6 ms·

I've heard a lot of conservative voices calling for this too. The only problem is that the US is far from Sweden--no universal health care, no guaranteed sick l

I've heard a lot of conservative voices calling for this too. The only problem is that the US is far from Sweden--no universal health care, no guaranteed sick leave, and no real safety net for workers. It would seem that if the US wanted to take the "hands-off" model, it would need to first implement these things.

Trasmatta 6y ago
A lot of places in the US are basically implementing the Sweden model already, but accidentally rather than intentionally. Which I think is a big mistake.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't think it's an accident. Most officials in the US have been pretty clear about what the plan is: we're going to make sure hospitals aren't overloaded, we're going to invest a lot of money in treatments and vaccines and contact tracing, and we're going to open up as much as possible while waiting for a vaccine or effective treatment. You can argue that we should have committed to eliminating the virus before going back to normal, but American officials were never really considering that as an option.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  This is one of those scenarios where splitting the difference between two different systems is markedly worse than having picked one and gone with it. In our case, we've managed to both melt down the economy and fail to contain the virus, which isn't good at all.
  - Spartan-S63 6y ago
    The patchwork shutdowns should have been used to buy time to scale up testing, improve contact tracing, acquire as much PPE as possible, and equip hospitals as best as possible to handle excess demand. The reality is that the shutdowns were used to enforce social distancing (because apparently Americans can't understand how critical it is to prevent the spread) and display the appearance of testing and contact tracing. What we ended up with was the illusion of a "win" when really we're just waiting to lose a second time and in a more dire way. I'm not sure the country will stomach another shutdown with a second wave, so I'm thinking that we'll just let the virus burn through and incur the high human cost it comes with.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I’ve said this before; any permanent social change caused by the virus alone (protests over police brutality did not enter my predictions) will come into existence due to any second waves that might occur. I think the snap back from “we’re reopening America” to mass casualties will be strong and sudden. Now I can’t even begin to predict what that snap back will look like. A permanent growth of remote work seems plausible, but I’m sure there will be unexpected secondary and tertiary outcomes.
      - noobaccount 6y ago
        Has a snap back happened anywhere else in the world? While the unknown is scary, in this case it seems like we can look to our neighbors at home and abroad for comfort.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        I don’t know, but I’m not heavily connected to any other culture to speak to that. It could be happening right now and I would miss it.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I’m not sure there is a difference between the two lockdown approaches. On one hand, Sweden’s economy is no better off than the rest of Europe. On the other hand, US deaths are on an exponential decline, similar to Europe, albeit slower. I think the meaningful difference is that European countries had more more extensive and effective programs to keep workers on payroll. If you want to point a finger at a US fuckup, look at chronic job insecurity and pushing unemployment insurance over employee retention. For example, 40-50 percent of workers in France, New Zealand and Switzerland received payroll retention benefits.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
The other major difference is that Swedish people trust their government.
partyboat1586 6y ago
Lockdown just slows the spread it doesn't stop it. Eventually you will need to get herd immunity. People without health care or sick leave will still eventually get coronavirus. The reason for lockdown is to make sure that hospitals are not overrun. It doesn't solve America's other problems. The idea that you can get the r value low enough that it dies out completely doesn't work because it would need to be consistent across states and countries. There will always be pockets of coronavirus unless you lockdown to the point of no economic return.
- LorenPechtel 6y ago
  This is assuming no vaccine, no precautions possible, no improved treatment. This is an incorrect model. We can stop it now--masks are required in public unless you have a doctor-diagnosed breathing disorder. Put some real teeth in the laws. That will drive R0 to below 1 and the virus will go away.
  - noobaccount 6y ago
    What’s the timescale? What “teeth” do the laws need? How do you manage the phenomenon of psychological reactance? Asking because while the theory may be sound, translation isn’t a given. And pursuing a policy without regard to feasibility may be counterproductive.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I think anything more than a minor citation is probably not achievable, and even that might be bad. Given the current state of policing in America, the idea of leaning on the police to enforce mask rules is personally unpalatable. What we really need is a social change on this issue, but that requires leadership from the top that we’re not getting.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    There won't be a vaccine within a reasonable timeframe. Improved treatment maybe. Would the number of lives saved from improved treatment be better than the economic cost? You can call me heartless but in the end economic cost also equals lives lost.
fragmede 6y ago
If the US wanted to take the "hands-off" model responsibly and in a coherent fashion, that is. Unfortunately, due to politics, there's a long history of seemingly contradictory positions parts, or the whole country takes. Every time there a gun-related tragedy, the argument to keep guns is always balanced by "we should provide better access to mental healthcare" - except then to endlessly fight Obamacare. States which seek to restrict abortion as much as they can, don't then lavishly fund welfare programs to support unwanted babies. The US is in the midst of implementing the "hands-off" model in the same fashion, discordant, with the respective parties playing the expected sides; battlegrounds drawn at state and county lines.

Trasmatta 6y ago

A lot of places in the US are basically implementing the Sweden model already, but accidentally rather than intentionally. Which I think is a big mistake.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think it's an accident. Most officials in the US have been pretty clear about what the plan is: we're going to make sure hospitals aren't overloaded, we're going to invest a lot of money in treatments and vaccines and contact tracing, and we're going to open up as much as possible while waiting for a vaccine or effective treatment. You can argue that we should have committed to eliminating the virus before going back to normal, but American officials were never really considering that as an option.
ashtonkem 6y ago
This is one of those scenarios where splitting the difference between two different systems is markedly worse than having picked one and gone with it. In our case, we've managed to both melt down the economy and fail to contain the virus, which isn't good at all.
- Spartan-S63 6y ago
  The patchwork shutdowns should have been used to buy time to scale up testing, improve contact tracing, acquire as much PPE as possible, and equip hospitals as best as possible to handle excess demand. The reality is that the shutdowns were used to enforce social distancing (because apparently Americans can't understand how critical it is to prevent the spread) and display the appearance of testing and contact tracing. What we ended up with was the illusion of a "win" when really we're just waiting to lose a second time and in a more dire way. I'm not sure the country will stomach another shutdown with a second wave, so I'm thinking that we'll just let the virus burn through and incur the high human cost it comes with.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I’ve said this before; any permanent social change caused by the virus alone (protests over police brutality did not enter my predictions) will come into existence due to any second waves that might occur. I think the snap back from “we’re reopening America” to mass casualties will be strong and sudden. Now I can’t even begin to predict what that snap back will look like. A permanent growth of remote work seems plausible, but I’m sure there will be unexpected secondary and tertiary outcomes.
    - noobaccount 6y ago
      Has a snap back happened anywhere else in the world? While the unknown is scary, in this case it seems like we can look to our neighbors at home and abroad for comfort.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        I don’t know, but I’m not heavily connected to any other culture to speak to that. It could be happening right now and I would miss it.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I’m not sure there is a difference between the two lockdown approaches. On one hand, Sweden’s economy is no better off than the rest of Europe. On the other hand, US deaths are on an exponential decline, similar to Europe, albeit slower. I think the meaningful difference is that European countries had more more extensive and effective programs to keep workers on payroll. If you want to point a finger at a US fuckup, look at chronic job insecurity and pushing unemployment insurance over employee retention. For example, 40-50 percent of workers in France, New Zealand and Switzerland received payroll retention benefits.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

The other major difference is that Swedish people trust their government.

partyboat1586 6y ago

Lockdown just slows the spread it doesn't stop it. Eventually you will need to get herd immunity. People without health care or sick leave will still eventually get coronavirus. The reason for lockdown is to make sure that hospitals are not overrun. It doesn't solve America's other problems. The idea that you can get the r value low enough that it dies out completely doesn't work because it would need to be consistent across states and countries. There will always be pockets of coronavirus unless you lockdown to the point of no economic return.

LorenPechtel 6y ago
This is assuming no vaccine, no precautions possible, no improved treatment. This is an incorrect model. We can stop it now--masks are required in public unless you have a doctor-diagnosed breathing disorder. Put some real teeth in the laws. That will drive R0 to below 1 and the virus will go away.
- noobaccount 6y ago
  What’s the timescale? What “teeth” do the laws need? How do you manage the phenomenon of psychological reactance? Asking because while the theory may be sound, translation isn’t a given. And pursuing a policy without regard to feasibility may be counterproductive.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I think anything more than a minor citation is probably not achievable, and even that might be bad. Given the current state of policing in America, the idea of leaning on the police to enforce mask rules is personally unpalatable. What we really need is a social change on this issue, but that requires leadership from the top that we’re not getting.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  There won't be a vaccine within a reasonable timeframe. Improved treatment maybe. Would the number of lives saved from improved treatment be better than the economic cost? You can call me heartless but in the end economic cost also equals lives lost.

fragmede 6y ago

If the US wanted to take the "hands-off" model responsibly and in a coherent fashion, that is. Unfortunately, due to politics, there's a long history of seemingly contradictory positions parts, or the whole country takes. Every time there a gun-related tragedy, the argument to keep guns is always balanced by "we should provide better access to mental healthcare" - except then to endlessly fight Obamacare. States which seek to restrict abortion as much as they can, don't then lavishly fund welfare programs to support unwanted babies. The US is in the midst of implementing the "hands-off" model in the same fashion, discordant, with the respective parties playing the expected sides; battlegrounds drawn at state and county lines.