You're right for U.S, but not in Sweden or other social democracies where healthcare does not correlate with how much you have. Disease hurts the already sick and the elderly the most, but it does not care about your wallet.
> And especially for poor people, being forced to work will mean a much higher chance of catching and spreading the disease, since poor people tend to work directly with other people, and companies rarely invest in protecting "interchangeable" workers.
That's true, I do not advocate for forcing anybody to work.
> ...not good enough IF you care about human life.
I care, but with some reasonable proportionality. Saving everyone is not possible. Saving almost everyone by hard isolation rules is very expensive and unsustainable. Helping the vulnerable via smart specific restrictions is enough.
> And comparing the number of people who died in Sweden in 2 months to the number who die in the world every year is not very useful. More useful would be to see how many more people died in Sweden compared to normal - just from Covid19
You're right it wasn't a good comparison. I just meant "let's get some perspective".
> More useful would be to see how many more people died in Sweden compared to normal - just from Covid19, they have ~2000 more deaths/month, compared to a baseline of ~7500 deaths/month in recent years. That is not an insignificant number however you think about it.
We are not doing that comparison, because even with tighter restrictions deaths would be increased. We do not know how many people would have been saved if hard U.S. like restrictions were used. I think not many, because most of the deaths happenned in nursing homes where restrictions on public places would have not have much of an effect.
Another substantial fact is that Sweden has greater birth rate than death rate and was projected to increase its population in next years. Their COVID policy will be responsible for curbing that population growth, but no disaster is happenning.
You're right for U.S, but not in Sweden or other social democracies where healthcare does not correlate with how much you have. Disease hurts the already sick and the elderly the most, but it does not care about your wallet.
> And especially for poor people, being forced to work will mean a much higher chance of catching and spreading the disease, since poor people tend to work directly with other people, and companies rarely invest in protecting "interchangeable" workers.
That's true, I do not advocate for forcing anybody to work.
> ...not good enough IF you care about human life.
I care, but with some reasonable proportionality. Saving everyone is not possible. Saving almost everyone by hard isolation rules is very expensive and unsustainable. Helping the vulnerable via smart specific restrictions is enough.
> And comparing the number of people who died in Sweden in 2 months to the number who die in the world every year is not very useful. More useful would be to see how many more people died in Sweden compared to normal - just from Covid19
You're right it wasn't a good comparison. I just meant "let's get some perspective".
> More useful would be to see how many more people died in Sweden compared to normal - just from Covid19, they have ~2000 more deaths/month, compared to a baseline of ~7500 deaths/month in recent years. That is not an insignificant number however you think about it.
We are not doing that comparison, because even with tighter restrictions deaths would be increased. We do not know how many people would have been saved if hard U.S. like restrictions were used. I think not many, because most of the deaths happenned in nursing homes where restrictions on public places would have not have much of an effect.
Another substantial fact is that Sweden has greater birth rate than death rate and was projected to increase its population in next years. Their COVID policy will be responsible for curbing that population growth, but no disaster is happenning.