4 ms·

Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself. Sweden provides an imperfect but i

Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself. Sweden provides an imperfect but interesting what-if scenario for countries wondering what would have happened if they'd imposed little to no lockdown restrictions. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-t... Their economy is still taking a very severe hit despite retail businesses remaining open there, because people are shying away from making purchases and visiting shops. You can (correctly) say that many governments took the decision out of peoples' hands. Perhaps the people of country XYZ would have made a different choice. But Sweden's example suggests that economies would have been screwed pretty hard no matter what.

Hoasi 6y ago
> Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself. Exactly. In most countries, people are willingly staying mostly at home. More, they continue to restrain from shopping and eating out after the lockdown ended.
- myk9001 6y ago
  This is not the case for Sweden. For details, take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266698 I don't think this is the case for Germany, Switzerland, or Denmark either. What countries do you have in mind where lock downs ended and most people are staying at home?
erebrus 6y ago
On top of that, Sweeden is recording very high death rates and latest estimates point to around 7% in immunity.
- mc6 6y ago
  The 7% was a month ago, ie that was when the tests took place. If you believe the disease is rampant in Sweden, it’ll be much higher now. If it’s not, then the hard lockdowns elsewhere were superfluous.
- JChase2 6y ago
  Even if they had 30% immunity, that still leaves the majority of the population exposed. I'm sure 30% would be very much preferable (if it's even true), but probably not good enough to allow things like concerts or maybe even sit down restaurants to reopen.
  - myk9001 6y ago
    There are estimates that herd-immunity is achievable at 43% "The disease-induced herd immunity level is 43% ... when immunity is induced by disease spreading, the proportion infected in groups with high contact rates is greater than in groups with low contact rates" https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085
mc6 6y ago
Unlike most other European countries, Sweden is not increasing its sovereign debt load by 15+% of GDP to keep the citizenry afloat. That’ll feel a lot more important than Covid in 5 years.
- Analog24 6y ago
  I think this is likely a biased view. If you ask the families of the 300+k people who died from Covid-19 they probably won't consider the economic impact to be the most significant.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    I think it’s fair to say that both numbers represent a measure of different ways that the pandemic has caused pain and suffering, whether it’s in terms of lives or livelihoods impacted. We obviously need to deal with both problems concurrently. There are a lot of actions that can be taken which can help one which doesn’t come at the expense of the other, so it’s not purely a either-or decision. It would be wrong to turn a blind eye to either effect. The death toll is an immediate concern, but so is a functioning food supply chain, and indeed a healthy economy is critically important to everyone. No having lived through an economic collapse or a hyper inflation event, for example, it may be hard to appreciate how difficult (and deadly) that situation can be.
  - myk9001 6y ago
    People are worried about economies not for some abstract reasons. Bad economies literally kill and have a potential to kill much more people than Covid-19. From what I gather, the scale of current economic damage is seriously compared to the Great Depression in mainstream media[1][2]. Well, the Great Depression brought Nazi into power in Germany[3], WW2 followed and took lives of 70-85 million people[4] to say nothing of the post-war devastation. Or look at Venezuela for an example of a bad economy in modern times, where "families buy rotten meat to eat"[5]. Also, if you ask families of people who will die because their cancer wasn't diagnosed in time, they will probably consider lockdowns too excessive[6]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/19/unemployment-today-vs-the-great-depression-how-do-the-eras-compare.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/19/unemployment-today-vs-the-gr... [2] https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-economic-cost-and-human-suffering-in-us-like-1930s-great-depression-11991721 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-economic-cost-and-hum... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGbyLUCw5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGbyLUCw5k [6] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52747659 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52747659
AgentME 6y ago
Without lockdowns, it just means that everyone with the means to stay home does so, and the people not able to stay home disproportionately face the disease. Government lockdowns reduce the incentive for desperate people to continue exposing themselves to the disease.
myk9001 6y ago
Lockdowns are causing the majority of economic damage. Whether lockdowns are justified anyway is a question for another discussion. But economies are hit by lockdowns not the pandemic itself. Let's look at info we can find about Sweden. Sure, people in Sweden are staying at home more, but the decrease in activity is hardly on the level of locked down countries. "When people became aware of coronavirus around March 12, we lost almost overnight 30 per cent. It’s OK. For a couple of months, it will work. But after that it will be very, very tough,"[1] [A pedestrian street in Stockholm on Apr. 1](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2020/04/01/TELEMMGLPICT000228902301_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqt7YuOpTV-OCUjzn11uechNSi7-SoHEG4mrcpQ7yfjCk.jpeg?imwidth=1400 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2020/04/01/TELE...) [A market in Malmo during the pandemic (no exact date)](http://archive.is/2siwt/5d1b19d61fd21d052c2cc190f13f722c0bf86f4d.webp http://archive.is/2siwt/5d1b19d61fd21d052c2cc190f13f722c0bf8...) [Pubs, eating out](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/newsbeat-52618788/coronavirus-how-sweden-is-keeping-its-pubs-and-bars-open https://www.bbc.com/news/av/newsbeat-52618788/coronavirus-ho...) It absolutely doesn't look that Sweden's economy took a downturn because people are afraid to go outside. Their economy seems to be hit by supply chains dependent on locked down countries being suspended[1]: "One big reason is that Sweden is a small, open economy with a large manufacturing industry. Truckmaker Volvo Group and carmaker Volvo Cars were both forced to stop production for several weeks, not because of conditions in Sweden but due to lack of parts and difficulties in their supply chains elsewhere in Europe." So, to reiterate, it looks very much like the majority of damage to economies are caused by lockdowns. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4...
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  I don't agree with your conclusion, but I appreciate those links. Thank you.

Hoasi 6y ago

> Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself. Exactly. In most countries, people are willingly staying mostly at home. More, they continue to restrain from shopping and eating out after the lockdown ended.

myk9001 6y ago
This is not the case for Sweden. For details, take a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266698 I don't think this is the case for Germany, Switzerland, or Denmark either. What countries do you have in mind where lock downs ended and most people are staying at home?

erebrus 6y ago

On top of that, Sweeden is recording very high death rates and latest estimates point to around 7% in immunity.

mc6 6y ago
The 7% was a month ago, ie that was when the tests took place. If you believe the disease is rampant in Sweden, it’ll be much higher now. If it’s not, then the hard lockdowns elsewhere were superfluous.
JChase2 6y ago
Even if they had 30% immunity, that still leaves the majority of the population exposed. I'm sure 30% would be very much preferable (if it's even true), but probably not good enough to allow things like concerts or maybe even sit down restaurants to reopen.
- myk9001 6y ago
  There are estimates that herd-immunity is achievable at 43% "The disease-induced herd immunity level is 43% ... when immunity is induced by disease spreading, the proportion infected in groups with high contact rates is greater than in groups with low contact rates" https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085

mc6 6y ago

Unlike most other European countries, Sweden is not increasing its sovereign debt load by 15+% of GDP to keep the citizenry afloat. That’ll feel a lot more important than Covid in 5 years.

Analog24 6y ago
I think this is likely a biased view. If you ask the families of the 300+k people who died from Covid-19 they probably won't consider the economic impact to be the most significant.
- zaroth 6y ago
  I think it’s fair to say that both numbers represent a measure of different ways that the pandemic has caused pain and suffering, whether it’s in terms of lives or livelihoods impacted. We obviously need to deal with both problems concurrently. There are a lot of actions that can be taken which can help one which doesn’t come at the expense of the other, so it’s not purely a either-or decision. It would be wrong to turn a blind eye to either effect. The death toll is an immediate concern, but so is a functioning food supply chain, and indeed a healthy economy is critically important to everyone. No having lived through an economic collapse or a hyper inflation event, for example, it may be hard to appreciate how difficult (and deadly) that situation can be.
- myk9001 6y ago
  People are worried about economies not for some abstract reasons. Bad economies literally kill and have a potential to kill much more people than Covid-19. From what I gather, the scale of current economic damage is seriously compared to the Great Depression in mainstream media[1][2]. Well, the Great Depression brought Nazi into power in Germany[3], WW2 followed and took lives of 70-85 million people[4] to say nothing of the post-war devastation. Or look at Venezuela for an example of a bad economy in modern times, where "families buy rotten meat to eat"[5]. Also, if you ask families of people who will die because their cancer wasn't diagnosed in time, they will probably consider lockdowns too excessive[6]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/19/unemployment-today-vs-the-great-depression-how-do-the-eras-compare.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/19/unemployment-today-vs-the-gr... [2] https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-economic-cost-and-human-suffering-in-us-like-1930s-great-depression-11991721 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-economic-cost-and-hum... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGbyLUCw5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGbyLUCw5k [6] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52747659 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52747659

AgentME 6y ago

Without lockdowns, it just means that everyone with the means to stay home does so, and the people not able to stay home disproportionately face the disease. Government lockdowns reduce the incentive for desperate people to continue exposing themselves to the disease.

myk9001 6y ago

Lockdowns are causing the majority of economic damage. Whether lockdowns are justified anyway is a question for another discussion. But economies are hit by lockdowns not the pandemic itself. Let's look at info we can find about Sweden. Sure, people in Sweden are staying at home more, but the decrease in activity is hardly on the level of locked down countries. "When people became aware of coronavirus around March 12, we lost almost overnight 30 per cent. It’s OK. For a couple of months, it will work. But after that it will be very, very tough,"[1] [A pedestrian street in Stockholm on Apr. 1](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2020/04/01/TELEMMGLPICT000228902301_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bqt7YuOpTV-OCUjzn11uechNSi7-SoHEG4mrcpQ7yfjCk.jpeg?imwidth=1400 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2020/04/01/TELE...) [A market in Malmo during the pandemic (no exact date)](http://archive.is/2siwt/5d1b19d61fd21d052c2cc190f13f722c0bf86f4d.webp http://archive.is/2siwt/5d1b19d61fd21d052c2cc190f13f722c0bf8...) [Pubs, eating out](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/newsbeat-52618788/coronavirus-how-sweden-is-keeping-its-pubs-and-bars-open https://www.bbc.com/news/av/newsbeat-52618788/coronavirus-ho...) It absolutely doesn't look that Sweden's economy took a downturn because people are afraid to go outside. Their economy seems to be hit by supply chains dependent on locked down countries being suspended[1]: "One big reason is that Sweden is a small, open economy with a large manufacturing industry. Truckmaker Volvo Group and carmaker Volvo Cars were both forced to stop production for several weeks, not because of conditions in Sweden but due to lack of parts and difficulties in their supply chains elsewhere in Europe." So, to reiterate, it looks very much like the majority of damage to economies are caused by lockdowns. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4...

JohnBooty 6y ago
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I appreciate those links. Thank you.