13 ms·

So why not choose (1)? This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What

So why not choose (1)? This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What am I missing?

sofixa 5y ago
That it doesn't work. Sweden had to go back on it, and in many countries trying to do (1) ended up with hospitals full - like France. Everything was done to avoid a third lockdown this spring, but hospitals are at 150% capacity and here we are again. Are you aware of some magic trick that negates that?
- timr 5y ago
  Sweden did not "go back on it". They remain with significantly lighter restrictions than ~all of continental Europe: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... As far as I can tell, their most stringent restrictions are limits on group gatherings to 8, and closing bars at 8pm: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-health-agency-wants-restriction-easing-postponed-to-may https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-h... Contrast to France, Italy, the UK, Belgium, etc., where people have been forcibly restricted to their homes for a significant portion of the last year.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    And Sweden has the worst infection and death rates per capita compared to all of Scandinavia: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-nordics/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coron... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1403494820980264 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14034948209802... https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      But they faired much better than e.g. Spain and Belgium. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/24/swedens-2020-death-spike-lower-than-much-of-europe-data-shows https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/24/swedens-2020-death-...
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Which are incomparable due to a vast amount of variables ( culture, population density, population spread in housing, temperatures, weather, etc.)
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        That's patently false. Everyone compares countries all the time. You literally just did it a few posts up by comparing it to other Scandinavian countries which are all different from Sweden. Covid zealots compare other countries to New Zealand when it's convenient. All with different cultures climate population density etc. If what you're saying is true then you can't make any claims about any country's success rate because they're all unique. You're just selecting Sweden as incomparable because it doesn't fit your narrative.
        sofixa 5y ago
        Scandinavian countries have similar cultures, population densities, climates, customs ( e.g. people don't kiss on the cheek when they meet, which is what French people used to do pre-pandemic). They're more comparable between themselves than with Spain, with an entirely different climate, people living much closer together, etc. New Zealand are isolated by water from everyone, lockdown is drastically easier in that case.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Swedes are European and share as much in common with Europeans as they do with other Scandinavian countries. Comparing Sweden to other European countries is a perfectly valid comparison. You're cherry picking and choosing cultural aspects and labeling it as 'unquestionable fact' with no scientific evidence. Classic Covid zealot move. As a matter of fact, we're all human beings that like to congregate together and eat out and go to bars and coffee shops and see live music, and our biological drives have way more significance than anything cultural . It's extremely disingenuous.
  - hvac 5y ago
    My understanding is that these restrictions were only imposed in December of last year (and are in force until at least 30 June), so I would tend to agree with the parent that they definitely changed directions.
    - timr 5y ago
      They added some restrictions, certainly, but it's completely inaccurate to suggest that they've somehow reversed course -- the OP is erecting an ideologically rigid, straw-man argument that Sweden can never do anything differently at all, or they are somehow "going back on" their initial approach. Overall, Sweden has taken a light touch with the pandemic, and continues to do so, even though, yes, they've adapted over time.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        Of course they went back on their initial approach, same as the UK. If you say "no need to restrict anything, it will go away", your death toll is significantly hire than comparable countries, and then you enact restrictions, what is that? Yes, the situation and our knowledge of the virus and the pandemic is highly evolving and the UK took barely a few months before making a U-turn, while Sweden persisted for many months with their strategy, in spite of the death toll, and some research saying that the economic impact is still significant.
- incrudible 5y ago
  The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place, but also to avoid superspreader events. Sweden did ban some gatherings and they did close down schools briefly. Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is not very strong considering that there is not much of a control group.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around. Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"? > but also to avoid superspreader events Lol. Events with more than 2000 people outside ( at the best of times, usually it has been flat out forbidden), and 6-100 inside have been forbidden in France since last year. That obviously didn't help. > Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is not very strong considering that there is not much of a control group. There is, check the US and Brazil.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around. Indeed, "enough" for normal times is not the same as "enough" for pandemic times. > Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"? Of course it's a "struggle" to suddenly work at capacity, but Germany wasn't in the situation of having to turn down patients. To the contrary, Germany was able to pick up patients from neighboring countries. That's "enough". > Events with more than 2000 people outside ( at the best of times, usually it has been flat out forbidden), and 6-100 inside have been forbidden in France since last year. That obviously didn't help. How do you know that it didn't help? We know from epidemiological studies that superspreader events were responsible for causing a surge of cases in a short amount of time. > There is, check the US and Brazil. There really isn't, we have countries with strong lockdowns doing poorly and countries with weak lockdowns doing relatively well, and everything in between. Lockdown measures are also difficult to compare, as are populations, as is testing and reporting. For example, Brazil with minimal lockdowns is doing just as poorly as Peru, with heavy lockdowns. Florida is doing better than many other US states with heavier restrictions. Japan is supposedly doing well with few restrictions, but also performs little testing. There are lots of variables and unknowns here and one can always cherrypick data to argue for or against lockdowns in various forms.
de_keyboard 5y ago
(2) leads to fewer deaths overall than (1). (1) gives better quality of life to the healthy than (2). (3) leads to fewer deaths than (1) or (2), but it requires political will. If you can pull it off, (3) is what you want. That's a big "if" though. As a healthy person, I personally would have been better off under (1). However, I think the economic and emotional damage of that number of deaths would have been too much for society as a whole.
- scarby2 5y ago
  I'm not certain the emotional damage around the deaths would be worse than the emotional damage around the restrictions. Same with the economic damage, I'm entirely certain the the economic damaged caused by the death of a large amount of largely economically inactive persons would have been way less than the economic damage caused by forcibly shutting down large chunks of the economy. The whole 1 vs 2 thing is just a matter of how much must the whole suffer for the benefit of the few?

So why not choose (1)? This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What am I missing?

sofixa 5y ago

That it doesn't work. Sweden had to go back on it, and in many countries trying to do (1) ended up with hospitals full - like France. Everything was done to avoid a third lockdown this spring, but hospitals are at 150% capacity and here we are again. Are you aware of some magic trick that negates that?

timr 5y ago
Sweden did not "go back on it". They remain with significantly lighter restrictions than ~all of continental Europe: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... As far as I can tell, their most stringent restrictions are limits on group gatherings to 8, and closing bars at 8pm: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-health-agency-wants-restriction-easing-postponed-to-may https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/swedish-h... Contrast to France, Italy, the UK, Belgium, etc., where people have been forcibly restricted to their homes for a significant portion of the last year.
- sofixa 5y ago
  And Sweden has the worst infection and death rates per capita compared to all of Scandinavia: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-nordics/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coron... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1403494820980264 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14034948209802... https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    But they faired much better than e.g. Spain and Belgium. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/24/swedens-2020-death-spike-lower-than-much-of-europe-data-shows https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/24/swedens-2020-death-...
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Which are incomparable due to a vast amount of variables ( culture, population density, population spread in housing, temperatures, weather, etc.)
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        That's patently false. Everyone compares countries all the time. You literally just did it a few posts up by comparing it to other Scandinavian countries which are all different from Sweden. Covid zealots compare other countries to New Zealand when it's convenient. All with different cultures climate population density etc. If what you're saying is true then you can't make any claims about any country's success rate because they're all unique. You're just selecting Sweden as incomparable because it doesn't fit your narrative.
        sofixa 5y ago
        Scandinavian countries have similar cultures, population densities, climates, customs ( e.g. people don't kiss on the cheek when they meet, which is what French people used to do pre-pandemic). They're more comparable between themselves than with Spain, with an entirely different climate, people living much closer together, etc. New Zealand are isolated by water from everyone, lockdown is drastically easier in that case.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Swedes are European and share as much in common with Europeans as they do with other Scandinavian countries. Comparing Sweden to other European countries is a perfectly valid comparison. You're cherry picking and choosing cultural aspects and labeling it as 'unquestionable fact' with no scientific evidence. Classic Covid zealot move. As a matter of fact, we're all human beings that like to congregate together and eat out and go to bars and coffee shops and see live music, and our biological drives have way more significance than anything cultural . It's extremely disingenuous.
- hvac 5y ago
  My understanding is that these restrictions were only imposed in December of last year (and are in force until at least 30 June), so I would tend to agree with the parent that they definitely changed directions.
  - timr 5y ago
    They added some restrictions, certainly, but it's completely inaccurate to suggest that they've somehow reversed course -- the OP is erecting an ideologically rigid, straw-man argument that Sweden can never do anything differently at all, or they are somehow "going back on" their initial approach. Overall, Sweden has taken a light touch with the pandemic, and continues to do so, even though, yes, they've adapted over time.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Of course they went back on their initial approach, same as the UK. If you say "no need to restrict anything, it will go away", your death toll is significantly hire than comparable countries, and then you enact restrictions, what is that? Yes, the situation and our knowledge of the virus and the pandemic is highly evolving and the UK took barely a few months before making a U-turn, while Sweden persisted for many months with their strategy, in spite of the death toll, and some research saying that the economic impact is still significant.
incrudible 5y ago
The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place, but also to avoid superspreader events. Sweden did ban some gatherings and they did close down schools briefly. Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is not very strong considering that there is not much of a control group.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > The secret to not having hospitals overwhelmed is to have enough capacity in the first place Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around. Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"? > but also to avoid superspreader events Lol. Events with more than 2000 people outside ( at the best of times, usually it has been flat out forbidden), and 6-100 inside have been forbidden in France since last year. That obviously didn't help. > Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is not very strong considering that there is not much of a control group. There is, check the US and Brazil.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Enough for what? Hospital capacity was wildly sufficient for regular times, but the pandemic turned that around. Indeed, "enough" for normal times is not the same as "enough" for pandemic times. > Even Germany, which has multiple times the capacity per capita than France, is struggling in that regard. What is "enough"? Of course it's a "struggle" to suddenly work at capacity, but Germany wasn't in the situation of having to turn down patients. To the contrary, Germany was able to pick up patients from neighboring countries. That's "enough". > Events with more than 2000 people outside ( at the best of times, usually it has been flat out forbidden), and 6-100 inside have been forbidden in France since last year. That obviously didn't help. How do you know that it didn't help? We know from epidemiological studies that superspreader events were responsible for causing a surge of cases in a short amount of time. > There is, check the US and Brazil. There really isn't, we have countries with strong lockdowns doing poorly and countries with weak lockdowns doing relatively well, and everything in between. Lockdown measures are also difficult to compare, as are populations, as is testing and reporting. For example, Brazil with minimal lockdowns is doing just as poorly as Peru, with heavy lockdowns. Florida is doing better than many other US states with heavier restrictions. Japan is supposedly doing well with few restrictions, but also performs little testing. There are lots of variables and unknowns here and one can always cherrypick data to argue for or against lockdowns in various forms.

de_keyboard 5y ago

(2) leads to fewer deaths overall than (1). (1) gives better quality of life to the healthy than (2). (3) leads to fewer deaths than (1) or (2), but it requires political will. If you can pull it off, (3) is what you want. That's a big "if" though. As a healthy person, I personally would have been better off under (1). However, I think the economic and emotional damage of that number of deaths would have been too much for society as a whole.

scarby2 5y ago
I'm not certain the emotional damage around the deaths would be worse than the emotional damage around the restrictions. Same with the economic damage, I'm entirely certain the the economic damaged caused by the death of a large amount of largely economically inactive persons would have been way less than the economic damage caused by forcibly shutting down large chunks of the economy. The whole 1 vs 2 thing is just a matter of how much must the whole suffer for the benefit of the few?