How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?

2600 bro wrote:

Haha 50% death rate! Sure if you live in your basement ... no virus is really a risk.

You guys make this too easy.

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Haha 50% death rate! Sure if you live in your basement ... no virus is really a risk.

You guys make this too easy.

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

browski wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

Some people do not understand the freedom to decide how you want to live and what risks you want to accept which is constitutional in the US. Some of the left clearly want to restrict these. Some of these restrictions are going to try and be kept post-Covid for the greater good relating to other viruses.

I'm fine if there is a cultural shift to wear masks when you're under the weather. But government-ordered shutdowns and mask mandates are unconstitutional. People will take appropriate measures to protect themselves and businesses will make policy based on what their consumers demand. The free market has always been much better at figuring this out than the government.

If this was a virus killing 3-4% of healthy people you better believe 99% of the population would gladly take extreme measures themselves and we would stamp it out. But this is not anywhere close and the fear of the virus balanced with the cost of stamping it out does not compute to reasonable people.

browski wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

Agreed.

Ok! Surely you agree that private properties owners have the right to prevent infectious or dangerous people from trespassing - with lethal force. And surely, communities of people can organize to prevent dangerous/infectious people from endangering their communities. People have no right to endanger/harm others. Ideally we wouldn't need government to prevent infectious people from spreading a virus - but some level of community organization has been a facet of human life since we got big brains. Luckily we essentially have state/local level virus mitigation protocols already! So move if you don't like it!

browski wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

2600 bro wrote:

Ok! Surely you agree that private properties owners have the right to prevent infectious or dangerous people from trespassing - with lethal force. And surely, communities of people can organize to prevent dangerous/infectious people from endangering their communities.

People have no right to endanger/harm others.

Ideally we wouldn't need government to prevent infectious people from spreading a virus - but some level of community organization has been a facet of human life since we got big brains.

Luckily we essentially have state/local level virus mitigation protocols already! So move if you don't like it!

browski wrote:

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

A business or a home owner has the right to require whatever it wants of me to enter their business, home or property. The national or state government does not have that right.

[quote]2600 bro wrote:

Luckily we essentially have state/local level virus mitigation protocols already! So move if you don't like it!

[quote]

It appears you & I both have very different understandings of the role of the state in the personal lives of citizens.

I have not changed my life during the last 8 months (traveled to three states, been to two weddings, countless bars & restaurants, never stopped going to work, etc) nor do I plan to change my life moving forward.

However, while I recognize tens of millions individuals think like you, you must recognize tens of millions also think like me.

So what is to be done? The vast majority of those millions upon millions that think like me don’t plan on moving BTW.

I was just trying to draw the parallels between community organization and government. On some level you must agrees communities or small groups of people can organize to set standards to prevent harm. Government shouldn't be necessary to prevent people from harming each other! Agreed! What do we do when people knowingly, willfully harm or attempt to harm each other?

energeticlotuseater wrote:

[quote]2600 bro wrote:

Luckily we essentially have state/local level virus mitigation protocols already! So move if you don't like it!

[quote]

It appears you & I both have very different understandings of the role of the state in the personal lives of citizens.

I have not changed my life during the last 8 months (traveled to three states, been to two weddings, countless bars & restaurants, never stopped going to work, etc) nor do I plan to change my life moving forward.

However, while I recognize tens of millions individuals think like you, you must recognize tens of millions also think like me.

So what is to be done? The vast majority of those millions upon millions that think like me don’t plan on moving BTW.

You are intentionally exaggerating to prove some non-existent point. So, I will do the same - why does the government have a right to arrest/imprison people for murder? theft? assault?

Same argument can be used for the flu my friend. Leaving my house with a small cold could endanger the life of those who are vulnerable. Even before COVID it is possible that I could leave my house carrying a germ I’m not even aware of & give it to someone it could be deadly to.

Whether the flu or the common is more or less deadly than COVID is irrelevant- the “level of endangerment” that is tolerable is all subjective to different individuals.

Regardless, about half of the population would subjectively find COVID risk tolerable while about half seemingly do not.

The half that find that risk tolerable is not going to be willing to give up their individual rights for “the community” or whatever the community may be defined while the half that does not find the risk tolerable believes the government should step in and force compliance. I believe this has been pretty evident over the last eight months.

So, considering this, what is to be done?

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

Agree

2600 bro wrote:

You are intentionally exaggerating to prove some non-existent point. So, I will do the same - why does the government have a right to arrest/imprison people for murder? theft? assault?

You’re right. In reality at the end of the day your rights depend on what the government is willing to allow along with what the citizens are willing to surrender. Sometimes the citizenry and the government disagree on what these “rights” entail.

What should we do if half (roughly speaking)the country is not willing to surrender their individual rights to a lockdown?

I think we agree more than you'd like. For the most part the US has avoided strict lockdown like mainland Europe/China did for exactly that reason - no hope of compliance and poor infrastructure for supporting such efforts. I think, rightfully, the focus has shifted to strategies that impose the least personal cost while having the largest mitigation benefit (e.g. masking), avoiding large indoor gatherings WHILE scaling up rapid national testing infrastructure (not the useless grifting 48 hr turn around system we have now). No one wants a lockdown - it's devastating in so many ways. I think we've seen that unless you use lockdown as a stopgap to implement deployment of some truly massive testing/isolation/treatment apparatus then they don't really do much.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

You are intentionally exaggerating to prove some non-existent point. So, I will do the same - why does the government have a right to arrest/imprison people for murder? theft? assault?

You’re right. In reality at the end of the day your rights depend on what the government is willing to allow along with what the citizens are willing to surrender. Sometimes the citizenry and the government disagree on what these “rights” entail.

What should we do if half (roughly speaking)the country is not willing to surrender their individual rights to a lockdown?

Well...... wrote:

In case others hadn't noticed, it's taking off everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.

In the UK, cases have started falling before the lockdown btw (some places had some tiers imposed, but many places dropping without them). This highlights again, lockdowns aren't doing what people think they are.

Yes, it does. But very fast in some countries, in some other countries not.

It seems to be flat in UK the last week. To short time for making predictions. But, neither I nor you know the effects without lockdowns. But the numbers tells us that it is higher without restrictions. Complicated, but sure lockdowns has worked. We'll see. So far it looks much better in the other Nordic countries. My point is that Sweden is not doing very well, and that it is going to be worse, because lockdowns often come too late.

browski wrote:

energeticlotuseater wrote:

You’re not totally correct, there have been viruses throughout history with similar death rate. However, you are also partially correct, I don’t believe any virus should result in the government taking away my civil liberties. Any precautions I take for this hypothetical virus will be completely my own personal choice.

I don't get why this is so hard for them to comprehend. I don't care how many die from this. It isn't the job of the US government to tell people to close their business or not see family members or go to church for ANY virus.

None of these things are true though. Nowhere in the USA is forcefully closing businesses, or saying you can’t travel. Maybe churches are restricted inside — but they’re obviously a vector for transmission. Most people I know are going to some modified form of services though.

If you get COVID nobody will stop you from running around and infecting people — that’s the unfortunate truth today. You guys live in this fantasy police state. Some interesting domination fetish or something.

It’s like you guys want to act oppressed so you can complain. Toughen up and find some real problems.

energeticlotuseater wrote:

I have not changed my life during the last 8 months (traveled to three states, been to two weddings, countless bars & restaurants, never stopped going to work, etc) nor do I plan to change my life moving forward.

If the bars and restaurants were outside and/distanced as many states require, sounds like you were basically obeying what was asked of you, as well. That’s not a crazy level of social interaction.

Not going to work when sick is also important, but that basically good behavior before COVID.

I do think there’s a disconnect between what covid-deniers think is asked of them and what most state governments actually do.

“I’ll wear a mask and eat outside but I’m gonna see my friends” is totally fine in most places!

KaareV wrote:

Well...... wrote:

In case others hadn't noticed, it's taking off everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.

In the UK, cases have started falling before the lockdown btw (some places had some tiers imposed, but many places dropping without them). This highlights again, lockdowns aren't doing what people think they are.

Yes, it does. But very fast in some countries, in some other countries not.

It seems to be flat in UK the last week. To short time for making predictions. But, neither I nor you know the effects without lockdowns. But the numbers tells us that it is higher without restrictions. Complicated, but sure lockdowns has worked. We'll see. So far it looks much better in the other Nordic countries. My point is that Sweden is not doing very well, and that it is going to be worse, because lockdowns often come too late.

Well, we have an idea without lockdown. Sweden doesn't have a lockdown and is doing better than the UK, so you can swing it both ways. Parts of the UK not in lockdown are dropping just as fast as those that were in a tier, before a full lockdown. It pretty much shoes lockdowns (of their current form, I'm not saying an extreme lockdown wouldn't have an effect, but in the UK we have schools/universities open and you can visit care homes, pretty much a mess).

Other guy wrote:

KaareV wrote:

Sans Covid, nearly 250 people die per day there.

First 6 months 51 405 deaths in Sweden, the highest since 1869. In average 4633 more than the years 2015-2019. And in the beginning of this year it was lower than the previous years. Hope that this will give you more insight.

.

I does.

And now the daily deaths have been in single figures for three plus months.

Not locking down worked.[/quote]

Other guy wrote:

KaareV wrote:

Sans Covid, nearly 250 people die per day there.

First 6 months 51 405 deaths in Sweden, the highest since 1869. In average 4633 more than the years 2015-2019. And in the beginning of this year it was lower than the previous years. Hope that this will give you more insight.

.

I does.

And now the daily deaths have been in single figures for three plus months.

Not locking down worked.[/quote]

Update: Hello again, last week 84 deaths, this week so far 59. Infections on the rise. More and more restrictions. Regions are protesting. More and more hospitals are showing signs of crises. Todays report: 4497 infections 25 deaths. Neighbor Norway 566, 0. Sweden 6082 deaths, Norway - half the population 285. But even in Norway, there might be a second lockdown. And a first in Sweden, beacuse of a failed strategy.