5 ms·

Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down? This argument that hey look Sweden is still doing badly is ludicrous. Of course they do

Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down? This argument that hey look Sweden is still doing badly is ludicrous. Of course they do badly, no country is unaffected, Sweden is more industrialized and depends more on exports than Norway. Norway has a 1 trillion dollar stock market reserve from the oil. They will do fine. The idea that locking down would have made things better in Sweden is absurd.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down? I mean, we've only got all the other Nordic countries to compare against to evaluate this...
- glofish 6y ago
  This dodges the question that I posed. Let me ask again: Are you arguing that Sweden would have done better economically if they locked down? Because that is what we are talking about.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    No, I'm arguing Sweden saw the same economic damage - because people aren't stupid, and avoided doing the things a formal lockdown would have restricted anyways - without the infection control benefits of a formally managed one. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
    - glofish 6y ago
      That's the absurdity right there. Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown. When it comes to coronavirus NYT is no different then Fox News, they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion. Why does the NYT not state how surprising is that the caseload in Sweden did not spiral out of control, and is actually decreasing? Regardless of what the death rate is (which is still much lower than many other European countries) it was and is completely at odds to the narrative of epidemics control. A balanced, fair journalist would state that.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown. It's borne out by various bits of evidence; most people wind up DIYing their own lockdown, even if the government doesn't order it. Restaurant reservation numbers dropped dramatically before the first lockdowns, for example, and didn't jump back up to normal in states that reopened early. https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-reservations-coronavirus-decline https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-res... https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american-restaurants-are-struggling-to-fill-tables-weeks-after-reopening https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american... The benefit of a formal lockdown is enforcement for the small proportion of people who YOLO things.
        glofish 6y ago
        None of are indicative of what happened in Sweden. Nor are indicative to what happens after a lockdown is imposed. It boggles my mind that you are still arguing that restaurant reservations would drop the same (and stay the same for months) with or without a lockdown. Why is the lockdown necessary then? You are just pushing a preconceived notion here.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Why is the lockdown necessary then? I address this in the last line of my comment. The economic damage is present because most people lock down on their own - reducing trips to stores, not going out to restaurants, etc. I didn't need the CDC to tell me to wear a mask back when they were resisting it; I just did. Formal lockdowns help with the much smaller number of "fuck you I'm not wearing a mask" style folks who wind up being superspreaders. > You are just pushing a preconceived notion here. I'm citing things; you're just responding "nuh uh" to them. Who's pushing preconceived notions?
      - loopz 6y ago
        Some food for your gut: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lockdown-its-economy-is-just-as-bad-as-its-neighbors-who-did-2020-06-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lock... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-sweden-made-mistakes-lockdown/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-s... It's way too early to say what the best strategy would've been, but with hindsight-information it's not far-fetched to lean on a scientifically sound middle-ground. It's also too early to tell all the direct consequences of the virus itself.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- hkeide 6y ago
  The Scandinavian countries are actually quite different economically with regards to e.g. which industries represent most of their GDP. Since they are so small they are not very diversified. They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those. People absolutely would, should, and do. Right now, the contrast between New York and Florida on reopening policy is pretty clear, despite differences in their economies.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down? I mean, we've only got all the other Nordic countries to compare against to evaluate this...

glofish 6y ago
This dodges the question that I posed. Let me ask again: Are you arguing that Sweden would have done better economically if they locked down? Because that is what we are talking about.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  No, I'm arguing Sweden saw the same economic damage - because people aren't stupid, and avoided doing the things a formal lockdown would have restricted anyways - without the infection control benefits of a formally managed one. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
  - glofish 6y ago
    That's the absurdity right there. Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown. When it comes to coronavirus NYT is no different then Fox News, they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion. Why does the NYT not state how surprising is that the caseload in Sweden did not spiral out of control, and is actually decreasing? Regardless of what the death rate is (which is still much lower than many other European countries) it was and is completely at odds to the narrative of epidemics control. A balanced, fair journalist would state that.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Saying that no lockdowns cause the same damage as full lockdown. It's borne out by various bits of evidence; most people wind up DIYing their own lockdown, even if the government doesn't order it. Restaurant reservation numbers dropped dramatically before the first lockdowns, for example, and didn't jump back up to normal in states that reopened early. https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-reservations-coronavirus-decline https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-res... https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american-restaurants-are-struggling-to-fill-tables-weeks-after-reopening https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american... The benefit of a formal lockdown is enforcement for the small proportion of people who YOLO things.
      - glofish 6y ago
        None of are indicative of what happened in Sweden. Nor are indicative to what happens after a lockdown is imposed. It boggles my mind that you are still arguing that restaurant reservations would drop the same (and stay the same for months) with or without a lockdown. Why is the lockdown necessary then? You are just pushing a preconceived notion here.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > Why is the lockdown necessary then? I address this in the last line of my comment. The economic damage is present because most people lock down on their own - reducing trips to stores, not going out to restaurants, etc. I didn't need the CDC to tell me to wear a mask back when they were resisting it; I just did. Formal lockdowns help with the much smaller number of "fuck you I'm not wearing a mask" style folks who wind up being superspreaders. > You are just pushing a preconceived notion here. I'm citing things; you're just responding "nuh uh" to them. Who's pushing preconceived notions?
    - loopz 6y ago
      Some food for your gut: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lockdown-its-economy-is-just-as-bad-as-its-neighbors-who-did-2020-06-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lock... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-sweden-made-mistakes-lockdown/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-s... It's way too early to say what the best strategy would've been, but with hindsight-information it's not far-fetched to lean on a scientifically sound middle-ground. It's also too early to tell all the direct consequences of the virus itself.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
hkeide 6y ago
The Scandinavian countries are actually quite different economically with regards to e.g. which industries represent most of their GDP. Since they are so small they are not very diversified. They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > They're smaller than many US states and most people wouldn't make claims like this comparing those. People absolutely would, should, and do. Right now, the contrast between New York and Florida on reopening policy is pretty clear, despite differences in their economies.