Don’t snap!
Unless you are The Hulk!
We’re spending tons of ink here comparing one country’s 99.9x percent survival rate to another country’s 99.9x percent survival rate and calling one a pure unmitigated disaster while praising the other. And I just don’t think the delta in those ‘x’ values is worth the 90+ percent devastation – literally, decimation – we’ve done to industry after industry all over the world, with the resultant or concomitant widespread loss in quality of life.
We are also, in this thread, unfairly representing what actions Sweden truly took, but that’s not really at the heart of my argument. My argument is that I agree with Tegnell that the draconian measures adopted by the great majority of the world were either too late, too ineffective, or just simply not worth it. I think the black swan is not the virus itself, but rather our global reaction to it. And I know that it feels really good to a lot of people right now – the ones who enjoy spreading memes about ‘stay the fuck home’ and generally preaching to other people about how they should behave and how great this world would be if everyone were as virtuous as they themselves are – but I don’t think it’s going to stand the test of time. I think history will look back on our reaction as elitist at best, and self-destructive at worst.
As someone that lives in Stockholm, I can’t agree with that. So many of the “actions” were so wishy washy they were next to pointless. There was complete inaction on many things (perfect example: the refusal to close the parties in ski resorts despite proof that they were sources of spreading back to the rest of the country. Or try the way they waited until April 1st to ban visitors to care homes) and the population of Stockholm has completely failed to do any sort of social distancing. I know that as I can see it with my own eyes.
What do you mean by a 99.9% survival rate?
The per capita death rate for Sweden currently stands at 537 per million and this is the 5th worst rate in the world - ignoring statistical outliers where tiny populations distort the numbers.
Swedens testing rate is 51 thousand per million and this is well down the order coming in at 50th in the world and this last figure is utterly crucial because it means the extent of infections in Sweden is largely unknown - and when you compare this rate with other nations it is noteworthy that Sweden has the worst rate of testing of all developed nations - without any exception.
The reason this matters is that it means Sweden actually has no realistic picture of their nations health and so is not in a position to implement effective measures - there is a terrible lack of effective tracking.
Even with such a poor record of testing, Sweden has the highest rate of infection per million population in Europe, and if testing had been carried out we would likely have a known higher still rate of infection.
Compare Swedens lack of testing, unknown infection rate and high death rate with its near neighbours and its obvious that it has a very serious problem.
It means the Swedes are much more likely to be carrying Covid than anyone in Europe, that they have more unknown carriers than anywhere in Europe and are a risk of infection to every other nation in Europe.
This is leading to travel bans for Swedes right across Europe and will impact massively on international tourism and in business Swedes are simply not going to be sitting at the table when international deals are being proposed.
You are another Swede who, very much like Tegnell, or like the poster Dseid who is simply in a state of denial - we have the Swedish pm also denying the extent of the crisis right up until 2 days ago when he admits his nation has failed and we have a health minister in Tegnell whose attitude is, quite frankly, schizophrenic, he has first continued in his claims things are fine,
Then on 3rd June he admits Sweden should have done more,
and is now making noises rejecting criticisms of Swedens Covid policies.
Finally Swedens PM has announced an inquiry into its handling of the Coronavirus epidemic - and given the delusions and denials of Swedish officials this is likely to try find ways to whitewash their sheer incompetence rather than an objective examination into the facts.
So, again I ask you - what do you mean by a 99.9% survival rate, and please back that up with credible cites
I think he means 537 deaths/Million means 99.95% of people survived.
You cannot survive a condition that you did not contract - so that would be a very false data point.
By his logic 99.9x% of us survive pretty much anything so we may as well not bother with trying to prevent any deaths from any cause.
…no we aren’t doing that.
You made a claim. You said “I feel that if the entire world had done the same, we’d be in a whole hell of a lot better shape than we’re in now.”
No we wouldn’t have been better off. If we had done the same thing as Sweden we would have had thousands of people dead, people would still be scared to go out-and-about and Covid-19 would still be in community spread.
Instead we eliminated the virus weeks ago. I’m out and about, spending money, businesses are all open again, life, with the exception of being able to enter or leave the country, is back to normal again.
We lost 22 people. Every single loss was a tragedy. Yet that doesn’t seem to be enough death for you. How many should we have allowed to die in service of “keeping the country open?”
:: looks around ::
My quality of life is significantly better than almost anywhere else in the world right now. How would it have been better off by following Sweden’s lead? I can go to restaurants and bars. Go to the supermarket or the pharmacy, I don’t have to social distance, I don’t have to wear a mask.
We locked down hard for a short period and we eliminated Covid-19. Other countries that didn’t lock down as hard but locked down effectively have begun to open up.
So why would I want to swap what we have here for what they have in Sweden? You say we would have been in “better shape.” Would we be open right now or would Covid-19 be in community spread? How would our economy be better?
Do you concede that New Zealand weren’t “too late”, our lockdown was effective, and that it was worth it?
And how are you defining “worth it?”
There is nothing “elitist” about wanting to protect your fellow citizens and stopping them from dying. There is nothing “self-destructive” in stopping a pandemic at the borders. I don’t have to wait for “history” to know that we did the right thing to follow the science, protect our people and in turn protect our economy, and that to follow Sweden would have resulted in thousands of deaths, community spread, and an economy in trouble.
I think his argument is the economic dislocation caused by the response to Covid19 has been and will be more devastating than the virus itself.
A valid topic for discussion, however it is unclear whether the economic effects of not shutting down would have been any better.
Or we might as well as have not caused the widespread damage our policies did, which we are only just barely – just the barest of barely – beginning to see, and which will likely remain a burden for decades and perhaps even generations to come. See, that’s the elitist part. It’s nice and easy to sit in the ivory towers and dictate policies that more or less don’t impact you, if you know what I mean.
I was directly affected. Lost my very well paying job, as did my partner. Jobless and $300,000 / year poorer, we both still think the right thing was done. Elitist you say?
Edit: I must say, I do enjoy going out for a coffee and mingling comfortably with my fellow New Zealanders.
…you think our Prime Minister was an “elitist” who “sat in an ivory tower” and “dictated policy” that "didn’t “impact them?”
The policy impacted everyone. Everybody locked down. Everybody made sacrifices. Everybody did that so that we would have could save as many lives as possible.
A policy that was overwhelmingly supported by over 89% of New Zealanders is not an “elitist” policy, and the people that did oppose the lockdown (like the people behind “Plan B”) fit the very definition of the “privileged elite”.
For those who can’t get to this article, here is the salient point
In other words, Sweden killed a lot more people than its neighbors, but for no economic advantage.
BTW their per capita death rate is 40% higher than ours in the US.
Anyone who remembers how the economy was shutting down even before the lockdowns shouldn’t be surprised at this at all.
Sweden killed people? And for economic gain? Man, oh man…
Or we might as well as have not caused the widespread damage our policies did, which we are only just barely – just the barest of barely – beginning to see, and which will likely remain a burden for decades and perhaps even generations to come.
Except that evidence is starting to emerge of the long-term medical effects of COVID-19 - evidence that suggests that whatever the economic costs of lockdowns and recovery, the long-term medical costs of allowing the disease to run rampant through the population may well be substantially higher.
And it’s a cautionary lesson to learn - people considered COVID-19 like influenza, a bad cold, compared it to SARS - bad, but no big deal. But it’s not - it’s something different and we don’t yet understand it. It may be years before we do. But you can bet that whatever novel disease comes next, countries are going to react faster and treat it with a great deal more respect.
Let me be sure I follow you here. It’s not near the same (as these other things it’s in the same category as) – trust me on that, you say – but we can’t yet say exactly how or why?
I posted this article in the Breaking News thread, but I’ll post it again here.
A dozen patients had inflammation of the central nervous system, 10 had brain disease with delirium or psychosis, eight had strokes and a further eight had peripheral nerve problems, mostly diagnosed as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an immune reaction that attacks the nerves and causes paralysis. It is fatal in 5% of cases.
“We’re seeing things in the way Covid-19 affects the brain that we haven’t seen before with other viruses,” said Michael Zandi, a senior author on the study and a consultant at the institute and University College London Hospitals NHS foundation trust.
“It’s a concern if some hidden epidemic could occur after Covid where you’re going to see delayed effects on the brain, because there could be subtle effects on the brain and slowly things happen over the coming years, but it’s far too early for us to judge now,” Zandi said.