3 ms·
Yes, but we're not limiting people's freedoms to avoid a negative mental health impact. That's a separate observation. We have these restrictions to avoid coll
by chimprich 6y ago
Yes, but we're not limiting people's freedoms to avoid a negative mental health impact. That's a separate observation.
We have these restrictions to avoid collapse of our health systems. The hospitalisation rate of an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds any country's healthcare capacity. The maths is inescapable.
- tinus_hn 6y agoClearly the example of Sweden shows that that isn’t true.
- chimprich 6y agoAre you arguing that Sweden is allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus? They've had strong voluntary measures in place all year. In the past month they've also imposed several enforced measures to restrict the spread of the virus, including a limit on gatherings to 8 people, a bar curfew, and they've just closed secondary schools for at least a month. "Don’t go to gyms, don’t go to libraries, don’t host dinners. Cancel." - Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven. Despite these measures they are seeing rising hospitalisations. Further measures look inevitable. Or if not, what are you arguing?
- tinus_hn 6y agoI love how the No True Swedish Man, when the numbers are going down, is following the voluntary measures to the dot but when the numbers are going up retroactively is not. By the way despite all the drama hospitalizations are still not at the level they were beginning of the year. But I’m sure that’s because they are following the rules again?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]