Hacker News Reader

Comment by guygurari | Hacker News Reader

I have —- comparing with additional European countries, Sweden deaths per capita are lower than France, the U.K. and Italy, and is followed closely by Spain. Therefore, as I said, Sweden is not an outlier. At least the U.K. and Italy enacted far more restrictive policies than Sweden but achieved worse results. And this is just looking at the health part of the equation, not even discussing the economic benefits of Sweden’s approach.

I think this is enough to at least challenge the common viewpoint that restrictive lockdowns are the only way to deal with this.

View on HN

That's why I compared to Denmark and Norway: Two countries with comparable wealth, healthcare systems and similar (i.e. social democratic in a wider sense) approaches to societal problems - and here the differences in deaths are quite obvious.

All countries with higher deaths per capita than Sweden are significantly poorer, e.g. the UK has only 67% of Swedens GDP per capita, Spain has less than 50%.

Both France and Italy seem to be past the peak of this wave and have declining active cases, while the number of active cases are still growing in Sweden. I couldn't find the number of active cases for the UK.

What's your theory as to why Sweden is among the worst countries in the world for infection rates and deaths per capita, as opposed to e.g. Germany which implemented effective lockdowns early?

I know the UK royally botched its coronavirus response (waiting until the virus was spreading far too quickly before doing anything at all), although I do not know about France and Italy.

Just a question, but what is the methodology being used to count cases and track outcomes? Are the same methods being used globally so that a fair comparison can even be made? Are there are incentives to potentially 'tweak' those numbers so suit a narrative?

I can only speak for myself, but with the lack of trustworthy information, I find it very difficult to draw any conclusions at all.

My theory is that it’s because they stayed open. The numbers are higher, yes, but it has not been a catastrophic disaster like many predicted. Crucially, the health care systems are not overwhelmed.

So that is an important starting point for a discussion: it is possible to keep things mostly open (with appropriate safety measures) without overwhelming the healthcare system.

Note that it is possible that Sweden’s approach will eventually lead to a comparable number of deaths as its neighbors, but at an accelerated rate. Namely, it is possible that people are getting infected at a higher rate, which explains the higher numbers, but that the mortality rate will eventually be the same because the healthcare system is not overwhelmed. This depends on when and if we will find a vaccine and better treatments, which is an unknown.

On the other side of the equation, there is no mass unemployment, no hours-long lines at food banks, people are not suffering from mental health problems due to isolation, and so on. If Sweden does end up paying a higher price for its policies, it will still enjoy these benefits. They decided that it is worth the trade off. They are trying to prevent covid victims while also trying to protect potential economic victims, whose suffering is not being ignored. Is that wrong?

[*] 88% of deaths in Sweden are people over 70, and I believe many of those were in nursing homes. So it is possible that fine-tuning the policy can significantly reduce the death rate while keeping things open.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com