The relaxed attitude of Swedes towards the spread of the coronavirus “does not seem to have hurt them,” reports the New York Times (4/28/20)—except for the ones who have died, of course.
“In Sweden…the government defied conventional wisdom and refused to order a wholesale lockdown to ‘flatten the curve’ of the coronavirus epidemic,” the New York Times (4/28/20) reported. “And, to a large extent, Sweden does seem to have been as successful in controlling the virus as most other nations.”
Reporters Thomas Erdbrink and on to marvel at “Sweden’s apparent success in handling the scourge without an economically devastating lockdown,” presenting it as a model for other countries:
As other nations in Europe begin to consider reopening their economies, Sweden’s experience would seem to argue for less caution, not more.
Here’s per capita deaths from Covid-19 in Sweden compared to “most other nations”:
Looking at the chart, you can see that what the Times describes as being “as successful in controlling the virus as most other nations” really means having the tenth-worst per capita death toll from the coronavirus in the world—beaten only by San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, Spain, Italy, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Ireland. Swedish deaths per capita, at 238 per million, are 29% higher than those in the United States—whose response to Covid-19 few would describe as an “apparent success.”
Sweden’s results can best be compared with those of neighboring Scandinavian countries, with which it shares the advantages of comparatively low population densities, well-funded healthcare systems and relatively few international visitors in the winter months, when the virus was spreading across borders. The neighbors’ rates of death from Covid-19 have been far lower: Norway and Finland’s have been one-sixth as high, while more densely populated Denmark has had one-third as many deaths per capita.
It’s safe to say that when comparing coronavirus outbreak strategies across countries, the New York Times ought to use more caution, not less.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
Featured image: New York Times depiction (4/28/20) of Swedish students celebrating graduation.
“I’d kill for a nice night out”
And so they have
Your attempt at humor underscores the lack of rational thought by many leaders. Sweden officials are not ignoring or diminishing the risk. They are letting people make a personal choice. They give recommendations for their citizens to follow. If our elected officials did likewise, maybe people would be more accepting of quarantine. Telling a person, who can think for themselves, what is good for them will fail every time. Forcing people, is tyranny.
[This complements my earlier comments (see below)]
New research speaks about inadvertent yet devastating consequences of lockdown policies on the health and security of millions of people: “Up to 6.3 million more people are predicted to develop tuberculosis between now and 2025 and 1.4 million more people are expected to die as cases go undiagnosed and untreated during lockdown. This will set back global efforts to end TB by five to eight years.” (News coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/06/millions-develop-tuberculosis-tb-covid-19-lockdown For full report by Stop TB partnership in collaboration with Imperial College London, Johns Hopkins University, et al: http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/news/Modeling%20Report_1%20May%202020_FINAL.pdf )
Any discussion of the failures or merits of the Swedish response to the pandemic needs to consider more than the deaths within Scandinavian borders if it will fairly and accurately address effectiveness.
A globalized world means global implications.
The speedy mobilization to treat COVID-19 in contrast to the relative tolerance for 1.5 million deaths (per year!) due to tuberculosis also shows the brutal borders of race and class that determine whose lives get meaningful attention and whose do not.
We have a chance now, moving forward from the pandemic, to critically address and remedy those factors but to do so we will need better reporting than we have generally seen so far (such as calling for increased—rather than decreased—funding, attention, and resources to treating tuberculosis).
And, as governments scramble to figure out how to revive their own economies, we might begin to reconsider how to (re)arrange a global economy that works for everyone.
The cynical comment by Doug Latimer above neatly captures a tragic irony: not just Sweden, but the entire industrialized world, “kills for convenience.” Not only by ignoring the general suffering and enforced disadvantage of people elsewhere but also by the mass consumption of products made by companies that subject workers across the world to horrific labor and living conditions. All of this to provide a ceaseless expansion of economic and technological growth.
How often do we look at the hidden costs of whatever we pay for? At the least (not even going into the areas such as climate change or biodiversity loss), the daily hi-tech infrastructure that many of us (including myself) take for granted comes at the cost of security and quality of life of people laboring, typically for unfair compensation, to provide that infrastructure.
We see this from factories in China (see https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract ) to mines in the Congo ( see https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/phone-misery-children-congo-cobalt-mines-drc and https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/06/pollution-causing-birth-defects-in-children-of-drc-cobalt-miners-study ).
It would seem that the original institutional form of “social distancing” that continues to separate the lives of wealthy people and countries from the lives of global workers makes it difficult for those with more power to see (or even conceive) the impact that their policy decisions bear upon those with less power (even though we all depend on them).
The original articles—both that of Naureckas and the NYT—and a number of comments here seem to illustrate that: the tremendous inadvertent consequences of lockdown measures on millions of people in India, Africa, South America, and the Middle East do not typically even enter the discussion.
In our return from lockdown, may we bring their lives into current and future consideration about how we organize our own lives and upon which ethical premises we do that.
Well said !!! Comparing Sweden to Denmark completely makes the case that social distancing works.
Great report, as usual, Jim. I bet you’ve also seen this more sober-minded in-depth report over at Slate.com:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/sweden-coronavirus-response-death-social-distancing.html
I Just Came Home to Sweden. I’m Horrified by the Coronavirus Response Here.
By ERIK AUGUSTIN PALM
APRIL 29, 2020 3:15 PM
P.S.- Jim, such accurate reporting/contextualizing is all the more relevant given the big splash among right-wing outlets created by that press conference a week ago present by the two urgent care docs in Bakersfield, CA (who seem heavily influenced by right-wing fringe conspiracy-mongering group Q-Anon), who tried to equate Sweden’s health-outcomes thus far with those of neighboring Norway, completely ignoring the fact that their laissez-faire policies toward the virus have thus far resulted in more than SIX TIMES the fatality rate per 100,000 citizens.
The collective groupthink that has gone into Corona virus lockdowns completely ignores how many people have died because they have not sought medical treatment. Emergency departments that were once overflowing have been completely empty for the last 6 weeks.
How many of those people died because they didn’t seek treatment in the United States Canada and the UK?
for an organization that claims its fairness in reporting you seem to be very concerned that no one violate groupthink dogma
Crime rates have dramatically dropped, so traffic accidents (as much as up to 50% in some places), people don’t go to work, so no workplace accidents…. Not to mention that according to CDC the VAST majority of ER visits are not actual emergencies would be a better explanation of what you observed. Basically, there are less actual emergencies and people are just avoiding going to the hospital unless is a real emergency.
Groupthink? Who speaks of groupthink? The Swede heading their program says they are relying on the Swedes’ Collectivist Morality and Social Welfare Consciousness plus herd immunity to win the day. In the meantime, Sweden’s TOTAL death rate is the highest it’s been in 20 years by a significant amount. Oh, the guy seems to confuse Stockholm City with Stockholm County when making his Trump like everything is fine pronouncements. Weeks ago he said Stockholm would be at herd immunity by now with 60% infection rate. Well, no. The actual rate has been reported at about 25%. The difference is that given the estimated number of infections of some 600,000, it would be 60% for Stockholm City with about a million population. However, the report was for Stockholm County with about 2.4 million people, or…drum roll…25%! And this is the guy who is pushing for decimating the Senior population of Sweden and the new found Trumpian hero of the Old Gray Lady, who would be let to die a terrible death for the sake of chasing the herd immunity unicorn that even he says may not work for this Virus. It gets curiouser and curiouser.
My letter to NYT: Please correct your April 28 story “Life has to go on: How Sweden Has Faced the Virus without a Lockdown.” The story describes Sweden’s experience without a lockdown as “successful as most other nations.” In fact, it has the tenth-worst per capita death toll from the coronavirus in the world.
Sincerely
[Text didn’t upload so I’ll post separately]
Part 1:
If anywhere else, I might have overlooked the shoddy journalism (standards have not have exactly improved in recent times), but coming from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting? I feel, to say the least, stunned.
First, the Swedish government has imposed probably the harshest measures it has done in at least a 100 years—shutting down high schools, universities, restricting travel, banning visits to nursing homes, banning gatherings of 50 of more people, etc.. Critics such as Jim Naureckas (and numerous others) seem to not notice this simply because other countries have taken much more extreme measures.
Second, as Belgian spokesperson Steven Van Gucht said “it is a bit too early to really make a global analysis”. https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/107216/coronavirus-how-did-belgium-get-the-highest-mortality-rate/
So jumping to moralize about how horrible things have gone in Sweden (or Belgium) seems premature to say the least. Even if we should heed the the claim that “Sweden’s results can best be compared with those of neighboring Scandinavian countries” their final death count has yet to come in. We don’t yet know when it will.
Part 2:
Third, Naureckas could have—but did not— critique the New York Times for perpetuating the false claim that Swedish officials have not aimed to flatten the curve. They have. And—as Sweden’s hospitals and ICUs have not yet maxed out their capacity—we could say that they have so far succeeded in that quest. If Naureckas has some specific insight on how many lives Sweden has lost due to an over-flooding of the health care system then maybe he could enlighten us. If not, then the higher number of deaths could possibly reflect a higher—and earlier—infection rate rather than an “unflattened curve”. Given the low amount of testing, we have no idea really how many Swedes have already gotten infected in contrast to those in Norway and Denmark.
Fourth, to simply use such charts and statistics unquestioningly amounts to an egregious display of misrepresentation. See, for example, a different New York Times article on how it appears that many places—including in the U.S.—have under-represented actual deaths whereas a few countries—including Belgium and Sweden—seem to have over-represented the number of deaths. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html As with point #3, actual numbers have yet to come in to make cross-country comparisons accurate. Judging as Naureckas did (taking official data at face value), it would seem that he believes the official death rates in places such as Ecuador, Brazil, Belarus, and the U.S. to stand as accurate.
Part 3:
Fifth, the WHO released a report in 2019 that detailed recommendations on how governments might respond to a pandemic. One of the researchers that helped inform that report stated recently: “We never suggested lockdown because we knew it would be so harmful socially and economically for all countries. And I never thought the rest of the world would follow China’s lead.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/12/inequality-pandemic-lockdown
Indeed, that authoritarian approaches suddenly seemed like a “normal” —even necessary—response only transpired within the last two months. Rather, when scientists sat down together to calmly think about how to respond to a pandemic they did not look solely at death counts for the pandemic itself. Such a narrow, single-minded focus could severely threaten the lives of other people in other ways. They looked at broader social and economic impacts—factors Naureckas completely ignored here. (See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/global-hunger-could-be-next-big-impact-of-coronavirus-pandemic
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-could-push-half-a-billion-people-into-poverty-oxfam-warns
Yet, even there, we could use FAIR to correct reporting: Neither the “crisis” nor “Coronavirus” have put these people’s lives at peril but rather the sudden, hastily planned, and rash decisions made by certain governments and the broader context of a predatory economic system threaten the lives of millions of people with starvation. If one listens, one can repeatedly hear from people in many countries: “I fear hunger more than the virus.”)
Part 4:
Finally, the absolute takeover of the media and our collective attention by the pandemic may also blind us to far greater threats and our need to face them as soon as possible https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/26/what-if-covid-19-isnt-our-biggest-threat
(Such as nuclear weapons. Why not report, for example, on the complete media white-out regarding the Kings Bay Plowshares 7, peace activists who have their sentencing date for breaking into a nuclear base on May 28 but, in the last two years, no mainstream media outlet has covered their case—a job for FAIR if I’ve ever seen one. https://kingsbayplowshares7.org/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/06/breaking-kings-bay-plowshares-7-story-is-highly-unprofessional/).
In sum, the rush to judge Swedish policy here, unfortunately, does more to damage the credibility of FAIR than Sweden. Different countries have different approaches and we cannot say with certainty right now whose approach “wins” because each country has its own particular challenges, demographic structures, pre-pandemic resources, and timelines.
In due course, hopefully, we’ll get some clarity.
I think we can say, however, that we will need better reporting that this to get there.
Well said. A one size fits all approach and criticism if you don’t fall into line will prove to be catastrophic. For the first time I felt I was reading a mainstream media hit piece from FAIR while the NYT was alternative. Another sign of the “new normal “.
I think we can say, however, that we will need better reporting *than* this to get there.
Sweden: The media versus reality
Some readers were surprised by the decrease in deaths in Sweden, as most media show a steeply rising curve. What is the reason for this? Most media show cumulative figures by date of reporting, while the Swedish authorities publish the much more meaningful daily figures by date of death.
The Swedish authorities always stress that not all newly reported cases have died within the last 24 hours, but many media ignore this (see graph below). Although the latest Swedish figures may still increase somewhat, as in all countries, this does not change the generally declining trend.
In addition, these figures represent deaths with and not necessarily from coronavirus. The average age of death in Sweden is also over 80 years, about 50% of deaths occurred in vulnerable nursing homes, while the effect on the general population has remained minimal, even though Sweden has one of the lowest intensive care capacities in Europe.
Thank you for this article, clear and to the point. The awful NYT stuff is being syndicated all over the place, and is ideal propaganda for the COVID-deniers. Here’s some more data:
COVID-19 mortality rate per 100,000 population
Sweden (no lockdown) 26
Germany (lockdown) 8
Denmark (lockdown) 8
Finland (lockdown) 4
Norway (lockdown) 4
Source: Johns Hopkins University University, May 1st
Also, look at the”graphs and maps” page of the euromomo website, which monitors excess deaths across 24 European countries. The UK and Spain are the worst per head of population here, with an “extremely high” excess (z-score greater than 15).
Many European countries – Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Greece, Hungary – are shown on the map as being in the “no excess” deaths category (z-score less than 2, which strictly speaking is not “no excess”, just that it’s a relatively small excess).
Sweden, however, is shown as being in the “very high excess” category (z-score between 10 and 15), level with France. And, incredibly, Sweden, having had the warning of what happened in Italy, and weeks extra in which to prepare, is even worse than Italy, which is in the “high excess” category (z-score between 7 and 10).
Picking out data like cherries gives different results depending on which cherries one picks. With a different set of cherries one can easily, in this case, get the opposite result:
COVID-19 mortality rate per 100,000 population
Sweden (no lockdown) 26
Netherlands (lockdown) 29
France (lockdown) 37
Spain (lockdown) 53
Andorra (lockdown) 56
Belgium (lockdown) 67
San Marino (lockdown) 120
Does this “prove” that Sweden’s method of “no lockdown” wins over all others?
Of course not. It just shows that (even if we could rely on the underlying data) picking different cherries does not prove that Sweden’s methods fail either.
Similarly, if one looks at the EuroMOMO website and examines the actual data rather than the mere summary (based on a single four-week period), one sees a different picture as well.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#excess-mortality
First, one sees that Sweden seems closer to Switzerland than France.
Second, Netherlands (which they rated as “no excess”) looks closer to France than Sweden (Netherlands peaked higher than Sweden or France and then dipped). Beginning the range of survey a week earlier could have placed Netherlands in a different category.
Third, Sweden’s excess peak seems in the range of Spain’s excess peak of early 2017 (non-pandemic period) which means that—unlike the recent peaks in Spain, Belgium and the UK—the current Swedish rate of excess falls roughly within the range of occasional non-pandemic excess in Europe.
Fourth, most importantly, one can see that the data focuses on a narrow range of time in which all rates (except perhaps in the UK) seem to have dipped or have started dipping. This indicates that all European countries (except perhaps the UK)—regardless of lockdown or not—seem as if they shall return to a “no excess” level within a few weeks.
In other words, even without a lockdown, Sweden’s death rates have dropped (in contrast to what one would predict if one deemed lockdown necessary to slow the pandemic).
Looking at the data blindly (without ideological bias) one could not possibly discern from this information alone which countries had imposed lockdown (or outright dictatorship as in Hungary) and which ones had not.
Finally, all of this assumes that we can rely on the data (we don’t know that we can) and that each country compiles their statistics in ways that allow for meaningful comparison (we know that different countries count and report deaths differently—see my comment above).
While it may feel easy to critique the “COVID-deniers” because many people have floated either false information or outlandish theories, it does not mean that any of us can rush to judgment in lieu of definitive findings (which we simply do not have right now).
I would hope that FAIR and its readership would encourage reasoned consideration rather than fan the flames of a false and incendiary binary that has arisen in the last couple of months between supposedly “science-based” proponents of lockdown and “conspiracy-minded” opponents.
That Sweden (and its particular approach during the pandemic) does not fit within that binary seems to speak more about the complexities of life and the failure of the binary to describe it than it does, at this stage, about the success or failure of Swedish policy.
Yes, Sweden’s death rates have dropped, assuming as you yourself say, that “we could rely on the underlying data”. However, the issue is that it looks like many more people died – possibly, compared to Sweden’s Nordic neighbours Denmark, Finland and Norway, 1,800 – 2,000 more out of a 2,600 total – than was necessary.
I did not propose a binary choice. My comment was in response to the syndicated New York Times article, “How Sweden has faced down the virus without a lockdown”, which compared COVID mortality in Sweden with that in Ireland, France and the UK. The article used those statistics to baldly claim that Sweden’s policy “does not seem to have hurt them…….Sweden does seem to have been as successful in controlling the virus as most other nations……….Sweden’s apparent success in handling the scourge………Sweden’s experience would seem to argue for less caution, not more. ” etc.
I did not query the NYT figures for Ireland, France or the UK. I did provide the parallel stats from Sweden’s culturally, socially and economically similar Nordic/Germanic neighbours, hit at about the same time by the virus – stats curiously entirely absent from the NYT article – to provide a rounder, somewhat different picture, rather than compare with more socially, geographically, culturally and economically distant countries hit at different times. If you call that “picking out data like cherries”, what would you call the original NYT article? Did that allow that “different countries count and report deaths differently”? Did that not “rush to judgment in lieu of definitive findings”? Is the article “reasoned consideration”? Why do I and Jim Naureckas get big, scolding lectures while the utterly one-sided NYT article gets off scot free? Could it be “ideological bias”?
I agree with your caution re binary thinking. I agree that scientifically the true picture will not be known for some time. I agree that lockdown is not the only policy, that it is more a last resort when testing/contact tracing/quarantine has failed for whatever reason. I agree that theoretically Sweden’s policy may turn out to have been appropriate, although with preliminary figures giving casualties possibly 3-6 times those of your immediate neighbours, resulting in around 2,000 extra deaths out of a 2,600 total, I personally doubt it. I doubt that Sweden, in announcing its policy, stated that it would result in mortality stats, however preliminary, almost five times the other Nordic’s average, but that this would be all fine and dandy once there was a second wave.
I actually hope Sweden’s shot in the dark policy turns out to be correct. My livelihood has been destroyed by COVID and the restrictions, and if Sweden’s approach turns out to be right, that will help me greatly. But wishful thinking is a little unscientific.
Thank you, Chris, for your thoughtful response.
Yes, Sweden’s current death rates exceed those of its neighbors. In turn, their neighbors’ rates may or may not increase as they ease their lockdowns. We don’t yet know (your skepticism may prove correct).
Even if their rates do not notably rise, I think we have allowed our media discourse to hyper-focus on coronavirus death rates (and corresponding speculation thereof) as the single issue determining policy and at the great cost of the safety and health of a huge portion of the global population. (see my comments above).
I have yet to see a coronavirus death rate chart in regard to the effectiveness of lockdowns that also shows the deaths of women locked at home with abusers, sick people dying at home of other causes (due to inaccessibility of medicine or fear of hospitals), unemployed people dying or suffering from hunger, long-term loss of employment or economic stability, long-term damage to human rights (e.g., protection from corporate and government power), and so on. Lockdowns come at a high cost but who considered them during the sudden implementation of these measures?
If scientists prior to the pandemic took a holistic approach (as one would hope for any national planners) why should we bail on that commitment now? A crisis in one respect does not evaporate the needs of millions of other people in other respects but the singular media focus on the virus and its death rates dangerously obscures them from view.
See, for example, recent re-thinking of this obsession:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/03/while-the-west-fixates-on-covid-19-vulnerable-countries-pay-the-price
So, in this sense, a debate over Sweden’s death count vis-à-vis its neighbors can have an inadvertent effect of justifying lockdowns that have suddenly imperiled the lives of millions of people now on the brink of starvation (among other inadvertent dangers).
My reference to the binary choice did not focus on you but on the general climate in which supposed “progressives” wholeheartedly endorse lockdowns (with very few exceptions) while Republicans and so-called “conservatives” have exhibited a slightly larger range of positions. This seems to have led to a stigmatization of those opposing lockdowns as supposedly crazy, conspiratorial, Republican, or all of the above. This binary has only shifted in the last week or so. Prior to that, non-Republican dominated media such as the Washington Post, TIME, CNN, New York Times, VICE, and The Guardian generally either ignored Sweden’s approach or gave it negative coverage. From mid-March to mid-April I could find positive assessments of Swedish policy in Anglophonic media only in neo-liberal journals like National Review and The Spectator. At the end of March, the New York Times ended an article on Sweden with a foreboding quote from a Swede: “I am worried Sweden will explode at some point. I feel like I’m living in a huge experiment, and I was never asked if I wanted to sign up.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/world/europe/sweden-coronavirus.html
In lieu of notable death rate stats, English-language news tended to focus on Swedish critics of government policy (among whom, Lena Einhorn, the New York Times quoted in the article in question). (One month ago, Denmark, Finland, and Norway stood alongside Sweden in the “worst ten” in a YouGov study of 26 countries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/04/01/why-is-coronavirus-fear-so-low-in-sweden/ Who knows what the “worst ten” will look like one, two, or ten months from now?)
Even in the New York Times article that you and Jim Naureckas responded to, the authors hardly gave a wholly one-sided view. True, they did not publish the general Scandinavian stats. Yet others have done that prominently already. (In fact, not only did the flaming maniac in the White House use those stats to critique Swedish policy, when he stated “Sweden is suffering greatly” on April 10, no one in the mainstream media did a fact check or attempt to correct that assertion). And the article in question, aside from quoting critics, did point out (rightly so) Sweden’s failure to secure protective medical materials for nursing home personnel and, in some cases, hinder care homes’ attempts to take their own precautionary measures.
Regarding the high rate of deaths in care homes, the authors wrote: “‘They should have been able to prevent this,’ said Elisabeth Asbrink… In recent years Sweden, like many other countries, has transferred such homes from state to private control… and the level of care had suffered. ‘This has not been good for the weak and the elderly, especially now.'”
So, contrary to the impression a reader might get from reading Jim Naureckas’ summary above, the NYT article did present both positive and negative views of Swedish policy. So yes, they picked cherries too but to a lesser extent than the one-sided views that your first post and Naureckas presented.
I hope that answers your questions as to why I reserved more critique for what you two wrote. Especially because I hold the NYT to a lower standard than FAIR who aims explicitly to act as a correction to media like the NYT. That, in this case, the NYT would give a more fair and accurate portrayal than FAIR shocked me.
You wrote: “I doubt that Sweden, in announcing its policy, stated that it would result in mortality stats, however preliminary, almost five times the other Nordic’s average, but that this would be all fine and dandy once there was a second wave.”
Sweden certainly failed at one thing: clearly communicating their strategy. In light of the tendency for outsiders to brand it as “herd immunity” (which people often associate with a mad rush to infect as many as possible) yet never part of Swedish policy, they could have possibly dubbed it something like “sustainable mitigation”.
The New York Times article alluded to this in quoting the state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell “Once you get into a lockdown, it’s difficult to get out of it. How do you reopen? When?” Because countries who go into lockdown have to eventually face the same logic that called for it—often without better circumstances. In this regard, I think Swedish authorities has struck somewhat of a balance: they have managed to create a relatively stringent policy (lax only by a standard of total lockdown) with a long-term perspective. Unlike in most countries, they can sustain existing measures for another year or so—although even here they will take a huge economic hit (as the NYT article noted).
You wrote: “Why do I and Jim Naureckas get big, scolding lectures while the utterly one-sided NYT article gets off scot free? Could it be “ideological bias”?”
First, I have critiqued the NYT on other issues and yet, quite frankly, they prove more restrictive than this homepage and have refused to publish my letters critiquing them on, for example, their refusal to give any coverage at all to the Kings Bay Plowshare 7 who have faced years in prison for breaking into a nuclear base and drawing attention to a far greater threat than the pandemic: nuclear weapons: https://kingsbayplowshares7.org/
Also see the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who, even prior to the outbreak, placed us closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock than ever—again, not due to the pandemic but due to nuclear weapons and climate change “compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare”: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
Second, yes, I happily admit my ideological bias and why my responses may seem skewed. I vehemently oppose the rash rush to lockdowns without careful consideration for the lives of millions of people whom lockdowns would affect (and have affected) adversely. I strongly support any system which more fairly distributes resources to tend to the needs of its members and others in need (something Sweden has addressed much more effectively than the U.S.). Surprisingly, the NYT article made note of the dangers of privatization and how that has damaged Sweden’s ability to provide adequate care.
If the U.S. wants to learn from Sweden they could look less to the question of lockdown per se and more to the benefits of a universal health care system and nationalized industry (a lesson Swedish social democrats seem to have forgotten). Especially now, when many hospitals in the U.S. hemorrhage cash during the crisis, national and/or state purchases of health care systems could resolve some aspects of ongoing U.S. health care crises. Especially now, when we see the dangers pollution poses to personal health, the U.S. could learn from Sweden’s stricter regulation of industrial pollution and commitment to mitigating the sources of climate change (including higher rate of vegetarian/vegan diets).
Also, for example, learning from Sweden’s viable social welfare system that enables workers to take paid sick leave could prove extremely useful in the U.S. whether during a pandemic or not. So yes, I write and discern according to this ideological bias (I only meant in that specific instance that the data did not provide an unequivocal answer yet our respective positions tend to create a glass half-full/half-empty interpretation).
You wrote: “I actually hope Sweden’s shot in the dark policy turns out to be correct.”
Again, it seems to me that those who advocated lockdowns took a major (and dangerous) shot in the dark. In light of existing uncertainty, all decisions constitute a shot in the dark but Swedish authorities attempted to respond cautiously with a slower more reasoned response rather than run to push the panic button.
In contrast, based on highly uncertain data, proponents of lockdown went against the recommendations of researchers who had carefully thought through these dynamics and their impacts on others.
Even today we still don’t know the fatality rate of the virus. But few in the mainstream media (including the New York Times) critiqued the outrageous statement of the head of the WHO in early March who said: “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected” https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—3-march-2020
While technically correct, it gave the false impression that the current virus had a 3.4% fatality rate (which few scholars today would support. Even at the time, Imperial College had estimated a 0.9% rate and a number of top epidemiologists have, since then, lowered even that estimate). Yet the fear that that figure stoked helped produce hastily concocted lockdown policies.
(At least one FAIR article, however, placed the 3.4% estimate in a critical context which, back on March 10th, instructed readers to think critically about the way numbers get thrown around in this debate: https://fair.org/home/reading-about-coronavirus-without-scaring-yourself-too-much-or-too-little/ )
And yet, at the end of the day, it always amounts to much more than numbers. And it seems to me that our means of estimation (both scientifically and journalistically) fail to capture the actual consequences of governmental policies.
My condolences go out to you for your loss of livelihood and I do hope, for your sake and everyone in similar situations, that we take this opportunity to organize for necessary social change so that in the long run we come out more rather than less secure.
Because, as you said, “wishful thinking is a little unscientific” and, as Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand” (and a determined social struggle).
Yes, Sweden’s death rates have dropped, assuming as you yourself say, that “we could rely on the underlying data”. However, the issue is that it looks like many more people died – possibly, compared to Sweden’s Nordic neighbours Denmark, Finland and Norway, 1,800 – 2,000 more out of a 2,600 total – than was necessary.
I did not propose a binary choice. My comment was in response to the syndicated New York Times article, “How Sweden has faced down the virus without a lockdown”, which compared COVID mortality in Sweden with that in Ireland, France and the UK. The article used those statistics to baldly claim that Sweden’s policy “does not seem to have hurt them…….Sweden does seem to have been as successful in controlling the virus as most other nations……….Sweden’s apparent success in handling the scourge………Sweden’s experience would seem to argue for less caution, not more. ” etc.
I did not query the NYT figures for Ireland, France or the UK. I did provide the parallel stats from Sweden’s culturally, socially and economically similar Nordic/Germanic neighbours, hit at about the same time by the virus – stats curiously entirely absent from the NYT article – to provide a rounder, somewhat different picture, rather than compare with more socially, geographically, culturally and economically distant countries hit at different times. If you call that “picking out data like cherries”, what would you call the original NYT article? Did that allow that “different countries count and report deaths differently”? Did that not “rush to judgment in lieu of definitive findings”? Is the article “reasoned consideration”? Why do I and Jim Naureckas get big, scolding lectures while the utterly one-sided NYT article gets off scot free? Could it be “ideological bias”?
I agree with your caution re binary thinking. I agree that scientifically the true picture will not be known for some time. I agree that lockdown is not the only policy or the best, that it is more a last resort when testing/contact tracing/quarantine has failed or has not been provided for. I agree that theoretically Sweden’s policy may turn out to have been appropriate, although with preliminary figures giving casualties possibly 3-6 times those of your immediate neighbours, resulting in around 2,000 extra deaths out of a 2,600 total, I personally doubt it. I doubt that Sweden, in announcing its policy, stated that it would result in mortality stats, however preliminary, almost five times the other Nordic’s average, but that this would be all fine and dandy once there was a second wave (a dubious, unscientifically unsupported assertion in any case) .
I actually hope Sweden’s policy turns out to be correct. My livelihood has been destroyed by COVID and the restrictions, and if Sweden’s approach turns out to be right, that will help me greatly. But wishful thinking is a little unscientific.
Apologies for duplicate reply. Maybe this one could be deleted?
When did “flattening the curve” become “0 fatalities”. Every person in the world bears risk in their daily life. People die from disease, from car wrecks, from gun violence, from freak acts of nature. The quarantine was NEVER meant to last until we had 0 new cases. It was supposed to help the medical system to respond to an expected number of cases. So why are we changing the narrative? ICU & hospital beds sit empty in most of the country. We are prepared to handle new SARS-COV2 infections. Public health is not only physical infection, as the tyrannical governors want you to believe. It includes mental health, financial health, social health. All these are suffering as we continue in lockdown.