14 ms·

If you were running a country, when will you implement a Covid lockdown

2 points by kkcorps 5y ago

Some options you can choose from or any other option with explanation - A. As soon as a single case is detected B. Hospitals reach a pre-determined percentage of occupancy C. If >50% vaccinated, then no lockdown D. No lockdown irrespective of the on ground situation

chovybizzass 5y ago
B
LandR 5y ago
B
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
None of these are things I can appropriately choose. I am not a disease expert. If I'm running a country, though, I have access to the disease experts. And the appropriate response is one that is in tune with the advice from the disease experts, who would balance what is best to stop the spread of disease with what we can reasonably expect most of society to be doing. Until then, I'm just some person in a small attic apartment meandering about on the internet and do not have the overview or access to information that would lead to an informed enough decision - especially in light of the life and death situation failure creates.
- kkcorps 5y ago
  This is just a hypothetical excercise. Also, epidemiology experts will tell you from a pure health perspective but as a PM/President you'll need to consider economic factors as well. What you weigh more though is totally dependent on you.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    As a hypothetical exercise, were you the PM of Sweden, what would you do? As I understand it, the PM of Sweden doesn't have the authority to do anything you describe, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance , and (in)famously "The Swedish Constitution legally protects the freedom of movement for the people, thus preventing a lockdown in peace time." quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Economic_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Ec... Are you sure your question isn't more like "if you were the dictator, what could you do?" Also from Sweden is "Vision Zero" for road safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero . > A core principle of the vision is that "Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society" rather than the more conventional comparison between costs and benefits, where a monetary value is placed on life and health, and then that value is used to decide how much money to spend on a road network towards the benefit of decreasing risk.[2] As a hypothetical exercise, how much monetary value do you place on human life? How do you rank economic factors over human life?
    - NoPie 5y ago
      Sweden still had their process to change the laws and even constitution if the lawmakers and citizens so desired. They didn't, so it means that the recommendations by Tegnell at least had some effect. QALY (and in respectively human life) can be measured in monetary terms. It has some problems but all healthcare systems in the world do this, some openly (as in the UK), some behind the scenes. But they all do. This is a mind experiment where we all have the luxury of hindsight. Based on current knowledge I would also do almost the same what Tegnell did but with greater emphasis on protecting the risk population, elderly and others. Also I would cooperate with Astra Zeneca and other pharma companies to start human challenge trials immediately to speed up vaccine development.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        This isn't about Tegnell. The question posed, and refined by me, is: if you were the PM of Sweden, what would you do in the scenario presented here? Nothing? Or would you have started changing the laws/constitution so you have more power? As the follow-up question, how much monetary value do you place on human life?
        NoPie 5y ago
        I think I already made myself quite clear. Tegnell was famous by saying that lockdowns are crude measure and covid will be a longterm problem therefore we need to learn to live with instead of trying to eliminate it (I think it is called zero covid now). He didn't demand lockdowns although Sweden had certain restrictions and measures to contain the spread. I would do almost the same. You can find online how much the UK estimates QALY to be worth for treatment purposes. That would be the starting point I would use. I wouldn't try to overturn the field by wild changes thinking that many smart people before me had made very bad policy decisions.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    As a hypothetical exercise, it is still easy to see that none of these are things I can just choose. I know the economy doesn't matter if folks are dying too much, and even then... I'd consult experts. Again. And to be fair: No where in the original does it say to consider only economics. Economics will come back: People's lives won't.
NoPie 5y ago
D. Never. Lockdowns are not effective against covid. Even Australia failed them now. I would a) increase hospital capacity, b) ensure better ventilation, c) promote work from home, d) encourage people to meet more outdoors, e) start vaccine challenge studies to speed up vaccine development considerably.
- stephenr 5y ago
  I'm not in Australia at the moment (my parents and many friends are), but my understanding is that a decent % of infection cases are caused by people breaking curfews/"lockdowns" deliberately because of DILIGAF x YOLO mentalities.
  - NoPie 5y ago
    HIV also would be non-existent if everybody stopped reusing needles when injecting drugs and used condoms with anal or vaginal sex. I think Afganistan has very low HIV prevalence. Gays and injectable drug users are thrown from rooftops and that largely solves the problem. In the same way lockdowns are not effective because complete compliance is not achievable for one reason or another. People will rebel and unless you are prepared to completely crush them Taliban style, it won't work.
    - stephenr 5y ago
      So first off - let's get some perspective here, because you keep saying "not effective". Australia has a population of 25M people. From 29M tests, they've found 44K cases. So that's 0.17% of the population (infected). This works out to 1,700 per million. There have been 981 deaths attributed to COVID19 - that's 2.2% of confirmed cases, or 0.004% of the population. This works out to 40 per million (of the population). There are currently 603 people hospitalised due to COVID19 - that's 0.002% of the population. This works out to 20 per million. And this is with quite limited vaccination rollout, due to a variety of factors. Lets compare that with the US, which has had a variety of measures in place. The US has a population of 331M people. From 511M tests, they've found 37M cases. So that's 11.18% of the population (infected). This works out to 111,800 per million. There have been 625,375 deaths attributed to COVID19 - that's 1.7% of confirmed cases, or 0.19% of the population. This works out to 1,900 per million (of the population). It's hard to find a specific number from CDC but it seems like a recent # for US current hospitalisations is 89K. So that's 0.026% of the population. This works out to 260 per million. So. Do you want to tell me again how "Lockdowns don't work" and "Even Australia failed them now"? Or would you prefer I collect the stats from Thailand (where I live currently) - we were doing amazingly well until last December. We made Australia's numbers, look high by comparison. Then, after some localised outbreaks, the government decided letting people roam the country unrestricted during a pandemic was fine. That was ~4 months ago. At the moment, Thailand's new cases per day, are about half of Australia's total cases over the last 18 months. But sure. Vastly reducing travel doesn't work at all to curb the spread of a highly infectious disease. Give me a fucking break. You can argue your "freedom" is more important - I won't agree with you, but at least your argument makes some sense from a certain view point. But right now you're just ignoring the facts and making up claims to suit your own narrative/goals. As for your whole Afghan/Gays/HIV side show: Last time I checked, there's no vaccine against HIV, but you also can't catch it just by being in close proximity to someone who is infected. Some places (and I thought this included the US but I don't actually know for sure) criminalise knowingly infecting someone with HIV. Would you prefer that approach? Anyway - the point is - there literally are multiple vaccines against COVID19, and the evidence supports that the vaccinated are at much lower risk of infection, and much lower risk of hospitalisation/death in the case they do get infected. Pretty much every country on earth that is both enforcing 'lock downs' and conducting vaccinations, have said that they intend to reduce the spread via curfews/lockdowns until a sufficient number (typically 70%) of the population are vaccinated. It's not going to go away just because people are vaccinated - but the rate and prevalence of spread will reduce greatly, and the rate of hospitalisation and death will reduce greatly. That's the whole point. Now your other point was, to "increase hospital capacity". How many hospitals/expansions that will be suitable for use both in summer and winter, do you suppose could have been built in the ~12 months from the start of the pandemic until vaccinations started rolling out? Or in the ~18 months until now?
unearth3d 5y ago
A, a week ago NZ got the first Delta, today we have 107, stats people think cases are peaking. We have a hard, near total lockdown as no one want this loose, it would kill 10000 plus.
- vixen99 5y ago
  And where is the cost/benefit analysis for this? It would be nice if we could see the avoidance of simplistic 'instant expert' logic that fails to take into account the overall effect of a course of action. With lockdowns, consequent suicides, financial ruin, non-treatment of cancer, heart disease and a host of other conditions & adverse scenarios are ignored. Does this mean there is a balance in favor of not imposing lockdowns; who knows? No one knows if a CB analysis is absent. The latter should include effect of vaccination and the ameliorative effects of an ever-widening range of medicines which have been shown in many peer-reviewed clinical studies to save lives and reduce the severity of the disease. But governments set their face against this. One wonders why. Finally it should be noted that Covid-19 is not smallpox (lethality about 30%). Huge numbers of people who have competent immune function remain either asymptomatic or totally immune to the virus (lethality 0.007% - 5.4% or more depending on age and co-morbidity).
  - eesmith 5y ago
    The overall suicide rate appears to be unchanged. Quoting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ : > In the first few months of the viral pandemic, there were scattered media reports of individual instances of suicide ostensibly related to the effect of COVID-19 and several articles published in scientific journals that principally relied on such media reports ... > Analyses of actual suicide rates during the COVIDE-19 pandemic based on national and regional/local health statistics from across the world, however, provide a different picture. A majority of such comprehensive data-based studies report a modest reduction in total suicide rates whereas the remainder report no significant net increase in suicide rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 : "The only reliable recent data available on suicides in England - from the University of Manchester - has found that rates have not risen during lockdown." Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-been-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-suicide-rates/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-... : "Now we have reports from several countries, based on national or state-level suicide data. They come from Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Peru, Norway and Sweden—high income countries in most cases—and they carry a consistent message. Suicide rates have not risen."
eesmith 5y ago
What I've learned is that "lockdown" is a broad term, not a binary one. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions colloquially known as lockdowns (encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires and similar societal restrictions) have been implemented in numerous countries and territories around the world. For example, by "lockdown", do you include things like limiting venues to 50% occupancy? Let's say "a single case is detected" .. in someone who just entered the country and is in quarantine, and the quarantine protocols are effective. I would do nothing different. Let's say that single case is detected in someone who just broke the world's record for most number of kisses in 8 hours - 11,030 says https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/68045-most-people-kissed-in-eight-hours https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/68045-mos... . Then my reaction might be a bit different. Since the circumstances are so varied, I don't see how your question can have a reasonable answer in an HN thread. Except for Broken_Hippo's entirely reasonable answer.
- kkcorps 5y ago
  No, by lockdown I mean not allowed to go out unless for emergencies and no venues/theatres/restaurant open (except takeaways).
tt8889 5y ago
1. https://siasky.net/vAFE6IcJ1VKbFSOgXfOhd06tEiY5zsStMIakn7L8Kt_CfQ https://siasky.net/vAFE6IcJ1VKbFSOgXfOhd06tEiY5zsStMIakn7L8K... 2. https://siasky.net/vAMzP_hqv-U2TuDBGCq_QtOu-eqj-dBYmGPW1K_u5za_BA https://siasky.net/vAMzP_hqv-U2TuDBGCq_QtOu-eqj-dBYmGPW1K_u5... 3. https://siasky.net/fASLG0hSCp3aQfPCRiTL5udFnuUVikgHblEOosvyEut0ww https://siasky.net/fASLG0hSCp3aQfPCRiTL5udFnuUVikgHblEOosvyE...
kstenerud 5y ago
E. Consult virology and epidemiology experts and go with their recommendations.
- kkcorps 5y ago
  This is just a hypothetical excercise. Also, epidemiology experts will tell you from a pure health perspective but as a PM/President you'll need to consider economic factors as well. What you weigh more though is totally dependent on you.
a0-prw 5y ago
Covid has an estimated IFR of between 0.14% and 0.2%, with older age groups (with many comorbidities) heavily dominating the death rates. I would target preventative measures at high-risk groups. I would not implement lockdowns and I would not allow vaccination of healthy, younger age groups. Sweden almost got it right. Their relatively higher death rate is mostly explainable by the failure early on to protect care homes. Also I would redstribute resources from ridiculous military adventures in foreign lands to the health sector, so next time it happens the hospitals don't get swamped.

2 points by kkcorps 5y ago

chovybizzass 5y ago

LandR 5y ago

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

None of these are things I can appropriately choose. I am not a disease expert. If I'm running a country, though, I have access to the disease experts. And the appropriate response is one that is in tune with the advice from the disease experts, who would balance what is best to stop the spread of disease with what we can reasonably expect most of society to be doing. Until then, I'm just some person in a small attic apartment meandering about on the internet and do not have the overview or access to information that would lead to an informed enough decision - especially in light of the life and death situation failure creates.

kkcorps 5y ago
This is just a hypothetical excercise. Also, epidemiology experts will tell you from a pure health perspective but as a PM/President you'll need to consider economic factors as well. What you weigh more though is totally dependent on you.
- eesmith 5y ago
  As a hypothetical exercise, were you the PM of Sweden, what would you do? As I understand it, the PM of Sweden doesn't have the authority to do anything you describe, due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_governance , and (in)famously "The Swedish Constitution legally protects the freedom of movement for the people, thus preventing a lockdown in peace time." quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Economic_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Ec... Are you sure your question isn't more like "if you were the dictator, what could you do?" Also from Sweden is "Vision Zero" for road safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero . > A core principle of the vision is that "Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society" rather than the more conventional comparison between costs and benefits, where a monetary value is placed on life and health, and then that value is used to decide how much money to spend on a road network towards the benefit of decreasing risk.[2] As a hypothetical exercise, how much monetary value do you place on human life? How do you rank economic factors over human life?
  - NoPie 5y ago
    Sweden still had their process to change the laws and even constitution if the lawmakers and citizens so desired. They didn't, so it means that the recommendations by Tegnell at least had some effect. QALY (and in respectively human life) can be measured in monetary terms. It has some problems but all healthcare systems in the world do this, some openly (as in the UK), some behind the scenes. But they all do. This is a mind experiment where we all have the luxury of hindsight. Based on current knowledge I would also do almost the same what Tegnell did but with greater emphasis on protecting the risk population, elderly and others. Also I would cooperate with Astra Zeneca and other pharma companies to start human challenge trials immediately to speed up vaccine development.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      This isn't about Tegnell. The question posed, and refined by me, is: if you were the PM of Sweden, what would you do in the scenario presented here? Nothing? Or would you have started changing the laws/constitution so you have more power? As the follow-up question, how much monetary value do you place on human life?
      - NoPie 5y ago
        I think I already made myself quite clear. Tegnell was famous by saying that lockdowns are crude measure and covid will be a longterm problem therefore we need to learn to live with instead of trying to eliminate it (I think it is called zero covid now). He didn't demand lockdowns although Sweden had certain restrictions and measures to contain the spread. I would do almost the same. You can find online how much the UK estimates QALY to be worth for treatment purposes. That would be the starting point I would use. I wouldn't try to overturn the field by wild changes thinking that many smart people before me had made very bad policy decisions.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  As a hypothetical exercise, it is still easy to see that none of these are things I can just choose. I know the economy doesn't matter if folks are dying too much, and even then... I'd consult experts. Again. And to be fair: No where in the original does it say to consider only economics. Economics will come back: People's lives won't.

NoPie 5y ago

D. Never. Lockdowns are not effective against covid. Even Australia failed them now. I would a) increase hospital capacity, b) ensure better ventilation, c) promote work from home, d) encourage people to meet more outdoors, e) start vaccine challenge studies to speed up vaccine development considerably.

stephenr 5y ago
I'm not in Australia at the moment (my parents and many friends are), but my understanding is that a decent % of infection cases are caused by people breaking curfews/"lockdowns" deliberately because of DILIGAF x YOLO mentalities.
- NoPie 5y ago
  HIV also would be non-existent if everybody stopped reusing needles when injecting drugs and used condoms with anal or vaginal sex. I think Afganistan has very low HIV prevalence. Gays and injectable drug users are thrown from rooftops and that largely solves the problem. In the same way lockdowns are not effective because complete compliance is not achievable for one reason or another. People will rebel and unless you are prepared to completely crush them Taliban style, it won't work.
  - stephenr 5y ago
    So first off - let's get some perspective here, because you keep saying "not effective". Australia has a population of 25M people. From 29M tests, they've found 44K cases. So that's 0.17% of the population (infected). This works out to 1,700 per million. There have been 981 deaths attributed to COVID19 - that's 2.2% of confirmed cases, or 0.004% of the population. This works out to 40 per million (of the population). There are currently 603 people hospitalised due to COVID19 - that's 0.002% of the population. This works out to 20 per million. And this is with quite limited vaccination rollout, due to a variety of factors. Lets compare that with the US, which has had a variety of measures in place. The US has a population of 331M people. From 511M tests, they've found 37M cases. So that's 11.18% of the population (infected). This works out to 111,800 per million. There have been 625,375 deaths attributed to COVID19 - that's 1.7% of confirmed cases, or 0.19% of the population. This works out to 1,900 per million (of the population). It's hard to find a specific number from CDC but it seems like a recent # for US current hospitalisations is 89K. So that's 0.026% of the population. This works out to 260 per million. So. Do you want to tell me again how "Lockdowns don't work" and "Even Australia failed them now"? Or would you prefer I collect the stats from Thailand (where I live currently) - we were doing amazingly well until last December. We made Australia's numbers, look high by comparison. Then, after some localised outbreaks, the government decided letting people roam the country unrestricted during a pandemic was fine. That was ~4 months ago. At the moment, Thailand's new cases per day, are about half of Australia's total cases over the last 18 months. But sure. Vastly reducing travel doesn't work at all to curb the spread of a highly infectious disease. Give me a fucking break. You can argue your "freedom" is more important - I won't agree with you, but at least your argument makes some sense from a certain view point. But right now you're just ignoring the facts and making up claims to suit your own narrative/goals. As for your whole Afghan/Gays/HIV side show: Last time I checked, there's no vaccine against HIV, but you also can't catch it just by being in close proximity to someone who is infected. Some places (and I thought this included the US but I don't actually know for sure) criminalise knowingly infecting someone with HIV. Would you prefer that approach? Anyway - the point is - there literally are multiple vaccines against COVID19, and the evidence supports that the vaccinated are at much lower risk of infection, and much lower risk of hospitalisation/death in the case they do get infected. Pretty much every country on earth that is both enforcing 'lock downs' and conducting vaccinations, have said that they intend to reduce the spread via curfews/lockdowns until a sufficient number (typically 70%) of the population are vaccinated. It's not going to go away just because people are vaccinated - but the rate and prevalence of spread will reduce greatly, and the rate of hospitalisation and death will reduce greatly. That's the whole point. Now your other point was, to "increase hospital capacity". How many hospitals/expansions that will be suitable for use both in summer and winter, do you suppose could have been built in the ~12 months from the start of the pandemic until vaccinations started rolling out? Or in the ~18 months until now?

unearth3d 5y ago

A, a week ago NZ got the first Delta, today we have 107, stats people think cases are peaking. We have a hard, near total lockdown as no one want this loose, it would kill 10000 plus.

vixen99 5y ago
And where is the cost/benefit analysis for this? It would be nice if we could see the avoidance of simplistic 'instant expert' logic that fails to take into account the overall effect of a course of action. With lockdowns, consequent suicides, financial ruin, non-treatment of cancer, heart disease and a host of other conditions & adverse scenarios are ignored. Does this mean there is a balance in favor of not imposing lockdowns; who knows? No one knows if a CB analysis is absent. The latter should include effect of vaccination and the ameliorative effects of an ever-widening range of medicines which have been shown in many peer-reviewed clinical studies to save lives and reduce the severity of the disease. But governments set their face against this. One wonders why. Finally it should be noted that Covid-19 is not smallpox (lethality about 30%). Huge numbers of people who have competent immune function remain either asymptomatic or totally immune to the virus (lethality 0.007% - 5.4% or more depending on age and co-morbidity).
- eesmith 5y ago
  The overall suicide rate appears to be unchanged. Quoting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110323/ : > In the first few months of the viral pandemic, there were scattered media reports of individual instances of suicide ostensibly related to the effect of COVID-19 and several articles published in scientific journals that principally relied on such media reports ... > Analyses of actual suicide rates during the COVIDE-19 pandemic based on national and regional/local health statistics from across the world, however, provide a different picture. A majority of such comprehensive data-based studies report a modest reduction in total suicide rates whereas the remainder report no significant net increase in suicide rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 : "The only reliable recent data available on suicides in England - from the University of Manchester - has found that rates have not risen during lockdown." Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-been-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-suicide-rates/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/10/louis-appleby-what-has-... : "Now we have reports from several countries, based on national or state-level suicide data. They come from Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Peru, Norway and Sweden—high income countries in most cases—and they carry a consistent message. Suicide rates have not risen."

eesmith 5y ago

What I've learned is that "lockdown" is a broad term, not a binary one. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns : > Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions colloquially known as lockdowns (encompassing stay-at-home orders, curfews, quarantines, cordons sanitaires and similar societal restrictions) have been implemented in numerous countries and territories around the world. For example, by "lockdown", do you include things like limiting venues to 50% occupancy? Let's say "a single case is detected" .. in someone who just entered the country and is in quarantine, and the quarantine protocols are effective. I would do nothing different. Let's say that single case is detected in someone who just broke the world's record for most number of kisses in 8 hours - 11,030 says https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/68045-most-people-kissed-in-eight-hours https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/68045-mos... . Then my reaction might be a bit different. Since the circumstances are so varied, I don't see how your question can have a reasonable answer in an HN thread. Except for Broken_Hippo's entirely reasonable answer.

kkcorps 5y ago
No, by lockdown I mean not allowed to go out unless for emergencies and no venues/theatres/restaurant open (except takeaways).

tt8889 5y ago

1. https://siasky.net/vAFE6IcJ1VKbFSOgXfOhd06tEiY5zsStMIakn7L8Kt_CfQ https://siasky.net/vAFE6IcJ1VKbFSOgXfOhd06tEiY5zsStMIakn7L8K... 2. https://siasky.net/vAMzP_hqv-U2TuDBGCq_QtOu-eqj-dBYmGPW1K_u5za_BA https://siasky.net/vAMzP_hqv-U2TuDBGCq_QtOu-eqj-dBYmGPW1K_u5... 3. https://siasky.net/fASLG0hSCp3aQfPCRiTL5udFnuUVikgHblEOosvyEut0ww https://siasky.net/fASLG0hSCp3aQfPCRiTL5udFnuUVikgHblEOosvyE...

kstenerud 5y ago

E. Consult virology and epidemiology experts and go with their recommendations.

kkcorps 5y ago
This is just a hypothetical excercise. Also, epidemiology experts will tell you from a pure health perspective but as a PM/President you'll need to consider economic factors as well. What you weigh more though is totally dependent on you.

a0-prw 5y ago

Covid has an estimated IFR of between 0.14% and 0.2%, with older age groups (with many comorbidities) heavily dominating the death rates. I would target preventative measures at high-risk groups. I would not implement lockdowns and I would not allow vaccination of healthy, younger age groups. Sweden almost got it right. Their relatively higher death rate is mostly explainable by the failure early on to protect care homes. Also I would redstribute resources from ridiculous military adventures in foreign lands to the health sector, so next time it happens the hospitals don't get swamped.