6 ms·

The death rate maybe higher but they are in decline right now and that without lockdown, I would say the strategy succeed.

by matz1 6y ago

johnnyo 6y ago
How so? If they achieved the same results as others on roughly the same timeline, yet with more deaths, how is that a successful strategy?
- matz1 6y ago
  Because other countries implement lockdown. Lockdowns is not without cost.
- Kiro 6y ago
  We don't know the results yet. Numbers are going up in countries that are lifting their lockdown.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Lockdown has its own issues, economic and psychology / mental health. Plus, some types of death are an economic boon because they: a) cause economic churn and the associated fees, charges, and taxes b) free up resources that were tied up with non-producers
  - fanatic2pope 6y ago
    "non-producer"? Oh, you mean human being.
ceejayoz 6y ago
They locked down, just not formally. They saw the same economic damage their neighbors did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
- makomk 6y ago
  Sweden saw the same level of damage to their export-oriented industries as their neighbours did, but less damage to the service industries that are directly affected by a lockdown and less of a decrease in mobility: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-sweden-will-covid-19-economics-be-different https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-swe... You can't just lump the two together and claim it shows that not locking down causes about the same level of economic damage as locking down, especially given that those export losses are presumably directly attributable to their neighbours' lockdowns.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    This indicates Sweden wound up with relatively similar de-facto restrictions (a social distancing strictness of ~50 versus ~60 for the other Nordic nations) and a substantially higher death rate. It also says "Sweden did not record an economic contraction in Q1 of 2020", which is a misleading claim, given the lockdowns largely came in the last few weeks of that quarter, and later goes on to acknowledge "Forecasters agree that Sweden will face a severe recession in 2020". I don't think this really supports the case you're trying to make.
- sdinsn 6y ago
  Because Sweden's economy relies on exports. They have economic damage when their neighbors lock down, independent of their own lockdown status.
ginko 6y ago
There's barely any lockdown in Norway either. It's been like that since the beginning of June at least.
jjuel 6y ago
The problem is they had a higher death rate than the neighbors on the same timeline. Oh and their economy also suffered just as bad as neighbors who locked down. Not sure how it could be a success with more deaths and everything else being the same.
- lostapathy 6y ago
  But maybe Sweden is done having excess mortality where other countries still have a ways to go?
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    How can you possibly predict the future that way? Why would Sweden be done and not the other countries?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Immunity. I think the numbers show that countries who don't have a second wave had a strong first wave, where the lockdown came too late. Examples: Italy, France, Germany Then you have countries that had a strict lockdown on time, which resulted in rising rates as soon as lockdown was lifted. Examples: Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore Having said that, the latter countries do seem to fare better than the former, second wave or not.
    - lostapathy 6y ago
      I'm not trying to predict the future, I'm just saying it's possible. At the same time, it's not possible at this time to declare "sweden's strategy has failed" - there's plenty of time for other countries to catch up on excess mortality. I do think there's a very real chance that, assuming hospitals are not overwhelmed, there won't be a lot of difference in overall mortality between developed countries. This disease is, apparently, super infectious after all, and eradication seems unlikely.
      - jjuel 6y ago
        I wasn't saying it was a failure, but that it is hard to call it a success. Again I think we will need to wait a while to determine true successes or failures (although I think here in the US it is trending towards being a tremendous failure).

The death rate maybe higher but they are in decline right now and that without lockdown, I would say the strategy succeed.

by matz1 6y ago

The death rate maybe higher but they are in decline right now and that without lockdown, I would say the strategy succeed.

johnnyo 6y ago

How so? If they achieved the same results as others on roughly the same timeline, yet with more deaths, how is that a successful strategy?

matz1 6y ago
Because other countries implement lockdown. Lockdowns is not without cost.
Kiro 6y ago
We don't know the results yet. Numbers are going up in countries that are lifting their lockdown.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Lockdown has its own issues, economic and psychology / mental health. Plus, some types of death are an economic boon because they: a) cause economic churn and the associated fees, charges, and taxes b) free up resources that were tied up with non-producers
- fanatic2pope 6y ago
  "non-producer"? Oh, you mean human being.

ceejayoz 6y ago

They locked down, just not formally. They saw the same economic damage their neighbors did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...

makomk 6y ago
Sweden saw the same level of damage to their export-oriented industries as their neighbours did, but less damage to the service industries that are directly affected by a lockdown and less of a decrease in mobility: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-sweden-will-covid-19-economics-be-different https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/06/01/na060120-swe... You can't just lump the two together and claim it shows that not locking down causes about the same level of economic damage as locking down, especially given that those export losses are presumably directly attributable to their neighbours' lockdowns.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  This indicates Sweden wound up with relatively similar de-facto restrictions (a social distancing strictness of ~50 versus ~60 for the other Nordic nations) and a substantially higher death rate. It also says "Sweden did not record an economic contraction in Q1 of 2020", which is a misleading claim, given the lockdowns largely came in the last few weeks of that quarter, and later goes on to acknowledge "Forecasters agree that Sweden will face a severe recession in 2020". I don't think this really supports the case you're trying to make.
sdinsn 6y ago
Because Sweden's economy relies on exports. They have economic damage when their neighbors lock down, independent of their own lockdown status.

ginko 6y ago

There's barely any lockdown in Norway either. It's been like that since the beginning of June at least.

jjuel 6y ago

The problem is they had a higher death rate than the neighbors on the same timeline. Oh and their economy also suffered just as bad as neighbors who locked down. Not sure how it could be a success with more deaths and everything else being the same.

lostapathy 6y ago
But maybe Sweden is done having excess mortality where other countries still have a ways to go?
- jeromegv 6y ago
  How can you possibly predict the future that way? Why would Sweden be done and not the other countries?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Immunity. I think the numbers show that countries who don't have a second wave had a strong first wave, where the lockdown came too late. Examples: Italy, France, Germany Then you have countries that had a strict lockdown on time, which resulted in rising rates as soon as lockdown was lifted. Examples: Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore Having said that, the latter countries do seem to fare better than the former, second wave or not.
  - lostapathy 6y ago
    I'm not trying to predict the future, I'm just saying it's possible. At the same time, it's not possible at this time to declare "sweden's strategy has failed" - there's plenty of time for other countries to catch up on excess mortality. I do think there's a very real chance that, assuming hospitals are not overwhelmed, there won't be a lot of difference in overall mortality between developed countries. This disease is, apparently, super infectious after all, and eradication seems unlikely.
    - jjuel 6y ago
      I wasn't saying it was a failure, but that it is hard to call it a success. Again I think we will need to wait a while to determine true successes or failures (although I think here in the US it is trending towards being a tremendous failure).