... while at the same time, it's being called a failure – by media in other countries cheering for top-down control.
Yes, so far they've had more deaths per capita. Partly, they could have done more to protect the elderly. But importantly, they crossed the hump before other countries, and had their deaths and hospitalizations in one go.There were predictions, for Sweden, that the new school year would surely cause a large new wave of hospitalizations. Maybe this is still coming, but 6 weeks into the school year, not so:
Meanwhile, other countries – Britain, France, as well as Slovenia, out of those of which I know – show inability to learn from Sweden, and are preparing for new harsh measures that will surely be economically "helpful".
Of course, the UK Members of Parliament at first instituted a separate set of rules for themselves. They exempted UK Parliament bars from the 10 pm curfew, or from drinkers having to register their name and address for contact tracing. They have since backtracked under pressure.
Showing 7 out of 7 comments, oldest first:
Comment on Sep 29, 2020 at 05:24 by hannah mary-mei
Comment on Sep 29, 2020 at 18:04 by denisbider
Australia and New Zealand are in a geographically unique position where, if any country can get rid of Covid with a full lockdown, then you guys can. But even there, I'm hearing that (in some cities?), some very strict measures, curfews and restrictions continue, and there are political factions that want to make these measures stronger still. I find this to be a tendency toward totalitarianism, and therefore an issue of higher concern than the possible deaths from the disease.
"Success", to me, is being able to say that a post-epidemic equilibrium has been reached, and that this state of being is relatively desirable compared to other countries who have not reached it. It means that life can go on and not much has been sacrificed.
If people are going out less, that seems a normal psychological consequence that may last a while, and it does not seem a problem unless going out is prohibited.
Comment on Oct 2, 2020 at 04:27 by hannah mary-mei
I'm actually living in the city with the strictest restrictions (Melbourne). This was in response to Australia's worst local outbreak. I have felt the measures have been a "success" in terms of bringing down our cases to near zero relatively quickly - but, yes, at a cost. What I find interesting is despite there being much less restrictions in other cities we all seem to be suffering the same economic woes. Mainly the slow death of some of our largest commercial sectors: hospitality and tourism. Our hard block on international travel, and our interstate border closures have played a large hand in this, but I do struggle to imagine a safe alternative.
Perhaps I don't see the prohibition on movement as a bad thing because it's always been explained as a temporary measure to flatten the curve, and once numbers were low we'd ease up again (but I'm well aware that subsequent waves WILL happen). I definitely think some measures like the curfew were unnecessary, especially seeming our restriction to 5km radius of travel will already stop people from moving around. I'm not sure about your claim that "political factions want to make these measures stronger still". I am guessing you are referring to the Victoria State Gov which enacted these strict measures in Melbourne. We are rolling back restrictions this month in accordance with the low numbers. There is a concern over the State Gov trying to give state police more powers - some of which seem unnecessary (detaining a person under suspicion of breaking COVID restrictions).
Yet, I'm still skeptical that we would have done well controlling this outbreak without some sort of law enforced restriction on people's movement. I'm not comfortable with risking any unnecessary spread of a novel virus given we do not yet know enough about long term risks to health. Also, I am concerned of giving the virus chance to mutate by allowing it free access to a wider portion of the population.
I agree that Aus and NZ were always in a better position to contain an outbreak. For that I am grateful.
By your definition of success, I would say Aus is not there - we have not reached what feels like a 'post-epidemic equilibrium'. But I do wonder if the average Swede would say the same?
Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on your own blog! This is the future of media, I hope :)
Comment on Oct 2, 2020 at 05:35 by denisbider
By "political factions", in this case I simply meant people who are sympathetic to top-down governance to solve a variety of problems, and for whom Covid is a reason to even more passionately demand a stronger government with more top-down governance. I alluded to this as a political faction because the mentality has some cohesiveness – there is a general guiding idea, and it's an idea I oppose (previous post, just before this one).
I understand your worry about an unknown virus. Probably, a few years ago, I would have similar views. Now I have different views, and it's hard to communicate them because they're based on a complete denial of materialist reductionism, rather than a mere skepticism of it.
Currently, the Overton window that dictates which views are sane, and which are cuckoo, ranges from firm belief to materialist reductionism, to vague skepticism – as long as the skepticism is not denial. People who believe in the Virgin Mary are still supposed to act in practice as if materialism was true. To deny it outright, to act as if you truly believe in non-materialism, is to jump the Rubicon between sane and bonkers. You can pay lip service to non-materialism, but not actually act like it was true.
In short, my view now is that the causes of all illness and all death are psychological. This explains things that science only tries to explain in hindsight, in a less convincing way than prediction. For example, the declining epidemic of coronary heart disease, for which we have various speculative explanations; but we're neglecting the explanation that it may have, quite simply, fallen in and then out of fashion.
I'll be able to write more about this after I finish digesting the material from which I get these ideas. Right now I'm some 13 books in, and the thing is really hard to summarize because it turns so many of our most basic assumptions about how reality must work on their head.
Under the premise that all death and disease is psychological, Covid is then a mass statement on current living conditions, just as the 1918 flu and the bubonic plague were statements about the worse conditions of those times. The prediction then is that Covid cannot be as deadly as the bubonic plague, for example, because the conditions are not that bad. However, it might be that Covid will be as deadly as necessary to create the desired change in the world, and it might be that the economic pain is part of the change that we need.
If I'm right, Covid could be avoided if we weren't such jackasses and if we simply did the right thing, like accept short-term economic pain in order to fix climate change. But we can't do that and the blame is on the older generations who do not accept the need to act. So now we have a disease that forces economic pain and afflicts primarily the older generations, heh heh, and this may shift more of us into a proper mindset that is needed to act.
The virus itself, however, does not cause symptoms in anyone who does not create them for themselves, and does not kill anyone who is not, as a whole personality, ready to depart. This means ready on inner levels, not necessarily the haphazardly grasping, control-freaking conscious self.
Like I said... outside the Overton window currently. :)
Comment on Oct 2, 2020 at 06:01 by denisbider
This "diagram" might then be a good visualization of the problem. :)
Comment on Oct 6, 2020 at 01:48 by hannah mary-mei
Comment on Oct 6, 2020 at 04:39 by denisbider