> Don't you think Sweden would have done even worse had they locked down?
I mean, we've only got all the other Nordic countries to compare against to evaluate this...
I mean, we've only got all the other Nordic countries to compare against to evaluate this...
People absolutely would, should, and do. Right now, the contrast between New York and Florida on reopening policy is pretty clear, despite differences in their economies.
Are you arguing that Sweden would have done better economically if they locked down?
Because that is what we are talking about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-c...
When it comes to coronavirus NYT is no different then Fox News, they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion.
Why does the NYT not state how surprising is that the caseload in Sweden did not spiral out of control, and is actually decreasing? Regardless of what the death rate is (which is still much lower than many other European countries) it was and is completely at odds to the narrative of epidemics control. A balanced, fair journalist would state that.
It's borne out by various bits of evidence; most people wind up DIYing their own lockdown, even if the government doesn't order it. Restaurant reservation numbers dropped dramatically before the first lockdowns, for example, and didn't jump back up to normal in states that reopened early.
https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2020-03-14/restaurant-res...
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/19/american...
The benefit of a formal lockdown is enforcement for the small proportion of people who YOLO things.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-didnt-impose-a-lock...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11775892/coronavirus-ravaged-s...
It's way too early to say what the best strategy would've been, but with hindsight-information it's not far-fetched to lean on a scientifically sound middle-ground. It's also too early to tell all the direct consequences of the virus itself.
> they are looking stuff up in their gut, ignoring all evidence, pushing a narrative based on a preconceived notion
It's obvious this is the case because their narrative hasn't changed despite so much changing and being proven wrong. There's no revising understanding based on evidence. It's defining your moral belief beforehand (e.g. anyone resistant to the draconian measures imposed by government is a misanthrope) and interpreting every development to support it.
Truth-seekers invite opposition, criticism and debate. I've seen none of that during the pandemic.
Any time I've seen people offer divergent arguments, it's met with the immediate response that disagreement is dangerous because "there's so much at stake".
It's all just the same politicizing, moral-superiority and demagoguery that's become far too common over the years.