16 ms·

This is an important observation. In the Netherlands, where I live, I've had a number of people look at me with great surprise and mistrust when I mentioned tha

This is an important observation. In the Netherlands, where I live, I've had a number of people look at me with great surprise and mistrust when I mentioned that the Dutch have done a terrible job with this epidemic. The Guardian plots show that the Netherlands is one of the worst when it comes to under-reporting. This is not to say however that the Swedes have done a good job. While their numbers are credible, their magnitude is still unacceptably large: 0.5/1000 Swedes have so far died of the corona virus.

londons_explore 6y ago
In an average year, 13/1000 Swedes die anyway. Considering COVID has closed many of life's fun things, there will be an entire generation of people who have effectively "lost" a year of the things they hoped they would do in their lifetime. By stating open, Sweden might decrease life expectancy in years, but increase it in terms of 'things achieved in a lifetime'
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  The argument that some people die so it’s ok if more people die is not only horrific, but it makes very little sense.
  - VectorLock 6y ago
    The argument that "its okay for more of other people to die so some people don't miss out on some fun" I find even more abhorrent.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's an argument you have to accept on some level, unless you propose to make more radical changes to society. How many thousands of people could we have saved from car accidents in 2019 by banning nonessential driving?
      - VectorLock 6y ago
        At a fundamental level, yes. By degree of magnitude not even in the same galaxy. If you take a 200 million mile road trip you might contribute to one death, vs. going to a party and risk contracting and spreading a pandemic that has has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        Remember, the game plan that virologists came up with for COVID acknowledged that most people will get it eventually. The point of the lockdowns was not to eliminate spread, which is impossible, but to not overwhelm the system.
        pas 6y ago
        The plan is/was also to understand it, find effective protocols for managing it, etc. (And we also have pretty good chances of coming up with a vaccine in about 1 year.) It's not "just the same amount of death, but slower, so the crematoriums don't get overwhelmed".
        jessaustin 6y ago
        ...pretty good chances of coming up with a vaccine in about 1 year. This is just wishful thinking. We've never had effective vaccines for this sort of virus. (The yearly flu vaccine is like 30% effective.) Sure lots of research groups are working on vaccines, but many of them are academics who have no particular duty to work on research likely to have an immediate payoff. The researchers who do have such a duty, i.e. those who work for private drug firms, are mostly developing treatments like the antiviral remdesivir. Effective treatments of various sorts are closer than any vaccine, for COVID-19. IMHO, the most likely eventual winner will be a scaled-up version of the convalescent plasma therapy, which unlike the current version will be able to produce effective antibodies without drawing blood from humans.
        pas 6y ago
    - jgalt212 6y ago
      "Have a good time, all the time!" -Viv Savage
  - tomrod 6y ago
    It also completely ignores the knock on effect of increased poor health due to COVID. Organ damage leads to reduced quality of life and economic output.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    I’d love to see you get decapitated very slowly with a warm butterknife.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Such an odd argument. I wonder how would you reply to such a statement when you reach 65 years of age.
  - ralph84 6y ago
    At age 65 (or any age) I'd evaluate my risk and modify my own activities. I wouldn't even dream of asking others to give up their work or school or favorite activities because of my own frailty.
    - glofish 6y ago
      this is exactly how see it as well. My mother is 77 at risk from COVID - does she expect the neighbors kid not go to school to keep her "safe"? Or that a 20 year old not have fun at the beach from now on so that she is "safe"? Of course not, not a least bit, and she told me that herself. I admire her for it. I agree as well. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
      - risaacs99 6y ago
        Not sending kids to school is about keeping the teachers, administrators, and their dependents and contacts safe. It's about grandparents who care for the children and would be at risk. I don't think it's about your mom.
        glofish 6y ago
        now that there really captures the groupthink that permeates government actions someone's mom and people in general only matter if they are scared if they are not scared then they have no rights, their opinion does not matter and they must do what the scared people want, being scared and weak gives you more rights than being strong
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Sounds like some propaganda for hillbillies.
- leto_ii 6y ago
  > In an average year, 13/1000 Swedes die anyway. Yes, people die. That's true of all countries and all times. What we might call civilized societies have however strived to reduce those numbers as much as possible. This was done by trying to avoid violence, improving lifestyles and developing better medical techniques in order to prevent or repair diseases and injuries. Containing and minimizing the effects of a pandemic is just one aspect of what we might call a civilized attitude towards human life. Conversely, not doing so is uncivilized and I might add immoral and irresponsible. > there will be an entire generation of people who have effectively "lost" a year of the things they hoped they would do in their lifetime This almost doesn't merit a reply. A few months of not going to festivals and the cinema is by no measure a catastrophe. It's not fun, but suggesting that your right to fun should trump others' right to life is, again, uncivilized, immoral and irresponsible.
  - revnode 6y ago
    > Containing and minimizing the effects of a pandemic is just one aspect of what we might call a civilized attitude towards human life. Conversely, not doing so is uncivilized and I might add immoral and irresponsible. This is acting under the assumption that something can be done, that the thing done is effective, or for that matter, isn't harmful. There were, of course, many things done. Were all of them effective? Were some of them harmful? Doing something harmful, like for example forcefully depriving many of a livelihood during a pandemic, can be considered immoral and irresponsible.
    - leto_ii 6y ago
      There are many ways of mitigating the harmful effects of the lock down. State aid targeted directly towards individuals (and not corporations) is a good idea, I think. The same goes for a freeze on mortgage payments, rents, evictions etc. These are all measures that a modern state can take to prevent people from suffering economically.
      - revnode 6y ago
        > There are many ways of mitigating the harmful effects of the lock down. State aid targeted directly towards individuals (and not corporations) is a good idea, I think. The same goes for a freeze on mortgage payments, rents, evictions etc. I think it's a bad idea to have people with little understanding of economics, but a high sense of moral superiority, fix the problems they create through their incompetence. Politicians are the last people you want doing this. Freeze evictions? Landlords go bust. Freeze mortgages? Mortgage servicers go bust. Now what? Mortgages when created are aggregated into securities with guaranteed contractual payments. No payments? What happens to the securities and the organizations that own them? Banks, pensions, retirement accounts, etc? What happens to the mortgage market and the young family who needs to buy their first home? Actions have consequences. It's nice to have ideas over the internet, but reality is a bit more complicated.
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  Keep in mind that years of life lost by dying sooner are actually a complete loss, while a year in quarantine is still partially lived. It varies a lot from person to person. If it was all about yourself, what do you think would be a reasonable exchange rate?
  - username90 6y ago
    The exchange rate for the most successful lock-downs of corona is about 60 years of lock-down for 1 year of life. Edit: Note that USA is doing much worse since so many are dying there even though you lock down.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      It's not possible to calculate that exchange rate, because you don't have access to the counterfactual. You're not taking the ratio of lockdown years to years lost to deaths, right? Both of those belong in the expenses side...
      - username90 6y ago
        Sweden didn't lock down, that is the typical worst case you would get. So lives saved is the deaths per pop in Sweden compared to deaths per pop where you are.
        ptr 6y ago
        The picture you’re painting doesn’t represent reality — there were definitely lock downs (mostly related to elderly care, but also to varying degrees for the general public). People have worked from home since February.
        jonathanstrange 6y ago
        No, Sweden has an exceptionally low population density. You cannot just grab a country and take it as a model for any other country. The same measures as in Sweden would lead to a catastrophe in many other countries.
- Smithalicious 6y ago
  Now tell this to the people dying painful deaths after a horrible battle on a respirator. Your death will not be in vain, because we prevented people from "losing" a year of getting frequent haircuts and going to events! Human wellbeing is not fungible. It is not acceptable to let a significant portion of people suffer to prevent a moderate inconvenience to a larger group of people.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Well... not if it was travel related.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  Where did the virus come from? How did it arise? Is it deadlier than we realize? Will it remain what we see now? Does it target specific populations? Do children have unexpected long terms side effects of having it? Will it wipe out the entirety of the elderly if we allow it to circulate? Will people get reinfected by it after a short time or long time? How rapidly will it mutate to become deadlier? How rapidly less so? How many will die in the meantime? There too much unknown to dismiss what this disease can do.
- somewhereoutth 6y ago
  We have been very lucky in the EU - the 'other narrative' was concentrated in Sweden, so all we had to do was wall them off.
- cma 6y ago
  In New Zealand, who took the opposite strategy of Sweden, they can open now and aren't losing a year.
  - alvah 6y ago
    New Zealand hasn't even begun dealing with Covid-19 yet, unless their plan is to keep the borders closed permanently, or at least until the development of the first vaccine in history for any coronavirus. They are probably the farthest away from reaching herd immunity of any developed country.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Their plan is to require a strict quarantine for all arrivals from overseas. That will be permanent, at least until an effective vaccine is available. It may work, at the cost of their tourism industry.
      - makomk 6y ago
        Emphasis strongly on the "may" - we've seen how well that worked in Australia, which is now having to gradually impose lockdowns.
        cma 6y ago
        How about Vietnam. Extensive contact tracing during each new flare up. Only 400 cases or so. It is extremely cheap to control it early.
- _jahh 6y ago
  can we get past the deaths anyway, like 20% of people are going to have weeks if not months of below average capabilities plus some unknown percentage of lung damage. Everyone keeps forgetting this is a NOVEL virus, between rare severe impacts to children, there have been neurological any circulatory issues so saying it only matters to the people who die I think is ludicrously naive.
- simonh 6y ago
  Studies like this show that this is a false choice, there is no real option to 'choose the economy' for example. As we saw from studies of the Spanish Flu, cities with late and light lockdowns actually suffered more economically than cities that locked down earlier and tighter because the effects of an un checked (or less well managed) outbreak that lasted longer were so devastating. More people sick and dying is a huge drag on activity, including all the people that have to look after them, and people self-isolate anyway out of fear. Pandemics like this are a juggernaut, there's no real option to ignore and carry on.
- agarttha 6y ago
  Here is an analysis of how many people die due to confinement vs COVID. https://theconversation.com/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-cure-really-worse-than-the-disease-heres-what-our-research-found-141700 https://theconversation.com/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-cure-re...
- rurban 6y ago
  During a Swedish flu season 1800 die per week. I haven't seen this number yet in this year's flu season.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    really? a link?
    - rurban 6y ago
      Just lookup the health ministry yearly flu reports. Also very informative for Italy. http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/i/influenza-in-sweden/ http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publi...
      - jaxaan 6y ago
        In 2000 the overall total deaths was actually higher then Corona this year. That even though the population was smaller back then. And a few years earlier it also was a be ad flue year. Actually the current death rate are lower for last month then the mean value of previous 5 years same month. But I guess that doesn't fit the common view of how it should be in Sweden. Nor that the total death rate are in pair with Denmark and lower then Finland, with much harder lockdown.
nradov 6y ago
What is the criteria for defining an acceptable number of deaths?
- ncallaway 6y ago
  I would generally go for "as few as possible given the circumstances". Given how much higher they are over other nations—even taking into account excess deaths—I would say they have failed that metric.
  - 345218435 6y ago
    bull. shit. plot yourself the numbers. their website is available in english. https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=21 https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=2...
  - 345218435 6y ago
    thanks for the downvotes. what a leftist liberal light-skinned cesspool hn has degraded to. this community should be ashamed of the unwelcoming and hostile circle it fosters.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    You cannot know that until after the pandemic is over. The Swedes are betting that nobody in the world will be spared from COVID and therefore the delta in deaths is temporary. They are front-loading it while attempting to keep the economic impacts as low as possible. They anticipate the rest of the world will be contending with shutdowns, re-openings, shutdowns, re-openings, and when all is said and done, the death rate per capita will be the same the world over. So far, they the Swedes have bet one way, much of the rest of the world has bet the other way. Time will tell, but it is much too soon to make that judgment today.
    - freyr 6y ago
      > The Swedes are betting that nobody in the world will be spared from COVID It's also a bet that medical treatments won't improve and a vaccine won't be developed.
345218435 6y ago
the church of covid is a cult. get out. get perspective and truth. https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=21 https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=2...
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  LOL
- tspike 6y ago
  The stats in the tweet you linked are quite detailed and interesting. Perhaps your message would be better received if put in a less abrasive package?
- redisman 6y ago
  I was curious. Not very convincing data. Mortality has gone down in Sweden in the long term so covid is not actually a big deal? I don’t see the connection
brnt 6y ago
The Dutch think of their healthcare as the Brits think of their NHS. It's more faith than fact. I find it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the subject, even people in healthcare (I worked in a famous Dutch hospital). People are dug in, evidence-based medicine is a tool to improve statistics first, patient care second, and nobody knows what anything actually costs, despite the national DBC-accounting system which was invented for insurers. Hint: not even the Dutch statistics bureau can tell you what the total cost of Dutch healthcare is. I've heard this is very politicized issue, all behind the scenes of course.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I think the NHS was at one point very good, especially in terms of price/performance ratio. What you see now is the result of over a decade of governments that have a fundamental antipathy towards any kind of public service, and who consider the NHS as an obstacle that must be torn down before a more private system can be established. The difference in quality of care is visible, and the policies the system must work under essentially amount to sabotage.

londons_explore 6y ago

In an average year, 13/1000 Swedes die anyway. Considering COVID has closed many of life's fun things, there will be an entire generation of people who have effectively "lost" a year of the things they hoped they would do in their lifetime. By stating open, Sweden might decrease life expectancy in years, but increase it in terms of 'things achieved in a lifetime'

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wbronitsky 6y ago
The argument that some people die so it’s ok if more people die is not only horrific, but it makes very little sense.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  The argument that "its okay for more of other people to die so some people don't miss out on some fun" I find even more abhorrent.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's an argument you have to accept on some level, unless you propose to make more radical changes to society. How many thousands of people could we have saved from car accidents in 2019 by banning nonessential driving?
    - VectorLock 6y ago
      At a fundamental level, yes. By degree of magnitude not even in the same galaxy. If you take a 200 million mile road trip you might contribute to one death, vs. going to a party and risk contracting and spreading a pandemic that has has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Remember, the game plan that virologists came up with for COVID acknowledged that most people will get it eventually. The point of the lockdowns was not to eliminate spread, which is impossible, but to not overwhelm the system.
        pas 6y ago
        The plan is/was also to understand it, find effective protocols for managing it, etc. (And we also have pretty good chances of coming up with a vaccine in about 1 year.) It's not "just the same amount of death, but slower, so the crematoriums don't get overwhelmed".
        jessaustin 6y ago
        ...pretty good chances of coming up with a vaccine in about 1 year. This is just wishful thinking. We've never had effective vaccines for this sort of virus. (The yearly flu vaccine is like 30% effective.) Sure lots of research groups are working on vaccines, but many of them are academics who have no particular duty to work on research likely to have an immediate payoff. The researchers who do have such a duty, i.e. those who work for private drug firms, are mostly developing treatments like the antiviral remdesivir. Effective treatments of various sorts are closer than any vaccine, for COVID-19. IMHO, the most likely eventual winner will be a scaled-up version of the convalescent plasma therapy, which unlike the current version will be able to produce effective antibodies without drawing blood from humans.
        pas 6y ago
  - jgalt212 6y ago
    "Have a good time, all the time!" -Viv Savage
- tomrod 6y ago
  It also completely ignores the knock on effect of increased poor health due to COVID. Organ damage leads to reduced quality of life and economic output.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  I’d love to see you get decapitated very slowly with a warm butterknife.
SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
Such an odd argument. I wonder how would you reply to such a statement when you reach 65 years of age.
- ralph84 6y ago
  At age 65 (or any age) I'd evaluate my risk and modify my own activities. I wouldn't even dream of asking others to give up their work or school or favorite activities because of my own frailty.
  - glofish 6y ago
    this is exactly how see it as well. My mother is 77 at risk from COVID - does she expect the neighbors kid not go to school to keep her "safe"? Or that a 20 year old not have fun at the beach from now on so that she is "safe"? Of course not, not a least bit, and she told me that herself. I admire her for it. I agree as well. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
    - risaacs99 6y ago
      Not sending kids to school is about keeping the teachers, administrators, and their dependents and contacts safe. It's about grandparents who care for the children and would be at risk. I don't think it's about your mom.
      - glofish 6y ago
        now that there really captures the groupthink that permeates government actions someone's mom and people in general only matter if they are scared if they are not scared then they have no rights, their opinion does not matter and they must do what the scared people want, being scared and weak gives you more rights than being strong
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Sounds like some propaganda for hillbillies.
leto_ii 6y ago
> In an average year, 13/1000 Swedes die anyway. Yes, people die. That's true of all countries and all times. What we might call civilized societies have however strived to reduce those numbers as much as possible. This was done by trying to avoid violence, improving lifestyles and developing better medical techniques in order to prevent or repair diseases and injuries. Containing and minimizing the effects of a pandemic is just one aspect of what we might call a civilized attitude towards human life. Conversely, not doing so is uncivilized and I might add immoral and irresponsible. > there will be an entire generation of people who have effectively "lost" a year of the things they hoped they would do in their lifetime This almost doesn't merit a reply. A few months of not going to festivals and the cinema is by no measure a catastrophe. It's not fun, but suggesting that your right to fun should trump others' right to life is, again, uncivilized, immoral and irresponsible.
- revnode 6y ago
  > Containing and minimizing the effects of a pandemic is just one aspect of what we might call a civilized attitude towards human life. Conversely, not doing so is uncivilized and I might add immoral and irresponsible. This is acting under the assumption that something can be done, that the thing done is effective, or for that matter, isn't harmful. There were, of course, many things done. Were all of them effective? Were some of them harmful? Doing something harmful, like for example forcefully depriving many of a livelihood during a pandemic, can be considered immoral and irresponsible.
  - leto_ii 6y ago
    There are many ways of mitigating the harmful effects of the lock down. State aid targeted directly towards individuals (and not corporations) is a good idea, I think. The same goes for a freeze on mortgage payments, rents, evictions etc. These are all measures that a modern state can take to prevent people from suffering economically.
    - revnode 6y ago
      > There are many ways of mitigating the harmful effects of the lock down. State aid targeted directly towards individuals (and not corporations) is a good idea, I think. The same goes for a freeze on mortgage payments, rents, evictions etc. I think it's a bad idea to have people with little understanding of economics, but a high sense of moral superiority, fix the problems they create through their incompetence. Politicians are the last people you want doing this. Freeze evictions? Landlords go bust. Freeze mortgages? Mortgage servicers go bust. Now what? Mortgages when created are aggregated into securities with guaranteed contractual payments. No payments? What happens to the securities and the organizations that own them? Banks, pensions, retirement accounts, etc? What happens to the mortgage market and the young family who needs to buy their first home? Actions have consequences. It's nice to have ideas over the internet, but reality is a bit more complicated.
emiliobumachar 6y ago
Keep in mind that years of life lost by dying sooner are actually a complete loss, while a year in quarantine is still partially lived. It varies a lot from person to person. If it was all about yourself, what do you think would be a reasonable exchange rate?
- username90 6y ago
  The exchange rate for the most successful lock-downs of corona is about 60 years of lock-down for 1 year of life. Edit: Note that USA is doing much worse since so many are dying there even though you lock down.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    It's not possible to calculate that exchange rate, because you don't have access to the counterfactual. You're not taking the ratio of lockdown years to years lost to deaths, right? Both of those belong in the expenses side...
    - username90 6y ago
      Sweden didn't lock down, that is the typical worst case you would get. So lives saved is the deaths per pop in Sweden compared to deaths per pop where you are.
      - ptr 6y ago
        The picture you’re painting doesn’t represent reality — there were definitely lock downs (mostly related to elderly care, but also to varying degrees for the general public). People have worked from home since February.
      - jonathanstrange 6y ago
        No, Sweden has an exceptionally low population density. You cannot just grab a country and take it as a model for any other country. The same measures as in Sweden would lead to a catastrophe in many other countries.
Smithalicious 6y ago
Now tell this to the people dying painful deaths after a horrible battle on a respirator. Your death will not be in vain, because we prevented people from "losing" a year of getting frequent haircuts and going to events! Human wellbeing is not fungible. It is not acceptable to let a significant portion of people suffer to prevent a moderate inconvenience to a larger group of people.
sjg007 6y ago
Well... not if it was travel related.
kingkawn 6y ago
Where did the virus come from? How did it arise? Is it deadlier than we realize? Will it remain what we see now? Does it target specific populations? Do children have unexpected long terms side effects of having it? Will it wipe out the entirety of the elderly if we allow it to circulate? Will people get reinfected by it after a short time or long time? How rapidly will it mutate to become deadlier? How rapidly less so? How many will die in the meantime? There too much unknown to dismiss what this disease can do.
somewhereoutth 6y ago
We have been very lucky in the EU - the 'other narrative' was concentrated in Sweden, so all we had to do was wall them off.
cma 6y ago
In New Zealand, who took the opposite strategy of Sweden, they can open now and aren't losing a year.
- alvah 6y ago
  New Zealand hasn't even begun dealing with Covid-19 yet, unless their plan is to keep the borders closed permanently, or at least until the development of the first vaccine in history for any coronavirus. They are probably the farthest away from reaching herd immunity of any developed country.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Their plan is to require a strict quarantine for all arrivals from overseas. That will be permanent, at least until an effective vaccine is available. It may work, at the cost of their tourism industry.
    - makomk 6y ago
      Emphasis strongly on the "may" - we've seen how well that worked in Australia, which is now having to gradually impose lockdowns.
      - cma 6y ago
        How about Vietnam. Extensive contact tracing during each new flare up. Only 400 cases or so. It is extremely cheap to control it early.
_jahh 6y ago
can we get past the deaths anyway, like 20% of people are going to have weeks if not months of below average capabilities plus some unknown percentage of lung damage. Everyone keeps forgetting this is a NOVEL virus, between rare severe impacts to children, there have been neurological any circulatory issues so saying it only matters to the people who die I think is ludicrously naive.
simonh 6y ago
Studies like this show that this is a false choice, there is no real option to 'choose the economy' for example. As we saw from studies of the Spanish Flu, cities with late and light lockdowns actually suffered more economically than cities that locked down earlier and tighter because the effects of an un checked (or less well managed) outbreak that lasted longer were so devastating. More people sick and dying is a huge drag on activity, including all the people that have to look after them, and people self-isolate anyway out of fear. Pandemics like this are a juggernaut, there's no real option to ignore and carry on.
agarttha 6y ago
Here is an analysis of how many people die due to confinement vs COVID. https://theconversation.com/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-cure-really-worse-than-the-disease-heres-what-our-research-found-141700 https://theconversation.com/is-the-covid-19-pandemic-cure-re...
rurban 6y ago
During a Swedish flu season 1800 die per week. I haven't seen this number yet in this year's flu season.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  really? a link?
  - rurban 6y ago
    Just lookup the health ministry yearly flu reports. Also very informative for Italy. http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/i/influenza-in-sweden/ http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publi...
    - jaxaan 6y ago
      In 2000 the overall total deaths was actually higher then Corona this year. That even though the population was smaller back then. And a few years earlier it also was a be ad flue year. Actually the current death rate are lower for last month then the mean value of previous 5 years same month. But I guess that doesn't fit the common view of how it should be in Sweden. Nor that the total death rate are in pair with Denmark and lower then Finland, with much harder lockdown.

nradov 6y ago

What is the criteria for defining an acceptable number of deaths?

ncallaway 6y ago
I would generally go for "as few as possible given the circumstances". Given how much higher they are over other nations—even taking into account excess deaths—I would say they have failed that metric.
- 345218435 6y ago
  bull. shit. plot yourself the numbers. their website is available in english. https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=21 https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=2...
- 345218435 6y ago
  thanks for the downvotes. what a leftist liberal light-skinned cesspool hn has degraded to. this community should be ashamed of the unwelcoming and hostile circle it fosters.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  You cannot know that until after the pandemic is over. The Swedes are betting that nobody in the world will be spared from COVID and therefore the delta in deaths is temporary. They are front-loading it while attempting to keep the economic impacts as low as possible. They anticipate the rest of the world will be contending with shutdowns, re-openings, shutdowns, re-openings, and when all is said and done, the death rate per capita will be the same the world over. So far, they the Swedes have bet one way, much of the rest of the world has bet the other way. Time will tell, but it is much too soon to make that judgment today.
  - freyr 6y ago
    > The Swedes are betting that nobody in the world will be spared from COVID It's also a bet that medical treatments won't improve and a vaccine won't be developed.

345218435 6y ago

the church of covid is a cult. get out. get perspective and truth. https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=21 https://twitter.com/haraldofw/status/1280383315871236096?s=2...

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
LOL
tspike 6y ago
The stats in the tweet you linked are quite detailed and interesting. Perhaps your message would be better received if put in a less abrasive package?
redisman 6y ago
I was curious. Not very convincing data. Mortality has gone down in Sweden in the long term so covid is not actually a big deal? I don’t see the connection

brnt 6y ago

The Dutch think of their healthcare as the Brits think of their NHS. It's more faith than fact. I find it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the subject, even people in healthcare (I worked in a famous Dutch hospital). People are dug in, evidence-based medicine is a tool to improve statistics first, patient care second, and nobody knows what anything actually costs, despite the national DBC-accounting system which was invented for insurers. Hint: not even the Dutch statistics bureau can tell you what the total cost of Dutch healthcare is. I've heard this is very politicized issue, all behind the scenes of course.

pasabagi 6y ago
I think the NHS was at one point very good, especially in terms of price/performance ratio. What you see now is the result of over a decade of governments that have a fundamental antipathy towards any kind of public service, and who consider the NHS as an obstacle that must be torn down before a more private system can be established. The difference in quality of care is visible, and the policies the system must work under essentially amount to sabotage.