7 ms·

Assuming the numbers are correct and taking the headline as it is, what is an actionable takeaway from this? Sweden did nothing to prevent Covid and had very f

by yoz-y 6y ago

Assuming the numbers are correct and taking the headline as it is, what is an actionable takeaway from this? Sweden did nothing to prevent Covid and had very few deaths. Some other countries had lockdowns, face coverings and had a lot of deaths. What is the correlation then? Sweden has less dense population for one, maybe healthier overall too? Younger? Is there any takeaway from this?

sampo 6y ago
> Sweden did nothing to prevent Covid This is not true. Sweden limited mass gatherings to 50 people, high schools and universities went to remote learning, large part of white-collar work switched to remote (companies did this voluntarily), and many people voluntarily limited their activities. Also, their sick pay system allows every worker to stay home when they are sick.
ardit33 6y ago
Have you ever been in Sweden? Swedes practice social distancing in regular daily life. Also, it is a very introverted, borderline anti social type of society. I had a couple of French co-workers that said it was very hard to form friendships outside work there (in Stockholm), while in the US (NYC) they had no problem. Compare this to Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Albania, or other Mediterranean countries, which are polar opposite. People are friendlier, that talk to each other more, they hug, they kiss more. If you go to smaller towns, you regularly see older people hanging out with each other, playing chess and socializing. You just don't see that in Sweden. I think this is one of the main reasons that some countries like Germany and Sweden are not fairing that bad, but the south gets hit harder. Also, from my understanding, many folks in Sweden are practicing some form of social distancing, and many are working from home when they can. It is a 'voluntary' type of thing. Swedes tend to follow civi rules well in general, and are a homogeneous society, so I think that is contributing to the lower rates of transmission as well. while the US attitude varies from wear a mask, to 'don't take my freedom away', i do what i want, type of attitude. Ps. Here is what bus line looks like in Sweden (before the pandemic): https://i.redd.it/4q36jg5ofi831.jpg https://i.redd.it/4q36jg5ofi831.jpg Their culture just wants/respects people spaces more, and are more 'introverted' by nature. Swedes are friendly/polite, but not necessary 'warm'. And you can see with their social interactions as well. Hope that makes sense. Good luck trying to replicate that type of distancing in most of the Europe or the US unless it is mandated (i.e. you will get kicked out of a store if you don't respect the line).
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  My own personal theory is smoking. All the Mediterranean countries still smoke like chimneys.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    Not necessarily. Take in mind that lots of the deaths happened in nursing homes, where tobacco is restricted or frowned upon.
    - gojomo 6y ago
      ...but also where the residents often smoked for decades when they were younger.
  - malkia 6y ago
    that, and being too "macho" (all genders included). (Bulgarian here, living in Los Angeles). Also "not believing" science, and not trusting "authorities" - believing too much pseudo-science instead. No wonder Trump is being liked there - same "life goals" ;)
- arkitaip 6y ago
  > Also, it is a very introverted, borderline anti social type of society. This is just an ridiculously offensive stereotype. If you were in downtown Stockholm this weekend, you couldn't even tell there was a pandemic considering how many people there are one the streets.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    It is a stereotype, certainly, as a "grouping of people" to define characteristics, is. Is it offensive? Well, maybe, but that's tact. However, is it true? Bear in mind that an excessively gregious society, and yes there are differences in societies, cultures, might view a more reserved culture as such. And the real reason I'm responding is, how many "people there are on the streets" is irrelevant, in terms of being 'social' or not. People going places != social. It can equal work, needing supplies, traveling, etc. I grew up in a small town, population < 1000, in a massively large county (>1000 square km), with barely 15,000 people in it at the time. When I first moved to the city, I would walk down the street and wave at people. People reacted, to my perspective, quite oddly. Some actually shied away, others looked at me as if was a lunatic. Yet where I grew up, not waving would have been beyond rude. In the city, it was seen as absurd behaviour. I guess what I'm saying is, Sweden could be quite anti-social, without it being "mean" to say so. It's all perspective.
natrik 6y ago
It is possible the harms of lockdowns have been understated or misrepresented. The data on lockdowns isn't black and white and the response to COVID is very 'political'.
- worker767424 6y ago
  > the response to COVID is very 'political'. I see people on walks in a suburban neighborhood wearing masks. Even if you can't keep 6 feet of distance, the likelihood of contracting it from 3 seconds of outdoor exposure is negligible. CDC guidelines for when someone is exposed are closer than 6 feet for 15 minutes. Clearly people are wearing masks in some situations to make a point, not to make a difference.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Or they do it because they think/feel it's making a difference. Or they want to avoid other people thinking they are making a point of not wearing one. Or it's just the routine they've gotten into. Or if they're not just on a walk they wear it because they find fiddling with it when they get somewhere they need it more annoying. When I see someone on a random street wearing/not wearing a mask my first thought definitively is not "oh, they are trying to make a point"
matz1 6y ago
The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Lockdowns do 100% work, if you stay inside you literally cannot catch a respiratory illness. You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. Non-compliance however kneecaps the ability of lockdowns to be effective, leaving you in a worst-of-all-worlds situation with a damaged economy and a largely unaffected disease curve. I would say the better way to frame that is: - "lockdowns only work if you actually take them seriously" (as evidenced by countries that did: NZ, TW, CN, AU -- look at their graphs [1], they work). - and "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve sufficient results." [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
  - matz1 6y ago
    >You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end Thats why it wouldn't work. You want everyone to stay inside for 3 weeks.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - roca 6y ago
    > "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve reasonable results." Even so, Sweden doesn't prove this. They have had lockdowns, e.g. severe limits on social gatherings. You can only say they haven't had lockdowns if you take the pedantic view that "it's not a lockdown if it's not legally enforced, even if everyone follows your rules". Also, arguably the excess deaths in March/April (comparing to Nordic neighbours especially) and the surging cases now are not "reasonable results".
  - CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago
wffurr 6y ago
"Did nothing" is putting it far too strongly. They limited gatherings, first to 500 (March 11) and then to 50 (March 27), restricted bar and restaurant hours, and advised high schools and universities to go to remote learning (March 17). That's certainly not nothing, but it also doesn't seem to have been enough. Contra the linked article, Sweden seems to be suffering worse than its neighbors with stricter policies: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/sweden-covid-19-update.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/sw...
- user-the-name 6y ago
  They are suffering around ten times worse in terms of cases and deaths.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    COVID deaths yes, but not total deaths, which is what the article is about.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  In spite of what that graph might lead you to believe, there were no new COVID deaths today in Sweden, and the number has remained approximately zero. You should not goal them on number of infections as they aren't really trying to control them, but rather by deaths. Death counts are flat around zero. They've asked to be goaled on harm and I think it's only fair to do so, rather than imposing a metric.
  - jonquark 6y ago
    Deaths are a very lagging indicator. Cases are rising in Sweden, assuming some of the new cases tomorrow eventually sadly die, it probably won't be for a month. https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&areas=swe&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&byDate=0&cumulative=0&logScale=1&perMillion=1&values=cases https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&are...
alejohausner 6y ago
Other countries used lockdowns to slow down the spread of covid. But since covid is very contagious, it will eventually infect most of the population, and vulnerable people will eventually die from it. That's one takeaway: lockdowns only delay the inevitable. Sweden just ripped the bandage off fast, and got all the deaths over with quickly. As a consequence, there is the other big takeaway, the elephant in the room: covid doesn't kill more people than any other respiratory pathogen.
- yoz-y 6y ago
  Aren't lockdown mainly a measure to manage hospital capacity? > covid doesn't kill more people than any other respiratory pathogen How come then that there were so many deaths in Italy once their healthcare system toppled over? From what I understand that even if Covid is not more deadly than say the flu, the fact that it spreads without symptoms means that in the end vastly more people get infected.

by yoz-y 6y ago

sampo 6y ago

> Sweden did nothing to prevent Covid This is not true. Sweden limited mass gatherings to 50 people, high schools and universities went to remote learning, large part of white-collar work switched to remote (companies did this voluntarily), and many people voluntarily limited their activities. Also, their sick pay system allows every worker to stay home when they are sick.

ardit33 6y ago

Have you ever been in Sweden? Swedes practice social distancing in regular daily life. Also, it is a very introverted, borderline anti social type of society. I had a couple of French co-workers that said it was very hard to form friendships outside work there (in Stockholm), while in the US (NYC) they had no problem. Compare this to Italy, Spain, France, Greece, Albania, or other Mediterranean countries, which are polar opposite. People are friendlier, that talk to each other more, they hug, they kiss more. If you go to smaller towns, you regularly see older people hanging out with each other, playing chess and socializing. You just don't see that in Sweden. I think this is one of the main reasons that some countries like Germany and Sweden are not fairing that bad, but the south gets hit harder. Also, from my understanding, many folks in Sweden are practicing some form of social distancing, and many are working from home when they can. It is a 'voluntary' type of thing. Swedes tend to follow civi rules well in general, and are a homogeneous society, so I think that is contributing to the lower rates of transmission as well. while the US attitude varies from wear a mask, to 'don't take my freedom away', i do what i want, type of attitude. Ps. Here is what bus line looks like in Sweden (before the pandemic): https://i.redd.it/4q36jg5ofi831.jpg https://i.redd.it/4q36jg5ofi831.jpg Their culture just wants/respects people spaces more, and are more 'introverted' by nature. Swedes are friendly/polite, but not necessary 'warm'. And you can see with their social interactions as well. Hope that makes sense. Good luck trying to replicate that type of distancing in most of the Europe or the US unless it is mandated (i.e. you will get kicked out of a store if you don't respect the line).

dimitrios1 6y ago
My own personal theory is smoking. All the Mediterranean countries still smoke like chimneys.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Take in mind that lots of the deaths happened in nursing homes, where tobacco is restricted or frowned upon.
  - gojomo 6y ago
    ...but also where the residents often smoked for decades when they were younger.
- malkia 6y ago
  that, and being too "macho" (all genders included). (Bulgarian here, living in Los Angeles). Also "not believing" science, and not trusting "authorities" - believing too much pseudo-science instead. No wonder Trump is being liked there - same "life goals" ;)
arkitaip 6y ago
> Also, it is a very introverted, borderline anti social type of society. This is just an ridiculously offensive stereotype. If you were in downtown Stockholm this weekend, you couldn't even tell there was a pandemic considering how many people there are one the streets.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  It is a stereotype, certainly, as a "grouping of people" to define characteristics, is. Is it offensive? Well, maybe, but that's tact. However, is it true? Bear in mind that an excessively gregious society, and yes there are differences in societies, cultures, might view a more reserved culture as such. And the real reason I'm responding is, how many "people there are on the streets" is irrelevant, in terms of being 'social' or not. People going places != social. It can equal work, needing supplies, traveling, etc. I grew up in a small town, population < 1000, in a massively large county (>1000 square km), with barely 15,000 people in it at the time. When I first moved to the city, I would walk down the street and wave at people. People reacted, to my perspective, quite oddly. Some actually shied away, others looked at me as if was a lunatic. Yet where I grew up, not waving would have been beyond rude. In the city, it was seen as absurd behaviour. I guess what I'm saying is, Sweden could be quite anti-social, without it being "mean" to say so. It's all perspective.

natrik 6y ago

It is possible the harms of lockdowns have been understated or misrepresented. The data on lockdowns isn't black and white and the response to COVID is very 'political'.

worker767424 6y ago
> the response to COVID is very 'political'. I see people on walks in a suburban neighborhood wearing masks. Even if you can't keep 6 feet of distance, the likelihood of contracting it from 3 seconds of outdoor exposure is negligible. CDC guidelines for when someone is exposed are closer than 6 feet for 15 minutes. Clearly people are wearing masks in some situations to make a point, not to make a difference.
- detaro 6y ago
  Or they do it because they think/feel it's making a difference. Or they want to avoid other people thinking they are making a point of not wearing one. Or it's just the routine they've gotten into. Or if they're not just on a walk they wear it because they find fiddling with it when they get somewhere they need it more annoying. When I see someone on a random street wearing/not wearing a mask my first thought definitively is not "oh, they are trying to make a point"

matz1 6y ago

The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work

arcticbull 6y ago
Lockdowns do 100% work, if you stay inside you literally cannot catch a respiratory illness. You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end the respiratory illness unless there's another reservoir you've failed to account for. Non-compliance however kneecaps the ability of lockdowns to be effective, leaving you in a worst-of-all-worlds situation with a damaged economy and a largely unaffected disease curve. I would say the better way to frame that is: - "lockdowns only work if you actually take them seriously" (as evidenced by countries that did: NZ, TW, CN, AU -- look at their graphs [1], they work). - and "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve sufficient results." [1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location=China&location=New+Zealand&location=Taiwan&location=US https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
- matz1 6y ago
  >You stay inside for 3 weeks and it will literally end Thats why it wouldn't work. You want everyone to stay inside for 3 weeks.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- roca 6y ago
  > "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve reasonable results." Even so, Sweden doesn't prove this. They have had lockdowns, e.g. severe limits on social gatherings. You can only say they haven't had lockdowns if you take the pedantic view that "it's not a lockdown if it's not legally enforced, even if everyone follows your rules". Also, arguably the excess deaths in March/April (comparing to Nordic neighbours especially) and the surging cases now are not "reasonable results".
- CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago

wffurr 6y ago

"Did nothing" is putting it far too strongly. They limited gatherings, first to 500 (March 11) and then to 50 (March 27), restricted bar and restaurant hours, and advised high schools and universities to go to remote learning (March 17). That's certainly not nothing, but it also doesn't seem to have been enough. Contra the linked article, Sweden seems to be suffering worse than its neighbors with stricter policies: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/sweden-covid-19-update.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/11/sw...

user-the-name 6y ago
They are suffering around ten times worse in terms of cases and deaths.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  COVID deaths yes, but not total deaths, which is what the article is about.
arcticbull 6y ago
In spite of what that graph might lead you to believe, there were no new COVID deaths today in Sweden, and the number has remained approximately zero. You should not goal them on number of infections as they aren't really trying to control them, but rather by deaths. Death counts are flat around zero. They've asked to be goaled on harm and I think it's only fair to do so, rather than imposing a metric.
- jonquark 6y ago
  Deaths are a very lagging indicator. Cases are rising in Sweden, assuming some of the new cases tomorrow eventually sadly die, it probably won't be for a month. https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&areas=swe&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=ustx&byDate=0&cumulative=0&logScale=1&perMillion=1&values=cases https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areas=gbr&are...

alejohausner 6y ago

Other countries used lockdowns to slow down the spread of covid. But since covid is very contagious, it will eventually infect most of the population, and vulnerable people will eventually die from it. That's one takeaway: lockdowns only delay the inevitable. Sweden just ripped the bandage off fast, and got all the deaths over with quickly. As a consequence, there is the other big takeaway, the elephant in the room: covid doesn't kill more people than any other respiratory pathogen.

yoz-y 6y ago
Aren't lockdown mainly a measure to manage hospital capacity? > covid doesn't kill more people than any other respiratory pathogen How come then that there were so many deaths in Italy once their healthcare system toppled over? From what I understand that even if Covid is not more deadly than say the flu, the fact that it spreads without symptoms means that in the end vastly more people get infected.