In Sweden, Will Voluntary Self-Isolation Work Better Than State-Enforced Lockdowns in the Long Run?

There’s a lot of debate over the Swedish model of coronavirus response, but there are good reasons to think a Hippocratic approach to policy may pay off.


"Sweden's suffering very, very badly" according to President Donald Trump. Nope, says Denmark's former Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who suggested April 7 that Denmark should have followed the cautious Swedish way of responding to COVID-19.

Views diverge on Sweden's unique strategy of not closing borders and shutting down schools, workplaces, restaurants, libraries, gyms and shopping centers. The Swedish government has declared no state of emergency and no orders to shelter in place. Young Swedes are even encouraged to continue with their sports training and events.

Some Brits think that we Swedes are crazy, The Spectator's Fraser Nelson told Swedish radio last week, but added that other Brits admire how the Swedish people have largely followed scientific advice—no mandatory lockdown needed.

One reason why some believe Sweden is a disaster zone while others see it as a role model is that currently available data can be interpreted many different ways. 

For example, the number of deaths as a share of total cases is a useless statistic, since countries have completely different testing regimes. It is at best an indication of a country's testing capacity and how many people with more mild cases are being tested—an area where Sweden has not impressed. 

Those who want to show how great Sweden is doing have produced charts comparing us to countries like Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, and Italy. Those who want to prove the opposite replace those countries with Norway, Denmark, and Finland, all of which have fewer deaths. 

If you want Sweden to look bad, compare it to the U.S. as a whole—120 deaths per million in Sweden vs. 94 in the U.S. according to Our World in Data's April 16 numbers. If you want Sweden to look good, compare it to New York state, which is at a more similar stage to us in the virus's spread—120 vs. 580.

The truth is that Sweden is somewhere in the European middle when it comes to deaths per capita, which in itself is interesting. We are outliers in terms of policy, but not in terms of outcomes. 

There are also reasons to think that Sweden is doing better than these comparisons suggest. Many countries don't count COVID-19 deaths outside of hospitals. When people die at home, in nursing homes, or in prisons, they don't show up in the coronavirus death count. 

In the Stockholm region of Sweden, 42 percent of deaths took place in nursing homes for the elderly. In many countries, and some U.S. states, those deaths would not show up in the data. 

This has a major effect on where you are compared to other countries. According to Johns Hopkins University, Belgium has twice as many COVID-19 deaths per capita as the Netherlands. But in Belgium, almost half of those deaths are from nursing homes, while testing is more rare in Dutch nursing homes so fewer deaths there are attributed to the disease.

After France started to include nursing homes in the statistics, the total number of French COVID-19 deaths jumped by almost a third.

While some Swedish regions have also underreported nursing home deaths, there are good reasons to believe we count deaths more accurately than many other countries. Sweden is a statistics powerhouse—we have had a disturbingly nosy government since long before the United States even existed. Every Swede has a 10-digit personal number. It is similar to a Social Security number, but it's mandatory and we have to identify ourselves with this number, validated by an ID card, during every contact with authorities and doctors.

There are obvious downsides to having the government make lists and find out who's naughty and nice, but in the present context, one benefit is that we know with good confidence who has died.

During the present pandemic, Sweden systematically checks the list of people who have tested positive for the virus against the population register. Every time the government discovers that someone who had the virus has died, that person is registered as a COVID-19 death if it happened within 30 days of the diagnosis—even if the cause of death was cancer or a heart attack. 

It means that Sweden reports the number of people who die with COVID-19, not of COVID-19.

Even in a culturally and geographically similar country like Norway—celebrated for its low death rate—they do things differently. The Norwegians only count something as a COVID-19 death if a doctor concludes that someone was killed by the disease and decides to report it to the country's public health authority. 

This means that we have to wait a long time for more detailed data on deaths and specifically excess deaths—those who would not have died from something else close in time—before we proclaim victory or defeat.

No matter how we count, though, I assume that Sweden has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than our Nordic neighbors. But that is an obvious result of those countries' decisions to postpone cases and deaths by locking down whole societies for a period of time. The thing to watch is what happens when they begin to open up again and will face a new wave of COVID-19. No government can keep people locked up until we have a vaccine, and most are now loosening restrictions.

A Harvard model projects that a 60 percent suppression of the disease will result in a higher peak later on and a higher number of total deaths than a mitigation strategy like the one Sweden used, where the spread is reduced by no more than 20 or 40 percent, so that the disease can pass through the population to create herd immunity during a period when the vulnerable are protected. Other models come to other conclusions, of course, depending on what you put into them. We just don't know yet, and only time will tell. Herd immunity might yet beat herd mentality.

Sweden's strategy would have been considered a failure if it had resulted in a peak of cases so high that the health care system had become overwhelmed and people who could have otherwise been saved died from lack of care. We are nowhere close to the end of this, but the models and pundits that predicted this outcome happening as early as late March were wrong. 

The Swedes who have died from the coronavirus did not die due to lack of hospital beds or ventilators. Thanks to a rapid increase in intensive care unit capacity, 20 percent of Sweden's ICUs are unoccupied. Stockholm has built a new field hospital, already equipped to receive hundreds of COVID-19 patients, including 30 ICU beds. So far it has not had to open. The average age of the dead has been 81, which is close to our average life expectancy. 

And it seems like the disease is now slowing down in Sweden, not speeding up. The number of COVID-19 patients newly admitted to the ICU has been relatively stable since March 23, and since people are also getting better and leaving the hospital, the total number of patients in ICU treatment is declining somewhat, at least for the moment. 

The number of deaths in Sweden has been in slight decline for more than a week. We must be extremely careful in interpreting such recent trends, but at least it is far from the exponential increase many feared. 

Why has Sweden done so much better than many predicted? Because others failed to see that society could respond voluntarily to the pandemic. For example, the influential Imperial College model estimates a higher reproduction rate of the disease in Sweden than in other countries, "not because the mortality trends are significantly different from any other country, but as an artefact of our model…because no full lockdown has been ordered."

In other words, the model could only handle two scenarios: an enforced national lockdown or zero change in behavior. It had no way of computing Swedes who decided to socially distance voluntarily. But we did. You have probably seen pictures of crazy Swedes in crowded restaurants, defying sanity and the international consensus, but chances are you saw the same pictures of the same restaurants at that particular evening when it was indeed crowded—had the camera pointed toward a different part of the same restaurant, it would have shown many empty tables. Swedes, though imperfect, have generally done a good job of voluntarily self-isolating.

Swedes have reduced their mobility substantially, even without police enforcement. For example, cell phone data shows that the inhabitants of Stockholm reduced their trips to the most popular Swedish holiday destinations during Easter by around 90 percent.

This means that our economy still hurts despite more liberal policies (even apart from the fact that export-dependent Swedes suffer from lockdowns in other places). We are not going to shops and restaurants like we used to. But losing two-thirds of your revenue rather than 100 percent might mean the difference between life and death for many entrepreneurs. 

We are nowhere close to the end of the pandemic. Perhaps Sweden will do worse long term, and then we'll have some serious self-examination ahead. Or perhaps Sweden is the one place that is succeeding in limiting long-term damage, caring for the sick, and protecting the vulnerable, all while working toward herd immunity.

We don't know whether the Swedish model is better or worse yet. What we do know is that Sweden has not cracked down on basic liberties like others have, and has not wrecked society and the economy to the same extent. 

As Hippocrates might have put it, "First, do no harm."

NEXT: NYPD Cops, Some Without Masks, Detain Small Boy for Being Alone on Subway. His Parents Were in the Next Car.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The truth is that Sweden is somewhere in the European middle when it comes to deaths per capita, which in itself is interesting. We are outliers in terms of policy, but not in terms of outcomes. ”

    Week after week, Sweden has stayed in the middle of the Euro pack in terms of deaths per million. They aren’t conforming to the narrative. How dare they!

    1. Swedes are a fascinating people. Culturally, they are closer to Americans in many ways than even the British. At the same time, in some ways, they are very different.

      1. Culturally, Sweden will end up like Pakistan or Somalia if they keep importing foreigners. I’m sure they will adopt Islamic values since Christians are cowards.

        1. So, among your other idiocies, you have no idea how Sweden operates?
          Why is this not surprising from a lefty fucking ignoramus?

      2. “Swedes are a fascinating people. Culturally, they are closer to Americans in many ways than even the British. At the same time, in some ways, they are very different.”

        Pretty sure that was C/P out of “Parade” Sunday supplement. It’s really hard to get more banal than that.

      3. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
        Find out how HERE……More here

    2. Herd immunity relies on the assumption that sufficient antibody build-up after exposure produces immunity. To date, the scientific and medical community does not know the numbers and duration of immunity from exposure. Early indicators are that patients with severe cases may have mid-term immunity (up to a year). It would seem a large gamble to risk lives for a year-long immunity because a herd immunity relies on 70-80% of population contact. That is unlikely in the period of a year.

      1. That it has not been studied yet doesn’t in any way imply that it won’t work. A very high probability based on all the data about RNA coronaviruses thus far – our antibodies will suffice. Stop posting panicky misinformation on this website. Reserve that for NYT or BBC comments.

        1. Immunity for those exposed to Covid-19 has been and continues to be studied. There is, as yet, no evidence that exposure protects beyond mid-term duration, much less that there is a ‘high probability based on all data about RNA coronaviruses thus far…”
          As such, a herd immunity policy relies on an assumption rather than factual information.

          Joe, I hasten to say, that the exchange of information can be beneficial to those who are intellectually curious and open to alternative views in a forum that encourages mutual respect. To my knowledge, this forum is not limited to comments that support one view. Needless to say, I am not going to stop posting comments you disagree with. This world is big enough for more than one opinion.

          1. biology is often driven by statistics… how many other RNA coronaviruses have the property of immune resistance after a few months? make reasonable assumption for policy

            remember we have even less evidence lockdown orders per se lower deaths, and yet we’re locked down

            “herd immunity” is a bit silly, but it is trivially true that as with social distancing, every immune can break an exponentiating chain of infection — Sweden is estimating up to 40% of the population is already immune.

    3. Some experts say that lock downs and social distancing only decrease the number of deaths in the short term, but may not in the long run. For herd immunity, we need to be exposed first. These measures only delay that, and experience is demonstrating that they do not work in nursing homes. So Sweden is an example of why we should end the lock down ASAP.

      1. Herd immunity is normally achieved through a vaccine, particularly in the case of diseases with high complications and death rates. There is a risk of a second wave after a lockdown that is even greater than the first wave of cases, as you noted. Ending a lockdown in an effort to gain herd immunity, without a vaccine, relies on the population’s acceptance of a large number of fatalities and the possibility of breaking the health system. For countries with a low population density, a high number of people living alone and a low elderly population resisting a lockdown has much less risk.

        1. The US is a diverse country. Looking at the entire country as if it is NYC makes you sound like a Times writer. Bismarck isn’t White Plains. Montana isn’t LA. The last time I checked most of the United States is low population density, and a relatively high number of people living at home without their grandparents. I don’t know what the exact average age of citizens is in the midwest etc, but there’s no evidence it’s significantly higher than Sweden. Regardless, staying in total lockdown forever, you say a vaccine is unlikely, is not an option, so what is the point of worrying about it? The country would collapse with a measure like that, total economy, no food on the shelves, no fuel, no heat, no air conditioning, total collapse. Vaccine or not, we are not staying locked down for that amount of time.

  2. The ghoulish cheerleading for deaths among those who disagree with the Swedish model is seriously off-putting. When it looked like Sweden was going to get away with around 2x deaths of Flu season, these people were nowhere to be found. Then on the Tuesday after Easter Monday (a holliday) when all the deaths were reported from the weekend, giving a single day spike, these people were all over tap dancing on the graves of the dead.

    This just goes to show you how little this has to do with real caring for the dead, and how much it has to do with wanting to be right. A person who called for sheltering in place should be HAPPY to see what happens in Sweden. It doesn’t affect them, and gives them information to calibrate the best response. But instead they run victory laps every time bad news comes from there, and constantly insist and pray that Sweden is becoming a wasteland.

    1. I think Sweden will end up no worse or no better off than other countries, in terms of Coronavirus deaths.
      They will, though, have maintained their liberty and that’s more important.

    2. Lane Rose bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h. I use details from this webpage… Details Here

  3. i hope so because for once i want to shove Sweden’s example in a socialist’s face

    1. I find it amusing and ironic that Sweden is now the prime example of preservation of liberty to be used against socialists’ big government fearmongering in the US. Now it seems the country socialists tout as their role model is having preliminary success against Covid-19 with far less government interference than those same socialists want to see here.

    2. Sweden hasn’t been socialist in a long time. True, they have high taxes, but they have a very business-friendly government.

      1. >>Sweden hasn’t been socialist in a long time.

        “yeah but Sweden” has been the internet-cry for socialists since there was an internet …

      2. He didn’t say Sweden is socialist. And true, you didn’t say that he said that. But I just want to clear that up for those who will think either of those things.

        1. Yeah, CMW is very good at innuendo; truth, not so much.

  4. I respect Sweden for being the control group in this experiment.

    1. I respect their determination to not bow to fear. The U.K. was going the same way then succumbed.

    2. I second that. It will make what is eventually learned for more robust. In time, either Sweden will be validated, or if not, it will make case for lockdown much stronger and more robust. Thank you Sweden!!!

    3. “I respect Sweden for being the control group in this experiment.”
      I DON’T respect cowardly, lefty, pieces of shit for turning the US into the control group on the other side.
      I’m guessing you are a cowardly, lefty, piece of shit.

  5. I live in Orange County. 3.2 Million people. Disney Land. One of the largest ex-pat Chinese populations in the country. 3.2 Million people are living in their homes, believing that outside the safety of their home is a viral wasteland. Hospitals are overflowing. Bodies are piling up.

    We have 25 deaths, and 1400 confirmed cases. 3,174,000 healthy people scared shitless about a virus that will likely never impact them. In a county that SHOULD be ground zero for this virus due to how many asian travelers we get.

    This is why sooo many people are viciously attacking anyone who dares to offer any moderation to the “Shit Pants in Place” belief that has been rammed down our throats. They cannot admit that their Crisis Fantasy was an over-reaction.

    The next stage of this mass gas lighting is that they will insist NO ONE actually WANTS to go outside. We were all forced into our houses. They then started snitching and levying fines for people who dared go out. And now they have the balls to tell us that is what we really want.

    1. >> They cannot admit that their Crisis Fantasy was an over-reaction.

      exactly this. in Texas too.

    2. American left-wingers also don’t want to admit they’ve be lead astray. Government is always right so long as it’s their preferred government. Much the same cause behind their willingness to turn a blind eye to Biden’s creepy history with women.

    3. Isn’t that a ‘red area’ and not a ‘blue area’ = orange county?

      1. It was for ages, but there are a lot of Asian immigrants and their descendants there who have skewed it purple in recent years.

      2. in 1988 yes

      3. Dude, look around the country. Red, Blue, this is an equal opportunity pants shitting.

        To be fair, much of what is happening in our state comes from our Dear Leader Newsom. But I also see tons of Republican Karens on Next Door who are freaking out. I get the sense that Republicans are more likely to be protesting these actions, but there are enough of them happy to shelter in place that this isn’t done yet.

  6. My question is why people use death counts as an argument against the Swedish model. Lockdowns aren’t supposed to (and indeed cannot) prevent deaths from a virus. They might be able to prevent deaths from hospital overcapacity, but is that what is happening in Sweden?

    1. “why people use death counts”
      It’s nearly impossible to get stats for cross-country case comparisons given differences in how / when testing is done.
      Deaths would seem to be the proof in the pudding, but the author points out numerous ways in which even deaths can’t be compared.
      There needs to be metrics to push back against the feelz

      1. Wouldn’t the most obvious relevant stat be hospital overcapacity, since that’s:

        (1) pretty easy to figure out
        (2) a little harder to fudge
        (3) actually the direct objective of the lockdown

        1. Controlling hospital overcapacity might have been the stated objective, but not necessary the real objective.

        2. “Wouldn’t the most obvious relevant stat be hospital overcapacity”

          Yes This! But here is the thing. Figuring out how many beds you have, and how many are working, and how many are filled…well that takes a TON of work. We don’t pay reporters and government pawns to sit on the phone calling one another up and entering data into a spreadsheet. It is much easier to use data we already have, and these cool models to say how things are going.

          Sheesh, the next thing you are going to say is that the government ought to be spending money figuring out how to trace people who test positive.

    2. Excellent point.

      The objective of the lockdowns subtly shifted from preventing excess deaths, to preventing all deaths. The latter is obviously impossible, which means the lockdowns are permanent.

      1. My fear exactly.

      2. Late to this story, but agree with you 100%. My understanding, from what our doctor kept saying, was that “flattening the curve” was to buy the hospitals time to put pieces in place so they wouldn’t be overwhelmed.

        That explanation suggests that once the pieces were in place, we were going to let it rip. The hospitals would be ready to process people in and out and we’d be through this. Instead, we just keep pushing things off. Our hospitals are not overwhelmed and it seems like we just keep giving them more time to not do their thing.

    3. >>why people use death counts

      rebuttal evidence because coronavirus was reported as the deadliest thing ever

    4. This is exactly the point to make. As long as the system isn’t overwhelmed, it was the right call, regardless of if they end up on the the bad end of the stats. Government isn’t magic. It can’t stop viruses from spreading.

      1. Nonsense. Count up the deaths from overdose and suicide that are sure to increase among those laid off from their jobs. I suspect we will see those are more significant, but government stooges will be undercounting them to avoid getting the blame. The reality is hospitals were never going to get overwhelmed, and this was basically the equivalent of a bad flu season. But they managed to cow many people into hiding and accept Chinese communist contact tracing methods.

        Fuck the government.

  7. I don’t think it is really likely at all that Sweden gets anywhere near herd immunity this wave – or that whatever closer distance it does get to that this wave will do much next wave. 1% infection rate (the apparent initial expectation of the health depts before they revisit it) is a lot closer to nothing at all than to anything that’s going to protect a herd. But there are two big advantages to their approach right now:

    They can build those extra facilities with the notion that their approach will need that rather than, as here, wondering whether it’s just a make-work scheme for those who were forcibly unemployed by a govt that closed everything down prematurely ‘for just a cold’

    The changes in employment etc are viewed as due to the virus rather than to the actions of govt. And the fact is that many businesses and GDP are collapsing, new unemployment is rising faster than any time in decades, and the govt is doing a lot of Keynesian stimulus to counter that. But that is blamed, correctly, on the virus. Which means that if/when a govt shut down occurs because medical capacity is close to getting breached, there will be more social cohesion and less partisan BS re that action. Which also likely means better-decision making as well.

    1. JFree
      April.17.2020 at 12:31 pm
      “I don’t think it is really likely at all that Sweden gets anywhere near herd immunity this wave…”

      You have been right at least once in the last several weeks, you cowardly piece of shit, and that was when you answered someone who asked the time.
      Stuff your PANIC!!! flag up your ass, sit on it, and fuck off.

  8. Nobody will ever admit the total lockdown was an overreaction. The narrative is that government saved us. Government being wrong undercuts that. Experts being wrong undercuts that.

    Hell, Mann is still employed after “hide the decline”.

    1. How will we determine what is TRUE without the authority of our Holy Government and its sage politicians?

  9. You would think that a radical approach would get radical results.
    Apparently that is not the case, so yes, the lockdowns are a waste.

  10. It is interesting that the Swedes are willing to submit to voluntary self distancing and that this may be the difference between Sweden and the US. They trust the government and have a good safety net. As a result when asked to self distance they do so. In America our response to a request for self distancing is too often defiance. I not going to self distance and you can’t make me. Well no the government can’t but it can close down most businesses leaving you no place to go.

    1. People in the US started voluntarily self-distancing before the lockdown orders came, so your pessimism is misplaced in this.

    2. The defiance started after the shelter-in-place and increasingly arbitrary and restrictive orders, despite the notable lack of bodies dropping in the streets and hospitals being filled past capacity, you moron.

  11. Many societal factors are left out of all these evaluations. For example, Sweden has very few international tourists compared to other countries afflicted, and that includes Sweden’s immediate neighbors. That means the mechanism for virus entry to the country was weaker (and more so today) than other places. These “defense” articles conveniently forget to consider this. Second, Sweden has approximately 5 hospital beds per 100,000 citizens, which is lower than some emerging third world countries. This low ratio has existed for decades. This means Swedes would of necessity self isolate and home treat more than their neighbors except for the worst problems or near death treatment. There’s more to this than most journalists want to consider.

    1. Swedes are aslo a fairly healthy population metabolically speaking. In the U.S. only 12% of American adults are considered metabolically healthy. For Americans over 60, it’s only 2%. This disease really struggles to cause problems for metabolically healthy people.

  12. I think Sweden is doing the right way. It is clear that if we all stay at home, we will not die of infections … but of hunger or madness. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to isolate healthy people without risk factors. The crisis we are experiencing today is not just a pandemic, it is also a panic crisis. Governments do not report that most infections are mild and self-limiting. So the swedish approach seems to be more appropriate and serious.

    1. Too bad, normie. The future belongs to the Weebs and Hikikomori

  13. As Fredrik Erixon wrote in The Spectator (U.K.) last week: “The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, until now, untested. It’s not Sweden that’s conducting a mass experiment. It’s everyone else.”

    This is the first article I’ve read about Sweden that is balanced–neither presenting them as on the verge of a biblical-scale disaster, nor claiming that we now know that Sweden’s approach will be just as effective as any other, and with far less disruption and civil rights issues.

    Obviously Sweden’s model breaks down in mega-cities of NYC and London, but may be just right for Stockholm and the rest of Sweden.

    Logically everyone would be hoping for success of Sweden’s model, as it does not limit civil rights and is less intrusive, less expensive without eroding civil liberties. Unfortunately covid19 seems to have become politicized. Many in the US resent hearing from Swedish health experts and scientists whenever their research suggests different actions than The WHO and their US counterparts. Scientists on both teams are brilliant. Much of the data however is scant and ancient so multiple interpretations can be properly made. Those who are politicized don’t want to hear this, insisting any interpretations that diverges from what they think is unreasonable, irrational & unscientific.

    1. Stockholm has slightly higher density than Greater London. So whether this works or not, it should be comparable.

    2. Paddington, you may not be up on the latest data from Sweden. Not looking good for, “far less disruption.”

  14. You can’t hide from a virus, wait till the end of the year and see what I’m talking about. The best option was to let nature take its course…

    1. You’re right, but that’s an impossible statement for a politician to make in an address to a nation. It takes balls and vision, neither of which are prevalent.

  15. ” Those who want to prove the opposite replace those countries with Norway, Denmark, and Finland, all of which have fewer deaths. ” Well, yeah, it’s customary to compare Sweden with its Nordic neighbors, not with, say, Italy. But somehow now that the other Scandinavian countries have much lower death rates than Sweden, they’ve become irrelevant?

  16. There are viruses which do not cause disease, or which cause disease in some species, but not others. As we well know, there are viruses which cause diseases in some humans, but not others. It is time to ask the pandemic minimizers a simple question: If you get a virus and it does not make you sick, is that a disease?

    That would cut through the squid ink minimizers have been spewing, when they nonsensically posit whatever number of undetectable cases will bring Covid-19 statistics in line with seasonal flu. It is unhelpful to do that.

    All you have to do to understand how unhelpful, is to take a look at NY, NJ, CT, MA. None of those ever suffered an ordeal from seasonal flu which put their healthcare and mortuary services through anything like the wringer they are going through now. And those states are going through that wringer while practicing stringent social isolation which no one ever thought to use to tamp down seasonal flu. Only fools would suppose that without those social countermeasures the Covid-19 casualties would not be far higher than we have seen.

    So, please, at least notice that coronavirus occasions disease far more severe than seasonal flue. Relax, and let go of the imaginary statistics.

    But that said, maybe we should also be asking whether coronavirus is equivalent to the disease itself. What to make of a completely unnoticed, symptom-free virus infection? Is that really disease? Or is the disease something else, such as the cytokine reaction coronavirus triggers in some people, but not others?

    Thinking that way would give a more useful handle on managing the pandemic. Instead of thinking of disease status as virus presence, or virus absence, define disease as virus presence plus objectively observable symptoms. At least then you would have a body of evidence which was not partially invisible, undetectable, and all too imaginatively convenient.

    Of course, doing it that way would inconvenience political ideologues, desperate to invent counter-factual claims to minimize President Trump’s pandemic-management blunders. But if the aim is to efficiently suppress disease, then why care if an extraordinarily inefficient disease manager gets blamed? Recognizing and discrediting catastrophically bad management is the first step on the way to better management—the first step toward getting it right.

    1. Someone needs to put a bullet in your head

  17. I honestly think Sweden is doing the right thing. It’s too early to tell and I could be wrong. But we really won’t know until after it subsides and then comes back for the resurgence that all the experts are predicting in the fall. I’ve actually been to Stockholm and it’s a very nice place. The people seem very well educated and their English is very good considering it’s not their native language. And it seemed like virtually everyone spoke good English.
    I’m not sure their choice on immigration from all those African countries was a good idea. It looks like that made up pretty much a hundred percent the beggar’s that I saw. And I’ve been reading about the rape problem. Hopefully they will cut down on that and get the newcomers more assimilated, because the swedish culture is pretty amazing.
    These are very hardworking and very well educated people and it has allowed them to have very generous welfare programs. And these have only worked because the vast majority have been productive people, The giver vs taker ratio has to be very high or it becomes unaffordable.
    In the United States we could never have such generous programs because we have too many people who would be needing it and eligible to use them.
    Anyway as far as their method of dealing with this pandemic I hope that works out well for them. I still tend to believe that it will in the long run.
    I think the best way to deal with this at this point for everyone would be to start collecting plasma with antibodies and giving it to everyone we can, starting with the most high-risk people. I’m not sure why nobody is starting with that, they only seem to use it when someone is about to die. It seems like it would be a better idea to do it preemptively. This method of inoculation has been used for over a hundred years. And unlike man-made vaccines we don’t have to test it to find out it’s safe, it’s just blood plasma as long as it’s been screened it’s not going to kill anyone. And with all the people who have recovered there should be plenty of it available.

  18. No.

    There, that was easy. And backed up by all available data, no matter how many different ways you want to say, “But … but … we have nursing homes!”

  19. Closeness to the permanently frozen poles correlates nicely with an absence of virus pandemics. Induction results from this sort of observation being made over and over again. You’d be amazed how few people are trampled by elephants in Antarctica.

    1. You are completely right!

  20. The key difference between the Swedish and Everyone else method of dealing with this is how it affects the ability of people to find mutually beneficial opportunities to make themselves better off. In the Everyone else model, a store finding a way to stay open and to provide their goods or services is strictly limited. Even if a way could be found that customers and the store could agree to, the state would not allow that to occur. In the Swedish version, private solutions can and will be found. That in a nutshell is why the Swedish method is superior.

  21. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website……….. Read More

  22. Very very badly. God his vocabulary is like 4th grade.

    We should have followed Sweden’s lead and not shut down! No country or State that has stayed open is no worse off.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.