Focusing on comparisons to geographically nearby countries doesn't make sense to me, and feels arbitrary. That's also not controlling for all the factors that d

Focusing on comparisons to geographically nearby countries doesn't make sense to me, and feels arbitrary. That's also not controlling for all the factors that differ between the countries. Reducing the conversation to total deaths and unemployment rates also doesn't give credit for the various benefits of having permissive COVID guidelines. Sweden had a big spike in COVID deaths very early on, and it was in large part from adult nursing homes, where appropriate precautions were not taken. As of late July, 70% of COVID deaths in Sweden were from adult nursing homes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369443/). But they first hit no excess mortality in early June (https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-records-first-week-no-155441443.html https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-records-first-week-no-15544144...), while still retaining many of their freedoms. That's noteworthy. As for unemployment - making a comparison across countries doesn't control for all the other confounding factors that are relevant to economic health. And in a globalized economy where we have suppliers and customers in foreign countries, it is hard to remove all exposure to OTHER countries' COVID economic impacts. Perhaps if more countries implemented Sweden's plan, everyone's economic outcomes would be better. Getting back to the unrecognized value of Sweden's approach: there is value in having the freedom to move around, in holding gatherings, in patronizing businesses, in having kids receive a normal education, and so forth. I am shocked Americans have accepted top-down authoritarian restrictions on their lives so readily, as the goals changed from flattening the curve to seemingly trying to save every last life. I would rather individuals make decisions about their own lives while assessing the risks for themselves. Those who are risk averse are free to restrict their own lives - but they shouldn't impose restrictions or demand actions of others. We can't operate society around trying to save every last life. If that is the bar, then even in a typical flu season we should be keeping everything on lockdown. Could you imagine living like that permanently? Clearly that isn't acceptable. But if THAT isn't acceptable, then we are already saying that there is a finite value in saving a life (rather than infinite), which has to be taken in balance against the value in everything else. Moreover, given how low the infection mortality rates are for those under 70 (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...), we are simply robbing the young [of socialization, education, summer vacations, memories with their family, etc.] to keep the old alive longer. I don't think that tradeoff makes sense, and we should simply ask those at risk to stay home while others are free to go about their lives.