3 ms·

Sweden

by parametrizept 4y ago

Sweden

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Powerful argument.
- fieldcny 4y ago
  Not really, It was just a word. Assuming they were making mention of Swedens recommendations only approach, it’s still not a good argument because there are plenty of countries that tried similar methods and failed miserably (e.g. Brazil). There are a lot of confounding factors not controlled for or properly studied.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I was obviously being sarcastic.
    - pc86 4y ago
      Might I suggest you read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        I have, but when people argue in bad faith like the "Sweden" comment or other hyperbolic ones in this thread, I only have so much patience. I'm not going to go read 15 news articles and wiki pages to find out the most charitable interpretation of namedropping Sweden. If the person wanted to make an argument they should actually provide one. Instead I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out their bad faith argument, because it's not like they're gonna provide a serious response if I make one anyway. Edit: I want to add something here. Had they replied to my sarcasm with a more cogent reply, I would thank them for it and reply accordingly. I may have a bit of a temper and impulsivity at times, leading to snark. But if you look at most of my comments I'm here to share interesting ideas and conversations with people, and I try my best to discuss in good faith and to be humble when I make mistakes. But at some point arguing like that with someone who is never gonna reciprocate is just being a doormat, and a waste of time.
        JohnBooty 4y ago
        Agree completely. There's no possible "assume best intentions" attitude that can be taken toward a zero effort comment like that. Although, we can probably also agree it would have been best to ignore that "Sweden" comment entirely since such comments tend to be downvoted swiftly. Now, you may be wondering: do I reliably follow my own advice and avoid responding to trollish replies like that? No. No I do not.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        My general rule of thumb is one snarky response per trollish reply at most. Don't keep engaging with them if they do, because then it's just a pissing contest.
belorn 4y ago
Sweden had the exact same prioritization in the health care system, with a very similar patient backlog from non-covid cases. The work-at-home mandate was similar to other nations, with a similar reduction in seasonal respiratory illnesses. Sweden had different approaches mostly in terms of no mask mandates, they did not close down schools, and early in the pandemic there were not as strong border lockdowns (not that it mattered much when all the neighboring countries locked their borders). In term of traffic congestion there seems to have been similar reductions during covid as in other countries, through by default Swedish roads are not as congested more populated countries.

Sweden

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Powerful argument.

fieldcny 4y ago
Not really, It was just a word. Assuming they were making mention of Swedens recommendations only approach, it’s still not a good argument because there are plenty of countries that tried similar methods and failed miserably (e.g. Brazil). There are a lot of confounding factors not controlled for or properly studied.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  I was obviously being sarcastic.
  - pc86 4y ago
    Might I suggest you read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      I have, but when people argue in bad faith like the "Sweden" comment or other hyperbolic ones in this thread, I only have so much patience. I'm not going to go read 15 news articles and wiki pages to find out the most charitable interpretation of namedropping Sweden. If the person wanted to make an argument they should actually provide one. Instead I think it's perfectly reasonable to call out their bad faith argument, because it's not like they're gonna provide a serious response if I make one anyway. Edit: I want to add something here. Had they replied to my sarcasm with a more cogent reply, I would thank them for it and reply accordingly. I may have a bit of a temper and impulsivity at times, leading to snark. But if you look at most of my comments I'm here to share interesting ideas and conversations with people, and I try my best to discuss in good faith and to be humble when I make mistakes. But at some point arguing like that with someone who is never gonna reciprocate is just being a doormat, and a waste of time.
      - JohnBooty 4y ago
        Agree completely. There's no possible "assume best intentions" attitude that can be taken toward a zero effort comment like that. Although, we can probably also agree it would have been best to ignore that "Sweden" comment entirely since such comments tend to be downvoted swiftly. Now, you may be wondering: do I reliably follow my own advice and avoid responding to trollish replies like that? No. No I do not.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        My general rule of thumb is one snarky response per trollish reply at most. Don't keep engaging with them if they do, because then it's just a pissing contest.

belorn 4y ago

Sweden had the exact same prioritization in the health care system, with a very similar patient backlog from non-covid cases. The work-at-home mandate was similar to other nations, with a similar reduction in seasonal respiratory illnesses. Sweden had different approaches mostly in terms of no mask mandates, they did not close down schools, and early in the pandemic there were not as strong border lockdowns (not that it mattered much when all the neighboring countries locked their borders). In term of traffic congestion there seems to have been similar reductions during covid as in other countries, through by default Swedish roads are not as congested more populated countries.