3 ms·

If we judge from a years of life saving perspective, Sweden picked the correct tradeoff: a few more deaths (mostly elderly) and no infringements on the freedom

If we judge from a years of life saving perspective, Sweden picked the correct tradeoff: a few more deaths (mostly elderly) and no infringements on the freedom of the rest of the population. We still haven't fully paid the cost of the lockdowns, from an economic and mental health point of view.

eesmith 5y ago
> and no infringements on the freedom of the rest of the population. Here are some of the restrictions in Sweden, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden : ] The Swedish public were expected to follow a series of non-voluntary recommendations[note 2] from the Public Health Agency of Sweden (Folkhälsomyndigheten). These included working from home where possible, limiting travel within the country, social distancing, and for people above 70 and those with potential COVID-19 symptoms to self-isolate. ... From early 2021 amidst a surge in cases, new legislation was passed limiting visitors to venues, enacting international travel restrictions, banning nursing home visits and closing secondary schools and universities. ... Vaccine passports and other measures were introduced in December 2021. ] Alcohol sales were banned after 10pm, gatherings were limited to a maximum of eight people and some schools switched to online learning in response ] a requirement for vaccine passports for gatherings of over 500 people were introduced in December 2021 Don't know where you live, but in the US, these are considered infringements of freedom.