I thought right at the start of all this, once the virus had already spread worldwide, that Sweden had the only sustainable and sensible policy. It was the only one that wasn't based upon hiding and hoping, it was instead based upon sustainability and not jumping into the unknown with lockdowns. Swedish epidemiologists appeared in press briefings to explain their strategy of dealing with covid-19 which was social distancing, good hygeine and no mass gatherings. They also said that covid-19 is a new coronavirus and will not be particularly dangerous, which in fact it isn't. Some will die yes but they will overwhelmingly be people near the end of their lives and the results of a lockdown strategy could easily be far far worse and even prove futile because covid-19 will probably be waiting when the lockdown's eventually finish. People said it was callous not to try to save every life but it isn't, it's actually trying to minimise pain and suffering and realising that there are no perfect solutions. I think blind adherence to the 'lives before the economy' mantra prevented people from looking at the huge costs of lockdown and the undeniable knock-on costs to public health in the present and the future.
I have followed the UK situation and I think it illustrates very well what can happen when a country enacts lockdown without thinking of the consequences. They are in real trouble - spending hundreds of billions of borrowed pounds on a fight that might prove absolutely futile against a not especially dangerous virus that doesn't affect all age groups (i.e. you could just shield the old and the vulnerable, everybody else carry on with life), creating massive other problems in public health (tens of thousands of missed cancer appointments and screening, to take but one example). It's a tragedy. When you start the extreme suppression/lockdown strategy and get the public on board, it's very difficult to change course.
I think Thailand is in a bad situation too but obviously for different reasons than the UK, as you stated in your text. If/when the virus starts to spread people will ask "well, why did we suffer for months on end and ruin our economy?".
Difficult questions. I think it most likely we will all end up approaching the Swedish model and learning to live with covid-19, as we do with many other endemic respiratory viruses. It would have been perhaps most sensible to have done this right at the outset, although of course that is far easier said than done.
Interesting, thanks for writing it.
I thought right at the start of all this, once the virus had already spread worldwide, that Sweden had the only sustainable and sensible policy. It was the only one that wasn't based upon hiding and hoping, it was instead based upon sustainability and not jumping into the unknown with lockdowns. Swedish epidemiologists appeared in press briefings to explain their strategy of dealing with covid-19 which was social distancing, good hygeine and no mass gatherings. They also said that covid-19 is a new coronavirus and will not be particularly dangerous, which in fact it isn't. Some will die yes but they will overwhelmingly be people near the end of their lives and the results of a lockdown strategy could easily be far far worse and even prove futile because covid-19 will probably be waiting when the lockdown's eventually finish. People said it was callous not to try to save every life but it isn't, it's actually trying to minimise pain and suffering and realising that there are no perfect solutions. I think blind adherence to the 'lives before the economy' mantra prevented people from looking at the huge costs of lockdown and the undeniable knock-on costs to public health in the present and the future.
I have followed the UK situation and I think it illustrates very well what can happen when a country enacts lockdown without thinking of the consequences. They are in real trouble - spending hundreds of billions of borrowed pounds on a fight that might prove absolutely futile against a not especially dangerous virus that doesn't affect all age groups (i.e. you could just shield the old and the vulnerable, everybody else carry on with life), creating massive other problems in public health (tens of thousands of missed cancer appointments and screening, to take but one example). It's a tragedy. When you start the extreme suppression/lockdown strategy and get the public on board, it's very difficult to change course.
I think Thailand is in a bad situation too but obviously for different reasons than the UK, as you stated in your text. If/when the virus starts to spread people will ask "well, why did we suffer for months on end and ruin our economy?".
Difficult questions. I think it most likely we will all end up approaching the Swedish model and learning to live with covid-19, as we do with many other endemic respiratory viruses. It would have been perhaps most sensible to have done this right at the outset, although of course that is far easier said than done.
Nice post.