Are you also surprised by the decision of the Swedish government to not mandate any stay at home orders, and instead allow the citizens to be accountable themselves? Do you think this decision has costed people's lives?
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Consequences of a Controversial Decision by Sweden
The fear that was instilled in many Americans was in large part due to models that predicted as many as 2 million deaths. If nothing else, such models, whether accurate or not, give proof that social distancing measures are effective in limiting the virus' impact. In nations across the world, government mandated stay-at-home orders have undeniably lessened the mortality rate of covid-19. This is evident in Scandinavia, where Sweden made a controversial choice to allow citizens to be self-accountable when it comes to social distancing, and did not order any lockdowns. This has resulted in a death toll in the country as much as 17 times higher than neighboring Nordic countries. There have been over 1,300 virus related deaths in Sweden, compared to just 321 in Denmark, 150 in Norway and 75 in Finland, each of which did order government mandated lockdowns early on. This decision from Sweden comes very much as a surprise to me, as the Swedes are known for their progressive nature and tremendous welfare state, I would've expected them to be steps ahead of the virus and protecting their citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Personally, I believe that these decisions may have been made from a more progressive and anti-authoritarian mindset. The Swedes, not wanting to forcefully control the movement of their citizens or aspect of their daily lives thought to let the people be accountable themselves. It appears that they did forget the fact that no matter how smart and individual is, a large group is normally pretty dumb in how they act, so it unfortunately was the incorrect decision by the country.
In all honesty, it does not surprise me, especially after reading Socialism Sucks. Sweden relies on its people to get to work in order to keep production (in any form) running. Therefore, keeping its citizens locked inside actually hurts them more than if they were exposed to the virus. In addition, Sweden has always taken the path of "least discord" so they are probably trying to avoid citizens discontent. Also, if they're protesting, they're in large gatherings anyway, and the people who don't want to go out yet our required to.
I personally think it has costed lives. Especially hearing the numbers of the similar surrounding countries being far lower death rates than Sweeden. I believe it is a little disappointing, but also see how Scott above things it was something from a more progressive mindset. They did something different than the rest of the world, however, it did not benefit their citizen's health. Those deaths could've been prevented.
I am not surprised at all with Sweden's decisions. I see it to be a very progressive thought because they decided that their best bet would be to expose as many people, and then people will build up a tolerance and will be better in the long run. This so far has not been the case but it does not surprise me because Sweden was trying to be very progressive here, it just did not work and definitely cost peoples their lives.
I noted that this was a surprise to me. It seems to contradict the beliefs of some of the very progressive left leaning politicians in the US, who are calling for longer stay at home orders in the states. Which is it? Is the true progressive thinking to protect the citizens at all costs, or to let citizens make their own decisions, and potentially risk more lives while doing so?
Post a Comment