News0 min ago
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
164 Answers
An interesting view from Peter Hitchens here. Has he got a point?
Answers
When the pubs were ordered to close on March 20th and the other lockdown measures followed I posted somewhere on here that I doubt that it would do any good. I based my doubts on the fact that similar (if not harsher) measures had failed to halt the rise in the number of new cases in Italy (who were said to be about two weeks ahead of the UK with the crisis). Well we’re...
15:17 Sun 12th Apr 2020
//Exactly who, pray, is leading us to believe this is straightforward?//
The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).
There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.
I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country has imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants and shops are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…
On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. But by the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?
The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, does not, in Sweden’s case, appears to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.
The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).
There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.
I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country has imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants and shops are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…
On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. But by the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?
The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, does not, in Sweden’s case, appears to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.
^^^^
Oh for an edit button :-). The last para should read:
//Exactly who, pray, is leading us to believe this is straightforward?//
The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).
There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.
I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…
On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. By the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?
The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, appears at least in Sweden’s case, to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.
Oh for an edit button :-). The last para should read:
//Exactly who, pray, is leading us to believe this is straightforward?//
The government (“Stay at home. Save lives”).
There may possibly be some evidence that staying at home saves lives in the short term. Though all I’ve seen is “Look what might have happened if we hadn’t had the lockdown” (whilst the number of new infections rises unceasingly). There is none at all that it will do so in the long term and no consideration what harm these measures might do if prolonged. And that’s really what this question is about.
I was interested to see the USA mentioned as a nation that did nothing or did too little too late. Interestingly nobody has mentioned Sweden. That country imposed very few restrictions. Schools, bars and restaurants are still open (though higher education has switched to online). Workplaces are still operating. The only restriction is public gatherings (which are limited to 50). Straightaway I appreciate that Sweden is not the UK. It has only about 15% of the UK’s population and its population density is about one fifth of that here. But…
On 1st March Sweden had 14 recorded cases (the UK had 35). By 14th March those figures had gone up to 961 and 1,061 respectively – a similar increase numerically over those two weeks, but relative to the population, far greater in Sweden. By the time our lockdown had begun properly the numbers had increased to 2,046 and 6,650. Yesterday they stood at 10,483 and 84,279. The infection rate in Sweden is around 1 in 950. Here it is about 1 in 800. So here’s the question: if infections were said to be set to increase “exponentially” if nothing was done here, why didn’t they do so in Sweden, where relatively nothing was done?
The government’s mantra “Stay at Home. Save Lives” may well be true. But the reverse, going out, appears at least in Sweden’s case, to have cost them far fewer lives than I would expect from what I have been told.
