Swedish for Common Sense?
Jul. 22nd, 2020 12:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blogcutterSince Ontario entered stage 3 of re-opening, there has predictably been an upswing in COVID-19 cases, this time particularly in the 20 to 40 age group. Is it time to backtrack a bit? Maybe.
Meanwhile in Sweden, authorities took a much more relaxed view of lockdown in the first place. Schools never officially closed. Many workplaces did and some precautions were taken in terms of additional hand washing and physical distancing. For the most part though, it seems families and businesses were fairly free to decide for themselves how and to what extent they should limit or adapt their usual day-to-day activities.
How well has this worked out so far? Reaction has been mixed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-epidemiologist-anders-tegnell/2020/06/03/063b20e4-a5a0-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
Now, here is a country that you would think would not be excessively motivated by the almighty dollar or krona. I suspect that Swedes would not have much of a problem with deficit financing. They're known for their generous social programs, although their taxes are also high by our standards. But here's what I find interesting: with pretty much everyone enjoying a decent income and a moderately high standard of living, there is no compelling urgency for them to get back to work and real life. And yet, they choose to do so. Why?
One possible answer would be social life. While some people are more sociable than others, humans are generally thought to be social creatures who need at least a modicum of interaction and social contact.
There may be some scientific justification for Sweden's approach too. If you want to build "herd immunity" in the absence of a vaccine or even an effective treatment for the disease, perhaps it makes sense to go about as you mean to continue, as far as is reasonable. That to me would mean that you maintain only loose restrictions on those you would expect to contract only mild cases of the virus, while still protecting those who are older or have compromised immune systems. But perhaps that's easier said than done.
We don't yet have reliable tests for antibodies and for those who do have them, we don't know for how long they protect the person. Nor do we know enough about genetic or other inherent susceptibilities to the virus. Add to that the range and diversity of symptoms and the picture grows murkier still!
Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell seems to have lost some of the courage of his earlier convictions, conceding that the death toll amongst Sweden's older folks has been too high and that if he had known in March what he knows now, he would have advocated more of a middle-ground approach. In other words, somewhere in between hard lockdown and Sweden's looser approach.
A lot of smart people are working really hard on combatting and controlling Covid 19. I hope they succeed. I'm also glad I'm not in the hot-seat right now!
Meanwhile in Sweden, authorities took a much more relaxed view of lockdown in the first place. Schools never officially closed. Many workplaces did and some precautions were taken in terms of additional hand washing and physical distancing. For the most part though, it seems families and businesses were fairly free to decide for themselves how and to what extent they should limit or adapt their usual day-to-day activities.
How well has this worked out so far? Reaction has been mixed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sweden-epidemiologist-anders-tegnell/2020/06/03/063b20e4-a5a0-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
Now, here is a country that you would think would not be excessively motivated by the almighty dollar or krona. I suspect that Swedes would not have much of a problem with deficit financing. They're known for their generous social programs, although their taxes are also high by our standards. But here's what I find interesting: with pretty much everyone enjoying a decent income and a moderately high standard of living, there is no compelling urgency for them to get back to work and real life. And yet, they choose to do so. Why?
One possible answer would be social life. While some people are more sociable than others, humans are generally thought to be social creatures who need at least a modicum of interaction and social contact.
There may be some scientific justification for Sweden's approach too. If you want to build "herd immunity" in the absence of a vaccine or even an effective treatment for the disease, perhaps it makes sense to go about as you mean to continue, as far as is reasonable. That to me would mean that you maintain only loose restrictions on those you would expect to contract only mild cases of the virus, while still protecting those who are older or have compromised immune systems. But perhaps that's easier said than done.
We don't yet have reliable tests for antibodies and for those who do have them, we don't know for how long they protect the person. Nor do we know enough about genetic or other inherent susceptibilities to the virus. Add to that the range and diversity of symptoms and the picture grows murkier still!
Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell seems to have lost some of the courage of his earlier convictions, conceding that the death toll amongst Sweden's older folks has been too high and that if he had known in March what he knows now, he would have advocated more of a middle-ground approach. In other words, somewhere in between hard lockdown and Sweden's looser approach.
A lot of smart people are working really hard on combatting and controlling Covid 19. I hope they succeed. I'm also glad I'm not in the hot-seat right now!
