4 ms·

I don’t believe the article has addressed Sweden’s main argument for not shutting down: that herd immunity should be the prime driver. Essentially, that every

I don’t believe the article has addressed Sweden’s main argument for not shutting down: that herd immunity should be the prime driver. Essentially, that everyone is going to eventually have roughly the same death rate, so might as well get it over with. That remains to be seen; if Sweden’s peers can prevent flare-ups, it looks like Sweden was wrong.

Traster 6y ago
Well it's not only that, if you overwhelm your healthcare system you're going to end up with excess deaths even if the same number of people get the virus in the end. Also, we've learned some mitigation techniques over the last few months (like steroids in late stage treatment) which means that the idea that 'everyone will get it eventually' just isn't relevant - its likely that our survival rate will go up over time even without a proper vaccine.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  Whether this is an issue for Sweden should be clear from the death rate among the infected, but that data isn't mentioned in the article. I assume that figure is difficult to calculate without a precise/consistent case count for multiple countries.
- wk_end 6y ago
  Yes, although Sweden never came close to overwhelming its health care system.
- nradov 6y ago
  Ironically, medical researchers wouldn't have learned those mitigation techniques (like Dexamethasone) without a large population of patients to use as experimental subjects. In other words, if we succeed in slowing down the spread (which would be a good thing) then medical research into treatments and vaccines will also slow down.
  - stallmanite 6y ago
    Would work on a vaccine really slow down? There are many thousands of patients and how many does a vaccine study require in practice?
    - nradov 6y ago
      It would take longer to complete the vaccine phase 3 clinical trials. We need to see that the vaccinated group has a significantly lower risk of infection than the control group. But if the disease spread is already slow due to other measures then we need either more time to be sure whether the vaccine really works.
    - kalleboo 6y ago
      https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disappearing-so-fast-oxford-vaccine-has-only-50-chance-of-working-11993739 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disappearing-so-fast-...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
jooize 6y ago
Sweden's strategy nor argument has not been herd immunity. In my understanding, Sweden's intentions are to recommend or mandate measures deemed sustainable for a long time ahead. Arguments in favor of minimal restrictions include: avoid exhaustion of compliance in the population; avoid disrupting the economy, and negative effects on economy likely will affect population health; …
grecy 6y ago
Exactly. It also means that we can't judge Sweden's approach for another 12-24-48 months. Who knows how many times other countries will go in and out of lockdown in the coming years, and how long that will drag on. Melbourne just fully locked down again due to a rise in cases. It's clear every country will eventually give up and go with Sweden's approach because they'll run out of "free" money, it's just a question of how long they will drag it out, or if a mass-produced vaccine can be effective and arrives in time.
lostmyoldone 6y ago
One could claim that actually the main "argument", which isn't really much an argument, is that the government could not legally order a lockdown. Or, well, they could still order it. But since it would have been illegal, it could not have been enforced in any way, as it would also be illegal to follow any order to enforce it. Some politicians wanted a lockdown, but soon found out that Swedens crisis response laws are not triggered by disease, at least not unless it's a clear threat to the continuation of the state as such. Covid IS serious, but this far it doesn't look like a civilization ending disease.

Traster 6y ago

Well it's not only that, if you overwhelm your healthcare system you're going to end up with excess deaths even if the same number of people get the virus in the end. Also, we've learned some mitigation techniques over the last few months (like steroids in late stage treatment) which means that the idea that 'everyone will get it eventually' just isn't relevant - its likely that our survival rate will go up over time even without a proper vaccine.

marcusverus 6y ago
Whether this is an issue for Sweden should be clear from the death rate among the infected, but that data isn't mentioned in the article. I assume that figure is difficult to calculate without a precise/consistent case count for multiple countries.
wk_end 6y ago
Yes, although Sweden never came close to overwhelming its health care system.
nradov 6y ago
Ironically, medical researchers wouldn't have learned those mitigation techniques (like Dexamethasone) without a large population of patients to use as experimental subjects. In other words, if we succeed in slowing down the spread (which would be a good thing) then medical research into treatments and vaccines will also slow down.
- stallmanite 6y ago
  Would work on a vaccine really slow down? There are many thousands of patients and how many does a vaccine study require in practice?
  - nradov 6y ago
    It would take longer to complete the vaccine phase 3 clinical trials. We need to see that the vaccinated group has a significantly lower risk of infection than the control group. But if the disease spread is already slow due to other measures then we need either more time to be sure whether the vaccine really works.
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disappearing-so-fast-oxford-vaccine-has-only-50-chance-of-working-11993739 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disappearing-so-fast-...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

jooize 6y ago

Sweden's strategy nor argument has not been herd immunity. In my understanding, Sweden's intentions are to recommend or mandate measures deemed sustainable for a long time ahead. Arguments in favor of minimal restrictions include: avoid exhaustion of compliance in the population; avoid disrupting the economy, and negative effects on economy likely will affect population health; …

grecy 6y ago

Exactly. It also means that we can't judge Sweden's approach for another 12-24-48 months. Who knows how many times other countries will go in and out of lockdown in the coming years, and how long that will drag on. Melbourne just fully locked down again due to a rise in cases. It's clear every country will eventually give up and go with Sweden's approach because they'll run out of "free" money, it's just a question of how long they will drag it out, or if a mass-produced vaccine can be effective and arrives in time.

lostmyoldone 6y ago

One could claim that actually the main "argument", which isn't really much an argument, is that the government could not legally order a lockdown. Or, well, they could still order it. But since it would have been illegal, it could not have been enforced in any way, as it would also be illegal to follow any order to enforce it. Some politicians wanted a lockdown, but soon found out that Swedens crisis response laws are not triggered by disease, at least not unless it's a clear threat to the continuation of the state as such. Covid IS serious, but this far it doesn't look like a civilization ending disease.