4 ms·

The goal of the Swedish pandemic strategy wasn't herd immunity. It was to keep the spread under control such that our healthcare wasn't overrun, and try our bes

The goal of the Swedish pandemic strategy wasn't herd immunity. It was to keep the spread under control such that our healthcare wasn't overrun, and try our best to ensure that risk groups aren't exposed. It's not been about "wishing away" anything.

jacques_chester 6y ago
I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks. Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.
- olodus 6y ago
  >95% of the deaths in Sweden are from people over 60 years old. Our mistake was to let the virus into our elderly homes. I don't really see the evidence that we should have had lockdowns. As OP says the are a lot of precautions set in place already and even more earlier in the pandemic. Most worked from home and followed safety precautions given. That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    Elderly homes, and high death rates in elderly homes, are not unique to Sweden. Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away. It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    The evidence in favor of the lockdowns is that Sweden (and many other countries) were unable to wall off their elderly, despite knowing that they needed to. This failure to quickly segregate the vulnerable isn’t really surprising: successfully isolating the elderly from a pandemic is very challenging, especially under crisis conditions where you have no warning and very little time to prepare. Other countries decided the only way they could handle the problem in the time allotted was to reduce the incidence of COVID in the entire population via lockdowns, on the theory that this would protect the vulnerable populations by preventing COVID from reaching them. Sweden rejected some of these restrictions and, tragically, had a much worse outcome among these vulnerable populations. ETA: It is concerning that even several months into the epidemic, with time to prepare better to protect vulnerable populations, Sweden now feels that stronger general restrictions are the right approach. It’s hard to see how that isn’t also an admission that those restrictions shouldn’t have been used in the early phases as well.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > jacques_chester 3 hours ago > Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course. Also: > jacques_chester 3 hours ago > I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. ----- For posterity.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    It seems more like jacques_chester means some countries have been pointing at Sweden's approach, using that as an excuse for "wishing away the pandemic". Rather than meaning Sweden itself is doing so.
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      That is what I meant. ----- for posterity.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      Party A: Acting like there is no consequence Party B: Acting like there is no consequence and believing it. To observers, highlighting the difference makes no difference.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    It’s not exactly the same, in the first quote there are some nebulous ‘folks’ saying something while in the second quote the Swedes are not saying that thing. I don’t know what to call this fallacy. The ‘folks’ are unnamed and unspecified so I don’t think stating that they think anything is a useful argument at all.

jacques_chester 6y ago

I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. My point was that Swedish policy has been used a counterargument against lockdowns, social distancing and use of masks. Flattening the curve as a goal wasn't unique to Sweden. The decision not to follow the same policy settings as its neighbours were. The result? Sweden has a far higher death rate and is now edging towards the same policy they could've had from the beginning.

olodus 6y ago
>95% of the deaths in Sweden are from people over 60 years old. Our mistake was to let the virus into our elderly homes. I don't really see the evidence that we should have had lockdowns. As OP says the are a lot of precautions set in place already and even more earlier in the pandemic. Most worked from home and followed safety precautions given. That said I am open to changing my mind and think it is good that the authorities are stressing more precautions again. People have been getting a bit careless again and infection rate is increasing. It hasn't resulted in rise in death yet but we have to be vigilant.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  Elderly homes, and high death rates in elderly homes, are not unique to Sweden. Folks who don't like lockdowns keep looking for reasons why Sweden's original policy is great, but also excuses for why its substantial deaths can be hand-waved away. It's just time to give up on the idea that Sweden's worse performance is a fluke rather than the direct consequence of a predictably dangerous policy setting.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  The evidence in favor of the lockdowns is that Sweden (and many other countries) were unable to wall off their elderly, despite knowing that they needed to. This failure to quickly segregate the vulnerable isn’t really surprising: successfully isolating the elderly from a pandemic is very challenging, especially under crisis conditions where you have no warning and very little time to prepare. Other countries decided the only way they could handle the problem in the time allotted was to reduce the incidence of COVID in the entire population via lockdowns, on the theory that this would protect the vulnerable populations by preventing COVID from reaching them. Sweden rejected some of these restrictions and, tragically, had a much worse outcome among these vulnerable populations. ETA: It is concerning that even several months into the epidemic, with time to prepare better to protect vulnerable populations, Sweden now feels that stronger general restrictions are the right approach. It’s hard to see how that isn’t also an admission that those restrictions shouldn’t have been used in the early phases as well.
Supermancho 6y ago
> jacques_chester 3 hours ago > Sweden has been the poster child for folks trying to wish away the danger of allowing a relatively dangerous, highly infectious pandemic to run its natural course. Also: > jacques_chester 3 hours ago > I didn't say anything about Swedes wishing away the pandemic. ----- For posterity.
- justinclift 6y ago
  It seems more like jacques_chester means some countries have been pointing at Sweden's approach, using that as an excuse for "wishing away the pandemic". Rather than meaning Sweden itself is doing so.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    That is what I meant. ----- for posterity.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    Party A: Acting like there is no consequence Party B: Acting like there is no consequence and believing it. To observers, highlighting the difference makes no difference.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  It’s not exactly the same, in the first quote there are some nebulous ‘folks’ saying something while in the second quote the Swedes are not saying that thing. I don’t know what to call this fallacy. The ‘folks’ are unnamed and unspecified so I don’t think stating that they think anything is a useful argument at all.