just yesterday I read that the guy who devised their pandemic response was surprised by the deaths. (Sorry, I don't recall the source...)
brlewis 6y ago
> The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not The total number of infections will be the same up until a vaccine is developed, but the death rate can be lowered by delaying widespread infection until treatments are developed, tested, and deployed, and by keeping the infection rate at a level the medical system can handle.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Can that be a personal decision, for example: Person #1) I'm at risk and there are no good treatments, so I will self-isolate, waiting for vaccines, better treatment, and/or this to go away. Person #2) I'm young, my risk is negligable, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and I have to support my family, my kids need to go to school, etc. Why does person #1 get to tell person #2 what to do?
  - brlewis 6y ago
    Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick sooner. All precautions are multiplicative factors. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-time-peter-tippett-md-phd/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-t...
    - mikem170 6y ago
      >Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? You mentioned the probability of this, an increased risk for person #1 even if they are self isolating. I can grant that there is some risk associated with this But how does that compare to the impact that these lockdowns are having on tens of millions of people. What if there won't be a vaccine soon enough, and herd immunity amongst the young is our best defense, and lockdowns just prolonged the economic misery and didn't save lives in the end? Still a possible outcome at this point.
      - brlewis 6y ago
        > How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? Person #1 can't be 100% isolated. Person #2 can breathe on produce at the grocery store that supplies Person #1. Person #2 can infect Person #3 with whom Person #1 can't completely avoid interaction. I can't answer the other questions. I just think we have to proceed with caution because ending the lockdown could cause irreversible spread of the virus.
microtherion 6y ago
> They have more deaths because they're paying up front. ISTM that with equal justification, you could argue that the lockdown countries have (possibly) more economic damage because they paid up front. But one side is paying in treasure, the other in blood. And it's not even clear that Sweden is reaping economic benefits. Some parts of their economy suffered just as much damage as other countries. And now, many of the lockdown countries are experimenting with loosened restrictions, while Sweden's infection and death rates remain stubbornly high.
- mikem170 6y ago
  It could also be the case where lockdown countries are paying up front in economic damage AND will also pay later in deaths because there won't be a vaccine in time to stop this from spreading to everyone anyways.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

It may work out that way. But I don't think that was Sweden's intent. Just yesterday I read that the guy who devised their pandemic response was surprised by the deaths. (Sorry, I don't recall the source...)

brlewis 6y ago

> The bet is that over time deaths will be roughly the same, lockdown or not The total number of infections will be the same up until a vaccine is developed, but the death rate can be lowered by delaying widespread infection until treatments are developed, tested, and deployed, and by keeping the infection rate at a level the medical system can handle.

mikem170 6y ago
Can that be a personal decision, for example: Person #1) I'm at risk and there are no good treatments, so I will self-isolate, waiting for vaccines, better treatment, and/or this to go away. Person #2) I'm young, my risk is negligable, hospitals are not overwhelmed, and I have to support my family, my kids need to go to school, etc. Why does person #1 get to tell person #2 what to do?
- brlewis 6y ago
  Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick sooner. All precautions are multiplicative factors. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-time-peter-tippett-md-phd/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-your-health-one-mask-t...
  - mikem170 6y ago
    >Unfortunately, if Person #2 chooses to get sick sooner, it increases the probability that Person #1 will get sick How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? You mentioned the probability of this, an increased risk for person #1 even if they are self isolating. I can grant that there is some risk associated with this But how does that compare to the impact that these lockdowns are having on tens of millions of people. What if there won't be a vaccine soon enough, and herd immunity amongst the young is our best defense, and lockdowns just prolonged the economic misery and didn't save lives in the end? Still a possible outcome at this point.
    - brlewis 6y ago
      > How does person #1 catch something if they are self isolating and don't interact with person #2? Person #1 can't be 100% isolated. Person #2 can breathe on produce at the grocery store that supplies Person #1. Person #2 can infect Person #3 with whom Person #1 can't completely avoid interaction. I can't answer the other questions. I just think we have to proceed with caution because ending the lockdown could cause irreversible spread of the virus.

microtherion 6y ago

> They have more deaths because they're paying up front. ISTM that with equal justification, you could argue that the lockdown countries have (possibly) more economic damage because they paid up front. But one side is paying in treasure, the other in blood. And it's not even clear that Sweden is reaping economic benefits. Some parts of their economy suffered just as much damage as other countries. And now, many of the lockdown countries are experimenting with loosened restrictions, while Sweden's infection and death rates remain stubbornly high.

mikem170 6y ago
It could also be the case where lockdown countries are paying up front in economic damage AND will also pay later in deaths because there won't be a vaccine in time to stop this from spreading to everyone anyways.