4 ms·
>And not only Sweden didn't do particularly bad, but it's done better than many major European countries like France, Italy, Spain or the UK. It also still had
by modo_mario 6y ago
>And not only Sweden didn't do particularly bad, but it's done better than many major European countries like France, Italy, Spain or the UK.
It also still had people social distancing, wearing masks and disinfecting, a very low population density, a robust healthcare system which at no point in time got overwhelmed unlike let's say northern Italy.
Covid just never really blew up there but at the same time one can't exactly argue that the lack of certain policies contributed to that.
- alva 6y ago> wearing masks not true at least in Stockholm
- marviio 6y ago> a very low population density This fact is brought up a lot. Isn't nation-wide population density a bad measurement? If a country, like Sweden, has huge areas where nobody lives, it says nothing about the density relevant for a virus spreading. While Stockholm's underground transport is nothing like Tokyo's, it's not different to other medium cities in the world.
- jkinudsjknds 6y agoThis is a good point. If you sprinkle one donut in a dozen, the average (mean) donut has few sprinkles or (median) no sprinkles. But the average sprinkle is nearby many, many sprinkles. The metric we care about shouldn't be population density of land, but average density of people around a randomly chosen individual. Counter-intuitively not the same.