4 ms·

Given that the paper is published in Nature you should certainly write the editor if you found any clear factual errors.

• HonestOp001 5y ago
  Just because something is published does not make it fact. There is a definite bias at publishing houses to “be on the right side of history” and so some opinions will get squashed or not published. Look at: The mask paper that was talked about but was never published because the results were inconvenient. Anytime statistics blow up a narrative. The Swedes actually followed the science by listening to all the recommendations prior to the pandemic. The best example of this is the WHO or the CDC prior to the outbreak having published and peer reviewed papers that said lockdowns do not work. Now the next comparison to do is that the approaches of all the other countries followed lockdown. Sweden did not. They then proceeded to have no significant death differences between countries. Seeing that, there will be significant mental differences and knock on effects from the different reactions. Ultimately, the Swedes got it right by not panicking, followed the non politicized science, and keeping calm and carrying on.
  • oezi 5y ago
    The paper argues that Sweden didn't get it right but could have easily gotten a better result by incorporating scientific methods better into their public health approach. Just by advocating masks more and having better policy on trying to save people from dying via hospital care, they could likely have saved maybe a quarter of their total deaths.
    • Johanx64 5y ago
      >By scientific evidence, in the context of this paper, we refer to the advice of international authorities in infection control (including the World Health Organisation, (European) Centres for Disease Control and Prevention), and the body of peer-reviewed scientific papers. The paper literally refers to WHO and CDC advice as "scientific evidence". It's ludicrous. The whole thing is thinly veiled opinion piece. It boggles my mind how far "science" as a term has been degraded and driven 8 feet under.
  • tored 5y ago
    Sweden did get things right, however it also got things wrong. Lockdowns and masks are both largely non-effective, Sweden got that right, however what Sweden got wrong was the care for the elderly, many deaths that could have been prevented with proper care, but many of them never got to a hospital.
    • freen 5y ago
      Huh. I wonder why the B/Yamagata strain of flu, one of the four major strains, has gone extinct, and there’s a possibility that another has has well.
      • Vecr 5y ago
        Not effective against a virus like this. It might be effective against something else, but at this point SARS-CoV-2 is the second fastest spreading pathogen in human history.
  • lapsis_beeftech 5y ago
    Lockdowns were never an option because the Swedish constitution guarantees free movement for citizens; the government cannot legally enforce a lockdown. The lack of lockdowns was not a result of "following the science", but rather a non-decision dictated by existing policy.
    • xorcist 5y ago
      That is true in quite a few other countries as well, yet that did not stop politicians there. Enforcement and legislation are two different things. Constitutional courts probably have a bit of work cut out for them the coming years to be better prepared for another situation like this.
• snovv_crash 5y ago
  As others mentioned, this wasn't actually published in Nature.