Given that they’re looking like they may be spared a second wave, they mostly kept their kids in school, they have had to borrow relatively little money for the likes of furlough, that their GDP hit hasn’t been as bad as most (despite having an economy heavily reliant on exports into lockdown economies) and that they won’t saddle the younger generations* with billions in debt you could argue Sweden have done pretty well.Son of Mathonwy wrote:If we wanted to follow the science we'd look at the countries that have done the best (eg South Korea*) and replicate their strategies. Anyone looking to one of the worst performers in the world in Sweden must have already chosen their strategy and is trying to justify it.Digby wrote:Certainly voices to allow people to manage their own risk, with the proviso we have certain systems in place to protect high or maybe higher risk groups.Sandydragon wrote: That would please the readership of the Telegraph. Sweden is a bit of an outlier in many ways, but it has some unique differences to us which shouldn’t be ignored and they have higher death rates than other Scandinavian countries.
The longer this goes on the louder the voices will get just to allow the virus to run its course .
I think we're some ways off being able to replicate what Sweden have done and are doing, even if one wanted to which is also questionable, I'm not sure we're that far off claiming we're going to use them as the example to follow. Which also to me suggests we're falling into a classic management mistake of thinking good things will follow a decision being made, because how could a decision be other than good when made by management. Essentially our current plan will fail, an attempt to ape Sweden would fail, and then we'd change again
* or Norway if we are confined to European countries (which we are not).
Yes, they had plenty on their side: relatively little international travel, low pop density, high % of single occupancy homes (highest in Europe) and a relatively low reliance on public transport but, counter to that, they have large nursing/care homes that sadly lead to uncontrollable outbreaks once in an institution, leading to nursing/care home deaths accounting for an almost world leading/losing % of total deaths.
That said, it’s too early to tell. If they don’t avoid a second wave and/or someone proves and widely distributes a vaccine before winter then they’ll almost certainly be in the wrong.
We really won’t know who has done best (in Europe admittedly) until this is all over and done with.
To be honest, if you’re deciding at this point - and given you’d decided by May, I’m certain you have - that Sweden definitely, without question have the worst response despite being, seemingly at best, half way through this pandemic then I’d argue you’ve chosen your preferred strategy and are just trying to justify it.
For the purposes of clarity, I don’t think we should have gone down Sweden’s route, other than keeping primary schools open (which is mostly case of hindsight bring a wonderful thing). I’m just bored of this argument that one response fits all and it’s solely about how many die in a 6 month period.
I’d also like to clarify that I wish we’d responded like S Korea but there are a myriad of reasons, discussed as nauseum on here, for why that wasn’t 100%, and in crucial areas, possible. Not that I think U.K. govt response has been anywhere near good enough.
*they're now going to have pay off the bill for the credit crunch, leaving the EU and covid. The first of which was not their fault, the second of which they explicitly wanted to avoid and the third of which gives 99% of them no more than a light cough. Given the youngest of them have also been deprived of six months of their education.....
