It's not possible to calculate that exchange rate, because you don't have access to the counterfactual. You're not taking the ratio of lockdown years to years lost to deaths, right? Both of those belong in the expenses side...

Sweden didn't lock down, that is the typical worst case you would get. So lives saved is the deaths per pop in Sweden compared to deaths per pop where you are.

The picture you’re painting doesn’t represent reality — there were definitely lock downs (mostly related to elderly care, but also to varying degrees for the general public). People have worked from home since February.

You, as so many other, are ignorant about Sweden. We have had rules about social distancing, visit band in elderly homes, social distancing and washing hands. And if possible, work from home. Schools from age 16 are distance nu teaching, so are universitets.

All gatherings över 50 persons are forbiden and we are to told to not travel IF not needed.

We still uphold laws, so the government bor riksdag can force lockdown om People. But can close Stores and restaurants that doesn't follow rules.

And about Corona deaths, we are probably have more correct reports of deaths than many countries, like UK. Which probably are under reporting.

That based on all deaths reporter. The exccess deaths compared to previous five years are about the same as the reporter Covid-19 deaths. And the över deaths in Sweden are in pair with Denmark, higher then Norway but lower that Finland and Scotland (yes, part of UK).

And Finland has Hard lockdown, so Scotland and Denmark.

Even IF you compare Copenhagen area with Skåne area (South part of Sweden) with about same population, the death rate reporter of Covid-19 is higher in Copenhagen. There are areas in Sweden that have lower death rates then Finland, on pair with Finland.

So No, you are basically ignorant of the death rates of Sweden.

And yes, death rates of Covid-19 in Sweden are still lower than some bad influenza years, like in 2000. Even through the population in Sweden was smaller then, total number of deaths in flue was Word. And letting children go to school was a good Choice, as Corona isn't pushed by children, many are better going to school then forced to be at home. And they are not loosing important time in school with their friends and some normalities.

And the all deaths are now down to under normal years. Most thanks to the changed in behaviour has almost erased the flue in Sweden.

Comparing total deaths data, without different rules to define IF deaths are Covid-19 or not, shows that the lockdown in UK, Denmark and Finland did not do much difference. Not compared to Sweden, with moderate and mostly informed population about how to defeat the spread of the Corona virus.

But, that isn't interesting to wrote about, I guess. As it could show that the lockdown is the only solution, that it also cost life and sufferings.

Links on demands.

No, Sweden has an exceptionally low population density. You cannot just grab a country and take it as a model for any other country. The same measures as in Sweden would lead to a catastrophe in many other countries.

is a year in the life of an 82 year old (median age of covid death) the same as a year in the life of a 10, 20 or 30 year old?

I sure think not. So the comparisons are a bit moot.

trading 60 years of 30 year olds for 1 year of an 82 year old is a trade that probably no 82 year old would want.

I never saw a lawbook that stated that murdering an 82 year old was punished lighter than murdering a 20 year old.

This is what happens is democratic societies with a demographic pyramid that's upside down: lots of old and relatively few young. Politicians want to get re-elected and cater to the largest, most influential voter group (old people) and disregard younger voters agendas.

> lots of old and relatively few young. Politicians want to get re-elected and cater to the largest, most influential voter group (old people) and disregard younger voters agendas.

I really don't follow your argument. Do you believe young voters are totally indifferent to the idea of seeing their parents and grandparents die?

It is not about old people, they don't want this either. If anything old people are a lot more conservative and libertarian. Once you are 82 you sure made piece with dying after all most people you grew up with have long passed.

It is more about catering to the sort of voter that is easily scared, exposed for the first time to the fact that life is indeed fragile and limited, a voter that looks at someone to protect them.

Old people are the pawns and "protecting" them is the spectacle of demonstrating competence in governing.

There's a standard way of looking at this, and in the US the answer is yes, the life of everyone is worth the same, and that's how other economic decisions are made in the US (e.g. safety regulations need to meet this same standard). Suddenly changing the way you value lives to suit a particular outcome for a particular decision doesn't seem right. If you are going to look into the economics you should consider not only deaths but costs of all other hospitalizations, long term effects and various other second order effects. (check out the recent Planet Money episode about the value of lives in the US and their discussion of whether or not the US should lock down, tl;dr economically yes by orders of magnitude).

Stuff like highway safety is done with a single cost per human life saved. That's fine there, since the cause of death isn't terribly sensitive to age (and to the extent that it is, there are effects in both directions--young people drive more and more dangerously, but are more likely to survive a given accident, so it partially nets out).

But like many diseases, the coronavirus is far more sensitive--the IFR for a 75-year-old is >100x that of a 25-year-old[1]. That's the reason why health care spending is near-universally assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. To do otherwise would yield absurd results, paying the same to restore a dying child to perfect health as to extend a centenarian's life by another month of agony. Around the usual ~$100k per QALY saved and counting both the deaths and loss of quality in severe but non-fatal cases, I believe that masks, social distancing, remote working where possible, and closure of the highest-risk businesses (theaters, nightclubs, etc.) until a vaccine is available are likely cost-effective, but facility closures beyond that are not (except to any extent required to stop the medical system from getting overrun).

1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

This is precisely why I think impact to average life expectancy should be considered the most relevant metric.