O/T:- Sweden and it's economy

[Lullapie]

I'm not sure about linking this to Covid. You'd need a more detailed analysis for that. My first thought is that countries that were most impacted would be seeing stronger growth now as they had a bigger dip to climb out of. Also you'd need to look at where mortality rates were before Covid. Mortality rates are influenced by the age of the population as well as their general health, lifestyles and level of affluence. Covid may or may not be a key factor.

Well the idea behind locking countries down during the Covid era was to prevent mass deaths. I believe some experts were forecasting tens of millions of deaths directly related to Covid.

Johnson was going to adopt a herd mentality format in the UK, but at the last minute, under advice, changed his plans.

What I am trying to say, is that everyone dies one day - surely you're not going to debate that? Sweden didn't have the lowest mortality rates in Europe before the Covid era - but did during it.

It looks like Sweden's policy of limited restrictions seems to have meant less overall deaths and less negative impact on their economy. The report in the Lancet and their current economic position proves that.

[Lullapie]

Interesting. Sweden didn't force lockdowns but had fewer deaths than us. No doubt there are other factors to consider, but it does make you wonder.

Another thing to consider is the number of deaths that resulted from locking down. Not to mention other issues relating to jobs, education, mental health, isolation, etc., which are harder to quantify.

Very good points SP. Many people were obsessed by Covid and it is in their nature to be obsessed by something. They were probably terrified by Y2K, terrified by Weapons of Mass Destruction, terrified by Isis, terrified by Brexit and before that were probably members of CND .

I don't know about the UK, but we had one of the most stringent lock downs, that lasted longer than most other countries. Media blackouts and lots of Covid propaganda. We're currently negotiating through an mental health crisis and education problem within the country. Fortunately it looks like we have the right people in place to sort it.

[Lullapie]

78 more per 100k isn't a massive number but a guess would be we have a larger elderly population and the associated health issues?

Italy was the big one. Covid hit the areas of Italy with the oldest population. Italy as a whole also had the oldest population in Europe, so a double whammy really. The media got hold of it, supported by the big pharmaceutical companies and wham bam - some people got very rich out of it.

The same thing happened in New York, when because of the policies adopted by the Governor, Covid decimated the population in rest homes. Also in the State of Victoria, in Australia. Conspiracy Theorists were saying it a plan to kill off the elderly - more a case of people in positions of power making decisions that they weren't fit to make.

They're just a few examples that come to mind. Then again, Coronavirus was first discovered in 1965, some I'm certain that many elderly or infirm people who have died in history from illnesses like Pneumonia probably actually died of a variant of Coronavirus.

[Lullapie]

I have no idea which countries had enforced lockdowns and which didn’t.

Sweden don’t compare well to other countries around them though.

In overall death rates they do though. Unless you believe everybody is immortal except to Covid.

[Big Bob]

Who gives a crap about economies. The way things are going with the ruskies and the red sea pedestrians wwiii is looming. Nukes will be on us soon. The end of the world is nigh.
Oh sod this! Time for another beer 😀

[Lullapie]

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers...ry=DNK~NOR~SWE

Compare Sweden to actually similar countries Norway and Denmark and its clear their policies were worse and caused numerous unnecessary deaths.

But you are only looking at one metric. Let me give you an example.

You're locked down because of Covid - you can't leave your house. Your house blows up because of a gas leak and you die. Do you think it makes it better that you didn't die of Covid? You still died.

I believe you're in Aussie - did you see the headlines in the NT News (I think) - man eaten by crocodile had Covid? There was one in New Zealand about a man who was the victim of a gang assassination and shot in the head, was reported as a Covid death.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckla...3L4WWJYTUZNCQ/

[Lullapie]

Sure. Obviously there were many more deaths prevented by lockdowns than caused (?) by them, considering lockdowns reduced death overall even excluding COVID (people at home instead of on the roads etc).

In terms of economic and social impacts by far the better performing countries were those who successfully eliminated it and re-opened. Most states in Australia operated mostly open throughout the pandemic and fared rather well economically (as compared). If you look at Asia as a region they made the west look rather foolish. Comparing english speaking nations you have Au and NZ miles out in front, canada a fair bit behind and the US and the UK essentially had a mass casualty event and worse economic numbers.

You need to consider the economic impacts of rampant covid, which turned out not to be better than lockdowns.

Sweden was continually held up as a model for "staying open" but as soon as you compare them to similar nations the argument collapses. Their economic results were worse too - I remember this because I looked it up at the time and and made a little table of GDP growth, deaths per capita etc. Sweden was bottom in every measure. But there were interests at the time (e.g. murdoch press) who thought it was a great idea not to lock down and so the narrative was pushed dishonestly and/or with no evidence.

I don't know why we're re-litigating this considering nobody's had a lockdown since 2021 and the present economic situation globally has basically nothing to do with lockdowns. You could argue that a proportion of the recent inflation crisis was a result of pandemic-era money printing, but countries that eschewed lockdowns ended up printing a tonne of money anyway. And most of them ended up doing lockdowns too.

Much of the present economic situation is a result of the Ukraine war and decades of dependence on cheap fossil fuels (now suddenly less cheap since early 2022). Basically the rest of it is poor economic management - money printing for opex rather than capex, and endless housing inflation caused by artificially depressed supply and artificially inflated investment into pre-existing housing, again through unchecked money-printing.

One thing you learn from is your mistakes - unless you never make any. Just saying lets pretend it never happened and look for the next crisis is pure folly.

You ramble on about other countries, but the original thread was about Sweden, it's open policy, it very low rates of deaths during the Covid era and the speed that it has come out of an economic mire compared to those countries who locked down.

If you can't stick to point, start your own thread.

[i961pie]

Sure. Obviously there were many more deaths prevented by lockdowns than caused (?) by them, considering lockdowns reduced death overall even excluding COVID (people at home instead of on the roads etc).

In terms of economic and social impacts by far the better performing countries were those who successfully eliminated it and re-opened. Most states in Australia operated mostly open throughout the pandemic and fared rather well economically (as compared). If you look at Asia as a region they made the west look rather foolish. Comparing english speaking nations you have Au and NZ miles out in front, canada a fair bit behind and the US and the UK essentially had a mass casualty event and worse economic numbers.

You need to consider the economic impacts of rampant covid, which turned out not to be better than lockdowns.

Sweden was continually held up as a model for "staying open" but as soon as you compare them to similar nations the argument collapses. Their economic results were worse too - I remember this because I looked it up at the time and and made a little table of GDP growth, deaths per capita etc. Sweden was bottom in every measure. But there were interests at the time (e.g. murdoch press) who thought it was a great idea not to lock down and so the narrative was pushed dishonestly and/or with no evidence.

I don't know why we're re-litigating this considering nobody's had a lockdown since 2021 and the present economic situation globally has basically nothing to do with lockdowns. You could argue that a proportion of the recent inflation crisis was a result of pandemic-era money printing, but countries that eschewed lockdowns ended up printing a tonne of money anyway. And most of them ended up doing lockdowns too.

Much of the present economic situation is a result of the Ukraine war and decades of dependence on cheap fossil fuels (now suddenly less cheap since early 2022). Basically the rest of it is poor economic management - money printing for opex rather than capex, and endless housing inflation caused by artificially depressed supply and artificially inflated investment into pre-existing housing, again through unchecked money-printing.

So you don't think paying millions of people 80% of their wages not to go to work had nothing to do with
the present economic crisis?

[slack_pie]

Another question to ask when discussing lockdowns is: should government have the power to decide when you can and can't leave your house, assuming you are a law-abiding citizen? Likewise, should they have the power to limit your participation in society based on your vaccine status? And if so, what level of emergency should justify wielding such powers?

I instinctively feel like governments overstepped the line during those years. I'm still angry about some of the bizarre and draconian rules that were imposed on us. As I've said before on here, I believe on a fundamental level that whether I take my two-year-old son to the park is up to me, not the state - whether there's a pandemic or not.

If anything, Sweden's approach solidifies my thinking here.

[Jampie]

But you are only looking at one metric. Let me give you an example.

You're locked down because of Covid - you can't leave your house. Your house blows up because of a gas leak and you die. Do you think it makes it better that you didn't die of Covid? You still died.

I believe you're in Aussie - did you see the headlines in the NT News (I think) - man eaten by crocodile had Covid? There was one in New Zealand about a man who was the victim of a gang assassination and shot in the head, was reported as a Covid death.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckla...3L4WWJYTUZNCQ/

Um, I _was_ locked down for >250 days and left my house every single one of them. Nobody (in Australia) was boarded up inside our houses. I went outside once per day for exercise and up to once per day to buy stuff.

Obviously if there was a gas leak or any other reason the house wasn't safe I'd have left my house.

I sort of don't get what you're going for there anywhere. That's a hypothetical situation and the reality is there were fewer deaths overall while people were locked down because homes are safer than streets.

The article you linked doesn't say the man's death was recorded as a covid statistic BTW. A coroner will only record one cause of death IIRC and given this one was ruled a homicide, that obviously rules out illness.

And no, I didn't see anything about a man who got killed by a croc being recorded as a covid stat. Sounds like the kind of absolute nonsense journalism Murdoch rags defecate out.