3 ms·

Actually, I agree with you in that compliance is far more important than whether a lockdown is legally enforced or not. That means defining lockdown as "govern

by roca 6y ago

Actually, I agree with you in that compliance is far more important than whether a lockdown is legally enforced or not. That means defining lockdown as "government restrictions legally enforced" doesn't make sense. Defining it as "government restrictions widely complied with" would make a lot more sense. And by that definition, Sweden has apparently had a lockdown.

zepto 6y ago
I don’t see why it ‘doesn’t make sense’. It’s a clear distinction. That why many people are saying ‘Sweden didn’t have a lockdown’. What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’. This is just a true statement. The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative.
- roca 6y ago
  > What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’. True for some people, not for others. I have talked to many people who have repeated "Sweden didn't have a lockdown" and think that means Swedes didn't change their behaviour significantly. They are surprised, even disbelieving, when I point out the quite significant restrictions most Swedes have complied with. These people were misled by news reports using the term "lockdown" the way you do. Whether or not defining the term "lockdown" differently is the solution, there needs to be some improvement in the way we write about this.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Notably, elsewhere in the thread ‘Sporktacular’ asserts that Sweden really didn’t even have good compliance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518 Which would imply no lockdown by any definition.
pessimizer 6y ago
It's not good faith to know exactly what someone is talking about, but insist that you would prefer that the word they used to express it mean a different thing, and that all discussion should end until they invent another word.

by roca 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

I don’t see why it ‘doesn’t make sense’. It’s a clear distinction. That why many people are saying ‘Sweden didn’t have a lockdown’. What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’. This is just a true statement. The fact that the Swedish government made recommendations that Swedes followed without using force of law is interesting, and informative.

roca 6y ago
> What they mean is ‘Sweden didn’t have a legally mandated set of restrictions’. True for some people, not for others. I have talked to many people who have repeated "Sweden didn't have a lockdown" and think that means Swedes didn't change their behaviour significantly. They are surprised, even disbelieving, when I point out the quite significant restrictions most Swedes have complied with. These people were misled by news reports using the term "lockdown" the way you do. Whether or not defining the term "lockdown" differently is the solution, there needs to be some improvement in the way we write about this.
- zepto 6y ago
  Notably, elsewhere in the thread ‘Sporktacular’ asserts that Sweden really didn’t even have good compliance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119518 Which would imply no lockdown by any definition.

pessimizer 6y ago

It's not good faith to know exactly what someone is talking about, but insist that you would prefer that the word they used to express it mean a different thing, and that all discussion should end until they invent another word.