[oregontim]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/adam_tooze/status/1317057708273651713?s=20[/tweet]



There is one outlier in this correlation: Sweden.  And obviously, the big difference is that Sweden did resisted putting in lockdowns.  Your thoughts on Sweden will depend on whether you believe that had Sweden imposed harsh lockdowns it would have done little to stem the deaths and would have pushed the economic hit more akin to the UK or Spain, or if it had imposed more restrictions, it would have prevented deaths and Sweden would have looked a lot more like Denmark, Finland, or Norway.

BC

Excellent post, BC, the plot itself is fascinating. I'd love to see the US compared.

And there's a nice coincidence today with what was posted in the Overlooked variable ... thread by DocSavage87, looking specifically at results in Sweden and why they might differ so much ... the quote he includes in his post there is as follows:

Once we recognize super-spreading as a key lever, countries that look as if they were too relaxed in some aspects appear very different, and our usual polarized debates about the pandemic are scrambled, too. Take Sweden, an alleged example of the great success or the terrible failure of herd immunity without lockdowns, depending on whom you ask. In reality, although Sweden joins many other countries in failing to protect elderly populations in congregate-living facilities, its measures that target super-spreading have been stricter than many other European countries. Although it did not have a complete lockdown, as Kucharski pointed out to me, Sweden imposed a 50-person limit on indoor gatherings in March, and did not remove the cap even as many other European countries eased such restrictions after beating back the first wave. (Many are once again restricting gathering sizes after seeing a resurgence.) Plus, the country has a small household size and fewer multigenerational households compared with most of Europe, which further limits transmission and cluster possibilities. It kept schools fully open without distancing or masks, but only for children under 16, who are unlikely to be super-spreaders of this disease. Both transmission and illness risks go up with age, and Sweden went all online for higher-risk high-school and university students—the opposite of what we did in the United States. It also encouraged social-distancing, and closed down indoor places that failed to observe the rules. From an overdispersion and super-spreading point of view, Sweden would not necessarily be classified as among the most lax countries, but nor is it the most strict. It simply doesn’t deserve this oversize place in our debates assessing different strategies.

Worth adding here, I think ... with either thanks and/or apologies to DocSavage87 (not sure which ... maybe both)

[oregontim]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/adam_tooze/status/1317057708273651713?s=20[/tweet]



There is one outlier in this correlation: Sweden.  And obviously, the big difference is that Sweden did resisted putting in lockdowns.  Your thoughts on Sweden will depend on whether you believe that had Sweden imposed harsh lockdowns it would have done little to stem the deaths and would have pushed the economic hit more akin to the UK or Spain, or if it had imposed more restrictions, it would have prevented deaths and Sweden would have looked a lot more like Denmark, Finland, or Norway.

BC

Excellent post, BC, the plot itself is fascinating. I'd love to see the US compared.

And there's a nice coincidence today with what was posted in the Overlooked variable ... thread by DocSavage87, looking specifically at results in Sweden and why they might differ so much ... the quote he includes in his post there is as follows:

Once we recognize super-spreading as a key lever, countries that look as if they were too relaxed in some aspects appear very different, and our usual polarized debates about the pandemic are scrambled, too. Take Sweden, an alleged example of the great success or the terrible failure of herd immunity without lockdowns, depending on whom you ask. In reality, although Sweden joins many other countries in failing to protect elderly populations in congregate-living facilities, its measures that target super-spreading have been stricter than many other European countries. Although it did not have a complete lockdown, as Kucharski pointed out to me, Sweden imposed a 50-person limit on indoor gatherings in March, and did not remove the cap even as many other European countries eased such restrictions after beating back the first wave. (Many are once again restricting gathering sizes after seeing a resurgence.) Plus, the country has a small household size and fewer multigenerational households compared with most of Europe, which further limits transmission and cluster possibilities. It kept schools fully open without distancing or masks, but only for children under 16, who are unlikely to be super-spreaders of this disease. Both transmission and illness risks go up with age, and Sweden went all online for higher-risk high-school and university students—the opposite of what we did in the United States. It also encouraged social-distancing, and closed down indoor places that failed to observe the rules. From an overdispersion and super-spreading point of view, Sweden would not necessarily be classified as among the most lax countries, but nor is it the most strict. It simply doesn’t deserve this oversize place in our debates assessing different strategies.

Worth adding here, I think ... with either thanks and/or apologies to DocSavage87 (not sure which ... maybe both)