3 ms·

It's easy to forget that Sweden also has a much stronger social system than the US. I vaguely recall reading that Sweden also expanded some compensation for peo

It's easy to forget that Sweden also has a much stronger social system than the US. I vaguely recall reading that Sweden also expanded some compensation for people who stay home because they show want symptoms at all. Can you elaborate on that?

Gwypaas 6y ago
It used to be that you didn't get any sick income the first day to prevent frivolous usage, this was changed back in March. Now it is 80% for a year, you need a doctor's note after three weeks. This used to be one week but to limit the strain of the health services it was increased. If the company want one earlier they need to pay a private doctor to do it. You also get 80% of your income if your children younger than 12 get sick and you need to stay home to take care of them. Due to corona any respiratory illness is included in this, and it is a crime to go out in society if you have confirmed or serious suspicion of infection. (Infectious disease law)
- vkou 6y ago
  > Due to corona any respiratory illness is included in this, and it is a crime to go out in society if you have confirmed or serious suspicion of infection. (Infectious disease law) So, what you are saying, is that compared to say, the US, Sweden has been subjected to a truly draconic lockdown. Edit: I'm not sure I understand the karmic sentiment. In the US, closing movie theatres and requiring patrons to wear masks was controversial. Being criminally charged for going outside would be considered tyranny - so it's a little odd to hear that Sweden is given as example of a less-locked down country.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > So, what you are saying, is that compared to say, the US, Sweden has been subjected to a truly draconic lockdown. Exactly. Coronavirus truthers point to Sweden only as an example of a country that avoided a catastrophe despite not instituting a lockdown, then change the subject when you talk about what Swedes actually did do that they are also not going to do. It fits under the standard argument "We don't need to do [X] when [Y] would work just as well. We're also not going to do [Y]."
  - boxed 6y ago
    People get criminally charged for gross bodily harm or intent to commit gross bodily harm. It's not "tyranny" to ban knowingly spreading a plague more than it's "tyranny" to knowingly kill someone.

Gwypaas 6y ago

It used to be that you didn't get any sick income the first day to prevent frivolous usage, this was changed back in March. Now it is 80% for a year, you need a doctor's note after three weeks. This used to be one week but to limit the strain of the health services it was increased. If the company want one earlier they need to pay a private doctor to do it. You also get 80% of your income if your children younger than 12 get sick and you need to stay home to take care of them. Due to corona any respiratory illness is included in this, and it is a crime to go out in society if you have confirmed or serious suspicion of infection. (Infectious disease law)

vkou 6y ago
> Due to corona any respiratory illness is included in this, and it is a crime to go out in society if you have confirmed or serious suspicion of infection. (Infectious disease law) So, what you are saying, is that compared to say, the US, Sweden has been subjected to a truly draconic lockdown. Edit: I'm not sure I understand the karmic sentiment. In the US, closing movie theatres and requiring patrons to wear masks was controversial. Being criminally charged for going outside would be considered tyranny - so it's a little odd to hear that Sweden is given as example of a less-locked down country.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > So, what you are saying, is that compared to say, the US, Sweden has been subjected to a truly draconic lockdown. Exactly. Coronavirus truthers point to Sweden only as an example of a country that avoided a catastrophe despite not instituting a lockdown, then change the subject when you talk about what Swedes actually did do that they are also not going to do. It fits under the standard argument "We don't need to do [X] when [Y] would work just as well. We're also not going to do [Y]."
- boxed 6y ago
  People get criminally charged for gross bodily harm or intent to commit gross bodily harm. It's not "tyranny" to ban knowingly spreading a plague more than it's "tyranny" to knowingly kill someone.