5 ms·

When Sweden decided for no lock-downs, we knew very little about the virus. It was effectively a jump into the unknown. Even if the decision proves beneficial,

When Sweden decided for no lock-downs, we knew very little about the virus. It was effectively a jump into the unknown. Even if the decision proves beneficial, it was an error, in the knowledge context of March 2020.

weego 5y ago
Assuming that in any give situation, the only correct decision in the absence of any knowledge is the most conservative one. Which this would disprove and thus the argument is provably false.
- TheCowboy 5y ago
  Except that being wrong about how bad a virus is can be catastrophic, especially when nearly every nation was woefully underprepared. You can easily do math to demonstrate how small changes in the variables of a virus can lead to more dire outcomes. What if China had taken the most conservative policy in response to the appearance of covid-19? Maybe we would have been spared the turmoil and disruption of this pandemic. You're way too confident declaring this as "provably false". Hopefully our knowledge is greater and our preparedness will be better such that we don't have to always take such an aggressive policy position when faced with a novel virus.
  - Ntrails 5y ago
    The job of Governing is not solely to minimise loss of life, or to utterly avoid tail risks irrespective of cost. (imo) Focussing so myopically on the above has had unmeasurable consequences on a huge variety of fronts. My prime fury is reserved for closing schools. Extraordinary damage done, gulfs in opportunity and experience widened. Nobody cares much. Death stats are, after all, the only thing that matters to the media at large
    - TheCowboy 5y ago
      This isn't what my comment is arguing. This is about the outbreak phase when we don't know much. I appreciate some of the points you're making but it's also not a binary choice. As we acquire more information, policy should evolve with it. Limits on individual freedoms are blunt policy tools that should be used only when necessary, because they aren't zero cost. I don't think we should have forever lockdowns at all. I'm in the camp of "get vaccinated and move on with your life" and that we should be more upfront about how covid-19 isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      You're pro having 30 people breathing in a small room with bad airflow for multiple hours when there's a pandemic? If you don't know how it's transmitted, then try various things and see if they help. We tried lockdown, and it worked. So we kept doing it, if it didn't change the situation we would have tried other things instead.
      - Ntrails 5y ago
        Yup. I think that fucking up the education of children, especially those from low socio-economic status backgrounds, is worse than the deaths not doing it causes. It is not that lockdown is bad or wrong. It is that I do not agree with all the things which were hit. I acknowledge there is a price to keeping education open but I believe it would have been worthwhile. Perhaps you missed my point? Governing is about more than keeping the most people alive.
        ctvo 5y ago
        > Perhaps you missed my point? Governing is about more than keeping the most people alive. Actually I believe that’s table stakes for good governance. Trading known deaths for possible impact to development of children isn’t even in the realm of equal, which is why most places didn’t do it.
        bmeski 5y ago
        But we’ll trade thousands of lives to secure some nice minerals in Afghanistan. Cmon.
        galaxyLogic 5y ago
        And, early on it was not sure how Covid would affect children. Their lives and health are still more important than their education. Better be conservative in hazardous circumstances. Better safe than sorry
        mavhc 5y ago
        How has their development been impacted? I mean apart from the ones who died.
jansan 5y ago
Here is an interview with Prof Johan Giesecke from April 2020. In hindsight one can call his statements prophetic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY They had a clear plan, unlike other governments like Germany, who still do not have a plan how to get out of this mess.
guerrilla 5y ago
> Even if the decision proves beneficial, it was an error That's subjective: It depends on how much risk you're willing to take on. People here were pretty supportive of the policy, so presumably willing to take on more risk than you. Like you, I wasn't but that's just how it goes.
- sergiosgc 5y ago
  Except if the risk is unknown you don't know how much risk are you taking, and hence if it is above our below your threshold. When faced with a cataclysmic, albeit low probability, event, the only course of action is the cautious one.
  - johanneskanybal 5y ago
    Not sending kids to school, eliminating social interactions, shutting down businesses, this was the drastic unknown experiment not the other way around. The effects are becoming more apparent now and I'm sure there will be a lot written about the subject in the future. Gloating doesn't seem appropriate at this point but sure after a year of the world screaming how bad we handled it maybe a Swedish moderate amount of national pride is warranted.
    - Godel_unicode 5y ago
      One interesting, and quite unexpected, effect was on the suicide rate in the United States. Specifically, the fact that it has declined slightly. This is especially surprising given the seemingly inexorable rise on that same rate for decades. We are only now starting to see analysis of this data, and while I hardly think that this is enough to make any sizable statements about lockdowns, it's also certainly not the case that we know they were more harmful than unchecked covid. https://healthfeedback.org/what-has-been-the-effect-of-the-pandemic-on-the-suicide-rate-of-the-u-s-population/ https://healthfeedback.org/what-has-been-the-effect-of-the-p...
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
naasking 5y ago
> When Sweden decided for no lock-downs, we knew very little about the virus. It was effectively a jump into the unknown. And lockdowns were a jump into an economic unknown, which also had very unpredictable effects. There's no way you can say it was an error given the evidence available at the time. We'll see how it works out in the end.
Dwelve 5y ago
Lockdowns are a jump into the unknown. They have never been done in the history of humanity before. Not just cities, not just nations, but entire civilizations locking down has never been done before. The risk groups were already well known by then end of March 2020. People at the end of their life with an average of 2.7 comorbidities. Please make no mistake, lockdowns will go down in history as the biggest mistake of the modern human history. The only reason why we're still arguing in here is because it's damn near impossible to admit one made the biggest mistake in modern human history.

weego 5y ago

Assuming that in any give situation, the only correct decision in the absence of any knowledge is the most conservative one. Which this would disprove and thus the argument is provably false.

TheCowboy 5y ago
Except that being wrong about how bad a virus is can be catastrophic, especially when nearly every nation was woefully underprepared. You can easily do math to demonstrate how small changes in the variables of a virus can lead to more dire outcomes. What if China had taken the most conservative policy in response to the appearance of covid-19? Maybe we would have been spared the turmoil and disruption of this pandemic. You're way too confident declaring this as "provably false". Hopefully our knowledge is greater and our preparedness will be better such that we don't have to always take such an aggressive policy position when faced with a novel virus.
- Ntrails 5y ago
  The job of Governing is not solely to minimise loss of life, or to utterly avoid tail risks irrespective of cost. (imo) Focussing so myopically on the above has had unmeasurable consequences on a huge variety of fronts. My prime fury is reserved for closing schools. Extraordinary damage done, gulfs in opportunity and experience widened. Nobody cares much. Death stats are, after all, the only thing that matters to the media at large
  - TheCowboy 5y ago
    This isn't what my comment is arguing. This is about the outbreak phase when we don't know much. I appreciate some of the points you're making but it's also not a binary choice. As we acquire more information, policy should evolve with it. Limits on individual freedoms are blunt policy tools that should be used only when necessary, because they aren't zero cost. I don't think we should have forever lockdowns at all. I'm in the camp of "get vaccinated and move on with your life" and that we should be more upfront about how covid-19 isn't going to be eradicated anytime soon.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    You're pro having 30 people breathing in a small room with bad airflow for multiple hours when there's a pandemic? If you don't know how it's transmitted, then try various things and see if they help. We tried lockdown, and it worked. So we kept doing it, if it didn't change the situation we would have tried other things instead.
    - Ntrails 5y ago
      Yup. I think that fucking up the education of children, especially those from low socio-economic status backgrounds, is worse than the deaths not doing it causes. It is not that lockdown is bad or wrong. It is that I do not agree with all the things which were hit. I acknowledge there is a price to keeping education open but I believe it would have been worthwhile. Perhaps you missed my point? Governing is about more than keeping the most people alive.
      - ctvo 5y ago
        > Perhaps you missed my point? Governing is about more than keeping the most people alive. Actually I believe that’s table stakes for good governance. Trading known deaths for possible impact to development of children isn’t even in the realm of equal, which is why most places didn’t do it.
        bmeski 5y ago
        But we’ll trade thousands of lives to secure some nice minerals in Afghanistan. Cmon.
        galaxyLogic 5y ago
        And, early on it was not sure how Covid would affect children. Their lives and health are still more important than their education. Better be conservative in hazardous circumstances. Better safe than sorry
        mavhc 5y ago
        How has their development been impacted? I mean apart from the ones who died.

jansan 5y ago

Here is an interview with Prof Johan Giesecke from April 2020. In hindsight one can call his statements prophetic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY They had a clear plan, unlike other governments like Germany, who still do not have a plan how to get out of this mess.

guerrilla 5y ago

> Even if the decision proves beneficial, it was an error That's subjective: It depends on how much risk you're willing to take on. People here were pretty supportive of the policy, so presumably willing to take on more risk than you. Like you, I wasn't but that's just how it goes.

sergiosgc 5y ago
Except if the risk is unknown you don't know how much risk are you taking, and hence if it is above our below your threshold. When faced with a cataclysmic, albeit low probability, event, the only course of action is the cautious one.
- johanneskanybal 5y ago
  Not sending kids to school, eliminating social interactions, shutting down businesses, this was the drastic unknown experiment not the other way around. The effects are becoming more apparent now and I'm sure there will be a lot written about the subject in the future. Gloating doesn't seem appropriate at this point but sure after a year of the world screaming how bad we handled it maybe a Swedish moderate amount of national pride is warranted.
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    One interesting, and quite unexpected, effect was on the suicide rate in the United States. Specifically, the fact that it has declined slightly. This is especially surprising given the seemingly inexorable rise on that same rate for decades. We are only now starting to see analysis of this data, and while I hardly think that this is enough to make any sizable statements about lockdowns, it's also certainly not the case that we know they were more harmful than unchecked covid. https://healthfeedback.org/what-has-been-the-effect-of-the-pandemic-on-the-suicide-rate-of-the-u-s-population/ https://healthfeedback.org/what-has-been-the-effect-of-the-p...
    - spookthesunset 5y ago

naasking 5y ago

> When Sweden decided for no lock-downs, we knew very little about the virus. It was effectively a jump into the unknown. And lockdowns were a jump into an economic unknown, which also had very unpredictable effects. There's no way you can say it was an error given the evidence available at the time. We'll see how it works out in the end.

Dwelve 5y ago

Lockdowns are a jump into the unknown. They have never been done in the history of humanity before. Not just cities, not just nations, but entire civilizations locking down has never been done before. The risk groups were already well known by then end of March 2020. People at the end of their life with an average of 2.7 comorbidities. Please make no mistake, lockdowns will go down in history as the biggest mistake of the modern human history. The only reason why we're still arguing in here is because it's damn near impossible to admit one made the biggest mistake in modern human history.