Once SARS2 is history it will be interesting to compare the approach in places like NYC to those in e.g. Florida. I suspect the latter will come out on top when

Once SARS2 is history it will be interesting to compare the approach in places like NYC to those in e.g. Florida. I suspect the latter will come out on top when it comes to efficacy of the approach while the former will end up both bankrupt as well as looking for a new mayor and governor. Especially given the number of retirees living in Florida these results are remarkable, when the epidemic (as in 'local version of the pandemic') began I suspected FL would end up topping the mortality lists. A number of bad decisions were made in the beginning - e.g. allowing infected elderly people to be sent into care homes where they infected others - which have been haunting state and local government ever since and probably gave rise to the continued lockdown measures - a classical example of someone closing the barn doors after the horses escaped. I live in Sweden where similar mistakes were made in the beginning, in this case mostly caused by personnel in care facilities not following the mandated personal protection measures which caused them to spread the infection between infected and 'clean' departments, facilities and people. In contrast to NYC this has not led to more draconic lockdown measures, probably because the problems in those care facilities were recognised. Unfortunately they were not dealt with in time which has led to a large number of vulnerable people getting infected. Apart from these (grave) mistakes it now looks like the Swedish approach might start to show its merits given the low infection rates here compared to surrounding countries. Things can still change but currently the number of new infections in Sweden is lower than that in surrounding countries.