Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomMckenny | Hacker News Reader

Likewise as it fails, their higher fatality rate helps show what was avoided. Although most countries under lock down could not handle the peak hospitalizations that Sweden can which would mean far more deaths. And one would need to compare Sweden's results to similar countries like others in Scandinavia. And at the moment Sweden's death rate is 6 to 10 times its neighbors[1]. So a success or failure in Sweden is extremely informative but not completely transferable.

Swedes are pretty generous conducting this experiment on their population for the edification of the survivors.

[1]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/new-covid-deaths-per-mill...

View on HN

>higher fatality rate helps show what was avoided

Isn't the opposite of flattening the curve, to absorb the hit all at once. You would expect a much higher death rate for a shorter amount of time.

> You would expect a much higher death rate for a shorter amount of time.

Only if surviving covid-19 provided immunization against a other infection

Thing is we know zero contact means no Virus. But what lives beyond that? Who knows what is right. The morals and ethics of this, confounded with our knowledge and technology is profoundly complex. People are failing to grasp nuance here.

> But what lives beyond that?

What lives beyond what?

> The morals and ethics of this, confounded with our knowledge and technology is profoundly complex.

"complex" is just latin for "put together". What relevance does the complexity of life have for its value?

> People are failing to grasp nuance here.

I am comfortable with the lack of nuance inherent in trying to avoid death.

The floor is low. Absolute isolation is impossible. The nuance is that we lack so much knowledge to make a less restrictive choice. We basically are not advanced enough to act with clarity beyond broad moves. These are just pent up ramblings. Too much isolation. It’s the right thing. But with better knowledge and systems this would not be needed. We have the tech. Maybe we should not.

> I am comfortable with the lack of nuance inherent in trying to avoid death.

What do you think about the idea of dropping the speed limit on all roads to 10 miles per hour in order to save many lives every year?

It's a very good plan. We would have lower pollution, fewer deaths, higher living density, lower carbon emissions. It is, however, very unusual and unpopular.

Why is it so unpopular? It will save a lot of lives, isn't that worth it?

Sweden doesn't have a particularly high number of ventilators per capita, so their ability to manage the peak is not necessarily much higher than other nations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com