3 ms·

Being a Swede, I normally feel pretty proud of the approaches we take to problems, but man did they screw this one up.

by pontus 6y ago

gligorot 6y ago
It was a calculated risk. I'd say it was worth the try. Not that other countries who took the alternative route are any better now. Edit: I don't know the actual numbers for every other country, but can at least speak for mine - we had a lockdown, then we had a lot of parties in the summer without a resulting spike in positive cases and approximately a month ago the cases sharply spiked out of nowhere. On average 80 newly sick daily until 15 Oct, to 1000+ daily now.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Well it was "kinda" calculated, because at the beginning a lot of variables were not known (though the Diamond Princess had put the IFR ~ 0.5%). And to be honest hindsight is 20/20 Though I agree that right or wrong approaches could only be determined with time and I think strict lockdowns also had their problems (but it was perfectly understandable with cases rising faster than what you could measure)
- AnotherGoodName 6y ago
  There's 3 routes 1) Minimal lockdowns. This causes hospitals to be overwhelmed and leads into 2 or 3 eventually. 2) Basic Lockdowns. Large economic damage but hospitals are ok. 3) Extreme lockdowns. You cannot leave your house. Armed police and military enforce this. Every case has a government contact tracer interview the person and all possible contacts are identified. The best net outcomes. Australia went the third route. I do understand "But it's an island" but really by far the largest source of spread is community transmission for all countries and Coronavirus has still had 27000 cases in Australia too. It's not like the virus didn't have a chance to get out of control. But the third option meant it was brought back under control and to extent that there's no more community transmission. You can read various articles about the lockdown. If you were in an at risk area you could not leave your home: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/flemington-north-melbourne-public-housing-lockdown-two-cities/12431898 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/flemington-north-melb... . There were also fines for going outside without a mask in non-lockdown areas. I know Americans may look at that third style of lockdown as crazy but it's the path of minimal harm to society. Today the positive results are very isolated and seem to be almost all from quarantined travelers returning. Note that by going the third option you have waves of harsh lockdowns and almost complete normality. South Australia went into a harsh lockdown earlier in the week due to a false alarm. But the waves of total lockdown and normality are proving to lead to better outcomes. Fewer deaths, better economic outcomes, etc. The harsh lockdowns don't last long at all. They are so effective they don't need to be implemented for long.

Being a Swede, I normally feel pretty proud of the approaches we take to problems, but man did they screw this one up.

by pontus 6y ago

Being a Swede, I normally feel pretty proud of the approaches we take to problems, but man did they screw this one up.

It was a calculated risk. I'd say it was worth the try. Not that other countries who took the alternative route are any better now. Edit: I don't know the actual numbers for every other country, but can at least speak for mine - we had a lockdown, then we had a lot of parties in the summer without a resulting spike in positive cases and approximately a month ago the cases sharply spiked out of nowhere. On average 80 newly sick daily until 15 Oct, to 1000+ daily now.

raverbashing 6y ago
Well it was "kinda" calculated, because at the beginning a lot of variables were not known (though the Diamond Princess had put the IFR ~ 0.5%). And to be honest hindsight is 20/20 Though I agree that right or wrong approaches could only be determined with time and I think strict lockdowns also had their problems (but it was perfectly understandable with cases rising faster than what you could measure)
AnotherGoodName 6y ago
There's 3 routes 1) Minimal lockdowns. This causes hospitals to be overwhelmed and leads into 2 or 3 eventually. 2) Basic Lockdowns. Large economic damage but hospitals are ok. 3) Extreme lockdowns. You cannot leave your house. Armed police and military enforce this. Every case has a government contact tracer interview the person and all possible contacts are identified. The best net outcomes. Australia went the third route. I do understand "But it's an island" but really by far the largest source of spread is community transmission for all countries and Coronavirus has still had 27000 cases in Australia too. It's not like the virus didn't have a chance to get out of control. But the third option meant it was brought back under control and to extent that there's no more community transmission. You can read various articles about the lockdown. If you were in an at risk area you could not leave your home: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/flemington-north-melbourne-public-housing-lockdown-two-cities/12431898 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/flemington-north-melb... . There were also fines for going outside without a mask in non-lockdown areas. I know Americans may look at that third style of lockdown as crazy but it's the path of minimal harm to society. Today the positive results are very isolated and seem to be almost all from quarantined travelers returning. Note that by going the third option you have waves of harsh lockdowns and almost complete normality. South Australia went into a harsh lockdown earlier in the week due to a false alarm. But the waves of total lockdown and normality are proving to lead to better outcomes. Fewer deaths, better economic outcomes, etc. The harsh lockdowns don't last long at all. They are so effective they don't need to be implemented for long.