6 ms·

Also, deaths caused by non-covid flu like diseases should have decreased due to lockdowns and hygiene awareness.

by diegoperini 6y ago

piker 6y ago
> should have decreased due to lockdowns and hygiene awareness Point is, Sweden arguably opted for none of this.
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  Mandated lockdown != lockdown. I would be quite surprised if Swedes didn't use more soap this year, and went to restaurants less.
zepto 6y ago
Sweden had no lockdowns.
- roca 6y ago
  People keep saying this but it's misleading. Swedish authorities have issued many directives that weren't legally enforceable but which they expected Swedes to follow, and most Swedes did follow them. Surely whether or not a directive formally has legal backing is not that important to whether we call a measure "a lockdown"; what is important is the impact on behavior. For example Swedes in many regions have been asked to refrain from social contact outside their household for the last month. When that happens in other countries it's called a "lockdown". From April to October no visitors to rest homes were permitted; regardless of the legal status that seems like a kind of lockdown. Anyway the "no legally enforced lockdown" era just ended in Sweden. They have introduced law-backed restrictions: https://www.thelocal.se/20201116/breaking-sweden-introduces-limit-of-eight-coronavirus https://www.thelocal.se/20201116/breaking-sweden-introduces-...
  - zepto 6y ago
    I think it’s pretty fair to say they had no lockdowns. I suspect the fact that they weren’t legally enforcable may have increased responsible behavior.
    - roca 6y ago
      If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the term "lockdown" meaningless and you should stop talking about it. What matters to me and most other responsible citizens is: what are the rules I need to follow? Can I have social gatherings? Can I go out for dinner? If I can't, I'm calling that a lockdown. This is what determines the effects on the economy, mental health, personal freedom, etc. What is technically legal is irrelevant.
      - zepto 6y ago
        You think what is technically legal is irrelevant, and that I should stop using the word ‘lockdown’. I think what is technically legal is quite relevant. Making things illegal is not the only tool for getting people to adopt behaviors. Often it is counterproductive. A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law. Contrast that with the UK which had strongly enforced legal lockdowns, but notably poor results. If you don’t think we should consider whether the mechanisms we are using to get people to behave responsibly are effective, then you don’t have to participate in such considerations.
        roca 6y ago
        If you want to make the argument that making restrictions illegal on paper decreases compliance, that's fine, though I very much doubt it. Comparisons across very different countries won't make the case. But when people talk about whether lockdowns are good or bad they tend to be assuming compliance and considering the effects of that compliance, so I think your definition sows confusion.
        6y ago

Also, deaths caused by non-covid flu like diseases should have decreased due to lockdowns and hygiene awareness.

piker 6y ago

> should have decreased due to lockdowns and hygiene awareness Point is, Sweden arguably opted for none of this.

davrosthedalek 6y ago
Mandated lockdown != lockdown. I would be quite surprised if Swedes didn't use more soap this year, and went to restaurants less.

zepto 6y ago

Sweden had no lockdowns.

roca 6y ago
People keep saying this but it's misleading. Swedish authorities have issued many directives that weren't legally enforceable but which they expected Swedes to follow, and most Swedes did follow them. Surely whether or not a directive formally has legal backing is not that important to whether we call a measure "a lockdown"; what is important is the impact on behavior. For example Swedes in many regions have been asked to refrain from social contact outside their household for the last month. When that happens in other countries it's called a "lockdown". From April to October no visitors to rest homes were permitted; regardless of the legal status that seems like a kind of lockdown. Anyway the "no legally enforced lockdown" era just ended in Sweden. They have introduced law-backed restrictions: https://www.thelocal.se/20201116/breaking-sweden-introduces-limit-of-eight-coronavirus https://www.thelocal.se/20201116/breaking-sweden-introduces-...
- zepto 6y ago
  I think it’s pretty fair to say they had no lockdowns. I suspect the fact that they weren’t legally enforcable may have increased responsible behavior.
  - roca 6y ago
    If you insist that the difference between "lockdown" and "no lockdown" is whether the authorities back their restrictions with legal authority, it makes the term "lockdown" meaningless and you should stop talking about it. What matters to me and most other responsible citizens is: what are the rules I need to follow? Can I have social gatherings? Can I go out for dinner? If I can't, I'm calling that a lockdown. This is what determines the effects on the economy, mental health, personal freedom, etc. What is technically legal is irrelevant.
    - zepto 6y ago
      You think what is technically legal is irrelevant, and that I should stop using the word ‘lockdown’. I think what is technically legal is quite relevant. Making things illegal is not the only tool for getting people to adopt behaviors. Often it is counterproductive. A key point about Sweden is it appears they had a lot of people behaving responsibly despite not using the force of law. Contrast that with the UK which had strongly enforced legal lockdowns, but notably poor results. If you don’t think we should consider whether the mechanisms we are using to get people to behave responsibly are effective, then you don’t have to participate in such considerations.
      - roca 6y ago
        If you want to make the argument that making restrictions illegal on paper decreases compliance, that's fine, though I very much doubt it. Comparisons across very different countries won't make the case. But when people talk about whether lockdowns are good or bad they tend to be assuming compliance and considering the effects of that compliance, so I think your definition sows confusion.
        6y ago