Edit: Note that USA is doing much worse since so many are dying there even though you lock down.
All gatherings över 50 persons are forbiden and we are to told to not travel IF not needed.
We still uphold laws, so the government bor riksdag can force lockdown om People. But can close Stores and restaurants that doesn't follow rules.
And about Corona deaths, we are probably have more correct reports of deaths than many countries, like UK. Which probably are under reporting.
That based on all deaths reporter. The exccess deaths compared to previous five years are about the same as the reporter Covid-19 deaths. And the över deaths in Sweden are in pair with Denmark, higher then Norway but lower that Finland and Scotland (yes, part of UK).
And Finland has Hard lockdown, so Scotland and Denmark.
Even IF you compare Copenhagen area with Skåne area (South part of Sweden) with about same population, the death rate reporter of Covid-19 is higher in Copenhagen. There are areas in Sweden that have lower death rates then Finland, on pair with Finland.
So No, you are basically ignorant of the death rates of Sweden.
And yes, death rates of Covid-19 in Sweden are still lower than some bad influenza years, like in 2000. Even through the population in Sweden was smaller then, total number of deaths in flue was Word. And letting children go to school was a good Choice, as Corona isn't pushed by children, many are better going to school then forced to be at home. And they are not loosing important time in school with their friends and some normalities.
And the all deaths are now down to under normal years. Most thanks to the changed in behaviour has almost erased the flue in Sweden.
Comparing total deaths data, without different rules to define IF deaths are Covid-19 or not, shows that the lockdown in UK, Denmark and Finland did not do much difference. Not compared to Sweden, with moderate and mostly informed population about how to defeat the spread of the Corona virus.
But, that isn't interesting to wrote about, I guess. As it could show that the lockdown is the only solution, that it also cost life and sufferings.
Links on demands.
I sure think not. So the comparisons are a bit moot.
trading 60 years of 30 year olds for 1 year of an 82 year old is a trade that probably no 82 year old would want.
It is more about catering to the sort of voter that is easily scared, exposed for the first time to the fact that life is indeed fragile and limited, a voter that looks at someone to protect them.
Old people are the pawns and "protecting" them is the spectacle of demonstrating competence in governing.
I really don't follow your argument. Do you believe young voters are totally indifferent to the idea of seeing their parents and grandparents die?
But like many diseases, the coronavirus is far more sensitive--the IFR for a 75-year-old is >100x that of a 25-year-old[1]. That's the reason why health care spending is near-universally assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. To do otherwise would yield absurd results, paying the same to restore a dying child to perfect health as to extend a centenarian's life by another month of agony. Around the usual ~$100k per QALY saved and counting both the deaths and loss of quality in severe but non-fatal cases, I believe that masks, social distancing, remote working where possible, and closure of the highest-risk businesses (theaters, nightclubs, etc.) until a vaccine is available are likely cost-effective, but facility closures beyond that are not (except to any extent required to stop the medical system from getting overrun).
1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
My mother _actually_ passed from cancer in May. I sure wish I could've spent more time with her before that happened despite any risks.
I would most certainly trade the past six months for a normal life even if it meant that I would die six months sooner.
wouldn't you?
six months of isolation for a 1/100,000 chance of dying 50 years sooner,
turns out I take that chance of dying each time I climb a mountain, and I get back less value than what is on offer in your trade
would I trade getting out of six months of quarantine if the price was the chance of 1/100,000 of dying. Of course I would.
I contrasted that to the fact that I frequently take on much higher risks of dying (mountaineering) for a lot less payoff (it is fun).
(the 1/100,000 is an estimate based on existing data for my age group)
This is what's really frustrating about this whole "trade-off" argument: it's fine to make trade-offs for yourself, but you do not have the right to implicitly force your choice on others. If you sit within six feet of me not wearing a mask, my risk of falling off a mountain does not increase by any measurable amount. If you have Covid-19 and don't know it yet, the same cannot be said.
also where and in what way did the mask pop into this at all?
we are talking about what a person would trade aka risk vs reward
So this is not just about what is good for you, but instead what is good for the community.
For example, having you out of quarantine early might be good for you, but it will definitely not be good for many others.
We live in a society, and Covid19 is not just a question of personal choices.
Not to mention, people who have defied quarantine orders and have spread this to their loved ones can become depressed and suicidal, so quality of life for many who would spread this disease will become abysmal.
A grandparent might accept a 20% chance of dying, if it means regularly taking their grandchild to the park in the last few good years of life they have left. Most of the people at great risk of CORVID only have a few good years left.
Or, look at things like obesity or smoking or drinking (all of which might be getting worse - will people develop bad habits in quarantine?). People are willing to take risks (and overburden the health system) over lots of things, and we accept that the government shouldn't make it illegal.
Actually, why don't we just create quarantine safe old people's homes, and force them all into it? Then we can protect old people in quarantine, and let young people risk CORVID to build up herd immunity, then plunge the country into a brief elimination lockdown. It would be kinda inhumane to the old people we would be locking up (though people seem willing to take extreme measures anyway) but at least it would be quick.