Sweden shows that lockdowns were unnecessary. No wonder public health officials hate it

YYou know who’s not worried about the second wave of COVID-19? Sweden The stallid Scandinavian empire has just completed a record number of COVID-19 trials and has found a positive rate of only 1.2%, the lowest since the onset of the epidemic. As Sweden’s case is below that of Norway and Denmark, those commentators have spent April and May raging against one Washington Post The op-ed called his “experimentation with national chauvinism” and the predicted fatalities suddenly calmed down.

Bazni Hakur Thorson et al.  Walking on the city street: Hannan.jpg

© Provided by Washington Examiner

“Sweden has been one of the countries with the most infections in Europe, one of the fewest infections people in Europe, while many other countries have seen a dramatic increase,” says Anders Teganel, state epidemiologist .

True, and not because of the absence of a lockdown but because of it. Sweden encouraged people to work from home, remote university courses, and banned meetings of more than 50 people, but otherwise relied on their citizens to use their common sense. Officials decided that since hospitals could cope, there was no need to buy time by ordering people to stay indoors. That decision is soon terminated.

A reason for untold bliss, you might think. Here, finally, there is evidence that a country can engage coronoviruses without depriving children of education, accumulating a backlog of non-coronovirus medical conditions, or leaving a smoking pit where its economy Used to be

But the rest of the world is far from complacent. In fact, the tone of most foreign media coverage remains affected, and you can see why. After all, if Sweden’s strategy was viable, it ruined itself for nothing of us. This is an unqualified idea, almost an unbearable one. But Sweden forces us to face it.

Imagine a world where Stockholm faced international pressure and conformed to all the rest. In such a world, politicians and public health officials can avoid claiming that but for their closure and breakdown, things will be unimaginably worse. The disease, they tell us, will spread rapidly. Millions, probably millions, would have died.

But they cannot claim this when we can all see control in the experiment. The streets of Stockholm are full of people resting in cafes without face masks. You and I may find those pictures uplifting, but epidemiologists and authorities stop everything when they shut down their economies, Sweden is the spectator at the feast. This Banco sits like a ghost, silently scolding them.

The point is not that the lockdown did not achieve anything. Obviously, if you define an entire population, you will slow the spread of COVID-19 (and, indeed, other diseases transmitted by human interaction). Rather, the issue is that the lockdowns were inconsistent and maintained for a long time.

A new study by economists at the University of Chicago, Princeton and the London School of Economics has found that a lockdown of less than two months may be justified: economic costs are limited, and time is used to build healthcare capacity can be done. “After that,” Professor Greg Kaplan says, “what you’re doing is delaying a second wave, so the marginal benefit is small until you can stop the lockdown all the way until the vaccine arrives.” Go and small. ”

It is amazing how many commentators refuse to understand this. If you level the curve, you do not reduce the area under the curve. Some countries have chosen things for longer than others. But in the absence of treatment or vaccine, the final number of deaths will not vary much.

This is not to say that it will be the same in different countries. All types of factors can affect mortality: climate, geography, population density, age profile, genetics, openness to international travel, obesity incidence, exposure to previous coronaviruses, and, at a minimum, different methods of counting . But the lockdown is not strictly on that list.

Infections and lethal graphs for Sweden and the United Kingdom look almost identical. You would be in trouble, seeing them, to guess which nation closed its shops, schools and offices and which did not. Nor is there much correlation when we look at the various states in the United States – nor, indeed, in other parts of the world. Peru, which had an eye-water-tight lockout, is far worse than neighboring Brazil, whose president, Jais Bolsonaro, was attacked around the world for his outlandish-fascist approach.

When all of this ends, we can well ascertain that the largest international variable is not the number of preventable deaths. This is the loss of the living.

Tags: Rai, Dan Hannan, Coronavirus, Sweden, Europe, Policy

Original Author: Dan hannan

Original place: Sweden shows that lockdowns were unnecessary. No wonder public health officials hate it

Continue reading