One reason Sweden's approach may work out in the end is they have the highest proportion of single person households of any country on Earth.
Was it? NYC has reported more deaths than Lombardy (with less population) and NY/NJ as many deaths as Italy with half the population.
So far all the places that have had hospital systems overwhelmed (or on the verge) have had extremely high density, lots of intergenerational mixing, or both.
It may work out for them because it's a lowly populated country but I wouldn't try that model anywhere with an higher density.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/just-7-per-cen...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-coronavirus-per-capit...
Sweden has a very low population density on average, but they also have some densely packed metro areas. Just the Stockholm and Gothenburg metro areas make up over a third of the total population.
- Japan is populated extremely densely[2].
- Japan is number 2 by the population's median age (for comparison, Italy is 5th)[3].
- Japan had 808(!) COVID-19 fatalities[4].
- Despite the lockdown, in New York "most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home"[5].
- New York had 29112(!) deaths[6].
One just has to ask, do lockdowns even have that big of an impact on the spread of the virus? Or did it just ran its natural course in each country -- in lockdown or not -- and differences in the numbers of deaths are just down to dumb chance?
"... there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities..."[7]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-22/did-japan...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_ag...
[4] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocki...
[6] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/
[7] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-...
What kind of differences do you have in mind for Japan given their population of ~126 millions, density and median age?
"One can not and should not simply cherrypick situations and arguments to support one's case."
I don't think the fallacy of cherrypicking applies here. One counter example is enough to challenge a hypothesis and ask very serious questions about it. I gave two -- Japan and people staying at home and still getting infected in NY.
Do these counterexamples immediately disporve lockdowns effectiveness? I don't think so.
Do they mean some very strong evidence is necessary to confirm the effectiveness? In my opinion, absolutely.
"Cyprus initiated a lockdown far earlier than London, and they have had 17 (0.0014% of the population) deaths so far."
I'm going to give an absurd example but consistent with this line of reasoning.
So, I claim the Sun still rises thanks to lockdown, and as a result of initiating their lockdown earlier the Sun is brighter over Cyprus. So does the Sun still rise everyday? Yes. Is it brighter over Cyprus? Yes. Hence, my claim is proven!
Who would choose to die now without a "lockdown" when the other option is die later with a lockdown, including the added bonus of there being more work done to understand the virus and how to treat it, which might mean not dying at all.
0.1% of the rest of my life is less than three weeks, it's not a bad gamble to avoid an 18-month lockdown if that were the choice.
Umm, lots of people? If we prohibited all vehicle traffic we would prevent 1.3 million deaths worldwide, yet lots of people appear willing to drive.
Look, I don't mean to minimize the deaths, and the lockdowns were a very rational response given what was known initially. At the same time, humans make risky choices all the time, and it's not unreasonable to ask if the cost of the lockdowns is worth the lowered risk, especially in lower-density locales.
Sure, seems a bit extreme though. I suggest we remove all the safety features on cars, it costs the car companies loads in R&D to comply with all those regulations. You take a risk when you drive, and to be honest people should just be better drivers and there will be less accidents.
Far less accidents in lower-density locales as well.
There is a lot of pent up health care need building up. Some of it lethal.
The impact of the lockdown is going to be 10-100x that of coronavirus itself. No healthcare system is prepared for it.
But you blew it with those crazy numbers..
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/23/missouri-hai...
It’s already happening
Addendum: and we have financial tools to deal with the economic stress. We don’t have much in the way of treatment for the virus yet.
The fact that we’re not throwing money at the unemployed is a crime.
I'm not sure what's the basis of your idea.
This is direct, primary source data, not a media report.
That you say it's not the case while linking to only your own county.. feels bad.
https://www.foxnews.com/science/mayo-clinic-furlough-or-cut-...
All the field hospitals in the UK and US have been now closed.
Edit: as an example, my county (Santa Clara) is using under 10% of hospital beds for Covid. This is typical, check your county dashboard if they have one and you are likely to see a similar number. Source: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard.aspx#ho...