3 ms·
Yes, but not catastrophic prevalence. The question was whether not locking down things like schools would result in much higher deaths than we currently see in
by username90 6y ago
Yes, but not catastrophic prevalence. The question was whether not locking down things like schools would result in much higher deaths than we currently see in for example England or New York. The answer is no, not necessarily.
- exdsq 6y agoIn Sweden a lot of people were self-isolating and being cautious without the need of a formal lockdown. They still have the most deaths per capita in Europe.
- username90 6y agoSchools were open. A million kids went to crowded classrooms every day for the past two months and death rate is still not even close to England, Belgium, Italy or New York.
- exdsq 6y agoThe number of deaths per capita is higher than England, Belgium, and Italy however the total number is lower (they have a smaller population). They also have a low population density, a lot of single households, and as a population have less issues with diabetes, obesity, and chronic heart conditions compared to other countries. It is not black and white :)
- orwin 6y agoTargeted lockdown was a good idea in the context (not that much different clusters). Sweden was since the beginning at the place where France will be next week, but Sweden did not have the Mulhouse cluster that crippled multiple hospitals in eastern France. Many thanks to Switzerland and Germany for helping us saving a dozen patients by the way.